Calling Latin experts: Translation of "consubstantial"

[MarcoPolo]

In the new Nicene Creed at church the other night, I was thinking about the use of the term consubstantial when we now say “consubstantial with the Father.” I understand that in the Latin original, the term there is consubstantialem. Here it seems the prefix “con” means “same.” Yet in etymology dictionaries, they say it means “together” or “with.” I suppose “together” could suggest a sameness there. But I know when the early uses of the term consubstantial came out to describe the Lutheran position, (which teaches Christ “in, with, and under” the bread) does not suggest sameness, but rather “with.” So what is the proper etymology? Or can the prefix mean both “same” and “with” depending on context?

 

[Bookcat]

I guess they were teaching about the next texts of the new translation that will go in effect in Advent…(so one has time yet to study up )

As to the details of the Latin…I am not much help…after 5 years of Latin…I remain one of the worse students ever of Language…

But the term is used to denote One in substance …(perhaps meaning one in substance with…on the more structural level??)

In any case from the Catechism this may be of help in general:

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”.67

262 The Incarnation of God’s Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. 
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

This can also be of help: newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

Hope that helps…

 

[Chatter163]

The older translation in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer actually had it right: “Being of one substance with the Father…”

 

[ProVobis]

The Roman mindset was such that an entire sentence was written and read in capital letters only and without spaces. “CONSUBSTANTIALEMPATRI” could have easily been split up into these words:

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
  (+ vernacular ending)
• Patri (the Father (in dative case, as opposed to accusative or ablative))

The Church has now seen it that this Latin cognate works best in the Nicene Creed and works better than “one in being” or “one in substance” in the New English. There is no ONENESS implied in the Latin.

Actually the “with” makes the English expression somewhat redundant so it’s not perfect.

The older translation in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer actually had it right: “Being of one substance with the Father…”

I beg to differ. See above. Also see the Preface of the Holy Trinity which states the oneness a little bit better. youtube.com/watch?v=9eJAMZ2WSV8

 

[MarkThompson]

In the new Nicene Creed at church the other night, I was thinking about the use of the term consubstantial when we now say “consubstantial with the Father.” I understand that in the Latin original, the term there is consubstantialem. Here it seems the prefix “con” means “same.” Yet in etymology dictionaries, they say it means “together” or “with.” I suppose “together” could suggest a sameness there. But I know when the early uses of the term consubstantial came out to describe the Lutheran position, (which teaches Christ “in, with, and under” the bread) does not suggest sameness, but rather “with.” So what is the proper etymology? Or can the prefix mean both “same” and “with” depending on context?

It is, perhaps, important to remember that the actual Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is in Greek, not Latin. Consubstantialis isn’t even a real Latin word; it was invented in an attempt to translate the Greek because Latin lacked any word good enough to carry the import of what the Creed was trying to say. If there is any question about what the Latin means, then, the appropriate place to look is the Greek original.

And the original Greek word was homoousion. You can read the Catholic Encyclopedia article about it here. The prefix homo- definitely means “same,” but as the article explains there is ambiguity about whether it means “the exact same” or “the same type.” You’ll note that Tertullian translated it into Latin with the expression unius substantiae, which literally means “of one substance,” which as Chatter points out is exactly how the BCP renders it.

As to the actual Latin prefix con-, it is a form of the word “cum.” “Cum” by itself has a ton of different meanings, mostly “with” but also “when,” “since,” “and,” “under the condition that,” and so on. Lewis & Short explains that when it is made a prefix
It designates,

1. A being or bringing together of several objects: coëo, colloquor, convivor, etc.: colligo, compono, condo, etc.—
2. The completeness, perfecting of any act, and thus gives intensity to the signif. of the simple word, as in commaculo, commendo, concito, etc., comminuo, concerpo, concido, convello, etc.​

 

[MarcoPolo]

Consubstantialis isn’t even a real Latin word; it was invented in an attempt to translate the Greek because Latin lacked any word good enough to carry the import of what the Creed was trying to say. If there is any question about what the Latin means, then, the appropriate place to look is the Greek original.

And the original Greek word was homoousion.

Would you say a better Latin translation of homoousion would be something more like Synsubstantialem?

 

[MarkThompson]

Would you say a better Latin translation of homoousion would be something more like Synsubstantialem?

Syn- isn’t a Latin prefix, so that’s not a possibility.

I suppose I would say that the phrase unius substantiae, as above, or eiusdem substantiae (of the same substance, though this carries the same ambiguity about “same” that I remarked on above with the Greek) seems to me to be the most straightforward translation. However, if you want to squeeze it into one word so that you can use it as a declinable adjective, you must look for something else, since Latin generally does not allow this. In that case, consubstantialis works all right – provided you keep in mind what it is trying to express, and explain it to people from the Greek when the word seems to convey the wrong meaning.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Syn- isn’t a Latin prefix, so that’s not a possibility.

I suppose I would say that the phrase unius substantiae, as above, or eiusdem substantiae (of the same substance, though this carries the same ambiguity about “same” that I remarked on above with the Greek) seems to me to be the most straightforward translation. However, if you want to squeeze it into one word so that you can use it as a declinable adjective, you must look for something else, since Latin generally does not allow this. In that case, consubstantialis works all right – provided you keep in mind what it is trying to express, and explain it to people from the Greek when the word seems to convey the wrong meaning.

If consubstantialis is well enough to describe the concept of the “same substance,” would you say that it is incorrect to describe the Lutheran notion of Christ “in, with, and under” the bread—because they don’t consider Christ and the bread to become the same substance, rather they say it’s Christ together with the bread. Yet it seems in this latter example, consubstantiation is appropriate if understood as “this substance together with that substance”. What do you think?

 

[MarkThompson]

If consubstantialis is well enough to describe the concept of the “same substance,” would you say that it is incorrect to describe the Lutheran notion of Christ “in, with, and under” the bread—because they don’t consider Christ and the bread to become the same substance, rather they say it’s Christ together with the bread. Yet it seems in this latter example, consubstantiation is appropriate if understood as “this substance together with that substance”. What do you think?

No. The fact is, whether or not the word at first blush looks that way, that is not what it means when you provide a full explanation. If all we knew of Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist were the one word “consubstantial,” then maybe they would have a correct teaching on the Eucharist (but using an ambiguous word to express it) and maybe not. As it turns out, when we clear up the ambiguity we find that they are not, actually, using it to mean the same thing that we understand the Eucharist to be.

It’s a little like asking if our use of homoousion to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son means that we in fact agree with someone who thinks that the Father and the Son are of different, but like, divine substances. After all the ambiguous homo- might be taken to allow such an interpretation. But in fact when we fully explain what we are trying to say, we realize that we would completely disagree with that person.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW,

in Polish it’s translated into współistotny Ojcu which is essentially the same as the Latin. Googling this Polish term you find amongst many hits, one which explains whatever sameness that is connotated:

Współistotność - the commonality of nature [1] . W teologii chrześcijańskiej termin określający relację między osobami Trójcy Świętej . The theology of the Christian term for the relationship between persons of the Trinity . W szczególności precyzował istnienie Ojca i Syna na tym samym poziomie czasowym i natury, gdzie Syn nie miał początku oraz nigdy nie było czasu, w którym nie było Syna. In particular, specified the existence of the Father and the Son at the same level of time and nature, where the Son had no beginning and never was a time in which there was no Son. W tym znaczeniu Syn znalazł się na tej samej pozycji co sam Ojciec. In this sense, the Son was on the same position as the Father.

more here.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No. The fact is, whether or not the word at first blush looks that way, that is not what it means when you provide a full explanation. If all we knew of Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist were the one word “consubstantial,” then maybe they would have a correct teaching on the Eucharist (but using an ambiguous word to express it) and maybe not. As it turns out, when we clear up the ambiguity we find that they are not, actually, using it to mean the same thing that we understand the Eucharist to be.

It’s a little like asking if our use of homoousion to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son means that we in fact agree with someone who thinks that the Father and the Son are of different, but like, divine substances. After all the ambiguous homo- might be taken to allow such an interpretation. But in fact when we fully explain what we are trying to say, we realize that we would completely disagree with that person.

The funny thing is, the Lutherans tend to reject the term consubstantiation because they don’t want their teaching confused with transubstantiation as far as I can tell----not that the term can’t mean “with substances”. But if I understand you right, you do not think consubstantiation is accurate to describe an understanding of “the substance of Christ in, with, and under the substance of bread”. If so, what do you think a better term to describe the phrase in quotes would be?

 

[MarkThompson]

The funny thing is, the Lutherans tend to reject the term consubstantiation because they don’t want their teaching confused with transubstantiation as far as I can tell----not that the term can’t mean “with substances”. But if I understand you right, you do not think consubstantiation is accurate to describe an understanding of “the substance of Christ in, with, and under the substance of bread”. If so, what do you think a better term to describe the phrase in quotes would be?

Since I really don’t know the specifics of what Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist amounts to, I won’t really venture a guess. I will say that your question – how to compress “in, with, and under the substance of bread” into a word – probably asks too much of language, at least of a language like English or, even more so, Latin. In a language like German, or probably Eskimo, I’d imagine you actually might be able to string together a long, single word that might do this. Otherwise, it is I think preferable to employ a word that closely suggests and approximates the meaning desired, with the understanding that it still requires explanation to lay out the exact scope of what is being taught.

 

[WMM]

The funny thing is, the Lutherans tend to reject the term consubstantiation because they don’t want their teaching confused with transubstantiation as far as I can tell----not that the term can’t mean “with substances”. But if I understand you right, you do not think consubstantiation is accurate to describe an understanding of “the substance of Christ in, with, and under the substance of bread”. If so, what do you think a better term to describe the phrase in quotes would be?

***A better term is the Greek word homoousious - literally “of the same substance”.

As we all know, there is not one iota of difference between the Father and the Son.

Otherwise it would be homoi*ousious - literally “of similar [but not the same] substance”.

Consubstiantiation (the Eucharist is Jesus and bread and wine/water) is not the same thing as consubstantial (of the same substance).**

 

[ProVobis]

To say something is of the “same substance,” what does that mean in English? Is it right term to use in regards to the Deity?

“The term ‘substance’ is one of the most confusing terms in philosophy. For Aristotle, at least some of the time, the paradigm cases of substances were, as he put it, ‘this man, this horse’, i.e. particular things of that kind. For complicated historical reasons, however, substance has sometimes come to be equated with what Aristotle called ‘matter’; thus iron and sulphur, and other stuffs, have come to be called ‘substances’. For further complicated historical reasons substance came to be regarded by e.g. Locke as the underlying something or other which is supposed to give support to the properties that inhere in it. Indeed the Latin etymology of the term ‘substance’ will suggest to anyone having a sensitivity to it that notion of something standing beneath the properties. Locke thus called it a ‘something I know not what’ – a suggestion that is not conveyed by either of the other two usages. The situation is complicated still further by the fact that the Latin etymology is relevant only to those modern discussions which rely on the term ‘substance’. The Greek word which Aristotle used – ‘ousia’ – and which is traditionally translated ‘substance’ has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of ‘substance’ provides, but has additional suggestions of its own, particularly a connexion with being. (The feminine present participle of the verb ‘to be’ in Greek is ousia; ousia has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated ‘being’ or ‘beingness’, but Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.)”…
…
From: David Hamlyn - Metaphysics - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p. 60.

more at ontology.co/substance.htm

 

[WetCatechumen]

***A better term is the Greek word homoousious - literally “of the same substance”.

As we all know, there is not one iota of difference between the Father and the Son.

Otherwise it would be homoi***ousious - literally “of similar [but not the same] substance”.

Consubstiantiation (the Eucharist is Jesus and bread and wine/water) is not the same thing as consubstantial (of the same substance).

In terms of their nature. They are distinct persons, though.

 

[WMM]

In terms of their nature. They are distinct persons, though.

Exactly!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks all, and Mark and ProVobis.

 

[laszlo]

The new translation decided to keep the word: ‘consubstantial with the Father’

Either the Latin consubstantial and the Greek homousious is made up word.

Further problem is that the concept ousia - substantia has dual meaning:

• it means either the essence (the essential attributes) as it is opposed to the accidental attributes like place, time etc
• or something related to the existence as in the order: esse, substantia, subsistence (person), esse in se subsistent (God).

I grown up with the meaning: the same essence as the Father, as it is clearly described in the Symbolum Athanasium,

fordham.edu/halsall/source/quicumque.html

but if one looks up the dictionary definition of the word essence

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essence

easily get confused.

The principle is ‘Altiora a te ne scrutaveris’

Eccli 3:22 Seek not the things that are too high for thee,

The Trinity is mystery, we cannot go deeper than the word itself anyway.