Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is this unitarian or trinitarian?
|
Leetle Masha
 Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
I think with this one paragraph, Andrew has just closed this thread
quote: 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...
You suggest we "agree to disagree", Andrew. I have, I think, a better idea. Here's my better idea--I am going to take this young man's posts for what they're worth.
-------------------- 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
On a more general note...
I think it's problematic not to use English words when discussing the trinity. Why refer to things such as "hypostasis" or "ousia" and not use English words for them? I reckon this adds to the pseudo-metaphysical stuff, and it is not helpful at all.
The problem with translations is that all the "magic" will be gone, and this will challenge current understandings deeply.
I have the privilege of being able to access what the Greek-speaking fathers said, because of the continuity in language between them and me. It is very important that the fathers get easy to access translations in everyday language.
Migne's attempt was superb, and I applaud his efforts. Yet, it is necessary for our times that something like Migne's effort gets done in everyday English, instead of Latin.
I will make a separate post to illustrate what I mean, but I warn you, it will not be an easy read.
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew, you seem to think that Western Christians should repudiate the dogmatic theology developed by the scholastics and by the magisterium of the Holy See. It ain't gonna happen - not for me who am a Roman Catholic in terms of my dogmatic theology, nor for other Christians who are committed to the faith as it has been taught in the West. We, in fact, don't repudiate the theology of the Orthodox Church, but seek synthesis of Western and Eastern theologies. We think it's possible to reach a mutual understandig of what can acceptably be meant by the filioque (though I'd be happy to get rid of it as a creedal proposition)and the doctrine of original sin. We see a lot of this in terms of shades of meaning, whilst you anyway seemingly tend to see our ideas as diametrically opposed to one another. In any event, while some in the West will make the journey to the Orthodox Church, most of us will stay committed to the Roman Catholic Church or to the ecclesial communities that stem directly from the papal jurisdiction.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
On second thoughts, I will not give that example, because it would be a difficult read, and I don't want to give the impression that I want to score points with LM. I understand, I think, where she is coming from, and although I disagree with her passive-aggressive style, I don't want to score points with her.
So, I won't provide with direct quotes from the fathers, although, if anyone is interested, we could discuss that as well...
I will give an example however, on a more general point, about words and terms...
St. John lived in the eighth century. Personally, I'd point you to earlier fathers, because it was them who took part in the first and the second ecumenical councils, but since St. John Damascene was already mentioned... He was learnt in all things, because of the continuity in Orthodox education...
Anyway, he says that the pagan philosophers said there is a difference between physis and ousia, but the holy fathers didn't agree, and they thought physis is the same with ousia.
Not only that, but he says very clearly that to say "all horses are of the same nature", is the same with saying "all horses are of the same essence". In fact, he uses that term, "omoousios" which was used in the Creed for the Son being of the same essence with the Father...
He goes on to explain that all angels are of the same essence, and that what is common is what we call essence, or nature etc etc...
In fact, he goes even to call three "existences" the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three "yparxeis". And he says hypostasis and atom and person are the same... Greek word for atom today is translated in English as individual.
So, the sketch of the theology St. John (and the fathers in general) give is rather different than the theology you think the ecumenical councils actually taught.
My point is this:
How can we get to know what the councils actually taught? By studying what those who took part in them wrote. We shouldn't assume they taught what we think they taught, because of the little degree to which they have been studied.
I understand this poses many questions... "But, aren't we Christians? What does this mean for our Christianity and the faith we have been brought up with?"
All these questions are important and painful and difficult to answer. But that's the point of dialog. We have an opportunity here. Let's not miss it.
-------------------- 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 Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: Andrew, you seem to think that Western Christians should repudiate the dogmatic theology developed by the scholastics and by the magisterium of the Holy See. It ain't gonna happen
I think that what's important is that we all get acquainted with what those ecumenical councils taught. Then we see what happens. If the ancients disagree with the scholastics and the "magisterium of the Holy See", then this brings forth interesting questions and dilemmas.
Some will say that the fathers were primitive, and that scholasticism is superb. I don't doubt that. In fact, the ancient fathers have been ignored for a very long time.
Others will think "hey, what's going on? I thought we really accepted the Creed of the second ecumenical council... Or Chalcedon... I want to be with that theology, and not with a theology that says different things than that..."
There are many options... But the important thing is first to get to know the foundations of Christianity...
As far as I can tell, these issues have been resolved during the hesychast controversies, when that kind of Christianity has been deemed incompatible with... Christianity. But before we go to the 14th century, let's start with the Creed...
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
 Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Andrew pontificates: quote: I don't want to give the impression that I want to score points with LM. I understand, I think, where she is coming from, and although I disagree with her passive-aggressive style, I don't want to score points with her.
No worries.
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote: Andrew, earlier on this thread... I'm not going to bring forth the documents of those who actually participated in the ecumenical councils to show what they meant. It's very clear for whoever reads them. This is not Florence, and I'm not going to try and convince you about anything.
I'm interested in what you have to say about yourself, and I was under the impression that this was reciprocal, that you were also interested in what I believe, because you found some worth engaging with each other.
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.
All these questions are important and painful and difficult to answer. But that's the point of dialog. We have an opportunity here. Let's not miss it.
I don’t think you have the slightest interest in ‘dialog’, Andrew. Or if you do, you seem incapable of carrying on anything like a dialogue – for example, trying to understand why someone else might have a different point of view for some reason other than that they are stupid, spiritually blind or uneducated. And you haven’t established, other than by assertion, that there is ‘a difference between how the Scriptures and the Creed address God, and how many address God today’. As so often you have made a statement, pretty much ignored what others have had to say, and declared yourself victorious.
But hope springs eternal, so here is another question for you and for others.
I was struck by something at the end of Mass this morning. The priest blessed us, saying ‘Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus’. In English: ‘May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’
Especially in the English translation, this seems to be referring to the one God, but not identifying him as the Father.
Am I misreading the liturgy here? Or is this simply more 'evidence' that Catholicism is unitarian?
-------------------- Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
 Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Actually Andrew, we have established that Christians today of all stripes have a genuine orthodox and conventional understanding of the Trinity, while you have a unconventional and heterodox understanding of both the Trinity and the Fathers.
-------------------- 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
quote: Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur: As to the substance of how to read the Creed, I would welcome evidence (not simply another assertion that yours is the only correct reading) that your parsing of the creed is in fact what the original authors intended.
First of all, my intention is not to convince you that my view is accurate. I want you to understand what I am saying and where I'm coming from, and I to understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, while agreeing to disagree and respecting each other's integrity.
However, we have reached a point, when this is no longer possible... The portrait of mine that I'm having a view of my own creation, while the rest of Christianity doesn't agree with me is deeply problematic... because it doesn't allow dialog to continue.
So, how can we resolve this?
What would it take for you to begin taking me seriously?
I started with Paul's saying, about there being one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, because this is the basis for all creeds that were composed later.
I could show by appealing to the early fathers, before the first ecumenical councils, how this structure was followed. And I can appeal to the fathers of the ecumenical councils to show what they meant with the creed they put forth.
Is this what you have in mind? Would that make you better disposed towards me?
Really, how do you want this to work? What do you want me to do? And how on earth will this be easy, if I have access to the ancient Greek texts, which, of course, you could find easily online, but there is no easy way of accessing English translations for the texts?
Tell me how you want me to proceed. I'm open to suggestions.
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Allow me to try Andrew.
There is nothing wrong of course with the opening phrases of the Nicene Creed in relation to the Father (God) and Jesus Christ (Lord) BUT it does go on to say (of Christ) ... Light from Light, true God from true God. So in your emphasising of the distinction between God (the Father) and Christ (the Lord) you APPEAR to be doing something Arian ... ironic considering that the later phrasing additions were to combat Arius. (I was hinting at this in that earlier post when I referred to your explanation as "odd" ... you only picked me up on that later).
When St. Paul used "Lord" of Christ he was being a LITTLE restrained in the same way that St. Basil was being a LITTLE restrained in "On the Holy Spirit" when defending His homoousios against the Pneumatomachians (deniers of the Spirit's divinity for those who don't know).
The reticence of St. Paul and St. Basil has to do with the problematic of the novel terminology ... not the thing in itself, ie., the consubstantial divinity of the Son and the Spirit respectively.
Interestingly of course nobody "finished off" the Creed in a parallel fashion as to the Spirit ... the primitive unadorned reference there remained in the Creed (apart from "Lord" and "Giver of Life").
Anyway, it's your abrupt termination of both the creed and subsequent patristic reflection which strikes me (and others) as odd. From what you write eleswhere I am sure that you are not a semi-Arian BUT it does come over that way when you seem reluctant to extend the word "God" unequivocally to the Son in the same way as it used of the Father.
If you are worried about losing the monarchy of the Father here, don't. The monarchy has nothing to do with the hierarchy of essence (or else we definitely would be in Arian territory and St. Paul would be a subordinationist as well in this regard). Rather it has to do with the ordering, the ranking of function whereby the Son finds His timeless generation from the Father and as to the Spirit .... His timeless spiration from the Father.
The Father is the only hypostasis who is not generated or spirated ... hence the (awkward in English) reference in our worship to the "Unoriginate Father." THAT'S His monarchy. [ 23. November 2008, 16:49: 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 don't disagree with what you are saying... although I would differ with you on one thing: Paul's calling Christ Lord is huge... because this is something that clearly denotes divinity, so I don't think he was restrained at all... The same with the Holy Spirit... "Kai eis to Pneuma to Agion, to Kyrion...." This little word, "Lord", is huge, in the context of the Scriptures of course!
So, no, I'm not concerned about the monarchy, and, of course, I'm not semi-arian or whatever...
The problem is different. Please, follow me here:
There is this beautiful dialog, in Migne's Patrology under Athanasius the Great, on the trinity.
The dialog is held between "an Orthodox, and an Anomoean Arianist", or so the title says.
At one point, their discussion goes like this:
quote: Orthodox: Hypostasis means to be, and divinity means "what to be".
Anomoean: Gimme an example.
Orthodox: Like Peter, and Paul, and Timothy, they are three hypostasis, but one humanity.
Anomoean: So, you are talking about three gods!
Orthodox: According to the Divine Scriptures, they are not three either! "Because in Jesus Christ, there is neither male nor female, neither Greek nor Jew, neither free man nor slave, but we in Christ are all one"
Anomoean: Come on! Aren't they three, Paul and Peter and Timothy?
Orthodox: Yea, they are three, but not three humans!
Anomoean: How come?
Orthodox: There are three humans if they have their heart anomoean (if they are not of the same heart; a wordplay with his opponent's view that the Father and the Son are anomoean, or "not similar"). For example, a Greek, a Jew, and a Christian. They are three humans.
But when they are of the same heart, and there is no schism among them, they might be three hypostasis, but they are one man in the Lord, having one soul and one heart. And they are three in number, but not because they are of a different nature, or heart.
Anomoean: I call those who are three three.
Orthodox: I call them three if they are in schism. If they become according to the Divine Scriptures educated with the same mind, and the same opinion, I call them one new man.
Anomoean: This is spoken so for humans. For God things are different.
Orthodox: If for those who are divided bodily , when there is no schism between them, the Scriptures call them one man and one, this applies even more to those who have no body, and are immaterial!
Either say they are in schism, so that we can say there are three gods, the one willing this the other that, or there is no schism, and one God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as one man those that have their foundations in Christ, as it is written.
This is the problem. Many asked in this thread, but if they are really three, why not say they are three gods? Well, that's the answer, but it's not what some people expect!
What in English is called "individual" (without the modern notions of selfish individualism of course!) is what the ancients called hypostasis. But this is very hard to accept, because this magical pseudo-metaphysical idea of an "essence"-God that's somehow both Father, Son and Holy Spirit is so deeply ingrained...
The above dialog would never take place with the non-Orthodox I came to know from these boards. They would go like "it's a mysterious paradox, one in three and one and three at the same time. It's a matter of faith, and we can't go much beyond this", and all that!
REMEMBER, I'm NOT accused of semi-arianism, BUT of tritheism!
And what's at stake here is the beautiful trinitarian theology, but also the salvation of man, as described by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to John... "may they be one, just like we are one".
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
 Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Hang on its you who started throwing the accusations around Andrew. If you are going to accuse Western Christianity of Unitarianism you must expect us to accuse you of tri-theism. In other words you built that accusation into the OP.
Jengie
-------------------- "To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Jengie
Saying that the theology of the Orthodox fathers is different (or might be different) to the theology of many Western non-Orthodox is not me challenging your integrity.
It's because we end up with people challenging my integrity that we are at an impasse, and I welcome all suggestions on how we can resolve that issue.
I don't doubt that you are expressing the faith of a wider community, that there is much you have received which you confess, and so on. On the other hand, I'm being portrayed as making up my own trinitarian theology, and even misleading people... This goes beyond theological differences, and it's an impediment to discussion.
So, how can we resolve this?
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
 Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
No but suggesting what is a conventional western formulation and saying it is Unitarian, is. I should remind you the Orthodox do not OWN the church fathers any before the Great Schism belong equally to the Eastern and Western Church.
Jengie
-------------------- "To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I get the trihypostatic thing Andrew but what about your apparent reluctance to use the word "God" of Jesus Christ, (I know about "Lord" and the implication).
-------------------- 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
No reluctance whatsoever, father Gregory... Light from light, true God from true God... Again, people don't say "ah, you are semi-arian"... people say "this is tritheism!".
Jengie, I'm not challenging your personal integrity... I'm most definitely challenging theologies expressed by various churches, but I'm not making an attack against your character.
I want a way out of this impasse, and your suggestions would be most welcome about how to proceed from here.
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Please be patient with me. A little way back you said that when people say "God," the Orthodox connect that to the Father. Actually you said "THE God" as if that made a difference. Please explain in relation to the use of this word (with or without "the") to the Son ... and for that matter to the Spirit.
-------------------- 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
OK, I'll do as you ask.
Starting from the theology of the Scriptures and the Creed... when we say God, in Greek, most of the time, we mean God the Father. "God, help me!" would be a prayer directed at the person of God the Father.
Of course, there is one God the Father... and He has a Son... And since the Son is God's Son, and not God's creature, He is God. There is no doubt about that. My child would be human...
So, it's true God from true God... or, as Apostle John puts it...
The Word was with God, and the Word was God... like saying my child was with me, and my child was human.
Everything God the Father is, God the Son is as well... incomprehensible, uncreated, infinite, immaterial, etc etc etc
So, it is very proper to say for example "let us worship Christ, our God". No semi-arianism there.
I think it's because God the Father is the cause for the Son and the Spirit that the Scriptures and the Creed calls Him God... and because the Son became man, we call our Lord Christ...
So, in ordinary language, in Greek, when praying to the Father we would use the word "God", and when praying to the Son we would use the word "Christ", or "Lord"... just like in the Scriptures...
Did I reply to the question you posed?
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur: I don’t think you have the slightest interest in ‘dialog’, Andrew. Or if you do, you seem incapable of carrying on anything like a dialogue – for example, trying to understand why someone else might have a different point of view for some reason other than that they are stupid, spiritually blind or uneducated. And you haven’t established, other than by assertion, that there is ‘a difference between how the Scriptures and the Creed address God, and how many address God today’. As so often you have made a statement, pretty much ignored what others have had to say, and declared yourself victorious.
But hope springs eternal, so here is another question for you and for others.
I was struck by something at the end of Mass this morning. The priest blessed us, saying ‘Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus’. In English: ‘May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’
Especially in the English translation, this seems to be referring to the one God, but not identifying him as the Father.
Am I misreading the liturgy here? Or is this simply more 'evidence' that Catholicism is unitarian?
Yes I'd say it was more evidence. As I said coming into this, I don't really know the arguments here, but what I've found in exploring it is this and so find myself agreeing with Andrew - not because he quotes the 'fathers' but because his is the doctrine I've grown up with and the base of Orthodox thinking about and relationship to God.
Exploring this further here I think the view you have as RCC/Protestant appears to be from taking the creed to be a definition of God, so you've ended up with One God who is the Father and Son and Holy Ghost as you say above, perhaps from "hear o Israel", but the creed doesn't say this, it says One God the Father, full stop, and it doesn't say this because the creed has nothing at all to do with defining God but everything to do with describing Christ's relationship to God. These are two different contexts.
If you think this defines One God, then I can see how you could end up dissecting each mention of substance, essence, nature as if these are somehow telling you something about this one God that you're supposed to believe. But, if you see it in context of the reason for its existence then its simply a clarification of Christology, and the use of these words simple descriptions of kind. This is what is important here - why and how we understand Christ to be for us as God and mankind. This is statement of our faith - not in One God, that's a given, but in Christ.
I'm surprised any Orthodox could argue that this is a description of One God, (since we never teach God can be described, let alone defined.. ), but for the Orthodox God is always personal, never an abstact concept or simple or "essence" or whatever the phrase of the theology or philosophy of the day.
In the Creed there is no reference to One God apart from One God the Father - because this is Christ's relationship we have as our faith. I suppose this is like some of the other doctrine changes I find between us, but however long you've had it that the Creed means this, we haven't, we agree with Andrew.
How else can Orthodox teaching on the incarnation make sense? Why we understand the Mother of God the way we do? OK let me expand on that, not as the RCC have her as different from us or as some have it any virgin will do for God to implant himself in a womb, but fully as we are - because for us the key to understanding Christ is as in the Creed, that from Her He got his full humanity, from the woman that she was as created creature like us. God the uncreated entered into creation fully.
What I see lacking in the understanding of that event from the One God definition thinkers is the cosmic view we have of God in the uncreated and created which precedes the explanation of our faith, seeming to have excluded Mary the Mother of God as having any significance in the Creed and as elaborated on in Chalcedon by not understanding Her importance in relation to Christ obtaining a fully human nature.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Myrhh, you start off well enough, but please don't make suppositions about Western belief as regards the Theotokos and her role in Christology. I don't understand how you can say that RC and protestant Christians don't appreciate that it was from the BVM that the human nature was taken fully into the Incarnate Word, being one Christ who is both fully divine and fully human. This is most certainly our faith! What are you trying to say?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Father Gregory
I would be really surprised if we didn't agree...
Now, let's get to there actually being three persons and how's that received by the non-Orthodox theologies. Because I know I'm not making things up.... what I am saying I got from the fathers and the worship of the Orthodox Church...
Myrrh
That's helpful, thanks!
LSK
In my view, the mistake is to either see Mary as a vessel for Christ to come, a tube that brought something of great importance, if you like, or see her as a very important person but because God made her that...
For the Orthodox Mary is very important because of her personal choices... She grew into justice and sanctity by her own free will... And God responded to that with the Incarnation. "And the King shall desire your beauty".
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Andrew
Following on your invitation ...
I think that the greatest weakness of subsequent western trinitarian theology is that it denied ANY hypostatic differentiations and personal ontologies beyond the eternal generation and spiration which allegedly THEMSELVES fully accounted for the hypostases. So, the Father and the Son become the Father-Son relation, the Father and the Spirit become the Father-Spirit relation and the Son and the Spirit become the Son-Spirit relation. Integrate these component relations and you have the hypostases as simply the modal relations of an abstracted a priori unity.
-------------------- 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
That's my evaluation as well....
A couple of years ago, I was very surprised to read Aquinas confusing between ways of existence and the persons themselves... I thought, this can't be... This can have huge consequences for those following that theology...
In my view, in very practical terms, this means that today we have people accepting nominally all the ancient formulas, like calling the three divine persons persons... BECAUSE they can't deny the ancient words (since that would mean to overthrow the entire church teachings on the matter)... BUT in practice the power of the words, the meaning of the words, is denied, changed to something else, less offending to our sensitivities about what's orthodox and what isn't...
In other words, you won't find anyone denying formally that there are three divine persons, but a lot of people's worship (coming from a non-Orthodox context, or not being properly catechized about these things) actually leads to that effect... despite formal assurances for the opposite.
Would you agree with this evaluation? [ 24. November 2008, 07:06: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Absolutely. That was my experience in Anglicanism. Of course all the usual formulae were there ... "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit ...." but when you moved away from chapel and got down to what people really thought of the Trinity and christology it was usually (and quite generally, not exceptionally) a mish mash of neo-Nestorianism, modalism, unitarianism etc. These folks continued to worship (for the most part) in traditional ways but their personal beliefs seemed to bear hardly any relation to that. What made this possible I think was the basic assumption that "God" or "Lord" should generally be used in prayers as touching upon God" (tautologous really) but praying to the Son and Spirit as God seemed to be "taking things a bit too far."
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew, Western theology absolutely emphasises the crucial importance of Mary's free choice to respond to God's call, such that by her free will she became the Mother of God. Now, the dogma of the IC may muddle this free choice for you, I don't know. I don't want to get into the IC at this point, but the thing to be emphasised is that Mary's active role in the Incarnation is absolutely crucial for theologically orthodox Western Christians.
Fr Gregory, you are relating the same badly catechesised laity who have modalist, quasi-unitarian ideas that we talked about earlier, even though these laity attend churches in which the traditional trinitarian worship takes place. Spending my time in advanced A-C places with a lot of theologically minded pedants, I don't suppose I run onto that much personally amongst my own co-religionists. That's only significant in that it means that Western Christians don't have to have heterodox ideas about God and Christology within their own traditions.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Andrew and Father Gregory, I think the problem is that the monotheism of a three divine persons doctrine is not a thing that is readily grasped. Coming to even a faint appreciation of it is difficult though the attempt is more than worthwhile - even if like me you find you can only take a few baby steps in the right direction.
Even after you get started, it is not clear (well, it's not to me) what's going on when you try to pray to the Father or to the Son or to the Holy Spirit as God. How does the Divine Unity operate in such circumstances? Yet we can't pray to a nature. Prayer is relational and requires personhood. Different people might take different approaches. One person might say that praying to the Father following the example of and trusting in the mediation of the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit is the normal way of Trinitarian prayer. Another might address all prayers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Another might pray to Jesus alone as the mediator between God and humans. Another might pray to God meaning the Persons of the Trinity collectively. And so on... I don't think any of these could be condemned as heretical.
I don't often pray to the Holy Spirit exclusively. This is because I understand the Holy Spirit to be hidden in a way the Father and the Son are not, and if that's heretical you can blame Lossky and not Anglican teaching. Primarily then I pray to the Father or to the Son as seems appropriate but there are times when I try to leave the choice of addressee up to the Persons of the Trinity itself.
If Orthodoxy has an answer to the question "Why, in any given circumstances, should I pray to one specific Person and not the other Two" I'd be interested to hear it. It's a lack of answers to this question that results in the problems you've observed. Or perhaps it's that the most compelling answers Anglicans encounter are the example of Christ in praying to the Father and the "to the Father with the Son in the Spirit" way of speaking and so prayer to the Father seems more natural. Poor catechism, true reflection of the doctrine of the Father as Source or the result of holy mystery? I don't know.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
LSK
I didn't speak about her "yes" to the Archangel. I spoke about what led to God sending the Archangel in the first place... She was asked to become the Mother of God because of who she was, because of the course her entire life had taken, because of all the choices she made, starting from her retaining our baby innocence, to growing in reverence of God, sanctity, justice, love, humility... and all the virtues...
It's because of the choices she had been taking that God "desired her beauty"... But anyway. Let's get back to the Trinity.
By the way, it's not just ordinary lay-persons we are talking about here. Perhaps you didn't notice, but the name of Thomas Aquinas has been mentioned... It's about non-Orthodox Western theology... as opposed to it simply being a matter of discipline to that theology...
By all means, let's discuss why you think I'm being tritheistic (if that's what you think) and what this means about our respective traditions...
I think it's important that we resolved that theological issue... there are more issues to be resolved... for example what the Incarnation means and who Christ is... I suspect there is a whole bag of disagreements concerning Christ's wills... But that discussion can only take place much later...
Let's establish first some mutual trust... and then let's discuss about how our churches view trinitarian theology...
ETA: I'm expecting comments from the others who participated in this thread, of course.... Cross-posted with GreyFace... [ 24. November 2008, 11:09: 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
Couple more thoughts -- what we don't want to offend against is the monotheistic principle and true monotheism. The doctrine and mystery of the Trinity walks a very fine line between the heresies of unitarianism on the one hand and polytheism on the other.
Regarding Mary's free choice as this is understood in the West, in recent history this is underscored by a movement that sees the Theotokos as "Co-Redemptorix", something that might be an innovation to the faith of the Church if it were ever formally dogmatised, but which in sentiment very much emphasises Mary's free and active role - the free and active role of her humanity - in the Incarnation. I also don't think that talk of Mary being God's chosen vessel negates this, as the omniscient God knows from eternity how Mary will respond to this unique calling. The IC would seem to throw this out of balance, however. It emphasises predestination over free will, arguably. IMO, the Western appreciation of Mary's free will and the dogma of the IC haven't been adequately reconciled, or if they have, I'm unaware of the arguments. The IC historically, however, was supposed to have been a Christological doctrine rather than primarily a Marian one.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by GreyFace: Even after you get started, it is not clear (well, it's not to me) what's going on when you try to pray to the Father or to the Son or to the Holy Spirit as God. How does the Divine Unity operate in such circumstances?
First of all, what divine unity???
Secondly, let's say you were alive during Jesus' times and you came to meet the Master. And you wanted to ask Him to do something. Wouldn't you ask Him in a direct and personal way? Would you pose all those questions about that "Divine Unity"?
If you would, then what prevents you from doing that now? He is present mystically.
quote: I don't often pray to the Holy Spirit exclusively. This is because I understand the Holy Spirit to be hidden in a way the Father and the Son are not, and if that's heretical you can blame Lossky and not Anglican teaching.
Don't trust academic theologians
Seriously now, in the Orthodox worship, one of the most beautiful prayers is directed at the Holy Spirit: "Heavenly King, Comforter, the Spirit of Truth..."
quote: Primarily then I pray to the Father or to the Son as seems appropriate but there are times when I try to leave the choice of addressee up to the Persons of the Trinity itself.
If Orthodoxy has an answer to the question "Why, in any given circumstances, should I pray to one specific Person and not the other Two" I'd be interested to hear it.
First of all, don't you see that it's a bit strange to pray "to whoever might be hearing"? Prayer is not supposed to be about me speaking in the air, in case someone hears. It can be that, but it can also be the place where the meeting between God and man takes place... So, for the meeting to take place, we can't have the unclarity of "I'll leave it to them" get in the way of direct communion with God!
quote: Or perhaps it's that the most compelling answers Anglicans encounter are the example of Christ in praying to the Father and the "to the Father with the Son in the Spirit" way of speaking and so prayer to the Father seems more natural. Poor catechism, true reflection of the doctrine of the Father as Source or the result of holy mystery? I don't know.
This is NOT what I objected to. By all means, pray to God through Christ in the Holy Spirit! My objection had to do with praying to this He, that is somehow both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... There is no other "He" than the three "He", the "He" of the Father, the "He" of the Son, the "He" of the Holy Spirit. They are three persons and there isn't an ultra-personal "He" that encompasses them all, or somehow is three-in-one...
I'll leave it to Father Gregory to give a better reply to your questions, GreyFace... I know this post might be a bit boring... but I thought I'd give it a try.
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Greyface (cross posted with Andrew)
This is helpful * - Andrew has addressed some of my concerns also - (even if it does not yet address the collapse of the hypostases into "their" relations. I put their in inverted commas because if this were true (sic) the hypostases would not have any personal ontologies, merely relations! How can you relate to something that doesn't actually exist once you have said that the existence IS the relation?!
Concerning the Spirit and Lossky. The humility of the Spirit is that his work is to transform us into little-Christs. This does not involve any rarity of invocation. Each every act of Orthodox worship begins with His invocation ...
"O Heavenly King the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth; you are everywhere present and fill all things, Treasury of blessings and Giver of Life. Come and dwell in us and cleanse us from every stain and save our souls O Good One." [ 24. November 2008, 11:32: 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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by §Andrew: First of all, what divine unity???
The unity they have as a result of the divine nature. Don't read too much into the U word. I'm not confounding the persons, I'm just using English.
quote: Secondly, let's say you were alive during Jesus' times and you came to meet the Master. And you wanted to ask Him to do something. Wouldn't you ask Him in a direct and personal way? Would you pose all those questions about that "Divine Unity"? If you would, then what prevents you from doing that now? He is present mystically.
I agree but that doesn't answer the question of when it's appropriate to ask Jesus, when to ask the Father and when to ask the Spirit, does it?
quote: First of all, don't you see that it's a bit strange to pray "to whoever might be hearing"?
Yes but that's not quite what I meant.
Put yourself in the shoes of a patient who goes to see a team of three doctors. He describes his symptoms and asks for help, and communicates with whomever chooses to speak to him. Is that an invalid or rude form of communication? And I consider the union (again, please be charitable, this is not theologically precise language) of Divine Persons to be of a different order to that of three random doctors.
quote: Prayer is not supposed to be about me speaking in the air, in case someone hears. It can be that, but it can also be the place where the meeting between God and man takes place... So, for the meeting to take place, we can't have the unclarity of "I'll leave it to them" get in the way of direct communion with God!
When you speak of God here, which Person do you mean? That's the question to which I'm referring. So it seems legitimate to address the Holy Trinity collectively open to the possibility that each of the Divine Persons may do as he pleases in response. See what I mean?
quote: This is NOT what I objected to. By all means, pray to God through Christ in the Holy Spirit! My objection had to do with praying to this He, that is somehow both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...
Ah, in that case I quite agree. I have encountered people who confuse the Holy Trinity with a Divine Person, just as I've encountered people who refer to the Holy Spirit as "it." It's not orthodox Anglicanism though in the slightest. And when one encounters it in a sermon, at least it's a good indicator that one's time might be better spent mentally rehearsing the next hymn than listening to the rest of it
quote: I thought I'd give it a try.
Much appreciated.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
GF
I think it's important to stress that addressing one person doesn't mean the other two aren't present mystically and that communion doesn't take place between man and them... "We will come to dwell in those that keep my commandments"...
When I approach God, I do so only because Christ taught me and revealed God to me, and only because the Holy Spirit enlightens me to do so...
When I approach Christ, I do it because He is God's Messiah, coming to the world to save us, and I recognize Him as the Messiah and the Lord because of the Holy Spirit...
When I approach the Holy Spirit, I do that only because Christ sent Him to me, so that we can worship the Father "in Spirit and in Truth"...
When you approach One, you are not separated from the other Two...
That said...
I have one question:
What do you mean by there being three divine persons and how's that monotheism and not tritheism for you? [ 24. November 2008, 12:11: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
I wonder if one way to progress this discussion might be to compare passages from the principal liturgies of both ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ churches to see how they speak of the Trinity.
For a ‘western’ source I would suggest the Roman Missal simply because it has been through a fairly rigorous theological vetting by various groups in the Vatican. The Anglican liturgies seem more diverse – for example, I have heard the following at the beginning of an Anglican eucharist: quote: Priest: Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. People: And blessed be his kingdom, now and forever
which some interpret as modalist. I am guessing that the compilers of this Anglican liturgy were drawing from the opening words of the Divine Liturgy: quote: Eυλογημένη η Βασιλεία του Πατρός και του Υιού και του Αγίου Πνεύματος, νυν και αεί και εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων.
usually translated quote: Blessed is the kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and for ever and from all ages to all ages.
which is very different.
To turn to the Roman Missal, what about this prayer: quote: Súscipe, sancta Trínitas, hanc oblatiónem, quam tibi offérimus ob memóriam passiónis, resurrectiónis, et ascensiónis Iesu Christi, Dómini nostri, et in honórem beátæ Maríæ semper Vírginis, et beáti Ioánnis Baptístæ, et sanctórum Apostolórum Petri et Páuli, et istórum, et ómnium sanctórum: ut illis profíciat ad honórem, nobis autem ad salútem: et illi pro nobis intercédere dignéntur in cælis, quorum memóriam ágimus in terris. Per eúndem Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.
In English: quote: Accept, holy Trinity, this offering which we make to you in remembrance of the passion, resurrection and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of blessed Mary ever Virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of those whose relics rest here, and of all the Saints. To them may it bring honour, and to us salvation; and may they, whose memory we keep on earth, be pleased to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
How does addressing the Trinity in this way come across to Orthodox ears? A Catholic commentator on the above prayer says: "This beautiful prayer ... reminds us firstly that all our worship is offered to the One God, who is a Trinity of Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit." [ 24. November 2008, 12:24: Message edited by: cor ad cor loquitur ]
-------------------- Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: Myrhh, you start off well enough, but please don't make suppositions about Western belief as regards the Theotokos and her role in Christology. I don't understand how you can say that RC and protestant Christians don't appreciate that it was from the BVM that the human nature was taken fully into the Incarnate Word, being one Christ who is both fully divine and fully human. This is most certainly our faith! What are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that extra doctrine about Mary alters perception of the Creed, as the OneGod definition does.
The RCC have Mary as a special creation different from us because without Original Sin, other Protestants have her only as a virginal vessel for a convenient entry of God into the world and so on, (the divine person entering), and these things change the perception of what we see the Creed attesting and so complicating it beyond its brief.
These elaborations of doctrine imposed on the Creed detract from the simple profundity of its statement about Mary, which is cosmic. The uncreated God entered created humanity (and so all creation, inextricably bound Himself into creation) incarnate of Her human body and person, from the whole of it which was just as we are - so that's why she's so special for us. Why we say she's the bridge between God the uncreated and mankind the created, Herself the ladder by which God descended into creation. In some Unburnt Bush icons shown holding the ladder (which Jacob saw).
It's this tendency to impose other doctrine which creates the confusion, I've seen arguments about the use of 'by' and 'of' in the Creed which are even more complicated than the arguments here about whether essence and nature are the same or different.
We need to keep this simple or we miss the profound message of our faith, to put aside for a moment any doctrines we may have about Mary in the reasons for Christ's incarnation such as saving us from OS damnation or to be the perfect blood sacrifice for our sins and take it back to the beginning, that we're the "created" in the image and likeness of God the "uncreated" and take our understanding of Mary in the Creed from there; of Her in the nature of mankind already created the bridge between the uncreated God and the rest of creation.
Is all the Creed is saying about Her.
Myrrh
(Theotokos the Unburnt Bush Icon)
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Cor ad Cor Loquitur
Comparing liturgical doxologies and the like is an excellent way forward.
I do think that the Anglican formula is modalist or at least it can be more easily read that way.
As to the missal ...
I am racking my brains to try and remember if I have ever come across the word "Trinity" in any service of the Orthodox Church. I don't think I have. Invariably we invoke or praise in full, that is "THE Father, THE Son and THE Holy Spirit." Mashing it together as Trinity (which after all is only a convenient shorthand) carries within it the danger of not being clear how one is praying. It's not a HUGE issue for me (in the particular sense here of finding the Roman form defective) but I DEFINITELY prefer in worship to stick to the accuracy of the ancient forms ...
(1) The ordered precedence of prayer to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. AND / OR (2) Prayer to each hypostases separately or together, (separately assumes together anyway).
But "Trinity"? No I don't think so. It's not really very trinitarian! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) [ 24. November 2008, 13:18: 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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I've never understood the opening trinitarian invocation for the Eucharistic orders in the American 1979 BCP as modalist! Blessed be the Three Persons of The Triity in One God. That's what it's saying -- inferring modalism is just perverse! [ 24. November 2008, 13:27: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
But Lietuvos ... that is different from what Cor ad Cor Loquitur quoted.
I have remembered one reference to "Trinity" ... in Justinian's hymn in the Liturgy ... referring to the Logos as "one of the Holy Trinity" but that is a simple descriptive statement not an invocation.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Right, I'm telling you my understanding of "Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And blessed be His kingdom, now and forever." If there's modalism there, it's inferred and quite apart from what a properly catechesised American Anglican should think when she/he hears and says this versicle and response at the opening of a Eucharist. One God, Three Divine Persons. The Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity. One substance, three persons.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear cor ad cor loquitur
I'm not going to disagree over words. Please, explain what you mean by those words, and I will give you my view on that.
As for calling upon the Trinity I wouldn't have a particular problem per se, but it would be the three divine persons together I would bring in mind, or, like father Gregory put it:
quote: Originally posted by Father Gregory: Mashing it together as Trinity (which after all is only a convenient shorthand)
So, I can accept it as a convenient shorthand... What do you mean by that word? Because viewing that Trinity as a personal "He" is problematic and not Orthodox!
LSK
But what do you mean by "one substance three persons" if you don't use the word substance as in the phrase "one substance, 6+ billion persons" (with regards to humanity).
Same question I asked GreyFace:
What do you mean by there being three divine persons and how's that monotheism and not tritheism for you?
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Thank you for the clarification Lietuvos. I only said that it COULD be read in a modalist fashion as constructed but I am pleased to hear that with properly catechised persons it is not.
There is one more reference liturgically in Orthodoxy to "Trinity" and I am grateful to Mary for pointing this out. It goes before the Creed ... note again though that it is declaratory and not a direct response to God in prayer.
quote: "Let us love one another, that with one accord we may confess: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in Essence and undivided."
[ 24. November 2008, 14:29: 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
And what's even more interesting is the lack of a definite article in the original ancient Greek text... So it's more like "a trinity", rather than "the Trinity"...
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Really Andrew? Now that is interesting!
The relative avoidance of the word "Trinity" in our liturgical texts could be because we insist on God as encountered ... explicitly by each hypostasis in his own right and as a communion of persons according to the measured and received biblical formulae. One of St. Basil's arguments for the divinity of the Spirit of course was derived from the hallowed liturgical doxology. It's how we encounter God not how we "put him together."
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
Andrew, we are condemned to using words in a debate like this. And it is perfectly fine to disagree.
Fr Gregory, I have come across a few more references to the Trinity. I am on shakier ground here, because my Greek was Attic, never as strong as my Latin, and what little I have left is very rusty. But it sure looks as though there are some definite articles here.
Of course “Τριάς” means “three”, and perhaps the sense Andrew alludes to comes through if you substitute “three” for “Trinity” in what follows – the Holy Three.
quote: Η Αγία Τριάς διαφυλάξει τον λαόν Αυτής εν ειρήνη, πάντοτε, νυν και αεί, και εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων.
May the Holy Trinity preserve the people in peace always, now and for ever and from all ages to all ages.
Οι τα Χερουβείμ μυστικώς εικονίζοντες, και τη ζωοποιώ Τριάδι τον τρισάγιον ύμνον προσάδοντες, πάσαν νυν βιοτικήν αποθώμεθα μέριμναν.
Let us who mystically represent the Cherubim and chant the thrice-holy [Trisagion] hymn to the life-giving Trinity, now lay aside all earthly care.
Είδομεν το φως το αληθινόν, ελάβομεν Πνεύμα επουράνιον, εύρομεν πίστιν αληθή, αδιαίρετον Τριάδα προσκυνούντες, αύτη γαρ ημάς έσωσεν.
We have seen the true Light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith. We worship the undivided Trinity: for the same has saved us.
I have put that last phrase in boldface because the Trinity appears to be the subject of a verb – or is it a participle? And what is the number (singular or plural) of έσωσεν? Like the old grey goose, my grammar ain’t what it used to be…
-------------------- Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I have spoken about it earlier... The Trinity (like the Parliament) in Greek is of the feminine gender, a she. If I say "the Parliament votes for this law", I will be using the feminine gender, in the singular, like I will do if I say "the Trinity saved us".
Which is why the Greek text you provided us with reads: "because she saved us". We don't refer to an ultra-personal female figure!
Thank God that in Greek the trinity is a she, because if it was a he, then you wouldn't even believe me if I said that we didn't use that in a personal way, but only as a shorthand!
"The Parliament voted" does not mean that there exists an entity other than the collection of the entities that are the members of the Parliament... It's not another "He" than the "He" of the members of the parliament!
-------------------- Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Thanks for this cor ad cor loquitur. I guess I was looking for direct invocations and doxologies and overlooked the rest. You are quite right. It is not as if it is a "smelly" word for us ... quite the opposite! I think it's just that we tend not to use it as a composite word in prayer. [ 24. November 2008, 16:40: 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
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
 Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by §Andrew: And what's even more interesting is the lack of a definite article in the original ancient Greek text... So it's more like "a trinity", rather than "the Trinity"...
Latin doesn't have articles at all, so that's really a non-sequitur. If you asked St. Peter's pastorate in Rome to make that distinction, they couldn't, because it would be beyond the capabilities of the their language to do so.
-------------------- NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
 Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No, but for a language that did have articles would the omission be significant ... here particularly being the case. A bit conjectural I know but my Greek isn't good enough to know.
-------------------- 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
Three points [ETA] & one question:
First of all, when we are discussing ancient texts, we should understand what they are really saying, even if this means that we have to understand how the language in which the text was written works... with all the nuances... The absence of the article in that verse matters, as does the absence of the article in John's prologue (and the Word was God).
Second, it's not about words... but about the meanings of the words. We can use the same words and mean different things... Agreement or disagreement does not depend on the words we use, but on the meanings we give to the words.
Third, it is quite possible to have the Orthodox faith in Latin, or in English. Father Gregory is an example of that... You can read John's prologue, for example, and understand it in an Orthodox way, if you are a bearer of Orthodox theology... You don't have to know the nuances of the ancient Greek language to be Orthodox. The Latin speaking fathers like Ambrose or Hillary are quite revealing... Just look at the way Hillary spoke of the Trinity. Impressive. 100% Orthodox. Not only I don't find Hillary problematic, but I find him very refreshing, like all authentic Saints.
[ETA] Question: What do you mean when you say there are three divine persons, and why this isn't tritheism to you?
Father Gregory, by the way, you are quite right about the observation. The absence of article in that particular verse just demonstrated the point you made on the term being declaratory in intent. [ 24. November 2008, 16:51: 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
I blame the media:
Hillary spoke of the Trinity.
Would that she had!
I know, you were referring to St. Hilary of Poitiers, but I couldn't help saying this.
You've been very kind to the posters in here, lately, Andrew, and your post where you compared your views to Fr. Gregory's had extraordinary clarity, so much so that I can say I agree with it.
It's all in the terms we use.
I do worry just a bit still about this constant referral to the Greek. You've asked us to use "simple words" in our own language, but our own language, not to mention our education, seem to be inadequate just about every time we try.
Is there any point in trying to be Orthodox if one doesn't know Greek thoroughly? [ 24. November 2008, 17:13: 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
|
|
|