Resurrexi Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I just wanted to share how much I love the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Take a minute and read over it. This is what we believe: Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipoténtem, factórem caeli et terrae, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium. Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, Fílium Dei Unigénitum, et ex Patre natum ante ómnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: per quem ómnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem descéndit de caelis. Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est. Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto; passus et sepúltus est, et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras, et ascéndit in caelum, sedet ad déxteram Patris. Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória, iudicáre vivos et mórtuos, cuius regni non erit finis. Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem: qui ex Patre Filióque procédit. Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur: qui locútus est per prophétas. Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum. Et exspécto resurrectiónem mortuórum, et vitam ventúri saeculi. Amen. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. God of God light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I miss saying it every Sunday. We do the Apostle's Creed for some reason. My last apologetics class covered it. Using the new translation of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1915545' date='Jul 9 2009, 10:04 AM']I miss saying it every Sunday. We do the Apostle's Creed for some reason. My last apologetics class covered it. Using the new translation of course.[/quote] I like the Apostles' Creed, too. I don't like the current approved translation of the Nicene Creed, though. [i]Consubstantial [/i]is [i]so [/i]much better than [i]one in Being[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I had to explain to the ladies that in translating things sometimes we choose between ease of understanding and correctness. We all understand now, so it is time to go to deeper understanding by fine tuning the translation. They thought it was great, and for a room of 50-70 year old women, that was a victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie-Therese Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Ok guys...I'm asking for a primer. I'm a long way from a dolt, but I don't have the benefit of theological training or a background in Ecclesial Latin. What is the essence of the difference between the idea of being consubstantial and being "one in being"? As an uneducated layman I can see that there might be a very fine distinction but not one I'd have issue with. Help please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1915545' date='Jul 9 2009, 10:04 AM']I miss saying it every Sunday. We do the Apostle's Creed for some reason. My last apologetics class covered it. Using the new translation of course.[/quote] I actually can't say the Nicene Creed without having it written down, because we only do it very rarely. I wish we did it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1915990' date='Jul 9 2009, 02:56 PM']Ok guys...I'm asking for a primer. I'm a long way from a dolt, but I don't have the benefit of theological training or a background in Ecclesial Latin. What is the essence of the difference between the idea of being consubstantial and being "one in being"? As an uneducated layman I can see that there might be a very fine distinction but not one I'd have issue with. Help please?[/quote] [url="http://usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/consubstantial.shtml"]This[/url] should help. Edited July 10, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 The Greek "homoousion" is best translated into English as "one in essence" or "of one essence"; because both "one in being" and "one in substance" when translated from English back into Greek concern person not nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 12, 2009 Author Share Posted July 12, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1916692' date='Jul 10 2009, 11:45 AM']The Greek "homoousion" is best translated into English as "one in essence" or "of one essence"; because both "one in being" and "one in substance" when translated from English back into Greek concern person not nature.[/quote] The best translation of [i]homoousion [/i]into English is [i]consubstantial[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1917879' date='Jul 12 2009, 09:44 AM']The best translation of [i]homoousion [/i]into English is [i]consubstantial[/i].[/quote] Not really, since that term when translated back into Greek would mean "one in hypostasis," which is clearly heretical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 [i]Substantia [/i]is a translation of [i]ousia[/i], not of [i]hypostasis[/i]. The translation of [i]hypostasis [/i]is [i]persona[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1918624' date='Jul 13 2009, 07:06 AM'][i]Substantia [/i]is a translation of [i]ousia[/i], not of [i]hypostasis[/i].[/quote] A very poor translation. The Greek word [i]hypostasis[/i] means "under" (hypo) "to stand" (stasis). The Latin word [i]substantia[/i] means "under" (sub) "to stand" (stare). [quote name='Resurrexi' post='1918624' date='Jul 13 2009, 07:06 AM']The translation of [i]hypostasis [/i]is [i]persona[/i].[/quote] Another poor translation. The Latin word [i]persona[/i] means "face" or "mask." The Greek word [i]prosopon[/i] means "face" or "mask." Finally, as far as [i]ousia[/i] is concerned, it is not used by the Eastern Fathers in the same way that the pagan Greeks used it, for in theology [i]ousia[/i] stands for that aspect of the Godhead which is beyond being, and which is consequently unknowable to any created intellect. [i]Ousia[/i] is beyond any kind of participation or vision. In fact, none of these Greek terms have the same meaning in Nicene theology that they had in pagan philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven77 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 [quote]Since the Latin language lacks a present active participle for the verb "to be," Tertullian and other Latin authors rendered the Greek noun "ousia"(being) as "substantia," and the Greek adjective "homoousios" (of the same being) as "consubstantialis." Unlike the Greek words, which are etymologically related to the Greek verb "to be" and connote one's own personal inherent character, "substantia," connotes matter as much as it connotes being. The term is also used to describe the common humanity which is shared by all human persons. Thus, Jesus Christ is said to be consubstantial with the Father in his divinity and consubstantial with "us" in his humanity. This term was canonized by the Catholic Church in 325 at the council of Nicaea. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantial"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantial[/url][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 (edited) I stand by the literal translations of the Greek and Latin terms in my original post, and I do so for reasons of orthodoxy in theological expression. The literal translation of the Greek word [i]hypostasis[/i] in Latin is [i]substare[/i], from which we get the word [i]substance[/i] in English. Moreover, rather than using Wikipedia, which is not the best source of theological information about the beliefs and teachings of the ancient Church Fathers (n.b., Tertullian as a heretic is not a Church Father), I would recommend reading the following scholarly sources, all of which give detailed explanations in connection with the orthodox expressions used by the ecumenical councils and in particular the Cappadocian Fathers: [i]Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons[/i] by Lucian Turcescu [i]Trinity and Man: Gregory of Nyssa's Ad Ablabium[/i] by Giulio Maspero and (although not specifically dealing with the present topic) [i]St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy[/i] by John A. McGuckin Finally, in addition to the above scholarly works there are others, and – of course – one must always have recourse to the patristic texts themselves, but the works cited should give a sufficient understanding of the theological intricacies related to the terms employed in the Triadological doctrine of the Church. Edited July 13, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 A couple of other helpful texts are: [i]Theology of the Gap[/i] by Scot Douglass [i]The Power of God: Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology[/i] by Michel Rene Barnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now