PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
How would "one What, three Whos" be represented using these terms?
Prosopon - Cannot per PERSON
Ousia > Physis WHO - PERSON
Hypostasis - WHAT
Or is PERSON encircling all the above?
Perhaps you could draw it electronically in Powerpoint or Paint and paste/attach the image.
AMR
For me, this is one of the most frustrating questions, because it’s a question predicated upon an eventual understanding (by moderns) of a previous formulaic (by ancients). And the ancients were not subject to the many linguistic and cultural innovations of the last 1.5+ millennia.
Though I have acquiesced to the historical formulaic for purposes of authentic orthodoxy and the problems associated with coming against the formulaic as seeming magisterial rather than ministerial, I nonetheless still prefer to omit the English term “person” from usage because it is almost universally presumed to be a stand-alone entity or being in a gradient of tritheistic conceptualization.
I would prefer the adjectival expressions “personal hypostasis” or “impersonal hypostasis” relative to animate or inanimate nouns rather than attempting to word-for-word translate a Greek word as “person”. (Again I acquiesce to all creedal expresssions, only withholding personal expression as it pertains to my eventual presentations of Multi-Phenomenality and Uni-Hypostaticism for Theology Proper.
But the best possible answer as you have framed the question is that the whole man (whether expressed as hypostasis/ousia/physis/sarx/prosopon or spirit/soul/body) is a “person”. Therefore, it is both appropriate and inappropriate to refer to the hypostasis or prosopon as “person”, depending upon whether someone is attempting to be Reductionist and point to Partialism.
I think the creedal jargon is the best extant. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved in some manner.
The best way to say “One what, three whos” is the historical formulaic of one ousia, three hypostases. But I wouldn’t really want to quantify God and technically violate His Simplicity and other incommunicable attributes.
How can any aspects of God be counted in a capital manner and it not be at least some hint of Partialism as a God composed of “parts”?
But attempting to communicate Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenality is the most daunting task I’ve ever engaged in. And I’ve isolated the several most preeminent reasons why so that I can teach an appropriate hermeneutic to correct the impaired lenses of moderns.
But back to your question... IF a hypostasis is a “person”, then it would follow that all it underlies and determines the qualitative existence of (including economies of action) would also be the “person”. Without the essential wealth of “what-ness” as existence (ousia) and its nature (physis) and appearance (prosopon), there would be no valid “person”.
And if the simplest and most direct hermeneutic is the best and most authentic/accurate, then my position would end up being the best hermeneutic. Multi-Phenomenal Uni-Hypostaticism for Theology Proper retains EVERY minutiae vital to Patristic thought and formulaic; all while avoiding the few potential problems still remaining (especially in translation for modern low-context languages and lack of translational theory understanding).
I still cringe a bit when theologically illiterate novices regurgitate the term “persons” for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because I know they are thinking and expressing a semi-tritheistic comprehension that is not Patristic or O/orthodox (despite the terms).