www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "One in essence with the Father"?

Before raising my question, let me begin by making my own position clear: I hold that the best possible translation of homoousion to Patri is "consubstantial with the Father." Second best I think is "of one substance with the Father." The latter is of course the wording we have been used to in the Ruthenian Metropolia. Interestingly, the Latin word consubstantialis appears to be the original word proposed at the Council of Nicea by Hosius of Cordova, which was translated into Greek as Homoousion. This historical point is noted by Dr. Nicon Patrinacos in his Dictionary of Greek Orthodoxy (entry: Homoousion, p.198). Dr. Patrinacos could hardly be charged with a bias in the matter.

The Creed which the Ruthenian bishops have now promulgated reads, "one in essence with the Father." Some think that this brings the Byzantine Catholic wording of the Creed closer to the usage in the Orthodox churches. But this is not the case. The Greek Archdiocese, the Antiochian Archdiocese, and the OCA all profess that the Son is "of one essence with the Father."

Now, I find a world of difference between "of one essence with the Father" and "one in essence with the Father." Why? Because in the phrase "one in essence," "in essence" is an adverbial modifier. It modifies "one." Hence the meaning comes out as, essentially one with the Father. This does not appear to me to have anything near the same force as "of one essence" which means having one and the same essence (or substance or nature).

Am I a choir of one, or does anyone else see a problem here?

Thanks for bringing this up Gabriel! I hadn't noticed THIS change! I agree with you the meaning has been changed.

We must ask the revisionists, where is this particular Creed being used in the Orthodox Church? After all, I thought I read all the changes in our DL have been or are being used in the Orthodox Church. -- Thanks in advance for the info!

I much prefer "one in essence" to "consubstantial". To translate homoousios as consubstantial is to translate nothing, and it obscures more than it reveals, since "substantia" is much closer to "hypostasis" linguistically than it is to "ousia."

These words are tricky to work out, but the word "ousia" is most often translated in patristic and orthodox sources as "essence", not substance. See the recent discussion with Apotheoun about whether God's essence is unknowable, and what that means. The word Palamas uses is "ousia;" should we say, to be consistent, that God's substance is unknowable?

Let me be more clear: "substance" means "that which stands (stance) under (sub)." This has no relationship to ousia, which is a constructed noun form of the verb "to be." "Essentia" is also a constructed noun form of the Latin verb "to be," and so is much more appropriate for "ousia" than "substance."

"Hypostasis," which we translate as "person", is actually the equivalent to substance, since "hypo" means "below" and "stasis" means "that which stands."

I think you a creating a problem where there is none. One in essence and of one essence mean the same thing.

They are one in essence!

Incidentally, somewhere Gregory the Theologian says that human fathers and sons are "homoousios."

Indeed. Not only fathers and sons, but the whole human race and every member thereof is truly consubstantial; this is why the word men is so important in the Creed. If man is not a consubstantial universal reality then Original Sin, Redemption of all in Christ, and the one holy catholic and apostolic Church are all tasteless jokes.

Webster's Collegiate: Consubstantial: Of the same kind or nature; having the same substance or essence.

I submit to you that consubstantial means in English precisely what consubstantialis means in Latin. And in this case, the Latin word came first; homoousios is the Greek translation.

That would be the case if "substance" meant what "essence" meant. But it doesn't. My father and I share the same essence, yes, but we don't share the same substance. His substance is about 8 miles away from me.

You see? The two words are not equivalent.

P-A,

I believe you are too narrowly defining substance in physical categories. If you will kindly bear with me while I quote Webster again: "Substance:[OF., fr L. substantia, fr substare to be under or present, stand firm.] 1. That which underlies all outward manifestations; real, unchanging essence or nature; that in which qualities, or accidents, inhere; that which constitutes anything what it is." Definition number 4 is the one you seem to be narrowly insisting on: "Material of which a thing is made; hence, solidity; body; as, to test the substance of concrete." You do share in the whole human substance with your eight-mile-away father. The bodily separateness is merely accidental.

We hear the priest cry out at Orthros: "Blessed is the Holy, Consubstantial, and Life-creating Trinity. Now, God made man in his own image. I have never limited the image of God in man to rationality and freedom, although these are basic characteristics. But as God is Father Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial and undivided, so man is consubstantial, having the same nature, substance and essence, yet many persons.

Interestingly, the revised translation of the Creed for the Novus Ordo in English proposed to replace "one in being" with consubstantial, but the American bishops rejected it. Maybe Cardinal Arinze will overrule them. Also, the current version of the Creed in ACROD uses consubstantial. I believe this word should be restored in a common English version of the Creed for all.

PA,

Your argument then indicates why in this case, consubstantial is a better translation for ousia which is not foreign to the Greek world--here I have in mind the ousia in the Categories which I have never seen translated as essence.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not merely have the same essence, in the same way that all men share the same essence, but they are one God--consubstantial--not three gods. They are of one essence in the sense that essence means the very substance, God from God.

Your definition of substance only makes sense if we take it to mean essence. So why not say essence?

In my conversation with a member of Vox Clara (Archbishop Lipscomb) last year, consubstantial was not going to be used in the Roman creed translation. Where have you heard differently?

What do you mean when you say "man is consubstantial, having the same nature, substance, and essence?" How do you distinguish those three terms? Do you think they are equivalent? They aren't. At least, they aren't now, and weren't in medieval Latin. I don't claim to know what they were in late classical Latin.

Here's a passage from Aquinas to show a difference, from De ente et essentia:

Sed quia ens absolute et per prius dicitur de substantiis et per posterius et quasi secundum quid de accidentibus, inde est quod essentia proprie et vere est in substantiis, sed in accidentibus est quodammodo et secundum quid.

The bodily separateness is not accidental in the sense that man by nature, in his essence, is a composite of body and soul. Man can be said of P-A and his father (or mother!) because they share the same nature or essence, a composite of matter and form. But P-A refers to this flesh and these bones, and his father of another flesh and other bones. Basil says as much in Epistle 38:

In the Categories, ousia refers both to individual things, and to secondary ousiae, which aren't individual things. "This horse" versus "horse."

It is probably the Metaphysics where you should look for the ultimate meaning of ousia. Aristotle asks "What is ousia?" That's the primary question. His answer, ultimately, is the "to ti en einai," "the what was to be", taht which endures in a thing, which most closely trackes with "essentia."

Your trinitarian understanding adds a layer of unity that one doesn't find, I think, in the Cappadocians. In my reading of Gregory, the Trinity is one in essence, not in that there is some common trunk-ish essence out of which they all grow, but in that they are unified in action. Gregory, if I remember correctly, even extends the image of earthly fathers and sons--the heir and the king are homoousios, and yet share one imperium. Likewise Father and Son are homoousios, and yet share one divinity.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it might not be the way the Council Fathers understood homoousios.

Quick question: are nature and essence equivalent?

Second question: did you guys read De ente et essentia at TAC?

I wonder if some of the difficulty in understandings of the trinity might be based on the difference between "substantia" and "ousia." Aquinas uses "substance" to refer to a particular this. Using his understanding, consubstantial takes on a different flavor, since it says that Father and Son are one particular this. Homoousios in Greek doesn't have as much of a connotation of singularity.

It seems you should say that Father and Son are homoousios (of the same essence) because [not yet] they are one divinity. This brings us back to Gabriel's original point which is "of one essence" would be a better translation than "one in essence."

Of one essence is certainly the sense in the Creed--Light of Light, true God of true God,-- homoousion to patri.


I will need to consider the other matters of which you speak more carefully.