eventually, we have to attempt to explain our thoughts; what we "feel" and how EVERYTHING WORKS. while saving time and keystrokes using more powerful, meaningful, anciently rooted words - more time and strokes will be used explaining and expressing yourselves later...
if i jump in on deep topics, i will likely use a bunch of uneccesary regular words. God Bless To All -
atrol:
Hi Patrick, blessings to you. Yeah, I have a feeling that there are others that feel the same way you do ~ it got really quiet around here while PPS and I were going at it! There's always a trade off, it seems to me, when speaking of things in Church history that have taken place by speakers of languages other than our own, as to how best to converse about those events. I know that PPS and I are at odds on this one, but I believe that it is incumbent upon those who know those languages to find a way to "move them over" into understandable, as best equivalent terminology for those who don't. In our discussion, PPS and I did not do that, as we both (perhaps roughly on my part) understood the terms in their historic context. I can attempt to translate them now but I'm not sure how relevant they will be in retrospect. But I will anyway give a short definition of the terms we used to this point and if you want something beyond that, you may ask me or perhaps PPS (I don't want to speak for him) or aMR to expand on them. Our discussion pivoted on three terms:
ousia,
hypostasis, and
perichoresis. And the spin-off of them, into a second discussion of ontology or ontological status.
Ousia speaks to the absolute being of an object. What that being is in reality and existence. In Latin it was very unsatisfactorily translated sometimes into
substantia (which better speaks to
hypostasis) and at other times
essentia: Substance or Essence. Although these Latin terms fall short of capturing the meaning of
ousia, they are used often enough to convey a rough definition of the term. An object's
ousia is its "is-ness": its status as it
is in reality.
Hypostasis: While
ousia speaks to an object's "is-ness,"
hypostasis speaks to its "what-ness." It is the derivative of two Greek words meaning to "stand under"; thus
hypostasis stands under an object's
ousia and speaks to that of which an
ousia consists. Thus it
always "underlies"
ousia or an object's absolute being, its is-ness. In Latin the word substantia means to stand below: sub-stand>La. substania>En. substance. And so you can see how "substance" in English better speaks to
hypostasis than it does to
ousia, although it is not often used this way.
In the Nicene Creed there is a phrase that was much contested, which spoke to the Son's
ousia relative to the Father's
ousia. The Council concluded that the Son was of the exact same
ousia as the Father, i.e., they were of one and the same being; hence the word
homoousia: homo-ousia, "one-being." Yet when the Creed was translated into Latin, it became one "substantia" and then into English as "one substance"; literally "...[The Son] being of one substance with the Father," so you can see where the confusion crept in.
And so
ousia speaks to an object's existence and
hypostasis speaks to its
subsistence; i.e., its underlying existence. Over time it came to speak of personal (specific) subsistence and eventually the personal subsistence of the being of God; hence the phrase, God is "three persons and one being" ~ the Church's longstanding confession of our Triune God.
The best English definition of person for the Nicene period is defined as "a being in relation/s with another or others." That definition held until the six century when a humanist theologian named Boethius convincingly redefined the word as "an individual with the ability to reason"; hence a thinking individual; literally an island with a mind. In one fell swoop the relational aspect of person-hood gave way to individualism. And that definition has held even to this day. A person became mind, body, and soul in isolation from others. Here we gain some understanding as to why PPS has such a fit about using the word "person" to speak to the
hypostaseis of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relative to God.
Although, being aware of the transition which took place in its definition, we may ~ or perhaps must ~ continue to speak of the Trinity as three persons and one Being.
Wow, that got wordy.
Perichoresis speaks to the inner-relations of the persons of the Trinity (I believe it also speaks of Christians as we are drawn into those relations by the Holy Spirit, although this belief is contested). It speaks then to the "mutual indwelling" of the three, the communion between them. The derivative of the word is "according to-the chorus." Hence from this word we get words such as chorus, choreography, choir, even cooperation, all words which speak to harmony between participants. Hence the word is sometimes referred to as "the dance" of the Father and the Son in and through the Holy Spirit.
Ontology or ontological status refers to the nature (
physis) of things in their being or inner reality. Hence questions are sometimes asked regarding the ontological status of things. In Col. 1.17 we find the answer that all things exist in Christ. In Christ we and all things find our and their ontology or ontological status, our real being and existence (see also Acts 17.28 and Eph 1.10).
(I remember sitting in a Theology II class and realizing the profound impact of Prof Gary Deddo's comment that evil has no ontological status in and of itself, none whatsoever; it always draws upon the ontology of others; hence it is a surd, an irrationality that never makes sense in isolation.)
Well, there you have it. I hope this is all helpful. I'm sure others will frown upon my verbiage here but I believe it should give you a decent starting place for understanding these technical terms.
Have a peaceful day,
T
