Consubtantial

[Arco]

Ok.

So the new translation of the Mass is looming before us, and I have to say, I am generally extremely happy with it. I think it, but for two tiny exceptions, is beautiful and well-considered. I can't speak to its fidelity as a translation as I don't speak Latin, but I certainly think its a mite more poetic even if its less familiar. So cautious optimism prevails.

HOWEVER

There are two little translations that bug the living whatever out of me:

1) "Chalice" rather than "cup." I think this is unnecessarily pretentious and showy, and it doesn't contribute anything other than the image of Christ holding some sort of jewel-encrusted goblet. I like English words; this is an unnecessary Latinate where a perfectly good English word is already doing good work. This is change for the sake of change, perhaps by someone who thinks "chalice" is "more poetic." It's not.

2) My *real* problem: "Consubstantial" rather than "one in being." This is a ridiculous choice that is going to confuse people to no end. It's not even English -- I mean, it's English, but it's not *functional* English. It's theological jargon. It might be a perfectly good word to use in theological discussion with other specialists, but it's a bad word to use in the English-language liturgy that will provoke endless blank stares across the Anglosphere. "Consubstantial? What does that mean?" the question will go. The priest will answer "Well, it means that the Son and the Father are one in being." The befuddled parishioner will blink and say "So if it just means 'one in being,' why did we change it from 'one in being?'"

There is a very good case for translating "consubtantialem" as "one in being:" simply put, the Latin word, which more or less means "of the same matter or substance," was calqued off the Greek [i]homoousios[/i], which means, well "of the same being." Not substance or matter. Being. Translating this precise theological term off the Greek rather than the Latin makes sense, considering the Creed was originally *composed* in Greek.

Agree? Disagree?

[Apotheoun]

I prefer to translate [i]homoousios[/i] as "one in essence" or "of one essence."

[Arco]

That's a great translation, and definitely better than "consubstantial."

[goldenchild17]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/02/consubstantial-who-do-people-really-say-that-he-is/

Short but quite a few comments that are worth a look.

also: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=154469

And here is a pretty good analysis as well:

http://www.osvdailytake.com/2010/03/making-case-for-consubstantial.html

And from the USCCB:

[quote]Q: In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, why has "one in being with the Father" been changed to "consubstantial with the Father?"

A: The new translation is more in keeping with the ancient Latin text of the Creed and a more accurate translation.

The bishops at the Council of Nicea (AD 325), in order to ensure that Jesus was professed as the eternal Son of God, equal to the Father, stated that he is "the Son of God, begotten from the Father, the only-begotten, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, the same substance (homoousion) with the Father..." The Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381), which is professed at all Sunday Masses and Solemnities within the Catholic Church, similarly stated: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousion) with the Father."

When these two ancient creeds were translated into Latin, the term "homoousion" was rendered as "consubstantialem," that is, "the same substance of the Father." Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Latin "consubstantialem" was rendered as "consubstantial" within the English translation of the Creed. Many theologians and the Holy See thought that the term "consubstantial" was more in keeping with the Latin tradition and a more literal and accurate translation than the more recent "one in being."

This is in keeping with the mind of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which published an Instruction, entitled Liturgiam Authenticam. It stated: "Certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a great part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible" (no. 56).[/quote]
http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/consubstantial.shtml

Edited July 14, 2010 by goldenchild17

[Arco]

Interesting argument I hadn't considered.

But I maintain there is almost certainly a better way to translate it into English than with that ridiculous coining.

[Apotheoun]

The worst possible translation of [i]homoousios[/i] would be "one in being," because [i]being[/i] corresponds to personal existence and activity and not to essence, and so that translation involves a distortion of the creed in a Sabellian direction.

[MIKolbe]

as for chalice.. isn't the latin 'calix'? and isn't 'chalice' a better translation than cup? A chalice is a cup. My visiting to dictionary.com did not find ay wording about being jewel encrusted... granted, in today's society, 'chalice' may take a different meaning.. but you really can't hold that against the proper translation. and well, it is a chalice. LOL

as for the consubstantial...i really don't understand the difference between one in being and consubstantial..BUT.. a positive i see IS people asking, and if the Church put it there, She did for a reason... it might be a great opportunity for some decent catechetical dialog. I just trust the Church on this one. (not implying that you don't)

[Arco]

I'm trying. But the writer in me cringes at unnecessary latinates.

Trust me that much of my objection is gut aesthetics.

And seriously. What does chalice do that cup isn't doing? If chalice means cup...why not use cup?

[Hilde]

cup is more than chalice.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Arco' date='14 July 2010 - 08:57 AM' timestamp='1279119465' post='2142536']
I'm trying. But the writer in me cringes at unnecessary latinates.

Trust me that much of my objection is gut aesthetics.

And seriously. What does chalice do that cup isn't doing? If chalice means cup...why not use cup?
[/quote]

Well one of the big reasons for the new translation was to make it more accurate as it pertains to the Latin. If chalice and cup are similar enough, then why not use chalice which is more accurate to the Latin. I think that is what the intent is with the translation.

Edited July 14, 2010 by goldenchild17

[Arco]

Sigh.

English has a dual French and English vocabulary. The French words are largely duplications pre-existing English words, when it comes to brass tacks. So yes. Chalice derives from calix. But why is that even relevant when they *both mean cup* and *nobody ever says chalice?* Chalice is barely a part of functional English. Chalice is showy. Chalice is pretentious. People don't use chalices. People use cups. Jesus probably didn't lift a gold sacramental chalice. While I don't object to using it as a technical term for a communion receptacle, I think using it in the prayer is ridiculous. It's an awful word nobody ever uses except fantasy writers.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Arco

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Arco' date='14 July 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1279119465' post='2142536']
And seriously. What does chalice do that cup isn't doing? If chalice means cup...why not use cup?
[/quote]
and if a cup means chalice, why not use chalice? lol..

I see your point though.