kenrockthefirst Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1322779974' post='2343364'] True. "Consubstantial" doesn't translate easily into "plain English," but has a precise philosophical/theological meaning that "one in being" does not. "One in being" in English is so vague as to be practically meaningless. [/quote] I disagree that "one in being" is vague. It might be clumsier than "consubstantial," in that it takes three words to express what "consubstantial" expresses in one word but the meaning - that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father - is pretty clear. I'm not sure that Average Joe Catholic, yours truly included, will necessary "get more" out of "consubstantial" than "one in being." In a similar vein, "incarnate of" versus "born of." If the point is that Jesus was fully human, "born of" conveys that as well as "incarnate of," where incarnate literally means, "to be made flesh." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernadette d Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I'm doing OK with this, we have been using the new translation for a few weeks now. The part that I had difficulty with was "The Word of the Lord" when I was reading, kept having to mentally remind myself not to say "this is" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='kenrockthefirst' timestamp='1322840184' post='2343628'] I disagree that "one in being" is vague. It might be clumsier than "consubstantial," in that it takes three words to express what "consubstantial" expresses in one word but the meaning - that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father - is pretty clear. I'm not sure that Average Joe Catholic, yours truly included, will necessary "get more" out of "consubstantial" than "one in being." In a similar vein, "incarnate of" versus "born of." If the point is that Jesus was fully human, "born of" conveys that as well as "incarnate of," where incarnate literally means, "to be made flesh." [/quote] Agreed. And in terms of length, 'consubstantial' may be one word and 'one in being' three words, but they both total out at 4 syllables. To me, 'one is being' is clearer, and the ease is a wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1322790854' post='2343472'] If I'm not mistaken, Apotheoun would disagree very strongly that homoousias means the same thing as consubstantial. [/quote] Oh, yeah, totally forgot about that whoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1322845384' post='2343664'] Oh, yeah, totally forgot about that whoops. [/quote] I don't know whether or not he's correct. Just saying he'd disagree. I'm no theologian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i<3franciscans Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1322775435' post='2343310'] This is the one thing I really messed up, and once I forgot "And with your Spirit" and said "And also with you", but I kept it together pretty well. I felt bad for my 8 year old, though. She's really, in the last year or two, gotten to memorizing all the responses and last week she looked at me wide-eyed and said "Mom, I'm kinda confused!" It's going to take a little while for us to get it straight, but at least my younger kids will have an easier time of it since they aren't saying many of the responses on their own.[/quote] Charlotte was going around saying "and also with you my spirit". Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nola Seminarian Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 [quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1322782370' post='2343391'] Gee, thanks. I'll just shut up now. The Church's decisions are obviously wise and I accept them wholeheartedly. Forgive me for stating an opinion. This comment, on the other hand, is actually helpful. [/quote] the other one could have used more christian love, but what he said was correct. to add to it, the Latin does say "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei" the translation "this it the chalice of my blood" is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more faithful to the original Latin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah147 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 just do what yer told and get over it. when you get elected pope you can have your way chalice consubstantial no hand holding or pew jumping incarnate and with your spirit there /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The problem with "one in being" is it doesn't define itself. What does "one in being" mean. Of the same essence or with the same substance is very precise. As for incarnate, incarnate and being born mean completely different things. The solemnity of the incarnation is March 25th, the solemnity of the Birth of Jesus is December 25th. We're talking about [b]entirely different feasts[/b] when we talk about being born and being incarnate. If they are entirely separate solemnities, then there is obviously a difference as to what we are celebrating. The incarnation is God becoming Man, which happens at conception. Incarnate of the Virgin Mary means that God became Man within the womb of the Blessed Virgin. It also in fact re-iterates the pro-life position of the Church. Christ was incarnate, not just born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyLane Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I love the new Mass translation.. it makes me even more excited to go to Church I still prefer Latin Tridentine though hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 [quote name='kenrockthefirst' timestamp='1322840184' post='2343628'] I disagree that "one in being" is vague. It might be clumsier than "consubstantial," in that it takes three words to express what "consubstantial" expresses in one word but the meaning - that Jesus is of the same substance or essence as the Father - is pretty clear. I'm not sure that Average Joe Catholic, yours truly included, will necessary "get more" out of "consubstantial" than "one in being." In a similar vein, "incarnate of" versus "born of." If the point is that Jesus was fully human, "born of" conveys that as well as "incarnate of," where incarnate literally means, "to be made flesh." [/quote] "Consubstantial" means "of the same substance, which in the Latin has a very precise theological meaning. It refutes the error of the Arian heretics who claimed that God the Father and Christ were of different substances. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm"](Read this Catholic Encyclopedia article for details)[/url] "One in being" contains no such precise meaning. I mean, heck, I'm one in being with you too, brother. Am I wrong? Who knows, because who knows what "one in being" even really means. As for "incarnate," that word also more fully describes the theological reality of Christ's becoming Man. "Incarnate" describes the Eternal Word of God taking flesh as a human being. I was born of my mother, as were you. Neither of us was incarnate. We were not eternal divine beings taking flesh as humans. Obviously, it is not incorrect to say that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, but incarnate describes this unique event central to all Salvation History more fully. It seems some people are really straining here to find fault with the new translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I would have to agree with Socrates here, and to put his argument a bit further..... perhaps average Joe Catholic may ask these very questions..mainly, "what's the difference between X and Y?", and may come away more educated and hopefully more solid in his faith if he chooses to find the answers? I see that as the genius behind the whole thing. Not just the more accurate 'words', but the possible curiousity it could bring up and educating it can do when answered.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hermanita Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I love the new translation. 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