The most controversial word up to that date in Christian theology was the Greek homoousios, enshrined at the Nicea council called and presided over by the first Christian (?) Roman emperor, Constantine, in the year 325.
This council said that we must confess that the Son is homoousion with the Father.
What did it mean? Same ousia. Does that clear it up?
OK, here’s more: same being-or-substance-or-essence-or-nature-or-something!
Whatever it was supposed to mean the “Arians” didn’t like it, and at the time, that was good enough. It was supposed to imply that Son, like Father, was “true God”, of divine status – however, unlike the Father, from true God.
Some were concerned in the immediate aftermath that the new formula was somehow modalistic (“Sabellian”). Aside from that fact the the word was first used by a modalist in the 3rd century, you can see why. If ousia is taken to mean individual entity, then it can be read as asserting Father and Son to be numerically identical – so that anything true of one has to be true of the other. However, it’s far from clear that at the time most took it that way.
When they translated the Nicene creed into Latin, homoousion became consubstantialem. In older English translations of the Catholic missal, this was “consubstantial“. But in the post-Vatican II era, there was an urge to clean up, modernize, and clarify liturgical language. Thus, since 1970 they’ve been saying (in English language masses) “one in Being with the Father”.
Some criticize this for suggesting modalism. (Nothing new under the sun, people!) In any case, this translation is on its way out.
For some time, they’ve been fighting over how traditional liturgical language should be. For the obsessive, here’s a whole blog devoted to the missal-update.
The new version will go back to the old rendering:”consubstantial”.
People are criticizing this as being unfathomable to the average Catholic in the pew. Maybe so. But what translation isn’t?
A priest quoted in the New York Times story is more optimistic:
Father Hilgartner said, “We know that people aren’t going to understand it initially, and we’ll have to talk about it. I’ve said to priests, we will welcome and crave opportunities for people to come up and ask us about God. It’s a catechetical opportunity.” (emphasis added)
This, of course, supposes that the priest knows what it means!
One attempt I’ve seen, doesn’t inspire confidence. Here’s the exposition on “consubstantial”:
The Eternal Son, who was born of the Virgin Mary, is neither “like” the Father nor “practically the same substance” as the Father. The Eternal Son enjoys the very same substance as the Father. The Son possesses fully the Godhead of the Father.
Ehh… so it means that the Son isn’t like the Father? But he completely has the Father’s… “Godhead”? Clear as mud, I’m afraid.
Here’s a none-too-convincing argument that the new translation is better. Yes, much, much better.
And here’s an odd argument that the old “one in Being” just had to go.
“‘One in being’ is vague and open to misinterpretation,” said Father Roy. “The Father is the source of all being. He is the sole Being whose essence is his existence, and he gives all of us our being and existence. So, to a certain extent, we’re all ‘one in being’ with the Father. That doesn’t say anything unique about Christ.”
But if God is the source of all being, why would it follow that we’re “one in Being” with him? Unless, we’re talking about pantheism!
From the same piece, a priest makes a better point, though I’m not sure it really supports the change in question:
“Just because ‘one in being’ is three simple words in a row doesn’t mean that the average person understands what the phrase means.” (emphasis added)
That’s right. Apples noodle currency.
Maybe they should just be glad they didn’t change it to “of the same substance”.
But wait – if that phrase is even less intelligible, maybe it’d be all the more suitable! Check out another priest’s argument:
“When people first hear they’ll be saying ‘consubstantial,’ their first response is, ‘I don’t know what that means. Why can’t we use a word I understand?’” said Father Hilgartner. “But we’re talking about a mystery that no one fully understands and that can’t be fully articulated. In some ways the use of the word helps us confront the mystery, to stand before the mystery.”
I sort of agree with the spirit of this remark. Some initial confusion can be a good thing, if it stimulates inquiry and learning. But that “initial” is important!
I wonder how Justin would have got on when he taught Dialogue 56.4 “??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ( ?????? ??? ) ??? ??????? ??? ????…”
Gk., ( ?????? ) heteros = another numerically in addition of a DIFFERENT KIND and nature.
No Nicene “Orthodoxy” here.
And it is right to say, that, in this context, the words [1.] Gk., ( ?????? ) and [2.] Gk., ( ??? ), by comparison, take on a far more important and heavier meaning than the words Gk., ( ????
??? ?????? ). Gk., ( ?????? ??? ), both modify and define further Gk., ( ???? ??? ?????? ). See Page 155, Chapter 5, “The Logos,” Subheading: “C. The Nature Of The Logos,” in: “The Theology of Justin Martyr,” By E.R. Goodenough.
Even meaning merely two in number is contrary to the intentions of the 381 council, I think.
Consubstantial means literally, from the same substance, but God isn’t from substance, God is the creator of substance. The words, One in being, established the relationship of the Trinity was the Creator. Christ is the person of Love, the Spirit is the motivator, and the Father the source of Truth and Law. The change to a word that implies God comes from substance is disconcerting. Just exactly what substance God and Christ come from is not explained, but in truth there is no substance, only the eternal relationship of Love.
This comment illustrates the confusions which are still sewn regularly by the term “homoousios” which Nicea introduced, and which many later thought we would be well rid of. One obvious meaning is: made of the same stuff/matter. But that is not what *most* fans of the term have meant by it. Though there are exceptions! http://trinities.org/dale/CT%20preprint%20-%20Tuggy.pdf
Me, I will never denounce all use of non-biblical terms. Any theoretical understanding may be aided by coining new terms. We can’t agree on a term, though, just to stick it to one group (in 325 the so-called “Arians”) and then pretend that we all had some one meaning in mind.
The prayer doesn’t flow a smoothly with consutstantial, and after the congregation recites it, dissonance follows. “One in Being” wasn’t the only change, the phrase “visible and invisible” was substituted for “seen and unseen”, weakening the argument about clarification. Seeing is a relationship, visibility is a property of substance. Dame Julian got it right, it was Love that made us, we are not the product of a mindless material processes, and neither is God.
Hello all,
I am new to this forum, and I apologize if this is a little late to the discussion here, but I’ve recently begun to do my own research into this whole matter of the change to our creed. I’m not happy with the change myself, having been born into the more modern rendition “One in Being” instead of “Consubstantial”, I believe there is a great deal of THE BIG PICTURE being missed by our beloved Clergymen in this whole struggle. If saying that Jesus was “One in Being” with the Father means that he was not fully equal to God, or of God, or the same as God somehow because of some silly translation failures over a Greek word and so cannot stand and should be left without any effort to improve, like Vatican II tried to do. Then answer me this, what other reference does one need and how complex an issue do we need to make what is already written in the Bible for us to read and digest every Sunday during Mass? You have countless references from Jesus himself about “His Father Above”, “His Fathers House”, the will of his Father in heaven and lastly how one must go through him to reach his Father in Heaven. My point is simple actually. How can you read all of the references about Jesus and his Father in heaven, how he prayed to his Father to take this cup away on the night in the garden (if there was any other way) and MOST IMPORTANTLY die on the cross to save mankind from original sin without being seperate from the Father we all know in Heaven?
And why should the efforts of the Second Vatican Council be thrown aside because of the english translation they came up with (and I agree with) which I believe summarizes the relationship quite effectively? Are we not simply “splitting hairs” here? More importantly, are we not rocking the boat that was supposed to be a foundation (unchanging and stable throughout time) meaning the Church itself? If I am uncomfortable with the new change back to the old ways, then who else agrees and has had their confidence shaken? I don’t like this one bit. The church has always been a rock and a stable place where I could feel safe from the ever changing world outside, and this whole argument/struggle over petty definitions smacks of nothing short of sabotage to that code. I have taken(as a requirement) Catholic Theology courses in college and felt like I was preparing to take on much bigger issues facing our religion in the world than something so petty as this. One of the biggest conclusions in all of my studies was that whatever happened throughout history to affect a change in the direction of the Church happened with almost a devine purpose behind it and was proven to be done by the will of God himself for the survival of his Church and the original promise he made to us through Jesus. This means that you move FORWARD from previous changes with that spirit in mind, NOT BACKWARDS. Way to go brainiacs… way to go!
P.S. Sorry if that last comment makes me sound petty myself, but I really would like to smack some sense into some of these people for what they have failed to grasp in the bigger picture. This whole matter I think does more dammage than good and seems to be nothing more than change for the sake of change.
Hi Kashif,
If you email me (me email is easy to find), I may be able to help you. There’s the history of ideas about God and Jesus and the Spirit, and there are works on conceptual analysis (i.e. what is the Trinity supposed to be – what does the doctrine mean, properly understood). About etymology – I don’t think that is important. There is of course no word like the English word “Trinity” in the Bible. But the idea is that only a Trinity theory best makes sense of or explains what things the Bible does say. Anyway – email me, and say more about what you’re looking for.
dear
in jesus christ can you send me any book about history of trinity and etymology of trinity or book referances because i am working on my theses the topis is “The Historical and biblical foundations of trinity”
i read your artical its very helpful for me its nice and very good thanks
in jesus name
your brother in christ
rev, kashif sohail
from Pakistan
Hi Dale!
The orthodox PRESS has usually painted Eusebius or caesarea’s letter of explanation to his flock about his signing the Nicene Creed as only a master SPIN move to placate an irate flock when he claimed that the homoousion of the nicene creed could be understood with a generic meaning, VS. a numerical sameness of identity meaning. I’m not so sure thats 100% correct.
Both the Council of Ephesus 431 AD and of Chalcedon 451 AD, purposely used homoousion to solidify their claim to Nicene orthodoxy when referencing the Godhead/hood, yet they also used ‘homoousion hemin’ (consubstantial with US) when referencing his humanity in the same clause. Now it stands to argue that both instances of homoousion have the SAME definition/meaning, hence it makes much more logical sense IMHO that a Generic meaning of the word Homoousios was foremost in these churchmen minds who due to previously embarrassing misunderstandings were ever vigilent to appear able defenders of orthodox meaning. The two alternatives to me see less likely; alt 1) that Jesus was numerically the same being with all humanity, or 2) two different technical meanings for the same word in the same sentence – obviously possible, but instilling ZERO confidence in any reader that these creedal theologians were up to the task of providing a coherent doctrine.
I haven’t read all of your or your guests posts hence it’s extremely possible that you’ve already covered this topic. I’ve done an internet seach and Biola catalog search with limited results. If you have covered the topic please inform me or if you can point me to an in depth essay or Book – that also would be Groovy! Thanks.
I think it means that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, Mary, the bread, and the wine. And the Son knows how to multiply the bread and the wine.
Comments are closed.