Could Transubstantion be true?

pilgrim

Well-known member
Except we do NOT call it "Consubstantiation". That is false. That is what Catholics call what they think we believe about the Lord's Supper. We believe that, when a Pastor blesses the Elements, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, under, and through the bread and wine--but the Elements also remain bread and wine. We call that the "Real Presence." We do NOT attempt to explain it, but realize it is a mystery, although one we joyfully accept.

And where do you get the idea we deny the "hypostatic union" of Jesus' being true God and true man? We most certainly DO affirm that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man!

Nothing you wrote here is true about what confessional Lutherans teach or believe. If you don't believe me, try writing this stuff on the Lutheran board, and see what happens.
Isn't that Catholic terminology as well? Except that it is applied to a non Catholic belief.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Except we do NOT call it "Consubstantiation". That is false. That is what Catholics call what they think we believe about the Lord's Supper. We believe that, when a Pastor blesses the Elements, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, under, and through the bread and wine--but the Elements also remain bread and wine. We call that the "Real Presence." We do NOT attempt to explain it, but realize it is a mystery, although one we joyfully accept.

And where do you get the idea we deny the "hypostatic union" of Jesus' being true God and true man? We most certainly DO affirm that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man!

Nothing you wrote here is true about what confessional Lutherans teach or believe. If you don't believe me, try writing this stuff on the Lutheran board, and see what happens.
If you call your communion the same (the Real Presence), I can see why the Church would want to distinguish between the two by a different term.
Don't you?
 

Nic

Well-known member
If you call your communion the same (the Real Presence), I can see why the Church would want to distinguish between the two by a different term.
Don't you?
Consubstantiation refers to a blending of the the elements with Christ, we wholly reject that. We do believe both are 💯% present in the Lord's last will and testament a.k.a. supper.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Consubstantiation refers to a blending of the the elements with Christ, we wholly reject that. We do believe both are 💯% present in the Lord's last will and testament a.k.a. supper.
Well it sounds like a blend in the way it is described. Can you state how it is not?
 

Nic

Well-known member
Isn't that Catholic terminology as well? Except that it is applied to a non Catholic belief.
I couldn't recall if was Catholics or the Reformed assigned the term, but it wasn't Lutherans and it isn't how we define real presence and the elements.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
They are both propitiatory if they are both the same sacrifice in two visible forms.
The last supper isn't a sacrifice. It was dinner followed by the institution of the Lords Table which is how we remember Him after He has died. Nothing propitiatory about eating bread.
 

Nic

Well-known member
Well it sounds like a blend in the way it is described. Can you state how it is not?
A blend would result in something 50% elements 50% Christ or 99% elements, you get the picture. We state that his true body and true blood are 100% present in the supper. We also understand that the bread and wine are also 100% fully presents. We like Paul refer after consecration acknowledge the bread is still present as well as the wine. We don't follow your template of accidents and substance and say appearances of bread/wine, Paul calls them by their given name of bread and wine after the consecration and we simply follow his inspired lead in this regard. We also hear and repeat the words of Christ and understand his body and blood is present as well.
For more: FC E VII The Lord's Supper.
 
Last edited:

LifeIn

Well-known member
A blend would result in something 50% elements 50% Christ or 99% elements, you get the picture. We state that his true body and true blood are 100% present in the supper. We also understand that the bread and wine are also 100% fully presents. We like Paul refer after consecration acknowledge the bread is still present as well as the wine. We don't follow your template of accidents and substance and say appearances of bread/wine,...
It sounds like the main point of disagreement between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is whether or not the bread and the wine are still present. Both agree that Christ is fully present. So here's my question: I can understand the importance of knowing if Christ is fully present. But what are the theological implications of whether bread is still present, or something that appears in every possible way like bread, but isn't? I'm not sure anyone can even say what it means for something to appear like bread vs actually be bread (aside from the question of the real presence of Christ, which is not at issue in this case.) I mean, you can say the words "appears like" and "is", and they clearly are different words, but in this case do they really mean different things? I can't say.
 

Nic

Well-known member
It sounds like the main point of disagreement between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is whether or not the bread and the wine are still present. Both agree that Christ is fully present. So here's my question: I can understand the importance of knowing if Christ is fully present. But what are the theological implications of whether bread is still present, or something that appears in every possible way like bread, but isn't? I'm not sure anyone can even say what it means for something to appear like bread vs actually be bread (aside from the question of the real presence of Christ, which is not at issue in this case.) I mean, you can say the words "appears like" and "is", and they clearly are different words, but in this case do they really mean different things? I can't say.
Thanks for your reply.
Consubstantiation isn't a thing but a pejorative term with a wrong understanding.
Real presence in scripture not unlike my view says the consecrated bread and wine remain 100% bread and wine and 100% body and blood. Paul referred the bread after consecration as bread I don't believe there should be any theological concern. as you suggest. Bill Clinton what does "is" mean defense.... good one.😄
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Bill Clinton what does "is" mean defense.... good one.😄
Bill Clintion's use of that defense may have been questionable, but I think it is justified in this scenario to ask the philosophical question of what we mean by "is." This philosophical conundrum was recently referenced in one of the final episodes of "Wandavision", if you follow the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That fictional discussion between two versions of the character Vision in turn referenced a much older and real thought experiment called the "Ship of Theseus" which was discussed by Plato and others. You might see the problem if you tried to define what it means to say "this is bread" without using the word "is", or without saying the equivalent of "this appears the same as bread." If you can't say what it means, you can't pass judgement on whether it is true or false.
 

Nic

Well-known member
Bill Clintion's use of that defense may have been questionable, but I think it is justified in this scenario to ask the philosophical question of what we mean by "is." This philosophical conundrum was recently referenced in one of the final episodes of "Wandavision", if you follow the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That fictional discussion between two versions of the character Vision in turn referenced a much older and real thought experiment called the "Ship of Theseus" which was discussed by Plato and others. You might see the problem if you tried to define what it means to say "this is bread" without using the word "is", or without saying the equivalent of "this appears the same as bread." If you can't say what it means, you can't pass judgement on whether it is true or false.
I don't believe Jesus nor Paul was being cryptic with the word translated as is. Now as for the Roman Church, that's another story.
Wandavision is foreign to me.
 
Last edited:

pilgrim

Well-known member
Thanks for your reply.
Consubstantiation isn't a thing but a pejorative term with a wrong understanding.
Real presence in scripture not unlike my view says the consecrated bread and wine remain 100% bread and wine and 100% body and blood. Paul referred the bread after consecration as bread I don't believe there should be any theological concern. as you suggest. Bill Clinton what does "is" mean defense.... good one.😄
How is that a perjorative term? Its a simple description: con = with, substantia = being, substance, matter. What is wrong with that understanding?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Nic

Well-known member
How is that a perjorative term? Its a simple description: con = with, substantia = being, substance, matter. What is wrong with that understanding?
Think recipe, take Jesus and add two eggs and 2 cups of flour mix it all together and throw it in ty he oven for 45 minutes. It creates a new thing that is no longer identified as it was before you "con the substances" so to speak.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
Think recipe, take Jesus and add two eggs and 2 cups of flour mix it all together and throw it in ty he oven for 45 minutes. It creates a new thing that is no longer identified as it was before you "con the substances" so to speak.
It is your description using the concept of common cooking that is a perjorative. If you have ever heard a standup comic make fun of religion, they can make any term sound like a perjorative. It is not a perjorative to those who believe it.
 

Nic

Well-known member
It is your description using the concept of common cooking that is a perjorative. If you have ever heard a standup comic make fun of religion, they can make any term sound like a perjorative. It is not a perjorative to those who believe it.
I know no one that believes it.
 

JoeT

Member
Except we do NOT call it "Consubstantiation". That is false. That is what Catholics call what they think we believe about the Lord's Supper. We believe that, when a Pastor blesses the Elements, Jesus' true body and blood come to be present in, with, under, and through the bread and wine--but the Elements also remain bread and wine. We call that the "Real Presence." We do NOT attempt to explain it, but realize it is a mystery, although one we joyfully accept.

And where do you get the idea we deny the "hypostatic union" of Jesus' being true God and true man? We most certainly DO affirm that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man!

Nothing you wrote here is true about what confessional Lutherans teach or believe. If you don't believe me, try writing this stuff on the Lutheran board, and see what happens.
You can apply any sort of name to what a thing is, however, it doesn't change the reality of the thing. What name you apply to it is irrelevant.

"In, under, and trough" is worship of an inanimate object having a magical power. What it does is to deny the Divine hypostatic union, instead it proclaimed to be a union over the top, under, or through the bread. It leaves the faithful to believe or not. Consequently, In any two people that move to the communion rail to receive the Eucharist one may receive Christ based on "I believe” the other may not be based on the relative quality of "I believe". In short, this communion is not universally efficacious. In so doing you assert that Jesus is 100% God, 100% man and 100% bread.

Thus, assuming the Lutheran receives worthily, with the right quality of faith, (the "I believe"), the individual that communes receive Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity and Bread. Then the individual must ask what quantity of Christ do I receive and what quantity is just bread.

With consubstantiation, or what ever you call it, the assertion becomes God is made panis. contrary to Scripture, [John 1:14].



JoeT
 
Top