Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J. F.

Buch: The Way to Nicea

Titel: The Way to Nicea

Stichwort: homoousion; Folgen aus einem falschen Verständnis: Sabellianismus (Sabellianism) - Tritheismus (tritheism);

Kurzinhalt: we do not grasp by the power of our intellects, but believe by faith, that ... Others, however, go off in different directions, to end up in diametrically opposed positions:

Textausschnitt: 92a
5. If the philosophical ambiguity of the term, homoousion, arises from the fact that some take ousia to mean body, or matter,1 whereas others take it to mean that which is, that which is truly affirmed to be, the theological ambiguity, as we have remarked, is rooted in the real difference between the consubstantiality of the divine persons, on the one hand, and that of creatures, on the other. For the consubstantiality of the divine persons means that they have numerically the same substance, whereas consubstantiality in the realm of creation implies numerically distinct individual substances that are specifically the same. (Fs) (notabene)

92b One very familiar illustration of this theological ambiguity is the doctrine of Apollinaris, who denied that Christ had a human soul; therefore, according to him, the incarnate Word, as incarnate, is not consubstantial with us.1 The orthodox position, on the other hand, as expressed both in the Formula of Union (DS 272) and in the decree of Chalcedon (DS 301 f), is that the Son is consubstantial with the Father in respect of his deity, and consubstantial with us in respect of his humanity. Indeed, even the Severian Monophysites, who would allow no distinction whatever between hypostasis and nature, professed, of their own accord, this dual consubstantiality of the Son: with the Father in respect of his deity, and with us in respect of his humanity.2 In this whole discussion, however, the term homoousion is taken in a twofold sense, since the human substance of Christ, and that of Peter, and that of Paul, are numerically distinct from each other, whereas the divine substance of the Father and the Son is numerically one and the same. (Fs)

92c Underlying this ambiguity is the divine mystery itself: for we do not grasp by the power of our intellects, but believe by faith, that the substance of the Father and that of the Son is one and the same substance. For this reason, it is only those who believe in the Trinity, and then only by dint of clear and consistent reasoning, who can overcome every difficulty. Others, however, go off in different directions, to end up in diametrically opposed positions: homoousion, as applied to the divine Persons, is taken to mean (1) that there is no real distinction between the Father and the Son, and (2) that the Father and the Son are not only two distinct persons, but also two gods. For if one starts out with a materialistic understanding of consubstantiality and then, ruling out every materialistic connotation of the term, applies it to the divine persons, since it is matter that grounds the distinction between corporeal beings, the denial of matter in God can be taken to imply the negation of all distinction; and so, quite naturally, one will conclude that the term, homoousion, as applied to God, smacks of Sabellianism. If, on the other hand, one begins with an understanding of homoousion that is derived from attending to true judgment, so that in calling things consubstantial one means that they have the same essential or substantial definition, then, since in the world of our experience, there are as many human substances as there are human persons, one may be led to infer, by parity of reasoning, that since there are three divine persons, or hypostases, so there are also three gods; and so, again quite naturally, and again quite falsely, the term homoousion will be considered suspect, but now because it seems to imply a tritheism. (Fs)

93a
6. It seems, in fact, that in the earlier phase of Arianism, the opponents of the council of Nicea were unwilling even to utter the word, homoousion. For example, if we may go by the index appended by E. Klostermann to his edition of Eusebius of Caesarea's Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology, in neither of these works does the word homoousion occur at all-neither as used by Eusebius himself, nor within the passages that he cites from Marcellus.3 Again, if we look at the multiplicity of creeds that emerged from the various minor councils between the years 340 and 360, we might almost say that the only difference between them is this, that whereas the earlier ones make no mention at all of the term homoousion, a number of the later ones explicitly exclude it.18 (Fs)