Notes and "Consubstantial"
Maryouma has graciously given us her notes from the first meeting. They can be downloaded by clicking here.
Also, we were talking about why the word consubstantial is more appropriate than "one in essence with the very Father" (Ch. 3, §9). Ramez has graciously provided a thorough explanation of it, and I'm posting this below.
+++
1 The Greek word used in the Orthodox Creed is homoousios [Latin: consubstantialem], meaning "consubstantial" or "of the same substance." Therefore, linguistically, it is more accurate to say consubstantial, as opposed to of (or in) one essence:
The Greek word homoousios (meaning "consubstantial/of the same substance") used by the 318 Holy Fathers of the Council at Nicaea for the Faith, was used in response to the Arian term homoiousios, meaning "of like substance." The prefix homo, which is used in the English language, comes from the Greek word homos, meaning "same". When we look at certain English words that use the prefix homo, we find that the word always means the same something. For example, the dictionary defines the word homogeneous as "having at all points the same composition and properties (opp. HETEROGENEOUS)." [The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Lexicon Publications, Inc. 1990.] One also ought to note that the English word consubstantial derives from the Latin word consubstantialem, which is used in the Creed. Therefore, it is linguistically more accurate to say "consubstantial with the Father" than to say "of one essence with the Father."
2 The term consubstantial (Greek: homoousios) is more accurate theologically, for it "signifies the same nature and substance but with a distinction between persons one from the other." ['Excursus on the Word Homousios.' Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV.]:
The Holy Fathers of the Nicaean Council and the Fathers that preceded them probably adopted the term consubstantial from the writings of Aristotle the philosopher (384-322 BC). It is a known fact that the Fathers studied extensively the writings of the Greek philosophers, and often quoted/refuted them. Furthermore, the Fathers often adopted some of the philosophical concepts and terms of the Greek philosophers, and incorporated them into our Christian theology. For example, the term Logos - which first appears in Christian theology in the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist (c. 96 AD) - is actually a Socratic term, which refers to the highest part of the soul that is full of wisdom and reason. This Socratic term takes a predominant part in Socrates' discussion about the tripartite soul in Plato's Republic, and was later on adopted by Saint John the Evangelist and Church Fathers to refer to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (Our Lord Jesus Christ).
In regards to the term consubstantial, Aristotle in Book VII of his Metaphysics often used the term substance (Greek: ousia) to refer to persons, insofar as they are a person. In other words, if Aristotle was to speak of Matthew and myself using the term substance, he'd say Matthew is a substance insofar as he is a person, and Ramez is a substance insofar as he is a person. However, Matthew and I are consubstantial (homoousios) to one another, insofar as we are human beings (of the same substance). Similarly, the Father is a Substance (Person) insofar as He is a Person, and the Son is a Substance (Person) insofar as He is a Person, but They are consubstantial (homoousios) to one another, insofar as They are Divine. Seeing that the term consubstantial would properly enable them to properly describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, and that the term "signifies the same nature and substance but with a distinction between persons one from the other," ['Excursus on the Word Homousios.' Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV.] the Church and the Holy Fathers "adopted this word as the one best calculated to confute the Arian heresy." [Ibid.]
The term of (or in) one essence falls short of accurately describing the relationship between the Persons of the Father and the Son for a couple of reasons. First, in saying of one or in one essence, one might erroneously fall into Sabellianism, and that this saying that the Father and the Son are one person (hypostasis). This was indeed the case in the 3rd century, when Sabellius and Paul of Samosata adopted this terminology [Ibid.], taking it to mean "one person." Secondly, as mentioned earlier on in the e-mail, the ungodly Arius and all those who followed his blasphemous teachings argued that Our Lord is homoiousios "of like substance" with the Father, meaning that Our Lord is divine, but His divinity is inferior to that of the Father, hence "of like substance." Therefore, the Arians would not object to in saying of (or in) one essence, because even they agree that the Son was a god. However, in insisting that the Father and the Son are consubstantial to one another, the distinction between the Father and the Son is made, and the same substance and nature of the Father and the Son is stressed. Hence, the term consubstantial is more accurate theologically that of one essence.
3 Even the Church Fathers use the term consubstantial (of the same substance) in their writings:
Church Fathers - ante-Nicaean, Nicaean, and post-Nicaean - used the term consubstantial in their writings to refer to the relationship between the Persons of the Father and the Son. For example, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century) used the term four times in his writings, and the great scholar Master Origen (3rd century) used the term in a Nicaean sense. Furthermore, the scholar Tertullian (3rd century), who was a Latin scholar, used the term consubstantial in two places [Ibid.] This was a common term amongst the Orthodox people prior to the Council of Nicaea, which led the Holy Fathers, Saint Athanasius the Apostolic in particular, to insert it into the Creed.
In speaking of the great Saint Athanasius, I believe it to be appropriate to quote here his defense of the term.
That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours: for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself said: `The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos,' as the sun and its splendour are inseparable. [Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, De Decretis or Defense of the Nicene Definition, Chapter V.]
Not only does Saint Athanasius stress the fact that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (consubstantial), but he uses this expression while stressing that the Substances (Persons) of the Father and the Son are distinct from one another, but consubstantial insofar as They are Divine, as discussed in point 2.
Therefore, according to the Holy Fathers and their writings, the term consubstantial is preferable over the term of (or in) one essence, because not only does it speak of the common essence shared by the Persons of the Father and the Son, but it stresses the distinction between the Persons of the Father and the Son.
4 Finally, the word essence (Latin: essentia) is a mistranslation of the Greek word ousia:
In the 13th century, a man by the name of William Murbeck - who was an individual who translated the works of Aristotle from Greek to Latin for Thomas Aquinas - erroneously translated the Greek word ousia, which had always been substantia in Latin, meaning substance to a new word essentia, meaning "essence". This term became unique to Aquinas, and was a never a word before. From that point on, the word essentia replaced the word substantia even in the Creed, and this is perhaps how we got the erroneous translation of of (or in) one essence. The word used by the 8 Latin Fathers who attended the Council of Nicaea was consubstantialem. This had always been the word used by the Latins until the mistranslation of Murbeck which was adopted by Aquinas. Had it not been for these two individuals, there would have been no dispute over the terms.
