| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Homoousion (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiɒn,ˌhoʊm-/HO(H)M-oh-OO-see-on;Ancient Greek:ὁμοούσιον,lit. 'same in being, same in essence', fromὁμός,homós, "same" andοὐσία,ousía, "being" or "essence")[1][2] is aChristian theological term, most notably used in theNicene Creed for describingJesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or "same in essence" withGod the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί). The same term is also applied to theHoly Spirit in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology inNicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within theTrinitarian doctrinal understanding ofGod.[3]
The termὁμοούσιον (homoousion), theaccusative case form ofὁμοούσιος (homoousios, "consubstantial"),[2] was adopted at theFirst Council of Nicaea (325) in order to clarify theontology of Christ. From its Greek original, the term was translated into other languages.[4] InLatin, which is lacking apresent participle of the verb'to be', two main corresponding variants occurred. Since theAristotelian termousia[5] was commonly translated in Latin asessentia (essence) orsubstantia (substance),[6] the Greek termhomoousios was consequently translated into Latin ascoessentialis orconsubstantialis,[7] hence the English termscoessential andconsubstantial. Some modern scholars say thathomoousios is properly translated ascoessential, whileconsubstantial has a much wider spectrum of meanings.[8] TheBook of Common Prayer renders the term as "being of one substance with the Father."[9]
Fromὁμοούσιος (coessential), the theological termὁμοουσιότης (coessentiality) was also derived. It was used by Greek-speaking authors, likeDidymus of Alexandria and other theologians.[10]
The termὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. TheGnostics were the first to use the wordὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][excessive citations] The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine ofemanation, taught by the Gnostics.[21] In Gnostic texts, the wordὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings:
For example,Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to useὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.[22][23] TheValentinian GnosticPtolemy says in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.[24] The termὁμοούσιος was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodoxheresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in theNicene Creed.[25]
The use of the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed was proposed byEmperor Constantine I, who convened and chaired theFirst Council of Nicea. By persuasion and by threats of excommunication and exile, Constantine obtained the endorsement of all but two of the attending bishops for the inclusion of the word.[26]
The Nicene Creed is the official doctrine of most Christian churches—theCatholic Church,Eastern Orthodox Church,Oriental Orthodox Churches,Church of the East,Lutheran Churches,Moravian Church,Anglican Communion, andReformed Churches as well as othermainline Protestant andevangelical churches with regard to theontological status of the three persons orhypostases of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the wordhomoousios in anontrinitarian context,[a] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's, since he even calls the Son "a creature".[28] It was byAthanasius of Alexandria and the Nicene Council that the Son was taken to have exactly the same essence with the Father, and in the Nicene Creed the Son was declared to be as immutable as his Father.[29]
While it is common to find statements that Origen and other early apologist Church fathers heldsubordinationist views,Ilaria Ramelli discussed the "anti-subordinationism" of Origen.[30]
Both the Nicene[31] andAthanasian[32] creeds affirm the Son as both begotten of, and equal to his Father. If so, many concepts of the Holy Trinity would appear to have already existed relatively early while the specific language used to affirm the doctrine continued to develop.[33][34][35][36]
Some theologians preferred the use of the termὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios or alternative uncontracted formὁμοιοούσιοςhomoiooúsios; fromὅμοιος,hómoios, "similar", rather thanὁμός,homós, "same, common")[2] in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the termhomoousion became a consistent mark ofNicene orthodoxy in bothEast andWest. According to this doctrine,Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation ofLogos (or the Word), and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to theSupreme Being. In the language that became universally accepted after theFirst Council of Constantinople in AD 381, three distinct and infinitehypostases, or divine persons, theFather, theSon, and theHoly Spirit, fully possess the very same divineousia.
This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, during the Arian controversy overChristology betweenArius and Athanasius. The several distinct branches ofArianism which sometimes conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classifications:
All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes, who insisted on the doctrine ofhomoousion or consubstantiality, eventually prevailing in the struggle to define this as a dogma of the still-united Western and Eastern churches for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople (381). The struggle over the understanding ofChrist's divinity was not solely a matter for the Church. TheRoman EmperorTheodosius had published an edict, prior to the Council of Constantinople, declaring that the Nicene Creed was the legitimate doctrine and that those opposed to it were heretics.[37]
It has also been said that the termhomoousios, which Athanasius favored and which was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by theSabellians in their Christology. It was a term with which many followers of Athanasius were actually uncomfortable. The so-calledSemi-Arians in particular objected to it. Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency."[38] This was becauseSabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be "one substance", meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and the Son were "one essential Person", though operating in different faces, roles, or modes. This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of theNicene Creed, which holds the Father and Son to be distinct yet also coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial divine persons.
Vaporis enim nomen inducens hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assumpsit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere possimus quomodo Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem eius vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut quidem vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei. Sic et Sapientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur; sic nilominus, et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeae, esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae Omnipotentis, pura et sincera. Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiae esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enimὁμοούσιοςvidetur, id est unius substantiae, cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea, vel vapor.[27]
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος.
Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν.
