Luther and Reformation Question re:Transubstantiation

The doctrine of transubstantiation became a contentious issue during the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther believed that during the Eucharist, Christ is actually present. Wine and bread are offered as sacrifices and placed on the altar. The celebrant prays a prayer of gratitude. The institution's history is read aloud. One calls upon the Holy Spirit. The Holy Gifts are given out, and each communicant hears the powerful words of the gospel: "the Body of Christ," "the Blood of Christ." The Council of Trent appropriated Aquinas' analysis of substance and accidents in the eucharistic conversion in its Decree on the Holy Eucharist. The Council ruled that Christ truly offers his Body and Blood under the guise (species) of bread and wine. How did this doctrine change?

Now it cannot be that it is the actual body of Christ which is broken. First, it is outside all change and we can do nothing to it. Second, it is present in all its completeness under every part of the quantity, as we saw above, and that runs counter to the whole idea of being broken into parts. It remains then that the fraction takes place in the dimensive quantity of the bread, where all the other accidents also find their subject. … Whatever is eaten as under its natural form, is broken and chewed as under its natural form. But the body of Christ is not eaten as under its natural form, but as under the sacramental species. For this reason Augustine, commenting on the text of John, the flesh availeth nothing, says, understand this as spoken of the flesh in the way some people understand Christ carnally. They thought of eating his flesh as if it had been treated like butcher’s meat. The body of Christ in itself is not broken, but only in its sacramental appearance. And this is the sense in which we should understand Berengarius’s profession of faith; the fraction and the chewing with the teeth refer to the sacramental species, underneath which the body of Christ is really present. (Aquinas' ST 3a.77.8 [Blackfriars ed.])

The main idea of the passage is apparent: the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ are present in such a way that the spatial, dimensional, and visible properties of the bread and wine cannot be attributed to them. The purpose of Aquinas' division of accidents from substance is illustrated by the fact that while the accidents of the bread and wine remain, their substance is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood, which can only be understood intellectually. Christ may be found where the accidents are, where they now denote his presence; he is contained beneath them in a manner similar to how substance is joined to accidents; however, he is not the accident's subject.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Christian ... is this a request for a resource? Or something about the app?

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265795#Comment_1265795

Christian ... is this a request for a resource? Or something about the app?

Resource request.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265796#Comment_1265796

About what?

MJ. Smith

Sorry but this is simply a theological post that is not permitted on the forums. I can't quickly find the ecumenical working documents on the topic but Catholics, Lutherans and the Eucharist: There's a lot to share | America Magazine gives a quick, non-technical description of how close Lutherans and Catholics are on the topic. You might also check out Declaration on the Way - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (elca.org) for a list of common beliefs. But please be careful, it is one thing for the forums to stretch the rules a bit with regards to your requests for help. It is quite another to stretch the rules to allow you to post theological posting that anyone else would be called out on or have deleted.

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265796#Comment_1265796

Resource request.

My friend, you don't ask for a resource; you present a lengthy theological position and ask others for proof: "How did this doctrine change?" I empathize with your curiosity and hunger to understand, but you most often use the forums as a theological sounding board. I have extremely strong views, but these forums are not the place to discuss them. Frankly, the theological spectrum on the forums is so broadly unwieldy that it would be impossible to gain anything from a general discussion.

If you don't know, Reddit has a number of forums (called "communities") that exist purely for the purpose of the kinds of discussions you wish to have. Please restrict your Logos posts to:

1) How do I use this feature?

2) How do I solve this problem?

3) I am interested in [topic]. I have these resources. What other [preferred theological view/tradition] resources would help?

(On this third point, if I knew, for instance, that you wanted Reformed or Baptist resources on the atonement, I could suggest some. If you want EO or RCC resources on the canon, others can offer suggestions.)

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265796#Comment_1265796

Official things in the Lutheran Confessions would include, off the top of my head,

Augsburg Confession X (or Part 1, Article x in Logos tagging) and the parallel in the Apology X, as well as XXIV (Part 2, Article XXIV) and AP XXIV.

Small Catechism Art. VI

Large Catechism Part V

Smalcald Articles Part 2, Article 2 and Part 3, Article 6

Formula of Concord (both Epitome and Solid Declaration) VII

All of these are in the standard English edition of Kolb and Wengert.

Some important Lutheran treatments on the Eucharist include:

The Annotated Luther, Vol. 3

Chemnitz, The Lord's Supper - part of a quite expensive collection...

Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II

Sasse, This is my Body

An interesting treatment from the Roman Catholic side:

Salkeld, Transubstantiation

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265848#Comment_1265848

If you do a search in your library for consubstantiation transubstantiation you might find a number of resources that show the history of both - there are resources on the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation predating Luther if that is of interest, how Luther's thoughts evolved, and the differences in the two doctrines.

For example just looking at the first resources that popped up in my search, "A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist Vol II" cites history on both sides. "Bread from Heaven: An Introduction to the Theology of the Eucharist" goes into a lot of depth. The first entry I saw was Aquinas, who predated Luther by several hundred years, in his discussion of Transubstantiation and refutation of consubstantiation. "The Doctrine of the Real Presence, as Contained in the Fathers" also goes into great depth on early discussions/teaching on these 2 topics.

Depending on your library there are numerous other books on these topics as well. You can cut down the list of books by searching on History of consubstantiation transubstantiation, or Aquinas consubstantiation transubstantiation, or Luther consubstantiation transubstantiation, or Reformed consubstantiation transubstantiation, or Catholic consubstantiation transubstantiation etc. etc.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265892#Comment_1265892

If you do a search in your library for consubstantiation transubstantiation you might find a number of resources that show the history of both - there are resources on the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation predating Luther if that is of interest, how Luther's thoughts evolved, and the differences in the two doctrines.

Yes. But there should be a caveat: when looking up consubstantiation in Lutheran works one may not find an entry - or just an editorial comment that Luther/Lutherans refused his view to be called such. "Real Presence" might go much further in digging up resources that treat the Eucharist from a Lutheran point of view.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1265906#Comment_1265906

Thanks everyone.