Substance of the Eucharist

[Verbum_Caro]

Pro,

I said “constubstanTIAL” not consubstantiation. The “substantia” that was used at Nicea (and before) in “consubstantial” is around 800 years earlier than the “substantia” as used in “transubstantiation”.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

Pro,

I said “constubstanTIAL” not consubstantiation.

Precisely my original point. An introduction of an element of confusion into the Mass.

 

[surritter]

I really don’t think most Catholics are going to hear “consubstantial” in the creed and get confused about the theology of the Eucharist (a la the Lutherans).

Besides, we’re getting hung up on the prefixes (con and trans). The dilemma is about the root word “substance.” I maintain that there is only one substance of God, so the substance of the Eucharist is the same substance as the Father. However, we can say that the Eucharist is the Person of Jesus, and not that of the Father.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

surritter,

I wasn’t getting hung up on prefixes, I hope that is clear from the above posts. I was pointing out that the way substance is being used in the Creed and in the teaching on transubstantiation are two different things. In point of fact, they are separated by 800 years.

“Substance” has many, many shades of meaning, even in our day – imagine the differences 1100 to 350 A.D. And, again, the context changes the meaning.

VC

 

[surritter]

Thanks – I see that your focus was not really the prefixes but the use of “substance.”
In simple form, perhaps we can all agree that “substance” is “what the thing IS.” (Recall the official Church documents that say the church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church. That is just a verb form of “substance” but it is simply a careful way of saying “is.”)

So I don’t think a period of 800 years is an issue, and shouldn’t affect what is being said: in the Creed we profess that Jesus IS the same God as the Father (and of course the Spirit) and regarding the Eucharist we say the the accidents of bread and wine ARE Jesus, and thus the same “ISness” as the Father.

The caveat is that while the Eucharist is the same substance as the Father, it is not manifested in the same Person as the Father. This is where the mystery of the Trinity bogs down our minds. But the “substance” issue should not bog us down – The Father and the Son are one substance.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So I don’t think a period of 800 years is an issue, and shouldn’t affect what is being said: in the Creed we profess that Jesus IS the same God as the Father (and of course the Spirit) and regarding the Eucharist we say the the accidents of bread and wine ARE Jesus, and thus the same “ISness” as the Father.

The caveat is that while the Eucharist is the same substance as the Father, it is not manifested in the same Person as the Father. This is where the mystery of the Trinity bogs down our minds. But the “substance” issue should not bog us down – The Father and the Son are one substance.

Yes, but I think one should be a bit cautious here. It is one thing, I think, to to say that we receive Christ in Holy Communion and Christ is one with the Father. It is another thing, I think, to try to draw an equivalency between the “substance” of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist and the “substance” of the Father in the phrase “consubstantial with the Father”.

As I see it, in your original post you said that the Eucharist is “the substance of Christ”, and the theory seems to be (I may be wrong, though, please correct me!) that Eucharist = Substance of Christ; Substance of Christ = Substance of the Father; therefore (by some principle of equality?) the Eucharist = Substance of the Father. The difficulty for me is what you mean by the Eucharist “is the substance of Christ”. Because when we are speaking about substance in the context of transubstantiation we are speaking about the substance of bread (or wine) converting only into the substance of the Body (or Blood) of Christ. So, in this sense, the substance of Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist. But you can’t be equating the substance of Christ’s body with the substance of the Father (in the sense substance is used in “consubstantial” in the Creed) since the Father doesn’t have a Body.

So, perhaps when you say the Eucharist is “the substance of Christ” you mean substance in the sense we would say that you are a substance. But in that case you are talking about you as a person, or Christ as a person. But in that case, you can’t equate the Eucharist “substance” with the Father because the person of Christ is not the Father.

The “substance” that is spoken of in the Creed" seems to me to be something different than what we have in mind when we talk about “substance” or “substantial” in the teaching on the Eucharist. That is why I would hesitate to set up some sort of equivalency beyond saying that Christ is in the Eucharist and Christ is God.

Do you see what I am getting at? I am speculating here, and so welcome correction and clarification of my thoughts.

VC

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Imagine how mathematics would be changed if each country had its own symbols, music if notations were different, or science if its constants were assigned different values. Yet theology, perhaps the most important part of a Catholic’s life, is as loose as it gets.\

**As a matter of fact, there are several different forms of musical notation that co-exist.

\Theologians always say that words are important. But here we can’t even have the theologians agree on what “substance” means? And the theologians use “substance” in these two important professions of our faith, yet they are really different words?\

The same word can have different meaning in different contexts in any language.

The meaning of “substance” in the two words “transsubstiation” and “consubstantial” are different, but related–not opposed, but still not the same.**

 

[surritter]

Yes, but I think one should be a bit cautious here. It is one thing, I think, to to say that we receive Christ in Holy Communion and Christ is one with the Father. It is another thing, I think, to try to draw an equivalency between the “substance” of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist and the “substance” of the Father in the phrase “consubstantial with the Father”.

As I see it, in your original post you said that the Eucharist is “the substance of Christ”, and the theory seems to be (I may be wrong, though, please correct me!) that Eucharist = Substance of Christ; Substance of Christ = Substance of the Father; therefore (by some principle of equality?) the Eucharist = Substance of the Father. The difficulty for me is what you mean by the Eucharist “is the substance of Christ”. Because when we are speaking about substance in the context of transubstantiation we are speaking about the substance of bread (or wine) converting only into the substance of the Body (or Blood) of Christ. So, in this sense, the substance of Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist. But you can’t be equating the substance of Christ’s body with the substance of the Father (in the sense substance is used in “consubstantial” in the Creed) since the Father doesn’t have a Body.

So, perhaps when you say the Eucharist is “the substance of Christ” you mean substance in the sense we would say that you are a substance. But in that case you are talking about you as a person, or Christ as a person. But in that case, you can’t equate the Eucharist “substance” with the Father because the person of Christ is not the Father.

The “substance” that is spoken of in the Creed" seems to me to be something different than what we have in mind when we talk about “substance” or “substantial” in the teaching on the Eucharist. That is why I would hesitate to set up some sort of equivalency beyond saying that Christ is in the Eucharist and Christ is God.

Do you see what I am getting at? I am speculating here, and so welcome correction and clarification of my thoughts.

VC

Yes, the syllogism that you recap was the main thrust of my original question. And now I get what you’re saying. The substance of the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. But even when Jesus walked this Earth, would we really have pointed to Him and said, “there is the Father”? I don’t think so – even though they are “one.”

So basically the distinction that answers my original question is this: the substance of body and blood can be a separate discussion from the substance of the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So basically the distinction that answers my original question is this: the substance of body and blood can be a separate discussion from the substance of the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Yes, exactly. And part of the reason for this is, as I (and Bishop Basil) have been saying above, is that “substance” means different things in the Creed and in the teaching regarding the Eucharist.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

As a matter of fact, there are several different forms of musical notation that co-exist.

Sure, if you want to transcribe all of Bach’s music to something else, be my guest and good luck trying to get someone to play it. But more to the point, why give yourself so much work when the risk to error is high?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Sure, if you want to transcribe all of Bach’s music to something else, be my guest and good luck trying to get someone to play it. But more to the point, why give yourself so much work when the risk to error is high?

As a matter of fact, J. S. Bach himself used several systems of notation, including tabulature (which is staffless) for some of his organ works.

They were later transcribed into staff notation.

Did you know that?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Precisely my original point. An introduction of an element of confusion into the Mass.

ProVobis, why do you find “consubstantial”–the Latin word used in the Creed–to be confusing in the Mass?

Transliterating it and borrowing it into English is MUCH more accurate than the horrible paraphrase “one in being”–which is NOT what “consubstantial” means.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Actually in the TLM, the latin is: Genitum, not factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt.
Therefore, that is a more accurate translation

In light of the new translations that are coming to the USA this year, an interesting thought came to me. One change in the Nicene Creed will be that we say “consubstantial with the Father…” instead of "one in being with the Father…

Think about that: Jesus is the same substance as the Father. Now let’s examine our beliefs about the Eucharist. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine actually change substance to become Jesus.

Now put those two paragraphs together. Since the Eucharist is the substance of Jesus, and Jesus is the same substance as the Father, couldn’t it be said that Holy Communion is actually the substance of the Father (in addition to the Son)?

Of course, the Trinity cannot be separated, so wherever Jesus is, the Father and Spirt are too. But it sounds strange to say that the Eucharist is the Father, doesn’t it?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

surriter,

I thought you might be interested in this: a beautiful image of a golden chain linking the Trinity to the Incarnation to the Eucharist.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The organic connection of this mysterious triad (the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Eucharist – VC) is clearly discerned, if we consider Divine grace under the aspect of a personal communication of God. Thus in the bosom of the Blessed Trinity, God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, communicates His Divine Nature to God the Son (. . . ) while the Son of God, by virtue of the hypostatic union, communicates in turn the Divine Nature received from His Father to His human nature formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary (John, i, 14), in order that thus as God-man, hidden under the Eucharistic Species, He might deliver Himself to His Church, who, as a tender mother, mystically cares for and nurtures in her own bosom this, her greatest treasure, and daily places it before her children as the spiritual food of their souls. Thus the Trinity, Incarnation, and Eucharist are really welded together like a precious chain, which in a wonderful manner links heaven with earth, God with man, uniting them most intimately and keeping them thus united. (Pohle, J. (1909). Eucharist)

Here is Fr. Hardon focusing on the humanity of Christ as the lynchpin:

(O)nce God made that decision, that the world would be redeemed by the humanity assumed by the Son of God, that humanity remains for all time the source of all grace to mankind and in eternity, the source of all heavenly glory.This is the mediatorial channel through which all the treasures of heaven come to the human race. That human being is the indispensable link between God and sinful man. Consequently, whether it is the Real Presence whom we come to receive, in all cases it is the human Jesus who is our God, who **through His humanity channels to us the treasures of His divinity. ** So when we who are so pathetically human come to Him, who is so gloriously human, it is a human heart speaking to a Human Heart; It is a human mind thinking about a Human Mind and, in ways that we cannot conceive, that Human Mind and Human Will radiates to us the wisdom and the strength we need even to be saved and surely to be sanctified.(Hardon, “The Real Presence and Sanctity”)

Transubstantiation makes present the substance of Christ’s Body (or Blood) primarily, but from there the fullness of Christ follows.

VC

 

[bpbasilphx]

I was able to unearth my copy of THE MARIAN MISSAL, ed. by Fr. Jurgens.

On the English side, for the Nicene Creed, it says “consubstantial”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Interesting discussion of consubstantial at Fr. Z’s blog “What Does the Prayer Really Say”.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/02/consubstantial-who-do-people-really-say-that-he-is/#comments

VC

 

[peary]

In light of the new translations that are coming to the USA this year, an interesting thought came to me. One change in the Nicene Creed will be that we say “consubstantial with the Father…” instead of "one in being with the Father…

Think about that: Jesus is the same substance as the Father. Now let’s examine our beliefs about the Eucharist. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine actually change substance to become Jesus.

Now put those two paragraphs together. Since the Eucharist is the substance of Jesus, and Jesus is the same substance as the Father, couldn’t it be said that Holy Communion is actually the substance of the Father (in addition to the Son)?

Of course, the Trinity cannot be separated, so wherever Jesus is, the Father and Spirt are too. But it sounds strange to say that the Eucharist is the Father, doesn’t it?

In the Bible, Christ never attributed the Father as being the Eucharist. The Church has never taught that the Eucharist is the Father. But it IS profoundly related to the Trinity because Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[surritter]

In the Bible, Christ never attributed the Father as being the Eucharist. The Church has never taught that the Eucharist is the Father. But it IS profoundly related to the Trinity because Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity.

Right, but as stated in the OP both the doctrine of the Eucharist and the teaching on the Trinity use the term “substance.” And since I agree with your post, the question was “how can there be two ‘substances’ in a discussion about God?”

But I think it was answered earlier in this thread: The substance of body and blood can be a separate discussion from the substance of the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s not that there are competing substances, but that the same word is used for different theological ideas.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!