Talk:Consubstantiation

Consubstantiation

In Germany, all the Lutheran Churches have called their doctrine of the Lord's Supper "consubstantiation". It is even said that the term was first used by Melanchthon, a friend of Luther. I was raised a Lutheran and our family was Lutheran for more than 400 years. And I am a descendant of a family called Luther once living in Wittenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.138.135 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Consubstantiation is contrary to Lutheran belief. I am a pastor of the ELCA for 16 years and hold a both a master and doctorial degree from two different ELCA seminaries. The central issue is that consubstantiation finds the locus of Christ along side the elements of bread and wine. Luther's teaching of the real presence is that Christ's body and blood is found "in, through and under" (a direct phase from the Luthean Catechism)the elements of bread and wine. Although I am not an expert in Calvinism, I have some understanding that their belief is in line with a theology of consubstantiation - in that there is a "eucharistic Calvinistic extra" where Christ is pressent in a "spiritual" way along side the individual receiving the eucherist. I believe that Calvin's concern was with Christ being on the right hand of the Father, and in the elements of Holy Communion, at the same time. Luther and Lutherans respond to the duplicity of Christ presence presented by Calvin's concern with God's ubiquity.

Your connection between Lutheranism and consubstantiation in Lutheran theology is inaccurate and should be removed. You are misleading readers and providing false information. This is most certianly true.

The following is copied directly from the ELCA website: elca.org

What Sacraments Do Lutherans Accept?

Lutherans accept two Sacraments as God-given means for penetrating the lives of people with his grace. Although they are not the only means of God's self-revelation, Baptism and Holy Communion are visible acts of God's love.

In Baptism, and it can be seen more clearly in infant Baptism, God freely offers his grace and lovingly establishes a new community. It is in Baptism that people become members of Christ's Body on earth, the Church. In Holy Communion -- often called the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist -- those who come to the table receive in bread and wine the body and blood of their Lord. This gift is itself the real presence of God's forgiveness and mercy, nourishing believers in union with their Lord and with each other

138.163.160.43 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) The Rev. Dr. Brian J. Stamm

I reverted the removal of Lutheranism as an example for a denomination believing something. This denomination is based on Martin Luther's teachings. So read the Large Catechism section about the Sacrament of the Altar and you see that quite clearly. Awolf002 02:43, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

link removal

http://joelbrondos.worldmagblog.com/joelbrondos/archives/003188.html Lutherans Deny Consubstantiation

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CONSUBSTANTIATION Consubstantiation View, falsely charged to Lutheranism

These two links were added and I moved them here for discussion. It seems that we will need some input from a theological inclined person to explain the difference between "consubstantiation" and "sacramental" to figure out what Lutherans believe. Help, please!! Awolf002 20:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

reply

A cry for help is always good. Since we are in a discussion area here is my view, from the way I understand the difference: Consubstantiation is a "loaded" term, meaning that it can mean more than one thing and is commonly used to twist meanings on things. At one time, it was viewed that consubstantiation was the opposite of Transub. in a duopoly of the two arguments. If you were for transub. you were fore consub. At this time Transub. was used to describe the priest turning the elements into the real thing. Consub was any other differing teaching.

Later it became that consub. was an explanation of what the elements changed into. So instead of it describing when or how it happened it turned into Consub. being what the new substance was.

Even later, as a Roman Catholic Priest explained to me that the new definitions are that Transub is the belief/faith of the priest turning the bread and wine into the real thing and that Consub is the belief/faith of the taker turning it into the real thing.

Clarification

How then can we clarify things? I agree that "Consubstantiation" is loaded. But how can we define it now? Awolf002 21:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One possible solution

Describing the various things I put in the discussion above in a more formalized way might be a good start, what do you think? Ill have to think of the best way.

Contrasting?

Maybe we could contrast things in a clearer way, so that it is more obvious what the "sticking points" are. I like the first link, which seems to have some of that. Awolf002 21:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hopeful fix

I edited the article, because it was too POV in its previous form. Clearly some Lutherans believe in consubstantiation (I do, for example), while others do not. I do not know which belief is more common, so I said that many present-day Lutherans reject this term. I would be curious to know what the status of "consubstantiation" is with each of the major Lutheran denominations: ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELCIC, Evangelical Church in Germany, the Churches of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. I am fairly certain that consubstantiation was taught in my ELCIC confirmation class many years ago, essentially as a synonym for "in, with, and under".

BTW, I removed the link to the LCMS document about eucharistic theology simply because the document does not contain the word "consubstantiation" and did not appear to address the issue at all. That document would be better linked on one of the other pages on Eucharistic theology, such as Eucharistic theologies contrasted.--Srleffler 05:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Some clarification: after discussion with another user on a different talk page, it seems that the confusion may be that there is a difference between the philosophical doctrine of "consubstantiation", and what Lutherans actually believe. Many Lutherans call what we believe "consubstantiation", but from the view of a philosopher/theologian that term might be incorrect. I think the current wording of the article expresses this well enough.--Srleffler 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to affirm the article as it's written; Srleffler is correct, the confusion is that Luther's theology of the eucharist can be taken two ways; the first, which is commonly ascribed to the word 'consubstantiation,' is the iron and fire usage you have here, in which two things exist /as/ the same entity. The second is the "in, with, and under" terminology used elsewhere, which would present a seperation between element and divinity, but having both occupy the same physical space in time. The second definition is the most widely accepted within the Lutheran traditions, although many accept the second, yet believe that in the second, the first is implied. The overall point to make is that Luther himself spoke against defining it too specifically; he was much more interested in adhering to the ideal of Real Presence, being that there was a physical presence in the element (as opposed to merely a spiritual one -- he held that in the bread and wine one receives the full physical and spiritual being of Christ); how that physical presense was in the element was less of a concern in his theology. Peace to you all, User:Deleted_user_jj1 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg)

@Srleffler (and the rest, of course). I was confirmed in the Church of Sweden, and I was taught that consubstantiation was how my church viewed it. That was, however, a couple of decades ago. The article at Swedish Wikipedia states that today there are many different views not only among the lutheran churches, but also in the Church of Sweden. I fail to find much on the church's website, and not any good other material either, not on the web probably because the topic hasn't been very hot since ages. So stating that "lutherans reject the concept", as the article states now, is to me outright wrong. Possibly there is a difference in terminology here; I'm not sure if Americans would label the Church of Sweden as lutheran or evangelical (the later concept is very, very vague to me). --Höstlövpåmarken (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the statement that "Lutherans reject the concept" is clearly too strong, since not all Lutherans do.--Srleffler (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Encyclopedias do not begin by describing exceptions to definitions or situations that have not yet been clearly defined. This just creates confusion. Tonedeafyodler (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Consistency

I added a "See also" and we need to make this article consistent with the Eucharist list of theologies. Awolf002 23:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WELS doctrine

"the change occurs only upon receipt of the communion by the believer." This line expresses the doctrine of the Wisconsin Synod, which is not shared by all lutherans.

http://members.aol.com/SemperRef/venerable.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1700-talet (talk • contribs) 16:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Synod is a tiny minority church with a membership of 369,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod compared with 3.6 million members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America It is not what most outsiders think of when they say the words "Lutheran" and it's views should not be taken as representative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Edmund (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wycliffe

Wasn't Wycliffe a believer in consubstantiation?

Only insofar as such later figures as Luther and Cranmer can be held to adhere to 'consubstantiation'. It is not an accurate label for many doctrinal positions, but tends to get used for everyone who in some way believes in some sort of co-existance of bread and Body, wine and Blood. It is a oversimplification; some writers appreciate the subtlties behind, and problems raised by using, the term, and unfortuantely some do not!

For Wyclif : Christ is omnipotent and omnipresent, and is therefore present to the sacrament. Christ's body is in heaven, and remains so at consecration. Therefore the presence is spiritual and not dimensional. The Host is not Christ, or any part of him, but a sign. Wyclif thus holds three modes of presence within the Eucharist : virtual, spiritual, sacramental. This is clearly not the same as consubstantiation (which in part argues for a substitution of essence), and is closer - but not identical - to the position later held by Bucer over the RP (while differning markedly over the sacramental nature and benefits of the Eucharist).

(See : Dugmore, CW The Mass and the English Reformers (London: Macmillan, 1958) - old, but provides a good summary of the subtlties of the differences held by different theologians over the nature of the sacrament). Tobermory (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

who believes this?

Everyone seems to think that Lutherans believe this, but apparently they don't. But if they don't, who does? It seems a bit disconcerting to have a term describing a theology which no one (apparently) believes in.... who invented this term? who popularised it? was it invented by someone who agreed with it, or was it invented by someone as a characterisation of their opponents (e.g. Catholic opponents of Lutheranism)? We need to answer these questions in this article. --SJK 11:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph from the "consubstantial" article which claimed that the Church of England used that term to apply to the Eucharist. It was obviously misplaced in that article which was solely about the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, but perhaps the Church of England believes in a doctrine of consubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements.

It's probable that there is still considerable belief in both Lutheran and Anglican circles for a doctrine of Eucharistic consubstantiation, but I know of no reliable third party sources for that assertion. I suggest that until such time as such a source is found, the article be edited to provide a history of usage (or non-usage) to describe Lutheran and Anglican Eucharist. Dlw20070716 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Clear as Mud?

Luther rejected transubstantiation (1) because he didn't think that aristotlean metaphysics were useful in helping Christians understand the work of God, and (2) he didn't think that there should be a required philosophical understanding of the mysteries of God.

Luther (personally) rejected transub., but allowed that others could still hold to transub. as a matter of conscience. The objection many Lutherans have to "consubstantiation" is that it implies a reliance on the aristotlean metaphysic (same basic prob. as transub.) and it implies that there is only one way for Lutherans to understand the presence of Christ.

Consubstantiation, historically, was a term applied by those outside of the Lutheran tradition to describe the sacramental theology of Lutherans. Some Lutherans adapted the term for of ease of use. The more traditional Lutheran description is to say that the body & blood of Christ are present "in, with, & under (or through)" the elements of bread and wine (leave the question of precisely how this occurs unanswered). I think the best treatment of this, in Luther's corpus, is his Treatise on the New Testament, which is the Mass. Pastordavid 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Confession Concerning Christ's Supper is a better source for his doctrine of the Lord's Supper as well as his catechisms, which he wrote a year later in 1529. I think that is it crystal clear that observant Lutherans do not want a sophisticated philosphical concept like Consubstantiation to govern the biblical doctrine of the sacramental union. Consubstantiation also implies a "local inclusion" of the body and blood of Christ, which Lutherans reject.--Drboisclair 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther did not advocate consubstantiation nor does the Eastern Orthodox Church

Martin Luther's mature eucharistic doctrine was not consubstantiation. To associate his doctrine with consubstantiation is a factual error. I have removed the section, which states this in the article. It is also erroneous to identify the eucharistic doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy with this term. Consubstantiation was a eucharistic theory developed in medieval nominalism (the school of Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Pierre d'Ailly), Luther, who was educated by nominalists may have been receptive to their doctrines before he formulated his own theology.--Drboisclair 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section about Lutheranism should be removed or rewritten to reflect the fact that consubstantiation is erroneously thought to be the doctrine of Lutherans with respect to the real presence. Lutherans affirm the doctrine of the sacramental union, not the Lollard doctrine of consubstantiation. What are your thoughts User:Elizium23? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, I agree that we'll rewrite it, I'm happy to do copyedits or minor nitpicks, but I don't have the Lutheran expertise to change the content in a substantial way. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Elizium23, I took the liberty of rewriting it and adding in some new information. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 18:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Very good, OK. I have given it a once-over. I think it is well-done. I did some copyediting. I commend you for finding multiple good sources here.

The main thing I would like to add (I might do it myself) is the Catholic view. I have tagged the mention of heresy because it is unsourced. Let's find out if the Church formally condemned it as a heresy in some encyclical or council. Let's also try to find some critical opposition to the Early Church Father citations. I am sure that Catholic apologists have refuted the usage of the ECFs by the proponents of consubstantiation.

Unfortunately there's been a minor disaster here (on top of the pandemic) and my power will be shut off for several days. I don't know how quickly I can return to editing, but I will give it the college try. Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Elizium23, thank you! I look forward to seeing your explication of the Catholic view. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 18:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There is something off about the discussion of Luther and consubstantiation and the article itself. The article gives the definition of consubstantiation as "the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present". This is how the term consubstantiation was used during the Eucharistic controversies between Luther and his Catholic oponents in the early 1500s. This is also Luther's exact position: the body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine. It is also what the Lutheran Church to this day continues to teach concerning the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Church Historians of the 1500/Reformation call Luther's position 'consubstantiation', as do Eucharistic theologians. E.g. Kilmartin "The theory of consubstantiation seems to have been preferred by Luther." page 158 of Kilmartin, Edward J. and Robert J. Daly. The Eucharist in the West: history and theology. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1998. The citations given to support the statement that consubstantiation is erroneous attributed to Luther, while interesting, are not authoritative. There is a 140 year old article. The blog post actually says "Although some Lutherans have used the term "consbstantiation" 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." I don't have access to the Oxford dictionary, but it is neither recent (c.50 years old) nor specialized on the Eucharistic controversies of the 1500s. I don't have access to the German original of Luther's works, but I do for the Fortress Press edition of Word & Sacrament III. In the cited pages Luther discusses Wycliff's views of the Eucharist. Luther does not mention consubstantiation in the 2 cited pages. In his characteristic anti-scholastic (especially anti-Aristotelian) Luther uses the term 'sacramental union' to describe his view of Christ's presence.

For the question above on the Catholic view, Trent in canon 2 of the Thirteenth Session rules out consubstantiation. You are not going to find much material in the Patristic writers because Eucharistic theology wasn't well developed. You can find some writers who use the term 'spiritual presence' (which is what Calvin/Zwingli taught); although we must be careful to note exactly how the authors use the term 'spiritual'. On the other hand others are much more explicit that it is Christ's body and blood. I think it was Ignatius of Antioch who said, give me Christ's flesh to eat and blood to drink. It was only in the medieval era that the Church began to use terms like transubstantiation, which was approved by Fourth Lateran (even though Aristotelian philosophy was not yet in vogue in the West).

Ideally the page should be rephrased to say something along the lines of: While Martin Luther didn't use the term 'consubstantiation' his explanation for Christ's presence in the Eucharist (it is in, with and under, the elements of Bread and Wine) is the definition of consubstantiation theologians in the 1500s used in their debates over the Real Presence. Scholars (theologians and historians) of the era describe Luther's teaching on the Real presence as 'consubstantiation' even though Luther himself avoided Aristotelian and philosophical language as much as possible. Otherwise we'll contradict the principle of non-contradiction: the definition of consubstantiation is 'x', Luther and Lutherans affirm 'x', Lutherans and Luther reject consubstantiation. Safinski (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the disagreement over whether the Lutheran view of the eucharist is "consubstantiation" comes down to a disagreement between different Lutheran churches. The broader explanation before it was rewritten better reflected my experience. There are many modern Lutherans who use the term "consubstantiation" to describe their theology of the Eucharist. Describing this extant view as "erroneous", as the article curently does, is POV.--Srleffler (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lutheran theologians are quite clear that their view of the Eucharist is not consubstantiation. This article provides a list of reliable references by Lutheran theolgians clarifying why that denomination rejects consubstantiation. No Lutheran Church teaches this doctrine and to attribute it to Lutherans is misrepresenting their beliefs. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The author of that blog post expresses a particular point of view on the matter. I don't doubt that he cites sources that agree with him. I don't happen to know whether all Lutheran theologians agree with this position, but I've been a member of Lutheran churches in two different countries where pastors use the word "consubstantiation" to describe the Lutheran view of eucharist. It is possible that there is a discrepancy between what theologians hold to be true and what pastors "in the field" preach. Even if so, though, the statement in the article is too strong. I gather that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod holds this point of view. I wonder if any other synods agree, or if the focus on this point is unique to WELS.--Srleffler (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2020

Sorry to take so long to get back, I've been sick. I read the pdf linnk posted by Anupam. It is a useful summary; however, it is neither formally published, nor peer-reviewed, nor does it possess any stamp of approval from a Lutheran body authorized to make definitive statements of the faith. It is original research. It also does not possess proper references: I can't follow the quotations to their source without undo research. Nor does it always accurately convey the original text of the documents & theologians it purports. E.g. It states that Lutherans reject consubstantiation, and then cites Epitome of the Formula of Concord (VII.41-42) as proof. The actual articles cited reject the accusations of the Sacramentarians & Zwinglians who accuse the Lutherans of a fleshly eating at communion; the articles don't mention consubstantiation at all. It also includes citations which actually support my above post. I did not attribute consubstantiation to Lutherans, I stated that Historians and Church Historians of the 16th century, and Eucharistic theologians, describe Luther's position as consubstantiation, in contradistinction to transubstantiation. I gave Kilmartin's book (a peer-reviewed and formally published history of the theology of the Eucharist) as evidence to support my statement.

The article should be revised to state something like the following: 1) When Luther wrote about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he eschewed Aristotelian philosophy; however, when he debated with Catholic opponents he described the Real Presence as 'in with and under' the bread and wine. Luther's opponents, and historians and theologians today label this position as consubstantiation (i.e. the substance of Christ's body and blood is truly present alongside the substances of bread and wine) even though Luther did not use the actual term. Luther's later debates with the Sacramentarians and the Zwinglians forced he to address other questions, which led him to describe the Real Presence differently.

I hope I didn't intimate that Lutherans today teach consubstantiation. That was not my intention. There are a few problems/questions that are being conflated that makes the issue dicey. 1: How did Luther actually describe the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He used terms such as 'sacramental union', as well as 'in with and under the accidents of bread and wine'. In the terms of the standard Aristotelian philosophy of Luther's time, his definition would fall under 'consubstantiation' (i.e. the substance of Christ is present with the accidents of bread and wine). 2: Luther engaged in debate/polemic with the Sacramentarians & the Zwinglians over the Eucharist. This debate included the question of where is Christ's body present. Luther adapted his arguments to stress that in Communion, Christ is truly and really present, and not just 'spiritually', as Calvin described it. 3: How have the Lutherans received, adapted, and used Luther's positions. I.e. How do Lutheran theologians today speak of the real presence. 4: How do scholars describe Luther's position. This includes not just Lutheran scholars describing their own position to other Lutherans, but also how non-Lutherans describe Luther's position. Historians and Church Historians of the 16th century position transubstantiation & consubstantiation next to each other as similar but mutually exclusive alternatives to describe a real presence (One Catholic, the other Luther's), and both oppose the spiritual presence advocated by Calvin and Zwingli. A major problem with the article as it is written now, and in the blog-post linked by Anupam, is that, rather than using the definition of consubstantiation as it was used by Luther's Catholic opponents (who were highly trained in Aristotelian philosophy), it uses the attacks of the Sacramentarians and Zwinglians. I may have missed somethings, but I think the definitions and descriptions in the pdf are all addressing Luther's controversy with the Sacramentarians and Zwinglians, not the Catholics. Hence the 'Capernaitic' references.

In summary I am not stating the position of Lutheran theologians vis-a-vis consubstantiation. I am saying, scholars today label Luther's position 'consubstantiation' because the description of the Real Presence he used in his debates with his Catholic opponents falls under the category of consubstantiation in Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy employed by theologians in the 16th century.

Here are some more citations: Van Der Walt, B. .. “Four Viewpoints on Christ’s Presence at the Lord’s Supper: An Analysis of Their Philosophical Foundations.” Tydskrif Vir Geesteswetenskappe, vol. 55, no. 3, 2015, pp. 388. "The first main section provides an overview of the basic solutions offered by the four viewpointson Christ’s presence at the sacrament and also indicates their most prominent differences. According to the Catholic viewpoint (earlier represented by Thomas Aquinas and during the sixteenth century by e.g. John Eck), Christ becomes bodily present at the Eucharist since, after consecration, the bread and wine is changed (transubstantiated) into Christ’s mystical body. In Luther’s theory of consubstantiation Christ, in his divine omnipresence, accompanies the elements of the sacrament." Yves Congar: "C'est dans cet écrit que Luther rejette la doctrine commune de l'Église sur l'Eucharistie et préconise la consubstantiation, mais sans expliquer la présence du Christ par l'ubiquité" Congar, Y. "LUTHERANA: THÉOLOGIE DE L'EUCHARISTIE ET CHRISTOLOGIE CHEZ LUTHER." Revue Des Sciences Philosophiques Et Théologiques 66, no. 2 (1982): 171. "Hubmaier objected to Roman Catholic transubstantiation, Lutheran consubstantiation, and Zwinglian sacramentarianism on the grounds that all of them, in their concern with the status of the elements, had lost sight of the internal transformation that Christ accomplishes in the faithful during the meal." MacGregor, K. (2012). The Eucharistic Theology and Ethics of Balthasar Hubmaier. Harvard Theological Review, 105(2), 223-4. "Thus, Luther contends, since God is truly present everywhere, and Christ shares in the divine nature, Christ is truly present everywhere (‘That these Words of Christ’, 64) and it follows from this that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine on the Communion table (this is often called the Doctrine of Consubstantiation)." Cockayne, Joshua. “Contemporaneity and Communion: Kierkegaard on the Personal Presence of Christ.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 1, Routledge, Jan. 2017, pp. 51. |A second challenge in determining what is eaten in the meal is the tendency to separate the bread and wine from the body and blood of Christ. While Luther rejects the doctrine of transubstantiation, approved at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 as a human opinion to explain how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ,49 he does not reject the theological importance of Christ’s real presence in the elements.50 Footnote 50: 50. “Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520),” LW 36:28-35; WA 6:508.1-512.6. Likewise, Lutherans have generally rejected the term “consubstantiation” for the same reasons. Nagel suggests that the Crypto-Calvinists, those Lutherans who wanted to introduce a Reformed interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, preferred “consubstantiation.” Norman E. Nagel,“Consubstantiation,” Hermann Sasse:A Manfor OurTimes?John R. Stephenson et al, eds. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1998), 2505.1. Jensen, Gordon A. “The Sacrament of the Altar.” Lutheran Quarterly 31, no. 1 (Spr 2017): 8, ft: 20. Safinski (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Safinski

Here is a concise definition from the New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Catholic teaching of transubstantiation was criticized as inappropriately introducing philosophical categories into the understanding of Christ’s presence under the bread and wine and unbiblically denying that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, even while becoming Christ’s body and blood (Smalcald Articles, Pt. III, Art. 6). Non-Lutherans have labeled the Lutheran understanding consubstantiation, but Lutherans have resisted any such use of philosophical categories of substance." "Lutheranism." New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2010, edited by Robert L. Fastiggi, vol. 2, Gale, 2010, pp. 688. Safinski (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Safinski

Contradiction!

The opening of this article says that the theory of consubstantiation was "advocated by medieval nominalists such as Duns Scotus", citing Bengt Hagglund's "History of Theology" as a source. This conflicts with the article on Duns Scotus, which says, "Duns Scotus was a scholastic realist (as opposed to a nominalist)" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus#Metaphysics).
So there is that contradiction. But moreso I think the claim that Duns Scotus advocated the theory of consubstantiation should be disputed. W. J. Torrance Kirby (citing James F. McCue, in "The Doctrine of Transubstantiation", page 105) in his book "Richard Hooker and the English Reformation", argues on page 156 that "Duns Scotus stated that transubstantiation was the only orthodox position. Scotus argued in the interest of defending the authority of the post-apostolic church even though no inherent or necessary connection to the doctrine of the real presence could be found in Scripture or developed through reason." (See [1]|here.) So what are we to do? Who do we trust? I think we should trust James McCue and Kirby, because if we go with Hagglund we must retain a contradiction. We should at least post a "disputed - discuss" thingy on the sentence in question. 76.1.4.142 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Dmar198

The best way to handle this is to present all these point of views as the conclusion of the respective authors on the Duns Scotus page (within a section?), and then write the "blurb" here as conditional/disputed conclusion that mentions the references who are arguing for him supporting consubstantiation. Remember, we at WP do not do original research, but report on the main trains of thoughts in the literature. Hope this helps. Awolf002 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Burke

I recently said that consubstantiation is used by Burke and it was reverted. The citation shows that consubstantiation is what was being used. It isn't a problem of disambiguation as the rhetorical move of religious consubstantiation is exactly what Burke was talking about, just generalized to rhetoric as a whole and not limited to religious rhetoric. I'm going to revert the reversion because it is relevant to the topic and properly cited. Reversion of well documented information should be spoken about here first.

Saylors (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the cited page, and it refers to consubstantiality, which is a related but not identical concept. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but, from the citation: "I. Nature of Rhetoric (173) A. Identification 1. Identity or consubstantiation is the quality of sharing attributes. And The second sections establishes what factors determine individual perspectives and predispositions, while the third explains how identification/consubstantiation is not a physical togetherness but rather a togetherness of action.  :-)" Saylors (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there some way we can handle this without leaving fugitive traces in these other articles, then? It's obviously a different topic, and from what I can see Burke's theories are not well laid-out in Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid a sub-section called "secular usage" since the article is so small, I was just leaving the info in the intro. I'll do either (or some 3rd thing if someone thinks of it) Saylors (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Early examples section

The aforementioned Church Fathers believed in consubstantiation?

I feel that the exposed material is original research, since the fathers of the Church doubt that they have approved this doctrine.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I restored the section, pending further discussion. At least, the quotes are supported by references. If you disagree with the interpretation in the first paragraph you're welcome to propose changes or request a source to back it up.--Srleffler (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Srleffler, I have removed it again, because it relies on WP:PRIMARY sources. This is not good enough for a theological examination for which ample secondary reliable sources should be available. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Srleffler You didn't understand me, we need the reference of the person that says that according to him what the Chruch Fathers said it was consubstantiation, who is the person who says that what Church Fathers said was consubstantiation? Could you tell me? It's original research because an anonymous person said that what the Church Fathers said it was consubstantiation according him but I don't see in the Church Fathers sentences a consubstantiation. Again, could you tell me who said that what Church Fathers said was consubstantiation? I will wait for your answer.Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with User:Elizium23 that a secondary source is required for this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Luther and Zwingli

This article could do more to contrast the doctrine of transubstantiation with the doctrine of consubstantiation, noting how the Roman Catholic Church favoured the former and Martin Luther the latter. It could also refer to how the doctrine of consubstantiation contrasts with the position of Ulrich Zwingli, who said that when Jesus said at the Last Supper "This is my blood" and "This is my body", He was talking symbolically, so we should interpret the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist in a symbolic way. Rollo August (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)