Oh no...not this again...I thought this would end when I blocked Peter1000!
Okay. Out of love for our Lord, let's go over this one more time:
The term used in the Creed in the original Greek to denote the relationship between the Father and the Son is
homoousios,
homo meaning 'same' and
ousia meaning 'essence'. When the Creed was translated from Greek into Latin, the Latin-speakers used the closest term they had to
homoousios, which is
consubstantia. Hence, in English-speaking countries that use a form of the Creed inherited from Latin, you'll likely hear the nearly identical word "consubstantial" used in place of the original
homoousios (unless the people reciting the Creed are Orthodox Christians, since some of us just kept the original word; it was left untranslated in the Coptic version inherited in my Church, and hence we have kept it in the English version we use). Some English translations use the term "co-essential" instead of "consubstantial", but the important thing to remember is that all of these terms -- homoousious, consubstantia(l), co-essential -- mean the same thing: the Father and the Son share the same essence, the
same divinity. That is what
homoousios and
consubstantial both mean.
Note that in all of this I have said nothing about bodies or types of bodies that the Father or the Son do or do not have. This is because
ousia has nothing at all to do with physical matter of any kind. That was not, is not, and will never be the point being made in the Creed, since the heresy that the Creed was originally written in response to, Arianism, denied that Christ was eternally begotten of God the Father (i.e., it claimed that He was a created being, made by God the Father in time), thereby denying Him the same eternal divinity ascribed to the Father and making Them unalike in essence -- not
homoousios/consubstantial. (There was a viewpoint between the two claimed by the so-called 'semi-Arians' that the Father and Christ were 'homo
iousios' -- of a similar,
but not the same essence/substance -- but this is shut out by the Creed, too.)
So obviously the Creed doesn't talk about physical bodies (other than talking about the incarnation, of course), since Arianism wasn't really about that, so it wasn't really necessary to do so to fight Arianism. I believe that Mormons are getting the term
consubstantial confused with the word
substance, since they both obviously derive from the same Latin root. That doesn't mean that just because you can use 'substance' to describe various kinds of physical matter that when you read 'consubstantial' in the Creed it is also referring to physical matter. It's not. Heck, even in English there are plenty of ways to use 'substance' that don't refer to physical matter at all. Ever hear anyone argue about "the substance" of an argument? Unless they're mentally unbalanced, they're not claiming that the argument is made out of physical matter, because...well, that's just not what an argument is. That would be a basic misunderstanding of the word 'argument', just like Mormons are stuck on a basic misunderstanding of what the words
homoousios and/or
consubstantial mean.
There isn't really any other way to put it. You don't understand what the words involved mean, and I can explain them to you, but I can't understand them for you (as the saying goes). If my past interaction with Mormons on here is anything to go by, you're probably going to have to leave Mormonism (or find some other way to detach yourself from Mormon theology) to change that.
