In order to designate οὐσία, early Christian theologian Tertullian favored the use of substantia over essentia, while Augustine of Hippo and Boethius took the opposite stance, preferring the use of essentia as designation for οὐσία.
[4][5] Some of the most prominent Latin authors, like Hilary of Poitiers, noted that those variants were often being used with different meanings.
[6] Some modern authors also suggest that the Ancient Greek term οὐσία is properly translated as essentia (essence), while substantia has a wider spectrum of meanings.
[8] Aristotle defined πρῶται οὐσίαι (protai ousiai; primary essences) in the Categories as that which is neither said of nor in any subject, e.g., "this human" in particular, or "this ox".
[9] In Book IV of Metaphysics Aristotle explores the nature and attributes of being (ousia).
Central debates over the doctrinal use and meaning of οὐσία were held during the 4th century, and also continued later, some of them lasting up to the present day.
P.C.+YBR inv 19), it was suggested that the document had been transcribed differently from other early manuscripts and that the actual word used in that particular papyrus was elaiou, meaning "oil".
The Synods of Antioch condemned the word homoousios (same essence) because it originated in pagan Greek philosophy.
[citation needed] John Chapman's Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Paul of Samosata states: It must be regarded as certain that the council, which condemned Paul, rejected the term homoousios; but, naturally, only in a false sense, used by Paul; not, it seems, because he meant by it a unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended, by it, a common essence, out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them – so St.
[17]In 325, the First Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism and formulated the Nicene Creed, which stated that in the Godhead the Son was Homoousios (same in essence) of the Father.
However, controversy did not stop and many Eastern clerics rejected the term because of its earlier condemnation in the usage of Paul of Samosata.
[18] John Damascene gives the following definition of the conceptual value of the two terms in his Dialectic: Ousia is a thing that exists by itself, and which has need of nothing else for its consistency.