|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is this unitarian or trinitarian?
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
orignally posted by Father Gregory
such clear thinking challenges you too much
Whose clear thinking are you referring to, Father Gregory ? It seems that Andrew cannot be in communion with western Christians, among other reasons, because he doesn't accept their description of the Trinity and they don't accept his. However he can be in communion with you, although western Christians think that your description of the Trinity is the same as theirs.
Which isn't what I would call all that clear.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
The fact remains, Andrew, that if Greeks get scared watching the Snake-Handlers of North Alabama on tv, they don't look at any form of protestantism with a very open mind either, as evidenced by most, not all, of your posts on this thread.
You weren't present on a memorable Christmas in 1977--I imagine you weren't even born yet--when I took off my shoes, walked to the door of an Orthodox Church, turned round, renounced all the errors of the West publicly (including the errors I'd never believed in the first place). You do not know me. And yet, on this very thread, you just about excommunicated me without benefit of anybody's omophorion but your own imaginary one. Did you apologise? By no means! I don't mind, because I can see so easily how you react to all of us who are not just like you. It's ok. You'll see, later on, that you must treat us with the same respect that you demand for yourself.
See, that's the only way to get on in dialogue. If name-calling is part of legitimate debate, so be it, but when the name-calling is unjustified, it really doesn't encourage participation. Just my humble opinion.
I admire your expertise and intelligence in so many ways, and I do respect the fact that you too have suffered a few "hard knocks". Believe me, there will be more of those in store for all of us.
But I think we need to look at each other in Christ's light, not the dim vision of our own viewpoints. At least we need to do that occasionally, before we drive away people who really want to learn from us and be our friends.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
To clear one thing up, I never thought that the Godhead was actually "amorphous", just that when I prayed to "God", it tended to be a lazy appeal to Whoever was listening. As I said, this thread has made me aware of the error of praying like that. It makes for fuzzy theology that does lean a little unitarian. But forgive me, Andreas, the way you speak of the Three still sounds a little tritheistic. The way Father Gregory explains the Trinity, it doesn't. Same Orthodoxy. I still think there is a little bit of a language difference thing going on, although you dispute that.
ETA: Well said, moonlitdoor.
[ 22. November 2008, 15:44: 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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose, after 3 solid years of practice in the English language, administered to Andrew by the brightest and best on the Ship (though sometimes, I admit, "taught to the tune of the hickory-stick"), I think he's quite fluent. One time, he posted on another thread, "The Orthodox Church sucks". You can't get much more fluent than that, in either English or Anglo-Saxon.
What's not fluent is the ability to express Orthodox truth without confusion. Thus, from that confusion, we all find our posts pretty much deliberately misunderstood, mischaracterised and actually condemned without a fair hearing.
That is the shame of these debates, and that is why I so often give up on trying.
If we only asked ourselves, we who are Orthodox, "How many Orthodoxen are coming to the debates where I hold sway by sheer force of posting-volume?" "How many people want to sit at my feet and learn from me?"
It's a question I ask myself nearly every day, and it's a question that the belligerence in the posts we've been reading begs.
Yesterday or the day before, I noticed that Andrew had included, in one of his posts, the "shining example" of a toffee-nosed Bishop of Achata, who opined that the West was so theologically and spiritually retarded that the West was frankly incapable of internalising much about the Trinity, beyond the very most basic teachings of the Orthodox Church. Very wisely, either Andrew or somebody coaching him, got that anecdote edited out of his post with lightning speed. So Perhaps, Perhaps....
Best wishes,
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
LSK
OK, we established the cultural context... I understand why poor initiation into the Christian faith can cause problems...
Now, let's get to the pressing issue of what we mean by the common words we use...
You agreed that we are using substance with different meanings. Then how can the faith be the same? And if it's not the same, how do we proceed from there?
LM
I didn't "excommunicate" you. I remember our talks about the Trinity in the past. Instead of referring to our common fathers, the Saints who shaped history by taking parts in ecumenical councils, I remember you quoting from a Catholic scholar who said essence and nature aren't the same thing. (which just comes to support what I said about some Western Christians, by the way!)
Major Disaster pointed to St. John Damascene a few posts ago. That Saint, quite explicitly says "essence and nature are the same thing". How did you expect me to evaluate the things you said, when I was saying (AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS DOING, based on my reading of them) the same things the fathers said, and you said no that's not correct and pointed to what some Catholics say...
That's a side issue, but I mention it to show that we have discussed about these issue for a long time before this thread.
In what you have said, I don't recognize my faith. Why is it that wrong to say so? Because we are both Orthodox? If we disagree in the faith, I think the good thing to do is to address that issue directly.
I want to engage with you with frankness. If I hurt you, attribute that to silliness, and forgive me. But don't leave the issue without bringing everything to light first. I know, this might sound stubborn, but I think persistence works!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew, I'm not sure I said definitively that we are using the term substance with different meanings, though I did say at one point that you were using a term "nature" that isn't a standard English theological term in this context AFAIK. What about this, however: by "one substance" applied to the Trinity, we mean that consubstantial (I realise that's tautological) Godness that the Three Divine Persons share. The one substance is the shared sameness amongst the three, while the respective personhoods speak to the separateness that co-exists in the Triune God.
I'm sure the above could be cleaned up, but I'm trying to take a quick stab at what I mean by substance in term of the Godhead. I'm rushed at the moment as I've got to leave for the station shortly to catch a train to New York City.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
In the foregoing, "separateness" should probably be changed to "distinctiveness" or "distinctive identities"
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
As I said, this thread has made me aware of the error of praying like that. It makes for fuzzy theology that does lean a little unitarian.
That's ALL I said. Nothing more. Quite explicitly I said I don't think Catholicism and Protestantism are full-blown unitarians, but the problem is this unclarity which is a bit unitarian.
That's all I have been saying in this thread, and all I have been arguing against.
quote:
But forgive me, Andreas, the way you speak of the Three still sounds a little tritheistic. The way Father Gregory explains the Trinity, it doesn't.
We can discuss this further. I'd like to share with you how I see your objection.
Perhaps I shouldn't do it, but what the heck.
It reminds me of the discussions I have read by the fathers of the first and the second ecumenical councils with those who didn't accept the Son being uncreated. It's the same argument, with the same logic behind it: If they are three, and they are all uncreated, then there are three Gods.
The answer to that concern was NOT to bring forth some magical pseudo-metaphysical formula, a paradox if you want... They didn't say "they are three in one" or whatever...
The fathers replied in a VERY different tune... saying that it is wrong to count persons of the same nature... that it is wrong to speak of "many humans" in the first place.
I KNOW this sounds bizarre to you, and I empathize, but unless we have a clear understanding about what those people actually said, how can we say we have the same faith they had?
Which leads me to...
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Yesterday or the day before, I noticed that Andrew had included, in one of his posts, the "shining example" of a toffee-nosed Bishop of Achata, who opined that the West was so theologically and spiritually retarded that the West was frankly incapable of internalising much about the Trinity, beyond the very most basic teachings of the Orthodox Church. Very wisely, either Andrew or somebody coaching him, got that anecdote edited out of his post with lightning speed. So Perhaps, Perhaps....
The story goes like this:
The famous Byzantinologist Hélène Ahrweiler was teaching in the Sorbonne, during the sixties, about Byzantium. The lecture halls were full of students, but they didn't have a clue what Byzantium was. They were like "is it something you eat?"
So, to show them what Byzantium was, and to explain why it's important that they studied it, and that it wasn't a waste of time or something trivial she said:
"What is Byzantium? Well, in the 11th century, the Archbishop of Achrida sent an epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople. He wrote: "Those Latins, if they even get to understand something about the Trinity, that should be enough for them. You shouldn't be asking more from them, since you know how low their spiritual level is" This is Byzantium!" she said... And the students listened to her, because if France's past for example was like that compared to Byzantium, then it's something that we would get benefited if we studied it.
My thought is that we are not in a vacuum here. Each brings many centuries of history with him... and we should be able to address our background and our baggage. Not to get defensive, but to be frank so as to shape our future in a positive way.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
If I hurt you, attribute that to silliness, and forgive me.
Oh, I do forgive you, Andrew, but not for your "silliness", as you call it. I do not think you are indulging in harmless silliness, as your posts have always indicated to me a basic insistence on your point of view and your point of view alone. If our experiences don't match your own exactly, it is we who are "out" and you alone who are "in". So your apology, beginning with a self-defensive "if", doesn't quite make the grade.
You claim, after many condemnatory posts in answer to my quotes of scholars--Catholic or not--that I am in error even to post from their works. That shows your narrowness, Andrew. A toff doesn't make a good missionary. Ask the Indian sub-continent if you don't believe me.
Try to listen a bit sometimes--I got off the thread in the vain hope that it'd give some others time to voice their opinions, but you had a day when you were on here, throwing posts at people by the dozens, before anyone could even catch up on the thread! Fifty-six posts as of midnight last night, your time.
Other people really have to scramble to defend their points of view, when someone who can post as fast as you can--and not one-liners either--takes control! And in your haste, you do mislead. I hope that's not deliberate on your part, but by your insistence on statements you make that are very misleading if not incorrect, you are going to find yourself dividing, not only Orthodox from Catholics and Protestants, but Orthodox from other Orthodox. You're working, right now, as hard as you can, to declare that I am not in communion with you. That is a very serious charge. I have to tell you that I think it is entirely unjust. I would not say that of you, in spite of the many things you've said about Orthodoxy on these threads.
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
quote:
The famous Byzantinologist Hélène Ahrweiler was teaching in the Sorbonne, during the sixties, about Byzantium. The lecture halls were full of students, but they didn't have a clue what Byzantium was. They were like "is it something you eat?"
Stop right there. Lecture halls at the Sorbonne are not filled with people who think Byzantium is something you eat. And you will not win any friends who are alumni of the Sorbonne by saying such a thing. They will know right away that you're only insulting them because they're Catholics.
Sorry I got your toffee-nosed bishop's diocese wrong. Achrida, not Achata. Pity that. The beaches at Achata are gorgeous.
Best wishes,
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
Leetle Masha
I read what you wrote. You still do not address the issue.
And frankly, I don't understand what good is it that you won't say we have a different faith, if we have a different faith...
As for Sorbonne, it wasn't me speaking, but the Byzantinologist, who came to be (probably the first woman) chancellor to that University. So, hold your horses. History is history.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Very sorry, but if this turns out to be a triple post, it's for the reason that Andrew is still misrepresenting the West and the scholarship that comes out of the West.
He insists,
quote:
I didn't "excommunicate" you. I remember our talks about the Trinity in the past. Instead of referring to our common fathers, the Saints who shaped history by taking parts in ecumenical councils, I remember you quoting from a Catholic scholar who said essence and nature aren't the same thing. (which just comes to support what I said about some Western Christians, by the way!)
I was quoting Etienne Gilson, one of the foremost philosophers in all of Europe. What Gilson said I still say: if you call God's essence His [i]nature, what do you do when you encounter Chalcedon teaching that the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, is known in two [i]natures[i] without confusion?
We say the Holy Trinity is one in essence and undivided. Then we say that Christ is known in two natures. There is no conflict in those statements, because we know that the Three Divine Persons are one in Essence, while the Second Person is known in two Natures. If we say that the Three Divine Persons are one in [i]Nature, which of course they are, we then have to explain how Jesus Christ is known in two natures!
That's not Catholicism. It's correct use of language.
And when you say, Andrew, that someone is "not in communion", that means they are ex-- out of-- communion. Excommunicated. Don't ever do that again. You have no idea whether people are in communion or not, since you are neither their bishop nor their spiritual father.
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
Sorry about code...editing time expired while I was checking for clarity.
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
Now you provide with a full quote, rather than your old "nature and essence are not the same".
Again, I prefer St. John's "the holy fathers say nature is the same as essence".
Starting from those "holy fathers" I get the teaching that when those in the councils said there is one divine substance, they also thought there is one human substance, that Christ is co-essential with the Father, yes, but, at the same time, He is co-essential with us as well.
So, you can't get a "thing" that's somehow both the Father, the Son and the Spirit, just as you don't get such a unitarian "thing" for mankind. If we have a different understanding of what having one essence means, then we are not of the same faith with the holy fathers.
This is a serious matter, which is why you see me being persistent.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Indeed it is a serious matter, because by that post you are doing several things:
1. Condemning my right to post in language you don't approve of.
2. Excluding me from the debate by requiring it be only on your terms: the Fathers.
3. Worst of all, you say "you can't get a thing"....and then go on to insist that even the Fathers in their definition of "essence" refer to a thing, namely that unitarian notion of "Trinity" you claim we teach, when we do nothing at all like that.
When you stop doing what you're doing right now, people will pay more attention to you. But when you insist that ousia and physis are the same word, you are the one being the unitarian, not we. If the Fathers had wanted essence and nature both to mean nature, they'd have used the word "physis" both times and we'd have had a horde of monophysites you'd not be able to count!
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
Sorry for the double post, but I think I've found the locus of our disagreement here.
Andrew says of Christ:
At the same time, He is co-essential with us as well.
What is our essence, our being? It is being creatures of God. Christ is begotten, not created.
Is God's essence finite, or infinite? Infinite.
Is our essence finite, or infinite? Finite.
Mary
[ 22. November 2008, 19:45: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
§ Andrew, the word "things" is incredibly imprecise in English. Legal writers, especially the ones charged with rendering the french Civil Codes in Louisiana and Quebec avoid the word "things" to translate the French term "objets" (which abounds in those codes) for that reason.
Second, your contentions about Trinitarian theology really fail when we get to Chalcedon. Leetle Masha's quote on Chalcedon is extremely orthodox. The fact is Chalcedon cannot be understood without the ontological foundations of Nicaea. This is why your arguments hold no water.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
And SPK, this all further goes to prove that you and I are worshipping exactly the same God.
Andrew is too, but he just isn't telling us about God the way we tell about God. What little we think we might possibly know, that is.
I can't go on doing this. But flogging him with the homoousios bat doesn't seem to be working very well, does it. He's all physis, that kid! I betcha he's got 6-pack abs! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
We love ya, Andrew...we're just tryin' to teach you two words: ousia and physis. Now, I know you already know those words. And I know for a fact that you know they are two different words.
When you say the Nicene Creed the next time, notice where they are placed, and maybe you'll see why they're in the Creed in the places where they are.
Finis
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
Note: the Incarnation is where the human nature comes in:
And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary....
it is that precise point where we declare that we believe that Jesus took on Himself our human nature!
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
Leetle Masha's point about the Sorbonne students of our day is important. In the past few decades Byzantium has been studied much, and from a point where it was hardly known it became better known. Still, much scholarship needs to get done, but we are obviously on the right path.
Like the history of Kingdoms, the history of religion needs to get studied as well. I think your problem is a lack in proper education about these things. The fathers who actually spoke on the matter are not widely studied... For the most part, we assume we know what they said (since this has to be what we believe)... and for the most part, Saints like Augustine or the scholastics shaped the way non-Orthodox Christianity thinks about Christianity.
There is a long way to go. For the time being, we aren't in communion with each other. Perhaps someday, when what the fathers actually taught gets studied extensively, the world will be a richer place.
I fear I can't say something more to that, without quoting from all the fathers who spoke on these issues. If someone's interested, I think studying what those people actually said (and yes, I know this isn't the most easy thing to do in English... since their works are not widespread) is the best way to go forward.
I have read extensively what those people wrote, the things about which they gave their lives for. And from that study, worship, and experience I said what I said, and I stand by it.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
I think your problem is a lack in proper education about these things
Ah. I see. You have had that proper education, then?
Give me a break, Andrew.
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
You say that becoming Orthodox is a life-long process, and that we learn as we move forward, and that there is much we don't know, but the moment someone questions what you think you know, no, that can't happen...
Right...
From the very book Major Disaster pointed us to:
quote:
for instance, Peter and Paul are not counted separately in so far as they are one. For since they are one in respect of their essence they cannot be spoken of as two natures
Again, St. John is very clear: "for the holy fathers, nature is the same with essence". That's what someone brought into that faith and educated in all things with regards to Christianity has to say.
You choose to differ. You make an assertion that matches nothing I have encountered in the fathers. And I have studied them extensively. So, I don't accept what you are saying, because to do so would be to violate everything I know as true about these things. If I'm mistaken, by all means, correct me. I truly believe what you are saying, that we can get educated further and further,
[ 22. November 2008, 21:16: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
You make an assertion that matches nothing I have encountered in the fathers. And I have studied them extensively.
As you have told us all repeatedly. And still, you do not know the meaning of the word ousia and the word physis.
You can keep your gnosis, thank you very much. Jesus said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself." I can't find where He ever said "Thou shalt go through the entire edition of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. Then, thou shalt translate it into English exactly the way somebody calling himself § Andrew does, or thou canst not be My disciple!"
You are plenty smart, §Andrew. No doubt smarter than I am. Still, I have been made a member of the Orthodox Church, same as you have. I've managed to read a little bit from the Fathers, not always in your "translation", of course.
So I try to think with the Church. If thinking with the Church is not thinking with you, then we've got Trouble with a capital T, or so you tell us. The penalty is that you and I are not "in communion". Yet I also am Orthodox.
My, what a situation. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I suggest you get some rest too, and maybe you'll feel better in the morning.
--------------------
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 Sober Preacher's Kid:
Second, your contentions about Trinitarian theology really fail when we get to Chalcedon.
Why?
Here's what St. John said in that book Major Disaster pointed us to:
quote:
This, indeed, we have learned, that the Godhead was united to humanity in one of its subsistences, and it has been stated that God took on a different form or essence, to wit our own.
How's that any different from what I'm saying? The Son, being one in essence with the Father and the Spirit, was united with humanity, by taking on a different essence, that is the human essence.
How's St. John's saying any different to what I said?
When you drop any metaphysical baggage the term "essence" has, we will arrive to pure Nicea and pure Chalcedon.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
ok. This is what you claim St. John of Damascus said: quote:
for instance, Peter and Paul are not counted separately in so far as they are one. For since they are one in respect of their essence they cannot be spoken of as two natures
Read that again. When you read it the second time, maybe it will be clearer. Peter is a man. Paul is another man. Although they are both men, you cannot separate their finite being into two, unless they are conjoined Siamese twins and you are a very, very good surgeon.
--------------------
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 didn't do any translating... Just copied/pasted from the site MD pointed us to.
That small quotation is about us humans having one and the same essence, the human essence. So, it's wrong to say Paul and Peter are two "humans", because they are of one essence. The right thing to say is that they are two human persons.
Same thing with three divine persons - one divine essence.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
You are confused by the translation and perhaps the original copy, then. "Human Persons" is fine, if you want to use the same expression Pope John Paul II, with his philosophy of personalism, was always using. It does not change the difference between essence and nature.
You still don't get it, and I don't have any more time. Please bear in mind that it is okay for St. John of Damascus to use essence and nature as synonyms if he wants to, but we must understand what he means when he does that. I don't think you understand yet what he actually meant. It's because of the English that is used in that translation. But I'm not going to be bothered with this any more.
Say whatever you please, I'm Orthodox. I have no idea who you are or where you're coming from, except you say Athens. Fine. I'm from Pennsylvania. I'm just one human person, an Orthodox Christian, and you needn't worry about me so much. Please concern yourself more with the people you are misleading.
Mary
[ 22. November 2008, 22:10: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
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:
I suggest you get some rest too, and maybe you'll feel better in the morning.
I feel I have been harsh with you Mary. If what I say is accurate, it's an issue of education about what the ancients said and taught, and I shouldn't have been that harsh with you. I apologize to you personally for that.
[ 22. November 2008, 22:51: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
No Western trinitarian is saying that the God-essence (I don't like this term) is impersonal. Transpersonal, perhaps, only in that the One God exists co-eternally and co-equally as Three Persons. Remember, we neither confuse the persons nor divide the substance. The three divine persons are interpenetrating but distinct.
Just when I think I'm beginning to grasp the difference..
I think I need to re-read all this.
I'm not sure I agree that the filoque shows a not personal essence as the cause - see below quote from RCC - because when taken together like this there is a hierarchy of procession, from the Father a procession to the Son in begetting and from both proceeds as one spiration the Holy Spirit.
But it's really weird, to me, used as I am to the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit to be One God the Father.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Myrrh
The Spirit as the vinculum amoris (bond of love) first appears in (yes, you guessed it!) ... Augustine.
Me ol chuck again!
I need some time to work through the rest of your post, and with Andrews comment.
Essence/Nature
Perhaps I haven't yet read enough explanations from both sides, but so far I see both RCC and Orthodox using essence and nature interchangeably
Such as here: quote:
In God there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
In God there are two internal divine processions.
The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the internal divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense).
The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to Father.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.
The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.
The relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
The Three Divine Persons are in one another.
All the ad extra activities of God are common to the three Persons.
(DOGMAS Of The Holy Roman Catholic Church)
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
ok. This is what you claim St. John of Damascus said: quote:
for instance, Peter and Paul are not counted separately in so far as they are one. For since they are one in respect of their essence they cannot be spoken of as two natures
Read that again. When you read it the second time, maybe it will be clearer. Peter is a man. Paul is another man. Although they are both men, you cannot separate their finite being into two, unless they are conjoined Siamese twins and you are a very, very good surgeon.
Their nature is one, fully human, in that they can't be separated but are one. One essence in two persons; which are finite and can be separated, siamese twins are two persons conjoined, not one person.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
I forgive you, Andrew, wholeheartedly, and I do read those Church Fathers as much as I can, believe me. I'm not nearly so well-educated as you are, I'm sure. American schools don't teach patristics. In my uni studies, I did manage to take a couple of theology courses along with an enormous curriculum of French, Spanish, Gothic, English, Greek, Latin, sociology and physics. I was at uni 8 years and I have a Master's in Romance Languages, Classics and minor in English. I'm a "Phi Beta Cr*phead", as we humourously call our Honors grads over here who make Phi Beta Kappa.
I always said you were smart. Share your extensive knowledge with a bit more kindness and a bit less nastiness, and I'm sure, once you can understand even the most complex of English (and that translation, trust me, is very hard to understand even for a native speaker of English!), you'll be much less likely to mislead people. But it comes across as very arrogant indeed when you insist that your interpretation is the only correct Orthodox one. That creates only bad feeling and ultimately, schism or heresy or both. So, for my sake--please be more careful, okay?
And please let other people have their say before you jump all over them. Sometimes, your jumps might be a bit too hasty, and some day you may find that you've condemned a patriarch or an abbot of a big monastery somewhere.
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
Hi Myrrh,
I can see how you'd get that idea about essence and nature, but since the very life of a human person is in his essence, his very being, if you separate his essence he will die. (I'd rather not get into cloning!) You're probably right, Siamese twins is not a very good analogy since they are both human persons in the first place, though conjoined. But they can be separated, as I understand it, if they don't share too many vital organs--I read somewhere that a doctor managed to separate conjoined twins, who shared a liver.
In the human nature, God creates unique beings, each one different yet each one a human person.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I was quoting Etienne Gilson, one of the foremost philosophers in all of Europe. What Gilson said I still say: if you call God's essence His [i]nature, what do you do when you encounter Chalcedon teaching that the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, is [i]known in two [i]natures[i] without confusion?
I'm not sure what problem Gilson sees here. What is wrong with saying that the second person of the Trinity has two essences? There may be a reason, but I'm missing it.
If Gilson is using essence to mean substance, then I don't think he ought to do that.
As I understand it, essence is opposed to existence. If something exists, it has a way of existing which is its essence. (We can think about essences that don't exist, but saying that the essence either does or doesn't exist is a philosophical mistake - since it implies the existence of essences that don't exist. I've been reading a book by David Burrell who argues that this was an important insight by Aquinas for our relationship to God.)
Substance crosses the existence/essence boundary. Something is a substance if it remains itself. It has accidents if it can change and still remain itself, since the accidents are what change.
A nature is the kind of thing something is, which it shares with everything else which is the same kind of thing. Natures don't exist in themselves: they are the manner of existence of existing things. (Which seems to me the same as essence.)
Now when in the west we say God is one substance, we don't mean that God is something amorphous in addition to the three persons. What we mean is that the three persons do not exist without each other. It is possible, given any two created persons, that they might or might not exist separately. But the three persons of the Trinity exist with each other necessarily.
So I'd want to add a point to Father Gregory's description of the Trinity.
If we think of the persons of the Trinity as three of the same kind of thing - three instances of the same nature - as if there could be one or two or four or twenty, then we're making a mistake. The three persons are not three instances of any nature. The nature of God is necessarily to be three: one begetting, one begotten, one proceeding.
So there could not be two sons. It would be meaningless to say that God could have begotten two sons. Whatever is begotten by the Father is the son, therefore to say 'God could have begotten two sons' is merely to say 'God could have begotten the son twice', which is nonsense.
Nor could there be two spirits.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
That's very good, Dafyd, and I appreciate it very much because it does a great job of differentiating essence and substance. I never say substance.
The reason Gilson wanted it made clear that ousia and physis are two different words is complex, but I think Gilson, and I following him, saw essence as indivisible, involving life itself.
If we say that essence and existence are opposed, all the more reason not to divide essence. If, as Sartre claimed, existence is prior to essence, I'm in deep trouble, since I cannot be an existentialist. Shoot, I couldn't even bear process theology!
I was just trying to stay with the Vincentian canon, not to get too deep into the philosophy of it all. If I've made a mistake and essence and nature really are identical, I still don't understand why they're two different words when the definition of Chalcedon requires that there be something about nature that makes it possible for one Divine person to have two natures. If we say that in the Incarnation Christ took to Himself another essence, in addition to the divine essence Christ already had, being the only-begotten Son of the Father, and eternal, begotten from all eternity, why would He do that? Two essences would be two beings! Chalcedon clearly said two natures without mingling or confusion.
It wasn't clear to the Monophysites, I think because they did not understand Christ's Person. They were afraid that if Christ had two natures, He'd be two Persons (as the Nestorians seemed to think).
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
The reason Gilson wanted it made clear that ousia and physis are two different words is complex, but I think Gilson, and I following him, saw essence as indivisible, involving life itself.
Assuming that 'ousia' translates 'substance' and 'physis' nature, then the two are very definitely different. 'Ousia' refers to the entity, and 'physis' to what the entity is.
So I would think that 'essence' would tend to translate 'physis' rather than 'ousia'.
The problem is that Latin words don't necessarily translate the Greek words with the same etymology.
I'm not really sure here though.
quote:
If we say that essence and existence are opposed, all the more reason not to divide essence. If, as Sartre claimed, existence is prior to essence, I'm in deep trouble, since I cannot be an existentialist. Shoot, I couldn't even bear process theology!
When I say 'essence' and 'existence' are opposed, I mean that they're opposed in thinking about them, not in reality.
While Thomas Aquinas and Sartre both think existence is prior to essence, I think they mean different things by that. Thomas thinks of essence as a manner of existing: the way in which God creates us. Sartre seems to think of essence as something entirely separate from existence, and opposed to it in reality, so that for Sartre essence somehow traps or confines existence if existence doesn't somehow break free.
quote:
If I've made a mistake and essence and nature really are identical, I still don't understand why they're two different words when the definition of Chalcedon requires that there be something about nature that makes it possible for one Divine person to have two natures. If we say that in the Incarnation Christ took to Himself another essence, in addition to the divine essence Christ already had, being the only-begotten Son of the Father, and eternal, begotten from all eternity, why would He do that? Two essences would be two beings! Chalcedon clearly said two natures without mingling or confusion.
If you're using 'essence' for 'ousia', then yes, I agree with you. I didn't think that was how 'essentia' was used in Latin theology, but I don't know the primary sources in English, let alone in the original.
quote:
It wasn't clear to the Monophysites, I think because they did not understand Christ's Person. They were afraid that if Christ had two natures, He'd be two Persons (as the Nestorians seemed to think).
I'm not sure that there were ever really monophysites in the sense that the Chalcedonian definition rejects. As I understand it, there were some people who over-reacted to Nestorius, and thought that the Chalcedonian definition was conceding far too much to him. Thus the Oriential Orthodox churches think that the Chalcedonian definition logically implies Nestorianism. But they wouldn't assert a mixture or confusion of natures, which I think is what the Chalcedonians were trying to avoid doing.
[ 23. November 2008, 01:00: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not really sure here though.
I think Gilson probably was making the distinction between essence and "substance" exactly the way you said, Dafyd--"substance" would blur the distinction between essence and nature, probably rather obviously with its Latin prefix denoting "under". Gilson had read the Fathers, and he also knew Greek. His main objective was to get back past Cajetan to "the Thomism of St. Thomas", he said. If you want further info, you can always see the original book I have used for years:
Letters of Etienne Gilson to Henri de Lubac, with commentary by Henri de Lubac (San Francisco: 1988) or the French original, Lettres de M. Etienne Gilson adressées au P. Henri de Lubac et commentées par celui-ci (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1986).
I think I'd rather not go into this any deeper, since I'm not a theologian. Gilson's ideas just made such good sense to me when I was trying to become familiar with the Definition of Chalcedon and I was getting mixed up because everybody, including the Catholic translators into French of the Nicene Creed, was using "nature" as a synonym. To those translators, who translated the Latin "consubstantialem" (homoousios) as "de la même nature" (of the same nature), Gilson directed the distinction between ousia and physis. I spoke to my spiritual father about the two words, and he agrees with Gilson completely. My spiritual father, a very well-respected Orthodox priest who has received several distinctions from the Greek Orthodox Church in the U.S., always helps me if I get into theological trouble.
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Hi Myrrh,
I can see how you'd get that idea about essence and nature, but since the very life of a human person is in his essence, his very being, if you separate his essence he will die. (I'd rather not get into cloning!) You're probably right, Siamese twins is not a very good analogy since they are both human persons in the first place, though conjoined. But they can be separated, as I understand it, if they don't share too many vital organs--I read somewhere that a doctor managed to separate conjoined twins, who shared a liver.
In the human nature, God creates unique beings, each one different yet each one a human person.
Mary
In human nature God created us male and female in His image and likeness. He didn't created us separate persons except as expressions of that nature.
That's our human nature, our essence. Christ became fully human, not because he was male, but because he became man(kind)in also taking for his essence/nature humanity; so fully human and fully divine.
I wonder if the later Palamas v not, has contributed to a confusion here in the different takes on essence?
In that there we're talking about the distinction between essence and energies which is not the same context as a common essence/nature of a thing intrinsic as in say different persons. The common essence/nature of God is divinity as the common essence/nature of gold ornaments is gold.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Good question, Myrrh...I really have no idea how the confusion started if it didn't start from claiming that ousia and physis were synonyms and could be used interchangeably.
Wish I could be of more help, but I'm completely burnt out on this one!
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
I think it could simply be a confusion of context, nothing more. The difference in the RCC/Orthodox arguments about the Trinity say 'the Orthodox begin with the persons and establish unity and the RCC begin with the simple unity and establish persons', but, what I'm seeing is that the RCC take the Trinity to define God and the Orthodox take the Trinity to define Christ - that's two utterly different categories.
Same with essence/nature - without interpreting through different contexts the essence of a thing is its nature, as gold is to ornaments, so divinity to God so humanity to human beings.
"Man" used to be understood as "humanity" - it seems only recently that this has been contrasted solely with female which by extension gives the impression that Christ's incarnation is solely in its specialness 'male', and from that only a particular male God and so on. Where "man" is retained as "mankind" that individualisation doesn't occur, Christ became human without seed (no extraneous imput), out of the fully human to become human as we become human.
This carries all the combinations of relation between God and man(kind) - created in image and likeness male and female the difference is between uncreated and created, so our emphasis on God become created. In this we see Mary the Mother of God as the bridge between the uncreated and the created, between God and mankind, between divinity and humanity, standard Orthodox teaching, and standard at Nicaea and Chalcedon which by two natures meant simply both human and divine and this is the simple meaning of essence, a category distinction.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
The only context I'm referring to is:
The Nicene Creed
The Definition of Chalcedon
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
All I'm saying is that "essence", "substance" and "nature" all refer to the same thing, that which defines the thing - as the nature etc. of "the same thing" here is a noun.
quote:
(Nicaea-Constantinople)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
quote:
(The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon) (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
..as the nature of "the same thing" here is noun.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
If I've made a mistake and essence and nature really are identical, I still don't understand why they're two different words when the definition of Chalcedon requires that there be something about nature that makes it possible for one Divine person to have two natures.
He is not one divine person, He is one person who is fully divine and fully human, two natures in one person.
quote:
If we say that in the Incarnation Christ took to Himself another essence, in addition to the divine essence Christ already had, being the only-begotten Son of the Father, and eternal, begotten from all eternity, why would He do that?
To become fully human, to come into creation.
quote:
Two essences would be two beings! Chalcedon clearly said two natures without mingling or confusion.
There's an old Hindu teaching about Hamsa the Swan whose discernment was of such a high order that he could separate out only the milk to drink from a mixture of milk and water..
quote:
It wasn't clear to the Monophysites, I think because they did not understand Christ's Person. They were afraid that if Christ had two natures, He'd be two Persons (as the Nestorians seemed to think).
I still don't know what the Monophysites meant - this explanation seems to be saying they were calling one nature which the description in Chalcedon gives as person, but complains of other differences without specifying them.
quote:
(Comments received)
The distinct Monophysite doctrines derive from the fifth century discussions on the nature of Christ. It was the Monophysite position that Christ was one person of one (mono) nature (physic), the divine nature absorbing the human nature. In the context of the debate, Monophysitism was opposed to Nestorianism, which said that Christ had two natures but that they were separable.
It is also not the case that the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox churches is that the divine nature absorbs the human nature. I could provide hundreds of quotations illustrating that the fathers of the Oriental Orthodox have always confessed that Christ is fully and perfectly human and fully and perfectly Divine. The Oriental Orthodox have never confessed 'one nature', but have always confessed, using the words of the great and divinely inspired St Cyril that Christ is 'one incarnate nature or hypostasis of the Word'. This has never meant that Christ is simply divine or that the humanity is defective in any way but it confesses that in Christ there is a perfect union between his perfect and complete humanity and his perfect and complete Divinity. Eutyches was undoubtedly a confused individual but from the 5th century onwards anyone in the Oriental Orthodox churches who professes a Eutychian christology has been disciplined and even excommunicated from the Church.
The council formulated what came to be called the Chalcedonian Creed, which says Christ is "of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood." Rejecting this creed, most of the Armenian, northern Egyptian, and Syrian churches broke away from the main body of the Christian church.
This statement is also not true. Oriental Orthodox do not object to the phrase you have published. We have always confessed that Christ is of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood. St Dioscorus, deposed at Chalcedon, taught the same doctrine. What is objected to is the Nestorian influence in the Chalcedonian statement and in Leo's Tome. Eastern Orthodox are normally very careful to state that the Chalcedonian statement was not a new Creed since this is precluded in Orthodox teaching. In fact Oriental Orthodox do consider that a new creed was promulgated against the teaching of Nicaea and this is another reason it is not accepted.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Thanks for going to all that trouble to post those lengthy texts, Myrrh. When I saw that phrase that said Christ was one in "substance" with us as regards His manhood, I had to go and look up "substance". "Substance" in Greek is "hypostasis".
So that's why we're always so reluctant to use "substance" as a synonym for "essence". I looked in my Latin Dictionary, the big fat Lewis and Short one, and the Latin for "ousia" is "essentia".
Best wishes, Mary
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Yeah, I think the problem here would go away if we didn't get so bent out of shape by the words used, both councils were using words handily to explain the connection between human and divine in Christ. Not expressing some esoteric meaning about essence, or substance or nature. Not describing God.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
At the very beginning of this whole discussion, I thought I ought not to participate in it, because God, being illimitable, is of course indescribable. When one "describes" something, one draws a circle around it, thus limiting it.
That said, though, I think when we say essence we ought to refer it to "ousia" as the word homoousios serves to say "of one essence" with the Father--in the Creed.
And I think we ought to say physis when we refer to the two natures of Christ mentioned in the Definition of Chalcedon.
The Fathers can do anything they wish, but I think we should stick to the terms used in the two documents that have the most to do with the Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ: the Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon, at least for the very limited scope of this particular discussion.
Your Mileage may vary.
Mary
[ 23. November 2008, 04:38: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
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
Here, in the words of St. John of Damascus, is the way I have felt throughout this discussion, especially when we lost all our clarity:
And this is a clear translation, from the end of "On Heresies"
On the Trinity:
"There is nothing created, nothing of the first and second order, nothing lord and servant;
but there is unity and trinity
- there was, there is, and there shall be forever - which is perceived and adored by faith -
by faith, not by inquiry, nor by searching out, nor by visible manifestation;
for the more He is sought out, the more He is unknown, and the more He is investigated, the more He is hidden.
"And so, let the faithful adore God with a mind that is not overcurious. And believe that He is God in three hypostases, although the manner in which He is so is beyond manner, for God is incomprehensible. Do not ask how the Trinity is Trinity, for the Trinity is inscrutable."
--------------------
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:
His main objective was to get back past Cajetan to "the Thomism of St. Thomas", he said.
No kidding...
The great fathers have been considered ignorant and primitive in these matters, and instead of them, Augustine and the Scholastics were elevated. Abbot Placide speaks about that clearly. When, as a Roman Catholic, he expressed an interest in the great fathers of the ecumenical councils, the others were telling him that he needs to read some serious stuff.
They thought theology was primitive in antiquity, with the exception of Augustine, and then, the serious work was done with the scholastics.
Of course, he didn't listen to them, continued studying, and eventually was baptized into the Orthodox Church.
The problem with Aquinas is that he says all sort of things that are different from what the fathers actually said. This is one more point of difference.
It's very awkward that you are taking the creed and the definition of Chalcedon outside of their context. We cannot understand them outside of their proper context, which is what those fathers actually taught.
So, it is a matter of education. Of course, I understand the difficulties. I'm not naive to think that the influence of the non-Orthodox theology can suddenly change... There are many centuries that need to get undone. Till then...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Yes, it's a matter of education. And in my opinion, as you describe it, I think I'll pass.
You are really clever at getting people whose ideas you don't like, Andrew, out of your way.
I knew it was a bad idea to post on this topic. I enjoy reading what people write, but I'm losing my taste for it.
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
You are saying I'm misleading people, when I don't expect anyone to take my word for what I'm saying.
What I expect people to do is engage with me so that we can understand each other better. That's one thing.
The other thing I do is to point people to the fathers, so that they can read for themselves and find out what the truth of these matters is.
I insist on Scriptural theology, and on the theology of the ecumenical councils. I think it has been established that there is a difference between how the Scriptures and the Creed address God, and how many address God today. I think that it would be very interesting if those that take that different route examine their reasons for doing so, and get acquainted with the teachings of the ecumenical councils.
It's sad that because you disagree with me, you think I'm misleading anyone or whatever. Agreeing to disagree is very important you know. Oh well.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
