Can anyone please define me these term corporeal presence in Anglican Church, pneumatic presence (real spiritual presence) in anglo catholic Church, consubstantiation in Lutheran Church, spiritual presence in Presbyterian Church?
I will be watching for these answers. Good questions.
Consubsantiation is the belief that Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity are present WITH the bread and wine. The substances are “combined”, hence the prefix “con-”. In the Catholic Church, the substance of the bread and wine is CHANGED, so only the ACCIDENTS of the bread and wine remain, while the bread and wine aren’t actually present.
As for the others…I don’t know.
Consubstantiation is a heresy.
Modern Catholic Dictionary:
CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.
What really matters is what happens at the Catholic mass. The bread and wine are transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
@AlexR, This book ought to answer some of your questions.
Lutherans reject the term and concept of consubstantiation. They always have.
Yes, I know what the RCC teaches about consubstantiation, but it seems to me that “real presence” is the key. Debating transubstantiation (the essence/substance of bread and wine are displaced by the essence/substance of Christ) over consubstantiation (the elements retain a dual essence/substance) strikes me as trivial and off-point. Real presence is real presence, regardless of what else may be present.
I am not offended by the notion of consubstantiation, and can’t understand why the RCC would be. As a matter of pure logic, I don’t see why the Body and Blood of Christ must fully occupy the field, leaving no room for any other substance or essence. Surely it must be possible for the elements to retain a dual essence or substance once we allow that Jesus himself enjoyed a dual essence/substance while on earth. The sense in which Jesus Christ can simultaneously be both “true God and true man” is the same sense in which the Eucharist can simultaneously be both true body and true bread, or true blood and true wine. Certainly Christ’s dual nature is not the easiest concept to grasp; but let someone explain it to me, and I will then have an answer for him on why consubstantiation is a viable position to hold.
I apply Ockham’s Razor here. If consubstantiation is a sufficient explanation of the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, why go further? The Eucharist is mystical enough without also putting it through extra levels of explanation, as must be done with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Putting the elements through a chemical lab will surely yield the result that they are bread and wine; why resort to Aristotelian niceties distinguishing the essential and the accidental in order to explain that result? Irenaeus’ “two realities” is a simpler explanation. Why not, with Paul, allow that the consecrated Eucharist remains “the bread which we break” (1 Cor. 10:16) and adjure the believer to “so eat of that bread” (1 Cor. 11:28)?
An absolutely ridiculous statement. It implies only these two beliefs as possibilities. Luther rejected BOTH Transubstaniation and consubstantiation.
If everyone who believes in the RP but rejects Transubstaniation necessarily believes consubstantiation, then the Orthodox believe consubstantiation?
Anglicanism teaches that the Eucharist is both a sacrifice and memorial; the bread and wine are outer signs and the inner reality is the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It explicitly denies transubstantiation, however, and the rest of its sacramental theology is very, very muddled (which for some reason they see as a good thing as they espouse “via media” as opposed to Truth).
Except for some Anglicans that do believe Transubstantiation.
If you really believe and adore the presence as real.
You would be offended at knowing the object of your belief and adoration is also bread
These are all words that describe local movement. movement that begins to be here and not there. as it moves it is more here and less in the original place until it is all in the other place. But that isn’t how Jesus moves.
He is in heaven and He remains in heaven even if he moves to another place. So local movement isn’t able to explain what happens to the bread. The movement of Christ can only be described as instant. Since the bread isn’t changed by local movement. Since the bread changes instantly. Not intermediately, all the substance of the bread changes instantly into the substance of Christ.
The Hypostatic Union cannot be compared to consubstantiation ie; a substance ‘with’ a different substance.
RedFan it just can’t be conceptualized in a manner common to substances and movement on earth.
I don’t know what extra levels of explanation means. I do know that consubstantiation doesn’t explain what happens to bread at the time it is consecrated.
Yes, but the Articles Of Religion denies it and their catechism is vaguely worded to appeal to Reformed and slightly Catholic (but not too Catholic) churchmen.
“Take, eat”, not “take, understand”.
The Eastern Orthodox rejects Transubstantiation?
No, they don’t like saying there’s a way to understand how it is the Body, but they do say it is the Body.
But they do realize that the Body was bread before consecration, yes?
Of course, I’d imagine
Then I’d imagine they believe in Transubstantiation. They do not believe in ‘consubstantiation’ or ‘sacramental union’ or ‘real spiritual presence’; and, if they believe that the bread becomes the Body, then by default one would imagine they believe in Transubstantiation by default, even though mum.
I suspect an Orthodox theologian might deny that, but that’s only my guess. It would be interesting to see an answer on this thread from a duly qualified authority.