Following are some excerpts from the Nicene Creed: > I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father... > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. > >(*Source*: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Here, the Creed speaks of God the Son as consubstantial with the Father. But when it comes to describing the Holy Spirit, it does not use the attribute 'consubstantial'. What is the explanation for the same? Inputs are welcome from any denomination that has adopted the Nicene Creed.

Lutherans believe in a real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, similar to Catholics. However they also believe that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine even after consecration. Does this belief that the bread is still bread (despite also being God) prevent Lutherans from engaging in eucharistic adoration/worship out of fear of idolatry? If not, can you please provide some examples of situations in which Lutherans engage in such adoration? Does it happen during the liturgy? Does it happen outside the liturgy?

I was studying various views on the Eucharist, and I found the view of Consubstantiation very interesting. I would like to know what arguments are used to defend this position. -------------------------------------- **Consubstantiation** >Consubstantiation is a Christian theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) describes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It holds that during the sacrament, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. It was part of the doctrines of Lollardy, {1} and considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. It was later championed by Edward Pusey of the Oxford Movement, and is therefore held by many high church Anglicans. The Irvingian Churches (such as the New Apostolic Church) adhere to consubstantiation as the explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Wikipedia - Consubstantiation

Is consubstantiality and homoousis the same thing? Or are they different concepts?

Dr. Steven Nemes writes in the article *The revelation which God gave Jesus *, after quoting the opening line of Revelation > The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his > servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending > his angel to his servant John. > > Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις > αὐτοῦ, ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ > ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ. that > **One of the arguments that non-trinitarians often make in favor of > their position is that God and Jesus are clearly distinguished in the > Bible from one another—not only as Father and Son, but also as God and > Christ.** Because they are clearly distinguished, they cannot be > consubstantial as the catholic tradition says. One can see the same > thing happening in this opening verse. As Nemes continues > There is a long chain of mediation taking place here. **God gives > something to Jesus, who then gives it to an angel**, who then gives it > to John, who then writes it down. There are consequently four actors > involved here, namely God, Jesus, the angel, and John, and each actor > does something different. Furthermore, > **Because there are four actions taking place here, each of which is > such that it is only performed by one of the four actors in involved, > it follows that none of the actors are consubstantial with each other.** > In the catholic tradition, the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and > Holy Spirit means that there is only a single operation or act of > which each is equally its subject. In the words of John of Damascus, > there is in God “one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one > energy” (*An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8 *). But there cannot be > one “energy” or one activity in the situation being described in Rev. > 1:1 because there is something God does which Jesus does not (namely, > initiate the passing on of the revelation) and there is something > Jesus does which God does not (namely, receive the revelation from God > and pass it on to the angel). There are two energies here, i.e. two > actions or activities, and not one. **Therefore, Jesus is not > consubstantial with the Father.** At this point, a Trinitarian who holds to consubstantiality might appeal to Jesus' dual-nature to account for this. > Jesus would therefore be said to have received the revelation of God > as regards his human nature, but not as regards his divine nature. In response to this, Nemes argues > On the one hand, in the catholic tradition it is believed that Christ > did not cease to be God in becoming human. This means that everything > that would be true of him as God by nature remains true of him even > after he assumes a human nature in addition. But **it would be true of > Jesus in virtue of his divine nature that he knows all the things** that > are revealed to John by the angel. And **one cannot be given a > revelation if one already possesses knowledge of the relevant mystery**, > just as a person who is already dead cannot be killed, just as a > soaked garment cannot be made wet. **Consequently, the catholic > principle that Christ does not cease to be God in becoming human makes > it impossible for him to have been given a revelation by God.** > > On the other hand, **suppose one proposes that Christ did give up some > of some his divine qualities in becoming human**. Previously he was > omniscient, but upon incarnating he no longer knew everything. **This > still does not provide a solution to the problem at hand, because > Revelation refers to Christ after his resurrection**. If one tries to > justify the possibility of Christ’s receiving revelation from God by > suggesting that he gives up some of his divine qualities upon becoming > incarnate, this text would force the conclusion that this condition > continues even after his resurrection and exaltation into heaven. > **Christ then would have ceased to be fully God in becoming human, not > only for a time, but rather for all time! I am not sure that many > people will find this proposal very satisfactory.** How do Trinitarians who hold to both consubstantiality and a dual-nature theory of Jesus respond to the sorts of points Nemes is making here? That if Jesus is fully God in his ascended state then Jesus can't be given revelation as Jesus knows all things, or if you hold to a limiting of knowledge with respect to Jesus similar to his incarnation but now in an ascended state, Jesus apparently then would cease to be fully God not just temporarily but eternally?

I understand that Lutherans believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not in such a way that the species cease to be true bread and wine. So you are physically eating God, but you are also physically eating bread. (Similar to the hypostatic union of Christs two natures: Christ is fully human and fully divine. The bread is fully bread but also fully Christ). I was wondering when the consecrated species cease to be divine and return to normal, natural, mundane matter. I heard somewhere a long time ago that Lutherans believe that the real presence only continues for duration of the liturgy and once the mass concludes the species return to being normal bread and wine; I have not been able to confirm this. Perhaps the Lutheran view is similar to the Catholic view. That is, the sacramental union persists so long as the bread and wine are recognizable as bread and wine. Once they have gone moldy, turned to vinegar, evaporated or been digested, the body and blood are no longer present.

When the First Ecumenical Council was summoned by Emperor Constantine I at Nicea, in 325 CE, Eusebius of Caesarea came with his local Creed, convinced that it would be accepted, or anyway used as a basis for general Creed of the Catholic Church. Here it is: > “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things > visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, **the Word of > God** [***ho logos tou theou***], God from God, Light from Light, Life > from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all > the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; > Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and > suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, > and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we > believe also in One Holy Ghost” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter on the > Council of Nicaea , @ Catholic Encyclopedia – **emphasis** added) If that phrase had been included in the Nicene Creed (without any pre-existent personal overtone, but simply stating that *ho logos tou theou*, in accordance with John 1:14, "became flesh", *sarx egeneto* – the logos being an essential attribute of the One and Only God - it would have clarified the Catholic doctrine on this essential point without resorting to the unbiblical "consubstantial" (*homoousios*) Then why wasn’t the Logos included in the Nicene Creed?

The Bible does not describe God and His Son in terms of substance. The closest we get is Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as the mirror image of the hypostasis of God. At the time, hypostasis still had the same meaning as ousia (substance), as it also had in the 325 AD Nicene Creed. Therefore the NASB translates hypostasis as "substance" in Hebrews 1:3. The Wikipedia page Sabellianism states that the Gnostics were the first to use the word in connection with their doctrine of emanation in which the generator and the generated have the same substance. Were these people also Christians? Did they perhaps bring substance language into the church debate? The dates of the theologians that used the word substance, as I could gather from Wikipedia, in their apparent chronological sequence, are as follows: - Praxeas lived at the end of the 2nd century/beginning of the 3rd century. - Tertullian (155-220) - In Against Praxeas, Tertullian often refers to substance. Did he get it from Praxeas? - Sabellius flourished about AD 215 - Prof Ninan stated that Sabellius used the word homoousian. - Noetus was a presbyter around AD 230 - Origen (184-253) - According to his Wikipedia page, he rejected the belief that the Son and the Father were one hypostasis as heretical. But that implies that somebody was using that language before him. That would include Tertullian. So, these people all lived more or less at the same time but given the early date for Tertullian, and since he wrote Against Praxeas, I assume Praxeas was the first of the authors. Is it possible that he was one of the gnostics and that he introduced the word substance into the debate?

One of John Calvin's arguments against transubstantiation and consubstantiation was that the body of Christ, as a human body, could not be in more than one place at a time. His view of the Eucharist was thus one of *spiritual* presence, not *real* presence as understood by Catholics. Luther argued that Jesus's body *could* be in multiple places at one time, thanks to its divine properties, and that this allowed for consubstantiation. This, as I understand it, is known as Luther's doctrine of ubiquity. As a Calvinist with relatively little exposure to Catholicism, I assumed that Catholicism took the same approach on this issue, as transubstantiation seems to similarly require a doctrine justifying the idea that Jesus's physical body can be in multiple places at once. But Ludwig Ott opposes my assumption in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* : > [Luther] explained the possibility of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ by the aid of the **untenable** Ubiquity Doctrine, according to which the human nature of Christ by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, has a real share in the properties of the Deity, and thereby also in the omnipresence of God. [372, emphasis added] So, I'm wondering—how do Catholics view the distinction between Luther's doctrine of ubiquity and whatever solution Catholicism uses that allows Jesus's physical body to be present in more than one place at one time? What makes Luther's view "untenable" in their eyes? (Apologies if the question is crude; I'm no expert on transubstantiation. If those answering keep that in mind, I'd be grateful!)

According to a commentary by Thomas Aquinas , [pita] bread (and I suppose those extremely leavened (aerated) wafers) become "the indestructible flesh of God, the Son": ...The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”... But if the flesh is indigestible, won't it end up being flushed down the toilet?: >Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, **and then out of the body**.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Has this been considered and addressed?

Do Mormons believe in transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, or the Lutheran "sacramental union", or the Calvinist "mystical presence", or perhaps a more Zwinglian "purely symbolic" approach? Is there a quick and easy way to sum up the Mormon view on the Eucharist such as I have enumerated above? (Leaving aside the fact that they use water rather than wine or grape juice)

I think I'm familiar with Consubstantiation . It is the belief that > the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. [Impanation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impanation) is a new one for me. I learned it earlier today when reading about John Huss , where it was ascribed to John Wycliffe (oddly, Wikipedia on Wycliffe has no mention of Impanation. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, Impanation is the belief of the > the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread of the Eucharist that does not imply a change in the substance of either the bread or the body ... This view is similar but not identical to the theory of consubstantiation. It seems that both descriptions say the same thing. The substance of Christ is present in the bread, but the substance of neither is changed. The only hint I have that they are different is the Impanation definition used "real presence" which is a distinctly Catholic term, and then further insists they are different without explanation. How are they different? And since I'm unfamiliar with Impanation, what Christian groups are said to believe it?

According to the answer here : >St. Thomas Aquinas explained the preceding definition [of person] in terms that practically constitute a new definition: **a substance**, complete, subsisting per se, **existing apart from others** (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um). According to trinitarian theology, the triune god is said to be "three seperate persons" consisting of "one substance". Does this mean the triune god is "three separate substances, each existing apart from other substances, consisting of one substance"? In other words, what are the key differences between a "person" and a "substance"?