Consubstantiation v Transubstantiation



  • [quote author=Biboboy link=topic=14367.msg164214#msg164214 date=1365889827]
    From the Catholic Encyclopedia:


    "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."

    From the Council of Trent, against the hlutheran heresy of consubstantiation:

    "If any one shall say that, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema" (Session 13, Canon 2).

    Well, that would contradict some of the Church fathers, including one of the Popes of Rome.

    The Roman Church used to condemn Peter Abelard for instance, but from what I understand, there seems to be acceptance of some of his theology today.  Palamism was also condemned, but recently it seems to be receptive.
  • [quote author=qawe link=topic=14367.msg164216#msg164216 date=1365896792]
    But if transubstantiation implies the platonic theory of matter being divided into substance and accident, should we reject it on the basis that it requires acceptance of this platonic theory?
    Actually, I think it was made in an Aristotelian framework.  The accidents are bread and wine, but the essence is body and blood.

    Consubstantiation I think would make sense in a neo-Platonic framework.  It would be "heretical" in an Aristotelian framework, since you are saying there are two "essences" in the Eucharist.  There's no such thing as "accidents" in Platonism.

    Palamism was also rejected as heresy in an Aristotelian framework, since there's no such thing as an "energy-essence" distinction.  Today we live in a world where we don't really use Platonic or Aristotelian thought, and so I think there needs to be a reevaluation of what has been "condemned".  Consider also the Cappadocians used to be condemned for being "semi-Pelagians" in the Latin Church, but that has since changed.
  • This kind of topics makes me wish Fr. Peter was still on the forum. Does anyone know how he is doing? Please tell him we miss him!

    In Christ
  • he is fine, he is very busy.
    (see british orthodox website)
    i will try to remember yr message when i see him soon.
    he goes occasionally on, although i haven't 'seen' him there recently.
  • The word "transubstantiation" cannot be separated from its Aristotelian framework since it is used directly in relation to the notions of substance and accidents within that framework. Thus, if one accepts the framework and terminology, I personally believe its perfectly Orthodox. It's the same when studying someone like Thomas will have a much better appreciation for him and be able to reconcile his thought more with the Eastern Fathers only when you understand the framework he is working within, which for Aquinas is Aristotle.

    I also think that since most of the East and Orthodoxy did not embrace the framework of Aristotelian physics and metaphysics, it is natural that they would shy away from using the word "transubstantiation". But, in my personal opinion, within the framework it is perfectly compatible with Orthodoxy.

    Fr. Kyrillos
Sign In or Register to comment.