quote:

---

Girl Disappointed in Love

With mercury we measure pain
as we measure the heat of bodies and air;
but this is not how to discover our limits--
you think you are the center of things.
If you could only grasp that you are not:
the center is He,
and He, too, finds no love---
why don't you see?
The human heart--what is it for?
Cosmic temperature. Heart. Mercury.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
References to the Divine don't necessary have to specify any of the Persons of the Trinity in particular.

---

This is true. And in fact many religions do that, without discerning between the persons. With Christianity, however, a greater clarity came, as far as "the Divine" is concerned, because of God's self-revelation at a small part of the Eastern Mediterranean...

While I appreciate the poetry, and all references to the divine no matter where they come from, I can't but see a man approaching the divine in unitarian terms.

If it is God, then He is not alone. The Son and the Spirit are in communion with Him. The same applies for either the Son or the Spirit. And an ultra-personal Trinity-He is by definition unitarian.

I see that those already posted are in agreement with each other. I'd like to understand that better. All clarifications are most welcome!
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Look at the Song of Songs, it's all about seeking love both from the Bridegroom and the Bride. I don't see why God can't seek love from his creation. He just doesn't need it. And I don't see speaking of God as One on occasion makes a unitarian. It might be problematic if one doesn't see the Persons in God at all. This was not one of JPII's flaws.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
The Trinity as "He": in this He there be three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We don't refer to the Trinity as "They" typically, and for most of us that would probably imply tritheism rather than trinitarianism.

I really don't understand what the problem is here. Is it linguistic -- something different between Greek and other languages? Or is it finding some cause for worry when there really isn't any cause for worry?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
True. English does not refer to the Trinity as "They". I'd be surprised if John Paul II composed poetry in English. I think he'd go for Polish or Latin.

Please, let's not have another "Unitarianism" debate.

English refers to God, without further clarification, as He. If you wish to specify that you are referring to God the Father, then you would say that He referred to the Father in a passage's context. Similarly if this poem were meant to refer to Christ, then Christ would have to be mentioned explicitly.

If this is not the way that Greek addressed the Divinity, great. This poem raises no theological alarm bells in English, as expected from a Papal composition.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
This poem raises no theological alarm bells in English

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I really don't understand what the problem is here.

---

I rather think it is the Orthodox churches trying to persuade themselves that the other Christian churches really aren't Christian and never were.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Or perhaps a particular Orthodox churchman trying to convince himself that Western Catholics and protestants are all deeply heretical.
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
Possibly a poem is not the best place to look for an explicit theology, as poems can often be understood in various ways.

A series of addresses by Pope John Paul II on the Trinity can be found Pope John Paul on the Trinity which gives his thoughts more fully.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Geez, Andreas, God is both One and Three. If the poet only had addressed Christ, would you complain about him dissing the Father and the Holy Spirit? Or would you opine that Jesus was treated as a separate deity like the Mormons consider him?

It's one fricking poem. If you want theological depth either go to a four hour Orthodox liturgy, or read the Bible cover to cover and crack open several volumes of writings by the Church Fathers.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
This poem raises no theological alarm bells in English

---

Oh, but it does. Just not to you... It's not an issue of language, but of theology. Anyway, I don't think we can get further than that, so I'd like to thank you all for your contributions.

---

John Paul II is the last person I would ever suspect of heresy.

No, that poem is fine. The theology is fine.

And wut ken said.
 

---

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :
 
Indeed, one could even suspect you of being a wee bit tendentious, Squiggle Andrew
 

---

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :
 
Indeed, one could even suspect you of being a wee bit tendentious, Squiggle Andrew
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
No!
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Actually no, the theology is not fine. Speaking of the Trinity as one personal He is the definition of unitarianism.

I should have known better than ask a question about that here. Oh well.
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Actually no, the theology is not fine. Speaking of the Trinity as one personal He is the definition of unitarianism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
That would be Islam, or Bahai...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Actually no, the theology is not fine. Speaking of the Trinity as one personal He is the definition of unitarianism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
I don't mind the grammar... It's about more than grammar though, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

To pray to one person and call that the Trinity that's just not Christian.

---

quote:

---

As for the charge of "three Gods"... As far as I can tell, it has been used with two meanings in mind, in Christendom:

First, it was brought as a charge against the Orthodox, by those who thought Christ is the first creature, by those who thought the Holy Spirit is created, and by those who didn't accept the Son and the Father are different persons.

From what I gather, this is the way you are using it today. Which sounds very odd if we assume you fully accept at least Nicea...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I pray to one God. That God being the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I pray to one God. That God being the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

---

Why don't you accept the creed of the first and the second ecumenical council? Is that rejection of the creed widespread or is it just you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
In every Divine Liturgy, we proclaim: "The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit {excuse the use of the word "the" for each Person--English does not work well without it): The Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided." That's about as far as one can go in the English language, and if it's not clear, join the club. Of course it's not clear: it's a Mystery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Huh? I don't reject the Nicene Creed at all. Does it not begin with the words "I believe in one God", and then go on to describe the Trinity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
What do you think?

---

quote:

---

I see that those already posted are in agreement with each other. I’d like to understand that better. All clarifications are most welcome!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher’s Kid:
This poem raises no theological alarm bells in English

---

Oh, but it does. Just not to you... It’s not an issue of language, but of theology. Anyway, I don’t think we can get further than that, so I’d like to thank you all for your contributions.

---

quote:

---

I should have known better than ask a question about that here. Oh well.

---

quote:

---

You don't have to make an ad hominem attack. Anyway communication is most difficult, and I think perhaps I should just leave it there.

---

quote:

---

you [Leetle Masha] don’t have “only the basic Orthodox catechism”. You have decades of non-Orthodox Christianity, and from the discussions we had in the past, the impression I get is that you still bring that with you.

---

quote:

---

“I would really like to hear everyone’s views about Barack Obama’s transition plans. What do you think? Please share your insights. All perspectives welcome!”

“He seems to be assembling a strong team…”

“You just don’t get it, do you? I shouldn’t have expected you to understand. We should talk about something else.”

“But Rahm Emmanuel…”

“Of course you aren’t an American anyway, so what could you know? Why did I even start this discussion?”

---

quote:

---

What's the point of bothering with the opinions and insights of us heretics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Huh? I don't reject the Nicene Creed at all. Does it not begin with the words "I believe in one God", and then go on to describe the Trinity?

---

No, it begins with the words "I believe in one God the Father" and then goes on to say "And in one Lord Jesus Christ" and "And in the Spirit the [i.e. that is] Holy". It's a very different thing. Which is why I thought you rejected the creed...

---

quote:

---

Now you seem to accept its authority, but read it in a way different than what the original authors actually intended it to be read... Is that widespread?

---

quote:

---

Like Prince Charles, I am all ears.

---

And like my martyred namesake, the Queen of Scots, my head has been chopped off all too often--but you, dear Cor, keep somehow grafting my head back on!

Thank you, I hope.

Mary
Jengie, your pm box is full, but I'll play you a favourite tune to show my appreciation for your posts: All people that on earth do dwell
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Andreas, to many of us, your insistence that the Deity be referred to always and only in the guise of the Three persons smacks of disrespect of the One.

Actually, this might explain much in how Muslims feel about Christianity if in the East they are mostly talking to Christians with your emphasis. How could they not take away the belief that we are a bunch of polytheists?

This reminds of a comment made in a novel set in the fifth century that visits Constantinople in passing. It said that citizens of that great city will swear by either the Three or the One and they'll fight to the death over it.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Lyda*Rose, no man has ever seen God. In heaven, we shall see God face to face, and we shall behold God's glory, full of grace and truth. Until that time, we shall beat each other's brains out.

Mary
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
So it seems.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oh well.... The song in my heart will go on.

I dedicate this one to Triple Tiara, with whom we all might, some day, be able to sing with both lungs:


Sing it and preach it, Leonard Cohen!

Mary
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
I once heard about some guy who was telling people to baptize in the name (rather than "names") of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I suspect he was a unitarian too.
 

---

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
Well, FCB, since we've been told that Judaism is unitarian, and since the guy I think you are referring to was Jewish ... he was obviously unitarian.

Or something like that.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Cor ad cor loquitor

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.

Mary

Time and time again you compare me with non-Orthodox, and you give credit to their version of Christianity, saying quite clearly that you don't agree with mine. Frankly, I don't see any point of agreement between the two of us; there is no communion.

And it's not an issue of elaborate studies. One doesn't have to be versed in anything; ordinary people can express their faith clearly. You are doing that, and I am doing that. The fact remains that we disagree in trinitarian theology, in the most basic thing that is the creed. And my evaluation of that disagreement has to do with your background. Perhaps I'm mistaken. So what? It's only a discussion in an online forum. If I'm being silly, forgive my silliness and move forward.

Marvin

It's not about my view... Many times we hear in these boards "we all accept the Creed". Well, I don't think we do. The history of the creed is very clear, as is the theology that comes with it. It begins with things like Paul's "there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ". This is where the Creed comes from. That's the faith of the first Christians as evident in all the proto-Christianic documents we have available, and as elaborated by the fathers of the ecumenical councils that affirmed the creed.

I thought, in my naiveté, that this is a very important issue, and that it would actually be of service if I brought that up.

I don't know how to respond to the tensions and the attacks and the talking past each other (I'm not referring to you personally).

As for what my view is, just read the Creed carefully, knowing that the first line refers to God the Father. I don't have a different view to what the Creed actually says. Think about the Creed, and let's discuss it.

Lyda*Rose

Muslims and Jews were not stupid. And the Christians they were familiar with were not ignorant either. Judaism has been rejected as unitarian, and its monotheism has been found lacking. The Christians really believed in three divine persons, and that was unacceptable by the Jews. It's very obvious that the view of "one divine person alone" is incompatible with the view of "three divine persons".

Again, the charge of tritheism is very old... This is what all those Orthodox Saints who spoke clearly about the Church's faith were accused of. It's no wonder the accusation comes again today. It's surprising though that it comes by people who say they revere and accept the faith of those ancient Saints though.

I blame it to the little study common people actually do of those ancient men and women. If we think we are Christians, then there is no need to learn from those before us, because we already know...

cor ad cor loquitor

Christ was not a Jew. Christ came to the Jews. Do the Kings receive taxes from their sons or from their people? You cannot make the son one of the people. If Christ was a Jew, then the Jews are right and you should become one too.

I don't know where this notion comes from. Perhaps it's collective guilt after all those centuries of Catholic abuse against the Jews. I don't know.

[ 19. November 2008, 17:34: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oh look. Is this an excommunication?

Heigh, ho....

Whatever,
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Andrew, if everyone else here - Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox - is telling you that they perceive this to be a manufactured or artificial controversy over words rather than essential understanding of doctrine, how is it that you alone are right?

Really, how dare you presume to make window's into men's souls and challenge their professed belief in the Symbol of Faith?

When you can declare yourself to be out of communion with one of your Orthodox sisters over some presumed - but unproven - obscure difference in understanding of the Oecumenical Creed, then that is a very fiddley sort of communion indeed.

Listen guy, none of us has a monopoly on truth. I, for one, tend to be more persuaded by consensus of reasonably informed views.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oh, well, Lietuvos, I think I'll just the putative decretals be. It's not worth it. Archaeologists will have a laugh about it a thousand years from now.

Mary

[ 19. November 2008, 18:08: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Erm, I meant to type "let the putative decretals be"... trying to save time is not always the best thing to do, unfortunately. Sorry to have missed the edit window.

Back to your regularly scheduled....

M
 

---

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
I don't think sectionAndrew has answered the very simple question yet, just what pronoun does one ordinarily use in Greek to refer to God?

In English, an ordinary (doctrinally sound Trinitarian) person, in ordinary conversation, when not in the midst of a theological disquisition on the Trinity, might say "I prayed to God last night, and he answered my prayers."

So, just what word would your ordinary, everyday Greek Orthodox person use for "he" in the above example?

As pointed out, Andrew would object to "they" (tritheistic), "it" (God is not impersonal), "she" (heaven forefend), and simply "God" to avoid all pronouns (cause the feminist priestess wannabees do it). So just what should we say?
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I think that he will say that he only prays to God in one of his Persons, never to God as a unity (if to Andreas he has any unity). That still leaves us with how he would refer to God when not praying.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
ISTM that, if my own experience is any guide, Trinitarian Christians usually direct prayer explicitly to a particular Person of the Trinity when praying theologically. Hence, some of my prayer before Mass is directed to the Father, because the action of the Mass is offered to God the Father. Likewise, in the moments around reception of the Holy Communion, I will be praying to Christ, the eternal Son, who I am about to receive. Contrariwise, non-theological prayer is for me more likely to be directed to God as a unity of the three Persons, e.g. "God, help me!" This doesn't mean that I'm negating my belief in a God who is a Trinity of Persons, but rather that in my needful supplication I am expressing the equal truth of the unity of the three divine Persons -- as a Christian, the supplication is for these three divine Persons, one God, to help me.

This is just an example, and different individuals will address the three Persons with different titles. I'm just trying to touch on the subjective sense of what can be meant when we speak of or to "God", as opposed to a specifically identified divine Person.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
I don't think sectionAndrew has answered the very simple question yet, just what pronoun does one ordinarily use in Greek to refer to God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
They are three divine persons, and parts of an ultrapersonal God-He that is somehow the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Where then does that leave the concept of Trinity, other than as a collective noun for three Persons who are apparently separate (which is what your formulation seems to imply)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
As a practical matter, in relating to Deity, Andreas, are you saying that the only way to address Deity and think of Deity is in one or other of the Persons? The Unity doesn't have a "personality" to address or get close to understanding. The Persons are the way Deity gets personal with us.

---

quote:

---

I will reply by appealing to the Scriptures...

---

quote:

---

...because that seems to be the lowest common denominator here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
As a practical matter, in relating to Deity, Andreas, are you saying that the only way to address Deity and think of Deity is in one or other of the Persons? The Unity doesn't have a "personality" to address or get close to understanding. The Persons are the way Deity gets personal with us.

Am I at all warm (close to the idea)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, I suspect Andrew would not agree that God is one substance, since many in the East have never accepted that we in the West mean by "substance" what they mean by "ousia," despite our claims that it really really really is what we mean. I suspect he would rather say that God is three substances. But he can speak for himself on this one.

---

quote:

---

Of course, my mind is still reeling from the whole "Jesus was not a Jew" thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
So again I ask my very simple question, just what would a Greek use for "he," as in, "I asked God to help my sick cat, and he cured her."

---

quote:

---

After having reflected in the past few years on each of the three divine persons — the Son, the Spirit and the Father — in this Jubilee Year we intend to take a comprehensive look at the glory common to the Three who are one God "not in the unity of a single person but in the Trinity of one substance" (Preface for the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity).

---

That may be a different understanding of the Trinity from yours, but to describe it as unitarian seems to me an odd use of the word.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I knew this thread was in danger of a death-spiral of Trinitarian debate. It seems I was right.



Why Andrew feels compelled to make the West a theological punching-bag I'll never know.

I'm comfortable with my trinitarianism, and I really don't care what squiggleAndrew thinks. Methinks he do with a few recitations of the Athanasian Creed.

Oh well, here's a song to rebut Andrew with:

"God in Three Persons; Blessed Trinity!" Holy, Holy, Holy


 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Getting a little closer, I guess. It's amazing to me that you think "getting" the Trinity is so easy. Anyway this is the best I can do at the moment. I really believe that we have more of a language and cultural difference separating our understandings than you think. Both sides seem to think the other side is just being willful in misunderstanding.

Andrew:

quote:

---

So, for Christianity, in my view, it's not OK to approach the Divine in an impersonal way (as eastern religions do), or in an ultra-personal way (as Protestantism and Catholicism sometimes seem to be doing).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Was Christ under the Law or not?

---

Galatians 4:4, NRSV: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law."
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Father Gregory

Except that it's not the West per se... Because there are many many early Western Saints who are just like their Eastern counterparts... Like Ambrose, or Ireneus, or Hippolytus, or Hillary, or Justin...

The issue is different...

k-mann

Was Christ a servant or not? He explicitly says he is not one of the subjects, yet the Jews were the subjects of the King that is God...
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes Andrew but I was talking about the later medieval west. I should have made that clear. I am talking about the way that Aquinas and his successors handle the Augustinian legacy of intra-trinitarian relations as being coterminous with the hypostases themselves. This has always struck me as incoherent (or just plain false). It's a bit like the Cheshire Cat in Alice ... smile only, no cat.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Lyda*Rose

We are not so far apart if we recognise the dangers of Augustine's psychological analogy and his thinking about the vestigial Trinity (throw in the filioquist Spirit as the "bond of love" as well to that brew). On the Orthodox side we need to guard against ANY suggestion that the hypostases are 3 divine beings.

The difficulty we all face (from different starting points - ante) is in making clear what an hypostasis actually is. "It's" not merely a relation but neither is "it" a mode of being nor an individual entity. Somethings are perhaps better left unsaid. The sense of this after all comes from worship not the school room or the debating chamber.

[ 20. November 2008, 08:52: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Father Gregory

I agree with those comments....

Of course, we have to be very clear that humans aren't supposed to be individual entities... "may they be one as we are one"! Individualism does not equate with personhood.

Lyda

your question is really important... my personal answer would be that communion in the faith is based on the same degree (or the same potential) of clarity...
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Individualism certainly does not equate with personhood but personhood FOR US is manifested in and between human agents in a radically different manner than that which applies to the divine hypostases.

[ 20. November 2008, 09:21: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
But the potential is the same...

As for the word, prosopon, it comes from the Greek word for face. We gave such an important value to our faces, that we came to use that word for our person. (hence the difficulty some had with the persona - mask... because it's a face of some sort, but not an authentic one...)

Really, I stand by what I said to Lyda earlier... theology is supposed to be easy, exactly, as Father Gregory said, because it's supposed to be experiential. It's not an issue of deep metaphysical or magical discussion where only a select few can take part.

There is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ...
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I of course accept your comments about prosopon and potential. (The Cappadocians reworked the idea somewhat though of course ... masks can be misleading if only it can be read in a modalist or Sabellian fashion ... whoops He is Father ... oh no, hang on, he's swapped masks, He's the Son now etc.)

Although I have tried to be irenic and inclusive theologically here I do think think that there is a problem for us in the west tending to start from the a priori principle of one God in a rather abstract and theoretical manner (even philiosophical or metaphysical) and then trying to accommodate the Trinity to that. Rather, we should start with the datum of Christiamn experience and then articulate how even with that on board we are still monotheists (the how and why of that). The Trinity is to be encountered first not theorised.

[ 20. November 2008, 09:31: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
typo ... 2nd line after only insert "because."
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I'm in full agreement with that.

As for masks, language eventually made that prosopeio, and retained prosopo for face and person
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I think the question of how we articulate our monotheism is interesting. I'm not hugely familiar with Orthodox liturgy, but from what little I do know it seems that the Western doxological style of "... through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end..." which recurs frequently in our liturgy is almost unknown in the Eastern rites. How is the idea of one God played out in the Orthodox liturgies?
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Try Paul: "there is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ". What's clearer than that??? I don't get it!
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It seems to me that the west starts by theorising ... "We are monotheists, so what's this "three" thing? The east starts by reflecting on experience / encounter ... "we know the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ... so how do we still speak as monotheists?

The west's answer? Intra-divine personal relations.
The east's answer? By sharing one ousia.

---

It strikes me that both questions you give there are valid - they are, after all, trying to solve the same conundrum but from opposite sides. Much like one side trying to calculate 3x1 and the other trying to calculate 1x3. But obviously with a much more complicated and complex issue! And it's not immediately obvious to me how the two answers are significantly different either - they both affirm the Oneness of God while also affirming the three persons of the Trinity, after all.

Andrew's description of "oneness" being a form of communion, in much the same way as humans can be one, is at least understandable. But it does beg the question: does that mean there is only one human, in several billion persons? It may of course be that he would say there is indeed only one humanity, with billions of human persons, but logically that would mean "God" is being used to describe the species (or essence) of the divine persons: it follows that to say "there is one God" is analogous not to the statement "there is one human" but to the statement "there is one humanity".

Am I anywhere near?

If so, I can understand the confusion on both sides about the other's belief. For better or worse, it is true that many (most?) of us in the western world have a very individual mindset - we start from the individual and work up to the groupings. For us, to say "we are one" in reference to shared beliefs/communion/etc doesn't mean we actually are united as one being. So when we say - and earnestly believe - that there is one God, we think of that in terms of there being one divine individual. It's natural that - as Fr. G so eloquently states - our reconciliation of the Trinity will start from there and attempt to work out how one can also be three.

Obviously I cannot speak for the eastern mindset, but if it indeed starts from the communal and works from there to the individual then much of this is explained. From such a mindset it would not be too difficult to imagine there being one God made up of three persons, because the word "one" doesn't actually mean the same thing in this context! It refers not to individuality but to communality - it is not the "one" of "I am one person" but the "one" of "there is one Church".

Of course it should be obvious that to a western mindset this appears to be tritheist, just as the western understanding appears to the eastern mindset to be unitarian. But actually they're both valid approaches to the theology of the Trinity within their own mindsets, and it should be apparent from this thread if nothing else that to insist on one phrasing (be it western or eastern) is never going to be helpful.

Indeed, is it possible that both sides are in fact saying the same thing, but filtered through their own mindset? That while the words are different the concept itself is identical? And that even though all of us see the other as heretical, that is because we are seeing it through our own mindset filters and not theirs?

Of course, it's equally possible that I was actually nowhere near five paragraphs ago. In which case all this wonderful thought and flowing prose is for naught
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Woah, lots of crossposts.
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 

quote:

---

§Andrew said:
Try Paul: "there is one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ". What's clearer than that??? I don't get it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
If I just took that, I would probably end up as some sort of Arian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Marvin, how on earth can it be the same thing, when you say that you think in terms of there being one individual, when this is the definition of unitarianism?

---

Andrew, I have tried very hard to explain that such thinking is a product of my western mindset, and I have even pointed out that from your eastern mindset it will naturally appear to be heretical. I have, furthermore, attempted to understand how you approach the issue, in the hope that by so doing I may come to appreciate what you actually mean when you phrase something a certain way rather than simply reading it through the filters of my own mindset and judging it accordingly.

It would be nice if you could at least attempt to do the same.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I agree Marvin. It's difficult but we must TRY!
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
In principle there is nothing wrong in starting with the unity and proceeding to the triune hypostases provided that primacy is accorded to both the revelatory and experiential chartacter of Christian trinitarian theism.

Once that has been agreed the issues can be worked on from both sides of the mountain ascending to the summit as it were. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser on the directional process of the argument ... or at least it seems to me.

---

My point precisely Father .
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Father Gregory

I agree there doesn't have to be a winner and a loser... In fact, I think that approaching this with winning in mind is a very mistaken approach that will eventually lead nowhere.

That said...

I understand your concerns about individualism. But please, do understand my concerns as well... The Greek word for individual is "atomo", atom... And this word has been applied to the three divine persons, they are three atoma. Which is why the ancient fathers have been charged with tritheism. Not because they were misunderstood, but precisely because they were understood... There really are three divine persons!

Marvin,

I try to understand how you approach the issue and see that outside my cultural lenses. My disagreement comes after I do this, and not because I read you under my cultural prejudice...
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I am not making a judgement on that yet ... if he so desires I should like to hear more from Marvin on this. I should like to think that I could learn something.

[ 20. November 2008, 11:01: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Don't be harsh. I'm discussing here for a couple of years. And I'm not giving up on trying to communicate properly...

[ 20. November 2008, 11:02: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I wasn't being harsh Andrew but I do think that sometimes some of your reactions are too definite, too conclusive in your assessment of the position of others. Not everyone sings from the same script in the west.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I'm not saying everyone thinks the same. After all, I spoke of confusion... and there are degrees of confusion.

Marvin explained how in his view the two approaches are different, and then he went on to make the assertion that both are valid approaches. No justification about that. When the description that preceded that statement made it clear that we are talking about different things... OK, because of the gravity of the situation, I can empathize with your hope that we don't differ after all...

Anyway, Marvin,

one more thing. We do not begin with communities. We begin with the one person of God... the Father... That's the Creed. Not "we believe in one communion of persons". How does this fit with your description?

[ 20. November 2008, 11:18: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
if he so desires I should like to hear more from Marvin on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
while the east affirms that there are three Persons (or hypostases, though I confess I've never really understood that word) which are one God.

---

Stay with me for a while. There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. No mention of three persons which are one God. One God, the Father.....

OK?

See how Paul's saying is retained in the Creed:

I believe in one God the Father... and in one Lord Jesus Christ....

As for the hypostasis thing... It means someone that exists in himself. It's what's foundational, what really exists. I exist. Not an abstract human nature. The person is what is foundational.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Marvin explained how in his view the two approaches are different, and then he went on to make the assertion that both are valid approaches. No justification about that.

---

quote:

---

one more thing. We do not begin with communities. We begin with the one person of God... the Father... That's the Creed. Not "we believe in one communion of persons". How does this fit with your description?

---

I was descibing mindsets when I wrote that, not theologies (though each feeds off the other in our societies). Thus I was describing, as an example, the way we view our social communities - not even necessarily religious ones. It was an illustration to explain my perception of our mindsets, nothing more.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
OK, this makes sense. Now take into account my last post and apply your thoughts in our theologies.

ETA: for my part, I think your explanation of the Eastern view is... Western... and this is why it does come in agreement with the Western view you described... It works out because both are Western, not because the actually Orthodox view works out with the non-Orthodox view... If you know what I mean.

[ 20. November 2008, 11:33: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Stay with me for a while. There is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. No mention of three persons which are one God. One God, the Father.....

OK?

See how Paul's saying is retained in the Creed:

I believe in one God the Father... and in one Lord Jesus Christ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
ETA: for my part, I think your explanation of the Eastern view is... Western... and this is why it does come in agreement with the Western view you described... It works out because both are Western, not because the actually Orthodox view works out with the non-Orthodox view... If you know what I mean.

---

Well, if I've got it wrong then all this is just so many wasted pixels. And I thought we were making progress
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
OK. I accept that. But can you see how - from a western perspective - that looks like a denial either of monotheism or of the divinity of Christ? It needs unpacking so that we westerners can understand how it avoids both heresies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
When the ancient Orthodox said the Word is uncreated, the non-Orthodox ancients replied so you are ditheists.

The Orthodox ancients responded not by explaining within the context of the non-Orthodox how they are not ditheists, but by pointing out that the context of the non-Orthodox is mistaken and it should change, and if changed, then it can be shown why it's monotheism and not ditheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, if I've got it wrong then all this is just so many wasted pixels. And I thought we were making progress

---

Welcome to the club

I'm saying your explanation of the Eastern view is not accurate, because we begin with one person... that of the Father... and not with one communion of persons. Which is why I bring up the Creed (or Paul's saying) over and over again...

Now, you might ask all sort of questions about why we are not heretics, and that would be valid, but my intent was not to convince anyone that I'm not a heretic, or to convert others to my point of view... but to reach a point of mutual understanding even if that means to agree to disagree!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
Andrew what you seem to be saying is that we all need to become greek in order to understand anything about God. And until we become greek we are automatically wrong because our brains are not greek enough to get anything right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
Andrew what you seem to be saying is that we all need to become greek in order to understand anything about God. And until we become greek we are automatically wrong because our brains are not greek enough to get anything right.

---

I'm not saying that. That would be very wrong... You do get something about God. That's not the question. The issue is about the clarity and about whether communion can exist or not. From where I stand, there doesn't seem to exist communion in that area. To put it differently: I don't think in the faith expressed here by many Shipmates the same faith expressed by the Scriptures or the ecumenical councils. What would you make out of this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
To put it differently: I don't think in the faith expressed here by many Shipmates the same faith expressed by the Scriptures or the ecumenical councils.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I understand that we experience the three persons, but I am not sure what experience could show me exactly how to describe the way they make up a Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenn.:
That despite professing "One holy catholic and apostolic church" you want nothing of the sort? If we can't be in communion simply because I am not greek and you are, and I can't become greek, then that automatically gives us two churches.

---

quote:

---

Classically and conservatively here you are, I believe, referring to the monarchy of the Father which is shared neither by the Logos nor the Spirit. I think it would be more proper to say that the unity of God is based on these principles:-

(1) The monarchy of the Father.
(2) The consubstantial Godhead, that is the one divine nature shared equally by all the hypostases.
(3) The perichoresis of love (circumincessio) where the hypostases mutually indwell.
(4) The unity of action of the Trinity in so far as all hypostases act coordinately as one God in each and every movement and action for and within the Cosmos.

---

I could totally sign on with that description of the Trinity.

Watch Andreas come and tell us that you are being unitarian, you convert, you. I mean, if I can agree with it, there must be something wrong.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Irenaeus was Greek speaking, not Greek; they were all Romans

Anyway. I agree with the comments you made, but I do think there is a reason why those things aren't part of the Creed...

Yes, they are a communion of persons, but we should be careful how we apply that word "God" in English because of the lack of a definite pronoun...

Again, let's reflect on the Scriptures.

Apostle John puts it best in his gospel's prologue... There really is a reason why the distinction of persons was taken for granted and for the most part Orthodoxy fought with Arianism rather than Sabelianism or whatever...

In the beginning there was the Word (observe the definite article), and the Word was with the God (definite article again; it's clear that for John God is the Father), and (here is were everything gets messed up in English) God (no definite article) was the Word (poetically put after the word God, although it comes before it in meaning...)

So, we have this person, the Word, who is in a relationship with the one we call God, and the Word is divine....

Christ's divinity is retained, while it is made clear that He is not "the God"...

Not sure how all this sounds in English, but the way they are written in ancient Greek is very clear-cut.

So, yeah, because the Word or the Spirit are divine, we can and indeed do call them "God", but this does not negate the fact that "there is one God, the Father"!

Which is why in common language, if we prayed to "God" to save a sick friend of ours, that prayer would be directed at God the Father AND NOT at the Trinity... and we would pray to "Christ" for Christ's help and so on... that's what a common man would do... just like in the Scriptures...

Please, guys, do take this explanation into account.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Andrew:

quote:

---

So, yeah, because the Word or the Spirit are divine, we can and indeed do call them "God", but this does not negate the fact that "there is one God, the Father"!

Which is why in common language, if we prayed to "God" to save a sick friend of ours, that prayer would be directed at God the Father AND NOT at the Trinity... and we would pray to "Christ" for Christ's help and so on... that's what a common man would do... just like in the Scriptures...

Please, guys, do take this explanation into account.

---

Yay! Two theological Orthodox posts in a row that I can almost understand and even agree with. I must say that one thing I've gotten out of this thread is that it is right to direct prayers to the Persons, not to the rather amorphous Substance. And I'll start doing that consistently.

ETA: I'm beginning to thing that things spun out of control for a while on this thread because first we were arguing over poetry, but mostly because you, Andreas, felt very strongly that we were thinking about the Divine so incorrectly that you argued so forcefully for the Persons that you sounded as tritheistic to us as we sound unitarian to you.

[ 20. November 2008, 16:48: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Andrew, I truly wish I didn't feel compelled to post this, but your explanation seems to me to undermine the equality of the three divine persons.

I'm rather worried about the issue of direct (and for that matter indirect) articles, because as you know not all languages have them. For our purposes, crucially Latin does not and a modern functioning example of a national language which also lacks them is Lithuanian. Surely a proper grasp of theological concepts can't be dependent on the existance of articles in a language (I actually don't think that's what you're trying to say).

[ 20. November 2008, 16:51: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Lyda, that would be something good coming out of this thread.

Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, I agree that linguistic analysis is not important.... Which is why I insist on plain Paulian language that there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. Most of the time, in Greek, we retain that ancient use of words.

However, while none is more divine than the other, there is one God the Father... He is the beginning for the other two persons... which is why we call Him mainly just God... A false "equality" could lead to three persons without beginning, and that would be true tritheism...

You are right though... I entered language talk only because I had to point out what John says, and John wrote in a particular language...
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Well, actually, while God the Father is the source of the Logos and the Spirit, isn't it the case that all three are co-eternal, so the word "beginning" doesn't really seem right in that context. Neither the Son nor the Spirit were made/created, but rather generated from the Father eternally (one "begotten", the other "proceeding"), so there never was a time (rather inaccurate, though, to use the word "time") when the Logos and the Spirit were not. I think it's just a matter of your choice of words, but to speak of the beginning of the Son and Spirit undermines the co-equality of the Trinity.

Talking of this, I'm still waiting for comment on the correct understanding of the "begetting" of the Son and the "procession" of the Spirit, as these concepts are intimately tied up in an understanding of the Triune God.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras

I don't think procession and begetting are part of the things we can understand. They are not human concepts. What we know is that there is a difference in the way the two divine persons come to exist from the one God.

Why do you think it's relevant that here?

Dear Protestant friends

I am a bit surprised particularly with your responses in this thread. The Scriptures are very clear in these matters. Why drag scholastic post-Schism Catholic philosophical theology here?

"We know... that there is no other God but one" Paul says (1 Cor 8.4)... and he identifies that one God with the Father (1 Cor. 8.6). That's our monotheism. We believe in one God the Father.

I understand questions like Marvin's that can arise from the traditional faith of the church... But I cannot understand why you fall for scholastic metaphysical baggage that's not to be found in the Scriptures. The connections between Protestantism and Catholicism never cease to amaze me.

[ 20. November 2008, 18:11: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
But Andrew, you're being ironical there. Classical, magisterial protestanism is the direct child of Western/Roman Catholicism, obviously. Our best-known explication of the Trinity and Christology is the Quicunque Vult/Athanasian Creed, which predates scholasticim but is certainly a Western document, probably dating to the 5th C, though the earliest extant copy is of 9th C origin. The reason I mention the Athanasian Creed - which is accepted as a Symbol of the Faith in the RCC (though no longer used liturgically) and which is authoritative in Lutheranism and historically in Anglicanism - is that I believe its formulations are contrary to the ones you articulate. I can't escape the conclusion that the language you use casts the Son and Spirit as inferior to the Father, and I can't accept that as orthodox trinitarianism. I wonder what you think of the writing of John of Damascus, linked by Major Disaster, because his explication of the Trinity seems consistent with my understanding of the Triune God, but inconsistent with how you articulate the trinitarian relationships.

Oh, I just wanted to add that some of us, while out of formal communion with the See of Peter, nonetheless accept all of the Holy See's dogmatic teachings -- we Anglo-Papalists, you know.

[ 20. November 2008, 19:08: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Andrew:

quote:

---

Dear Protestant friends

I am a bit surprised particularly with your responses in this thread. The Scriptures are very clear in these matters.

---

Spoken like a true Protestant from the little break-away church down the street.

What I mean is that when a person points to a complicated concept articulated in the Bible and says it's "very clear", that only means that interpretation is clear in the speaker's mind.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

There are many issues there...

First of all, why the Athanasian creed and not the actual creed of the ecumenical councils? I don't get it. This is an honest question.

Secondly, why would this baggage be part of people who accept as one of their faith's tenets the sola scriptura? It's like the filoque... The Reformers just retained it, even though it wasn't to be found in the Scriptures...

As for St. John, I pointed to the first (and the second) ecumenical council exactly because they gave us the creed... I didn't respond to Major Disaster's point, because I think it would make it even more difficult for you to follow. Which is also why I didn't bring any texts from the other church fathers, even though I could do that, especially from those who took part in the ecumenical councils.

In that book Major Disaster quoted from, St. John has a chapter on the things we say about God. And since Major Disaster pointed to something St. John said about God, I'd think it's natural that we take into account that particular chapter, where St. John becomes even more explicit...

Well, there, St. John, consistent with Orthodox theology explains that "God" denotes one divine energy, that of the Godhead. I doubt you had divine energies in mind when you read the link Major Disaster pointed you to. I think it was a mistake, justified perhaps by the polemical climate of this thread, which I regret, but Major Disaster added to the confusion, because he didn't explain to you that St. John used the word God in that chapter to speak of one divine energy, while you have been using it to speak about something else.

I hope you see now why I avoided replying to that point (not to mention the shock that Major Disaster saw the devil in my face, for which I repent). It would unnecessarily complicate things.

One more thing. You say my language casts the Son as inferior to the Father. Then what would you say about the language of the Scriptures? While it's not an issue of inferiority, it's very clear that there is one God, the Father. His monarchy (as father Gregory said) is not to be overlooked, else trinitarian monotheism false apart into unitarianism!

Lyda

Still... this does not justify pseudo-metaphysical talk of trinity-unity-i-don't-know-what... overlooking what the Scriptures actually say! Yes, by all means, interpret the Scriptures, but the feeling I get is that the Scriptures are put aside, and we bring forth unclear metaphysical and extra-scriptural understandings to address this particular issue!

[ 20. November 2008, 19:25: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I have never, I don't think, heard anyone contend that the Church's Trinitarian and Christological doctrines can be clearly and fully deduced from Scripture, but rather that these express the mind of the orthodox catholic Church as set forth in the cumulative tradition of the writings of the fathers, the acts of the councils, and the language of the liturgy. The doctrines must not be contrary to scripture, but elaborate on the canonical books of the NT.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Believe me, as an Orthodox, we don't go beyond the Scriptures in anything. I understand this might sound strange, especially to a Protestant (or a Catholic who thinks there is development in doctrine...), but that's my view, and as far as I can see, it's the view of the ancient and not-so-ancient fathers as well...
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Andrew, surely you realise that classical protestants aren't sola scriptura, and certainly not Anglicans. True, holy scripture is said to contain all things necessary to salvation, but that's a formula that's rather stupid if treated in a reductionist way. The Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds are also accepted and this is justified partly on their putative compatability with scripture.

As to the filioque, let's leave that alone presently for purposes of this discussion. Frankly, I'm not sure most RCs and magisterial protestants even feel that strongly about it's retention, and some of us would be happy to be rid of it, though we believe that it can properly be understood as the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, rather than from the Father and the Son.

I cite the Athanasian Creed because, although not the product of a Council, it provides what we generally see as a fuller explication than given by Nicaea and Chalcedon, respectively, regarding the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Andrew, surely you realise that classical protestants aren't sola scriptura, and certainly not Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Believe me, as an Orthodox, we don't go beyond the Scriptures in anything. I understand this might sound strange, especially to a Protestant (or a Catholic who thinks there is development in doctrine...), but that's my view, and as far as I can see, it's the view of the ancient and not-so-ancient fathers as well...

---

What about venerating saints? I don't say it's against scripture but that the practice is not at all "very clear" in the Bible. In fact, I can't see it described there in the way the Orthodox practice it now.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

I don't have a problem if you choose to address the three persons together. As long as we keep in mind that we are addressing three He, and not one. That was my only objection.

Lyda

other than the fact that the Scriptures are written by... Saints and they explain how... Saints dealt with God and the people and how they interceded for the people etc etc

I don't want to get you convinced about anything. My only concern is that we communicate properly and understand each other even if we disagree. It would be huge if I could explain to you that there is no Scriptural extra-Scriptural division in the way I view Orthodox theology... It's all Scriptural. I don't expect you to agree with me, and I don't argue about that. Just to explain where I come from.

Orthodoxy: Scriptural Christianity at its best

P.S. St. John in that book mentioned by Major Disaster himself says that we don't go (and can't go) beyond what's in the divine scriptures about God...
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
...
In the beginning there was the Word (observe the definite article), and the Word was with the God (definite article again; it's clear that for John God is the Father), and (here is were everything gets messed up in English) God (no definite article) was the Word (poetically put after the word God, although it comes before it in meaning...)

So, we have this person, the Word, who is in a relationship with the one we call God, and the Word is divine....

Christ's divinity is retained, while it is made clear that He is not "the God"...

Not sure how all this sounds in English, but the way they are written in ancient Greek is very clear-cut.

So, yeah, because the Word or the Spirit are divine, we can and indeed do call them "God", but this does not negate the fact that "there is one God, the Father"!

Which is why in common language, if we prayed to "God" to save a sick friend of ours, that prayer would be directed at God the Father AND NOT at the Trinity... and we would pray to "Christ" for Christ's help and so on... that's what a common man would do... just like in the Scriptures...

Please, guys, do take this explanation into account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew: Dear Protestant friends

I am a bit surprised particularly with your responses in this thread. The Scriptures are very clear in these matters. Why drag scholastic post-Schism Catholic philosophical theology here?

"We know... that there is no other God but one" Paul says (1 Cor 8.4)... and he identifies that one God with the Father (1 Cor. 8.6). That's our monotheism. We believe in one God the Father.

I understand questions like Marvin's that can arise from the traditional faith of the church... But I cannot understand why you fall for scholastic metaphysical baggage that's not to be found in the Scriptures. The connections between Protestantism and Catholicism never cease to amaze me. [Biased]

---

Shipmates, it happened. Let it be here recorded for all time that §Andrew called upon Protestants to aid him in an argument.

Will I aid him? No!

Of the many things the Magisterial Protestants and Catholics disagreed over, the Trinity was not one of them. John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned to death on the stake for denying the doctrine of the Trinity.

As for the debate on definite articles:



Stop reading Greek grammar into English. People a whole lot smarter then you have worked on the various English bible translations, and the first passages of John are one of the most beautiful pieces of prose in English.

Speaking of Protestants, the flowing translation of John and the word "beautiful" are both the work William Tyndale, one of the first English Reformation martyrs.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
I know there is much common ground between Catholics and Protestants. I didn't know that you guys wouldn't have a problem admitting extra-scriptural teachings and understandings.

If anything, it has been most informative.

As for that ancient heresy... the church's reply was the creed of the second ecumenical council. It's really us talking past each other here... I said, explicitly, that the Son is not of a different nature than the Father, and you say I sound like those who taught the Son is of a different nature than the Father... Sigh.

By the way, I don't have a problem with the English translation of John... but I do not make my understanding out of the translation... Rather, I approach the beautiful translation with the Orthodox theology in mind. Else, you might think John says "X was with Z and X was Z", when that's not what John is saying...

[ 20. November 2008, 21:51: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I might be tempted to break my own rule in one respect though. It seems to me that the west starts by theorising ... "We are monotheists, so what's this "three" thing? The east starts by reflecting on experience / encounter ... "we know the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ... so how do we still speak as monotheists?

The west's answer? Intra-divine personal relations.
The east's answer? By sharing one ousia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Speaking of Nicaea and Constantinople, § Andrew, you really ought to be hit over the head with the word "homoousios" until you come to an orthodox understanding of it.

Ponder, Reflect, and Inwardly Digest.

---

 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Speaking of Nicaea and Constantinople, § Andrew, you really ought to be hit over the head with the word "homoousios" until you come to an orthodox understanding of it.

Ponder, Reflect, and Inwardly Digest.

---

 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Indeed, is it possible that both sides are in fact saying the same thing, but filtered through their own mindset? That while the words are different the concept itself is identical? And that even though all of us see the other as heretical, that is because we are seeing it through our own mindset filters and not theirs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Speaking of Nicaea and Constantinople, § Andrew, you really ought to be hit over the head with the word "homoousios" until you come to an orthodox understanding of it.

Ponder, Reflect, and Inwardly Digest.

---

I have read extensively the writings from those fathers.

When that term was brought up, a huge debate erupted, not because the term was wrong, but because the term was not to be found in the Scriptures as such. If the Church was not like what I describe, that debate wouldn't have taken place.

It was only because the meaning of that fancy word you quoted was explained by pointing to the scriptures and not to metaphysics or philosophy, that it was finally accepted.

It's really amusing to find Protestants fighting so hard for Catholic metaphysics.

You know, when the Orthodox discussed with the Catholics in Florence, an Orthodox delegate was heard saying in frustration "Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle, all they talk about is Aristotle and Plato... What's wrong with those people? Why don't they speak about Paul, John, Matthew, Moses, David, Job, Isaiah, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil...." It's the same discussion here all over again.

Your insistence to do away with the few sayings of Paul I provided makes me very sad.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Perhaps from this thread, Andrew, you will have learnt that you have been making a false distinction between Western Catholic and magisterial protestant thought regarding basic Christian doctrine.

Thanks for the anecdote from Florence. Just how old are you anyway?

[ 21. November 2008, 10:22: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

I thought you really meant that sola scriptura thing. Now I know you mean it only when you disagree with the Catholics. But I'm sure another Protestant will come to say that you are wrong, and that there do exist genuine sola scriptura types...

Anyway.

Lyda & SPK

The tyranny of fancy words

Theology uses common words, because it's supposed to be used by common people. All those Greek words that now sound fancy are actually common words.

Don't get confused because they sound fancy in Greek. Prosopon, for example, is just a face, and, by extension, a person. And so on.

Taking a common Greek word and using it as if it was a fancy word in English is very problematic.

So, SPK, don't just throw "homoousio" as if that somehow justifies your view. It doesn't. That fancy word was used to mean "of the same nature". The magic is gone now we used simple and ordinary English words. Oh well.

The Father and the Son are of the same nature, just like Christ and the rest of us men are of the same nature. Nothing fancy there. No deep philosophical metaphysical talk only an expert would understand.

The question was: Does the fact that God's Son is another person than God make him any less divine? Or does this mean there are two kinds of divinity? And the answer was no, the Son is as divine as the Father, just like a man's son is as human as his father.

I suspect there is a deep confusion going on about these things. For example, and to borrow from Lyda's expression, God could be seen as one amorphous substance which is somehow both Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All this esoteric talk of "essence" points just to that. And this happens when the ecumenical councils taught the exact opposite of this!

So, let's put fancy words aside, and let's speak like ordinary people.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Andrew, sure there are sola scriptura types -- Baptists would be a typical example (though even there, the more highly educated of their clergy will probably be conversant with classical patristic theology as it is generally understood in the West). You also make a serious mistake lumping all Western non-Roman Catholics into the same artificial "protestant" category. The Anglican churches include a large number of Anglo-Catholics and not a few Lutherans view themselves and their church as Evangelical Catholic.

You seem to be introducing a non-standard term "nature" in place of the standard English word "substance" to talk of the shared Godhead of the three divine persons. This isn't an arbitrary thing. When used theologically, ousia is rendered into English as substance.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
First of all, I am aware that your position is rather a minority position in the Anglican Communion. This has been made clear by other Anglicans' responses in other threads. I don't mind plurality. I do want that we are straightforward with each other. OK, you made it clear that you aren't sola scriptura. I do think Luther, for example, wouldn't be ready to admit that he has all sort of extra-biblical baggage from Catholicism (despite the fact that he did carry that baggage with him!). Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those who speak for sola scriptura actually believe they are doing that.

As for the English terms... it's not an issue of words or terminology. Do you mean by substance what the ancients meant by ousia? If yes, I don't have any objection. But I suspect that many people mean something like Lyda's "amorphous" God that is somehow Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In which case the use of the word is mistaken as it doesn't render what the ancients meant.

Guys, this is not supposed to be about complex terms and difficult meanings. I saw an ultra-persona He, and I responded by saying there are three He and not one. I got back the reply that this is tritheism. If that's someone's evaluation of ancient orthodox scriptural and patristic christianity, I don't mind. I do mind though using words as one sees fit without any continuity with the faith of the scriptures and the ecumenical councils.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Please Andrew don't use "guys" too much ... to English ears it's an Americanism that often stets one's teeth on edge.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
§ Andrew, you can huff and puff all you want, but you are still pushing a heterodox reading of the Nicene Creed. Don't talk to me about homoousisos, I know what it means. The problem is that it appears you don't.

Your lack of knowledge of Protestantism is obvious. Let's deal with that right now. The Reformation is divided into two camps: The Magesterial Reformation, and the Radical Reformation. The Magesterial Reformation generally changed the national churches in the West, while the Radical Reformation produced the Mennonites and the like.

The Magesterial Reformation included the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Zwinglians and the Calvinist Churches, which includes the Presbyterian Churches in England and Scotland. The Zwinglians and the Calvinists later united and are known as the Reformed Churches. None of these groups ever disagreed with Roman Catholicism on the Trinity, not then, and not now. The major disagreements were over eccelisiology, eucharistic theology, and the theology of salvation.

Furthermore, all of the churches I just named accept second-order theology like the Trinity. They are just more insistent, to greater or lesser degrees, that higher theology be rooted in the Bible. The Eucharistic debates started because many thought that Western Church beliefs had become too far removed from biblical support.

If you think I seek your approval for anything, you are quite wrong. Your recent appeals to Protestants are nothing short of hypocritical. Your theology is dubious at best, and heretical at worst. Please refresh yourself with that the Church Fathers actually taught. Reading John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is also a good way to become familiar with the fundamentals of Christianity, especially the theology of the Reformed Churches.

[ 21. November 2008, 14:13: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Again, we aren't communicating properly. I know they didn't disagree. The issue is whether they admitted to extra-scriptural background or not. Quite different issue than what you are talking about.

Sigh.

As for who knows what the ancients said and who doesn't, that's just more cat fighting. I'm not entering that arena.

[ 21. November 2008, 14:24: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
SPK:
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

this isn't productive, you know that?

Instead of discussing this further, we end up with assertions... You shouldn't be scared of there being three divine persons. They are not intra-anything. There really are three divine persons.

This is getting immature. I know I shouldn't hold anyone to high standards, but it's a pity we can't hold a serious discussion.

I understand though that such a challenge to the central dogma of your Christian faith, the trinity, must be hard to deal with. And perhaps I should have kept silent, I don't know. I don't like it though when silence is interpreted for agreement, and we end up with a we are all the same. We aren't. Not that this should be binding to anyone. There is no need to get defensive. If we all get defensive, nothing constructive will take place.

I'm not appealing to your past. Why get trapped there? I hope for a different discussion than:

Andreas: This is not the scriptural way.
SPK: But this is what the Catholics taught in the middle ages!

Instead, I would rather see us discussing about the Scriptures, and if you prefer even about the ancient fathers (just as long as we don't proof-text at each other... that would be immature and just silly).

[ 21. November 2008, 14:58: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
Again, we aren't communicating properly. I know they didn't disagree. The issue is whether they admitted to extra-scriptural background or not. Quite different issue than what you are talking about.

Sigh.

As for who knows what the ancients said and who doesn't, that's just more cat fighting. I'm not entering that arena.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Even if shipmates like Fr Gregory feel that your presentation still falls within orthodox terms, they themselves don't present matters in the same way.

---

I suspect that much of that is due to the language barrier. Translating from greek to english (and vice versa) while retaining the precise original meaning is tricky even for the experts, and I do not think Andrew is counted among their number.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

There might be many reasons for that. This isn't fair to anyone if we discussed each person's stance... Don't you see that this is immature?

I understand what you are implying. And there is not much I can do about that, could I? What do you suggest I do?

JJ

The fathers were quoted by Protestants against the... Orthodox. Patriarch Jeremiah, I think, was mature enough to leave discussion at that. Getting your hands on texts outside of your tradition and trying to proof-text against those to whom these texts are part of their tradition is fruitless and immature. Sometimes you have to know when the other party can hold a discussion with you.

Marvin

I don't think it's an issue of language. I can't say anything more though; see my response to LSK.

By the way, could you carry on your thoughts from where you left them a few posts ago?
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
MtM, it's difficult to know, I think. Andrew expresses himself very well in basic English. I don't know, however, if he appreciates the subtle shades of meaning around particular terms and grammer in English. However, he insists that we don't need to resort to metaphysical concepts and that theological conceptualisation should be simple and straightforward. I don't know if the problem is that his English expression comes off as concrete, or if his conceptualisation is actually excessively concrete regarding the Trinity. To me, the evidence seems to suggest more the latter. If he would just agree that for those of us who subscribe to the Nicene Creed, we hold the same trinitarian faith (I'm again leaving aside the question of the troublesome and unhappy filioque) than there wouldn't be a problem. However, Andrew insists on discovering the putative original intent behind the words and there he seems to insist on an impossible degree of mental homogeneity in order for believers to be "in communion". Frankly, I think this latter idea - the demand for complete homogeneity of subjective understanding - is pathological, possibly delusional.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

I don't think we accept the same creed, unless we mean the same things when we say the same things. Saying the same things alone is not enough.

It's evident (perhaps you'd like to challenge that) that you and me don't share the same trinitarian faith. If that's just me being heretical, that's little damage to you. But if I'm actually correct then there is a lot of work to do before the two of us could come into communion...

[ 21. November 2008, 15:27: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
The thing that I have trouble with in your explanations of the Trinity, Andreas, is your corollary between human individuality and Divine individuality.

As I understand what you've said: for humans humanity as a whole is the "humaness" of persons. Both you and I are not "humanity", but belong as part of it. We are each human beings. Then you say that for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Divine substance is the whole, while each of them are the Persons within that whole. My problem is that if belonging to humanity puts me in the category of being a human being, how does belonging to the Divinity make the Father "God" and the other two persons not? Is "God" just a title, with no other significance?
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Lyda

Let me explain.

You are human, right? You are 100% human, you are not part of something, you are the real deal. The same applies to me. We are not parts of a larger "human nature", we are both fully human.

God is fully God. He is not part of a larger "God". He is the real deal. His Son, being, well, His Son, is fully God as well. This is what we mean when we say "light from light, true God from true God". So, you CAN call Christ God, and indeed we do so, PROVIDED we mean what I said above and not something else!

Is it any clearer now?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
*Whack*

Homousious!

There, get is now? You left out that bit. "Of one Being with the Father!"

I do not worship multiple gods. I worship the One True God, Triune, Almighty, Omnipotent, All-Loving and Ever-Present.

This educational session with the Stick of Orthodoxy has been brought to you by the Nicene Fathers, who find Arianism and Tritheism deplorable in all their forms.

Tritheism and Arianism make the Council Fathers cry.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
... this is not supposed to be about complex terms and difficult meanings.

---

quote:

---

I saw an ultra-persona He, and I responded by saying there are three He and not one.

---

quote:

---

I got back the reply that this is tritheism.

---

quote:

---

As for God being one... Of course He is one... Paul says that explicitly... For us there is one God, the Father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If he would just agree that for those of us who subscribe to the Nicene Creed, we hold the same trinitarian faith (I'm again leaving aside the question of the troublesome and unhappy filioque) than there wouldn't be a problem. However, Andrew insists on discovering the putative original intent behind the words and there he seems to insist on an impossible degree of mental homogeneity in order for believers to be "in communion". Frankly, I think this latter idea - the demand for complete homogeneity of subjective understanding - is pathological, possibly delusional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Remember, we neither confuse the persons nor divide the substance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

JJ

The fathers were quoted by Protestants against the... Orthodox. Patriarch Jeremiah, I think, was mature enough to leave discussion at that. Getting your hands on texts outside of your tradition and trying to proof-text against those to whom these texts are part of their tradition is fruitless and immature. Sometimes you have to know when the other party can hold a discussion with you.

---

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Firstly I am not talking of Protestant vs Orthodox conversations. Calvin never intended Orthodox to read his Institutes. He expected fellow Protestants too, so he is not trying to be a better Orthodox the Orthodox by using secondary sources. So I am saying "Here is a Protestant writing to Protestants, see how he use the writings of the church fathers". You must agree that is very different.

Before you ask, it is directed specifically at Protestants not the whole Western Church. Also consider how often do Orthodox writers since the 15th Century write for a Protestant audience?

Secondly if we acknowledge secondary sources as valid sources then they are no longer solely your sources but our sources. Sources Protestants share with Orthodox, not the sole the possessions of the Orthodox. Just as I don't say to a Catholic who quotes Calvin "unhand him, he's Protestant". You cannot say to us "unhand the Church Fathers they are Orthodox". Protestants are not sole arbiters of Calvin, Luther, Hus, Zwingli, Farel, Knox or any other Reformers legacy. Nor can Orthodox be sole arbiters of the Church Father's legacy.

If your legacy is rich and everyone Christian should draw on it, then you should not shout foul every time another Christian does.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Father Gregory is of course right in what he wrote... I would only say one thing different.

Strange as it might sound in modern ears, circumincessio was not the solution to the arian controversy, because it wasn't denied by the heretics.... What was denied was the Son's (and the Spirit's) being uncreated.

Which is why the answer to the arian controversy (and the controversies that followed) is the Creed of the first (and the second) ecumenical councils and not additional theological deliberations!

That's the only correction I'd make to what father Gregory said!

Jengie Jon

There is use and there is... abuse. Now, I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to recognize my right to view the early Reformers' use of some patristic quotations as abuse, rather than as lawful use...

[ 21. November 2008, 22:29: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I accept that correction.
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Good god, not another debate about the inner relations of the Godhead.

Can't we Christians simply accept the doctrine of the Trinity and resist the urge to speculate on the precise workings of the Godhead?

The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

That is good enough for me.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Anglican_Brat, I tend to agree and have been thinking all afternoon how absurd this whole discussion must seem to the Blessed Trinity -- as if we stupid creatures could grasp the nature of the Godhead with any accuracy at all. What we propose are models for what God is like, given what we have seen. Our best model is the Nicean-Chalcedonian model of Godhead and Christology. It is undoubtedly, at best, very far stepped down from the divine Reality.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Amen.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Although there is truth in that you know that is what annoys us Orthodox about you Anglicans ... just as soon as we get somewhere with you in dialogue you leave the pitch in a harumph of spiritual superiority ... I suspect because such clear thinking challenges you too much NOT because God is offended by us debating the implications of the Incarnation for monotheism.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Well, Fr Gregory, I wasn't necessarily leaving, just stating my misgivings about a debate that seems more about words than realities.

Are we getting somewhere? ISTM that we have been at an impasse and that this impasse is due in no small part to a refusal to believe that Western Christians could possibly hold orthodox beliefs. If we affirm the Creed and the declaration of Chalcedon regarding the natures of Christ, then we are unquestionably reading these wrongly and benightedly, so that our understanding is heterodox. If we properly explicate the Creed, then we are still failing to grasp the proper patristic anthropology and philosophical categories. I'm sorry, Father, but this strikes one as so much OC chauvinism. And as a former Anglican cleric, you really ought to know better.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Lietuvos

Did you not notice what had happened when Andrew agreed with my last post? I had actually managed to close the gap somewhat between you and him but rather than gauge the importance of this we had a "down tools" response. Yes, I know precisely what I am dealing with here. Rather than a celebration of apophatic theology (remember who it is who emphasises that?) this reluctance to debate I think reflects a certain Christian anti-intellectualism in the west. Long words, call him "smart arse," (not you of course ... another thread).
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Although there is truth in that you know that is what annoys us Orthodox about you Anglicans ... just as soon as we get somewhere with you in dialogue you leave the pitch in a harumph of spiritual superiority ... I suspect because such clear thinking challenges you too much NOT because God is offended by us debating the implications of the Incarnation for monotheism.

---

quote:

---

I must say that one thing I've gotten out of this thread is that it is right to direct prayers to the Persons, not to the rather amorphous Substance. And I'll start doing that consistently.

---

quote:

---

orignally posted by Father Gregory

such clear thinking challenges you too much

---

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.

---

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.

---

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....

---

quote:

---

If I hurt you, attribute that to silliness, and forgive me.

---

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?"

---

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
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Sorry about code...editing time expired while I was checking for clarity.

M
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
§ 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.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
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!

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
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 

quote:

---

I think your problem is a lack in proper education about these things

---

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

---

quote:

---

You make an assertion that matches nothing I have encountered in the fathers. And I have studied them extensively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Second, your contentions about Trinitarian theology really fail when we get to Chalcedon.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I suggest you get some rest too, and maybe you'll feel better in the morning.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---

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).

---

quote:

---

I'm not really sure here though.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Two essences would be two beings! Chalcedon clearly said two natures without mingling or confusion.

---

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).

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
His main objective was to get back past Cajetan to "the Thomism of St. Thomas", he said.

---

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...

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
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".
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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."
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
First of all, what divine unity???

---

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.

---

quote:

---

First of all, don't you see that it's a bit strange to pray "to whoever might be hearing"?

---

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!

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Priest: Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
People: And blessed be his kingdom, now and forever

---

quote:

---

Eυλογημένη η Βασιλεία του Πατρός και του Υιού και του Αγίου Πνεύματος, νυν και αεί και εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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!

[ 24. November 2008, 13:18: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
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)

---

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."

---

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.

---

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"...

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
What do you mean when you say there are three divine persons and why this isn't tritheism to you?

You can speak about all the hymns you like. I don't mind. The word used in that prayer is "she". The Trinity. She. The Parliament. She. Get it?

I don't mind explaining all the examples you like. I won't forget my question to you though. What do you mean when you say there are three divine persons and why this isn't tritheism to you?

---

Actually this is very unclear to me. English does not have grammatical gender in the way that Greek does. Gender in English speech is entirely determined by the subject, and other then determining which form of third-person pronoun (masculine, feminine, or neuter) is used, has no impact on meaning.

"Parliament" is a mass noun. It is a corporate body, which is both plural and singular at the same time. Therefore we say "Parliament is in session right now". Parliament may have multiple parts, but it has one will.

Calling the Trinity "She" is absurd in English. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when are addressed as male either individually or collectively. There is nothing female in that group to use a female pronoun for.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
SPK, I understand the fixation on the gender of words in classical languages and the insistence on the agreement of any modifiers attached to the words, but I draw the line at saying that nouns with adjectives agreeing are determinative of Church dogma.

If we did as has been suggested, call the Holy Trinity "She", the Wiccans and the U.S. Feminist theologians would be begging to be chrismated in the Orthodox Church!

Then, some of us would have a real problem. This linguistic hair-splitting is as nothing in comparison to the intolerance, mostly on nationalistic grounds, of some Orthodox Christians for other Orthodox Christians.

A lot of my trouble on these boards, by the way, has come from the accident of birth that made me an American. But these boards are not always a political popularity contest, thank God. Just this one thread, it seems.

Mary
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
SPK

If in English you are using "He" for bodies, for many persons together, then by all means use "He" for the Trinity. But if you are not doing that, then using it for the Trinity would mean something different other than what the word "trinity" actually means.

By the way, how do you understand "there are three divine persons" and why isn't this tritheism to you?

LM

Nobody said you are not welcome here. I have already attempted that we resolved all it is that you have against me. It's very obvious that you are playing games with the words you are using, implying things against my character and my person, but I don't hold that against you. If you want us to resolve these issues, I'm here for you. We can discuss openly, sincerely, and with respect for each other despite our disagreements.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
You have been flinging unfounded accusations against me, Andrew, ever since you came on these boards. And you know it. And everyone else has seen you do it.

Why are you still doing it, if you want me to feel welcome?

But never mind that. What I would really like to see is you tolerating other people's point of view for one or two posts before you start fighting with them.

That business about the Parliament is another red herring. Just stop with the minutiae and I'll be happy.

And stop requiring me to submit to your evaluation of my Orthodoxy. That is my spiritual father's job, and although you obviously have the ambition to be spiritual father of anyone who enters one of "your" threads, you have no epitrachelion, nor epigonation, unless you are some Greek prelate's way to get on line. If so, tell us who you really are.

It is so very hard to believe that one as young as you can be so sure of supreme proficiency in patristics. You're hardly dry behind the ears yet!

[ 24. November 2008, 19:05: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Andrew, I think we've already been over the ground of how our conception (speaking for the Western Christians here)of three divine persons is not tritheism. It isn't tritheistic because we believe and confess that these three share a single divine substance, that each is God and that the three persons are in intimate relationshp, mutually interpenetrating and indwelling. The Son is God, of eternal generation from The Father, and the Holy Spirit is God, of eternal spiration from the Father (again leaving aside in what sense the procession of the Spirit involves the agency or being of the Son).

Now, I know that answer doesn't satisfy you because you will want to know what exactly I mean by person.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
LSK

your description begs two questions:

What you mean by substance, and

What you mean by person.

So, yeah, I think it's only reasonable that I ask you to explain what you mean by those words. I explained what I mean by them. Your turn. Else the description isn't of much use, is it?

My question was a bit different, however. I started by the common phrase "there are three divine persons", and I asked what you understand this phrase to mean, and then, after you explained that, how, in your view, this isn't tritheism.

That's all I asked.

I explained the answer I give to that question. See for example the dialog here, under Athanasius' name in MIgne's Patrology.

I have been replying to all sort of questions. I think it would be constructive if you (pl.) gave your answer to the one question I posed. I got even more questions back. I answered. I asked my question again. I think it's an important question.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
It's not only an ambiguous question, Lietuvos, it's a loaded question that is being used to evaluate the "Orthodoxy" (small or large O) of anybody and everybody.

Only an ordained Orthodox priest, with the emblems of qualification to hear confessions, can actually do that. So if someone says on this thread that someone else's beliefs are heterodox, we usually depend on the ordained priest to make that judgement.

I have detailed all my beliefs to my spiritual father, and he has pronounced me to be Orthodox. He does not ask such loaded questions, of course, nor does he demand a c.v. as a qualification to discuss the Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon.

I keep hoping these discussions will help us all find some common ground, but I guess the requirements for agreement on this thread are too steep. It's our "education", dontcha know, that stands in our way.

Mary
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Andrew, I'm very reluctant to use specific terms to try to describe the quality and "thingness" of personhood that exists x3 in the Triune God. We are talking about three distinctions, three who are each eternal, three who are each almighty, three who are each God; yet not three gods but one God together. It is the nature of God to be these Three. God is One and God's Substance - God's "existance" - comprises these Three; and each of these three does not exist in isolation, but with the other two persons. In this sense, though God is three persons, God is indivisible. The persons cannot be understood without reference to the one substance - the one reality of Deity - whilst the one reality of Deity cannot be understood properly except in reference to the Three Persons.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
SPK

If in English you are using "He" for bodies, for many persons together, then by all means use "He" for the Trinity. But if you are not doing that, then using it for the Trinity would mean something different other than what the word "trinity" actually means.

By the way, how do you understand "there are three divine persons" and why isn't this tritheism to you?

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually it is far easier to understand. We use "he" rather than "it" for God simply as "it" is slightly coarser. You would not want to imply the Godhead is less than a person now would you. It is a mark of respect and nothing more.

---

I wonder if Andreas gets that? I mean really?

Just to be clear - in English there is no grammatical gender. "He" means male and "She" means female. As simple as that.

However, in English, it is also rude or insulting to refer to a person as "it". (Or indeed anything to which we conventionally attribute personality including animals in general, countries, and sometimes even machines such as moving vehicles and in particular ships - languages are funny like that)

So we are in a bind when talking about God. Either we say "it", which seems rude to us, and also implies that God is not a person - it would be something that a deist or an agnostic might say, but not a Christian or other theist. Or else we choose to use either "he" or "she". Which is more personal but really does contain the misleading implication that we think God is male or female. As you have seem arguments about.

But there really is no choice that works out for everybody.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
See my comment to that, in reply to SPK, here.

[ 24. November 2008, 21:40: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Let's all get together VERY CLOSE, earlobe touching earlobe and .....

>

>

>

bang our heads together.

By the authority committed to my office (not to my person) ...

Love one another and LISTEN (no one excepted and including me).

I am not trying to be a Host BUT IN THE NAME OF GOD,

ENOUGH!
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
This was my answer to Andrew's question.

I thought it was the sort of answer he wanted, because he had said that the answer lay in the Fathers.

If he wanted more, I cannot give more, because I am not capable of defining dogma for the Orthodox Church.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Very sensible, Father.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
SPK

If in English you are using "He" for bodies, for many persons together, then by all means use "He" for the Trinity. But if you are not doing that, then using it for the Trinity would mean something different other than what the word "trinity" actually means.

By the way, how do you understand "there are three divine persons" and why isn't this tritheism to you?

...

---

What LSK said about the Three Persons and their mutual indwelling. They share a fundamental threeness and oneness, in that they act together and share a single Divine Will. All three exist simultaneously and act separately, yet in perfect harmony due to their fundamental, overarching "God-ness". The Trinity is not three gods who act in opposition or disharmony to each other.

---

Thanks for your post SPK, you express this better than I did.


 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What LSK said about the Three Persons and their mutual indwelling. They share a fundamental threeness and oneness, in that they act together and share a single Divine Will. All three exist simultaneously and act separately, yet in perfect harmony due to their fundamental, overarching "God-ness". The Trinity is not three gods who act in opposition or disharmony to each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:

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."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
You can speak about all the hymns you like. I don't mind. The word used in that prayer is "she". The Trinity. She. The Parliament. She. Get it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
In trinitarian theology 1+1+1 does NOT = 3. Are there 3 "1's" (hypostases)? Yes there are. Together, are there 3 Gods? No there are not. Are the persons personal? Yes they are. Are the 3 persons individuals? No they are not.

---

quote:

---

You simply cannot use counting and atomism to characterise the tripersonal unity. Moreover the energies of God are not activities or actions. The energies of God are God tripersonally US-WARD.

---

quote:

---

The essence of God is God tripersonally GOD-WARD.

---

quote:

---

PS ... your exoneration of Aquinas is meaningless ... literally without meaning.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that there's any overarching 'God-ness' in the Trinity. There's nothing more to the Trinity than the three persons. But each person is such that they are necessarily part of the Trinity. There is no conceptual space in which we can imagine the Father as not Father of the Son.

(If you don't think these things through then Aquinas' distinction between persons as independent substances and persons as relations looks like it's downgrading the reality of person. But Aquinas always has in mind the super-eminent reality of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by k-mann:
No. Because that only shifts the problem. Why is it problematic to speak of a "personal God-He" (whatever that's supposed to mean), but not problematic to speak about a "personal God-She"?

---

When we say "class, don't forget to have your homework ready for tomorrow" we don't address an ultra-personal entity, but we are using that term merely to address the persons of the students in the class.

If you are using the term trinity that way, I have no problem with it, although, if you want my personal opinion, I call the trinity it in English. I don't know if that says anything to you.

I don't get why if you don't use "he" for other collective bodies, you use it only for the trinity, if you don't refer to something ultra-personal.

That said...
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Let's see where we are here....


First, I'm charged with tritheism, but then people say "we all believe the same"

Then, there is no explanation of what the terms person and essence mean.

This I find problematic.

In Greek you can't get more clearer than that. The words prosopon (person), hypostasis (the one that exists on a foundational level), atom (individual), yparxis (existence) have been used to describe what we mean by "three divine persons".

Instead of that, in this very thread you spoke of one existence that is "God", an overarching "God-ness", that the Godhead is not less than a person (what does this mean????) , someone even said that God is by necessity three persons!

You can't have it both ways. Either what I said sounds tritheistic to you, or it doesn't and we are of the same faith. Confusing this issue further by not explaining the words you are using isn't helpful!

I explained very clearly what I mean with the words I use. One human substance/essence/nature... 6+ billion persons/hypostases/individuals/existences...... That's the way the ancient discussions went...

I also pointed to Paul and John...

Feel free to share your thoughts...
 

---

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
(takes deep breath)

Shall we look at the Litany of the Saints?

quote:

---

Kyrie, eleison.
R. Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, eleison.
R. Christe, eleison.
Kyrie, eleison.
R. Kyrie, eleison.
Christe, audi nos.
R. Christe, audi nos.
Christe, exaudi nos.
R. Christe, exaudi nos.
Pater de caelis Deus,
R. miserere nobis.
Fili Redemptor mundi Deus,
R. miserere nobis.
Spiritus Sancte Deus,
R. miserere nobis.
Sancta Trinitas, unus Deus,
miserere nobis.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.
Father of heaven, God, have mercy on us.
Son and Saviour of the world, God, have mercy on us.
Holy Spirit, God, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A question for the orthodox here:
are the persons of the Trinity part of the essence of God or part of the activity (=energies) of God. If they're only part of the activities of God, then you would appear to have modalism. If they're part of the unknowable essence, then how can we know that they are three and not one? After all Father Gregory says that we can experience them, and we can't experience the essence of God.
Probably I'm misunderstanding the essence/energy distinction, but I would like to know how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem with the Orthodox account as it is being expounded on these boards is that it looks as if the words 'three' and 'person' are being used univocally for three human persons, three martian persons, three angelic persons, and three divine persons. As if we could understand the three persons of the blessed Trinity as material contingent beings as we are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Shall we look at the Litany of the Saints?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
SPK, I understand the fixation on the gender of words in classical languages and the insistence on the agreement of any modifiers attached to the words, but I draw the line at saying that nouns with adjectives agreeing are determinative of Church dogma.

If we did as has been suggested, call the Holy Trinity "She", the Wiccans and the U.S. Feminist theologians would be begging to be chrismated in the Orthodox Church!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
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:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
What do you mean when you say there are three divine persons and why this isn't tritheism to you?

You can speak about all the hymns you like. I don't mind. The word used in that prayer is "she". The Trinity. She. The Parliament. She. Get it?

I don't mind explaining all the examples you like. I won't forget my question to you though. What do you mean when you say there are three divine persons and why this isn't tritheism to you?

---

Actually this is very unclear to me. English does not have grammatical gender in the way that Greek does. Gender in English speech is entirely determined by the subject, and other then determining which form of third-person pronoun (masculine, feminine, or neuter) is used, has no impact on meaning.

"Parliament" is a mass noun. It is a corporate body, which is both plural and singular at the same time. Therefore we say "Parliament is in session right now". Parliament may have multiple parts, but it has one will.

Calling the Trinity "She" is absurd in English. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when are addressed as male either individually or collectively. There is nothing female in that group to use a female pronoun for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
I also pointed to Paul and John...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Isn't the Holy Spirit referred to by "it" in the Greek NT? The Holy Spirit is feminine, Wisdom, She, in the OT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Major Disaster:
However, you said yourself that Trinity-He is problematic and not Orthodox. The thread started with that premise, quoting "He too does not find love," and finding that to be unitarian. This was taken as typifying the unitarianism of western Christianity, causing much painful discussion and protests from LSK SPK and others, including Orthodox Christians.

---

quote:

---

But in this prayer, the Trinity is NOT shorthand for the Three, or else it would naturally use the second person plural.

---

quote:

---

This prayer has been a problem for me; but I say it sincerely because I have it from the Church, and I believe in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:

ENERGIES
What I am trying to exclude here is action at a distance by confessing that the Energies ARE the tripersonal hypostases manifesting one God in creation itself; ie., not acting ON creation from without but IN creation from within. Traditionally the Orthodox have said that the Energies are Uncreated (by being God). Is this your position?

---

quote:

---

AQUINAS

This is your contribution:-

quote:

---

(If you don't think these things through then Aquinas' distinction between persons as independent substances and persons as relations looks like it's downgrading the reality of person. But Aquinas always has in mind the super-eminent reality of God.

---

How does the "super-eminent reality of God" rescue the plain meaning of the hypostases as combinatorial relations of two? If by "super eminent" you mean the "hyper-transcendent" ESSENCE then fair enough but I still don't see how that saves Aristotle from collapsing the hypostases into a relationality which has no underpinning in personhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
I call the trinity it in English. I don't know if that says anything to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
...

Now, to my reservation:

quote:

---

But in this prayer, the Trinity is NOT shorthand for the Three, or else it would naturally use the second person plural.

---

This is not accurate, as I have tried to explain in many posts. Exactly because it's a shorthand we do NOT use the second person plural. The word, grammatically speaking is in the singular, in the feminine gender, which is why the singular number is used.

It's much like the Greek word for parliament... "Edoxe ti vouli kai to dimo"... "It seemed good to the parliament and the city"... The "vouli" is like the "triada" (trinity), in the singular, in the feminine gender... denoting the members of the parliament.

So, it's NOT because of a mystery of oneness other than the oneness of communion into which we are called also "to be one" that the singular number is used.

If you used it that way, I wouldn't object. But it seems that you don't and so my objection remains.

I asked to be allowed to speak openly. Here's why:

quote:

---

This prayer has been a problem for me; but I say it sincerely because I have it from the Church, and I believe in the Church.

---

This reminds me of "faith seeking understanding". Having acquainted myself with the Orthodox teachings throughout the centuries, this does not sound Orthodox at all in my ears. Faith always follows knowledge and experience. First we know and experience God and then comes the faith of God. Faith that seeks knowledge and does not come as a result of knowledge is rejected in strong terms by the Orthodox Saints.

I hope you forgive me for saying this much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
"It" is used to describe lower lifeforms. A bug is an It. My dog is a She. The Trinity is most definitely a He.

---

quote:

---

(Nous)Nous (adj. noetic) in Orthodox Christianity is the eye of the soul. Just as the soul of man, is created by God, man's soul is intelligent and noetic. St. Thalassios wrote that God created beings "with a capacity to receive the Spirit and to attain knowledge of Himself; He has brought into existence the senses and sensory perception to serve such beings."[1] Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that God did this by creating mankind with intelligence and noetic faculties. Angels have intelligence and nous, whereas men have reason, nous and sensory perception. This follows the idea that man is a microcosm and an expression of the whole creation or macrocosmos; it is through the healed and corrected nous and the intelligence that man knows and experiences God.

In this belief, soul is created in the image of God. Since God is Trinitarian, Mankind is Nous, Word and Spirit. The same is held true of the soul (or heart): it has nous, word and spirit.
......The nous as the eye of the soul, which some Fathers also call the heart, is the center of man and is where true (spiritual) knowledge is validated. This is seen as true knowledge which is "implanted in the nous as always co-existing with it."[2]

---

Myrrh
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Lietuvos

Sorry!. That was in reply to Sober Preacher's Kid. Mea culpa.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Myrrh, I found the second and third paragraphs of your most recent post extremely interesting to contemplate. I think it leads into a matter that I've been thinking about a lot. Although God is outside of time, He entered time and space in the Incarnation, in which the human nature in the person of Jesus was taken into the eternal Logos, the two natures perfectly "fused" in the one Christ, both God and man, this Christ ascending into heaven. Hence the human nature exists within God in a way that it seemingly did not prior to the Incarnation in time: the second person of the Trinity carried the human nature into the life of the Trinity. Where before there was the Father, Word and Spirit beyond time and space, and humankind within time and space, since the Incarnation - an event in which the Timeless crosses over into time - now there is the Father, the one Christ who is both fully divine and fully human, and the Spirit. Moreover, as the Trinity are of one mind, one will and in perfect indwelling communion, the human nature is fully comprehended by the other two persons of the Trinity through the agency of the Son. Is it not correct, then, to say that God Himself has changed - or transformed Himself - as a result of the Incarnation?
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
But Dafyd's Aquinas shared the same opinion with the neo-platonic (i.e. UNITARIAN) philosophers of Islam (i.e. UNITARIAN) and Judaism (i.e. UNITARIAN) sounds very strange to say the least...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
For all that I respect Abp. Rowan I am afraid that you can't trump me with him. I do not build my own doctrine but rather that of the saints and faithers of the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

Although St. Gregory Palamas was the first to articulate this distinction between essence and energies systematically he remained an existential theologian and traced the distinction back within the Tradition of the Church but articulated in different ways at different times. If this distinction is not made then any contrast of God's transcendence and immanence is merely semantic.

---

quote:

---

Aquinas (not Aristotle, sorry) does not work within theological framework nor does he start from the Church's experience of God but rather builds on an Augustinian framework and pushes the equivalence of the hypostases to the point where they effectively disappear leaving merely the smile of the Cheshire Cat beaming down moggiless.

---

quote:

---

No amount of "you need to see how he got there" (I know how he got there and it was a wrong turning) or all theological language is analogical (it isn't - we have had this before about "Father" as a Divine Name) will rescue the Angelic Doctor from the plain sense of his conclusion to which you yourself have attested.

---

quote:

---

None of the arguments proffered ... all of which have some merit ... have convinced me that the invocation of God as Mother is licit in the Christian Church. One (but only one) basic reason is really quite simple and I leave you with that.

It is what I have received and as you know Orthodox set great store by hand me downs and not DIY's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Myrrh, I found the second and third paragraphs of your most recent post extremely interesting to contemplate. I think it leads into a matter that I've been thinking about a lot. Although God is outside of time, He entered time and space in the Incarnation, in which the human nature in the person of Jesus was taken into the eternal Logos, the two natures perfectly "fused" in the one Christ, both God and man, this Christ ascending into heaven. Hence the human nature exists within God in a way that it seemingly did not prior to the Incarnation in time: the second person of the Trinity carried the human nature into the life of the Trinity. Where before there was the Father, Word and Spirit beyond time and space, and humankind within time and space, since the Incarnation - an event in which the Timeless crosses over into time - now there is the Father, the one Christ who is both fully divine and fully human, and the Spirit. Moreover, as the Trinity are of one mind, one will and in perfect indwelling communion, the human nature is fully comprehended by the other two persons of the Trinity through the agency of the Son. Is it not correct, then, to say that God Himself has changed - or transformed Himself - as a result of the Incarnation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
You said that Aquinas shared the opinion that God's essence is God's existence with the neo-platonic Muslim and Jewish philosophers....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Almost without exception such persons are initially rejected and then posthumously assimilated and defanged ... St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila ... although some remain rejected being too inedible to swallow ... Eckhardt, Fenelon, de Chardin.

---

quote:

---

Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras said:
or the One "in Whom we live and move and have our being", as an Anglican liturgical prayer puts it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I think this once again gets us back to seeing how Christ is uniquely the bridge between God and Man, the deification of the human nature.

---

quote:

---

I also agree with the conception that, as I might put it, God is the substrate of all being, or the One "in Whom we live and move and have our being", as an Anglican liturgical prayer puts it. But still beyond time and space, in that God is, of course, unlimited by the time-space continuum to which we human creatures are presently limited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
All I AM saying is that Aquinas' approach (quite irrespective of which order or tradition in which he stood) is defective in that he represents a certain rationalising strand within the medieval west which is rather ill at ease with experiential theology.

---

quote:

---

You have admitted by Aquinas "reduces" the hypostases to intra-trinitarian relations

---

quote:

---

and you have stated that his method had as its aim the establishment of a bridgehead of rationality and discourse with those not having the experiential aspect of faith. THAT was the wrong turning. Not that he wanted to establish a bridgehead nor yet that it should be rational but that it could start from a place other than an existential encounter with the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
And other than rejecting explicitly neoplatonism, he looks exactly like those neoplatonic philosophers of the unitarian monotheistic religions...

They all had two arms, two legs, one head, one tongue... Very similar indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So you're thinking that if someone disagree with somebody on one point they must disagree on all points, and if they agree on one point they must agree on all points.

---

If one rejects the entire framework of neoplatonism, yes, one disagrees with the neoplatonics. They might agree on apples being yummy, or whatever, but their worldviews are radically different.

As for Aquinas, if Aquinas says existence is essence, and Damascene says person is existence, then they disagree on a fundamental teaching about God... Their theology, and it is theology we are discussing here, is different.

As for there being three existences, three "υπάρξεις", you can read de sancta trinitate, verse 40, here.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Andrew,

Your Greek is far better than mine, but I am not sure that the most natural English translation for υπάρξεις is "existences" (normally, "existence" or "substance" would translate "ousia"). In figuring out the most natural translation, it is worth noting that Basil uses "hyparxis" as a synonym for "hypostasis," which would normally be translated in English as "subsistence." And Aquinas is quite explicit that is speaking of the persons of the Trinity as three "subsistences" he intends what the Fathers mean be "hypostases." So on this point at least Aquinas would seem to agree with John of Damascus (and Basil).

As to Fr. Gregory's claim that Thomas represents a "rationalising" tendency in Western theology, I think this is to badly misread what he is about, though I will admit that it is a misreading that was vigorously promoted by those who considered themselves his advocates in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Specifically with regard to the Trinity, Thomas is quite clear that it is a mystery that cannot be known via human reason. All reason can do with regard to the trinity is to show (against pagan, Jewish and Muslim objections) that belief in it is not irrational, and to offer some dim analogies that might (and I stress might) allow us, in the flash of a trembling glance, to have some sense of what we are talking about, before we fall back into our ordinary reasoning processes.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
FCB

υπάρχω, means I exist. Ύπαρξη, is therefore the existence. For the Orthodox Saints, person, hypostasis, individual, existence, they are all the same... so, it is very understandable why St. Basil (for example) speaks the way you say he does...

The difference with Aquinas, to the extent that I understand Dafyd, is that the ancients equated existence NOT with essence (ousia), but with person... So, for Aquinas St. John would be tritheistic, and for St. John Aquinas would be unitarian... exactly because they have a different understanding of what a person is...

The problem is not linguistic but theological... Of course υπάρξεις is a synonym for υποστάσεις. The problem arises when the divine essence is though to be some sort of being... (like we say "three human beings")

I am aware that there are attempts by Catholic theologians today to re-interpret Aquinas... and I am very supportive of those attempts. I have heard about French Catholic theologians and so on... I also agree that the mystery of the trinity is not explained here... what is explained (and can be explained) is the dogma... NOT the mystery... and I think there is some dogmatic difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

[ 28. November 2008, 13:20: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
FCB

On second thoughts... Perhaps there IS some sort of misunderstanding... which is why I insisted on all sides explaining what they mean with those terms we are using...

As for my evaluation on how the discussion goes so far...

With great relief I see that some of the initial frustration is gone... which is a good thing... Also, we seem to communicate in a more efficient way what we mean, but there is much road ahead since there are still some words that need to get explained...

Unfortunately, there is not much I can point you to in the English language... because the ancient Greek-speaking fathers have been ignored for quite some time... I understand the language and the cultural barrier, and I respect the fact that there are difficulties...

If only we could resolve that as well... then the other side could appreciate that I'm not making things up, but there is a tradition of two thousand years before me... which tradition I try to internalize...

We are talking about centuries of theology here, and centuries of alienation from each other (and even from our own traditions!), but nevertheless I value any progress that we can make. There are other issues I'd like to talk about, like icons, or Christ having no γνώμη, and what this means about our views of the Incarnation... but I think under the current circumstances it would be best if I just sticked with one issue rather than bringing everything on the table!
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Well, Andrew, all I can say is that Aquinas thought he agreed with John of Damascus.
 

---

Posted by §Andrew (# 9313) on :
 
Oh, I know that

Like I know he thought he understood St. Dionysios the Areopagite...

But let us not forget that like we now speak of a pseudo-Aristotle of the Renascence, there is also heavy criticism (at least from the Orthodox side; I'm not following what current scholarship has to say on the matter in the West) about the misinterpretations of the few Greek-speaking Saints that were known in the West at that time...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. More (and much greater and graver) issues are raised by some Orthodox theologians... But I can't bring everything on the table, because that would be too much for the time being.

[ 28. November 2008, 13:44: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So you're thinking that if someone disagree with somebody on one point they must disagree on all points, and if they agree on one point they must agree on all points.

---

If one rejects the entire framework of neoplatonism, yes, one disagrees with the neoplatonics. They might agree on apples being yummy, or whatever, but their worldviews are radically different.

---

quote:

---

As for Aquinas, if Aquinas says existence is essence, and Damascene says person is existence, then they disagree on a fundamental teaching about God... Their theology, and it is theology we are discussing here, is different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You said (to paraphrase) that Aquinas could be read as downgrading the hypostases to intra-trinitarian relations and I said that this is the only reasonable reading. You then went on to say that I wasn't allowing for his understanding of the supereminent aspect of God and I then said that I didn't know how that addressed my concerns and therefore lacked meaning. You then drew my attention to what Aquinas was trying to achieve by the curtailment of assumptions in relating the Trinity for those unfamiliar with the idea and I then said that in achieving that aim he should rather have dealt with the existential aspects of encountering the Trinity. Now I may have got this summary terribly wrong but that is where I think we are up to now. Do you agree? If not, please edit.

---

quote:

---

1) When Aquinas says the procession is a relation and therefore in God is a person, is he reducing the persons to relations, or is he elevating the relations in God to persons?

2) If Aquinas was wrong to come to his conclusion, where exactly in his chain of reasoning did he make the mistake?

3) Is Aquinas' method, to start with what can be known of God through reason outside the church, necessarily mistaken?

4) Is it possible to use existential aspects of encountering the Trinity as a basis for discussion with those who have not encountered the Trinity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
If Aquinas says that there are really three who exist, then why do I sound tritheistic to some here and not... Aquinas?

---

It's because you seem to think that that's all to say on the matter; you think that the unity is merely verbal.
Also because you deny that we can get to the Trinity from the unity. If you think that Western Christianity is unitarian, it seems that you have a different belief.

You quote Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa, saying that the three persons are just like three human persons - but that's not actually all that Athanasius and Gregory say.
Athanasius points out that the three divine persons don't have bodies and so don't circumscribe each other that way.
Gregory points out that they only have one power, one operation, one goodness, etc, and so on, while many men have many operations. (And indeed, Gregory goes on to say that his arguments about nature are directed at those who incorrectly believe that 'God' means the nature and not the operation.)
Athanasius and Gregory both say, if you read them correctly, that they call three human persons one human as a manner of speaking, but that they call the three persons of the Trinity one God properly.
Likewise, Gregory also shows that it is only the difference in cause that makes the persons of the Trinity while in the case of humans the differences also include material existence, and all the other differences of quality.

So to say that the three divine persons are no more one than three human persons is false.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Thank you, Dafyd.


 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:
about "existence"... It was said that the three divine persons are of one existence according to Aquinas... Would you say that about humans as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Re 1. Person precedes relation. Christ prays to the Father. The Father sends the Spirit. The prayer and the outpouring are subsequent to the persons. That which is true in the divine economy is true also in the Godhead.

---

quote:

---

Re 2-4 (Which belong together). Reason has its proper place in apologetics but one cannot derive the Trinity from first principles outside the experience of the Church. This is where Aquinas betrays his dependence on Augustine. There are no vestiges or analogies of the Trinity in the subjective faculties of the human ... memory, intellect, will. To suppose such is to begin a process in which the three hypostases are collapsed into an alleged single personhood (as it must with the human subject).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Obviously when I say "person precedes relation" I do not mean in time; I mean that the person is the first term such that the relation is predicated anteriorly on the existence of the persons relating.

---

quote:

---

Concerning Augustine and the psychological analogy ... I am saying that once one thinks that the Trinity can be spoken of analogically from the unity of the human person then the hypostases necessarily become relational aspects of a single divine person and precisely not persons (plural) which is the necessary data of the Christian experience of God ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I mean that the person is the first term such that the relation is predicated anteriorly on the existence of the persons relating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now the Father and the Son and the Spirit all exist together. There's no Father without the Son and no Spirit or Son without the Father. As the Father exists so the Son and the Spirit exist. So their existence is not independent: they share one existence.

---

This is a rejection of the Father's monarchy... If the Father exists because of the Son, then the Father is not the sole cause of the Trinity, but essentially, there is no cause, than some sort of a blind (impersonal) necessity in the Trinity...

The Father causes the Son (outside time or ages) and He is the Father of the Son... but not because of the Son.

As for us having bodies... I didn't say the divine persons have bodies. Having a body is not part of the definition of a person... Angels do not have bodies either. Would you say there is one Angel?

I never denied that we have bodies. But EVEN THAT, will not prevent us from becoming one "exactly like" they are one... because it's not the body that divides us, not the absence of a body that would unite us.

The anthropological implications of the oneness of God you are proposing here are disastrous: there can be no salvation of man, because we have bodies or whatever, which the three divine persons do not have.... our union is not possible, and therefore our salvation, in Christian terms, impossible as well.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
What Andrew said (in response to you Dafyd).
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
What Andrew said

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now the Father and the Son and the Spirit all exist together. There's no Father without the Son and no Spirit or Son without the Father. As the Father exists so the Son and the Spirit exist. So their existence is not independent: they share one existence.

---

This is a rejection of the Father's monarchy... If the Father exists because of the Son, then the Father is not the sole cause of the Trinity, but essentially, there is no cause, than some sort of a blind (impersonal) necessity in the Trinity...

The Father causes the Son (outside time or ages) and He is the Father of the Son... but not because of the Son.

---

quote:

---

As for us having bodies... I didn't say the divine persons have bodies. Having a body is not part of the definition of a person... Angels do not have bodies either. Would you say there is one Angel?

---

quote:

---

I never denied that we have bodies. But EVEN THAT, will not prevent us from becoming one "exactly like" they are one... because it's not the body that divides us, not the absence of a body that would unite us.

The anthropological implications of the oneness of God you are proposing here are disastrous: there can be no salvation of man, because we have bodies or whatever, which the three divine persons do not have.... our union is not possible, and therefore our salvation, in Christian terms, impossible as well.

---

quote:

---

Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father’s deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, ‘I came out from the Father and am come’ (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, ‘I was by Him as one setting in order’ (Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But the three divine persons share one essence and operation.

---

quote:

---

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And Dave, I've been thinking that if it is impossible to explain God outside of Church, then how can one believe that anyone can be converted from non-belief in God to belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I have never in all my years of priesthood ... Anglican and Orthodox, 26 years now ... I have NEVER seen a person argued into the kingdom of God. You can render something plausible by argument but not "real" in the existential sense.

---

quote:

---

That might be because you're defining 'the kingdom of God' in such a way as to make it impossible. This sounds like you think you can judge who's in and who's not, but of course you'll claim you don't.

---

Oh pardon me! I won't speak. I am obviously a knave or a fool. How wonderful it must be to be you with YOUR insight. Thanks a bunch.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I won't speak.

---

quote:

---

I'm with you all the way on the primacy of experience, Fr. G. I just don't see how you get from that to the requirement of a single, definitive-for-all-time logico-verbal formulation that preemptively defines everyone's experience.

---

You don't because the words were not chosen to create, define and delimit the experience but rather make sense of the preceding experience.

Words are understood as they are used. What keeps them in use is a certain fittingness to the task. To me, they are still fit, although I dislike the Latinate derivation of substance (as in "substance abuse" ).
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why isn't experience a worthwhile endeavour for you Dave? Do you think that "thinking" is superior? Do you think that "experience" is hermetically sealed against all rational discourse, a vortex of the fundamentalist? What an astonishing and ludicrous idea ... oh but I forgot ... you tend to solipsism don't you so subjectivity is a private enterprise. Don't you allow for experience being shared?

---

quote:

---

Shared experiences are what make the world go round. They build relationships and allow people to know each other. But they don't reliably describe anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Mind you it also means by your own reckoning that I needn't take too seriously anything you say either. Since this will inevitably be based on your own experience (or lack of it) that also won't reliably describe anything either.

---

quote:

---

That's the problem with all the variants of non-realism.

---

quote:

---

including how Christian tradition can help with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ahhhh! At last!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But the three divine persons share one essence and operation.

---

From the text you linked us to, just one sentence BEFORE the part you quoted:

quote:

---

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son.

---

The phrase "one essence" does not mean what you think it does. (which is why in the creed we don't say one essence, but same essence... think about what the quote above means) What you said, is what that text you linked to rejects, just one sentence before what you quoted to "support" your claim!

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0