3) "But those who say....'He is of another substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousias)'...they are condemned by the Catholic and Apostolic Church"
I think the erroneous assumption has been made that the words "another hypostasis or ousia
" refer to "another hypostasis or ousia other than the Father's
". This assumption seems to have be made by modern non-Orthodox theologians such as Msgnr. Phillip Hughes in his book "The Church in Crisis",
and Msgr. Hughes original error was, I believe, carried on by others such as Dr. Paul Halsall
, and it is also the way the sentance is translated on the online translation in the ccel
(which even goes so far as to add the words "from the Father" which are non-existent in the original).
However, if we look at the wording of the anathema, and structure the sentance the way I believe it was meant to be read, it becomes apparent that the intention is not to say that hypostasis and ousia mean the same thing, nor does it refer to the hypostasis or ousia of the Father, but rather, it is referring to the fact that Christ's hypostasis (Person) and ousia (Being/Essence) have never changed, nor were they ever different in Time or Eternity.
The full wording of the anathema structured as I mentioned is:And those who say:
1. "there once was when He was not", and "before He was begotten He was not",
2. "He came to be from
* things that were not", or
* "from another hypostasis or ousias", affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration;
these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematises.
Note the words in bold. Point #1 in the anathema condemns those who deny the Eternal Begottenness of the Son, and point #2 continues this by condemning those who say the Son is a creature created from "things that were not", and adds a condemnation of the teaching that the Son's hypostasis or ousia, even if uncreated, were somehow altered by the Incarnation. The text in bold
clearly seems to indicate to me that what is being condemned is the false teaching that Christ's hypostasis and/or ousia underwent alteration
. It is talking about the false teaching of "a different hypostasis or ousia of the Son in time
" (i.e. that the Hypostasis and/or ousia of the Pre-Incarnate Christ is different to the hypostasis and/or ousia of the Incarnate Christ). It is not
talking about a distinction between the hypostases and ousias of the Father and the Son, which seems to me to be a later Latin misunderstanding of the meaning of the text.
The anathema is condemning those who teach either that:
1. The Hypostasis and/or Ousia of the Second Person of the Trinity was created,
2. The Hypostasis and/or Ousia of the Second Person of the Trinity are different after the Incarnation to what they were prior to the Incarnation.