PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, it's not delineated. The problem is that Mutlihypostatic Trinitarians caricature everything else through their own concepts as the main filter for attempting to comprehend anything else.
And me trying to constantly compare to "the Pope" is pointless, since I don't know exactly what the Pope says, nor do I care. He's a guy. There is no valid Papal position for the Church. That was a Latin fabrication, and it's the fundamental reason for the 1054AD Schizm with the truly Orthodox of history.
Ousia is essence or nature. If substance is referenced for ousia, then the comparable reference for hypostasis is subsistence. They're not the same thing, though they're closely related synonyms.
Hypostasis is substance (or subsistence if substance is prescribed in English for ousia). This underlies the ousia, and is presented visibly and tangibly by the prosopon (person/face/presence/appearance).
Prospon is that which is presented as the observability to any observers. Face to face is prosopon to prosopon. The outward appearance of the hypostasis is the prosopon.
All three are in play, regardless of the formulation and quantitative or qualitative distinctions. They all have the same individual applicable definitions, or at least they should.
My challenge is that scripture only presents one hypostasis and one prosopon relative to the one ousia. And that is reflected in the procession (singular) of the Logos and the Pneuma.
If you don't understand ontological versus economic in relation to procession, most of this will be futile for the the most part.
Ontology is inherent existence of being. There is no "movement" for ontology. Movement is the energies of God rather than the essence of God. In His essence (ousia), God must be static in all His intrinsic attributes. God's essence is the "fountain" of His energies, and His energies were the causal activity in creation.
No ontology may process from God. We can never know God by/in His essence, but He reveals Himself by/with/through His energies. His creation can only comprehend Him energetically, and not ontologically. Otherwise, His ontology is attributed to His creation in some manner via emanation, effluence, or exudation, etc. The result of that is Pantheism or PanENtheism in some form or to varying degrees of postulate (among other world religions).
If one miniscule portion of God's ontology is shared with/in creation, that creation is Divine in ontology. But since everything had a beginning as created, then nothing can or does participate in God's ontology. Things with a beginning are not inherently eternal with no beginning, so they cannot ever have Divine ontology.
Anything else is a world religion of creation BEING God or being IN God as conjoined to Him ontologically.
NO! The Logos and Pneuma are qualitative distinctions of the singular hypostasis. There is only ONE prosopon, just as there is only one hypostasis. The prepared body of the Incarnate Logos is the prosopon, though conjoined to the hypostasis (via Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology).
No. Substance and essence should never be used together for ousia, since hypostasis/es must always be contrasted to ousia. Essence or nature for ousia, with hypostasis/es as substance/s; or ousia as substance/nature, with hypostasis/es as subsistence. Using substance in English for both ousia and hypostasis is to be avoided. There's enough intricate potential confusion without interposing an English term for two in Greek that are the core of any possible distinction.
So again for clarity, I don't know and don't care what minutiae of misexpression the Pope uses. I'm not contrasting to Popes.
Ousia is essence (or substance relative to hypostasis as subsistence).
Hypostasis is substance (or subsistence relative to ousia as substance).
Prosopon is face/presence/appearance/person in the outward sense.
Hypostasis underlies the ousia, and prosopon presents the outward of the inward. The prosopon is the apparent reality, while the hypostasis is the true reality of underlying existence, since the prosopon (for humanity) will pass away in physical death (then taking a glorified form in everlasting).
I prefer essence for ousia and substance for hypostasis, because the essentiality of existence is ousia and the substantiality is the hypostasis, by which the prosopon is presented.
Mixing them in triplicate just clouds the issue.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, other than that the hypostasis took on literal human flesh of the dust of the ground when the Logos became flesh.
That's part of the problem. Ousia doesn't mean to stand under. Hypostasis means stand under. That which underlies is the hypostasis. This may reflect some difference between Latin and Greek Orthodoxy, as I've heard others refer to this who were Latins (which you evidently are).
That's a silly inversion that doesn't even represent the terms themselves. And this non-uniformity is the pattern by which such further scattered lack of uniformity has occurred over the ages. That's part of the impetus for my reformulation, regardless who recognizes it or accepts it or not.
Absolutely. First "the Trinity" isn't just the (alleged) multiple hypostases TO be underlied. Even in this inversion, the ousia IS part of the Trinity; so it can't underlie "the Trinity" in some external fashion and still be integral TO the Trinity; yet it's vital for the Trinity to even be conceptually valid. "Persons" MUST be contrasted to "being/s". This leads to other criticism, but I'll defer it for now.
This is just all kinds of jacked up, which is why I've spent years dissecting it to identify all these incongruous and inconsistent anolmalies.
Hypostasis means "to stand under", "to underlie". Ousia does not. Regardless of the quantity or quality of the hypostasis/es, it/they underlie the ousia and not vice versa.
Hypostases are the particular, whereas ousia is the general special designation of type of essence. One must be a species just as one must be an individual within that species. (There are no particular individuals OF a species with no species.) But the individuality underlies the species for particular existence. "What" AND "which".
All humanity shares a singular species of ousia, but each has particular existence that is individual. That individuality is their distinction of existence apart from other humanity with the same species of ousia. And that underlying hypostatic distinction also designates each ousia from others as "beings" rather than "persons" or "dogs" rather than "Rover".
And each particular human individual with underlying reality of existence has a human logos and pneuma. So a human hypostasis has qualitative distinctions of logos and pneuma (and psuche) while being a singular hypostasis. That's because we're in God's image and likeness. There's no need to make God's Logos and Pneuma into individual hypsotases for distinction. Perhaps that will open some small door of understanding to my formulation.
No. God (who is also the Father) is a transcendent hypostasis underlying an ousia. God inherently has a Logos and Pneuma, since He IS Spirit and is the ground of all sentience and cognition.
God, His Logos, and His Pneuma all have inherent and eternal ontological Self-existence. In this pre-creational state, there is NO where, when, or what because nothing has been created. No heaven, no time, and no "whats" or "whos". There is only God as a singular ousia underlied by a singular hypostasis. This is His ontology of essence and its underlying substance. There is no prosopon, for there is no beholder for beholdablity. He is the unseen and unseeable God because there are no seers to see Him, not because He cannot present Himself to be seen.
All creation occurred by the energies (movement) of His essence (ontology). Everything relative to His ontology must already be static and immutable, including His Logos and Pneuma. That's why the exerchomai and ekporeuomai procession had to be represented by Orthodoxy as INternal and ontological. If not, the Logos and Pneuma would be created rather than UNcreated. Multiple hypostases required this, because there had to be the compensatory band-aid of "eternal begottenness" and "eternal procession" prior to any creative energy. This does violence to the text.
With the Logos and Pneuma correctly and scripturally being qualitative distinctions of the singular hypsotasis (just like man in God's image), the procession can be EXternal and economic just as exerchomai and ekporeuomai indicate in the inspired text. This contrasts with the unscriptural quantitative multiple hypostases being ontological, with no economy to have presence within creation in multi-omni fashion relative to God's inherent attributes. The exerchomai and ekporeuomai have already been "used up" for INternal ontological procession; but the ex- and ek- are mandatorily economic, and it secondarily also leaves no economy for God to inhabit His own creation.
No, not in the sense of hypostases at all. Are your logos and pneuma distinct from you as additional hypostases? Are you multiple hypostases because you have a logos and a pneuma? No. You're pneuma-psuche-soma as one hypostasis (outwardly presenting a prosopon).
No. Distinctions are not "parts". And in this regard, God is more aptly trichotomous than triune, but both are just terms to depict "threeness". There must be a simplicity to God that He is not comprised of "parts". That's why qualitative distinctions weren't considered in favor of quantitative distinctions; but it's actually the inverse problem. Multiple hypostases ARE "parts".
You're too confined to a finite mind and mathematics that are relative to only temporal significance. There was NO quantity before God created, so multiplicity is less accurate than immenstiy in any sense of plurality for God. God shouldn't be "numbered" by components of His inherent constitution.
Monotheism shouldn't need such a large asterisk as the Multihypostatic Trinity doctrine. God is ONE. All distinctions are qualitative relative to God's constitution as the uncaused cause.
Because God in His ontology is beyond temporal equations dependent upon mathematics. God isn't quantified. God is qualitative existence as Spirit. NONtemporal. Applying temporal aspects to God is the height of fallacy.
Somebody needs to make up their mind. Ousia AND hypostasis cannot both be substance and essence; and hypostasis isn't nature at all. In fact, nature is best left to physis in this sense, leaving it apart from both ousia and hypsotasis.
So... No.
But Popes will be Popes. It's too bad the Pope is clueless about Theology Proper, even according to Orthodox formluation. But Vatican II is antichrist far beyond preceeding RCC error anyway, but that's another subject for another day with others who don't have their faith erroneously in a Papacy, so I'll leave it at that.
Huge problems. And all other dilution comes from this problem to create an epidemic of problems. But nobody will touch it because they don't know their own doctrine. Most just regurge a few sentences and fight to the death verbally over semantics they're ignorant of.
The worst is the pan-epidemic, especially among Protestant sects, of Triadism; where each of the alleged individual hypostases each have a sentient cognition and volition. That's three minds/wills, which is three souls. This makes three beings, which would be multiple ousios rather than multiple hypostases as one ousia. It's outright Tritheism, and it's pagan; but it's becoming the default among many of the sectarians, especially the Charismatics (who are also predominantly Kenosists, as well).
I definitely did not follow you in your explanation of "ontology," "economy," "exerchomai" and "ekporeuomai," but hopefully I can get closer to understanding you upon your response to this post.
Thanks.
It should be much clearer from my content above. If not, I'd suggest you speaking with someone Orthodox (Eastern) to get a better understanding before filtering my criticisms and accessing my reformulation.
Last edited:
