Of the many things some critics of the new Roman Missal have taken issue with is the inclusion of theologically technical language in the prayers of the Mass. The feeling is that these words are unfamiliar and off putting to the people in the pews. Better, the critics say, to use common, everyday language that is easier for people to understand, rather than use "Church" language. I think this objection points to a bigger issue; the entire meaning of sacred versus profane and whether such a distinction really exists or should exist in Christian thinking and practice. (By "profane" I don't mean words or gestures that are obscene or "dirty," but rather things that are secular or nonreligious by nature; like a glass cup used to drink a Coke-a-Cola from as opposed to the chalice used during the Mass that holds the Precious Blood). The reasoning goes that since the world was created by God, and in some way all creation shares in His being, all things and places are holy. Also, since the early Church did not have church buildings, but the Eucharist was celebrated in people's homes, the holiness of the community was what was important, not the sacredness of a building or place. What is argued then is that the entire distinction between sacred and profane is a false one. I don't want to get into a whole discussion of this point right now, but to say I don't buy it, at least not completely. But, as the title of this post indicates I'm here to talk about a very specific word chosen by the translators, so I will digress no longer.
One of these difficult words, found in the Creed, that is giving people all sorts of problems is "Consubstatial." It takes the place of the phrase "one in Being with the Father," in describing the relationship between Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, and God the Father. As Fr. Romanus Cessario, OP, a Dominican moral theologian, points out in an article that gives a solid historical-theological take on the topic, indeed all creation in some way is "one in being" with God since it is in Him that we "live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), but it is only Jesus Christ, along with the Holy Spirit, who shares in His Being in a unique way. Therefore the word consubstantial, that comes to us from the Latin consubstantialis, that itself comes from the Greek Homoousios, is not simply the more complicated way of expressing this key doctrine of faith, but the more accurate way as well. So when we say that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, in other words shares the same substance or nature as God, we are not saying that he shares this being in some general way, like we do. We are professing that he shares in the Father's divinity fully. Jesus is, indeed, a Divine Person.
The Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), where our present Creed was first formulated, was trying to express in the clearest, and most accurate terms it could what Christians believed about who Jesus was. Some, known as Arians, were claiming that Jesus was "like" the Father, but really a human person. This caused divisions within the Church, and widespread civil unrest. It may be hard for us to believe that there were riots over this issue, but it's true. After much reflection the Council Fathers concluded that both Scripture and the Christian Tradition testified to the Divinity of Christ. The most accurate way to express this was with the word consubstantial, and so we continue to use it today. And that is what a big part of this new translation is all about; that we worship God, and in the case of the Creed, expresses what and why we worship, in an accurate, precise way, even if it means learning new vocabulary.
No comments:
Post a Comment