Talk:Consubstantiality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use of word "consubstantial" by Church of England in reference to the Eucharist

message: Shouldn't the article name be the noun rather than the adjective? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun

message: These two articles essentially discuss the same topic. They should be merged. Neelix (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Homoousian]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  New merge with [[Homoousion]] 

message: 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".)
Jpacobb (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''make paragraph: Innate consubstantiality''' 

message: Article titles are normally nouns, not adjectives. Article titles are usually an English WP:COMMONNAME rather than a non-English term about whose form experts disagree (homoousion or homousios).  Bealtainemí (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But a large part of the "iota" crisis was because they thought that they were talking about two different things; only later did it emerge that East & West were talking about the same thing all along. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Who are the "they" (whom you seem to equate with East and West) who thought they were talking about different things? In what you call the iota crisis, the Homoiousians and the Homoousians knew very that they were talking of different things, directly opposing things, and it never emerged that they were really talking about the same thing all along (how could it?). What you say sounds rather like the Filioque dispute (far later even than Chalcedon) that involves the Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (East) and the Latin phrase qui procedit (West), which mean more or less, but not quite, the same thing. What has emerged there is the difference between the two terms that were falsely assumed to be identical.  Bealtainemí (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is, to my knowledge, no history of disagreement stemming from any difference in meaning between the terms "consubstantialem" and "ὁμοούσιον". The lines of the controversy between Nicene Christianity and Semi-Arianism did not run between Greek and Latin. RedOak350 (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to noun in English from neuter adjective in Greek