Tags
We say, rightly we cannot fully understand the Trinity; that is not the same as saying we cannot misunderstand it.
The most common early form of misunderstanding, which is still present in some Pentecostal churches is called ‘Modalism’. Modalism is the belief that God, rather than being three persons, is one person who reveals himself in three “modes,” much as an actor might play three roles in a movie. It is also called Sabellianism or monarchianism.
Modalism was the belief of two notable early church figures, Praxeas and Sabellius, both of whom aroused a large following in the church in the late 2nd (Praxeas) and early 3rd centuries (Sabellius). The size of their following and an explanation for it is given by Tertullian in A.D. 200:
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation [of the Trinity], on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God.
They fail to understand that, although he is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with his own order. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity, whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it.
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves the preeminent credit of being worshippers of the one God, as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. (Against Praxeas 3)
There is not One Divine Person, there are Three. The earliest definition of Our Faith is to be found in St. Irenaeus:
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them.
And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation
And in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Tertullian shows us the problems the early Fathers had:
Before all things God was alone … He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then was he not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—that is to say, his own Reason.
… Although God had not yet sent out his Word, he still had him within himself …
I may therefore without rashness establish that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone, since he had within himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, his Word, which he made second to himself by agitating it within Himself.
It is easy to see from this how Arius could conclude: “there was a time when the Son did not exist.”
The early church answer was that there was a time when the Son was not separate from the Father, but there was never a time when he didn’t exist. Before He was separate from the Father, He was already the Logos inside of God. There was a term for this: homoousios. It was so important that it was inserted in the Nicene Creed twice.
It is to that that the second part of this essay will refer.
servusfidelis said:
In your post yesterday you had Bosco looking for his Bible. Now, your going to have him scrambling to find his dictionary too. 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
SF, She does that to me with great regularity as well.
Recognizing myself that this has absolutely no validity as theology, what finally clicked in my mind to get me to acceptance, if not full understanding. I finally decided that they are clones-exactly the same but different. Like I said, it’s not viable theology but for me it was a useful tool to ind a slot in my brain, my soul had no problem to start with.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
That sounds more like a definition of Democrats to me. 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
You might have a point, except that I was talking modern clones not mindless automatons, do remember that sometimes i have to oversimplify to gain some understanding for myself and then I rebuild the edifice. Sort of a metaphysical take it apart to see what makes it work and then put it back together again. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Very clever, that!
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
Reverse engineering we call it in industry. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
As long as you can keep it straight in your own mind and don’t end up by telling everyone that the Trinity is a Democrat. 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
No problem with that. I don’t think the trinity has much to do with either party frankly. But especially the Democrats. What could we call that ‘Sola Contstitution’. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I believe you’re right and I ascribe to that particular sola.
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
Then i must be wrong because i thought what i was saying was that the Dems think they can interpret the Constitution like radical protestants interpret the Scriptures.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
‘Only the Constitution’ sounds more like our position. I think theirs is Sola Ex Constitution (probably incorrect Latin) but ‘Anything but the Constitution.’ Don’t you think?
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
That would be pretty close, Jess is the one who took Latin, i end up at Google Translate a lot.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Not sure that would be a permissible interpretation 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
i was afraid of that! 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
All part of the service 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
And great service it is 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you – although I hope Jabba will see that I was not being a heretic. I knew the time would come when all that work on the Cappadocian Fathers would come in handy 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
You certainly outclass anything I’ve ever read on it, which admittedly isn’t much, protestant education being what it is. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
This is, as we all know, a hugely difficult area, but I hope that through a combination of saying what the Trinity is not, and what the Church has endorsed, we can see the common ground again.
The Nicene Creed is the norm for most of us, and its terms set out the understanding of the Creed.
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
And it hard to say it much differently, really, and make the point. I think that was the problem yesterday, in trying to make a point we wandered into what it is not and some didn’t follow the path well, me among ’em :-).
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Well, I’m starting to wonder if Bosco is going to arrive or not. I can’t wait around all day, as I have a tin foil hat to make before the convention starts tonight. I wonder if that is where Bosco is?
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
He’d fit in, I’m afraid. I just told a friend that I hope TV land has something I like on this week 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I hope is is feeling better and will look up some of what is being said here.
I want him to know we are not disrespecting his views, however much some of what he says disrespects those of others. We are Christ’s people, and we shall, if we have to, turn the other cheek and seek only to help all of us to a better understanding.
In a sense he’s done me a favour. I have been dancing around saying something about the Trinity, and indeed, in some early posts had put out some of my favourite quotations, but I had not wanted to wrestle with it again – now I am having to – which is good, at least for my mind.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
These apologetic exercises are always good at re-examining our core beliefs. Nothing is ever lost in the process. You’re doing a splendid job and the rest of us have at least used the time for some good cheer – or sophomoric snickering as may be the case.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Great thing a bit of R&R – as I hope to find out when my husband returns at the end of the month 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Good for you. Happy to hear you’ll be reunited soon. You must be looking forward to it very much. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I am, so much, he’s been gone for quite a while – so fingers crossed that nothing happens in these last weeks. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
My prayers are for that as well. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you – I try to be as brave as he is – it is the least I can do – but you guys will know that isn’t always as easy as we ladies like to make it seem 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I think of the many years my mother spent at home alone, trying as best she could to raise us kids, while my father was either at war or on extended sea maneuvers. It is a real sacrifice to be married to a military person. And the spouses deserve an equal amount of gratitude for their service: for without them, I dare say few men would make a career of the service much less volunteer to serve.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you, my friend; that appreciation is, itself, very much appreciated 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I absolutely mean it. They military wives I met growing up were some of the smartest and strongest individuals I have ever met.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I must say I am proud of the company I keep there 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
As well you should. You are in an elite group of strong, patriotic people who hold the homes together for those who wish to be home but cannot. All should be commended for their sacrifice and hard work. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you. It is not very often that we get remembered in that way 🙂
But in the end, it is our men ( and some women now) who put their very existence on the line.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
True, and it is you on the home front that keeps them going and gives them a reason to carry on and do their best to get their job done and return. An fighting force of people with bad morale is a pitiful thing. You are in the hearts of your spouses out in the far places of the world that gives them hope and purpose. God bless you both for what you do. You make sure you tell your husband how much we appreciate his sacrifice as well. We all need to be batter at getting that message to these brave men and women. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I shall. I know he and his men really appreciate it. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
They deserve all our gratitude and all free men should be quick to thank them for the job they do. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
So true, my friend 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
I hope so as well. I felt bad almost as soon as I pushed the button yesterday. 😦
The Trinity is one of those areas where as near as I can tell, we all agree (excepting Unitarians and such, of course) but none of us has a surefire way of expressing it because it’s a difficult concept.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, there is a type of Pentecostalism which is, so far as I can understand it, Modalist in thought, and it may be that that is what Bosco has contact with.
The point is that it is one of those ideas which does come, naturally, out of a certain way of reading the Scriptures, and as I tried to explain, that is why Arius thought that there was a time when the Son did not exist and that He was the first-born of Creation.
It may be a natural reading, but it is not one the early Church endorsed. But I think we can see now why Arianism was so persistent.
Thinking about Three-ness and One-ness does make the head ache, I am afraid. One God, Three Persons? It is why some Muslins think we are not monotheists. I recall from University a long discussion with a Muslim who was utterly convinced we believed in Three Gods. By the end He was convinced we did, but wouldn’t admit it.
In a way I can sympathise – this is the hardest thing, and anyone who claims they understand it fully doesn’t. All I am trying to do is say what the Fathers said it was not 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
I’m following you, and your explanation is as cogent as anything I’ve read but, yes, it’s a terribly difficult area, which is why it so important, the early Fathers would have let Arianism go if they hadn’t thought it important. Can you imagine trying to explain this to an illiterate peasant?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Just about impossible – and of course, it is an issue because there are always those who wonder why it matters – but it matters because it we are going to know Christ, we need to know Him as He has revealed Himself 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
Seconding SF @ 7:21, I honor you greatly Dear Friend, I am not sure that it harder to wait, and wonder than to be there. Congratulations. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you, my dear friend. I think the harder part is his, and that of his men. They put their lives on the line – I put my love on the line – a big sacrifice, to be sure, but I know where the real admiration is due – may God bless them all 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
I certainly agree with all you say of them, which you already know but I am glad to repeat. But the other thing is they have their comradeship to help sustain them which is something that, in my experience, guys do better, and less time to think about it, at any rate. I admire them greatly as you know but, you no less. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That is so kind and nice of you, my dear friend 🙂
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
You’re very welcome, my dearest friend. 🙂
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Sister Jess, you and others keep saying i interpret scripture as i want. I take it on face value. Jesus said do not repeat prayer, i dont repeat prayer. I will pray for the same thing most days, but i dont repeat some rote prayer, thinking i will be heard for my much speaking.Im waiting for a fellow saint to join this blog. Im overwhelmed.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Im waiting for a fellow saint to join this blog
that sounds ominous …
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Im on the west coast…of the US, so cal. My time is different from you guys, plus i was answering questions from other posts.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I know. They’re even cancelling Jersey Shore. What can they possibly replace that with? San Francisco Bay Bunch?
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
A variety show hosted by Sandra fluke? Pretty much the same characters.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Sound’s positively enlightening.
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
Poor North Calinky, having to put up with them.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
My buddy from High Point I think called North Kakalacky.
It’s an interesting State, remembering that all it makes has to exported to another State. It has no port. Now you can understand why its main two industries are moon-shining and NASCAR.
LikeLike
neenergyobserver said:
I’ve heard that moniker as well. It is an interesting state, a bit like backwards version of Virginia with more Old South tossed in, really nice people too, unless of course you happen to be a revenoor. of course NASCAR got its start as a delivery service for moonshine, so they go together..
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Hey brother Servus, when i find my bible ill address all your scriptures you put forth. Gladly. But as i always say, the new testament is not for the unsaved. They have no business reading it. Its a letter to the saints. not those who are lost.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
What gospel did that come from Bosco? It must be in the book of Myintentions which isn’t in my Bible. So exactly where do you get the notion that the New Testament is not for everybody? Nowhere in the Bible does it even claim to be the inerrant word of God. We, in the Church Christ founded, told the world that — not the other way around.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Brother Servus, ive said it a bunch of times. Jesus said that he blinds the eyes of the unsaved to the scriptures. i can find it if you cant.
The old test is the unerrant word of god. The new test is an account of Jesus and his life. We now include that as scripture. Befor there was the new testament, Jesus would say…”search ye the scriptures, for it is they that speak of me”
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Bosco – try building an ark to the specifications given to Noah – it has been tried, it doesn’t work. explanation if the OT is inerrant?
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
The startling opening words of the play written, produced, directed and leading actor Peter Ustinov in “The Love of Four Colonels,” adding much embarrassment to latecomers and a lot of shusssing was a deafening long pause…and then finally, “We seem to have run out of conversation.”
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Aquinas Summa Teologica Question 31
Article 2. Whether the Son is other than the Father?
Objection 1. It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father. For “other” is a relative term implying diversity of substance. If, then, the Son is other than the Father, He must be different from the Father; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. vii), that when we speak of three persons, “we do not mean to imply diversity.”
Objection 2. Further, whosoever are other from one another, differ in some way from one another. Therefore, if the Son is other than the Father, it follows that He differs from the Father; which is against what Ambrose says (De Fide i), that “the Father and the Son are one in Godhead; nor is there any difference in substance between them, nor any diversity.”
Objection 3. Further, the term alien is taken from “alius” [other]. But the Son is not alien from the Father, for Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that “in the divine persons there is nothing diverse, nothing alien, nothing separable.” Therefore the Son is not other that the Father.
Objection 4. Further, the terms “other person” and “other thing” [alius et aliud] have the same meaning, differing only in gender. So if the Son is another person from the Father, it follows that the Son is a thing apart from the Father.
On the contrary, Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i.] says: “There is one essence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another; although the Father is one person, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another.”
I answer that, Since as Jerome remarks [In substance, Ep. lvii.], a heresy arises from words wrongly used, when we speak of the Trinity we must proceed with care and with befitting modesty; because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3), “nowhere is error more harmful, the quest more toilsome, the finding more fruitful.” Now, in treating of the Trinity, we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiously between them–namely, the error of Arius, who placed a Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons; and the error of Sabellius, who placed unity of person with the unity of essence.
Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of essence: we may, however, use the term “distinction” on account of the relative opposition. Hence whenever we find terms of “diversity” or “difference” of Persons used in an authentic work, these terms of “diversity” or “difference” are taken to mean “distinction.” But lest the simplicity and singleness of the divine essence be taken away, the terms “separation” and “division,” which belong to the parts of a whole, are to be avoided: and lest quality be taken away, we avoid the use of the term “disparity”: and lest we remove similitude, we avoid the terms “alien” and “discrepant.” For Ambrose says (De Fide i) that “in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead”: and according to Hilary, as quoted above, “in God there is nothing alien, nothing separable.”
To avoid the heresy of Sabellius, we must shun the term “singularity,” lest we take away the communicability of the divine essence. Hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii): “It is sacrilege to assert that the Father and the Son are separate in Godhead.” We must avoid the adjective “only” [unici] lest we take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary says in the same book: “We exclude from God the idea of singularity or uniqueness.” Nevertheless, we say “the only Son,” for in God there is no plurality of Sons. Yet, we do not say “the only God,” for the Deity is common to several. We avoid the word “confused,” lest we take away from the Persons the order of their nature. Hence Ambrose says (De Fide i): “What is one is not confused; and there is no multiplicity where there is no difference.” The word “solitary” is also to be avoided, lest we take away the society of the three persons; for, as Hilary says (De Trin. iv), “We confess neither a solitary nor a diverse God.”
This word “other” [alius], however, in the masculine sense, means only a distinction of “suppositum”; and hence we can properly say that “the Son is other than the Father,” because He is another “suppositum” of the divine nature, as He is another person and another hypostasis.
Reply to Objection 1. “Other,” being like the name of a particular thing, refers to the “suppositum”; and so, there is sufficient reason for using it, where there is a distinct substance in the sense of hypostasis or person. But diversity requires a distinct substance in the sense of essence. Thus we cannot say that the Son is diverse from the Father, although He is another.
Reply to Objection 2. “Difference” implies distinction of form. There is one form in God, as appears from the text, “Who, when He was in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6). Therefore the term “difference” does not properly apply to God, as appears from the authority quoted. Yet, Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 5) employs the term “difference” in the divine persons, as meaning that the relative property is signified by way of form. Hence he says that the hypostases do not differ from each other in substance, but according to determinate properties. But “difference” is taken for “distinction,” as above stated.
Reply to Objection 3. The term “alien” means what is extraneous and dissimilar; which is not expressed by the term “other” [alius]; and therefore we say that the Son is “other” than the Father, but not that He is anything “alien.”
Reply to Objection 4. The neuter gender is formless; whereas the masculine is formed and distinct; and so is the feminine. So the common essence is properly and aptly expressed by the neuter gender, but by the masculine and feminine is expressed the determined subject in the common nature. Hence also in human affairs, if we ask, Who is this man? we answer, Socrates, which is the name of the “suppositum”; whereas, if we ask, What is he? we reply, A rational and mortal animal. So, because in God distinction is by the persons, and not by the essence, we say that the Father is other than the Son, but not something else; while conversely we say that they are one thing, but not one person.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Or, more succinctly, THIS : Before He was separate from the Father is a formal heresy.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I have never said they are separate, they are of one substance but they are two Persons. If you think the Father is the Son, that is, you will find, Modalism and a heresy. I don’t think you think that, but I am being strict in my use of language – of One Substance, in Three Persons.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
If you think the Father is the Son, that is, you will find, Modalism
Rubbish !!! (sorry)
Your (now repeated) claim that I am not being strict in my use of language is unfounded.
If you remember, I stated that the Father and the Son are BOTH different AND the same.
This is what the Christ teaches : John {10:30} I and the Father are one.
I’m NOT supporting Modalism nor any other Trinitarian heresy — I am saying that your representations pay insufficient attention to the unicity of God.
I have never said they are separate
Including not in my quote of your words ???
If you want to claim strictness of language, then please practice it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Jabba, I have been very strict, the Father is not the Son. You claimed this was a formal heresy – it is not. It is not me who is throwing around accusations of heresy.
The Father is Consubstantial with the Son, He is not the the same – that is an important difference. I have always said they are Three and they are One.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Jabba, I have been very strict, the Father is not the Son. You claimed this was a formal heresy – it is not. It is not me who is throwing around accusations of heresy.
I said — very strictly formal heresy ; that is to say, a heresy in form ONLY — NOT a heresy of belief.
If I thought you had committed a heresy of belief, I’d not be messing about with notions of “formal heresy”, I’d be a heck of a lot more critical than this !!!
You see, THIS :
The Father is Consubstantial with the Son, He is not the the same – that is an important difference. I have always said they are Three and they are One.
… does NOT contain the formal heresy I’m talking about, because there is no formal error in this statement.
OTOH, claiming that the Father is “not” the Son does contain that formal error — which, because it relates to absolutely central Christian dogma, is elevated above formal error to formal heresy.
If this weren’t something as centrally vital as the Trinity, I’d just be arguing that you’re “wrong”.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Only if I were referring to substance, Jabba.
The Father, Son and Spirit are One in Substance and Three in Person – that is strict and that is Orthodox.
The Father begets the Son, the Spirit spirates from the Father, that is their hypostatic Person.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
filioque
LikeLike
st bosco said:
OOOuuuuuu sister Jessica. Brother Jabba says you got some heresy goin there girlfriend. You gonna take that?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
if you read through, Bosco, you’ll find the answer 🙂
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
OOOuuuuuu sister Jessica. Brother Jabba says you got some heresy goin there girlfriend. You gonna take that?
Only in a strictly formal manner, I’ve never questiones her belief.
This is as *nothing* compared to your constant blasphemies and apostasies.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Long posts otta be against the law
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which is what I have been saying. They are of one essence, but the Son is not the Father. I have not used the term diversity or difference – I have very carefully said the Father is not the Son- nor is He.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Which is what I have been saying.
not really…
I have very carefully said the Father is not the Son- nor is He.
Aquinas : “It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father.”
Christ : “I and the Father are one.”
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, they are of the same substance, that is what Aquinas means, he does not mean they are the same Person.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Yes, they are of the same substance, that is what Aquinas means, he does not mean they are the same Person.
Aquinas uses language far more strictly than either of us — when he says : “It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father“, he mentions neither substance, nor essence, nor the Persons.
You are reading your own interpretation into these words, and adding something that is not there.
See — I’m not even saying that yours is a wrongful way to interpret the dogma — I’m saying, and I realise that this is both subtle and somewhat foreign to the broadly Oxonian tradition of logical analysis, that you are wrong to deny that the Father and the Son can ever be viewed as One and the same.
Not even though Christ Himself states so explicitly !!!
Is Christ’s statement “wrong” ???
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, not at all. I am saying that the First Person of the Trinity is the same in substance and different in Person. Do you not agree?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I am not saying they can never be seen as the same. They can, they are – in substance.
But in hypostasis they are Three.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Sorry — ignore “nor the Persons”, please.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
I am saying that the [First] Person of the Trinity is the same in substance and different in Person. Do you not agree?
Of course I do !!!
(Well, apart from the adjective I’ve put in brackets, No Person of the Trinity being preëminent over the Others — but I’m guessing that’s just a slip of the keyboard)
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, we agree then my friend. I think my quotation from St. Gregory says it best! He is so good Jabba.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Hey, now we’re back on track.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
We are, my friend.
Tomorrow’s post will try to deal with the Nicene Creed and with the Cappadocian Fathers, who are the men who came the closest to making what even the angels cannot comprehend comprehensible.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Queen Elizabeth used to say…” all that matters is Christ and him crucified, all the rest is arguing over trivia”
If you have the Son, you have the father………. Jesus used to say
Someone needs to check sisters temperature.She says they are the same then they are separate. Which is true. Heck, i dunno. Ill stay out of this one.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
But Bosco,if you know Jesus,you will know this, surely?
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Yes i do know. But dont let me spoil your fun. You kids go on and debate it. Jesus is still waiting for you to call on him.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Frank Sheed used to have a unique way of speaking of this. He said that God when He creates a Word (thought) of Himself creates another Person (Christ the Son). The Son who admires and loves the Father and vice versa each have a great Love of one another which is so Real that it also becomes a Person (the Holy Spirit). Therefore, One God, Same Substance, 3 Divine Persons. Simplest explanation I had ever heard for an incomprehensible mystery. In this way “filioque” is not violated. The Holy Spirit is spirated from the love of the Father for the Son and Son for the Father. All are of one substance, the One Eternal God, each is a different Divine Person but share a common will: the Will of the Father. i hope that isn’t too much of a butcher job from what I remember of Frank Sheeds explanation. It took him a chapter or two to explain it so this is more like a synopsis.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, that’s a good explanation. Of course, we all know that any explanation which made complete sense to us, wouldn’t really be a complete explanation – the finite cannot expect to understand the infinite!
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
No, that’s a pretty decent presentation of it — Father Barron makes pretty much exactly the same point in one of his many Youtube videos.
The Orthodox objections to the filioque seem generally to be very weak to me, and are essentially based on cherry-picking some passages in Scripture and ignoring others. Never a good theological nor Bibliological methodology.
To wit :
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
There are a number of reasons traditionally cited for the definition of the filioque as heretical, including the following:
Objections on doctrinal grounds
It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit’s procession in terms of the Father.
This is to affirm ONLY “from the Father” ; and to deny “I will send”.
There is, in short, no contradiction whatsoever in Scripture.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as “light of light, very God of very God,” and so forth. The Spirit also “with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified.” Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in “one God.”
If it is “redundant”, then logically this is an objection without any object — a redundancy in itself is not fallacious — this is an error of logic, not an objection.
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit’s procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
This is a crass misrepresentation of Catholic theology.
In NO WAY does Catholic theology posit the Holy Spirit as being “subordinate”, nor any other of the erroneous claims contained in this objection.
False premise>false conclusion
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive.
False conclusion > false development > false doctrine.
Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church’s unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.
This is just complete nonsense — in fact, the Eastern Bishops are quite blatantly just as guilty of the “spirit of legalism” in these matters as their Western brethren.
This is basically just an a posteriori justification of their continued rebellion against the Holy Father.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
my old friend Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to simply say: If anyone tells you they understand the Holy Trinity they are liars. That is why we call it a mystery. But what we must know essentially is that God is One. God has 3 Divined Persons with 1 Nature and that the 2nd Person took on Human Nature and thus 1 Divine Person with 2 Complete Natures; 1 Divine and 1 Human; in effect, a God-man.
If we keep it here for Bosco, I think we might be better off in seeing what he believes, if anything at all concerning the Holy Trinity; something he won’t find explicityly taught in his King James Bible.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
my old friend Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to simply say: If anyone tells you they understand the Holy Trinity they are liars.
I have, on occasion, said something very similar myself !!
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Ah, ha – consensus 🙂
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Brother Servus, dont look now, but the trinity is in the King James. Dont have me look it up. You, being the bible scholar can fint it. If you can, let me know, ill find it, as soon as i find my bible.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
You do that Bosco, because I know that even your beloved King James does not have that in it. I’m a convert from protestantism and quite familiar with the King James. I’m no Bible Scholar but no one, not even in protestantism, has ever made the claim you just made. Maybe your Bible is the only edition of some special book God made for you alone. The rest of us don’t have access to the text you seem to remember.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Brother Servus, did i read you rite? You left your first love a simple one on one with the Lord, to go to a cult full of idols and imagery, and pledge to obey a man claiming to be god on earth, a fake Holy Father? Well, i was unsaved once upon a time. i was capable of anything and almost everything. i drew the line at bowing befor idols, even when i was in nischren shoshu
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
You as a Christian should know better than to lie or put words in someone’s mouth who never spoke them. Is this how the saved behave? My love, as everyone on this blog, is God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We call ourselves Christian because we believe that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, took on our human flesh to atone for the original sins of our nature in addition to giving us a way to atone for all our actual sins that we commit here on earth. You have been told over and over that we do not bow to “things” but to God. But you, the good Christian that you are, seem hell-bent to make us into idol worshippers though you have been told otherwise. An idol worshipper, for the last time is someone who thinks that their god is somehow in the idol so they offer the idol gifts and worship. No such thing has ever happened in a Catholic Church. You want to lie over and over again do so at the risk of your own immortal soul. Speak the truth Bosco or we cannot continue to have a conversation.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Tell it to god. Bowing befor an idol is bowing befor an idol. Say why do youall need the image? Why cant you bow in the middle of your living room or the foot of your bed. Why the need for a graven image?
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
We do bow in our living rooms and we do bow at the foot of the bed and out among the beauty that God has enriched us with. We also bow when our minds and hearts are lifted to God by a reminder of Him and His glorious deeds, whether it is in art, statues, the altar that represents His sacrifice for us for our eternal salvation. Things mean nothing: the symbolism of the things can raise our hearts and minds to God. Then we are prompted by our love of God to go on our knees before him or bow or sing of his glory. Symbols have been important from the beginning and the Jewish people (Whom Christ Himself was one) had many symbols: many which are still present in their worship today.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Brother Servus and Jabba, and everyone, i went to some catholic site where evangelicals turned cathlolic. They had some nice reasons, Then i saw some sites where misguided evangelicals were marching, had signs against catholicism and were yelling at catholics. thats not right. I bet i sound like that in here. I dont want to sound like that.
Why convert to catholicism? Because protestantism isnt united in belief. Plus they dont believe eating his body and drinking his blood is literal. And where in the bible does it say scripture alone is necessary or is our sole authority? These can attract people to catholicism. Plus, there is plenty, more than plenty of maddness in the protestant world. Turn on ant televangelist and you see a good show. But thats it. A good show, full of falsehoods and trickery. It gets worster with the preachers and their followers that you dont see on TV, like Jim Jones and others. WE have a few of those here in the inland empire in so calif. Right near me.I pass one place on my way to work now, It used to be just a revival tent. I never went.But now its a big church building and they are adding another building. All from squeezing the flock. I drive past there alot now and then. One sunday, a few yrs back, as i passed there, they had these big goons at the driveway letting cars in. I got this bad feeling that came over me. They looked like big secret servicemen.But in dress clothes. It scared the begeepers out of me. No way would i turn into that madness, not that im some little helpless guy, but they might have guns.The spirit was warning me. Lots of these protestant charismatics are just plain evil. I can see why people try another church, one that claims to be gods. Like mormons, catholic or Jehovas.I saw thru your eyes for a little while. You see these protestant( for lack of better word) outfits and behold conflicts and money grubbing and lies. Well, protstants behold the CC and see the same.Not in the man in the pews, the honest god fearing catholic, but the clergy who launder the vast wealth of the CC and the aids who wallow in the money from televangelists..Gene Scott and Hagee are the only two that i cant find fault with.. But Hagee cohorts with the like of Duplantis and Hinn. That i dont agree with.That young actor from the TV show Growing Pains, i forget his name, hes god led.Check him out on You Tube.
My friends, forgive me if i sound like a protestant firebrand. There are good arguments for both sides.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That’s a good insight, Bosco. It is helpful that you can see how some of the language you use can create a bad image. No one denies that in every church there are things which happen which should not – we are all sinners. But we should not assume that most worshippers are anything other than sincere Christians seeking salvation and finding the Lord.
Now, of course, there will always be those in churches who feel that those in another are misguided, and even those who will say those in another Church are not saved – but God alone decides that. God alone knows who believes in His Son.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Asking for forgiveness and giving forgiveness is what Christians do. Thank you for that, Bosco. We all want to raise the conversation to polite discussion of the differences that we might have. Name calling and fingerpointing to those who do not live up to the teachings of their faith are not helpful as you can see. You judge a Church not by the members who do not live up to the teachings but by those who do. Anyone would have a hard time finding fault in a Mother Teresa or Padre Pio for instance. That was why I wanted you to read the article from Bishop Sheen on scandal. Every church has their members who scandlize them but we do not judge the church by them if they have not followed the teachings of the church. We want to judge the teachings: not the people who are all over the map when it comes to sin — churches are comprosed of people that range from great sinners to great saintly people. So doctrine and teachings are the important focus.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Good insights from bosco, whatever next ??!!?
But :
Well, protstants behold the CC and see the same.Not in the man in the pews, the honest god fearing catholic, but the clergy who launder the vast wealth of the CC
Falsehoods.
The Catholic Church does NOT have “vast wealth”.
The Vatican has the sort of wealth that is quite typical and normal for a microstate – or even, frankly, just any ordinary (upmarket) little town anywhere else in the Western world.
I’ve lived in a microstate reputed to be extremely wealthy, and the budget of the nearby large city in the large country just over the border just DWARFS that of this microstate.
As for the Catholic clergy, they are in their very great majority of very humble financial means. Most Bishops earn no more than any other priest, though this can vary from territory to territory.
The main difference between the lifestyle of a priest and that of a bishop or other more prominent member of the clergy will usually be in the form of improved material benefits or “extras” not involving income as such, including such things as improvement in housing arrangements and more and better free food and so on.
There are, of course, some bad apples in any barrel — clergy who embezzle Church funds into private bank accounts and so on.
Such as these are to be found in any large organisation — or any religion, large or small.
They are not to be admired.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, there is progress in that last post Jabba – that is better than nothing.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Jabba means well, he just gets tired of me badmouthing his beloved religion. There are lots of unknown evangelical preachers, (unknown to the media) who whip their followers up into a frenzy against catholics and a lesser degree Mormons and jehovas. These people consider themselves born again. Ive talked to some of them. Not quite. Their first few words are good. But then it comes out quickly.They dont know the Lord. If the did, they wouldnt act like that. Going on the street and catholic bashing.They mean well, they want the catholic to turn to Christ, but they themselfs need Christ too. They yell..”youre going to hell”. Thats when i got mad. They are going to hell too! Everyone is guilty of sin, and i mean everyone. You will never hear me say that to someone. i hold out hope for every man.
Brother Jabba, i dont know if you are in the US or not, even though ive known you for yrs. But the black and white TV evangelists have so much money, its not even funny. Money is not a problem with them any more. Ive seen Crflo Dollars mansion and TD Jakes and the other black dude that got caught with the teenage boys. Hes filthy rich. The white ones, they are just beyond rich. And live delicious lives.The CC is 1000 time bigger and drags in 10,000 time more than these guys put togeather. I understand that the CC is the wealthiest country in the word. Yes more than the US We are in debt. The CC has nothing but money, no debt and the money just keeps comin in. No export, just income from selling god. Yes, the priests dont have all that money, but its there, somewhere. Most of it is in gold blocks. Dont take my word, do some googling.
Have a blessed day my friends.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you Bosco. I am sure Jabba will have something to say on the Vatican finances, and I have never seen accurate reporting which did not emphasise the operating deficit for the Catholic Church – it needs more digging I think than some sites provide.
On the other point, yes, how we talk about each other matters – would Christ say what some say – and even if He would, are we the Son of God?
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
I understand that the CC is the wealthiest country in the word. Yes more than the US
This is ridiculous !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vatican_City
(Vatican budget)
Budget:
revenues: $355.5 million (2008)
expenditures: $356.8 million (2008)
http://www.lake-elsinore.org/index.aspx?recordid=328&page=26
Lake Elsinore California budget :
The $27.2 million operating budget details annual revenues and expenditures for all municipal services, including road improvements and public safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_San_Francisco#Budget
(Budget : San Francisco)
revenues : $6,079 million
expenditures : $6,079 M
The Vatican might be rich compared to Lake Elsinore, but it’s a pauper compared to San Francisco — to say nothing of the vast, virtually unimaginable wealth of the United States in its entirety !!!
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Another comparison —
Budget of US Bishops Conference 2011 : $180 million
US Military Expenditure 2010 : $683.7 billion
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And I know which adds more to the cause of civilization 🙂
LikeLike
st bosco said:
WELL BROTHER jABBA, THATS WHAT IVE SEEN ON DOCUMENTARIES. Caps lock. Not just gold reserves but land holdings, that i know they, the CC has. But, im not interested in that anymore. I need to fix my image, if you will. I dont want to be seen as attacking the individual. God loves the individual. When i talk of bowing to images, i mean a practice taught by the religion, not as a slur against anyone in this blog. I used to chant Hari Krishna.
Sister Jess, do use buttermilk in your bisquits?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, what you say is said by others Bosco, but there is another side, and so often comment here starts with the intent of smearing the Church, and I suspect it is to that which Catholics here, rightly, react. I am sure that some of our well-informed Catholics here can direct you to other sources of information.
Buttermilk in my biscuits? A nice thought Bosco, bit not easy to get over here. My favourites are with almonds and apricots – but they are so fattening that only my husband and other energetic men can eat more than a couple without putting on the pounds 🙂
LikeLike
JabbaPapa said:
Why the need for a graven image?
???
What “need” ???
There is none at all, except visual decoration.
Have you painted or wallpapered your walls of your home in bright colours, or decorated them with photographs or paintings or posters ?
Why the need for any of these things ?
LikeLike
Tom Mcewen said:
St. Bosco quotes ”Queen Elizabeth used to say…” all that matters is Christ and him crucified, all the rest is arguing over trivia”
But it is not trivia, If it was, She would not had Saint Edmund Campion pulled into rags. He was the most gifted of men. If he thought it was worth all the fear, the hidden masses, the arrest and torture and the hideous death at the hands of his fellow subjects and his Queen, it was not trivia. as Fluellen says in Henry V – ”I need not be ashamed of your majesty, praise be God, so long as your majesty is an honest man.” And Campion died an honest man and that is not a trivial thing to God nor to all the Kings of the earth.
LikeLike
st bosco said:
Sorry brother Tom, i dont know anything about all that.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Church and its Book | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: Triads, Trinity and Paraclete | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: The Word made flesh? | All Along the Watchtower