Substance of the Eucharist

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?

[quote="surritter, post:1, topic:185796"]
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?

[/quote]

hmmm. Same could be said about Mary, the Mother of God, couldn't it? Since the Father is God too, is Mary the Mother of God the Father as well? Don't think so. But I'm not a theologian.

Uh -- no. I don't recall any Catholic teaching that says Mary is the same substance as Jesus! Don't you agree that being "the mother of" is different than being "the same as"?

Ok, funny guy. :slight_smile:

Seriously, I don’t have divine knowledge but: One God, Three Persons. God the Son had two natures. God the Father would have had to have a second nature to be Transubstantiated, no?

\One change in the Nicene Creed will be that we say “consubstantial with the Father…” instead of "one in being with the Father…\

**This is not a change, but a more accurate translation, as the Latin text has the word “consubstantialem”. It could just as well say “of the same essence as the Father”, reflecting the Greek text “homoousios”.

Remember, the English text is not definitive. The Latn and Greek texts are.**

“Consubstantial with the Father” means that Jesus possesses the same one divine nature possessed by the Father, which is the same as saying “one in being with the Father.”

Jesus has two natures–human and divine. In receiving the Eucharist we receive the entirety of Jesus, his body and blood, his humanity and divinity in one person. So yes, in receiving the Eucharist we receive both his humanity and his divinity. But remember that the Father, although of one substance with Jesus, is a distinct divine Person.

The Father was consubstantial with Jesus during His earthly mission. In as much as we can say that the substance of the Man God Jesus is the Father we can say the Eucharist is the Father. :twocents:

[quote="Benadam, post:7, topic:185796"]
The Father was consubstantial with Jesus during His earthly mission. In as much as we can say that the substance of the Man God Jesus is the Father we can say the Eucharist is the Father. :twocents:

[/quote]

It's true that in receiving any sacrament, including the Eucharist, we receive the indwelling of the Holy Trinity. Since all are consubstantial--of one substance, they cannot be separated. But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE distinct Persons. In receiving the Eucharist we receive the Person of Jesus, both in his humanity and in his divinity.

[quote="JimG, post:8, topic:185796"]
It's true that in receiving any sacrament, including the Eucharist, we receive the indwelling of the Holy Trinity. Since all are consubstantial--of one substance, they cannot be separated. But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE distinct Persons. In receiving the Eucharist we receive the Person of Jesus, both in his humanity and in his divinity.

[/quote]

Jim, when I wrote my previous post I had what you've written here in mind. I wanted to express the distinction of persons. When Jesus walked the earth and the second divine person was visible we wouldn't say " there goes the Father and Jesus" When I reread my post I see that it can also be read as an agreement that the Eucharist is the Father.

Mystery of mysteries when we try to discuss absolute simplicity that is also a distinguished three.:D

Thanks, all. So I guess it could be said that when we receive the Eucharist, we do receive the substance of the Father (and the Son and the Holy Spirit), but in the Person of Jesus.

[quote="bpbasilphx, post:5, topic:185796"]
*This is not a change, but a more accurate translation, as the Latin text has the word "consubstantialem". It could just as well say "of the same essence as the Father", reflecting the Greek text "homoousios".
*

[/quote]

I too had a problem with this translation/paraphrase. Let's just hope the "consubstantial with the Father" verbiage doesn't lead to a Consubstantiation mindset.

[quote="surritter, post:1, topic:185796"]
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?

[/quote]

Well, yes, because if the Father is subject of the Eucharistic sacrifice, then he too suffered and died. This would be the heresy of patripassianism.

But then you’re saying that the substance of the Eucharist is not the substance of the Father, which makes the notion of consubstantial untrue. So I like the previous post which mentioned the Person as a separate noun as substance.

I’m going to chalk it all up to being a part of the “mystery” of the Trinity…

[quote="ProVobis, post:11, topic:185796"]
I too had a problem with this translation/paraphrase. Let's just hope the "consubstantial with the Father" verbiage doesn't lead to a Consubstantiation mindset.

[/quote]

**It hasn't for over 1600 years. Why should it now?

In fact, homoousios/consubstantialem was the key word that the Arian heresy was revolving around, and it was this term that the Nicene Council took as definitive.

I also think that "substance" has a different meaning in Trinitarian theology and Christology from its meaning when discussing the Eucharist, no matter how similar these meanings are.**

Apply this to the Eucharist and the lack of reverence that it is recieved by so many today.

3 He afflicted thee with want, and gave thee manna for thy food, which neither thou nor thy fathers knew: to shew that not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God

Apply this to the Church.

*4 Thy raiment, with which thou wast covered, hath not decayed for age, and thy foot is not worn, lo this is the fortieth year, 5 That thou mayst consider in thy heart, that as a man traineth up his son, so the Lord thy God hath trained thee up. *

Apply this to the Eucharist recieved by those who live the Mass.

*6 That thou shouldst keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways, and fear him. 7 For the Lord thy God will bring thee into a good land, of brooks and of waters, and of fountains: in the plains of which and the hills deep rivers break out: 8 A land of wheat, and barley, and vineyards, wherein fig trees and pomegranates, and oliveyards grow: a land of oil and honey. 9 Where without any want thou shalt eat thy bread, and enjoy abundance of all things: where the stones are iron, and out of its hills are dug mines of brass: 10 That when thou hast eaten, and art full, thou mayst bless the Lord thy God for the excellent land which he hath given thee. *

The Holy Spirit in our lives removes the obstacles that prevent the grace that Jesus offers through the Eucharist. The Eucharist is not the Holy Spirit.

22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son.

A distinction of God the Father that does not operate through the Eucharist because the Eucharist is Jesus and not His Father.

Would you agree that about 85% of Catholics, when they first hear "consubstantial with the Father", will go: "Huh?"

And then you have the obvious confusion between consubstantial and transubstantiation, and ideas running through peoples' minds bordering on heresy (patri something or other). This should be interesting.

It hasn’t for over 1600 years. Why should it now?

Because it’s becoming apparent that there are a lot more looser and looser translations than in the past? Not to mention the English language is changing, adding more idioms, adding more local slang, confusing with acronymns, tolerating poor and inconsistent grammar, lacking word emphasis, and just plain too hard to learn for foreigners.

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.

And then you have the obvious confusion between consubstantial and transubstantiation, and ideas running through peoples’ minds bordering on heresy (patri something or other).

:thumbsup: And I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

[quote="chaunceygardner, post:16, topic:185796"]
And then you have the obvious confusion between consubstantial and transubstantiation, and ideas running through peoples' minds bordering on heresy (patri something or other). This should be interesting.

[/quote]

OK -- this gets at the heart of the original question. Both consubstantial and transubstantiation have "substance" as the root word. But are we saying that those two uses of "substance" are not the same?

I think Basil mentioned this same question.

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? :shrug:

I think that is the right track to take.

I’m not sure that would be the best way to look at, surritter. The “substantia” that is being used in “consubstantial” and the “substantia” being used in “transubstantiation” are separated by around 800 years!

Add to this that “substance” has different shades of meaning. That word means different things depending on what context it is being used. Aristotle for instance distinguishes between primary and secondary substances.

VC

[quote="Verbum_Caro, post:19, topic:185796"]
The "substantia" that is being used in "consubstantial" and the "substantia" being used in "transubstantiation" are separated by around 800 years!

[/quote]

Transubstantiation: the belief of the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ after consecration, with the bread and wine remaining only as accidents.

Consubstantiation: the belief of the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ while preserving all the attributes of bread and wine. (Lutherans believe this.)

The difference is not semantical; the two are significantly different theologically and the latter is heresy. That the victim once sacrificed does not remain as it was before the sacrifice is the only way I know of explaining it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.