Message about being and hypostasis

“The Epistle on Being and Hypostasis” was written by St. Maximus the Confessor after 634 or about 633 The letter begins with an analysis of the concepts of essence and hypostasis and explains how they apply to understanding God. The author emphasizes that “essence” refers to what makes God who He is, while “hypostasis” implies the personal manifestation of this essence. Although the essence is unique and indivisible, the hypostases can exist and act in unity. St. Maxim explores the nature of the Holy Trinity. He emphasizes that each of the hypostases - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - has a unique personal existence, but at the same time they are one in their Divine essence. The author dwells in detail on the incarnation of the Logos, the Son of God, explaining how this event unites the Divine and the human in one hypostasis. He claims that in Christ there was a complete unity of two natures - Divine and human - which is the basis and cause of the salvation of mankind. The message also addresses issues of salvation and eschatology. St. Maximus emphasizes that the true nature of salvation is the restoration of unity with God through union with Christ. Epistle XV of the Venerable Maximus the Confessor about the general and the individual, i.e. about the “being” (ή ούαία) and “hypostasis” (ή vπόστασι) to Cosmas, the most beloved Alexandrian deacon. To the most beloved Lord Cosmas the deacon, the humble Maxim (wants) to rejoice! Since we, indeed, have moved a great deal of reasoning regarding the Divine Incarnation, then, having perceived the piety of sublime dogmas and taking them as a reason, you asked my humility, O man of God, to say: what is mutual and general, and what is special and individual, so that in this way the whole concept of union (of two natures in the person of the God-Man) would become clear to us. I will not at all express my (opinion), but what I learned from the Fathers, I will convey, without changing anything in their teaching about these subjects. So, the mutual and the general, that is, the basic (as a principle), according to the Fathers, is essence and nature, for, as they say, in relation to each other these concepts are identical. The individual and special are hypostasis and person, for these concepts are identical in relation to each other, according to them (i.e., the Holy Fathers). And revealing (this) to Terentia, the Great Basil writes: “If we must briefly say what we think, we will say (about) what relation the “general” has to the “individual”, i.e., the being - to the hypostasis. For each of us participates in the general concept of “being” (τον είναι), and according to the individual traits characteristic of him, he is one thing and not another.” And again, in his (epistle) to Amphilochius, speaking about the same subject, he says: “Being and hypostasis have the difference that the “common” has to the “individual”, for example, as the concept of a “living being” relates to the concept of a “definite person.” And then: “Those who say that being and person are one and the same must admit that the different persons are one.” And again, explaining a certain canonical meaning of consubstantiality, he wrote, teaching: “This same saying also corrects the error of Savely 1: for it removes the identity of hypostases and introduces the perfect concept of persons, since nothing can be co-natural in relation to itself, but in relation to another. Therefore (this saying) is good and pious, it distinguishes the characteristics of the hypostases and affirms the complete identity of nature.” And then in the second (epistle) to the Neo-Caesareans he teaches, saying: “For it can also be noted that just as one who does not profess the community of being falls into polytheism, so one who does not attribute individual properties to the Hypostases is relegated to Judaism.” And also in those (words) that he composed for the signature of Eustathius of Armenia, he expressively reveals this in scripture: “Therefore, it is fitting to openly confess that they believe according to the words expressed by our Fathers in Nicaea, according to the sensibly expressed concept in these words. For there are those who, even in this Creed, pervert the concept of Truth, and at will, violate the meaning of the words in it. For example, Marcellus 2 impiously dared, sinning in relation to the Hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, and interpreting Him as only the “Word,” to assert that from there (i.e., from the Creed) he accepted the principle (τάς αρχάς), badly interpreting the meaning of “consubstantiality.” And some, out of the wickedness of the Libyan Savelius 3, understanding hypostasis and being as one and the same thing, from here they take the material for creating their blasphemy - from what is written in the Symbol: “Whoever says that the Son of God is from a different essence or hypostasis, the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes him.” For they (i.e., the Holy Fathers) did not say that being and hypostasis are one and the same. For if (these) sayings express one and the same concept, then what would be the need for each of them separately? But, obviously, since there were those who denied that from one nature (in the original letter of St. Basil the Great: - “from the being of the Father) - the Son, others (claimed) that (the Son of God does not come from the Father, but) - from some other hypostasis, then, thus, they rejected both as alien to church judgment. After they had expressed their judgment, they said that the Son is from the nature of the Father, without adding further that “and from the Hypostasis.” Hence this (i.e., the first judgment) was posited in order to abolish the evil judgment, and this (i.e., the second judgment) is the proclamation of the saving dogma.” In agreement with this, Gregory, named after Theology, in the primary Theological Word 4 shows this this way, saying: “When I speak about the middle, I speak the truth, which alone is good to keep in mind, rejecting both inappropriate confusion and more unnatural division. For (in the first case), out of fear of polytheism, having reduced the concept of God into one Hypostasis, we will leave only bare names, recognizing that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. And a little further: “We must preserve one God (i.e., faith in one God) and Three Hypostases, i.e., confess Persons, and each with a personal property. In my understanding, the one God is preserved (i.e., faith in one God), when the Son and the Spirit are raised to the one Author, but are not combined or mixed (with Him): and then according to the same thing, I will call it that, the movement and will and identity of the being. Three Hypostases - when no combination or dissolution or confusion is intended, as a result of which, by exalting One more than it should, everything would not be destroyed.” And also in the Farewell Word: “We believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: consubstantial and of the same glorification, in whose name baptism is accomplished. You see, O initiate, that (which is) the denial of godlessness and the confession of the Divine. And thus we are restored to the correct understanding of Him Whom we proclaim to be One by nature and Inseparable in worship: These same Three are (called) Hypostases, i.e. Persons.” But also in the Word on Lights 5, he says this: “I will say about God: you have been enlightened by both the One and the Trinity Light, according to personal characteristics, that is, Hypostases, if you want to call anyone - Persons [for we will not argue at all about the names until we give words to explain the meaning (of them)]; One - according to the concept of being, i.e. Divinity. Such a symphony of divine dogmas was demonstrated by our God-speaking Fathers Gregory and Vasily, clearly calling nature a being, as general and mutual, and the Person (naming) Hypostasis, as individual and special; in no way confusing the sayings of this concept, through violating and confusing them in relation to each other. For, moved by the same Spirit, they taught to the nations the right profession of Faith. You will find in agreement with them all those to whom, by the grace of the Spirit, the government of the Church has been entrusted, who teach this right concept of the pious Faith, and who in no way deviate from this judgment. A construction of inherent concepts from nature, showing that nothing is the same with another in relation to both essence and hypostasis, but these things either represent one thing by essence, but then they are different in hypostasis, or they are different in hypostasis, but then they are completely different in essence. If being and nature are one and the same, and person and hypostasis (in turn) are one and the same, then it is clear that (beings) in relation to each other are one-natural and consubstantial - completely heterohypostasis in relation to each other. For in relation to both, I mean nature and hypostasis, nothing that exists is the same in relation to the other. Therefore, those who are united in relation to each other according to the same nature or essence, that is, those who exist of the same being and nature, are by no means united in the same hypostasis or person, that is, it would by no means be possible for them to have the same person and one hypostasis; and those who are united according to the same hypostasis or person, it is absolutely impossible for them to be united according to the same essence or nature, that is, it does not at all mean that they are of the same essence, i.e., nature. But united according to the same nature or being, i.e. beings of the same being or nature, differ from each other in hypostases or persons, as is the case with Angels and people and all visible creation in appearance and gender. For Angel from Angel, and man from man, and ox from ox, and dog from dog, differ in respect of person, and not in nature or being. Would a word dare to say more: thus, in relation to the very First, Beginningless Creative Cause of (all) things that exist, we observe the same thing in relation to each other - Being and Hypostasis; Indeed, we have come to know the one Being and Nature of the Divinity, existing in Three Hypostases, distinguished from each other by individual properties, and the Three Hypostases in one and the same Being and Nature of the Divinity. For the Unity is in the Trinity, and the Trinity in the Unity is what we worship: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - one God; although the Son is not the Father, but that which is the Father; although the Spirit is not the Son, but that which is the Son; for in everything as the Father is, so is the Son, except ungeneration (for He is begotten); and in everything as the Son is, so is the Holy Spirit, except the procession (for He is the procession). The properties - non-birth or birth or procession - do not divide into three unequal or equal beings and natures the single Nature and Power of the inexpressible Deity, but (these properties) characterize the Persons or Hypostases in which - or precisely how - the single Deity exists, i.e. Being and Nature. Likewise, those who are united according to the same hypostasis or person, that is, being one and the same hypostasis and one complete person, are distinguished by the concept of being or nature, as is the case with the human soul and body and those who exist identical in hypostasis for the sake of their mutual combination. For they are not consubstantial in relation to each other. Sabellius, a heretic of the 3rd century, argued, distorting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that God is One Person: as the Father He is in heaven, as the Son He is on earth, as the Holy Spirit He is in creation. Condemned at the Council of Antioch in 345. Markel - Bishop of Ancyra, an opponent of Arianism, fell into. the same extreme as Sabellius. i.e. – his followers. “Προτερος” – literally – “more right”, this is how St. Maximus calls that word of St. Gregory the Theologian, which is listed by Min as the 20th and is called: “On the installation of bishops and on the dogma of the Holy Trinity.” That is, probably on Epiphany, see Min. Patrolologist. Greek ser. t. 36, column. 335, note. 80s You might be interested in: