Help with the Trinity (Jesus Christ, priest, Creator, Earth, gospel)

[Mr. Peanut]

The Three-In-One and One-In-Three, and the One in the middle died for me! Blessed Trinity!

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Mister Emu

I would suggest what Sojourner said, the word person is a poor translation of the word hypostasis.

Perhaps you or someone else could provide a better one, then. My research confuses me even more. From Wiki, I get:

"In Early Christian writings it is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (essence)...See also: Hypostatic union, where the term is used to describe two realities (or natures) in one person.... With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostasis is usually understood with a meaning akin to the Greek word prosopon, which is translated into Latin as persona and then into English as person. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons."

That leads me right back to where I started. If a Divine Person is not a synonym for God, what is it?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Perhaps you or someone else could provide a better one, then. My research confuses me even more. From Wiki, I get:

"In Early Christian writings it is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (essence)...See also: Hypostatic union, where the term is used to describe two realities (or natures) in one person.... With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostasis is usually understood with a meaning akin to the Greek word prosopon, which is translated into Latin as persona and then into English as person. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons."

That leads me right back to where I started. If a Divine Person is not a synonym for God, what is it?

From James cause he just says it better then me:

God is One in His Divine Essence, His substance if you like, but He is made up of three Hypostases. Hypostasis is usually translated into English as Person, but that's a fairly poor translation, it's more like personal essence, that which makes an individual a unique person. There really isn't a good analogy that can be used because this is utterly other than all beings that we have experience of in real life. The best way I can describe it is this: a human has one essence (that which makes him human) and one hypostasis (that which makes him uniquely him). God has one Essence (that which makes Him Divine) but three Hypostases. He is, then, One God (one individual) in three Hypostases and is always, simultaneously, One according to His essence but Three in His Hypostases. I'm sure that my description fails at many levels, but we were asked to explain in our own words so I can't call on the words of the Fathers. It is impossible to really grasp the Trinity with our rational mind (hence us calling it a Mystery) so I'd be unsurprised if people don't follow my attempt to explain. You can pretty much guarantee that if someone tells you the Trinity is 'simple' they don't have a clear idea of what it means themselves.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Victor

From James cause he just says it better then me:

God is One in His Divine Essence, His substance if you like, but He is made up of three Hypostases. Hypostasis is usually translated into English as Person, but that's a fairly poor translation, it's more like personal essence, that which makes an individual a unique person. There really isn't a good analogy that can be used because this is utterly other than all beings that we have experience of in real life. The best way I can describe it is this: a human has one essence (that which makes him human) and one hypostasis (that which makes him uniquely him). God has one Essence (that which makes Him Divine) but three Hypostases. He is, then, One God (one individual) in three Hypostases and is always, simultaneously, One according to His essence but Three in His Hypostases. I'm sure that my description fails at many levels, but we were asked to explain in our own words so I can't call on the words of the Fathers. It is impossible to really grasp the Trinity with our rational mind (hence us calling it a Mystery) so I'd be unsurprised if people don't follow my attempt to explain. You can pretty much guarantee that if someone tells you the Trinity is 'simple' they don't have a clear idea of what it means themselves.

I remember when James first posted that. I agree that it's probably the best explanation I've heard yet. I miss him, darn it!

[Victor]

Katz,

I usually hesitate from noting any subtle differences between James and I because I’d really just get the point across then get stuck in semantics or words in general. So I’m usually ok with just using his explanation of it since it seems to have better clarity for you. But…we Catholics (or RC's as James calls us) do have have an answer; it's just a bit longer. For example:

There are Catholics that would shun using the term “personal essence” and stay away from disparaging the term “Person” (Eastern Orthodox have a tendency of doing that. James was a bit kinder then what I’m used to reading), which is actually more precise than hypostasis (though in Triniatarian theology hypostasis is used more restrictedly than normal). Person does not so much translate hypostasis, as rather it is the term the Church endowed with meaning for this purpose in Latin. Persona actually meant a mask (per-sonare- to sound through, they used to have a megaphone effect). While hypostasis meant, originally, the sludge at the bottom of a river or stream (that which stands under). Hypostasis and substance are related terms, in their etymology (sub-stantia- standing under), but the Eastern Orthodox took up hypostasis when it needed a word, and the Latin Church took up persona (which had come to mean character, and from thence individual) for the same reality.

I would also avoid saying that He is "made up" of Three Hypostasis. That can easily be misread. God Himself is utterly simple: He has no parts. But there are Three Persons who all have the same Nature or Essence (I will avoid the term substance which in Trinitarian theology is used for essence as James said, but against its common use). What makes these Three Persons distinct is that They are Their Relations. That is, the Son is not the Father because His Being consists in Being Toward the Father. That is what the Relation Son means; existence towards another. Likewise, the Father is His relation towards the Son and the Spirit is His relation towards the Father and the Son. (There is also a fourth relation, that of the Father and the Son towards the Holy Spirit, but that does not constitute a Person because there is nothing contrary to the Father or the Son in it, nothing to make it distinct). The being of relation in us is the weakest of all beings, but in God it constitutes Persons.

Also, one should keep in mind that hypostasis just means "first substance" in most philosophical discourse. It is not what makes one a person or individual, it is just a name for an individual substance. What personality (in the sense of what makes you a person) consists in is a disputed question. I would say, with the older Thomists, that it lies prior to ones existence but posterior to his nature, and that it is what makes this rational nature capable of having this existence. But that is purposely vague.

I do want to make clear that I’m not saying hypostasis is wrong. The Greeks will use hypostasis or prosopon, while the Latins used persona. In Greek, unfortunately, the precise word was more contentious. Prosopon, which corresponds more to person, like person original meant a mask. But while persona came to mean an individual who has a character, prosopon never developed so well, it still meant something like ones character. So some Easterners thought it wrong, since it implied that it was just an accidental difference between the Three in the Trinity. Hypostasis was especially resisted in the West because it was translated, and corresponds, to substance, which is the term we use for the Divine Nature. Ultimately the Church clarified that all three terms may be used, and defined how they were to be understood.

Now you see why I used James answer? We have a tendency of being more detailed and legalistic in such things……