Nicene Creed

[Usige]

Could be but compare that to the Apostles Creed, where mortuus is distinct.

passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifíxus, mórtuus, et sepúltus

I was thinking the same thing when I looked at the Apostles Creed in German. Seems they all say he was crucified, died and was buried, so I guess the question is why the older creed mentions death, but most non-English versions of the Nicene Creed simply say “suffered and was buried”.

Just looking at the Athanasian Creed and it says “tertia die resurrexit a mortuis” so it is clear that two of the 3 Creeds mention death specifically. Not to derail the thread, but does make me wonder if death isn’t mention in the Nicene Creed because it was understood that resurrection could only happen after death.

 

[Padres1969]

I was thinking the same thing when I looked at the Apostles Creed in German. Seems they all say he was crucified, died and was buried, so I guess the question is why the older creed mentions death, but most non-English versions of the Nicene Creed simply say “suffered and was buried”.

Just looking at the Athanasian Creed and it says “tertia die resurrexit a mortuis” so it is clear that two of the 3 Creeds mention death specifically. Not to derail the thread, but does make me wonder if death isn’t mention in the Nicene Creed because it was understood that resurrection could only happen after death.

Seems possible. And it’s generally understood anyway from the rest of scripture that Christ did die, so it could easily be argued as something there by implication as you say. It’s not nearly as troublesome I’d say as the decent into hell has been in the Apostles Creed historically.

 

[Vico]

Seems possible. And it’s generally understood anyway from the rest of scripture that Christ did die, so it could easily be argued as something there by implication as you say. It’s not nearly as troublesome I’d say as the decent into hell has been in the Apostles Creed historically.

Here is the Byzantine Catholic (USA) version:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father; through whom all things were made. For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. He rose on the third day according to the scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, who proceeds from the Father. Together with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified; he spoke through the prophets. In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I profess one baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Usige]

Thanks, Vico. I was reading other non-Latin Rite English translations and noticed that many did not add the died/death verb. I’ve also looked at older English translations that don’t include include it either.

It does make one wonder why Vox Clara and the ICEL would chose to retain it when other approved English translations do not. I wonder if it has anything to do with ICEL holding a copyright on the translation used in the Mass?

 

[Vico]

Thanks, Vico. I was reading other non-Latin Rite English translations and noticed that many did not add the died/death verb. I’ve also looked at older English translations that don’t include include it either.

It does make one wonder why Vox Clara and the ICEL would chose to retain it when other approved English translations do not. I wonder if it has anything to do with ICEL holding a copyright on the translation used in the Mass?

Each Catholic sui iuris can determine their own liturgy. In this case it is in keeping with the same tradition of the Byzantine, from the Greek καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα.

I suppose that referencing the original source languages brought this revision to the Latin liturgy.

 

[Brendan]

I doubt it. I don’t think the Vatican will update the English Catechism simply because the Creed has a different translation. The “one in being” translation is still an acceptable translation, it’s not really Wrong in the Vatican’s eyes from what I can tell, just less literal…

There is a theological difference, and hence why the translation was changed.

“Being” is a statement of existence (to be). Since all existence comes from God, the keyboard that I am typing this one is “one in being with the Father”. The keyboard (or anything else) has no existence apart from the Father.

So, yes, the statement is literally true Christ IS one in being with the Father, but it makes no special claim about Christ.

Stating that Christ is one is essence with the Father, or one in substance with the Father IS a special claim, and that IS the claim that Nicaea was making.

 

[ProVobis]

It does make one wonder why Vox Clara and the ICEL would chose to retain it when other approved English translations do not. I wonder if it has anything to do with ICEL holding a copyright on the translation used in the Mass?

I imagine that has a lot to do with it. Some of the older translations of the creed are probably in the public domain but what’s approved for the Mass is what’s approved for the Mass.

Using the Latin would avoid copyright infringements as the Vatican allows it free of charge.

 

[Chatter163]

There is a theological difference, and hence why the translation was changed.

“Being” is a statement of existence (to be). Since all existence comes from God, the keyboard that I am typing this one is “one in being with the Father”. The keyboard (or anything else) has no existence apart from the Father.

So, yes, the statement is literally true Christ IS one in being with the Father, but it makes no special claim about Christ.

Stating that Christ is one is essence with the Father, or one in substance with the Father IS a special claim, and that IS the claim that Nicaea was making.

Exactly. Even the older prayer books of the Anglican Communion, including rite I of the current Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church today, read “being of one substance with the Father,” which I always thought was an excellent and accurate translation of consubstantialem Patri.

Indeed I was referring to the 1979 BCP version that is typically used with Rite II. If I’m not mistaken too the Anglican Ordinariate uses the 1928 BCP version like most Rite I services do, yes?

Correct. But a significant number of Eucharistic celebrations on the Episcopal Church use rite I, so it’s not like it’s obscure or outdated.

 

[ProVobis]

Stating that Christ is one is essence with the Father, or one in substance with the Father IS a special claim, and that IS the claim that Nicaea was making.

I believe the “one substance with the Father” was the pre-1970 official Anglican translation.

An older 19th century handmissal had “consubstantial TO the Father” (Patri is dative and of different theology) but this was not an official translation. This however seems closest to the Latin.

 

[Padres1969]

Exactly. Even the older prayer books of the Anglican Communion, including rite I of the current Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church today, read “being of one substance with the Father,” which I always thought was an excellent and accurate translation of consubstantialem Patri.

You know I have to agree with you there. In terms of making us understand I feel that “being of one substance” probably does a better job of conveying the meaning to a congregation when compared to the Rite II “of one Being with” and the previous Catholic “one in Being with” due the latter two being less descriptive. And the Anglican Ordinariate/Rite I terminology in that line is more understandable than the current Catholic “consubstantial”. I’ve felt like the newer Catholic using consubstantial is just one of those words that makes people’s eyes glass over having no clue what it means.

Correct. But a significant number of Eucharistic celebrations on the Episcopal Church use rite I, so it’s not like it’s obscure or outdated.

Apologies if I made it seem otherwise. I’m quite aware Rite I is still used quite often inside the ECUSA (as well as it’s modified use in the Anglican Ordinariate). I drive by a Rite I exclusive Parish every Sunday a few blocks from my own church.

 

[dmar198]

There is a theological difference, and hence why the translation was changed.

“Being” is a statement of existence (to be). Since all existence comes from God, the keyboard that I am typing this one is “one in being with the Father”. The keyboard (or anything else) has no existence apart from the Father.

So, yes, the statement is literally true Christ IS one in being with the Father, but it makes no special claim about Christ.

Stating that Christ is one is essence with the Father, or one in substance with the Father IS a special claim, and that IS the claim that Nicaea was making.

It is my understanding that the English word Being has several meanings, and one of its optional meanings is identical to the meaning of the word Substance as used in the Creed. Thus, I think it is an acceptable translation.

If you google “define being,” the second definition in their dictionary is “the nature or essence of a person.” So it looks like at least Google agrees with me, for what it’s worth.

 

[Brendan]

It is my understanding that the English word Being has several meanings, and one of its optional meanings is identical to the meaning of the word Substance as used in the Creed. Thus, I think it is an acceptable translation.

If you google “define being,” the second definition in their dictionary is “the nature or essence of a person.” So it looks like at least Google agrees with me, for what it’s worth.

As I stated, the wording is factually correct, but as writted, cannot be firmly stated to make any special claim about the relationship of Christ and the Father.

Words like ‘consubstantial’ clearly describe that relationship, while ‘one in being’, as you pointed out, is only secondarily so.

 

[peter26]

What we use in the Ordinariate probably is the clearest translation

“Being of one substance with the Father”.

 

[Padres1969]

What we use in the Ordinariate probably is the clearest translation

“Being of one substance with the Father”.

Won’t disagree with you there. The Ordinariate/Rite I version does seem to be clearest on that line at least. Overall however, I’ve always noticed that the “perfect” translation would likely be an amalgam of several of the major translations.

 

[ProVobis]

an excellent and accurate translation of consubstantialem Patri.

In English I don’t think there is one. If you break it down.

con (with)
sub (under)
stant (stand, exists)
Patri (to the Father)

you have three prepositions that an Anglophone will spend the rest of his life trying to figure out and make sense out of.

It’s a good exercise though.

 

[dmar198]

As I stated, the wording is factually correct, but as writted, cannot be firmly stated to make any special claim about the relationship of Christ and the Father.

I think “one in being” is factually correct too, but I think it’s more than that. If the person saying the creed uses the meaning of Being that is synonymous with Essence, then the speaker makes a special claim about Jesus that you can’t make about created people.

I can think of two claims in favor of consubstantial over one in being. First, that it is more literal. Second, that it doesn’t have a useless alternative definition. I think that position can be defended, but I also think the “one in being” translation can be defended: first, it may be less literal, but being less literal is not a bad thing. Second, the words one in being have a well-known meaning in contemporary culture which consubstantial does not.

To me, either translation can be defended. Consubstantial has a correct primary definition but is foreign to contemporary culture. “One in being” has two definitions that are familiar to contemporary culture, but only its secondary definition is the one we mean.

When the choices are that close, I think translators are free to select either one and get a golf clap.

St. Athanasius’s book Ad Afros Epistola Synodica discusses the word in question at length. In the English translation of that book at New Advent, the word he discusses is translated as Coessential. ← I think that translation is similar to consubstantial in that it is both literal and accurate, but contemporary people would basically not know what it means. It might be a bit better in that they are more familiar with essence having a spiritual meaning than substance, though. Contemporary people seem to me to associate the word substance with physical stuff.