P
ProVobis
Guest
If it’s dative, shouldn’t it be “consubstantial TO the Father,” which some old handmissals had?
- Status
S
stanczyk
Guest
Yeah, somebody said that earlier, and I agree. I think the reason it’s “with” is because “consubstantial to the Father” is clunky in English maybe? Prepositions are difficult things to translate.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I hope we haven’t completely frightened off the OP. 
I know many of us get caught up in these sorts of issues (theology nerds that we are
), but remember that not everyone is like us. Being put off by certain parts of the new translation is a natural reaction to have. It’s going to take some of us more time than others to get used to some of the changes. The new translation just went into effect a week and a half ago. So I think we can grant people a little leeway in getting accustomed to it.
I know many of us get caught up in these sorts of issues (theology nerds that we are
), but remember that not everyone is like us. Being put off by certain parts of the new translation is a natural reaction to have. It’s going to take some of us more time than others to get used to some of the changes. The new translation just went into effect a week and a half ago. So I think we can grant people a little leeway in getting accustomed to it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps a carryover from the Anglican “of one substance WITH the Father”?
As I said before, I feel “with” is wrong because that would imply the Father is also of one substance with the Son, which is incorrect. “To” is one-directional and more correct, IMO.
Ya think?
In the Roman mindset, consubstantialem Patri contains an English equivalent of THREE prepositions, “with,” “under” and “to.” How does one make sense of that very important fact in English?
O
opus101
Guest
I just found an old Missal!!! It could have been my mom’s or grandmother’s.The imprimatur says 1952. Anyway, I was curious about the Creed, and the English translation (on the page facing the Latin) uses the word “consubstantial”!
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes there were some missals with the word. Is it “consubstantial to” or “consubstantial with”? The 1867 handmissal says “consubstantial to the Father.”
O
opus101
Guest
“consubstantial WITH”.
“Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
It’s from “The New Marian Missal for Daily Mass” by Sylvester P. Juergens, S.M.
and published by Regina Press, NY. Imprimatur date is 1952 .
U
Usagi
Guest
Could you go into more detail on this? To my mind, if the Father and the Son are of the same substance, then of course you can state the comparison either way. Why would the Father not be consubstantial with the Son? I know we usually state it the other way, because even the Arians agreed that the Father is God. And of course, the Father is ontologically (though not temporally) prior to the Son – He begets and is not the One begotten. But even so, why wouldn’t it be true both ways? Am I missing some key theological truth?
Usagi
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Very good point. The new English translation crystallizes this perfectly, I think. The theology is spot on.
L
linuxology
Guest
The new translation is a disaster. Most people at my parish are saying it the old way.
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
I didn’t think it was harsh. I too am tired of people complaining about the new translation acting as if the mass is to be suited to their selfish needs. People are not as stupid as Bishop Trautman likes to make them seem.
D
DiZent
Guest
At my parish, most of the people have embraced the new translation, but the music is a disaster. I went to a neighboring parish last week, where they are mostly saying the old responses.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I wouldn’t have questioned it unless “consubstantial to” hadn’t been in one of the old handmissals. After some thought and word analysis, I see that it does have some validity. I’m not too keen on the “substance with” because I see that as one directional. If A is sub to B then B can’t be sub to A, like subset in math, for example. Or subordinate or anything sub, for that matter. The “sub” in “substance” can’t be overlooked, although in today’s more common usage “substance” goes both ways, as you say. As I said, I’m not the world’s authority on linguistics— I’ve had much more schooling in math and I don’t know what “substance” meant 200 years ago— but saying “consubstantial with” is not really adding anything to the relationship between Father and Son because “con” already means “with.” The English seems to struggle with finding the right prepositional thought. In “con+sub+stantialem Patri” you have a “with,” a “sub,” and a “to” (because “Patri” is in the dative, not ablative case, which would be “Patre.”) The best the English can do IMO is “consubstantial to,” keeping the dative case intact, while preserving the “with” and “sub” relationships. I only guessed that the “with” was a carryover from a more remote translation attempt.
P
paperwight66
Guest
Hang on, the ‘sub’ in substance has nothing to do with ‘sub’ meaning ‘under’. ‘Substance’ comes from the present participle ('substans) of the Latin ‘substare’, which means to exist or stand.
Another example of how it is not a good idea to attempt to find the meaning of a word by splitting it up into syllables : Think of our word ‘substitute’ - nothing is under anything there, but something stands in place of something else.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not quite. Stare means to exist or stand. Sub+stare is to stand under. You’re correct with the present participle.
Compare with
circum+stare - to stand around, encircle
astare - stand away from, stand by
prae+stare - stand before
re+stare - stand behind, remain
(How the use of how these prefixes affect meanings of the root word can be found in Collins’ Primer to Ecclesiastical Latin.)
You’re right, but as I said, meanings have changed where because of its very frequent usage, substance or substitute doesn’t mean a hard “under” in English anymore. But does it mean it’s right for the translation where “consubstantial to” says a lot more?
By the way, I retitled the title in my post. I don’t want to be responsible for everyone saying “cosubstantial” instead of “consubstantial” at Mass.
A
Adonia
Guest
It just does not flow easily, does it? You know, i asked my priest about it and after he explaied the word to me , I agreed that it was the more descriptive word. But it still does not flow easily when saying the creed.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Credo III in Latin has the best flow and the best singable IMO. Probably the Pope’s favorite (along with the Greek version).
U
Usagi
Guest
Have you wider evidence from other parishes?
Mine is doing fine, except for “and with your spirit,” which tends to come out “and also your spirit,” but I’m sure you’ll catch on.
From what little I’ve read, it sounds as though the new translation was better received than some predicted. But I don’t have actual nationwide data either.
Usagi
L
liturgyluver
Guest
I agree - it’s always such a joy to sing this.Credo III in Latin has the best flow and the best singable IMO. Probably the Pope’s favorite (along with the Greek version).
P
pilots13
Guest
At my church it’s a jumbled mess when it gets to the changed parts. I’d say half are saying it the new way and half the old way (even the priest says the old way once and a while). So it ends up “The Lord be with you” “And aclkawc ejl alkb neanv…” I’m sure you give it a few months, and people will get used to the new translations (short of the cluster that Christmas and Easter are sure to be).
I think, in regards to consubstantial, that word has kinda become the poster child of the overly wordy translation we are now using. I understand they are translating it more true to the original Latin, but do you need to do it verbatim vs in easier to say/understand English?
- Status