[flaglady47]

The Catholic belief in transubstantiation is based on the fact that our Lord said: "This is my body," rather than "Here is my body."

Thanks. That helps clear it up a bit; however, it still seems a bit of hairsplitting, as both definitions seem to say that the body and blood of Christ is within the wafer and wine. Am I interpreting this right, that with trans it is actual body and blood even though looking like wafer and wine, whereas with con it is body and blood somehow mixed in with still actual bread and wine?

[Petrosius]

It is not mere hair splitting. Despite the claim of sola scriptura of relying only on the plain words of scripture, the theory of consubstantiation arose from a lack of faith in the simple words of our Lord. It was an attempt to rationalize what seemed contradictory to human reason. It was also a denial of the teaching authority of the Church. It might have been a valid concept before the Church defined it, but transubstantiation was taught (though not by name) by the early Fathers and declared doctrine 300 years before Martin Luther. One of the results of the theory of consubstantiation was doubt concerning the abiding or continuing presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the reserved Sacrament. I believe that some Lutherans would say "yes" and others "no".