cosubstantial

[Ter1]

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.

A few years ago, I attended a series of talks on the Trinity. The priest went into the background the debates etc. The greek/latin words used in the 4th Century Creed and why they were used (the difference between Substance and Person etc) and he ended with ‘what was said then is what we say even now in the Creed, in English we say ‘one in being’ but the Latin text remains the same’. I remember thinking it would be much easier to explain the Trinity (Substance, Person, why the credal formula was used) if the English actually used the same word. You could connect explanation about ‘substance’ with the words of the creed. I knew from books published before Vatican II that in Britain and Ireland ‘consubstantial’ was commonly used and was a bit surprised that they changed it. So I’d be coming from almost the opposite view, I think it might be helpful and hopefully a few priests will use the opportunity of the change of words to preach about the Trinity.

I agree some people will stumble over it initially but we will soon get used to saying the word, afterall we use complex words in everyday life (even children, think of Pokemon etc).

 

[opus101]

Perhaps you see it as disobedience to the church. It isn’t, nor is it sinful.

There was a time (before the final decisions were made and approved by the Vatican) to complain and bring up opposing views. Many did, even a few Bishops. But then the final form was approved. After that, it does absolutely no good to complain. Now is the time to consider the wisdom of the Church, and the fact that you might just be wrong! Or perhaps the fact that, while some of your ideas may be kosher, they need enriched and broadened a bit.

There was a time when constant grousing ,harping, and unjust criticism and false characterization of the Magisterium might not have been a sign of sinful disobedience. But that time is over.

Consider the fact that you might be wrong, and may have an incomplete understanding of the Faith.

Yes, our Lord became a little baby… but that is another section of the Creed . He became man. But not a human PERSON! He had both a human and a Divine NATURE, but, throught the hypostatic union (oh dear, another big word), He was only one PERSON. and that person was/is Divine. This is a truth that many of us have forgotten or never knew in the first place, and the choice of “consubstantial” underscores this truth.

 

[opus101]

According to your train of thought, we would only need to recite the first half of the Creed, and omit the rest. That would be an incomplete representation of the Faith, and an incomplete Catholic theology.

 

[TheMc]

According to your train of thought, we would only need to recite the first half of the Creed, and omit the rest. That would be an incomplete representation of the Faith, and an incomplete Catholic theology.

?!?!?

 

[opus101]

?!?!?

Sorry. I was referring to Doxiemom’s theology as represented in post #46 and others, which emphasizes incarnation, immanence and simplicity at the expense of a more complete view of the Faith.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

I suppose I am on the opposite side of the pendulum swing from you. This is actually probably one of my favorite changes in the new translation.

I can appreciate your perspective. I really can. Closeness to God is obviously important to all of us. I would only encourage you to give it time and be open to having it grow on you.

Historically, this word from the Creed is a very important word. An entire century of Church history and the first two ecumenical councils of the Church revolve around the dispute over this one word: homoiousios (in the original Greek). A priest named Arius came along and said that Jesus was only homoousios – of similar substance to the Father (instead of the same substance). It was a denial of Jesus’ divinity. This heresy swept through the whole Church and seemed as if it would actually win the day. Notice the difference between the words is only the letter ‘i’ in the middle. That’s where we get the phrase “It doesn’t make one iota of difference” as “iota” is the Greek name for the letter ‘i’. Little differences can make a big difference.

I know that sometimes it can seem like theological hair splitting, but being precise in the words we use is very important. One of the great drawbacks to the translation “one in being” is that it gives us the illusion that we understand it perfectly. After all, those are three simple words we all know. I know what “one” means. I know what “in” means. And I know what “being” means. It becomes quite easy to gloss over the words because we think we know what they mean.

Using a word like “consubstantial” forces us to slow down and think about it a bit more. Sure, it may seem clunky and awkward to us at first if we are not accustomed to it. But I think that offers us a remarkable opportunity for introspection on the nature of the Trinity and of Who God is in His essence. Such a reflection can only serve to bring us more closely to Him.

I’m not trying to downplay your feelings towards this word. Like I said, I can appreciate your feeling that way. I’m simply offering another more positive perspective. The bishops are not (always ) some ivory tower eggheads with nothing better to do than to confuse us poor lay people. I really believe the translators tooks this to prayer and prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit. This has been a ten year long process of translation, revision, approval, more revision, more approval, final approval, etc. Some of the changes may seem odd to us at first, but I think giving it time is a good approach to take.

God bless!

 

[opus101]

According to your train of thought, we would only need to recite the first half of the Creed, and omit the rest. That would be an incomplete representation of the Faith, and an incomplete Catholic theology.

I shouldn’t have said “first half”. I meant : we would only need to recite the part referring to the Son of God becoming man, and leave out the rest (before and after) that explains in what manner we believe this, and other further aspects of the Faith etc. Just a thought, I could be wrong.

 

[ProVobis]

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”.

Then why not use consubstantialem Patri rather then “consubstantial with the Father”? Same number of syllables. And the former will never change.

Point taken, though.

But one must be careful of trying to force polysyllabic words on the Anglophones. Out of the 500 most used words in English, about 400 of them are one syllable. Read anything on “power” words and you’ll find practically all of them are one or two syllables. Look at English surnames: Jones, Smith, etc. (Chinese too, for that matter, but that’s another topic.) They teach efficiency these days if nothing else. Anglophones seem to have a problem learning any new words over two or three syllables. You’ll find those learning English as a second or third language will seldom go out of their way to study longer words. IMO, “consubstantial” will always be tough to say, even if fully understood. Just saying.

 

[opus101]

Then why not use consubstantialem Patri rather then “consubstantial with the Father”? Same number of syllables. And the former will never change.

Point taken, though.

But one must be careful of trying to force polysyllabic words on the Anglophones. Out of the 500 most used words in English, about 400 of them are one syllable. Read anything on “power” words and you’ll find practically all of them are one or two syllables. Look at English surnames: Jones, Smith, etc. (Chinese too, for that matter, but that’s another topic.) They teach efficiency these days if nothing else. Anglophones seem to have a problem learning any new words over two or three syllables. You’ll find those learning English as a second or third language will seldom go out of their way to study longer words. IMO, “consubstantial” will always be tough to say, even if fully understood. Just saying.

I’ll take your word for it, but, to me it does not seem difficult at all to pronounce Since we generally learn how to speak and pronounce things from hearing (not reading), with time, people will grow accustomed to how it is supposed to be pronounced.

Interestinlgy, the OP used the following words that are actually as long or longer than the word in question: “apologetic”, “relationship”, “conversation”, “understandable”, and “disobedience”. They are not harder to pronounce. We just hear them more often, and so are familiar with the way they are pronounced.

 

[opus101]

But one must be careful of trying to force polysyllabic words on the Anglophones. Out of the 500 most used words in English, about 400 of them are one syllable.

This statistical info doesn’t convince me of anything in regard to the topic at hand. By age 5 ot 6, the average first grader has a vocabulary of 2,500 - 5,000 words. That’s a lot more than 500. And the average school student learns 3000 new words per year, and the average high-school graduate has a vocabulary of 12,000 words!!! (Info courtesy of Wikipedia).

 

[ProVobis]

This statistical info doesn’t convince me of anything in regard to the topic at hand. By age 5 ot 6, the average first grader has a vocabulary of 2,500 - 5,000 words. That’s a lot more than 500. And the average school student learns 3000 new words per year, and the average high-school graduate has a vocabulary of 12,000 words!!! (Info courtesy of Wikipedia).

Not impressive if you’re talking only one language. Children in many countries are learning more than one language and thus lots more vocabulary. Americans are about 25th in reading and the number of native English speakers is declining. And who takes English grammar and literature seriously anymore? Believe me, I wish it were different.

Interestinlgy, the OP used the following words that are actually as long or longer than the word in question:

May be but the word is “coNsubstantial.” We haven’t contracted this word yet.

 

[opus101]

Not impressive if you’re talking only one language. Children in many countries are learning more than one language and thus lots more vocabulary. Americans are about 25th in reading and the number of native English speakers is declining. And who takes English grammar and literature seriously anymore? Believe me, I wish it were different.

May be but the word is “coNsubstantial.” We haven’t contracted this word yet.

Oh. dear. This is depressing.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

Interestinlgy, the OP used the following words that are actually as long or longer than the word in question: “apologetic”, “relationship”, “conversation”, “understandable”, and “disobedience”. They are not harder to pronounce. We just hear them more often, and so are familiar with the way they are pronounced.

Exactly.

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.

There is no simple easy to understand phrase which accurately reflects the reality of “consubstantial.” The word has nearly 2000 years of history and its theology has been the focus of the greatest debates in Christianity. The word is important! It must be precise!

And I think it is EXACTLY what the Church needs to attract people! We have had years of this wishy-washy, dumbed down, “make it relevant” type Catholicism. Look where it has gotten us. Has in increased vocations? Has it stopped people leaving the Church? Do people understand the theology of the Mass any better? No, no, no.

This new translation is needed to revitalize our Catholic identity. People now days need this. This is why traditional seminaries are. Full beyond capacity and many people who attend (or say) the Extraordinary Form are young.

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.

The mass is NOT about bringing God down to our level, it is meant to raise our minds up to HIS. The Bishops know this. And they are trying to get you to elevate your mind to heaven, even if they have to drag you kicking and screaming. The Kumbaya generation tried to dumb down mass and bring it to the people, but all it did was turn people away and damage the Church.

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 .

I think the word consubstantial actually helps tear down any veils between me and God. It tears down the veil of misunderstanding created by imprecise, ambiguous wording. It destroys the veil of ignorance erected by those who think we’re all to stupid to understand the word “consubstantial.”

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.

This word brings a deeper meaning to my faith, and I think it will bring a deeper meaning to yours. I understand that perhaps change is offputting, but this is change we need. Mh young generation does not want to leave the Church is such horrible disrepair as the generations before us did. We need this. The whole Church needs this.

And come on! Consubstantial is such a simple word! All of us Catholics know what substance means in theology, because we all understand transubstantiation. And we all know what the prefix con- means. Its so simple!

If consubstantial is too difficult a word and concept, you must think we should all be saying that bread and wine on the altar become one in being with Jesus. That just isn’t a good way to say it.

 

[stanczyk]

And I think it is EXACTLY what the Church needs to attract people! We have had years of this wishy-washy, dumbed down, “make it relevant” type Catholicism. Look where it has gotten us. Has in increased vocations? Has it stopped people leaving the Church? Do people understand the theology of the Mass any better? No, no, no.

If I may inject, I fear you my be taking a too Euro-centric and America-centric point of view here. Certainly there is a priest shortage in America and Europe, and people may very well be leaving the Church in droves in these places. But in recent year the Church has grown enormously in Africa and Asia, and I don’t think you can discount the role that the “make it relevant” approach has played in these places.

I have my traditionalist impulses as well, and I love Latin, but I have to admit that making it relevant for mass consumption is the best thing for the Church, and the best thing for getting Christ’s message across. Just speaking for myself, I love this new additional of “consubstantial” to the Creed, because I was already intimately familiar with the term from my studies. But not everybody is academically inclined. In fact, the fast majority of people are not. The vast majority of people, worldwide, need the Church to be made accessible.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

If I may inject, I fear you my be taking a too Euro-centric and America-centric point of view here. Certainly there is a priest shortage in America and Europe, and people may very well be leaving the Church in droves in these places. But in recent year the Church has grown enormously in Africa and Asia, and I don’t think you can discount the role that the “make it relevant” approach has played in these places.

I have my traditionalist impulses as well, and I love Latin, but I have to admit that making it relevant for mass consumption is the best thing for the Church, and the best thing for getting Christ’s message across. Just speaking for myself, I love this new additional of “consubstantial” to the Creed, because I was already intimately familiar with the term from my studies. But not everybody is academically inclined. In fact, the fast majority of people are not. The vast majority of people, worldwide, need the Church to be made accessible.

Yes, I was most concerned with the US and Europe when I wrote that. And though the Church is faltering in those areas, they still are the most powerful within the Church, so what happens there is of monumental importance to the rest of the Church. At least for now…

But anyways, I think there is a huge difference between the “make it relevant” dumbed-down mass which I was describing and the sort of genuine inculturation which has been pursued to great effect in Africa. While many of the things that happen in Africa (clapping, “dancing,” etc) are some of the things the Kumbaya-Catholics want, they want them for different reasons. In Africa, these are shows of respect and reverence. They are the African equivalent of “consubstantial.” In the US or Europe, they’re just silly.

 

[benedictus2]

Then why not use consubstantialem Patri rather then “consubstantial with the Father”? Same number of syllables. And the former will never change.

Point taken, though.

But one must be careful of trying to force polysyllabic words on the Anglophones. Out of the 500 most used words in English, about 400 of them are one syllable. Read anything on “power” words and you’ll find practically all of them are one or two syllables. Look at English surnames: Jones, Smith, etc. (Chinese too, for that matter, but that’s another topic.) They teach efficiency these days if nothing else. Anglophones seem to have a problem learning any new words over two or three syllables. You’ll find those learning English as a second or third language will seldom go out of their way to study longer words. IMO, “consubstantial” will always be tough to say, even if fully understood. Just saying.

Should the prevalence of monosyllables in the English language determine the phrases and words we use for the Liturgy?

In Australia, they say “Ta” for “Thank You”. Someone said that one can say “Holy Father we Thank you” in 4 syllables - “Holy Pa, Ta”. Hardly reverent.

 

[ProVobis]

Should the prevalence of monosyllables in the English language determine the phrases and words we use for the Liturgy?

I think we all should stick to the language of the Church and of the Cross, which captures all the nuances of the time of Christ and maintains the codified and beautiful word endings of that period. Even “consubstantial” is a shortening of the Latin “consubstantialem,” a typical way which Latin accusatives were formed into the Romance languages, first dropping of the “m” and then the vowels. (Does “spiritum” => “spiritu” => “spirit” ring a bell?) What next, “consub” as a shortening?

A good book to read, which gets into all this, is “Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages” by Joseph Solodow.

amazon.com/Latin-Alive-Survival-English-Languages/dp/0521734185

 

[benedictus2]

I think we all should stick to the language of the Church and of the Cross, which captures all the nuances of the time of Christ and maintains the codified and beautiful word endings of that period. Even “consubstantial” is a shortening of the Latin “consubstantialem,” a typical way which Latin accusatives were formed into the Romance languages, first dropping of the “m” and then the vowels. (Does “spiritum” => “spiritu” => “spirit” ring a bell?) What next, “consub” as a shortening?

A good book to read, which gets into all this, is “Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages” by Joseph Solodow.

amazon.com/Latin-Alive-Survival-English-Languages/dp/0521734185

That was not the point that I took issue with. It was more your point that we should not foist polysyllabic words on the Anglophone.

Personally I think it would be okay if some of the responses are in Latin. It gives people a quick course on the language. However, for me it does lose the association that I have with the English responses.

 

[ProVobis]

That was not the point that I took issue with. It was more your point that we should not foist polysyllabic words on the Anglophone.

Personally I have no problem with the longest word in the English language or long surnames. My native language is Polish, which doesn’t exactly lack long polysyllabic words which young children get to learn.

 

[benedictus2]

Personally I have no problem with the longest word in the English language or long surnames. My native language is Polish, which doesn’t exactly lack long polysyllabic words which young children get to learn.

I think it would be good for the Anglophones to start learning long ones. With the texting short cuts, the language is getting increasingly corrupt.