Theological difference between substance and subsistence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rich_dinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rich_dinda

Guest
I’m translating an early 17th century examination of the Augsburg Confession by Calov and have run into a very philosophical discussion of the two natures in the Christ. There apparently is a significant distinction between subsistence (subsistentia) and substance (substantia). Anyone have any ideas. thanks, and peace, Rich
 
The substance of Christ is formally distinct from the subsistence; in that - insofar as they are distinct by forms in reality; even though they are not distinct causally (ie; share a real unity).
 
rich_dinda said:
I’m translating an early 17th century examination of the Augsburg Confession by Calov and have run into a very philosophical discussion of the two natures in the Christ. There apparently is a significant distinction between subsistence (subsistentia) and substance (substantia). Anyone have any ideas. thanks, and peace, Rich
Click to expand...
Welcome, Rich.

It has been a while, but, one has to do with Christ’s nature, vis a vis, that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, while the other exigency can be in other places, such as the Eucharist. I believe that substantia sits at God’s right hand, and, subsistentia exists elsewhere. His subsistentia places the entirety of Christ in the Eucharist, while still seated at the right hand of God.

IOW, Christ’s substance can exist, through its subsistence, away, from Him. It is the root concept in transubstantiation. It is how He can be in two “places,” and under two separate identities simultaneously.

Please help me out with this if anyone can. . . . John?

God bless,
jd
 
OK, I think I have it: Since God is Infinite and Timeless, He subsists everywhere. But, as a substance, He is defined as seated at God’s right hand. That definition, would limit Him from going into the Eucharist - as substance would a material thing. So, it’s really a confluence of words used to describe both essence and activity. Similarly, we can know an object, objectum, as the actual object, outside of our bodies, or we can know it in our faculties (in a way), as that which strikes our senses in any way whatsoever.

I hope (and pray) that I am not in error! 😦

God bless,
jd
 
Please help me out with this if anyone can. . . . John?
Click to expand...
God Subsists everywhere; when the Eucharist is transubstantiated; the substance of Christ is what is inhered within the form; and not the substance of Bread+Wine.

The Bread and Wine only remain as accidents of form; the substance becomes that of Christ.

Whilst God (thus Christ) subsists everywhere; he does not substantiate in everything; ie; he is with everything but he is not everything substantially. This is how substance and subsistence are formally distinct; they don’t exist apart from one another causally; because at all times both the substance of God and the subsistence of God exist and are really (or causally) identical; ie; they share a real unity. However; there still exist objects which are not substantially God; and thus the operation of the subsistence and substance of God is formally distinct; in terms of how the form of substantiation occurs within objects not being universal; as aversed to the universality of God’s subsistence - the differentia of inherance is that which makes both subsistance and substance distinct in form.

As a note; formal distinctions do not alter or in any way impugn the divine simplicity of God; as God has a real unity; but certain elements; such as Divine will & Divine intellect are formally distinct; just as Subsistence and Substance are formally distinct.
 
rich_dinda said:
I’m translating an early 17th century examination of the Augsburg Confession by Calov and have run into a very philosophical discussion of the two natures in the Christ. There apparently is a significant distinction between subsistence (subsistentia) and substance (substantia). Anyone have any ideas. thanks, and peace, Rich
Click to expand...
Breaking the words down into sub (under) + stantis (past participle of stare, to stand) and sub (under) + sistere (to stand, to be, to become) doesn’t provide much clue of a clue as to the true English definitions of the two words.

One, therefore, has to make a comparison with the other terms using the root, sistere, to get a true feel for subsistence.

con (with) sist - to be made up of
in (into) sist - to demand
e (out of) xist - to be real
re (back, against) sist - to oppose
as (toward, strongly) sist - to aid
per (through) sist - to continue firmly
de (remove from) sist - to stop; to cease
sub (under) sist - to ?_

Given the above comparisons, the question then becomes what can be the best English definition of subsistence as opposed to substance. Living vs position would be my guess.
 
My understanding of the difference between substance and subsistence is:
  • substance: an act of existence (being), with a certain essence (the definition of the thing, the quiddity or “what-ness”), and nature (having acts appropriate to the kind of thing that it is – it is the “nature” of a rabbit to be a herbivore)
  • subsistence: a being whose act of existence does not inhere in another being; for example, an accident like the color red does not subsist even though it exists; something that subsists is not a quality or aspect of something else
In the case of Christ, there are two natures or substances: human and Divine. Each substance is it’s own nature (or, has it’s own nature in the case of the human substance), with their proper acts – acts proper to humanity and acts proper to the Divine substance. I believe this is the definition of what we call the “hypostatic union”, the one hypostasis is the Son, uniting two natures.

What subsists for Christ is the Second Person of the Divine Trinity: the Son. The Son subsists, and provides unity and is the basis of who we call Jesus Christ. So in this case, there are two substances/natures and one subsisting Being, the Son of God. There isn’t a separately subsisting human person and separately subsisting Divine Person in Christ – just one subsistence. For the rest of humanity, the one subsistence for the one human substance is the human soul.

In the matter of transubstantiation, prior to consecration, there are two separate substances: bread and wine respectively, subsisting in their own physical natures. After consecration, there is only one subsistent Being: the Son of God. The Son is present body, blood, soul and Divinity. Body, blood, soul are aspects of the human substance, while Divinity is obviously the Divine substance. The non-subsistent accidents (I believe from the Latin accidere meaning to be a non-essential occurrence or characteristic) make the Lord appear to us to be bread and wine, but the substance(s) are the Lord’s human and Divine nature. It’s the Divine nature that allows the Lord to subsist in many places at one time.

I hope I haven’t said anything heretical.
 
Substances subsist, in and of themselves, and accidents substand within a substance.

Take as an example, a metal ball. Its substance is metal. Its accidents are its roundness. Pound it into a flat sheet. It is still the substance metal but its accidents have changed.
 
Substance (Lat. substantia, that which is underneath, a quasi-substratum) In the scholastic language it is defined:that which of its nature can exist in itself and does not require a subject of inhesion in order to exist. It is opposed to accident, which can not naturally exist unless in a subject that sustains it, like the color on a wall. Substance, thus understood, and accident are the supreme categories or predicaments that divide real being: everything that exists is either substance or accident. It is necessary to distinguish created substance, which is that defined above, from the uncreated substance (God), which exists not only in se (in itself) and per se (by itself) but also a se (from it itself, as it were, not from another)

Subsistence: 1; the existence proper to a whole and uncommunicated substance, 2:the formal perfection whereby a nature is completed and is uncommunicated to another. 3: the existence of the being who exists essentially or by identity with His essence ; the being who is completely self-sufficient for existence and action (taken from the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology) This is a lot to remember , hope this helps. All are good answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top