|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is this unitarian or trinitarian?
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
I don't think sectionAndrew has answered the very simple question yet, just what pronoun does one ordinarily use in Greek to refer to God?
In English, an ordinary (doctrinally sound Trinitarian) person, in ordinary conversation, when not in the midst of a theological disquisition on the Trinity, might say "I prayed to God last night, and he answered my prayers."
So, just what word would your ordinary, everyday Greek Orthodox person use for "he" in the above example?
As pointed out, Andrew would object to "they" (tritheistic), "it" (God is not impersonal), "she" (heaven forefend), and simply "God" to avoid all pronouns (cause the feminist priestess wannabees do it). So just what should we say?
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I think that he will say that he only prays to God in one of his Persons, never to God as a unity (if to Andreas he has any unity). That still leaves us with how he would refer to God when not praying.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
ISTM that, if my own experience is any guide, Trinitarian Christians usually direct prayer explicitly to a particular Person of the Trinity when praying theologically. Hence, some of my prayer before Mass is directed to the Father, because the action of the Mass is offered to God the Father. Likewise, in the moments around reception of the Holy Communion, I will be praying to Christ, the eternal Son, who I am about to receive. Contrariwise, non-theological prayer is for me more likely to be directed to God as a unity of the three Persons, e.g. "God, help me!" This doesn't mean that I'm negating my belief in a God who is a Trinity of Persons, but rather that in my needful supplication I am expressing the equal truth of the unity of the three divine Persons -- as a Christian, the supplication is for these three divine Persons, one God, to help me.
This is just an example, and different individuals will address the three Persons with different titles. I'm just trying to touch on the subjective sense of what can be meant when we speak of or to "God", as opposed to a specifically identified divine Person.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
I don't think sectionAndrew has answered the very simple question yet, just what pronoun does one ordinarily use in Greek to refer to God?
I will reply by appealing to the Scriptures, because that seems to be the lowest common denominator here. The Scriptures do not refer to an ultra-personal God-He that is the Trinity. They refer to God the Father as God-He, no doubt about that, and I affirm that.
The issue is not how we refer to God, but what we mean by that "God". Is it the one God the Father of the Scriptures and the Creed, or is it an ultrapersonal Trinity which use is not justified by the Scriptures or the Church fathers?
You can also refer to Christ as God-He, but that's a different God-He than God the Father. They are three divine persons, and parts of an ultrapersonal God-He that is somehow the Trinity.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
They are three divine persons, and parts of an ultrapersonal God-He that is somehow the Trinity.
errr..... And NOT parts of an ultrapersonal God-He...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Where then does that leave the concept of Trinity, other than as a collective noun for three Persons who are apparently separate (which is what your formulation seems to imply)?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Where then does that leave the concept of Trinity, other than as a collective noun for three Persons who are apparently separate (which is what your formulation seems to imply)?
Trinity means just that: three. Not a mysterious three-unity. The ancient word used "triada" means three, like all others words of the kind "pentada" meaning five, dodekada, meaning twelve, and so on. It's not a magical many-unity.
Which of course doesn't imply separation. I have said that before, that difference is not separation, but you don't seem to take that into account. If you substitute separation with difference, your explanation is just right. That's what the term Trinity means.
Please, you can't have it both ways though. Either we disagree on theology, in which case I am free to say the verse is unitarian, or we don't and it's just me heresy hunting. Now the differences in theology become clearer to you, I hope you will take that into account next time you reply to something I'm saying.
I understand that this must be difficult for you, and perhaps it's unfair that I bring that up. Perhaps it would be better if I didn't speak at all in the first place. I don't know. In any case, I don't want enmity and harm to take place because of our discussion. Peace.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Let me try to refine that: the Three share a single "substance" or essence. Further, these Three are intimately related, in that one is eternally "begotten" of the other, whilst the third eternally "proceeds" from the other one or two (depedning on your acceptance of the filioque, but let's not get off on that tangent just yet). The point is these Three are One in substance, if different in Person. This is, to my mind, an extraordinarily subtle thing, and in the end, this side of Eternity, the eternal begetting of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit are very much a mystery of the faith, really beyond intellectual grasp.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I'm not going to convince you about the opposite. All I ask is that you respect that for me it's a crucial issue, and that my salvation depends on it. I'm not making any inferences from that about other people, or other people's salvation... All I want you to acknowledge is my right to make that judgement about how important this issue is for myself.
I don't think you are unreasonable men. I think that perhaps we haven't been able to build trust between each other, and there is some tension going on. I'm sure that if the tension goes away, you will accept that we may see things differently, and that I am free to decide for myself how crucial this is (or isn't) for me and with whom I share the same faith (or not).
Now, that said, you bring to the discussion an extra-biblical word. Fine, I don't have a problem with that. Are you sure we mean the same thing when we say substance or essence though? Because I suspect we don't.
[ 19. November 2008, 19:57: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
My last post was cross-posted with Andrew. What I'm trying to get at here is the intimacy of the three divine Persons, who are of a single substance. In other words, I'm trying to emphasise the aspect of unity that typifies the One God Who is a Trinity of Persons. I'm trying to highlight the tension between this Trinity of Persons and Unity of Substance -- this is not unitarianism, but the core of Trinitarian belief, as I understand it.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, I suspect Andrew would not agree that God is one substance, since many in the East have never accepted that we in the West mean by "substance" what they mean by "ousia," despite our claims that it really really really is what we mean. I suspect he would rather say that God is three substances. But he can speak for himself on this one.
Of course, my mind is still reeling from the whole "Jesus was not a Jew" thing.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Let me take a stab at trying to understand, without rancor and without getting defensive, what Andreas is trying to say.
As a practical matter, in relating to Deity, Andreas, are you saying that the only way to address Deity and think of Deity is in one or other of the Persons? The Unity doesn't have a "personality" to address or get close to understanding. The Persons are the way Deity gets personal with us.
Am I at all warm (close to the idea)?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
As a practical matter, in relating to Deity, Andreas, are you saying that the only way to address Deity and think of Deity is in one or other of the Persons? The Unity doesn't have a "personality" to address or get close to understanding. The Persons are the way Deity gets personal with us.
If that is all he is saying, then I pretty much agree with him (except for that whole Pope-being-a-unitarian thing).
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
While awaiting Andrew's response, I just want to throw in that while ordinarily we relate at any one moment in time to a particular Person of the Trinity, there are obviously contexts - both liturgical and prayers of the less reflective sort - where we address the Trinity in a simultaneous or near simultaneous fashion. The concluding doxology of the Eucharistic prayer would be an example, as would petitions in litanies for the Holy Trinity, One God [to] have mercy.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
quote:
I will reply by appealing to the Scriptures...
You have not answered my very simple question. Just what does a Greek person say in the simply example I gave above? Surely Greeks talk about God without parsing each time just what they think about him (oops, unitarianism again) in his (and again) three persons, etc. etc.?
quote:
...because that seems to be the lowest common denominator here...
No, the lowest common denominator is our normal, everyday lived relationship with God, and our normal, everyday language we use when talking about him (and yet again, oy, a trinity of unitarian heresies!). You yourself point out the JPII wrote a poem, not a theological treatise, which does not require parsing out of fine points of Trinitarian theology with every jot and tittle. So again I ask my very simple question, just what would a Greek use for "he," as in, "I asked God to help my sick cat, and he cured her."
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
As a practical matter, in relating to Deity, Andreas, are you saying that the only way to address Deity and think of Deity is in one or other of the Persons? The Unity doesn't have a "personality" to address or get close to understanding. The Persons are the way Deity gets personal with us.
Am I at all warm (close to the idea)?
Well, we can use many ways to relate to the Divine. I'm not judging anyone, and I'm not saying "my way or the highway". Buddhism uses some ways, Hinduism uses others, Islam and Judaism use others, Christianity uses other ways...
I respect every person's relationship with God.
I brought that issue here, because of our common claim to Christianity and the Creed of the ecumenical councils. If no such common ground existed, I wouldn't have brought that up. I'm not all for intruding in other people's religiosity, which I respect highly no matter where it comes from.
In my view, for the Church that is founded on Christ, the theology is very clear: There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit. There is one, and one from one, and another one from the one. This is not difficult, and it does not require a PhD in ancient metaphysics to understand.
Yes, in my view, the clearest approach to the Divine is that view which is the result of God's revealing Himself to mankind through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. It's an issue of clarity and confusion.
So, for Christianity, in my view, it's not OK to approach the Divine in an impersonal way (as eastern religions do), or in an ultra-personal way (as Protestantism and Catholicism sometimes seem to be doing).
Let me put it differently:
Theology is very important for another reason, because it is linked with mankind. For this Orthodox, all humans are called to be one, the way the three divine persons are one. Not, it is very apparent and obvious that Lyda and I can't merge into one ultra-personal "being". Our oneness will be one of union, or communion, and not one of unity. We are two persons, with one essence, and furthermore, we are called to be in communion with each other.
"May they be one, as we are one".
Is this more helpful now?
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, I suspect Andrew would not agree that God is one substance, since many in the East have never accepted that we in the West mean by "substance" what they mean by "ousia," despite our claims that it really really really is what we mean. I suspect he would rather say that God is three substances. But he can speak for himself on this one.
There is one divine substance. I don't deny that. I do suspect we don't mean the same thing when we use that term though.
For me, there is also one human substance. Only one. All of us share in one human substance, we are all co-essential with each other. Likewise, the Son is co-essential to the Father, as the creed says.
Essence doesn't mean some magical or deeply metaphysical thing. It's another word for nature, and nature exists in persons, and not in the abstract. It's not a substance in the modern English meaning of the word.
quote:
Of course, my mind is still reeling from the whole "Jesus was not a Jew" thing.
Was Christ under the Law or not? For me, Christ is the Law-Giver, the Lord of the Law, and He wasn't "a Jew", but the very salvation of the Jews coming to the Jews and through them to the whole world. He was "the light coming into the world".
If you were right, then he would have paid the money required for the temple. Instead of paying from his own money, He said that it is not right that the children pay taxes to their Father the King, but servants are to pay the taxes. He was not the latter; He was and is the former.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Andrew,
Given your understanding of "substance," I would have to say you're a tritheist. . . but I think we've been on this roller coaster before and it always takes us back to the same place.
As to defining "Jew" as "one who is under the Law": by this definition none of the Patriarchs would count as Jews, since they all lived ante legem. Paul certainly considered himself a Jew -- "a Hebrew of Hebrews," to be exact -- and he wasn't under the Law.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
There are many kinds of Law... After all, Paul speaks of a change in Law... Anyway. Just think about what your thesis means for that example I mentioned earlier, about Jesus not paying the tax from his own pocket and the reply he gave...
As for the tritheist charge, I don't mind you evaluating my theology as heretical. I would really appreciate though that you understand that it's also my right to make an evaluation of things, and say that this person doesn't have the same faith I do, or this is in my view unitarianism.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
So again I ask my very simple question, just what would a Greek use for "he," as in, "I asked God to help my sick cat, and he cured her."
Yes, that would be "He". But no, that would not be an ultra-personal Trinity, but God the Father. "There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ" kind of thing.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Of course you are entitled to evaluate Pope John Paul's thinking as unitarian if you choose. But I think it is worth your looking beyond that poem as I said earlier.
In the first of the pieces by John Paul, which I linked to, he writes
quote:
After having reflected in the past few years on each of the three divine persons — the Son, the Spirit and the Father — in this Jubilee Year we intend to take a comprehensive look at the glory common to the Three who are one God "not in the unity of a single person but in the Trinity of one substance" (Preface for the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity).
That may be a different understanding of the Trinity from yours, but to describe it as unitarian seems to me an odd use of the word.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I knew this thread was in danger of a death-spiral of Trinitarian debate. It seems I was right.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Why Andrew feels compelled to make the West a theological punching-bag I'll never know.
I'm comfortable with my trinitarianism, and I really don't care what squiggleAndrew thinks. Methinks he do with a few recitations of the Athanasian Creed.
Oh well, here's a song to rebut Andrew with:
"God in Three Persons; Blessed Trinity!" Holy, Holy, Holy
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Getting a little closer, I guess. It's amazing to me that you think "getting" the Trinity is so easy. Anyway this is the best I can do at the moment. I really believe that we have more of a language and cultural difference separating our understandings than you think. Both sides seem to think the other side is just being willful in misunderstanding.
Andrew: quote:
So, for Christianity, in my view, it's not OK to approach the Divine in an impersonal way (as eastern religions do), or in an ultra-personal way (as Protestantism and Catholicism sometimes seem to be doing).
This might explain a lot about why saints are so important for Orthodox to talk to. Despite the Incarnation, it seems we (humans) have little common ground in which to speak to Christ personally. Saints are at least human people.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Major Disaster
Shipmate
# 13229
|
Posted
This thread is an exercise in mischief, which causes pain and division, that befits the one who is called diabolos in Greek.
Andrew decided, on no evidence other than his fantasy, that the "He" of Karol Wojtyła's poem is the Triune God. I would ask him to prove that is so, or to refrain from mad speculation about the theology of someone he never knew or studied in the course of his medical training.
Secondly, he has not answered the question of the pronoun he uses in prayer to God. That persistent evasion answers the question itself. He has contempt for the people he invited to consider this topic, and apart from posturing to show his superiority, will not speak the truth with humble simplicity.
St John of Damascus, in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, puts the matter rather more clearly here .
Lastly I wonder, if Andrew says prayers in the morning at all, whether he says the standard prayer to the Holy Trinity by St Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which consistently uses the single pronoun while addressing the Trinity explicitly:
"Risen from sleep, I thank Thee, o Holy Trinity...&c."
This thread is really mischievous, and as a witness of Orthpdox belief and praxis resembles something one might regret stepping upon while out for a walk of fresh air.
Please,for the love of Christ, don't get entangled in such conversations. He says it's important to him. Leave him to it, which I am happy to do.
--------------------
O Beata Solitudo! Sola Beatitudo!
Posts: 869 | From: Heart of Midlothian | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
moonlitdoor
I think it's more an issue of confusion (as opposed to clarity) than an issue of full-blown unitarianism. I understand that the person of the Pope plays an important role in Western Christianity, but I didn't intend to evaluate him and his thoughts personally. If hard pressed, I'd say he had probably a confused view.
Lyda
I don't think this is accurate, because beside the impersonal and the ultrapersonal there does exist the personal relationship with the three divine persons... Remember, we relate with persons, not impersonal or ultrapersonal entities!
Major Disaster
First of all, I didn't evade. You probably missed it, but I did give a clear and full reply to that question.
As for the prayer you quoted, I'd like to ask you, in the language the prayer was written, what's the answer to the question "You Who?". The answer would be "She, the Trinity", and that's an issue of grammar, where the plurality of three is signified by the female gender, and NOT an ultrapersonal entity God-He.
I apologize if my posts aren't as irenic as they try to appear.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Thanks MD. The exposition by St John of Damascus gives a view quite contrary to my understanding of Andrew's contentions and quite consistent with my understanding of the Trinity as taught in Western Catholicism.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Andrew, English does do grammatical gender like Greek does, or most other European languages do. In English, referring to something as female does not signify it is plural, just as referring to something as male does mean that it is singular. Gender does not communicate those concepts in English.
Summary of English and grammatical gender.
Please stop reading foreign concepts into English. Your constant harping about "God-He" has no basis in the English language. God is referred to using personal descriptors. God is not an inanimate object or a lowly beast, for which which "it" is used.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear All
Major Disaster's description has been bugging me. Please, forgive me.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
There are of course differences between "east" and "west" in trinitarian doctrine but in order that this thread might not explode into something else let me just say that theology cannot be extracted in this manner from one brief poetic extract.
I might be tempted to break my own rule in one respect though. It seems to me that the west starts by theorising ... "We are monotheists, so what's this "three" thing? The east starts by reflecting on experience / encounter ... "we know the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ... so how do we still speak as monotheists?
The west's answer? Intra-divine personal relations.
The east's answer? By sharing one ousia.
[ 19. November 2008, 23:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Thank you, Father Gregory! That condenses many things I've read into something manageable.
I ask with trepidation: are we so far apart that there is no meeting?
ETA: I mean East and West meeting, not about people having some kind of meeting with Deity.
[ 20. November 2008, 00:19: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Was Christ under the Law or not?
Galatians 4:4, NRSV: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Father Gregory
Except that it's not the West per se... Because there are many many early Western Saints who are just like their Eastern counterparts... Like Ambrose, or Ireneus, or Hippolytus, or Hillary, or Justin...
The issue is different...
k-mann
Was Christ a servant or not? He explicitly says he is not one of the subjects, yet the Jews were the subjects of the King that is God...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes Andrew but I was talking about the later medieval west. I should have made that clear. I am talking about the way that Aquinas and his successors handle the Augustinian legacy of intra-trinitarian relations as being coterminous with the hypostases themselves. This has always struck me as incoherent (or just plain false). It's a bit like the Cheshire Cat in Alice ... smile only, no cat.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Lyda*Rose
We are not so far apart if we recognise the dangers of Augustine's psychological analogy and his thinking about the vestigial Trinity (throw in the filioquist Spirit as the "bond of love" as well to that brew). On the Orthodox side we need to guard against ANY suggestion that the hypostases are 3 divine beings.
The difficulty we all face (from different starting points - ante) is in making clear what an hypostasis actually is. "It's" not merely a relation but neither is "it" a mode of being nor an individual entity. Somethings are perhaps better left unsaid. The sense of this after all comes from worship not the school room or the debating chamber.
[ 20. November 2008, 08:52: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Father Gregory
I agree with those comments....
Of course, we have to be very clear that humans aren't supposed to be individual entities... "may they be one as we are one"! Individualism does not equate with personhood.
Lyda
your question is really important... my personal answer would be that communion in the faith is based on the same degree (or the same potential) of clarity...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Individualism certainly does not equate with personhood but personhood FOR US is manifested in and between human agents in a radically different manner than that which applies to the divine hypostases.
[ 20. November 2008, 09:21: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
But the potential is the same...
As for the word, prosopon, it comes from the Greek word for face. We gave such an important value to our faces, that we came to use that word for our person. (hence the difficulty some had with the persona - mask... because it's a face of some sort, but not an authentic one...)
Really, I stand by what I said to Lyda earlier... theology is supposed to be easy, exactly, as Father Gregory said, because it's supposed to be experiential. It's not an issue of deep metaphysical or magical discussion where only a select few can take part.
There is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I of course accept your comments about prosopon and potential. (The Cappadocians reworked the idea somewhat though of course ... masks can be misleading if only it can be read in a modalist or Sabellian fashion ... whoops He is Father ... oh no, hang on, he's swapped masks, He's the Son now etc.)
Although I have tried to be irenic and inclusive theologically here I do think think that there is a problem for us in the west tending to start from the a priori principle of one God in a rather abstract and theoretical manner (even philiosophical or metaphysical) and then trying to accommodate the Trinity to that. Rather, we should start with the datum of Christiamn experience and then articulate how even with that on board we are still monotheists (the how and why of that). The Trinity is to be encountered first not theorised.
[ 20. November 2008, 09:31: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I'm in full agreement with that.
As for masks, language eventually made that prosopeio, and retained prosopo for face and person ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think the question of how we articulate our monotheism is interesting. I'm not hugely familiar with Orthodox liturgy, but from what little I do know it seems that the Western doxological style of "... through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end..." which recurs frequently in our liturgy is almost unknown in the Eastern rites. How is the idea of one God played out in the Orthodox liturgies?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Try Paul: "there is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ". What's clearer than that??? I don't get it!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It seems to me that the west starts by theorising ... "We are monotheists, so what's this "three" thing? The east starts by reflecting on experience / encounter ... "we know the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ... so how do we still speak as monotheists?
The west's answer? Intra-divine personal relations.
The east's answer? By sharing one ousia.
It strikes me that both questions you give there are valid - they are, after all, trying to solve the same conundrum but from opposite sides. Much like one side trying to calculate 3x1 and the other trying to calculate 1x3. But obviously with a much more complicated and complex issue! And it's not immediately obvious to me how the two answers are significantly different either - they both affirm the Oneness of God while also affirming the three persons of the Trinity, after all.
Andrew's description of "oneness" being a form of communion, in much the same way as humans can be one, is at least understandable. But it does beg the question: does that mean there is only one human, in several billion persons? It may of course be that he would say there is indeed only one humanity, with billions of human persons, but logically that would mean "God" is being used to describe the species (or essence) of the divine persons: it follows that to say "there is one God" is analogous not to the statement "there is one human" but to the statement "there is one humanity".
Am I anywhere near?
If so, I can understand the confusion on both sides about the other's belief. For better or worse, it is true that many (most?) of us in the western world have a very individual mindset - we start from the individual and work up to the groupings. For us, to say "we are one" in reference to shared beliefs/communion/etc doesn't mean we actually are united as one being. So when we say - and earnestly believe - that there is one God, we think of that in terms of there being one divine individual. It's natural that - as Fr. G so eloquently states - our reconciliation of the Trinity will start from there and attempt to work out how one can also be three.
Obviously I cannot speak for the eastern mindset, but if it indeed starts from the communal and works from there to the individual then much of this is explained. From such a mindset it would not be too difficult to imagine there being one God made up of three persons, because the word "one" doesn't actually mean the same thing in this context! It refers not to individuality but to communality - it is not the "one" of "I am one person" but the "one" of "there is one Church".
Of course it should be obvious that to a western mindset this appears to be tritheist, just as the western understanding appears to the eastern mindset to be unitarian. But actually they're both valid approaches to the theology of the Trinity within their own mindsets, and it should be apparent from this thread if nothing else that to insist on one phrasing (be it western or eastern) is never going to be helpful.
Indeed, is it possible that both sides are in fact saying the same thing, but filtered through their own mindset? That while the words are different the concept itself is identical? And that even though all of us see the other as heretical, that is because we are seeing it through our own mindset filters and not theirs?
Of course, it's equally possible that I was actually nowhere near five paragraphs ago. In which case all this wonderful thought and flowing prose is for naught ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Woah, lots of crossposts.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
§Andrew said:
Try Paul: "there is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ". What's clearer than that??? I don't get it!
If I just took that, I would probably end up as some sort of Arian.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
If I just took that, I would probably end up as some sort of Arian.
Why? Can something created ever be Lord?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
That's a huge theological question, the answer to which is not apparent simply from the text. In the sense we use Lord of the Son (or of the Father or of the Holy Spirit for that matter), no it can't, but that text doesn't tell me that. It is not as simple as saying just read Paul (or whoever).
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Of course it's not just "read Paul"... I'm not sola scriptura... It's not about getting meanings out of texts, but about living the same faith as Paul's and so on...
Anyway, the Scripture's approach is Orthodoxy's approach. And it reflects on the Creed.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I really, really want what you say to be true Marvin. I think I might be happier to concur if we could deal with some of the things that both traditions would definitely have problems with.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Marvin, how on earth can it be the same thing, when you say that you think in terms of there being one individual, when this is the definition of unitarianism?
As for there being one human being, that's what the traditional explanation, from the Scriptures, of the fathers that took part in the ecumenical councils. It's by abusing language that we speak of many humans...
Like fr. Gregory, I'd like agreement to exist despite differences in approach, but frankly, and I have tried very hard, I don't see it. I suspect that there is fundamental disagreement on the trinity, as there is fundamental disagreement on all kind of other things...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Andrew
I think you are overstating this a weeny bit.
West and East are committed to the belief that God is not Us-Writ-Large .... in other words not a BIG individual and not a BIG communion of persons.
In principle there is nothing wrong in starting with the unity and proceeding to the triune hypostases provided that primacy is accorded to both the revelatory and experiential chartacter of Christian trinitarian theism.
Once that has been agreed the issues can be worked on from both sides of the mountain ascending to the summit as it were. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser on the directional process of the argument ... or at least it seems to me.
[ 20. November 2008, 10:51: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Marvin, how on earth can it be the same thing, when you say that you think in terms of there being one individual, when this is the definition of unitarianism?
Andrew, I have tried very hard to explain that such thinking is a product of my western mindset, and I have even pointed out that from your eastern mindset it will naturally appear to be heretical. I have, furthermore, attempted to understand how you approach the issue, in the hope that by so doing I may come to appreciate what you actually mean when you phrase something a certain way rather than simply reading it through the filters of my own mindset and judging it accordingly.
It would be nice if you could at least attempt to do the same.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
