Meletian Schism Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

2024-06-232024-11-08

Prosōpon vs Hypostasis in the Arian Controversy

The Bible

While the Old Testament claimed that God is one, the New Testament revealed a second divine Being, who also is ‘I am’ and ‘the First and the Last’, through Whom God created and maintains all things. Different church fathers explained this apparent contradiction differently:

Three Hypostases

The second-century Logos theologians, the third-century Origenists, and the fourth-century Arians claimed that the Son is a distinct Being; a distinct existence. In Greek, they said that the Son is a ‘hypostasis’. This term means something that exists distinctly from other things. In this view, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (plural of hypostasis). However, since the Son is a distinct Being and since only one Ultimate Reality exists, they explained the Son as subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

One Hypostasis, three Prosōpa

In opposition to the ‘three hypostases’ view, the second-century Monarchians, the third-century Sabellians, and the fourth-century Nicenes maintained that the Father and Son are a single existence; a single hypostasis.

However, since the New Testament reveals the Father and Son as two distinct Beings, the ‘one hypostasis’ theologians had to explain how they distinguish between the Father and Son within the one hypostasis. While the Monarchians (Modalists) made no distinction, others described the Father and Son as distinct prosōpa (plural of prosōpon).

Arian Controversy

The entire Arian Controversy may be described as a dispute over whether the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases or three prosōpa. This began in the third century as a controversy between the Sabellians and Origenists and continued in the fourth in the dispute between the Nicenes and the Arians.

In the 360-370s, this was also the core issue in the Meletian Schism, which was a dispute between the Western pro-Nicenes (including Athanasius, Damasus of Rome, and Jerome), teaching three prosōpa in one hypostasis, and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians), proclaiming three hypostases. [Show More]

A Prosōpon is not a Person.

The Latin equivalent of prosōpon is ‘persona’ and is often translated to English as “Person,” which implies that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct minds. However, prosōpon did not mean a distinct existence. It meant ‘face’. In other words, in the ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with three faces. For example:

– Almost all instances of prosōpon in the New Testament are translated as ‘face‘ or as figurative applications of ‘face’, such as ‘appearance’ or ‘presence’. For example, “they spat in His face” (Mt 26:67). (BibleHub)

– Prosōpon is sometimes translated as “role” (Hanson, p. 649). Basil of Caesarea “can readily use prosopon in the traditional exegetical sense of ‘character‘ or ‘part‘ (almost as in a play) which God or Christ or others were supposed to have assumed.” (Hanson, p. 692) ¹

– The third-century theologian Sabellius, the father of Sabellianism was one of those who described the Father, Son, and Spirit as one undivided Person (one hypostasis) but three distinct prosōpa. For him, it meant three forms, aspects, or portions of the divine nature. God sometimes appears as the Father and at other times as the Son or Spirit. [Show More]

– The third-century church father Tertullian, writing in Latin, described the Father, Son, and Spirit as three personae (Latin for prosōpa). However, for him, the Son is a portion of the Father. Consequently, Father and Son are a single existence (hypostasis). It follows that his ‘personae’ are not ‘Persons’ in the normal sense of that English term but rather different faces of the same one Person. [Show More]

Conclusions

In the fourth-century Arian Controversy, the Arians described the Son as a hypostasis, meaning a Person; a Being who exists distinctly from other Beings.

But the Nicene claimed that Father, Son, and Spirit are three prosōpa (roles) of a single Person. Therefore, prosōpa in Nicene theology are not ‘Persons’, as we today understand the term in normal English.

Trinity Doctrine

The traditional Trinity doctrine is sometimes stated as one Being existing in three hypostases or Persons. However, that is misleading. The ‘Persons’ in the Trinity doctrine share a single mind. Therefore, they are not hypostases or ‘Persons’ as we understand the term in normal English. The ‘Persons’ in the Trinity doctrine are better described as modes of existing as God and are equivalent to Tertulian’s and Sabellius’ prosōpa. The Trinity doctrine teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are three roles of a single Person

(Read Article)

The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 was not ecumenical.

Authors quoted

Due to discoveries of ancient documents and research during the 20th century, the scholarship of the past fifty years has concluded that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and a complete travesty. This article quotes from books that present the revised account of that Controversy. Although almost all quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ sections, they are crucial to this article. [Show More]

Not Ecumenical

“The Council of Constantinople met during May, June and July 381.” (Hanson, p805) It is known as the Second Ecumenical Council. ‘Ecumenical’ means that it represents all churches and perspectives. However, that council was far from ecumenical. It was a regional council of Antioch, attended only by pro-Nicenes. The Western church did not attend at all. Furthermore, already in the preceding year (380), the Eastern emperor Theodosius, with the support of the other two emperors at the time, had made Western Nicene theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire, exiled the Homoian (Arian) bishop of the Capital (Constantinople), appointed a pro-Nicene bishop, and outlawed all non-Nicene Christianity, with threats of punishment. For that reason, only pro-Nicenes were allowed to attend. [Show More]

The emperor controlled the Council.

The church did not call the meeting. The emperor summoned, welcomed, monitored, and controlled it carefully. The first act of the Council was to accept the person whom the emperor had already appointed as bishop of Constantinople. [Show More]

The emperor also controlled the meeting through the chairperson, who acted as the emperor’s agent. The first chairperson was Meletius, but he died soon and was replaced as chairperson by Gregory Nazianzen, whom the emperor had appointed as bishop of Constantinople. But Gregory shortly resigned and the emperor replaced him with Nectarius, who was equivalent to the mayor of the city (“praetor urbanus in Constantinople” (Hanson, p811), but who was still receiving instruction in preparation for baptism. He was baptized immediately after he was elected bishop. These events reveal the emperor’s control of the Council. The election of a civil servant as both chairperson and bishop of the Capital also shows the unity of Church and State. [Show More]

Due to the lack of division between Church and State, this was not the first time that a civil servant was appointed as bishop. In the West, Ambrose, who became a trusted advisor to the emperor in the West, was a civil servant. [Show More]

The Council concluded the Meletian Schism.

The Meletian Schism was a dispute between the ‘one hypostasis’ and ‘three hypostases’ pro-Nicenes, particularly over the election of the bishop of Antioch, and is named after Meletius:

The Western pro-Nicenes, including the bishop of Rome (Damasus) and the bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius, and later his successor Peter), supported Paulinus as bishop of Antioch. They, like Paulinus, believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis).

As was traditional in the East, the Eastern Cappadocians maintained that the Son is a distinct Person (a distinct hypostases). They believed the Father, Son, and Spirit are ‘three hypostases’ (three distinct Persons). Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian, supported Meletius as bishop of Antioch.

As discussed in the article on this schism, the emotions ran high on both sides. Since the Council of Constantinople was a meeting of pro-Nicenes, these emotions continued into the Council. [Show More]

As stated, Meletius, the bishop of Antioch, who was also the first chairperson of the council, suddenly died. The meeting then discussed a replacement for him as bishop of Antioch. The new chairperson (Gregory) proposed Paulinus but the meeting elected Flavian, “a prominent presbyter of the party of Paulinus.” (Hanson, p810). [Show More]

Flavian was So, he was on the same side as Paulinus.

Nectarius, the praetor urbanus in Constantinople, who was now elected as bishop of Constantinople, supported “the Eustathian cause in Antioch.” (Hanson, p811) Eustathius was the leading Sabellian when the Arian Controversy began. Like the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, the Sabellians taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person (hypostasis). Nectarius, therefore, was also in the ‘one-hypostasis camp’. This was not surprising because the emperor had already made ‘one hypostasis’ the state religion of the Roman Empire. (See article)

It is surprising that Gregory proposed Paulinus because Gregory, since he was one of the Cappadocians, presumably supported the ‘three hypostasis’ side. Perhaps the emperor had instructed Gregory to propose Paulinus and Gregory resigned because he was unwilling to be the emperor’s agent.

In conclusion, the delegates “have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius.” (Hanson, p806) But the meeting ends with Meletius dead and, consistent with the declared state Religion of the Empire, people who believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis) as bishops of Antioch and Constantinople and as chairperson of the council.

Other Decisions

“The council re-affirmed N but also produced the creed C. … All this lasted three months from May to July 381.” (Hanson, p807) See the article on that Creed

The council agreed that “the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy precedence in honour next after the bishop of Rome because it is the New Rome’. It is very likely that this was intended to reduce the pretensions of the archbishop of Alexandria.” (Hanson, p808) But this also made a newly baptized civil servant the second-most powerful man in the Church.

Tag: Meletian Schism