cosubstantial

[ProVobis]

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.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I stand neutral on the translation. But do know that an 1867 handmissal translation had it “consubstantial TO the Father.” Do you think that might be better?

 

[opus101]

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.

 

[stanczyk]

I stand neutral on the translation. But do know that an 1867 handmissal translation had it “consubstantial TO the Father.” Do you think that might be better?

Yes, I completely agree with you there.

 

[DiZent]

The concept of “One in Being” is incorrect. It is a statement of existence. There is no existence 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 characteristic 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.

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

When the Council of Nicea met, they created the Creed using the terms Homoousios\Consubstantalis. (the Council promulgated the Creed in both Latin and Greek.

This was back when both Latin and Greek were common languages, but they still used very technical terms. Neither terms were normal, household words used by the regular folks in the pews. They required an understanding of Aristolean metaphysics then, and they do so now.

Clearly, the Council considered it more beneficial to the Church to be very precise in the theological concepts, rather than making it understandable to 8 year olds.

So why fault the Church if it is still true today.

One other point, I don’t think there were many third graders who could describe what was meant by “One in Being”. Sure they could pronounce the words more easily than “consubstantial”, but I think the number who actually understood it was very, very small.

At least with 'Consubstantial", most third graders would recognize that they do NOT understand it, and this is a great opportunity for their parents, pastors or religious teachers to explain the concept to them. With “One in Being”, most never would have even asked.

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I thought it meant the same, and that Consubstantial was just a fancy word for “One in Being” but I can see I was mistaken. I substitute for religious ed, and I might need to explain the meaning of Consubstantial to a student or to one of my grandchildren, or even to one of my adult children. Someone else mentioned “One in Substance” as a definition.

 

[Doxiemom]

First of all, forgive me please if it seemed as if i was belittling anyone here. Not my intention.

You see, if you are being involved in this conversation( it was not meant to be an apologetic question), it means you care, you think, you are not just putting in your 45 minutes a week and , good-bye, see ya next week. let’s face it, there are a lot of folks who do that. You are amongst the warriors. It is a good thing.

I still say the bishops should have taken the original language and translated into a word or phrase that will have an instant understandable meaning to the greater part of catholics. One that you read with your eyes and feel in your heart. No, instead, they chose to use this kind of puzzle word. It is not the sort of stuff that will draw fuller into the church those who are waivering on the line.

That is the 'aloofness" i am talking about. God lowered Himself into being a helpless baby. Could not the bishops come down a bit and be , well," common-folk" and draw us closer in our words rather than the route they took?

I am sure they are well intentioned, sincere, God fearing men.But, I think they messed up on this one word.

Ok, it is only one word, but it is a stumbling block of a word. Trying to grasp the intimacy of a triune God is hard enough, but, please,don’t say it in words that make it even more of a mystery.

The veil of the temple was no mere cloth. It was immense and very thick. And only the High Priest could enter. But it was by no accident that it was ripped, from the top down by God’s Hand, at the moment of His Death. He was telling the world that there shall no longer be a thick barrier between us. Come to Me!

This is the message of my discontent…putting up veils again.

Perhaps you see it as disobedience to the church. It isn’t, nor is it sinful. It is , quite simply, one little grandmother who welcomes any change that brings deeper meaning to my faith. This didn’t. And i love to learn about the root meanings of the old languages. it gives Scripture so much depth that isn’t talked about in a homily.

Thank you.

 

[SMHW]

I stand neutral on the translation. But do know that an 1867 handmissal translation had it “consubstantial TO the Father.” Do you think that might be better?

I agree.

 

[beckers]

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

m

I totally understand! I have been going to an Anglican use parish for a few years. I have all the prayers down but man do I mess up jumping between the Latin mass and the regular roman rite mass and now the litrgury has changed it’s messing me up more. But in a good way because I know just to pull out the missal and pew cards and pay even more attention.

Though I have this feeling I am going to stumble most on saying ‘with your spirit’, because my natural reflect is to say “and with thy spirit”. Just sounds so much better to the ears.

I a

 

[BernadetteM]

m

I totally understand! I have been going to an Anglican use parish for a few years. I have all the prayers down but man do I mess up jumping between the Latin mass and the regular roman rite mass and now the litrgury has changed it’s messing me up more. But in a good way because I know just to pull out the missal and pew cards and pay even more attention.

Though I have this feeling I am going to stumble most on saying ‘with your spirit’, because my natural reflect is to say “and with thy spirit”. Just sounds so much better to the ears.

I a

Hi,

Texas seems to be the hot bed of Anglican Use parishes, there is one just received waiting for the Ordinariate and another one from TEC announcing that they are also joining the Ordinariate.

Wish we were so lucky in California. There is a small group I attend on Sunday nights who are coming in and my old parish is also. There are three others also in So. Calif., but none are that close.

I do love my Latin Rite parish as it is very traditional and we havd a wonderful priest, but miss the AU liturgy.

I think that in time there will be many more parishes joining, if word ever gets out to Continuing Anglicans and those still in TEC. I have found that these parishes are not told about the Ordinariate and if they are, it is in a very negative light.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[LilyM]

Personally I don’t have a beef with ‘consubstantial’, but I think ‘one in substance’ or ‘of the same substance’ or maybe ‘of the same essence’ would have been an accurate translation as well as more immediately understandable. Win-win.

 

[Hokomai]

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.

I think you have changed my mind Johnnykins [has shot of scotch, shakes slightly, breathes deeply and continues - ]. If the word is intended in a technical sense, and all other words are more open to misinterpretation, it makes sense to use it, especially as the word is the point on which a lot of history pivots. Thanks.

 

[DiZent]

Personally I don’t have a beef with ‘consubstantial’, but I think ‘one in substance’ or ‘of the same substance’ or maybe ‘of the same essence’ would have been an accurate translation as well as more immediately understandable. Win-win.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

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.

Everyone is stumbling on this word. It is distracting.

Any anvenue to let the bishops know how unhappy this one catholic is with this word?

A good answer by one going by the name lonesomeday from this link:

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...ction-between-consubstantial-and-one-in-being

The aim of the retranslation, as I understand it, is to have the translated text more accurately represent the original text.

The Latin version of the creed says:

Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri

Which means “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father”. The new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin. (In the same way, “And with your spirit” is a better translation of “et cum spiritu tuo” than “And also with you”.)

“One in Being with the Father” is an interpretation of the Latin – and a fairly modern one at that. If you’d said to one of the early Church fathers that the Son was one in Being with the Father, they may well have called you a heretic.

“One in substance” is a more accurate translation of the Latin and – who knows? – may give an opportunity for some good sermons on Christology.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

And you think that somehow reverence dispels intimacy?

We need to put reverence back because we seem to have domesticated God. God is Love and at the same time this Awesome Being who created heaven and earth.

We need to put an end to the kind of dumbed down Catholicism that we have been fed for a while now. We need to recover the reverence that we have lost.

God is both near and so far above us.

 

[benedictus2]

You see, if you are being involved in this conversation( it was not meant to be an apologetic question), it means you care, you think, you are not just putting in your 45 minutes a week and , good-bye, see ya next week. let’s face it, there are a lot of folks who do that. You are amongst the warriors. It is a good thing.

I still say the bishops should have taken the original language and translated into a word or phrase that will have an instant understandable meaning to the greater part of catholics. One that you read with your eyes and feel in your heart. No, instead, they chose to use this kind of puzzle word. It is not the sort of stuff that will draw fuller into the church those who are waivering on the line.

That is the 'aloofness" i am talking about. God lowered Himself into being a helpless baby. Could not the bishops come down a bit and be , well," common-folk" and draw us closer in our words rather than the route they took?

But God did not remain a helpless baby. He grew up and castigated the merchants at the temple and called people a brood vipers. He died on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

Sometimes I think we like the idea of the Christ child better than the grown Jesus because we think: oh Hes’ so cute and easily manipulable.

A child will not take us to task for our sins and call us to be better than the rotten people that we are.

 

[ProVobis]

Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri
…
…Which means “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father”. The new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin.
…

“One in Being with the Father” is an interpretation of the Latin – and a fairly modern one at that. "

One in substance" is a more accurate translation of the Latin and – who knows? – may give an opportunity for some good sermons on Christology.

Personally I don’t think any of these translations are wrong. And as long as we responded in Latin (Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri), we could accept or think any of these translations.

But when we are forced to respond with only one of these translations, many of us conclude that the Church thinks the others are wrong. That I feel is the big danger with the responding in the vernacular. Not to mention the controversy it stirs up and the distraction from real prayer.

 

[opus101]

Personally I don’t have a beef with ‘consubstantial’, but I think ‘one in substance’ or ‘of the same substance’ or maybe ‘of the same essence’ would have been an accurate translation as well as more immediately understandable. Win-win.

Who knows…maybe in time one of these will replace the current word. Unfortunately, there will always be those who think they know better than the Church, and they won’t like that either!

BTW, since the above phrases seem more immediatley understandable, can’t we just use them to define/explain “consubstantial” to those who are so unreasonably put off by it?

 

[TheMc]

BTW, since the above phrases seem more immediatley understandable, can’t we just use them to define/explain “consubstantial” to those who are so unreasonably put off by it?

Exactly! People shouldn’t be mad at the new translation using consubstantial. If they really don’t like it, they should try and get consubstantialem removed. It’s a technical word in english, and it’s a technical word in latin. There’s really no reason to change it in english if it remains in latin like that.

 

[opus101]

Ok, it is only one word, but it is a stumbling block of a word. Trying to grasp the intimacy of a triune God is hard enough, but, please,don’t say it in words that make it even more of a mystery.

This is the Holy Mass here, Doxiemom! The language used MUST be precise in describing the faith. After all, it’s the CREED!!! It takes less than 2 seconds to say “consubstantial”. Two seconds out of your entire week. Don’t you think you’re being a bit unreasonable?!! You have the rest of the week to cozy up to your simple God.

Both an understanding of a descending theology (the incarnation, etc.), and an ascending theology (God’s infinite majesty) are necessary. Maybe this is what the Church is trying to tell us!

BTW, don’t your grandchildren attend Catechism classes at their parish? Or Catholic school? All of the truths of the Faith are not that immediately graspable…that’s what the Catechism is for! That’s what homilies are for. That’s what the Magisterium is for. We are Catholics! We don’t make up our own Faith, and we don’t insist that the Pope and the Successors of the Apostles change things according to our liking. If they did, chaos would reign, as there are as many opinions as there are people!

He was telling the world that there shall no longer be a thick barrier between us.

I was always taught that the curtain ripped to show the end of the old sacrifices, and the beginning of the new dispensation, throught the one and final Sacrifice.

This is the message of my discontent…putting up veils again.

Veils? Rather, a more balanced view of God.

 

[opus101]

And you think that somehow reverence dispels intimacy?

We need to put reverence back because we seem to have domesticated God. God is Love and at the same time this Awesome Being who created heaven and earth.

We need to put an end to the kind of dumbed down Catholicism that we have been fed for a while now. We need to recover the reverence that we have lost.

God is both near and so far above us.