Question on the Athanasian Creed and the Creed of Nicaea 325

[GodIsOneAlone]

I want you to read this and tell me what you all think.

In the original Creed of Nicaea written in 325 AD we see that the words Homoousia (Con-substantial) “Of the same substance”, Ousia (Substance) and Hypostasis(essence) are all used within the Creed and are said to be one and not that of another, if said to be another Ousia or Hypostasis they were condemned by the church.

[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

However.

In the Athenasian Creed we see something very strange.

It states that God is one substance and that there are three persons(Persona) is a social role or a character played by an actor.
The word is derived from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask. The Latin word probably derived from the Etruscan word “phersu”, with the same meaning, and that from the Greek πρόσωπον (prosōpon).

So from both the word Persona, Prosopon and Phersu.

We see that anytime in which the word Persona is translated, it is never translated as hypostasis.

So my question is this to all of you.

How is the Trinity as described from the CoN to the CoA any different than an eternal and simultaneous form of Modalistic Monarchianism?

In Trinitarian theology, the phrase “treis prosopa, mia hypostasis” is heretical.

However we see that the word Persona is not translated from hypostasis or else we’d see the CoN stating that God was three hypostasis not one.

“Treis hypostasis, mia ousia” aka “Three essences, one substance”

If I am mistaken, how did they come to said conclusion that God is three conscious persons from the word persona or hypostasis?

 

[Dovekin]

how did they come to said conclusion that God is three conscious persons from the word persona or hypostasis?

I have been wondering about this for a while, I hope someone offers an explanation.

Clearly, the vocabulary changed from Nicea to the Athanasian Creed, and in as confusing a manner as possible. Hypo-stasis stopped being a synonym for sub-stance, a cognate, and instead became a synonym for person.

I think your question should be flipped though. How did the one God, experienced in 3 different ways, come to be described as conscious persons or hypostases instead of modes of being? I think that is closer to the dynamic behind the changes.

Maybe. IDK.

 

[Bithynian]

Several things:

(1) The Nicaean Creed was written in Greek, whilst the Athanasian Creed was likely composed in Latin sometime in late 5th century (contemporaneous with the Council of Chalcedon). There is no authoritative Greek text of the Athanasian Creed (the extant manuscript tradition is a hodge podge of translations, many of very low quality).

(2) The Ecumenical Councils and their various texts (creeds, epistles, canons) were written in Greek, and our extant Latin manuscripts are translations. Because of this and the innate evolution of Greek theological terminology (cf. ὐπόστασις), there is a further degree of evolution (and some inconsistency) in Latin theological terminology. Compare, for example, in the earliest Latin manuscripts of the Nicene Creed (325 AD) ὑπόστασις hupostasis was translated as subsistentia whilst οὐσία ousia was translated substantia. As you noted in your post, sometimes the Latin term essentia (whence the English “essence”) was used to translate one or the other term, resulting in a mess of terms.

(3) ὑπόστασις hupostasis did change in usage: it became less a synonym of οὐσία ousia and more a discrete term in its own right.

(4) Another issue is that the Latin term persona was sometimes used to translate two separate Greek terms: ὑπόστασις hupostasis and πρόσωπον prosopon. These two terms were sometimes used as synonyms in Greek (John of Damascus frequently does so), but by Chalcedon they generally held to communicate interrelated but distinct concepts. For example, Chalcedon held that Christ’s dual natures exists in ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ ἓν ὑπόστασιν hen prosopon kai hen hupostasin. The Latin manuscript translates it as in unum personam atque subsistentiam.

(5) Both ὑπόστασις hupostasis and πρόσωπον prosopon communicated something about “personhood” in Greek: the former identities that such a “person” is ontologically real, whilst the latter term underscores the capacity of the “interpersonal” nature of that “person”. There are quite a lot of nuances (and some ambiguities) and the precise relationship between the two is still subject to contention in Patristics scholarship on the Cappadocian Fathers (the three Church Fathers who were prominent at Chalcedon).

I think that is closer to the dynamic behind the changes.

Maybe. IDK.

Yes, I agree as well. I don’t think the Church Fathers concluded that God was three persons as a result of the terminology they used. Rather, it was the inverse: they acknowledged a multifaceted characteristic of God, and they attempted to select the best available terms to describe this multifacetedness.

 

[George720]

One Bible passage regarding the Prophet Elijah and John the Baptist comes to mind - And this by memory, mind you - But Jesus Himself saying of John the Baptist that he IS the Prophet Elijah, but only IF you can receive it…
So we have two persons as one person…
Or is it?

Person meant mask on the stages of Ancient Greece, but in Christianity, it becomes hypostasis, because instead of assuming a stance, the prosopon becomes not something worn, but genuine and real, and as such, it is in this fallen life the very basis of one’s essence/ousia… For on this understanding, ousia takes on an older meaning, which is the wealth of a person…

These are interesting issues that few here will have engaged…

geo