Consubstantiation vs Transubstantiation

I think this was brought up in class the other day, but I thought I might as well write a blog post that clarifies the difference between the concept of consubstantiation and the concept of transubstantiation.  Both deal with the interpretation of Holy Communion, which was actually a source of conflict in the Protestant Reformation.  The difficulty arose because the Catholic Church held, and still holds, with the idea of transubstantiation- which essentially means that they believe the bread and wine of communion literally transforms into the body and blood of Christ while Martin Luther and his Protestant followers believed more in the concept of consubstatiation.  In contrast to transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are literally changed, consubstantiation holds with the idea that the bread and wine are more symbolic representations of the body and blood of Christ.  While this seems to be an almost trivial and unimportant distinction, it defines a line in doctrine between two separate sects of Christianity.  However, since both the Catholics and Protestants obviously still both consider Communion holy, this argument seems a bit like a technicality to me.  But then, I'm not a theologian in any way, shape, or form.



Interesting interpretation of the idea that the bread and wine literally transform themselves into the actual body and blood of Jesus.