Transubstantion vs Consubstantiation

[goldenchild17]

How is the first the more Biblical?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Well i am not sure of the exact teachings of Consubstantiation...but Jesus literally said, Eat my Flesh, Drink my Blood. So in order to Eat His Flesh and Drink his Blood the bread and wine must trully become Christ's Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Totus Tuus,
Andrew Joseph

[Guest JeffCR07]

Moreover, the reaction of the crowd when Christ said those words was one of disbelief, thus they left. Then Christ, turning to his Apostles and refusing to back down on this teaching, asked if they would also leave.

The docrtrine of Transubstantiation causes this series of events to make sense, but the doctrine of Consubstantiation does not.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Benedict]

Transubstantiation: "THIS IS my flesh."

Consubstantiation: "HERE ALSO is my flesh."

[phatcatholic]

[b]Consubstantiation[/b]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm[/url]

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called "Impanation", a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

The subject cannot be treated adequately except in connection with the general doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ's words, "This is my body", were understood by the faithful in their simple, natural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figuratively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense that Christ is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholic dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question whether the Body was the historical body of Christ, the very body which was born, crucified, and risen. This is maintained by Paschasius Radbert and denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the ninth century. What concerns us here more closely is the next stage of the controversy, when Berengarius (1000-1088) denied, if not the Real Presence, at least any change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood. He maintained that "the consecrated Bread, retaining its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, not losing anything which it was, but assuming something which it was not" (panis sacratus in altari, salvâ suâ substantiâ, est corpus Christi, non amittens quod erat sed assumens quod non erat-Cf. Martène and Durand, "Thesaurus Novus Anecd.", IV, col 105). It is clear that he rejected Transubstantiation; but what sort of presence he admitted would seem to have varied at different periods of his long career. His opinions were condemned at various councils held at Rome (1050, 1059, 1078, 1079), Vercelli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alexander II and St. Gregory VII treated him with marked consideration. His principal opponents If were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini adversus Berengarium Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn (q. v.), Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. Although it cannot be said that Berengarius found many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heresy did not die with him. It was maintained by Wyclif (Trialog, IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX 1228), and is the view of the High Church party among the Anglicans at the present time. Besides the councils above-mentioned, it was condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council of Constance, (1418 -- "The substance of the material bread and in like manner the substance of the material wine remain in the Sacrament of the altar", and the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif), and the Council of Trent (1551).

Berengarius and his modern followers have appealed chiefly to reason and the Fathers in support of their opinions. That Transubstantiation is not contrary to reason, and was at least implicitly taught by the Fathers, is shown in the article TRANSUBSTANTIATION. In the discussions of the Father about the two natures in the one Person the analogy between the Incarnation and the Eucharist was frequently referred to, this led to the expression of views favoring Impanation. But after the definitive victory of St. Cyril's doctrine, the analogy was seen to be deceptive. (See Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire, etc., 2nd series, p. 319 sqq.) The great Schoolmen unanimously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, maintained that the words, "This is my body", disproved it; while Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and Pierre d'Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by the authority of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church (Turmel, Hist. de la théol. posit., I, 313 sqq.). This line of argument has been a stumbling block to Anglican writers, who have quoted some of the Schoolmen in support of their erroneous opinions on the Eucharist; e.g. Pusey, "The Doctrine of the Real Presence" (1855).

In addition to the works mentioned, see HARPER, Peace through the Truth, (London, 1866), I; FRANZELIN, De SS Euch. (Rome, 1873), thes. xiv; SCWANE, Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg im Br., 1882), III; VERNET in Dict. de théol. cath. s.v. Bérénguer de Tours; STREBER in Kirchenlex, s.v. Consubstantatio; HEDLEY, The Holy Eucharist (1907); WAGGETT, The Holy Eucharist (Anglican, London, 1906); GORE, The Body of Christ (London, 1907).

T.B. SCANNELL
Transcribed by Dan Clouse

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Cosubstantiation was a compromise among Luther and one of the other reformers. Luther advocated Transubstantiation while his counterpart favored a totally symbolic outlook of the Eucharist.

[goldenchild17]

This is how it was defined to me.

"reformed theology basically states that we partake of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist when it is properly received. That is, we partake of the benefits symbolized by the elements in partaking of the elements in faith. So, they are more than symbols in that they grant that which they signify when they are received properly, but they do not always grant it, as those who do not receive them in faith are judged for it and receive wrath. Furthermore, God has not bound Himself to the elements to the extent that the Eucharist is the only place where we partake of Christ's flesh and blood. Remember, this is a real, spiritual partaking of Christ's flesh and blood. We really do eat His flesh and drink His blood when we partake of the Eucharist appropriately, not by mouth, but by the Spirit, through faith, that our soul is nourished. IOW, our soul really and truly eats His flesh and drinks His blood, not our physical body."

So it says that His Flesh and Blood really are consumed, albeit by our souls and not our body's. But I want to look into something a bit more before ask any more questions.

[Guest Aluigi]

[u][color=#FF0000]Advocatus Diablo[/color][/u]

At the Passover Meal you are supposed to eat both the flesh and the bread [i]Exodus 12:8[/i] In consubstantiation, you are receiving both the substance of Christ's flesh and the substance of the bread.

[Guest Aluigi]

[u][color=#3333FF]Advocatus Dei[/color] [/u]

It also says you have to have herbs. The New Covenant Passover fulfills the bread with an appearance of bread. It fulfills lamb's flesh with Christ's flesh, it fulfills unleavened bread with the accidence of unleavened bread.

[goldenchild17]

Yeah, but that's exactly what got me thinking about this. If bread was required to be eaten as well as the flesh, then the flesh along with the bread for some reason seems to make a bit of sense. With transubstantiation we don't eat any bread, just what seems to be bread. In consubstantiation, both bread and flesh are really eaten...

[Guest Aluigi]

[u][color=#3333FF]Advocatus Dei[/color] [/u]

Jesus commanded us to eat His body. He said His body IS the bread that comes down from heaven. Therefore symbolically eating bread while literally eating His body (which is the Bread come from Heaven) is what He ordained for us. You are eating the bread from heaven, no need for the substance of any earthly bread. The substance of the Heavenly Bread is the Flesh Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ.

[Benedict]

I was just about to say that.

"I am the bread of life." John 6:48

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 24 2004, 02:57 PM'] [u][color=#3333FF]Advocatus Dei[/color] [/u]

Jesus commanded us to eat His body. He said His body IS the bread that comes down from heaven. Therefore symbolically eating bread while literally eating His body (which is the Bread come from Heaven) is what He ordained for us. You are eating the bread from heaven, no need for the substance of any earthly bread. The substance of the Heavenly Bread is the Flesh Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. [/quote]
Okay, that actually explains a lot. I forgot that point. So we do actually eat both the bread and flesh that is the fulfillment of the original passover meal. Also, I have a problem with the consubstantiation idea that we only eat it spiritually, as opposed to physically. But I was a bit worried about the bread plus flesh thing.

[Guest Aluigi]

no prob. I only knew that cause a couple years ago I formed that argument while listening to that read in Mass on my own and then refuted myself!!

[Noel's angel]

this is something i feel very strongly about. on Christian websites, i get attacked for believing in transubstantiation. i have been fighting a hard battle by myself. Jesus didn't say 'this is a symbol of my body and blood,' He said, 'this IS my body and blood'