The Nicene Creed

[heavenseeker]

the creed was the time that a non-biblical term was used in theology

[Apotheoun]

[i]Ousia[/i] is a word that appears in both the Greek New Testament and in the LXX, but in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed it is used in a new way, i.e., it is used to stand for the unknowable essence that is common to the Father and the Son.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1918888' date='Jul 13 2009, 03:16 PM'][i]Ousia[/i] is a word that appears in both the Greek New Testament and in the LXX, but in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed it is used in a new way, i.e., it is used to stand for the unknowable essence that is common to the Father and the Son.[/quote]
ousia yes homousia no

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1918893' date='Jul 13 2009, 01:23 PM']ousia yes homousia no[/quote]
[i]Homoousios[/i] is just a combination of the prefix [i]homo[/i] and [i]ousia[/i]. Moreover, the term [i]ousia[/i] is combined with the prefix [i]epi[/i] in the Lord's Prayer, but the fact remains that [i]ousia[/i] is a biblical word, which the Church Fathers used in a new way.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1918895' date='Jul 13 2009, 03:27 PM'][i]Homoousios[/i] is just a combination of the prefix [i]homo[/i] and [i]ousia[/i]. Moreover, the term [i]ousia[/i] is combined with the prefix [i]epi[/i] in the Lord's Prayer, but the fact remains that [i]ousia[/i] is a biblical word, which the Church Fathers used in a new way.[/quote]
i know what homoousias means but it is a separate word and is not in its self biblical. ousias only means substance while homoousias means same substance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1918903' date='Jul 13 2009, 01:35 PM']i know what homoousias means but it is a separate word and is not in its self biblical. ousias only means substance while homoousias means same substance.[/quote]
The root word is biblical, therefore the word is bibilcal.

The word [i]homoousios[/i] means essence, not substance. It is Sabellian to say that it means substance.

It has taken decades for the Eastern Catholic Churches to expunge the improper translation of the term [i]homoousios[/i] with the word [i]substance[/i], but finally all the [i]sui juris[/i] Eastern Catholic Churches have issued corrected translations of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed. In like manner they have finally removed the [i]filioque[/i] from the creed, and have returned to the pristine historic text of A.D. 381.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1918905' date='Jul 13 2009, 03:36 PM']The root word is biblical, therefore the word is bibilcal.

The word [i]homoousios[/i] means essence, not substance. It is Sabellian to say that it means substance.

It has taken decades for the Eastern Catholic Churches to expunge the improper translation of the term [i]homoousios[/i] with the word substance, but finally all the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches have issued corrected translations of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed. In like manner they have finally removed the [i]filioque[/i] from the creed, and have returned to the pristine historic text of A.D. 381.[/quote]
the root word is not the same word they have different meanings. yes similar but different. unless you translate the Bible yourself so that homoousios is used in it you will never find it used in the Bible. the word its self is not biblical.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1918913' date='Jul 13 2009, 01:51 PM']the root word is not the same word they have different meanings. yes similar but different. unless you translate the Bible yourself so that homoousios is used in it you will never find it used in the Bible. the word its self is not biblical.[/quote]
Actually, they only have different meanings because the Church Fathers chose to give the word a new meaning, i.e., a very technical theological meaning, which made it stand apophatically for what is common to the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, the word is biblical.

It should be noted that the Cappadocians also used two words to describe what was common to the Father and the Son, i.e., [i]mia ousia[/i], which shows that the Fathers used the biblical term [i]ousia[/i] to refer to the unknowable essence of God, contrary to the accusations made by the Arian heretics that the God-inspired Fathers were using a non-biblical term. The Church Fathers simply used the biblical word [i]ousia[/i] in a new way in order to refer to something that cannot be comprehended.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Seven77]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1918905' date='Jul 13 2009, 02:36 PM']The root word is biblical, therefore the word is bibilcal.

The word [i]homoousios[/i] means essence, not substance. It is Sabellian to say that it means substance.

It has taken decades for the Eastern Catholic Churches to expunge the improper translation of the term [i]homoousios[/i] with the word [i]substance[/i], but finally all the [i]sui juris[/i] Eastern Catholic Churches have issued corrected translations of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed. In like manner they have finally removed the [i]filioque[/i] from the creed, and have returned to the pristine historic text of A.D. 381.[/quote]

say what? I thought [i]substance[/i]e and [i]essence[/i] mean the same thing?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1918937' date='Jul 13 2009, 02:50 PM']say what? I thought [i]substance[/i]e and [i]essence[/i] mean the same thing?[/quote]
The English word [i]substance[/i] comes from the Latin [i]substare[/i], which means "to stand under," i.e., to exist. The equivalent term in Greek is [i]hypostasis[/i] (hypo = under / stasis = to stand).

No, substance ([i]hypostasis[/i]) and essence ([i]ousia[/i]) do not mean the same thing according to the Post-Nicene Fathers, and to say that they do mean the same thing is to embrace Sabellianism, which accepted only a [i]prosopic[/i] distinction within the Godhead.

[Seven77]

right---[i]hypostasis[/i] and [i]ousia[/i] do not mean the same thing...

but the words [i]substance[/i] and [i]essence[/i] have the same meaning despite the etymology.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1918966' date='Jul 13 2009, 04:33 PM'][i]substance[/i] and [i]essence[/i] have the same meaning despite the etymology.[/quote]

Edited July 13, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1918966' date='Jul 13 2009, 03:33 PM']right---[i]hypostasis[/i] and [i]ousia[/i] do not mean the same thing...

but the words [i]substance[/i] and [i]essence[/i] have the same meaning despite the etymology.[/quote]
They do not have the same meaning according to the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople I, who wrote the creed.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Seven77]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1919589' date='Jul 14 2009, 11:43 AM']They do not have the same meaning according to the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople I, who wrote the creed.[/quote]

First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325):

"And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different [u][b]substance or essence[/b][/u] [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm[/url]


Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-81):

"... we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and [u][b]substance or essence[/b][/u], so we will profess also that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory."

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1920686' date='Jul 15 2009, 12:29 PM']First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325):

"And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different [u][b]substance or essence[/b][/u] [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm[/url][/quote]
If you read the books I recommended you will see that in Greek pagan philosophy [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) and [i]ousia[/i] (essence) meant the same thing, which is what the Fathers at that council were following, but their use of the terms was amended by St. Athanasios and the Cappadocians after the council, by making a distinction between [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) and [i]ousia[/i] (essence) in order to avoid the heresy of Sabellianism. Sabellius taught that the Father and the Son were one [i]ousia[/i] and one [i]hypostasis[/i], which of its nature involves a denial of the reality of the Holy Trinity, because it reduces the Father and the Son to mere [i]modes[/i] or [i]masks[/i] within the Godhead, instead of accepting that they are real and distinct [i]hypostaseis[/i]. That is why I said that the First Council of Constantinople distinguished the use of these two Greek terms, giving them a new theological meaning in support of Tradition.

[quote name='Seven77' post='1920686' date='Jul 15 2009, 12:29 PM']Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-81):

"... we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and [u][b]substance or essence[/b][/u], so we will profess also that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory."

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm[/url][/quote]
The Letter of Pope Agatho is not the dogmatic decree of the council, thus it has no dogmatic authority, but represents simply the opinion of Agatho. Moreover, only the Greek text of the letter, which I doubt uses the word [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) when referring to the unity of the Trinity, because that would involve embracing the Sabellian heresy, has the approval of the sixth ecumenical council.

It is important to remember, that it is the Greek texts of the councils, not the Latin or the English translations, that are God-inspired.

Bearing in mind what I have already said, anyone who holds the opinion that [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) and [i]ousia[/i] (essence) are identical has embraced Sabellian Modalism, which is I why I can never say such a thing. Thus, if you persist in holding the false notion that [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) and [i]ousia[/i] (essence) are identical, it is clear that you and I do not share the same Orthodox faith of the Holy Fathers.

Finally, St. Basil confirms the distinction that must be made between [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) and [i]ousia[/i] (essence) in his correspondence with Maximus the Philosopher, who wanted answers to some questions he had proposed in connection with the theology of Dionysios of Alexandria. Now in his response to the questions put forward by Maximus, St. Basil speaks highly of Dionysios' intention to refute the Sabellians, but finds fault with his failure to distinguish rightly between [i]hypostasis[/i] and [i]ousia[/i], by proposing the notion that difference in [i]hypostasis[/i] (substance) necessitates difference in [i]ousia[/i] (essence) between the Father and the Son.

Here is what St. Basil said in his letter: "[b]It would have been quite sufficient for him (i.e., Dionysios) to have pointed out that the Father and the Son are not identical in [i]hypokeimenon[/i] (substance)[/b], and thus to score against the blasphemer (i.e., Sabellius). But, in order to win an unmistakable and superabundant victory, he is not satisfied with laying down a difference of [i]hypostaseis[/i] (substances), but must needs assert also difference of [i]ousias[/i] (essence) diminution of [i]dunameos[/i] (power), and variableness of [i]doxes[/i] (glory). So he exchanges one mischief for another, and diverges from the right line of doctrine. In his writings he exhibits a miscellaneous inconsistency, and is found disloyal to the [i]homoousion[/i] (same-essence), because of his opponent, who made a bad use of it to the destruction of the [i]hypostaseis[/i] (substances)."

I suggest that you also read (in Greek) St. Basil's [i]Letter 38[/i], which scholars now believe was actually written by his brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and his [i]Letters 214[/i], [i]234[/i], and [i]235[/i] (again in the Greek).

Edited July 15, 2009 by Apotheoun