Jump to content

Consubstantiation

From Catholicism Wiki

Consubstantiation is a Christian theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) describes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It holds that during the sacrament, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. It was part of the doctrines of Lollardy,[1] and considered a heresy by the Catholic Church.[2] It was later championed by Edward Pusey of the Oxford Movement, and is therefore held by many high church Anglicans,[3][4] seemingly contrary to the Black Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer. The Irvingian Churches (such as the New Apostolic Church) adhere to consubstantiation as the explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[5] Lutherans affirm the physical presence of Christ's body and blood alongside the bread and wine through a sacramental union, but typically reject the label of "consubstantiation" as an oversimplification.[6]

Development

In England in the late 14th century, there was a political and religious movement known as Lollardy. Among much broader goals, the Lollards affirmed a form of consubstantiation—that the Eucharist remained physically bread and wine, while becoming spiritually the body and blood of Christ. Lollardy survived up until the time of the English Reformation.[7]

Whilst ultimately rejected by him on account of the authority of the Church of Rome, William of Ockham entertains a version of consubstantiation in his Fourth Quodlibet, Question 30, where he claims that "the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine remain there and that the substance of the body of Christ remains in the same place, together with the substance of the bread".[8]

Literary critic Kenneth Burke's dramatism takes this concept and utilizes it in secular rhetorical theory to look at the dialectic of unity and difference within the context of logology.[9]

The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

To explain the manner of Christ's presence in Holy Communion, many high church Anglicans teach the philosophical explanation of consubstantiation.[3] A major leader in the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement, Edward Pusey, championed the view of consubstantiation.[10] Pusey's view is that:[4]

I cannot deem it unfair to apply the name of Consubstantiation to a doctrine which teaches, that "the true flesh and true blood of Christ are in the true bread and wine", in such a way that "whatsoever motion or action the bread" and wine have, the body and blood "of Christ also" have "the same"; and that "the substances in both cases" are "so mingled—that they should constitute some one thing".[4]

The Irvingian Churches adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation; for example, The Catechism of the New Apostolic Church states:[5]

The elements of bread and wine are not transformed in their substance through the consecration and pronouncement of the words of institution. Rather, the substance of Christ's body and blood is joined to them (consubstantiation). There is thus no transformation of the substances (transubstantiation). There is a close connection between Holy Communion and the fact that Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, both of which exist unadulterated and indivisible in Him (see 3.4). It is in this sense that the relationship between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ is to be understood: after the consecration, a parallel exists between the "bread and wine"—which corresponds to the human nature of Christ—and the "body and blood"—which corresponds to the divine nature of Christ. In Holy Communion, bread and wine correspond to the human nature of Christ, while the body and blood correspond to His divine nature. Accordingly, there can be no transubstantiation of the bread and wine. Rather, even after consecration, the bread and wine retain their natural substance. Yet the bread and wine are not merely metaphors or symbols for the body and blood of Christ. Rather, the body and blood of Christ are truly present (real presence). Through the words of consecration spoken by an Apostle or a priestly minister commissioned by him, the substance of the body and blood of Christ is joined to the substance of the bread and wine. The outward form (accidence) of the elements of Holy Communion is not changed by this act. Just as the Man Jesus was visible during His life on earth, so also the bread and wine are visible in Holy Communion. After their consecration, however, the elements of Holy Communion constitute a dual substance—like the two natures of Jesus Christ—namely that of bread and wine and that of the body and blood of Christ. The Son of God is then truly present in the elements of Holy Communion: in His divinity and in His humanity. However, as regards the elements of Communion it is not the case that the bread alone corresponds to the body of Christ and that the wine alone corresponds to the blood of Christ. Rather, the body and blood of Christ is completely present in each of the two elements, both the bread and the wine.[5]

The term consubstantiation has been used to describe Martin Luther's Eucharistic doctrine, the sacramental union.[11] Lutheran theologians reject the term consubstantiation because it refers to a philosophical construct that they believe differs from the Lutheran doctrine of the sacramental union, denotes a mixing of substances (bread and wine with body and blood), and suggests a "gross, Capernaitic, carnal" presence of the body and blood of Christ.[12]

See also

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

Consubstantiation — 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).

References

  1. Back to citation Walker, Greg (6 February 2013). Reading Literature Historically: Drama and Poetry from Chaucer to the Reformation. Edinburgh University Press. p. 152. ISBN 9780748681037. “Was he present in substance ('subject') and accident, replacing entirely all the elements of bread and wine through the miraculous process of transubstantiation, as the church claimed, or present only in substance 'beneath' the elements of bread and wine which themselves also remained present, through 'consubstantiation' as Wyclif and prominent lollards such as William Thorpe and Sir John Oldcastle asserted?”
  2. Back to citation "Consubstantiation". NewAdvent.org.
  3. Back to citation occurrence 3.0 Back to citation occurrence 3.1 Murphy, Russell E. (2007). Critical Companion to T. S. Eliot: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work. Infobase Publishing. p. 512. ISBN 9781438108551.
  4. Back to citation occurrence 4.0 Back to citation occurrence 4.1 Back to citation occurrence 4.2 Vogan, Thomas Stuart Lyle (1871). The True Doctrine of the Eucharist. Longmans, Green. p. 54.
  5. Back to citation occurrence 5.0 Back to citation occurrence 5.1 Back to citation occurrence 5.2 "The Catechism of the New Apostolic Church: 8.2.12 The real presence of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion". New Apostolic Church. 18 December 2020. “Rather, the substance of Christ's body and blood is joined to them (consubstantiation).”
  6. Back to citation Jensen, Gordon (2018). "Re-examining Lutheran Theology". Consensus. 39 (2). doi:10.51644/vufk4403. ISSN 2369-2685; "The Mystery of the Church: The Holy Eucharist in the Life of the Church" (PDF). Lutheran World Federation. 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2026. “Lutherans, however, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a "sacramental union", favoring the latter in order to describe Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV).”; Allbeck, Willard Dow (20 November 2002). Studies in the Lutheran Confessions. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 274. ISBN 978-1-7252-5429-9. “The Formula first turns to typical Lutheran statements concerning the real presence. It quotes from the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the Apology, from both catechisms of Luther, from the Wittenberg Concord, the Smalcald Articles, Luther's Large Confession, and other writings. The unanimity of their testimony is impressive. The thesis common to them all is that in the Supper there is a sacramental union of earthly elements and the real presence.... Many eminent church fathers held this view, comparing the sacramental union with the union of Christ's natures. It is the view of the Lutherans set forth in the Augsburg Confession, as a comparison with Luther's writings show. It is the view implicit in Christ's words of institution.”; The Evangelical Quarterly Review. Vol. 18. 1867. p. 67. “From first to last, the Lutheran Church has rejected the name of Consubstantiation and everything which that name properly implies. Bold and uncompromising as our Confessors and Theologians have been, if the word Consubstantiation, (which is not a more human term than Trinity and Original Sin are human terms), had expressed correctly their doctrine, they would have not hesitated to use it. It is not used in any Confession of our Church, and we have never seen it used in any standard dogmatician of our communion, except to condemn the term, and to repudiate the idea that our Church held the doctrine it involves.”
  7. Back to citation Walker, Greg (6 February 2013). Reading Literature Historically: Drama and Poetry from Chaucer to the Reformation. Edinburgh University Press. p. 152. ISBN 9780748681037. “Was he present in substance ('subject') and accident, replacing entirely all the elements of bread and wine through the miraculous process of transubstantiation, as the church claimed, or present only in substance 'beneath' the elements of bread and wine which themselves also remained present, through 'consubstantiation' as Wyclif and prominent lollards such as William Thorpe and Sir John Oldcastle asserted?”; Fazzio, Robert (2013). The Origin, Proliferation, and Institutionalization of Anti-Catholicism in America, and Its Impact on Modern Christian Apologetics. GRIN Verlag. p. 6. ISBN 9783656019664; Hornbeck, J. Patrick (10 September 2010). What is a lollard?: dissent and belief in late medieval England. Oxford University Press. p. 72. ISBN 9780199589043.
  8. Back to citation Ockham, William (1991). Quodlibetal Questions. Yale University. pp. 370–371.
  9. Back to citation Lamoureux, Edward. "Introduction to Kenneth Burke". Bradley.edu.
  10. Back to citation Rigg, James Harrison (1895). Oxford High Anglicanism and Its Chief Leaders. C. H. Kelly. p. 293. Retrieved 12 June 2017.
  11. Back to citation The Evangelical Quarterly Review. Vol. 18. 1867. p. 67. “From first to last, the Lutheran Church has rejected the name of Consubstantiation and everything which that name properly implies. Bold and uncompromising as our Confessors and Theologians have been, if the word Consubstantiation, (which is not a more human term than Trinity and Original Sin are human terms), had expressed correctly their doctrine, they would have not hesitated to use it. It is not used in any Confession of our Church, and we have never seen it used in any standard dogmatician of our communion, except to condemn the term, and to repudiate the idea that our Church held the doctrine it involves.”; Krauth, Charles Porterfield (1963). The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology. Augsburg Publishing House. p. 768. “When this presence is called substantial and bodily, those words designate not the MODE of presence, but the OBJECT. When the words in, with, under, are used, our traducers know, as well as they know their own fingers, that they do NOT signify a CONSUBSTANTIATION, local co-existence, or impanation. The charge that we hold a local inclusion, or Consubstantiation, is a calumny. The eating and drinking are not physical, but mystical and sacramental. An action is not necessarily figurative because it is not physical.”; The Quarterly Review of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Southern Methodist Publishing House. 1882. p. 107. “And finally, we say once more to all who prefer the truth to slanderous falsehoods in regard to the largest and oldest Protestant Church, that no Lutheran Creed or Lutheran theologian has ever taught or 'believed the doctrine of Consubstantiation'.”; "Real Presence Communion – Consubstantiation?". WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. Retrieved 26 Jan 2015. “Although some Lutherans have used the term 'consbstantiation' [sic] and it might possibly be understood correctly (e.g., the bread & wine, body & blood coexist with each other in the Lord's Supper), most Lutherans reject the term because of the false connotation it contains... either that the body and blood, bread and wine come together to form one substance in the Lord's Supper or that the body and blood are present in a natural manner like the bread and the wine. Lutherans believe that the bread and the wine are present in a natural manner in the Lord's Supper and Christ's true body and blood are present in an illocal, supernatural manner.”; F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, second edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 340 sub loco; Weimar Ausgabe 26, 442; Luther's Works 37, 299–300.
  12. Back to citation J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology (St. Louis: CPH, 1934), 519; Erwin L. Lueker, Christian Cyclopedia, (St. Louis: CPH, 1975), "consubstantiation"; Formula of Concord, Epitome, VII.42 and Solid Declaration VII.127 in F. Bente, Triglot Concordia, (St Louis: CPH, 1921), 817, 1015; "Real Presence Communion – Consubstantiation?". WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. Retrieved 26 Jan 2015. “Although some Lutherans have used the term 'consbstantiation' [sic] and it might possibly be understood correctly (e.g., the bread & wine, body & blood coexist with each other in the Lord's Supper), most Lutherans reject the term because of the false connotation it contains... either that the body and blood, bread and wine come together to form one substance in the Lord's Supper or that the body and blood are present in a natural manner like the bread and the wine. Lutherans believe that the bread and the wine are present in a natural manner in the Lord's Supper and Christ's true body and blood are present in an illocal, supernatural manner.”; Lectures on the Augsburg Confession. Lutheran Publication Society. 1888. p. 350. Retrieved 13 June 2014. “But in neither sense can that monstrous doctrine of Consubstantiation be attributed to our church, since Lutherans do not believe either in that local conjunction of two bodies, nor in any commingling of bread and of Christ's body, of wine and of his blood.”
Retrieved from "https://catholicism.wiki/index.php?title=Consubstantiation&oldid=63133"