Consubstantiation. A term by which Lutherans express their belief regarding the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. They claim that after consecration, the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are really present with the substance of the bread without it [1] being destroyed. This is what they call consubstantiation or impanation . [2] See Impanation (Lutheranism).

“ I believe ,” Luther said (de captivité babylonien, book 2), “ I believe, with Wycliffe, that the bread remains and I believe, with the Sophists” (this is what he called Catholic theologians) “ that the body of Jesus Christ dwells therein .” [3] He explained, Bossuet said, his doctrine in several ways, most of which are crude. Sometimes, he says that the body is with the bread, like fire is in a hot iron; sometimes, he adds to these expressions that the body is in the bread or under the bread, like wine is in and under a barrel. Hence these propositions so often used by the Lutherans, in , sub , cum , which mean that the body of Jesus Christ is in the bread, under the bread, and with the bread. But as Luther felt that these words, “this is my body,” meant something more, he explains them thus: this bread is my body substantially ; an incredible explanation as absurd as the first. Histoire des variations des églises protestantes volume I. l. II. n. 2. [4]

To explain his first comparison, he says that the real body and the real blood of Jesus Christ are in the bread and in the wine, as fire mixes in a hot iron with metal; so that like every part of red-hot iron is iron and fire, so every piece of bread and wine is together bread and wine, and the body and blood of Jesus Christ. He does not forget to say that he allows for both opinions regarding transubstantiation and consubstantiation , and that he only raises the objection of those who would not admit the first; and in another work, as he was reproached for the fact that he made the bread remain in the Eucharist, he confesses:

“But I do not condemn,” he said, “the other opinion; I only say that it is not an article of faith.” (A reply to a point, taken out of On the Babylonian Captivity , book 2, page 172). [5]

But soon he came to the point of openly denying transubstantiation. See Transubstantiation.

According to his own principles, Luther was mistaken in granting consubstantiation . This is what Zwingli and all the advocates of the figurative interpretation clearly demonstrated to him. They noticed that Jesus Christ did not say, “ my body is here ”, or “ my body is under this ”, or “ with this ”, or “ this contains my body ”; but simply “ this is my body .” Therefore, what he wants to give to the faithful is not a substance that contained his body, or that accompanied it, but his body without any other foreign substance. Nor did he say, “ this bread is my body ,” which is Luther’s other explanation; but he did say “ this is my body ” by an indefinite term, to show that the substance he offers is no longer bread, but his body; and when Luther explained, “ this is my body, this bread is truly my body and not merely figuratively ,” he unknowingly destroyed his own doctrine. For we can rightly say with the Catholic Church that bread becomes the body in the same sense that St. John said that water was made wine at the wedding of Cana in Galilee, that is to say, by changing one into the other. One can likewise say that what appears to be bread is in fact the body of our Lord; but that the real bread by remaining as such [6] was at the same time the real body of our Lord, as Luther maintained; those who defended the figurative interpretation supported him, as well as the Catholics, said that it was an argument that made no sense and concluded that he should confess along with them a simple moral change, or a change of substance to go along with those who Luther called Papists. [7] Histoire ecclésiastique : pour servir de continuation à celle de ... l'Abbé Fleury. Tome vingt-sixième, Depuis l'an 1521 jusqu'en 1528. [8]

Notes

1. That is, without the bread being destroyed despite having been changed into the body of Christ.

2. “Impanation” is an obscure word that means that Christ’s body and blood are actually in the host and the wine after consecration.

3. While this parenthetical note refers to a French edition of On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church , it is most likely taken from the following reference to Bossuet’s Histoire des variations des églises protestantes.

4. The reference provided through the hyperlink is to the 1734 edition. The original 1688 edition is available through the BNF.

5. The text in parenthesis is a comment in Latin that reads: “Repons. ad articul. extract. de captiv. Babylon. tom. II. fol. 172.”

6. That is, as real bread.

7. One gets the sense in this article that the convoluted syntax is intended to parallel and expose the convoluted and contradictory reasoning therein, implying that the entire doctrinal debate surrounding transubstantiation and consubstantiation was nonsensical. However, given that this article was written by Abbé Mallet, the line between excessive sincerity and subtle dissimulation is nearly impossible to draw.

8. Claude Fleury’s  Histoire Ecclésiastique ended with the year 1414; Jean Claude Fabre and Claude Pierre Goujet continued Fleury’s work. This reference is to the volume covering 1521-1528; specifically to the year 1526.