The Trinity is Simultaneous Modalism

[OddBird]

The word person did not exist as how you’re using it it was hypostasis which literally means an underlying reality or existence subsistence so to say the word that I’m looking for is person is to deny that the word that is used is hypostasis.

“Underlying reality” is a way of understanding hypo-stasis (literally, what is under), but it’s rather the acception of medicine, as far as I’m aware of. Christian theology, I think, interprets it differently, as in sub-ject (the same word, but based on Latin rather than Greek roots) – that is, “person”.

(By the way, the word “subject” has the same plurality of meanings : it can be as well “subject matter” as “individual”).

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

They are distinct individual realities of the one Ousia yes.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

But if we describe these underlying realities as having distinct centers of consciousness we are advocating for blatant Tritheism.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I would recommend reading Aquinas on the Divine Persons: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article2

substance is a terrible word for hypostasis

Hypostasis means and underlying reality or substance…

you would be saying that there are three Ousia.

No Hypostasis means an underlying reality. It refers to accidents. Ousia is meaning, according to the Early Church, “all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another”. Two different things. So the one subsistence has three hypostasis/Persons.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

This is how I know what you’re describing is not what was taught before, as it was always one Ousia in three hypostasis, yet what you are proclaiming to me is one hypostasis and three ousia.

Ousia was never used within any of the creeds to mean a subsistence but substance, hypostasis was meant as a subsistence, each individual hypostasis is of the one substance not the other way around.

You’re practically swapping definitions between Ousia and Hypostasis.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

one subsistence has three hypostasis/Persons.

You’re practically swapping definitions between Ousia and Hypostasis.

Wrong. I am saying one subsistence. The early churches had a very hard time accepting ousia early on. They didn’t like it because it is what Sabellius used and came from greek philosphy. They accepts later on the definition i gave above:

all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another

Which translate into the word subsistence

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Ousia was never used within any of the creeds to mean a subsistence but substance, hypostasis was meant as a subsistence, each individual hypostasis is of the one substance not the other way around.

You have it backwards unfortunately.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

What you’ve proposed to me is nothing more than Tritheism, Ousia is the substance and the three hypostasis are the individual necessary realities of the one substance.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

Aquinas was not ignorant nor were his analogies disagreeable entirely but to proclaim that Ousia is not the substance of and the hypostasis are the realities of being is to misrepresent the earliest works of the church fathers.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

No Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox would ever proclaim what you’ve stated to me just now nor have they ever done so.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

I understand this is a Catholic forum of course, but I’m simply using them as an example of a group that continued to believe what was foundational for centuries.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

And what you are advocating for is called the Thomistic Godhead, Which is never actually stated in any creed or by any early church fathers whatsoever so I wouldn’t say that disagreeing with Thomas Aquinas on this concept is damnable for anybody, As it is merely a theory on the Godhead but not proposed as doctrinal necessity.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

What’s funny is that it was Eastern Churches that came up with the definition I gave.
Do a little more research into that id recommend.
But anyway, I’ve said what I think needed to be said. I can see your entrenched in your view, even if I do view it as wrong, and I am entrenched in my/the Church’s understanding of the Trinity. Thank you for this discussion, got me thinking and doing some reading on early church and of course Aquinas. Hopefully it was beneficial to you and I pray you’ll come to the right answers

God bless and be safe in these troubled times

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

God bless and be safe man with the whole virus going around it was a very good discussion hopefully you didn’t think that I was attacking you personally and any point it just becomes frustrating whenever I keep trying to dig into this topic and everybody has their own different concepts of one concept it’s insanity almost

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

No worries brother. I didn’t feel attacked at all. Discussion are just that, discussions. There was no Ill will felt. We both believe firmly what we do and are passionate about it.