www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A New Ecclesiology?

The Greek word "hypostasis" is closer to "substantia" in Latin, while the word "prosopon" in Greek is related to the Latin word "persona." Thus, I do not accept the idea that the word "hypostasis" is translated as "person"; instead, it is better translated as "subsistence" or "substance."

Nevertheless, I agree with the basic thrust of Zizioulas' position, i.e., that the Cappadocian Fathers used "hypostasis" to correct for the deficiencies of the word "prosopon," which taken alone tends toward Sabellianism.

But none of this can be legitimately called a "revolution," either linguistically or especially in connection with Triadological theology.

My conclusions should be nothing to anyone .. there are me thinking things out .. that is all. Nothing more. And you good people help me think things out with your comments. In fact ... mostly by challenging me! If everyone agreed with me that would do me very little good as I would remain stuck in my own head (which is not a pleasant idea).

What I meant by "not the most important" is that the work Jesus does in us when we cooperate with daily Providence ... is the transformative work. The work done in contemplative prayer (Dark Night etc..) .. etc... without this .. even if we receive the sacraments .. we go no where. And I do believe that if a person who is not a member of the church-visible .. prays and has desire to do the will of God ... this person is also transformed (through the work of Providence and good conscience) to salvation even without him/her ever receiving sacraments-visible from the church-visible. ("My father and I will come and dwell with anyone who does the will of my father.")
Which is quite a wonderful way to put it because 'dwell' is reminiscent of the presence of God 'dwelling' in the Tent (movable tabernacle).

But I do agree with you in the sense and context of Jesus establishing his church-visible in the world and in human history. The sacraments are vitally important and the church-visible flows from them especially from the Eucharist. That presence (the Eucharist) of Christ from which the church (in all her manifestation) can not be divided from.

(now ray is thinking...)
But this flow also depends upon how we receive them. If our intention is to 'do the will of God' we do receive the sacraments effectively. If we receive them without intention to 'do the will of God' I believe Paul said that the sacraments are empty (not effective).

But no matter ... because the church-visible and in total ... always does have the desire to do the will of God ... so that flow is always flowing and present within the church-visible.

These are my thoughts.

Peace be with you and with your holy church.
-ray

QUOTE:
"With the removal of the Mutual Anathemas by the Pope and Patriarch Athenagoras--the Catholic Church is in a state of full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches..."

I could not disagree more...first of all, such a statement only underscores the Roman Catholic's total ignorance of the place of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church-he is "First among Equals," and NOT, as the media would have it, "the head of the Orthodox Church," nor any kind of Eastern Pope, or, as it seems Ronme would have it, some sort of "negotiator" for Orthodoxy. In short, the Patriarch of Constantinople has absolutely NO authority whatsoever to decide upon his own volition to "remove" anything-such a decision would involve a Pan Orthodox Council or Sobor of Bishops...In 1965, as today, I doubt that ALL the Orthodox Churches would agree on "lifitng the anathemas"-it was not as if all the Orthodox were sitting onthe edge of their seats just waiting for the Patriarch to get around to lifitng those anathemas!
"Full Communion" comes only with full agreement in faith (not because someone "lifted anathemas" which he was powerless to lift!)-which is not present! The Russian Church does not believe it is in "Full Communion" with Rome, I am sure-I do not even think Rome believes it is in full communion with the Orthodox!
As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that Orthodoxy is the True Faith, the True Church-I do not believe that Rome is either! I do not believe that Rome has true "Mysteries" ("Sacraments"), a true priesthood, true Bishops, we do not even believe that Rome is a "Church"-it is a heretical organization! The thought that anyone could even think that Rome and Orthodoxy are in "full communion" is ridiculous!

Not many people know what the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia ... is. I do know a little something about it.

The strict views of the ROCOR are not entirely shared by all Orthodox churches. But perhaps, once were.

I would highly recommend that, out of Christian charity to Somba, anyone wishing to carry on discussions about the ROCOR should read a bit of its history first. It is a church which has experienced a horrific amount of persecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church_Abroad

Peace to all churches.
-ray

Basically this is also what I have said.



The whole point is that it was understood as substance but, under the Cappadocians, was transformed to mean only subsistence and this in the sense of the Latin persona. It was eventually Chalcedon that would canonize hypostasis<=>prosopon so that we understand hypostasis and person as the same designation.


From hypostasis<=>ousia<=>substantia and prosopon=facade

to

ousia<=>substantia but <not=> hypostasis<=>prosopon

seems revolutionary to me.


Dn. Anthony

Clearly, we disagree on two points: (1) the false characterization of linguistic changes as a "revolution"; and (2) the idea that "hypostasis" and "prosopon" are synonyms, they are not.

The word "hypostasis" always meant subsistence, i.e., a concretely existing substance, not to be confused with essence (ousia), which tended to be more ephemeral. There has been no "revolution" either in the meaning of the word, or in the faith of the Church; instead, there has been a minor shift of emphasis. These differences were present in the usage of the word prior to the Cappadocian Fathers appropriation of them for Triadological purposes.

Hypostasis and prosopon are not synonyms for the Cappadocian Fathers; instead, they continue to have different nuances of meaning, and used together they properly safeguard the Church's immutable Trinitarian faith. Nevertheless, precedence must be given to the word "hypostasis" because it rules out any form of Sabellian Modalism.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on Zizioulas' improper use of the term "revolution" in connection with these terms.

Appearances can be, and in this case are, deceiving.

The words hypostasis and ousia were never purely synonymous, because they always had different nuances of meaning, and they were used together in order to highlight different aspects of reality.

Nor did the Cappadocians ever use hypostasis and prosopon as mere synonyms. In fact, prosopon taken alone was theologically unacceptable to the Cappadocians, while the use of hypostasis by itself was perfectly legitimate. In fact, for the Cappadocians the conceptual content of the two words continued to differ even after their complimentary association, but prosopon used alone would still be called Sabellian by the Cappadocians (cf. St. Basil, Letter 214).

The word ousia should not be translated as substantia (i.e., substance), but should be translated instead as essence. Interestingly enough, even the much maligned (in some quarters) revised Ruthenian liturgy translates the technical term homoousios as one in essence, which reflects the Triadological tradition of the Byzantine Churches better than the previous translation did.

Technical terms in Byzantine (Cappadocian) Triadology:

1. ousia (essence)
2. physis (nature)
3. hypostasis (subsistence or substance)
4. prosopon (person � a term that needs to be supplemented by the word hypostasis, which makes it concrete)
5. dynamis (power)
6. energeia (energy)

Concerning (1): I simply called it a transformation:



I noted Zizioulas's characterization as going even further, and have accepted it, but certainly would entertain evidence to the contrary.

Concerning (2), as I also said, the transformation was completed by the time of Chalcedon.

The Symbol of Chalcedon speaks of

�...the distinction of two natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person [pros&#333;pon] and one Hypostasis [hupostasin], not parted or divided into two persons [pros&#333;pa], but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ...

This is my basis for saying



Dn. Anthony