In
the previous AF thread which dealt with the topic of monoousios vs. homoousios (link),
I provided selections from Christian theologians and historians who
acknowledged that the term homoousion, used in the Nicene Creed and by a
number of subsequent Church Fathers, was most likely understood in a generic sense,
rather than an absolute numeric sense. In this new post, I hope to establish
beyond any reasonable doubt that the generic understanding is the most viable
option.
At the end of the opening
post of the above referenced thread, I mentioned that the generic understanding
of homoousios, "is the dominant understanding of many Eastern
Orthodox theologians". Interestingly enough, a LDS author back in 2004
provided substantial support for my reflections—the following quote is from
the book, Prelude to the Restoration (2004):
Christos Yannaras proposes that “schematically: God
is a Nature and three Persons; man is a nature and ‘innumerable’ persons. God
is consubstantial and in three hypostases, man is consubstantial and in
innumerable hypostases.” Essence could thus be characterized as that nature
which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is
humanity. (J. B. Haws, "Defenders of the Doctrine of Deification", p.
77) [The quote that Haws provided from the EO
theologian Yannaras, is from the book Elements of Faith, p, 36.]
Haws' understanding of the Yannaras quote, brings
to mind the Christology delineated in the Chalcedonian Definition (451)—the
germane portion is provided below:
Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to confess one and
the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Divinity (theotēti)
and also perfect in humanity (anthrōpotēti); truly God and truly man, of
a rational soul and body; same essence (homoousion) with the Father
according to the Divinity (theotēta), and same essence (homoousion)
with us according to the humanity (anthrōpotēta) ...
Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν
ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν,
τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς
καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν, ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ
κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα ...
Clearly we have before us
an application of the term homoousion in a generic sense. As such, we
can add the Chalcedonian Definition to the list of examples wherein the term homoousion
is used in the generic sense—e.g. Nicene Creed, numerous post-Nicene Church
Fathers and EO theologians.
The concept that "man is consubstantial and in innumerable hypostases" means all the
members of mankind share one and the same nature/essence. When the same type of
concept is applied to the Godhead, it means that all members of the Godhead
share one and the same nature/essence; or as Haws states it:
Essence could thus be characterized as that nature
which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is
humanity.
For one to be human from human, one has to be fully
human—possessing the nature of humanity in its fullness—not partially human, or
even mostly human. For one to be God from God, one has to be fully
God—possessing the nature of divinity in its fullness—not partially God, or even
mostly God.
To end, I would like to submit that when the
related concepts of 'God from God', 'homoosion with the Father', and
'begotten not made' are applied to Jesus Christ, two early theological errors
are avoided: first, modalism, which changed the understanding of homoosios into
monoousios, and denied the causality of the Son from the Father; and
second, Arianism, which denied that the Son of God was fully God.
Grace and peace,
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I have too much to say about this. In the other thread there was discussion of reformers who believe Christ is autotheos and those who do not. I would assume there are virtually no Catholic scholars until the last 50 years who believe Christ is autotheos and the large majority (who speak about it) reject it.
Bryan Cross and Father Leo D. Davis are two Catholic scholars who seem to demand that that Homoousian be understood in the numeric sense (virtually synonymous to monoousian) when speaking of the Father and the Son.
I further suggest the 2011 change to the English creed I mentioned in the other thread points to the recognition that while there are reasonable translations of Homoousian in the generic sense, there are no reasonable translations of Homoousian in the numeric sense and thus the word Consubstantial which derives from the Latin needed to be introduced.
Do you know of modern Catholic scholars who suggest it is acceptable for Catholics to believe that the Father and the Son are homoousian in the generic sense only? I would imagine if you had read ever word said upon the subject there would be a handful of Catholic scholars in close communication with Eastern scholars who embrace this position, but the many more (even a majority of those in close communication with Eastern scholars) will demand the numeric sense. But, I do not know (and I am sure you are about 100x close to knowing what every modern scholar has said than I am.
Also, I should mention as I told you the other day, I will be heading to Europe in a couple of days. Last time I was in Europe I didn’t see any evidence they even knew what the Internet was (ok it was 1991 and I only knew how to send emails and telnet to other colleges). Still, I have no idea what I will find and it will not be my first or second priority to post here. I hope to say hello again in the last week of July or first week of August if I do not find any time or good access. I find it a little more likely I will be able to read here, but at the very least I will catch up when I am back.
Charity, TOm
Bye TOm.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads up. Take pictures. Tell stories when you get back. God bless.
But TOm, about the supposed change in the Creed...that is nothing but a more accurate translation. 2011 was when Pope Benedict started cracking down on crappy translations. I did not know that this was one of them. The Novus Ordos never dared to change the Creed...yet anyway. They screw around with translations instead. "One in being with" isn't that bad. But "consubstantialem Patri" translates more precisely as "consubstantial with the Father".
It was around then that Mom showed me her Novus Ordo parish bulletin that explained othre changes. I went a little wild. So it took them 45 years to translate "et cum spiritu tuo" as "and with thy spirit", instead of "and also with you"? The Novus Ordo is so stupidly dumbed down even before the translations. Vatican II can't say enough about "dignatatis humanae". But the proponents of "human dignity" always seems to doubt that the humanity which is so supposedly dignified, has the intellectual capacity to understand precise translations of original documents.
Well...I wouldn't usually advise "going wild". I am not proud of myself for that and would never recommend it. But Mom came to Tradition after that.
"Consubstantial with the Father" is not a creedal change. It is only a better translation of the Latin.
Rory
Hello Rory,
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to say that this is a “creedal change” in that the modernist have again perverted the Catholic faith. Pope Francis being the head of the Catholic Church and what he changes / muddies concerning Catholic teaching is a whole other reason you should become a LDS.
I am saying that “one in being with” is a weird set of English words intended to mean “homoousian in the numeric sense.” That “consubstantial with” is a new word/phrase intended to mean the same thing, but not perverted by the fact that everyone know what the words “one,” and “being,” and yet they do not capture the proper sense. If homoousian in the generic sense was viewed as truth, many non-Catholic constructions would be available to the Catholic. “Of the divine species” or “of the same species” would be simplistic ones, but Aquinas (and likely others) slammed the door on this because IMO he embraced homoousian in the numeric sense.
In my obnoxious opinion (IMOO) the best thing to say is:
“God the Father and God the Son are the same being the same substance. There are not two being, not two substances. But, we do not mean modalism because that is a heresy and we don’t mean it; really we don’t. How this can be asserted is a mystery; so you should embrace the mystery and recognize that the human intellect cannot explain how what we believe does not violate the law of non-contradiction. Just believe!”
On the other thread there seems to some discussion between you and Ken as to whether to embrace Homoousian in the “numeric” or “generic” sense. It is my position that the bulk of the Fathers at Nicea and Chalcedon embraced homoousian in the generic sense. The West moved basically universally to homoousian in the numeric sense (the filoque clause is PART of this move). Such is problematic for the view the the faith was once delivered and only developed. But to move back to homoousian in the generic sense would, it seems to me, make any development towards truth argument impossible. Protestants could form a new church and do this, but it is harder for Catholics.
The change in the English creed was done to put a word in the mouths of English speaking Catholics that sounded weird, but didn’t require some explanation as to why it was not modalism because only those who dig deep in the theology come up against the difficulty (impossibility, IMOO) in defining homoousian in the numeric sense while denying modalism.
In a less obnoxious way, let me say that LDS who dig deep in theology bump against many problems too. One of my favorites is associated with a Heavenly Father above God the Father. A simplistic but problematic construction is an “infinite regress of Gods.” As a faith that does not often define with precision the ONE truth that must be embraced, I just point to Joseph Smith’s words and suggest that I like him (and like Ostler) reject the idea that there is a God above God the Father. To me my problems seem smaller, but I am biased!
Charity, TOm
There was a "grin" at the end of my first paragraph, but my text signaled an html intention that was not understood. I need to remember to say {grin} rather than use the "greater than" and "less than" symbols.
ReplyDeleteCharity, TOm
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteSome very interesting assertions and thoughts in your last few posts. I need to reread what you have written and then carefully compare the changes in the Novus Ordo before any attempt to share my musings.
Over the weekend, I read a couple of books that I think you and Rory might have some interest in, but I am going to wait until your return from Europe before I share the titles.
Hope that you and your family have a safe and enriching vacation !!!
Take care and God bless,
David
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteDid your article include some assertions on Gregory of Nazianzus and the Development of Doctrine which you have removed. I belive I read something about it yesterday ?
Cheers
DennisB
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteYou asked:
==Did your article include some assertions on Gregory of Nazianzus and the Development of Doctrine which you have removed. I belive I read something about it yesterday ?==
Not sure what you are referencing. I am pretty sure I have never removed anything from AF that I have written and posted. In the previous Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread (link), I wrote the following concerning Gregory of Nazianzus:
>>In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.>>
And a bit later:
>>This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.>>
Back on 01/30/2009 I posted a thread devoted to Gregory of Naziansus/Nazianzen and the development of doctrine—see THIS LINK.
If you have something else in mind, could you provide in a bit more detail/s of what you are thinking of ???
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI found out I clicked on that blog from 2009 instead of this one from 2019.
It was a great piece actually. Just got me thinking about some stuff around the Holy Spirit, Pentecost & tongues. But I don't want to post in the wrong blog. If you write something around that topic I'll share my thoughts.
Cheers
Dennis
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI feel that I'm a bit late to the party. So I understand if I do not receive a response to this. I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating “homoousion” versus “monoousion.” If I am understanding “homoousion” In the generic sense a Trinitarian’s confession or understanding is:
“The Father, the Son & Holy Spirit ARE not one and the same singular Divine Essence!”
“The Father, the Son & Holy Spirit do not HAVE one and the same singular Divine Essence!”
“The Father, the Son & Holy Spirit do not SHARE one and the same singular Divine Essence!”
Or put another way:
“The three Hypostases (persons) SHARE the same GENERAL Divine Essence!” But,
“The three Hypostases (persons) ARE not the same GENERAL Divine Essence!”
Would this be an accurate expression of this?
And how would that be different from the concept that three human persons SHARE the same GENERAL human essence?
Meaning that the “generic” sense of the Trinity leans heavily toward three divine Beings and thus a Tritheistic concept!
Hi Elijah,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for taking the time to comment. Before I share some of my thoughts on your interesting post, I would like to repost the following:
>>Christos Yannaras proposes that “schematically: God is a Nature and three Persons; man is a nature and ‘innumerable’ persons. God is consubstantial and in three hypostases, man is consubstantial and in innumerable hypostases.” Essence could thus be characterized as that nature which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is humanity.>>
If essence equals nature then I have no problem in saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share one essence/nature. As such, I would also equate share one essence/nature with the following you wrote:
>>“The three Hypostases (persons) SHARE the same GENERAL Divine Essence!”>>
However, I don't know if could affirm the following without qualification:
>>“The three Hypostases (persons) ARE not the same GENERAL Divine Essence!”>>
The humanity that all humans SHARE is in a real sense but ONE humanity in that I would not be comfortable in affirming that there are multiple humanities.
The divinity/divine nature that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit SHARE is also in a real sense but ONE divinity/divine nature in that I would not be comfortable in affirming that there are multiple divinities/divine natures.
The fundamental difference between divinity/divine nature and humanity/human nature is that the former is infinite whilst that latter is finite. With this in mind, the problem that I personally have with monoousian theories is that they leave no room for three distinct, concrete persons who SHARE the same divinity/divine nature.
Clearly some tensions remain, but I a willing to allow this, because the attempts to remove all the tensions sure seem to ultimately result in either modalism or polytheism.
If I have ‘missed’ something, please let me know.
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks for your explanation, Especially this part:
ReplyDelete>>the problem that I personally have with monoousian theories is that they leave no room for three distinct, concrete persons who SHARE the same divinity/divine nature. Clearly some tensions remain, but I a willing to allow this, because the attempts to remove all the tensions sure seem to ultimately result in either modalism or polytheism. >>
The difference between God (Divine Nature & Persons) and humans (human nature & persons) is clear enough. One is Divine the other human. One is infinite the other finite, etc.
The issue, which is the age-old issue, is if we can call three human persons who share one human nature “three human beings” why would we not identify the three persons of the Trinity Who share one divine nature “three divine BEINGS?”
Is the way we human persons share the human nature/essence different than the way the three persons of the Trinity share the divine nature/essence? And if so how?
It seems to me the truth is somewhere in between modalism and polytheism in the sense of the singularity of God and His multiplicity. It also seems that those who are of the Unitarian and Oneness factions do try just as hard as Trinitarians to stay within the bounds of Monotheism. But does Trinitarianism lean too close to polytheism?
Modern Trinitarians often state, “The three persons ARE one singular God!” which to me is much closer to a Monoousion concept! I am more concerned with avoiding polytheism than modalism though I know both are incorrect!
I was listening to a recent Reason & Theology Youtube talk where the guest argues that the original intention of the Nicene Creed was to affirm the Divine Nature of the Son, and not so much to define or go into issues such as 'begotten'. He gave a few pieces of evidence to support this, including the Armenian Orthodox Creed which is clearly Nicene in origin but doesn't mention the Holy Spirit "proceeding" and the Jerusalem Creed of Epiphanius in 374 where the Holy Spirit is said to "proceed" but the bulk of the Creed and Anathema is focused on defending the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. The talk went into how the language of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 when speaking on the Holy Spirit is basically a commentary on Revelation 22:1. Even Canon 5 (sometimes labeled 4) of 381 Constantinople says: "In regard to the tome [creed] of the Western Bishops, we receive those in Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." His conclusion was that the Nicene Creed was never set out to define the inner working of the Trinity, and thus we cannot make too much out of terms like Begotten/Proceeds such that they become a church-dividing issue. If that's the case, then the Filioque ultimately isn't a violation of the Nicene Creed in terms of defining the parameters of orthodoxy. I think the Nicene Church was far less worried about simple Modalism (as in the simple confusing/conflating of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), than they were about upholding their 'same-nature' and 'eternality' (Cf Nicea only condemned those who say "there was a time when he was not").
ReplyDeleteAll that is to say, his talk reminded me of a post you made where St Athanasius says it doesn't so much matter if someone says "of the same nature" or "of a similar nature" as long as they were trying to affirm the Son's Divinity. I think that would be another sort of support proof to that thesis that Ousios is the real goal of the Creeds, and not so much Begotten/Proceeds. I cannot find that thread you made, but I did stumble upon this Generic/Numeric issue.
I largely agree with you and I think the general consensus of Catholics today would as well (especially when they are told about it). I think the informed Latin side of the Church affirms Monarchy of the Father, and in more mature talks online with EO, there hasn't been much in the way of accusing Catholics of 'officially' denying this. What is interesting is that while the "social Trinity" needs to keep in mind the Monarchy, I'm reminded of the very famous Russian Orthodox icon of the Trinity depicted as three angels sitting around a table (Abraham's 3 visitors) by a Russian Orhtodox in the 1400s.
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteSo good to hear from you again. Yesterday, you wrote:
==I think the Nicene Church was far less worried about simple Modalism (as in the simple confusing/conflating of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), than they were about upholding their 'same-nature' and 'eternality' (Cf Nicea only condemned those who say "there was a time when he was not").==
Agreed. The Nicene Council of 325 was called due to the Arian crisis, which was primarily a Greek/Eastern problem. The vast majority of the bishops who attended the Council wanted to affirm the divinity of the Son, which included the affirmation of His eternality.
With that said, those same bishops wanted to make a clear distinction between begotten and created/made. The Son is truly from the very being/nature of the Father Himself, and not in any sense from outside the Father (which, of course, excludes the Arian notion of creatio ex nihilo). Hence the Nicene Creed reads, ‘begotten not made’.
==All that is to say, his talk reminded me of a post you made where St Athanasius says it doesn't so much matter if someone says "of the same nature" or "of a similar nature" as long as they were trying to affirm the Son's Divinity.==
The following is from the thread that highlights Athanasius’ thoughts on 'like':
>>Interestingly enough, St. Athanasius himself had no problem with the terms "likeness" and "like":
We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father's likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. (Contra Arianos 2.33 - NPNF 4.366.)
And:
For what is sown in every soul from the beginning is that God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always ; that He is from the Father; that He is like ; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence ; and there is no idea involved in these of creature or work. (Contra Arianos 2.34- NPNF 4.366.)>> [LINK]
cont'd
cont'd
ReplyDeleteIn an earlier thread, I posted the following germane assessment of Athanasius:
>>Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom they are not far from accepting even the phrase, ‘Coessential’… But since they say that He is ‘of the essence’ and ‘Like-in-essence,’ what do they signify by these but ‘Coessential?’ For, while to say only “Like-in-essence,’ does not necessarily convey ‘of the essence,’ on the contrary, to say ‘Coessential,’ is to signify the meaning of both terms, ‘Like-in-essence,’ and ‘of the essences’ And accordingly they themselves in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their proofs against them from human illustrations of son and father, with this exception that God is not as man, nor the generation of the Son as issue of man, but such as may be ascribed to God, and is fit for us to think. (Athanasius, De Synodis, 41 – NPNF 4.472.)>> [LINK]
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Interestingly enough, just last night I was reading your recent blog posts, and especially liked the one on Russia and the JWs. Have some musings to share, but it will probably have to wait until this weekend before I have the time to do so.