|WikiProject Christianity / Jesus||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Theology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
This needs to be re-named. The correct word is "consubstantial." --Midnite Critic 6 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
I agree with this. DJ Clayworth 6 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
Done. --Midnite Critic 8 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
Use of word "consubstantial" by Church of England in reference to the Eucharist
I have tagged this statement as "citation needed," because it seems to contradict the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles, which insist that the Eucharist is spiritual. Kaleb70 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the entire confusing paragraph related to Church of England Eucharist. This article is not about consubstantiation, for which there is a separate article. This article is about the adjectival form consubstantial, which describes the relationship of the persons of the Trinity to each other. Consubstantial is clearly an error when the subject is the Eucharist, no matter what your theology because "Jesus is consubstantial with bread and wine" says that Jesus shares the same substance (essence) as that of bread and wine, in other words he fails to impart his humanity and divinity into the bread and wine but rather takes on the essence of food (in addition to his humanity and divinity)! That's not what people mean when they refer to the doctrine of consubstantiation, at least I hope not. Dlw20070716 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Suggested Change to Sentence
"Unless the reader has knowledge of the history and special ecclesiastical meaning of these terms, their use might problematize the understanding of the Christian God as transcendent, that is, being above matter rather than consisting of matter"
Instead of: being above matter rather than consisting of matter I prupose: being above matter rather than all matter consisting of Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Homoousian
and it wud also be a help to new readers to relate to the topics...megha
They should not be merged. The debate between Homoousian and Homoiousian belongs to the eastern greek-speaking Patristic councils before domination by the Latin-speaking West. Consubtantiality takes over a part of the debate from the perspective of the Latin West that is subtly different in argument, in apologetic intent, and extends into a later epoch of church history and theology. paris blues2 --Parisblues2 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
They definitely should not be merged. The prominent debate between the 'iota' of difference between Homoousian and Homoiousian is diminished if Homoousian is merged into consubtantiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Merge. I don't see that anything is lost if the merge is done correctly. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- No Merge. If we merge them, we'll lose the historical significance between the Greek and the Latin and how they're related to one another. The concept is still explained in each article.
- do not merge. The term Homousia is also essential to the understanding of the Nicean council. Never does Consubtantiality appear in the original council. This merge would lead to significant confusion.
- I'm inclined to agree with what Parisblues2 wrote above. The dominance of the Latin-speaking West in the areas of history, doctrine and theology is indisputable. Do not merge.--Whiteguru (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
END OF OLD DISCUSSION: Comments in small letters below have been transferred down to the section #New merge with Homoousion
[PLEASE do not merge. Keeping them separate will enlarge our knowledge; I fear that merging them will reduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroloco (talk • contribs) 10:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I suppose you wanted to react to my new proposal, not to the 2010/2011 discussion you contributed. Couls you be more specific about what infromation you fear might get lost after the merge? In case the merge will happen, I make sure that any such info is kept in the article. As I said (below), both "concepts" can be described in one article, so that their relation would be the more clear. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)]
PLEASE PUT ALL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS NEW DEBATE INTO THE FOLLOWING SECTION
New merge with Homoousion
The article, at its present state, basically talks about it as a translation of Homoousios/n. Some info from Consubstantiality, if deemed worthwhile, could be transferred to Homoousion + redirecting Consubstantiality to Homoousion. I do not see any damage this may possibly cause. The discussion above makes some valid points but they seem to be against treating the two terms as one, which they are not, historically, but nevertheless can be covered in the sam article in due order. BTW Homoousian now redirects to Homoousion. --WikiHannibal (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- PLEASE do not merge. Keeping them separate will enlarge our knowledge; I fear that merging them will reduce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroloco (talk • contribs) 10:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I suppose you wanted to react to my new proposal, not to the 2010/2011 discussion you contributed. Couls you be more specific about what infromation you fear might get lost after the merge? In case the merge will happen, I make sure that any such info is kept in the article. As I said (below), both "concepts" can be described in one article, so that their relation would be the more clear. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Many are obvious, but briefly since it is late at night the following are among those that are not immediately so:
- History of the Term: (i) etymologies are no sure guide to current connotation; (ii) Christ's cons. with human beings was certainly not canonised at Nicea; (iii) the so-called "semi-arians" were not followers of Athanasius although they came to accept his general position.
- Application: the first two paragraphs deal with a totally different use of consubstantial and would correspond to "consubstantiation" - in any case the claim that some Anglicans accept "consubstantiation" is very difficult to substantiate from first class sources. (It is not found in the relevant summary article in "The Study of Anglicanism".)
make paragraph: Innate consubstantiality
Is god superficially consubstantial only to keep united the trinity? or is god a mereological simple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:9000:69A4:4383:8E60:DB0F (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)