|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: How much of Western Christianity is Unitarian?
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
We are all finite beings, but the priests of the Orthodox Church (like Arius) are somehow infinite... Nice...
The issue here is that what the fathers wrote is available online and we can all read much of what they wrote. And since they talked for common people to understand and they were not academic theologians, what they said is accessible by all. This "I follow my priest" version of religiosity sounds exactly like the caricatures people lower in the candle have been opposing... Perhaps there is truth in what they were saying...
By the way, post one on this thread does not place my statement in context... But you say the things you said nevertheless... Nice.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
Nice...Nice...
Is that why the translator of the Councils kept talking about the Council of "Nice" when he meant Nicea?
Please lay off this accusatory manner, andreas1984. In no place have I ever said that I believe what Arius said.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
]Ireneus believed in one God, and He saw Jesus as God.
OK, allow me to be playful here... Find a quote you want us to discuss, and I will explain why Ireneus in that quote does not mean what you mean...
OK. How about the one I quoted from Dafyd:
quote:
And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
My Swedenborgian understanding of this is that he is saying that Jesus was the visible form of the Father - visible in more than one sense of the word. The Father was in Him as His invisible soul. They were as the body and soul of one individual. I don't think that Ireneus really sees them as two, but as one.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
L.M. Either you have trouble understanding or you evade again. I said that Arius was an Orthodox priest and that this is an example that priests can be mistaken too; they are not to be trusted blindly, especially when we can check for ourselves what the fathers actually said. I did not say you are Arian.
Freddy, challenge accepted. I googled for the quote you made. I found the newadvent site. It said it's from book 4 chapter 6 of Against Heresies. Now, the good part. I'm going to Migne's Patrology. That way we can read the original ancient Greek text and see what that great father wrote in his own words. It turns out it's not that simple, because the Greek text does not follow the layout of newadvent's text. Give me some time to find the exact passage that you quoted...
I found chapter 4... Now where's chapter 5? And where's chapter 6 the way newadvent has it?
I can't find it... Let me check the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Ireneos on newadvent site... They say that we have a latin translation of that work, so I guess they have uploaded the English translation of the latin translation...
So, I can't draw my arguments from the Greek text. Crap ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
OK, let's see what it says in English from that Latin translation.
This is the way I understand it:
The Word of God, a person distinct from God, becomes man. Not only is He the exact image of God, but He becomes a created icon of God as well. In His life, we can see God through that material icon that was made from flesh taken by the Virgin. So, both when he is materially present (i.e. after the Incarnation), but also before he became materially present, when he was present in His Glory (Shekinah), He is the Icon of God the Father, in the first case in His humanity, in the second case in His divinity.
But how can we say that the icon of God is not God?
Here comes a very ancient practice, where the King in the Roman Empire had an icon and that icon was processed n towns and villages when the King was absent and the people revered the King's icon and called that icon King, but nobody dared to say there are two Kings...
In a like manner, Christ is the icon of God, distinct from God, but also identical with God. Unlike the King's icon, Jesus Christ lives. But we still don't speak of two Gods, even though what was born of God is also uncreated and ineffable and incomprehensible.
What do you think?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
I said that Arius was an Orthodox priest and that this is an example that priests can be mistaken too; they are not to be trusted blindly, especially when we can check for ourselves what the fathers actually said. I did not say you are Arian.
To say that I have said something identical to what Arius said is to say that I am Arian. I am not Arian and I never mentioned Arius in this context.
To classify great scholars like Étienne Gilson and Cardinal Henri de Lubac as being in error is something that I've never seen people do before.
They're dead, of course, so I'm sure they aren't offended.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
To say that I have said something identical to what Arius said is to say that I am Arian.
Right... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
To classify great scholars like Étienne Gilson and Cardinal Henri de Lubac as being in error is something that I've never seen people do before.]
Cardinal Henry de Lubac? Cardinal? As in those folks that believe the Church to be founded on the Rock that is Peter? That accepts Pope's authority over the universal church? And you haven't heard that that guy was in error? Ever? Right...
By the way, what does this mean, you haven't heard them being in error? Does this mean we must fall to our knees and worship them? That they can lead us in all truth?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
By the way, what does this mean, you haven't heard them being in error? Does this mean we must fall to our knees and worship them? That they can lead us in all truth?
Of course not. But I cannot bring myself either to fall on my knees and worship your posts, or your ideas, or believe that your posts can lead us into all truth.
Scholarship is scholarship. Opinion is opinion.
Please get a grip.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
To trust is not always "to follow blindly", but it is not correct to claim that Orthodox priests in good standing have no authority to explain the faith to the laity. Orthodox priests are also under authority of Bishops who have the responsibility to correct them if they err. If my quoting of an Archdiocesan Greek Orthodox website was the wrong thing to do, and should have quoted some website that gave translations of the Fathers, in order to save time and quibbles over definitions, I guess that's just my bad luck.
If it is required to do extensive patristic studies before contributing to topics on the Ship of Fools, then most of us had better stop contributing! If the websites of our respective churches cut no ice with fellow-posters, that's just too bad, isn't it.
I have said nothing in any of my posts that is not contained in the Divine Liturgy. If other posters choose to "interpret" my posts in their own way, it's their affair.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Scholarship is scholarship. Opinion is opinion. And the Saints are the Saints. You have expressed your opinion and you appealed to a few Roman Catholic theologians... On a thread about whether Western theology keeps the same faith with the ancient church as far as the trinity is concerned... that says that essence is different from nature... without explaining what the difference is... even though it opposes what the Saints clearly taught... for example Saint John from Damascus saying that the holy fathers used the two words interchangeably... as in "We should know that from two essences, i.e. natures, it is impossible to be given birth to one composite nature"... or that "the holy fathers say that essence and nature and form is the same thing" (kai tauton legousi ousian kai fysin kai morfin)...
But you, not having read what the Saints themselves taught, cite a modern non-Orthodox theologian's grudge towards his fellow Catholics, expecting what? To proclaim that that is the faith of the fathers? Nice...
[ 01. May 2007, 21:05: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Just give up with that "nice" business. I can quote whomever I please whenever I please, as others can do.
If you have the only correct interpretation of the Church Fathers, andreas1984, I suppose I should be quoting you, for therefore by your own reasoning you are a saint worthy of all of us to blindly follow without question.
The fact that we none of us are saints has been pointed out several times in this discussion. If the only "experts" who may be quoted to define the Orthodox position are the Church Fathers, then none of us but andreas1984 is to be trusted on this topic.
I don't think there's any more I can say. andreas1984 wins, by sheer weight of argument.
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
because the Church Fathers are hidden and only I posses the volumes of their works... because to just open a book would mean to "do expensive patristic studies"... Even if the book is short compared to today's standards... when we have advanced technology and we print large amounts of info... and because the Saints wrote only for experts in patristic theology... and not for the lay people that lived during their times...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
because the Church Fathers are hidden and only I posses the volumes of their works... because to just open a book would mean to "do expensive patristic studies"... Even if the book is short compared to today's standards... when we have advanced technology and we print large amounts of info... and because the Saints wrote only for experts in patristic theology... and not for the lay people that lived during their times...
What happened? Did the edit time run out? Didn't I say "extensive" rather than "expensive"? Is anyone reading anything I'm saying any more?
Hello?
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Typo. After all, much of what the fathers actually wrote is available online for free.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Sorry. I don't buy your garbled paraphrase of what this thread is discussing, andreas1984, but I already knew what would happen if I tried to clarify anything in here.
Never mind. I said you win. Enjoy your victory.
M
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I guess our posts are here for everybody to read and judge for themselves what's going on... By the way, I don't play games here; no winning or losing. It's a discussion board for pete's shake!
[ 01. May 2007, 21:22: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is the way I understand it:
The Word of God, a person distinct from God, becomes man. Not only is He the exact image of God, but He becomes a created icon of God as well. In His life, we can see God through that material icon that was made from flesh taken by the Virgin. So, both when he is materially present (i.e. after the Incarnation), but also before he became materially present, when he was present in His Glory (Shekinah), He is the Icon of God the Father, in the first case in His humanity, in the second case in His divinity.
But how can we say that the icon of God is not God?
Here comes a very ancient practice, where the King in the Roman Empire had an icon and that icon was processed n towns and villages when the King was absent and the people revered the King's icon and called that icon King, but nobody dared to say there are two Kings...
In a like manner, Christ is the icon of God, distinct from God, but also identical with God. Unlike the King's icon, Jesus Christ lives. But we still don't speak of two Gods, even though what was born of God is also uncreated and ineffable and incomprehensible.
What do you think?
You tried. Very good. It doesn't make sense to me, but I guess it does to you.
The way that you have explained it, though, is not in harmony with what Jesus said about Himself and His mission.
Shall I explain why not? Or do you not agree that it even needs to be in harmony with what Jesus said?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You cannot add the one nature when people share that nature.
But you can add the persons when they share the same nature.
I'm sorry, but the same logic and grammar attaches to the words 'person' and 'human'.
Andreas is a human, Freddy is a human, Leetle Masha is a human, Dafyd is a human: one human?
Andreas is a person, Freddy is a person, Leetle Masha is a person, Dafyd is a person: one person?
(I don't think was true of 'hypostasis' btw prior to the Trinitarian debates: 'person' tells you what type of thing something is. To say that something is a substance, or an individual or aiui in modern Greek a hypostasis is not to say anything about it.)
Elsewhere in the thread you say that there seems to be a reluctance to agree to the term 'unitarian' when it fits. It seems to equally apply to you that you reject the phrase 'three Gods'.
Anyway, I wasn't going to comment on this thread any further, but a thought struck me.
Human is probably not the best example to distinguish between substance and nature. We might be better off using iguanas as an example.
There is a sense in which all humans do have a common good and share a common destiny. In particular, humanity is only fully predicated of Jesus.[1] The rest of us only achieve our common good by participation in Jesus. So there is a sense of 'humanity' in which 'humanity' is a single substance, in that we can only think it truly if we think it all together.
Most uses of 'man does such and such' or 'humanity is such and such', however, are false, since they ascribe common agency to all human beings, which does not apply except by participation in Jesus.
(A substance is something such that if we think it truly we think it all. If you have two substances then you can think one truly without thinking the other. I put it to you that this isn't true of God: you cannot think any person of the Trinity truly without also thinking the other persons.)
Now if you have three iguanas, by contrast, one in the wild, one in a zoo in London and one in a zoo in New York, then they don't have any common good. So there are clearly three substances - three iguanas, and only one nature.
quote:
It seems to me that what you call trinitarianism is unitarianism and to say the opposite is irrational. Saying that God is "one in three" in any other way than "one nature in three persons" is not surprising... it is irrational. And when something is irrational, you cannot go to "mystery" and "paradox". Mystery can be spoken of only in cases of supra-rational situations... Not of irrational situations.
I don't think that you can really take this line consistently. You've already said that if you aren't holy you can't understand the Scriptures using reason alone, and that that was the heretics' problem. In which case, you can't turn around and say some things are superrational and other things are irrational without further comment.
In fact, I think your position is even weaker than that, since we can explain specifically why you think it's irrational when it isn't.
When we learn how to talk about persons and things, we learn from corporeal things, bodies. Everything we know according to normal language is based on our experience of bodies. But God is not a corporeal thing, and so is not extended in space, does not exclude other substances from an area of space, does not have parts, and so on. But our imagination isn't set up to cope with that.
Now when it comes to corporeal bodies we have one person one substance. (But what of Siamese twins who share vital organs?) But there are decent reasons to suppose that this is because of the corporeal body, not because of the nature of personhood.
Dafyd
[1] Either because our humanity is damaged by sin, or because our proper end is in the technical sense supernatural.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
