History of hypostasis

[Christopher Dombrowski]

How do we reconcile the reality that beginning with the Cappadocians the Church began to understand God as of one ousia yet manifest in three hypostases with the reality that the First Council of Nicaea condemned any who suggested that Jesus Christ was of a different hypostasis from the Father? Could this not be a case for Sabellianism being the legitimate faith of 1st Nicaea?

[Michael Stickles]

Part of a post from Fr Dcn Matthew about a year ago in the thread "What does 'prosopon' mean?" touched on this topic:


Hypostasis, Greek, literally means 'sub-sistence', and its literal translation into Latin is substantia. At Nicaea I it was equated to ousia, and therefore a cause for anathema if anyone suggested that the Father and Son were 'of different ousiai or hypostases'. It was therefore not a word applied directly to the Son in distinction for some time; and only with the post-Athanasius period, and the council of Constantinople which removed the anathema from the end of Nicaea's creed, did talk of distinct hypostases of Father, Son and Spirit become widespread in the Church. At literal translation of hypostasis indicates the subsisting, concrete reality of a being or nature.

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

Sabellianism itself was condemned as heresy in the early 3rd century, about 100years before Nicea. If there is some doubt as to what Nicea tried to convey we can probably still piece it together by reading ST. Athanasius and many other Fathers who adhered to that council. During this period much of their writings are abundant and have been well preserved down to our own time.
I would say a better historical study would be the faith of Nicea contrasted with the subordination tendency found amongst the Fathers of pre-Nicea.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Does anyone know roughly what hypostasis meant in the pre-1st Constantinople period when it was unacceptable to say that the Son is of a different hypostasis from the Father and the post-1st Constantinople period when it now is supposedly acceptable to say that the Son is of a different hypostasis from the Father?

[Michael Stickles]

Does anyone know roughly what hypostasis meant in the pre-1st Constantinople period when it was unacceptable to say that the Son is of a different hypostasis from the Father and the post-1st Constantinople period when it now is supposedly acceptable to say that the Son is of a different hypostasis from the Father?

There is a short discussion of that (http://blog.solagratia.org/2008/01/14/a-change-in-meaning/) on the blog Reformata Semper Reformanda. Also, Quinn and Taliaferro's A Companion to Philosophy of Religion has a section on it (http://books.google.com/books?id=DbnyBIdOqbYC&pg=PA525&lpg=PA525&dq=hypostasis+(nicaea+OR+nicea)&source=bl&ots=9GSXAcqTCh&sig=uEzBL81-vgcZD1ydZ0oTIHYz7D0&hl=en&ei=jVHVSfjLHODrnQeujOn9Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA525,M1) (which is unfortunately cut off since the second page isn't part of the online preview).

You can use the following search terms in Google:

hypostasis (nicaea OR nicea)
to get a bunch of pages speaking to this topic (either directly or indirectly).

In Christ,
Michael

[Kosta]

I found a passing reference to the Council of Alexandria held in 362 a.d. which defined hypostasis as 'person'. Unfortunately i cant find much about the acts of this council anywhere.