Consubstantiation seems like an intimidating word. It refers to the idea that Jesus’ body and blood are present with (con in Latin) the bread and wine. The Lollards first proposed this doctrine in England, chief among them being John Wycliffe. Consubstantiation is a “both and,” the bread is both bread and Christ’s body simultaneously, and the wine is both wine and blood. This differs from the dominant view throughout the Medieval church of transubstantiation, where the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ in the spiritual realm, although they still look like bread and wine to our human eyes.
What Is the Historical Background of Consubstantiation?
Transubstantiation became Catholic dogma in 1215 when priests concluded that the eucharist elements (or communion) transformed into Christ’s physical body and blood in its internal essence.
The decision was informed by the philosophy of Aristotle, the predominant philosopher cited by the Medieval Catholic scholastics. His work discussed the ideas of substance and accidence. Substance is what something actually is, whereas accidence is what something appears to us to be. Building on this idea, the Catholic view holds that the substance of the bread and wine literally transforms into the body and blood of Christ. Meanwhile, the accidence remains the same. It still looks like bread and wine but has been transformed into the body and blood.
When this decision was made in 1215, it changed how communion was done in medieval Europe. Most lay people only drank the wine twice a year—at Christmas and Easter, to keep from spilling Christ’s blood unnecessarily. By John Wycliffe’s time, it had gotten to the point where most parishioners’ bread was withheld. The Eucharist became a spectator sport.
Protestant reformers like Wycliffe started with the critique that transubstantiation led to idolatry because people worshipped the communion elements rather than Christ himself. Many parishioners in Medieval Europe would travel to multiple services in a day to view Christ’s coming multiple times the same day.
According to Gordon Leff, Wycliffe believed “the transformation of the bread and wine was both natural and supernatural; they remained bread and wine but they also became sacramentally Christ’s body and blood-in Wycliffe’s words, ‘The body of Christ in the form of bread and wine’. Like Christ, it had a dual nature: in its earthly aspect as bread and wine, in its divine aspect as Christ’s body. It thereby came close to the later doctrine of consubstantiation.”
What is The Lutheran View of Consubstantiation?
Many people believe Luther developed the idea of consubstantiation.
However, Lutheran theologian Otto W. Heick notes,
“Luther and the Lutherans teach that the body of Christ is present in, sub (under), and cum (with) the sacramental bread. So, are we justified in calling the Reformer’s teaching consubstantiation? Kattenbusch says, ‘Luther never used the term consubstantiation.’ Neither does the Formula of Concord ever use the term. Kattenbusch raises the question whether the term was ever used by the scholastics. However, Kattenbusch adds that consubstantiation is the term that expresses Luther’s view most appropriately.”
The Lutheran document Formula of Concord Article VII has a section called “The Holy Supper of Christ” which details the orthodox Lutheran view on the communion elements:
“We believe, teach, and confess that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually, by faith, but also orally—however, not in a Capernaitic manner, but because of the sacramental union in a supernatural and heavenly manner. The words of Christ teach this clearly when they direct us to take, eat, and drink, all of which took place in the case of the apostles, since it is written ‘And they all drank of it’ (Mark 14:23). Likewise, St. Paul says, ‘The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?’ (1 Cor. 10:16)—that is, whoever eats this bread eats the body of Christ. This has also been the unanimous teaching of the leading Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine.”
Luther doesn’t discuss the mechanics of how the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood in depth. Instead, he simply said, “he is there.” Therefore, scholars have lumped Luther’s view into consubstantiation. In fact, Luther calls his view “Sacramental union,” meaning that the sacrament contains a union between the elements and Christ.
The Lutheran objection to their views being lumped in with consubstantiation comes from the word’s etymology. It means two substances side by side. They reject this definition in favor of “in, under, and with,” as mentioned above. Many Lutherans view consubstantiation as creating a third substance.
How Did Consubstantiation Change The Catholic View of Communion?
Luther’s similar but distinct view profoundly affected the Catholic Church. This started at the council of Trent, where it communicated that Communion should be taken by all congregants weekly.
“Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule” (Catechism of Trent pt. II, c. iv, n. 58).
The new statement marks a departure in the view of Communion that Reformers like Luther and Wycliffe put forth.
The fact that all Catholics could participate in the eucharist weekly made it an even more central part of their worship services.
What Other Views Of Communion Developed During The Reformation?
Two other major views showed up around the time of the Reformation. These were Calvin’s view (known as spiritual presence) and Ulrich Zwingli’s view (known as memorialism).
These two broke further from the Roman Catholic view of Communion than Luther or Wycliffe did.
In A Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper, Calvin compares the spiritual reality of Jesus’ baptism, and the Spirit descending on him like a dove to the spiritual reality of communion. Later in this book, he says:
“The bread is given to symbolize the body of Jesus Christ, with command that we eat it; and it is given us by God who is certain and immutable truth. If God cannot deceive or lie, it follows that he performs all that it signifies. We must then really receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion of both. For otherwise what would it mean that we eat the bread and drink the wine as a sign that his flesh is our food and his blood our drink, if he gave only bread and wine and left the spiritual reality behind? Would it not be under false colors that he had instituted this mystery? We have then to confess that if the representation which God grants in the Supper is veracious, the internal substance of the sacrament is joined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed by hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us, so that we are made partakers of it.”
This means that the elements of bread and wine take on spiritual significance, and their spiritual power comes from the fact that Jesus commanded that we take them in and that God uses them to remind us of his sacrifice to us, making us partakers in it.
Zwingli’s largest influence on modern evangelicalism came in his view of communion, known as memorialism. In this view, the bread and wine symbolized, rather than spiritually or materially changed into, Christ’s body and blood. The main focus of this view was Christ’s command, “Do this in remembrance of me,” rather than “This is my body” or “This is my blood.” In Zwingli’s view, the importance of the Lord’s supper was to remember Christ’s death on the cross rather than to receive any special grace from the sacrament itself. Like Calvin, he affirmed a spiritual presence with Calvin, but in his view, this came from “the contemplation of faith.” His ceremony is similar to communion practiced at most evangelical churches today: the altar of Rome is replaced with a table and tablecloth so that the Lord’s supper becomes about the meal rather than the elements themselves.
Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/IngridHS
Ben Reichert works with college students in New Zealand. He graduated from Iowa State in 2019 with degrees in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, and agronomy. He is passionate about church history, theology, and having people walk with Jesus. When not working or writing you can find him running or hiking in the beautiful New Zealand Bush.
This article is part of our Christian Terms catalog, exploring words and phrases of Christian theology and history. Here are some of our most popular articles covering Christian terms to help your journey of knowledge and faith:
The Full Armor of God
The Meaning of "Selah"
What Is Grace? Bible Definition and Christian Quotes
What is Discernment? Bible Meaning and Importance
What Is Prophecy? Bible Meaning and Examples
