cosubstantial

[Brendan]

It just seems to me that “consubstantial with” is redundant.

No, because we can’t just say “Consubstantial Father”, you need the logical connector to note WHO Christ is consubstantial WITH"

.
.
.

…that and I also do distracted when I hear the word consubstantiation and start thinking about Lutheranism.

Used in different contexts.

Christ IS consubstantial with the Father
Chirst IS NOT consubstantial with bread in the Eucharist

 

[SMHW]

No, because we can’t just say “Consubstantial Father”, you need the logical connector to note WHO Christ is consubstantial WITH"

Used in different contexts.

Christ IS consubstantial with the Father
Chirst IS NOT consubstantial with bread in the Eucharist

Exactly. I’m sure my brain will eventually get tired of taking such literary and theological journeys and I will be able to concentrate on the rest of the Creed.

I was really more interested in whether “of one substance with” was the former English standard or if it was one of many English translations.

 

[opus101]

No, because we can’t just say “Consubstantial Father”, you need the logical connector to note WHO Christ is consubstantial WITH"

.
.
.

Used in different contexts.

Christ IS consubstantial with the Father
Chirst IS NOT consubstantial with bread in the Eucharist

 

[stanczyk]

I, for one, am very pleased with the change, I think it is a much needed improvement to the translation of the Creed. It is, in my opinion, the most important change to the new liturgical translation, and the most theologically necessary. It is certainly much more appropriate than the vague “one in being with.” If it’s a little off-putting to many people, that is of course unfortunate, and I hope it doesn’t throw people off for too long. But I think that if it gets more people to start to research what it means, it could have a very positive effect in the long run.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

I mean, really, what is with having such a word? i hate this word. It is difficult to say. Do the bishops live in the real world where no one talks like that?

This strikes me as an over-reaction. You really take time out of your day to HATE a word? And you know what, I can talk like that. And now, so can all Catholics.

I used to really love saying the nicene Creed. The other changes seem fine. But this one word has gotten to me.

It makes me feel stupid before God because it just can’t be pronounced easily. It causes a separation between me and my Lord at Mass.

Are you perhaps being a bit rash or dramatic? The few changes are very minor, and with practice you will be able to pronounce the word just fine. If you spend your time fretting and complaining rather than attempting to understand the new word and learn to use the Creed in its new form, there will understandably be that separation.

Everyone is stumbling on this word. It is distracting.

That simply isn’t true. I’m not. Exaggerations do not contribute to a thoughtful discussion.

It always seems strange to me that a Church founded by someone who used wonderfully simple language could develop “Vaticanese”.

I don’t think Jesus spoke simply at all. He used some pretty obscure extended metaphors to explain theologically complex concepts, which we’re still trying to figure out and peice together.

No, because we can’t just say “Consubstantial Father”, you need the logical connector to note WHO Christ is consubstantial WITH"

…with whom Christ is consubstantial?

 

[SMHW]

…with whom Christ is consubstantial?

But there is still no getting rid of the double “with”!

 

[BernadetteM]

In Anglican Use parishes they have always used the words “Begotten not made: Being of one substance with the Father: by whom all things were made”, which actually flows very nicely and is less difficult to say.

All changes take time to learn and the new translation is a great improvement in my opinion.

Since my background was Anglo Catholic, I not only have to deal with learning another translation, but a few of the new prayers and responses are very close to what I recall, with some minor changes, I still have my former responses etc. coming forth during Mass as it is difficult after years of using different words not to automatically say them.

At least most Catholics are only dealing with one new translation, try having more.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Boulder257]

The concept of “One in Being” is incorrect. It is a statement of existance. There is no existance apart from God, so just about everything is “One in Being” with the Father. The Keyboard you are typing on, the grass on the lawn etc…

Substance is a statement on the Nature of something. That characistics that set it apart from everything else.

While the grass on my lawn is “One in Being” with the Father, it is not of the same substance as the Father. It is not Divine.

Christ (as well as the Spirit) are Consubstantial with the Father, they share the same Divine Essence, the same Divine Nature.

So the old translation said nothing really about the Nature of Christ in relation to the Father, the new one does.

Nice explanation. I have never heard it explained this way.

It shows the importance of words and their definition. It proves how two people can hear the same thing and walk away with completely different ideas of what they just heard.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I love what Stephen Colbert had to say about the change:

“Consubstantial is now Istanbul”

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t mind saying consubstantial, but One in Being made more sense to me. I know the term consubstantial, but it is a mouthful to say.

Would it help if it were broken up into separate words con+sub+stantial?

One thing to keep in mind Classical Latin (as well as Greek and Hebrew) had no spaces between words so we could in modern use break it in such a way.

On the now-past translation would you have any objection to reading “OneinbeingwiththeFather?” See my point? Or are multi-syllable words not the issue here?

 

[Doxiemom]

I know what it means.

There is a place for solemn ritual. Agreed.

But when I pray not only with my mouth, my mind, but with my heart. God isn’t looking for the biggest, the best, the most awesome words , not mind you, if that is what you are made of, as some of you clearly are.

I have had the most wonderful easy relationship with the Lord. We talk. One on One. I see the folding together of the Father and the Son. And with the Holy Spirit given to us. This intimacy of the Trinity is not to be understood by us.

I am jealous of that easy relationship. It just seems to me, and i wondered if there were others, that while professing to take another step forward, we took a step backward, making once again that separation between the rituals and the people. Oh, sure , I am spoiled now. I grew up in the days of a Latin Mass and the priest turned away. Of kneelers to take communion only on the tongue, God forbid, your teeth touched the host! It was a distant worship of God. And that was improvement from the centuries before.

I appreciate the answers. I didn’t expect to be talked down to by a few, but, oh well. The bishops are indeed most highly educated and now even are more aloof. So be it. They could have reached out and made it so much more intimate and beautifuly simple.

Mass is beautifully simple.

 

[revert_jen]

The concept of “One in Being” is incorrect. It is a statement of existance. There is no existance apart from God, so just about everything is “One in Being” with the Father. The Keyboard you are typing on, the grass on the lawn etc…

Substance is a statement on the Nature of something. That characistics that set it apart from everything else.

While the grass on my lawn is “One in Being” with the Father, it is not of the same substance as the Father. It is not Divine.

Christ (as well as the Spirit) are Consubstantial with the Father, they share the same Divine Essence, the same Divine Nature.

So the old translation said nothing really about the Nature of Christ in relation to the Father, the new one does.

Good point. In addition, the old translation gave people the incorrect idea that by understanding what they were saying, they were also understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son. A lot of the time, the problem with the simpler language (aside from issues of reverence) is that it simply doesn’t mean the same thing.

DiZent;8654701:

I want the third graders to understand as well as the adults.

Why? It’s a nice concept, but it is not how the Church works.

I’m afraid I have to disagree here. I don’t think it’s a particularly nice concept. God is the greatest being in the universe–much different than human beings, and impossible even in a lifetime of study for a human to understand completely.

If the third-graders understand Him as well as the adults, it only means that the adults decided to stop learning in the third grade.

Do you think the third-grade understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the adult one? Yes, to the best of their ability, children should understand Who the Eucharist is before receiving Him the first time. But do you really think that the third-grader’s understanding of “This is My body” is the same as an adult’s? It shouldn’t be, and yet the words themselves are very simple.

If you reduce the Mass to only what third-graders can easily understand, you have not brought God closer to the people. You have pushed Him further away. The way to come closer to God is to know him. And with His grace, as you become older (each at his own pace), that knowledge of God can become more deep, beautiful, and intricate. If you simplify the Mass, it is less able to help us to come to that greater knowledge.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Would it help if it were broken up into separate words con+sub+stantial?

It might help better if it were broken up con + substan(ce) + tial. It needs a couple of extra letters, but the root is clearer.

Frankly, if a person has decided that they won’t understand a word, then they can’t be made to do so. In my parish, we stumble most with “And with your spirit,” actually, and it has nothing to do with disagreeing with the change or not understanding the meaning, it’s just force of habit. It’s a bit distracting, but it’s only been two weeks. People need to give it a chance.

–Jen

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

I know what it means.

There is a place for solemn ritual. Agreed.

But when I pray not only with my mouth, my mind, but with my heart. God isn’t looking for the biggest, the best, the most awesome words , not mind you, if that is what you are made of, as some of you clearly are.

I have had the most wonderful easy relationship with the Lord. We talk. One on One. I see the folding together of the Father and the Son. And with the Holy Spirit given to us. This intimacy of the Trinity is not to be understood by us.

I am jealous of that easy relationship. It just seems to me, and i wondered if there were others, that while professing to take another step forward, we took a step backward, making once again that separation between the rituals and the people. Oh, sure , I am spoiled now. I grew up in the days of a Latin Mass and the priest turned away. Of kneelers to take communion only on the tongue, God forbid, your teeth touched the host! It was a distant worship of God. And that was improvement from the centuries before.

I appreciate the answers. I didn’t expect to be talked down to by a few, but, oh well. The bishops are indeed most highly educated and now even are more aloof. So be it. They could have reached out and made it so much more intimate and beautifuly simple.

Mass is beautifully simple.

Nothing you said has anything to do with the new translation. And you are coming across as talking down to some of US, so be wary of that before you feel offended.

If you could, name for me just one bishop you think is “aloof.”

Aloof does not just mean “disagrees with me.”

 

[ProVobis]

It might help better if it were broken up con + substan(ce) + tial. It needs a couple of extra letters, but the root is clearer.

But what exactly is “substance”? It seems the word has become too abstract and quite overused to the point the meaning has become distorted.

Let’s try it this way:

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})

Consubstantialem Patri means exactly that. If it were one substance in the sense which I’m detecting by others, (such as a substitute, for example) it would be wrong as it doesn’t work backwards like “consubstantialem Filio.” So the “substance” in that sense is wrong as well as “one in being with the Father.” In other words a true substance is one-directional but I’m not detecting that here.

That said, I think “consubstantial with the Father” creates its own problems as “con” is redundant when the “with” is used. That can be confusing in the English. There is no separate preposition in the Latin.

My point is that there is no accurate translation which makes grammatical sense in the English.

 

[opus101]

But when I pray not only with my mouth, my mind, but with my heart. God isn’t looking for the biggest, the best, the most awesome words , not mind you, if that is what you are made of, as some of you clearly are.

I have had the most wonderful easy relationship with the Lord. We talk. One on One.

Well, you have 6 days (plus 23 hours) per week to talk to God in your own way. When we come together on Sunday for Mass, we have to set aside our own likes and dislikes for the sake of unity and truth. The Church has determined that this word better describes the truth of what we believe as Catholics. That is very important.

I am jealous of that easy relationship.

Perhaps some of your own theological ideas need to be completed, and the new translation might be of great assistence here. While God is infinitely imminent, He is also infinitely transcendent. Both are true.

They could have reached out and made it so much more intimate and beautifuly simple.

They should have consulted you first. BTW, have you ever been to a Byzantine rite Divine Liturgy? Quite beautiful. But it makes our NEW translation seem very intimate and simple in comparison.

 

[stanczyk]

But what exactly is “substance”? It seems the word has become too abstract and quite overused to the point the meaning has become distorted.

Let’s try it this way:

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})

Consubstantialem Patri means exactly that. If it were one substance in the sense which I’m detecting by others, (such as a substitute, for example) it would be wrong as it doesn’t work backwards like “consubstantialem Filio.” So the “substance” in that sense is wrong as well as “one in being with the Father.” In other words a true substance is one-directional but I’m not detecting that here.

That said, I think “consubstantial with the Father” creates its own problems as “con” is redundant when the “with” is used. That can be confusing in the English. There is no separate preposition in the Latin.

My point is that there is no accurate translation which makes grammatical sense in the English.

Keep in mind, consubstantialis is itself a translation of the Greek term homoousios, meaning “same essence.” This is of extreme importance to our faith and the doctrine of the Trinity, as it arises out of the Nicene Council, which was a response to one of the great heresies of the fourth century, Arianism. The Arians promoted the idea that the persons of the Trinity were homoiousios, similar substance. This is, incidentally, where we get the expression “it doesn’t make an iota of difference.” The only difference between Nicene Christianity and Arian Heresy is one iota, but what a world of difference it is!

Constantine’s son the Emperor Constantius was an Arian. Some of the most important bishops of the time were Arians. The controversy almost went the other direction, but under the wisdom of the Council of Nicea came our Creed. The translation “one in being with the Father” is simply not accurate, and does not reflect the true reasoning behind the Creed. Indeed, “one in being” seems pretty vague if you ask me, as an Arian would probably agree that the Father and Son were one in being, but differed in substance. The significant distinction contained in our Creed is that they are of the same substance, homoousios, consubstantial.

As to the grammatical issue, “consubstantial with the Father” is not really redundant. “Consubstantial” means “of the same substance” according to Webster, so it doesn’t really seem redundant in English to add the preposition. Moreover, the Latin phrase is “consubstantialem Patri.”

Patri is dative, of Pater. As it is in the dative case, Patri contains the preposition with the Father. So “consubstantial with the Father” is really a perfect translation of “consubtantialem Patri.”

 

[johnnykins]

It is at the least a highly technical word. I doubt you would get similar answers from most Catholics if you asked what it meant, exactly, other than ‘one’. Of course the same is also true of ‘one in being’. That is the result of using unplain English. People understand the same words to mean different things. It always seems strange to me that a Church founded by someone who used wonderfully simple language could develop “Vaticanese”.

Yes, it is highly technical - and for that very reason should be used. The arguments over “homoousia” at Nicea was the very crux of the issues at the Council. It was and is a very technical matter. By using the technical term, you have a wonderful opportunity for both catechesis and a history lesson. Very much because “[p]eople understand the same words to mean different things” we need to employ the technical term - especially when the technical nature of that term was key to a proper understanding of the nature of Jesus.

 

[ProVobis]

Keep in mind, consubstantialis is itself a translation of the Greek term homoousios, meaning “same essence.” This is of extreme importance to our faith and the doctrine of the Trinity, as it arises out of the Nicene Council, which was a response to one of the great heresies of the fourth century, Arianism. The Arians promoted the idea that the persons of the Trinity were homoiousios, similar substance. This is, incidentally, where we get the expression “it doesn’t make an iota of difference.” The only difference between Nicene Christianity and Arian Heresy is one iota, but what a world of difference it is!

Constantine’s son the Emperor Constantius was an Arian. Some of the most important bishops of the time were Arians. The controversy almost went the other direction, but under the wisdom of the Council of Nicea came our Creed. The translation “one in being with the Father” is simply not accurate, and does not reflect the true reasoning behind the Creed. Indeed, “one in being” seems pretty vague if you ask me, as an Arian would probably agree that the Father and Son were one in being, but differed in substance. The significant distinction contained in our Creed is that they are of the same substance, homoousios, consubstantial.

As to the grammatical issue, “consubstantial with the Father” is not really redundant. “Consubstantial” means “of the same substance” according to Webster, so it doesn’t really seem redundant in English to add the preposition. Moreover, the Latin phrase is “consubstantialem Patri.”

Patri is dative, of Pater. As it is in the dative case, Patri contains the preposition with the Father. So “consubstantial with the Father” is really a perfect translation of “consubtantialem Patri.”

You lost me, there seems to be a disagreement of meanings, but let’s move forward.

 

[stanczyk]

You lost me, there seems to be a disagreement of meanings, but let’s move forward.

I don’t know what you mean, I think we all agree about the meaning of “consubstantial.” At least, I hope we all do.

What I was trying to say is simply that “consubstantial with the Father” is simply a much better translation than the previous version.