{"id":2621,"date":"2011-04-13T23:59:53","date_gmt":"2011-04-14T03:59:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=2621"},"modified":"2015-08-17T14:15:41","modified_gmt":"2015-08-17T18:15:41","slug":"one-in-being-out-consubstantial-back-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/one-in-being-out-consubstantial-back-in\/","title":{"rendered":"“One in Being” out, “Consubstantial” (back) in"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"The most controversial word<\/strong> up to that date in Christian theology was the Greek homoousios<\/em>, enshrined at the Nicea council called and presided over by the first\u00a0 Christian (?) Roman emperor, Constantine, in the year 325.<\/p>\n

This council said that we must confess that the Son is <\/em>homoousion<\/em><\/a> with the Father.
\nWhat did it mean?<\/strong> Same ousia<\/em>. Does that clear it up?<\/p>\n

OK, here’s more: same being-or-substance-or-essence-or-nature-or-something<\/em>!<\/p>\n

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 <\/em>true God.<\/p>\n

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 <\/em>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.<\/p>\n

When they translated the Nicene creed into Latin, homoousion <\/em>became consubstantialem<\/em><\/strong>. In older English translations of the Catholic missal, this was “consubstantial<\/strong>“. But in the post-Vatican II era, there was an urge to clean up, modernize,\u00a0 and clarify liturgical language. Thus, since 1970 they’ve been saying (in English language masses) “one in Being with<\/strong> the Father”.<\/p>\n

Some criticize this for suggesting modalism. (Nothing new under the sun, people!) In any case, this translation is on its way out<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

For some time, they’ve been fighting over how traditional<\/a> liturgical language should be. For the obsessive, here’s a whole blog<\/a> devoted to the missal-update.<\/p>\n

The new version<\/a> will go back to the old rendering:”consubstantial”.<\/p>\n

People are criticizing this as being unfathomable <\/strong>to the average Catholic in the pew. Maybe so. But what translation isn’t?<\/p>\n

A priest quoted in the New York Times story is more optimistic:<\/p>\n

Father Hilgartner said, \u201cWe know that people aren\u2019t going to understand it initially, and we\u2019ll have to talk about it. I\u2019ve said to priests, we will welcome and crave opportunities for people to come up and ask us about God. It\u2019s a catechetical opportunity<\/strong>.\u201d (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This, of course, supposes that the priest<\/em> knows what it means!<\/p>\n

One attempt<\/a> I’ve seen, doesn’t inspire confidence. Here’s the exposition on “consubstantial”:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ehh… so it means that the Son isn’t<\/em> like the Father? But he completely has the Father’s… “Godhead”? Clear as mud<\/strong>, I’m afraid.<\/p>\n

Here’s a none-too-convincing argument<\/a> that the new translation is better. Yes, much, much better.<\/p>\n

And here’s an odd argument <\/a>that the old “one in Being” just had to go.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018One in being\u2019 is vague and open to misinterpretation,\u201d said Father Roy. \u201cThe 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\u2019re all \u2018one in being\u2019 with the Father. That doesn\u2019t say anything unique about Christ.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

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!<\/p>\n

From the same piece, a priest makes a better point<\/strong>, though I’m not sure it really supports the change in question:<\/p>\n

\u201cJust because \u2018one in being\u2019 is three simple words in a row<\/strong> doesn\u2019t mean that the average person understands what the phrase means.\u201d (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That’s right. Apples noodle currency.<\/p>\n

Maybe they should just be glad they didn’t change it to “of the same substance”.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But wait – if that phrase is even less <\/em>intelligible, maybe it’d be all the more <\/em>suitable! Check out another priest’s argument<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen people first hear they\u2019ll be saying \u2018consubstantial,\u2019 their first response is, \u2018I don\u2019t know what that means. Why can\u2019t we use a word I understand?\u2019\u201d said Father Hilgartner. \u201cBut we\u2019re talking about a mystery that no one fully understands and that can\u2019t be fully articulated. In some ways the use of the word helps us confront the mystery, to stand before the mystery.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I sort of agree with the spirit of this remark. Some initial confusion<\/strong> can be a good thing, if it stimulates inquiry and learning. But that “initial” is important!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u00a0 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?… Read More »“One in Being” out, “Consubstantial” (back) in<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2632,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[58,4,14,8,5,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-creeds","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-history","category-linkage","category-modalism","category-mystery"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2621"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36101,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621\/revisions\/36101"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}