Doesn't it have to do with the way communion is done?
2007-01-16 16:08:35 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Transubstantiation is the actual conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist and consubstantiation is the materialisation of the body and blood along with the bread and wine in the eucharist (more of a symbolic conversion). It's more what you believe happens at the eucharist than how the eucharist is done.
2007-01-16 16:20:07 · answer #1 · answered by Stag S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Transubstantiation is the belief of the Catholic Church that an actual physical change takes place in the bread and wine during the act of consecration for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Holy Spirit is invoked and changes the bread to Jesus Christ, Himself, and the wine to the actual blood of Christ. In other words, after consecration, the bread is not bread anymore, and can no longer even be called bread. It is Jesus Christ made present in the flesh, under the physical appearance of bread and wine. It is the complete Christ: body, blood, soul and divinity. Most protestants contend that Jesus only meant the sacrament to be a symbol of Him, not actually Jesus Himself, but the protestant definition is both biblically and historically incorrect.
Consubstantiation is the belief commonly held by protestants that the bread and wine remain unchanged, and that Jesus is simply present in spirit beside the food, meaning the gifts are merely symbols of Christ. The easiest way to see through this flaw is to study John chapter 6, and 1 Corinthians chapter 10 or 11 (can't remember which). These scriptures prove that consubstantiation is incorrect.
An added note: for the sacrament of the eucharist to be valid, it must be performed by a validly ordained catholic priest. They are the only ones with the authority to consecrate. This is why Catholics cannot take communion at non-catholic churches because it is not a valid sacrament there.
2007-01-16 16:22:01 · answer #2 · answered by Danny H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
RE: Difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation? Why did Luther believe in consubstantiation over transubstantiation?
2016-05-23 23:06:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it has to do with the essence of Communion itself, what the Eucharist actually is. Both views include the belief that Christ is truly present, and that we truly receive Him when we receive Communion.
However, Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine used in Communion literally become the body and blood of Christ during the consecration, so that once the substances are consecrated, no actual bread or wine remains, but only the body and blood of Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine. This is the Catholic position, and was therefore the position of every Christian on earth for 1,500 years after Christ.
Consubstantiation means that during the consecration, Christ becomes intimately associated with the bread and wine, or enters into the bread and wine in some real way, so that when the bread and wine are received, Christ is received as well. But there is no change of substance. the bread and wine remain bread and wine. This is, I believe, the Lutheran position.
.
2007-01-16 16:20:15 · answer #4 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Eh...who? What? Do you question the Christ? Do you? Do you, Butters? Did I not drive you far enough over the edge of that embankment near the river?
It's all a great enigma to me, as it is to most people, um, "commuting". I myself have only commuted through traffic, not Christianity.
2007-01-16 16:16:00 · answer #5 · answered by Me, Thrice-Baked 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps it has more to do with digestion...? (or cannibalism)
2007-01-16 16:12:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
trans-who?
2007-01-16 16:12:45 · answer #7 · answered by Royal Racer Hell=Grave © 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋