I can accept that the adjectival phrase 'one in being' does not perfectly express the relationship between the Father and Jesus; it does, however, communicate that they are, in a manner that non-scriptural, philosophical language has attempted to illuminate, one. 

The adjective 'consubstantial', for its part, could also lead a praying individual to a heterodox conclusion about the relationship between the Father and Jesus.

The idea expressed in the term 'consubstantial', as I understand it, is that Jesus' substantial form is *exactly* the same as the Father's, meaning that every potential of Jesus' is a potential of the Father's. That is the function of a substantial form. But if Jesus is able to suffer (a passive potential, but a potential nonetheless) then the Father, with the *same* (con-) *substantial form* (-substantial) must be able to suffer because it is a potential of that substantial form. 

Just as 'one in being' may require further qualification, so with 'consubstantial'.