The second part of our dialogue is one where the need for care in these matters is even clearer.
We start here [Jabba is in italics, my response is not]
Jabba: Your claim that the Father is “not” the Son is wrong, because even though the Father and the Son are different to each other, claiming that they are “not” each other as starkly as you did is not theologically sustainable — which basically boils down to meaning that the opposite interpretation, that they “are” each other, is perfectly licit too.
Me: I was basing myself on this diagram:
which is from a Catholic source and which has been used for centuries to teach the Trinity. If one translates the top line into English one gets: ‘The Father is not the Son’. If this is not ‘theologically sustainable’, then it is not my claim which is ‘theologically unsustainable’ it is that of Jabba’s own Church. I am sorry to have to put it so starkly, but to claim that it is wrong to state that the ‘Father is not the Son’ is wrong. I did so in the context of a version of this diagram in English, and in the context of making it clear that the Father and the Son were of the same sybstance, the same nature, that they were ‘consubstantial’. I agree when Jabba says:
Jabba: One has to take an especially great degree of care when discussing any of the Mysteries or Arcana of the Faith — because these are the dogmata that are the most productive of heresies in interpretation, teaching, statement, philosophy, or belief.
But not when he writes:
My basic problem is that I think that you were not as careful as you should have been, as you are required to be.
When he writes:
The Son is different to the Father — this is sound dogma.
I am uneasy. I agree, but that wording is quite as liable to misinterpretation as the statement to which Jabba objects – with the difference that the one to which he objects has been used in catholic schools for many generations, and his own formulation has not. I would rather say with that the Church has allowed.
Jabba: The Son is not the Father, insofar as we are always very clear that the Son and the Father are One with the Holy Spirit — this too.
Me: The Son and the Holy Spirit are of one essence with the Father, if you mean this when write ‘are one with’ then I agree, but the formulation you choose is not one I read in any of the Fathers, and is as liable to be misunderstood as any other wording; I see no reason to think it superior.
Jabba: But to use such a statement as “The Son is not the Father” — or “The Son is the same as the Father” — is wrongful, because you can have no idea how people will read such a statement, and because as singular statements they do not express the fullness of the Truth.
Me: I agree that had I not used the ‘Son is not the Father’ in the context of the document reproduced above, and in the context of saying that the Father and the Son are of the one essence or nature, that would have been so; but it was very carefully used in precisely that context for precisely the reasons Jabba so rightly gives.
Jabba: You should, and this is my honest and starkly theological position, refrain from using the phrase “The Son is not the Father” ever again, and restrict yourself to such statements as “The Son is different to the Father” or “The Son and the Father are not identical” or other such paraphrases expressing more properly their differences not as a strict 1/0 either/or yes/no difference of the binary logic that is inherent to the broadly Oxonian intellectual methodology
Me: Perhaps this is where your difficulty lies Jabba? I have no idea what the ‘Oxford intellectual methodology’ is. My own background is in Patristics, and I use only language and concepts found in the Fathers. Take me beyond the nineth century and I am lost. As the Church itself uses ‘the Father is not the Son’ (see above), and as the Church does not use the formulations you offer, if we are to exercise care, we should, err, if at all, on the side of extreme caution and use the words the Fathers used.
I am grateful to Jabba for his comments and for the chance to do what we try to do here, which is to discuss these matters in irenic fashion.
All Along the Watchtower 
Jabba got it wrong; Three Distinct Persons:One Nature:Each the Fullness of the Godhead.
Problem is too many Christians rather than endeavouring to follow the second teaching of the Catechism ‘To know God’ prefer to run and hide from the Trinity as if it was something to fear – an awkward teaching which jeopardises their ‘common sense’ Faith.
How often does Catechesis scandalously revert to ‘well three is one and one is three and it’s all a mystery…so we’ll say no more about it – you just have to believe it’ ?
Frank Sheed’s ‘Theology & Sanity” is the best contemporary analysis and teaching I’ve read – it explains with that simplicity beyond complexity so redolent in the Fathers but with a gentle patience and clarity of say..the Chalcedonian Creed.
But it brooks no gnostic mystagoguery and authoritarian intimidation of ‘just accept it!’
LikeLike
Thank you my friend – in part that is precisely the point, and I am grateful to you for putting it so well.
We must not slide away into lax catechesis. Not a word I have used is not from the Fathers, and embedded in Patristic thought. Frankly I am not learned enough to go beyond what my betters have written – nor would I want to 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah, we dont want to slide into any lax catehichesis.
LikeLike
Gets really slippery out there Bosco 🙂
LikeLike
“lax catechesis” is exactly how I would describe an over-reliance on that diagram.
LikeLike
But Jabba, your church uses it, so I am really puzzled. No one, least of all me, has said it tells or explains everything, but it reading along that top line in the context of the other lines, is not orthodox, then your own catechists are using something you say is not Orthodox.
As the Council of Toledo put it:
Council of Toledo XI: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” And yet from the same Council: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” (Both quotes from the Catechism paras 253-4: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm.) Latin: ‘Non enim Ipse est Pater qui Filius, nec Filius Ipse qui Pater, nec Spiritus Sanctus Ipse qui est vel Pater vel Filius.’ And: ‘cum […] ipsum sit Pater quod Filius, ipsum Filius quod Pater, ipsum Pater et Filius quod Spiritus Sanctus: id est natura Unus Deus.’ (Latin version: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p2_lt.htm#II.)
If you don’t agree Jabba, you are disagreeing with your own Church.
LikeLike
If you don’t agree Jabba, you are disagreeing with your own Church.
NO !!! I am disagreeing with *your* interpretation of the doctrines, which does not require me to disagree with the doctrines themselves.
___________
Catechism : Non enim Ipse est Pater qui Filius
The word “ipse” properly means “identical (to)” — “Not, therefore, is the Father identical with Him who is the Son” — ipse when speaking of persons is usually translated himself/herself, but it certainly does not claim “Pater non est Filius”.
Eleventh Council of Toledo :
http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_054t.htm
I am unable to find anything just looking at it that the sentence “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son” can be an accurate translation of — bearing in mind that this is 7th century Late Latin, therefore closer in semantics and structure to a Romance Language, even though the Hispanics remained far closer in both than the rest of Europe to the Classical forms, as is evident from this text.
—
OK — comparing the texts, the translation says “(The Trinity in the oneness)
314 [530] However, though we have said that these three persons are one God, we are not allowed to say that the same one is the Father who is the Son, or that He is the Son who is the Father, or that He who is the Holy Spirit is either the Father or the Son. For He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son He who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit He who is the Father or the Son, even though the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, that is one God by nature. For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance, whereby God exists since in substance they are one; for we distinguish the persons, but we do not divide the Godhead.
[531] Hence, we recognise the Trinity in the distinction of persons and we profess the unity on account of the nature or substance. Thus, the three are one by nature, not as person.”
which corresponds (after some text-comparison searching) to :
Nec quia tres has personas esse diximus unum deum eundem esse patrem quem filium vel eum esse filium qui est pater, aut eum qui est spiritus sanctus, vel patrem et filium dicere poterimus. Non enim ipse est pater, nec spiritus sanctus ipse qui est vel pater vel filius cum tamen ipse sit pater quod filius, ipsum filius quod pater, ipsum pater et filius quod et spiritus sanctus id est natura unus deus. Cum enim dicimus non ipsum esse patrem quem filium ad personarum distinctionem refertur. Cum autem dicamus ipsum esse patrem quod filium, et ipsum filium quod patrem ipsum spiritum sanctum quod patrem et filium ad naturam qua deus est vel substantiam pertinere monstratur, quia substantia unum sunt. Personas enim distinguimus, non deitate separamus. Trinitatem igitur in personarum distinctione agnoscimus, potestatem propter naturam vel substantiam profitemur. Tria ergo ista unum sunt natura scilicet non persona.
OK, for starters they’ve got the sentence structure fairly wrong.
It should be :
Nec quia tres has personas esse diximus unum deum eundem esse patrem quem filium, vel eum esse filium qui est pater, aut eum qui est spiritus sanctus vel patrem et filium dicere poterimus. Non enim ipse est pater, nec spiritus sanctus ipse qui est vel pater vel filius ; cum tamen ipse sit pater quod filius, ipsum filius quod pater, ipsum pater et filius quod et spiritus sanctus, id est natura unus deus.
Cum enim dicimus non ipsum esse patrem quem filium, ad personarum distinctionem refertur. Cum autem dicamus ipsum esse patrem quod filium, et ipsum filium quod patrem, ipsum spiritum sanctum quod patrem et filium ad naturam qua deus, est vel substantiam pertinere monstratur quia substantia unum sunt. Personas enim distinguimus, non deitate separamus.
Trinitatem igitur in personarum distinctione agnoscimus, potestatem propter naturam vel substantiam profitemur. Tria ergo ista unum sunt natura scilicet non persona.
>>>>> My translation of this passage
And it is not because we have said that these Three Persons are One God that we could say that the Father is the same as the Son, or that the Son is He Who is the Father, or that He Who is the Holy Spirit is either the Father or the Son. For the Father is not identical to these, nor is the Holy Spirit identical to either the Father or the Son ; although at the same time the Father is the same One as the Son, and the Son is the same One as the Father, and this same One Who is Father and Son is also the Holy Spirit, that is to say One God in Nature.
Because then we say that the Father and the Son are not identical, it is important to make them distinct as Persons. For given that we could also say that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Son the same as the Father, and the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and Son in their Nature as God, it is important to show as to their Substance, if you will, that They are One Substance. For we distinguish the Persons, but we do not sever the Deity.
Therefore we understand the Trinity in this distinction between Persons as we authoritatively declare for reasons of both Nature and Substance, for these Three are One in Nature though clearly not in their Persons.
(Oh, and YES, I have specifically studied the peculiarities of Late Latin)
——-
I have a very hard time reconciling the English translation of that text with its meanings in Latin.
LikeLike
That *did* take about 2-3 hours research and translation, so I’m a bit disappointed at no responses at all to it … 😦
LikeLike
Much of my second post yesterday, Jabba, wad taken up with this, so you will find more there.
LikeLike
What really struck me is just how incomprehensible that other translation seems, after one has made the effort to make sense of the (somewhat difficult) Latin in the text itself.
LikeLike
Jabba got it wrong; Three Distinct Persons:One Nature:Each the Fullness of the Godhead.
Problem is too many Christians rather than endeavouring to follow the second teaching of the Catechism ‘To know God’ prefer to run and hide from the Trinity as if it was something to fear – an awkward teaching which jeopardises their ‘common sense’ Faith.
How often does Catechesis scandalously revert to ‘well three is one and one is three and it’s all a mystery…so we’ll say no more about it – you just have to believe it’ ?
Frank Sheed’s ‘Theology & Sanity” is the best contemporary analysis and teaching I’ve read – it explains with that simplicity beyond complexity so redolent in the Fathers but with a gentle patience and clarity of say..the Chalcedonian Creed.
But it brooks no gnostic mystagoguery and authoritarian intimidation of ‘just accept it!’
Sorry, but your position against me is just rubbish — and you have completely and entirely misrepresented my views on the matter.
LikeLike
No Jabba the way you’re wrong is because you’re stating the bleeding obvious regarding the Persons of the Trinity sharing the absolute one nature but are being specious in trying to use that to counter the Dogma of Three Persons not being each other – irrespective of the nature 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 but the first one is not the same as the third; a single cube but the length of it is not the same as the height or depth even if within and along each dimension is contained the fulness of that cube.
There are ways in which we are taught to express Trinitarian dogma – ways in which by our clarity we veer & steer away from the panoply of pre-Chalcedonian heresies.
Even a recitation of the creed with its Personal attributions/operations must be understood in light of the teaching of Basil, Athanasius & Augustine that they are not alienating or differentiating or depriving it of being a single act of the Godhead.
We keep away from any modalist contaminations by reiterating Three persons in One nature and yes pro-prosopon The Father is the Son is The Spirit but pro-hypostasis the Father is NOT the Son is NOT the Holy Spirit.
So on one way you’re merely qualifying that we ought to remember these attributions & distinctions must never separate us from the understanding of the Pure Single act of Being within the Godhead but where you ake the mistake is by saying ‘you can’t say that’ when we are taught we must to we recognise and cherish and revere the truth of that Eternally loving/reciprocating/manifesting – the Pure Act within the Godhead.
What you say we can’t say [for the obvious reason] is countered by the fact that in our human limitations we must in order to prevent grave error in our understanding.
We have to keep that three-ness and one-ness in constant reciprocal balance within our understanding lest we fall into the all to readily available intellectual traps – the first four hundred years of the church must remind you how easy it was of men of good intentions and the mightiest intellects to fall by the wayside…
LikeLike
You express what I mean better than I do 🙂 Thank you
LikeLike
No Jabba the way you’re wrong is because you’re stating the bleeding obvious regarding the Persons of the Trinity sharing the absolute one nature but are being specious in trying to use that to counter the Dogma of Three Persons not being each other
er, no, really, I’m not.
Certainly not “countering” the Dogma !!!!!!
What you say we can’t say [for the obvious reason] is countered by the fact that in our human limitations we must in order to prevent grave error in our understanding.
That’s a fair enough point, but then the general advice that people are given, in the Catholic Church anyway, to avoid that risk is to avoid thinking too much about this sort of Mystery of the Faith.
We have to keep that three-ness and one-ness in constant reciprocal balance within our understanding
Well that’s kind of exactly my main point — just expressed differently.
LikeLike
OK, over to you Jabba.
LikeLike
This may be the clearest explanation of a difficult subject that I have ever read. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you, and I am grateful to Jabba for pressing, as without him, we would not be getting to where we are here 🙂
LikeLike
You’re welcome and that is true, out of heat, often comes light. 🙂
LikeLike
I understand that the eastern churches do not think the same way about the Eucharist in the manner of transubstantiation as the Roman Church, is this true? and how does the understanding of the true presence exist between these two in the Anglican church’s understanding? Since we all share the fathers? how does this happen.
LikeLike
The EO prefer, as High Church Anglicans do, to talk about ‘the Real Presence’ and to offer no explanation of how the bread and wine seem unchanged but are actually changed into the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
The Catholic Church, in the Middle Ages, came up with an explanation, as it has for so much else, and I’m very happy to believe its explanation. All I know is that when I partake of the Eucharistic Feast, I eat His body and I drink His blood. How that happens is beyond me, and I am happy to accept the Gift He gives me.
LikeLike
So it is like the Sun is high in the sky at noon, and why do we have to explain it, you can see it is high in the sky, do you not have something to do, Yes, water is wet, fire is hot and the true presence is the true presence, Okay, okay, go ask your mother, gee whiz
LikeLike
I think it is about understanding as far as we can 🙂
LikeLike
Hi sister Jessica. If there is a high church anglican, is there a low church anglican?
LikeLike
Yes there is, that would be someone whose church is not as keen on all the ceremonial you get in High Anglican Churches – no incense, for example, and probably a less elaborate service.
LikeLike
More bells and whistles. More statuary, as you call it. The more statues the holier.
LikeLike
Not at all, Bosco. It is merely a matter of taste and preference – all are saints.
LikeLike
And of course Angels are white, when I go snow skiing on a fast slope an angel of the Lord will reach out and touch my ski and in a moment I will be in the white blizzard of a raising white cloud which is the angel’s spiritual body and in the time of a single blink of the eye the angel is gone.
LikeLike
You’ve convinced me, Tom 🙂
LikeLike
I may have said this before, but the best way I can explain the Trinity is:
The Singer the Song, and the Singing – not one, not three.
LikeLike
I do love that – it is by far the best and most effective explanation – thank you for sharing 🙂
LikeLike
Food for the Soul has a good analogy for food for the body. Steak when it enters our mouth, the look, texture, taste, and feel is the “accident” and yet it is it’s “substance” that actually feed us.
LikeLike
That is a good analogy, my friend, thank you 🙂
LikeLike
Micheal Cumbie uses a different analogy in explaining it to Pentecostals:
If a man is medically examined before being “saved” he’ll be exactly the same as after being “saved.” Yet to a Pentecostal being “saved” means there has been an internal change though unseen. Ergo….
LikeLike
That’s a good analogy too 🙂
LikeLike
Reciprocating absolute Lover Beloved & Love is the usual Catholic Paradigm
LikeLike
That’s another beautiful way of putting it 🙂
LikeLike
We have to fit beauty, goodness, truth and superabundant/overflowing creativity in there too.
LikeLike
Which is why I like your analogy so much 🙂
LikeLike
Singer song & singing is frightfully Eastern orthodox 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, it is – very good though, for that reason 🙂
LikeLike
He who has the Son has the Father also
LikeLike
Yes, no one is disagreeing that the Son and the Father are of the same substance and are God.
LikeLike
I was basing myself on this diagram: /diagram/ … which is from a Catholic source and which has been used for centuries to teach the Trinity.
You cannot base a valid theology of the Trinity on a catechetical tool — that diagram is ultimately just a gloss ; it is not the doctrine of the Church, it is an illustration (and NO MORE than an illustration) of ONE ASPECT ONLY of Trinitarian theology.
If one translates the top line into English one gets: ‘The Father is not the Son’. If this is not ‘theologically sustainable’, then it is not my claim which is ‘theologically unsustainable’ it is that of Jabba’s own Church. I am sorry to have to put it so starkly, but to claim that it is wrong to state that the ‘Father is not the Son’ is wrong.
CRIPES, and you were doing so well in your Part One, and now you have just completely undermined it.
Again
Once more, to claim that somebody’s perfectly licit interpretation of Trinitarian Mystery is “wrong”, such as in “I am sorry to have to put it so starkly, but to claim that it is wrong to state that the ‘Father is not the Son’ is wrong” — which BTW is NOT what I said about your interpretation of that Mystery, because that interpretation is licit on its own merits, constitutes the formal heresy that I mentioned a few days ago.
If you were to make erroneous claims based on misunderstandings, as it seems to be the present case, on some lesser infallible doctrines, this would constitute formal Error, but by no means formal heresy — but if you claim such things about ANY of the most CENTRAL dogmas of the Church, then the charge of either formal or objective heresy is unavoidable when one analyses such false claims.
___________
Jessica !!!! You just CANNOT base your understanding of the Trinitarian Mystery on a bloody diagram !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A diagram is NOT a valid theological argument.
LikeLike
I’m not basing my understanding on it. I am basing one claim – the Person of the Father is not the Person of the Son, or, for short, ‘the Father is not the Son’.
In what way is that wrong, if said in the context (which is what the diagram is) of the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are of the same substance?
LikeLike
I agree when Jabba says:
Jabba: One has to take an especially great degree of care when discussing any of the Mysteries or Arcana of the Faith — because these are the dogmata that are the most productive of heresies in interpretation, teaching, statement, philosophy, or belief.
But not when he writes:
Jabba: My basic problem is that I think that you were not as careful as you should have been, as you are required to be.
When he writes:
Jabba: The Son is different to the Father — this is sound dogma.
I am uneasy. I agree, but that wording is quite as liable to misinterpretation as the statement to which Jabba objects – with the difference that the one to which he objects has been used in catholic schools for many generations, and his own formulation has not. I would rather s[t]ay with that the Church has allowed.
Dogma and doctrine are NOT made of words.
The Error of the grammar-centric approach to the Trinitarian Mystery is specifically, definitively, and severely condemned in St. Basil’s statement of his theology of the Holy Spirit.
St Basil condemns the statement “The Son is unlike the Father“, which is perhaps one source of your unease, but that is not what I said — I said that they are simultaneously different and the same.
I ALSO would be uneasy with someone just publishing “The Son is different to the Father” as a bald statement, but I would be unable to fault its orthodoxy — but this is NOT any teaching of mine !!!
This is an attempt to rephrase YOUR teaching into something orthodox, instead of something heterodox.
The phrase “the Father is not the Son” is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, no matter what pedagogic tools of modern catechetics you may present to me.
The Errors of others can cause, but they cannot justify one’s own Errors.
The statement implicitly DENIES the unicity of God in the Trinity — and no manner at all of trying to cover this up with talk of hypostases and Persons can cover this up.
And flipping heck !!!!! —- it DENIES an explicit and extremely clear teaching of The Christ !!!!!
John {10:30} I and the Father are one.
The Father and Son are different, because they are different Persons in the Trinity — but it very plainly makes no sense whatsoever to claim that the Father is “NOT” the Son, not when The Christ’s own words deny it, and not when the Trinity is defined as one Being, and NOT three.
________
What you are teaching might be coherent with some schools of Protestant or Eastern Orthodox theology, but it is NOT coherent with the Catholic.
________
I would rather s[t]ay with that the Church has allowed.
The Church does not allow the sort of theological double-guessing that you have decided to engage in on the subject of the Trinity — nor on the subject of any other Mystery of the Faith by the way.
________
I am NOT claiming that your interpretation of the Trinitarian Mystery is “wrong” —- can you PLEASE get that into your head Jessica !!!!!
—
Your Error is to claim that interpretations that disagree with your own personal interpretation of that Mystery are “wrong” …
Such a claim that you make is incompatible with the very nature of Catholicity/Universality itself, by virtue of dividing the Catholic interpretations of the Trinitarian Mystery into two camps — one of which is “right”, and the other “wrong”. This is a formally heretical position towards the Doctrine of the Faith, because you FALSELY claim that some perfectly licit Catholic interpretations of that Mystery are “wrong” simply because they disagree with your Eastern Orthodox -inspired personal beliefs.
LikeLike
I think I am getting there Jabba.
Let me try it out. I am saying (using tools the Church uses to teach others) that the Person of the Father is not the Person of the Son, they are Two Persons, but they are of the one substance. In what respect is that incorrect?
I don’t really see how you can dismiss a tool used by your own Church and say it is not Catholic teaching. But, as ever, I am happy to try to learn.
LikeLike
I’ve just made a new translation of the passage from the teaching of the Eleventh Council of Toledo that refers to this question, and I’m beginning to see the origin of all of this confusion — between about mid-11th and late 20th centuries, nobody could really properly understand Late Latin in its particulars.
The original translation of that particular passage is quite ghastly.
The Scutum Fidei is a device of 13th century Catholic *devotional* practice, from a time when understanding of both Vulgate and Late Latin had been AWOL for centuries.
The “Pater non est Filius” business that it provides is derived from a false understanding of the doctrines.
LikeLike
Jabba: The Son is not the Father, insofar as we are always very clear that the Son and the Father are One with the Holy Spirit — this too.
Me: The Son and the Holy Spirit are of one essence with the Father, if you mean this when write ‘are one with’ then I agree, but the formulation you choose is not one I read in any of the Fathers, and is as liable to be misunderstood as any other wording; I see no reason to think it superior.
I did not claim that it was “superior” — I only claim that it is the Truth.
Doctrine continues NOT to be made of words.
YOU are the one hair-splitting, Jessica — I am disagreeing quite forcefully with this hair-splitting, because such hair-splitting is a central cause of heterodoxy of Faith, as has been demonstrated endlessly throughout the History of the Church.
LikeLike
I really wasn’t trying to split hairs Jabba, simply to reirterate what the Fathers say – Three Persons, One Nature. I really don’t see how that is splitting hairs. It is doing what is needful here – distinguishing Person and Substance.
LikeLike
One of the problems here is that while it’s quite easy to express the broad point of the debates concerning the Trinity (‘we want to say that we don’t believe in three Gods but that we do think it’s more than describing the same thing in different ways’); and it’s also easy to explain why this is crucial to Christianity (‘because, like the Jews, we want to accept that there is only one God whilst at the same time saying that Jesus is God and God is present with the Church’), as soon as you go beyond that it’s incredibly easy to get the language wrong. For those of us (orthodox Anglicans, Catholics etc) who accept the dogmatic authority of the Church, the next stage is to go to those documents where the permissible language is laid out. That’s absolutely crucial because very often the document defines the acceptable language. (Thus, eg, as has come up previously, whilst hypostasis/ousia had been used in some previous writings interchangeably, the language of of one ousia, three hypostases becomes normative.)
You’re all a lot braver than me to go further than this! (Every time I open my mouth on the Trinity, I suspect I fall into (unintended!) heresy.)
But quoting from the Council of Toledo XI: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” And yet from the same Council: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” (Both quotes from the Catechism paras 253-4: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm.) Latin: ‘Non enim Ipse est Pater qui Filius, nec Filius Ipse qui Pater, nec Spiritus Sanctus Ipse qui est vel Pater vel Filius.’ And: ‘cum […] ipsum sit Pater quod Filius, ipsum Filius quod Pater, ipsum Pater et Filius quod Spiritus Sanctus: id est natura Unus Deus.’ (Latin version: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p2_lt.htm#II.)
I leave that to others to ponder…
So the first question for me would be: is any particular wording authorized/forbidden by authority? (And then the second question of course would be how illuminating any particular formulation is.)
Slightly off topic: does anyone (Anglican/RCatholic) still recite the Athanasian Creed liturgically? (Can’t help thinking that a regular dose of this would do wonders!)
LikeLike
Thank you my friend. It leaves me even more puzzled by Jabba’s objections, as what I have written is what the Council of Toledo wrote. It is saying that they are of the same nature by different Persons – as far as I can see 🙂
Yes, twice a year we use the Athanasian Creed – one of those times is Good Friday.
LikeLike
Jabba: But to use such a statement as “The Son is not the Father” — or “The Son is the same as the Father” — is wrongful, because you can have no idea how people will read such a statement, and because as singular statements they do not express the fullness of the Truth.
Me: I agree that had I not used the ‘Son is not the Father’ in the context of the document reproduced above, and in the context of saying that the Father and the Son are of the one essence or nature, that would have been so; but it was very carefully used in precisely that context for precisely the reasons Jabba so rightly gives.
Jessica —- AGAIN, that diagram is just a pedagogic tool —- it is NOT an orthodox expression of the Truth of the Trinitarian Mystery.
The purpose, and the ONLY purpose, of that document is to provide ordinary lay persons with an at least superficial understanding of the difficulties and contradictions that are inherent in Trinitarian doctrine.
It is a teaching tool, for the purpose of trying to broaden people’s minds to the Transcendent Reality of that Mystery !!!! Its purpose is emphatically NOT to restrict nor narrow people’s minds into the contemplation of this document’s inherent limitations.
To use that document for ANY other purpose than this illustrative one is greatly abusive.
To use that document as an actual basis of a theology of the Trinity would not just be formally heretical — it would be objectively heretical.
Do you REALLY imagine, for one second, that the Mystery of the Holy Trinity can be accurately described by a few simple lines and words arranged into geometric patterns on paper ??????
Not even the fullness of the entirety of ALL Christian doctrines of the Trinity, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, theological and philosophical, orthodox and heterodox, can achieve that !!!!
LikeLike
Jabba – I am sorry, but if your Church uses this document as a teaching tool and you are saying it is not an orthodox expression of the truth, then why on earth is your Church using it?
I am using it for the purposes you outline, and certainly not saying it explains everything; indeed I have almost lost count of the number of occasions (4 I think) on which I have explicitly written just that – that it cannot be ‘explained’. In which case, the second part of your question has already been answered, surely?
LikeLike
Jabba – I am sorry, but if your Church uses this document as a teaching tool and you are saying it is not an orthodox expression of the truth, then why on earth is your Church using it?
Sorry, I’m guilty of a little imprecision there — it is useful to provide an introductory level of orthodox contemplation of the Mystery of the Trinity, but it is unsuitable for any *theological* contemplation of that Mystery within the orthodoxy of the Doctrine.
LikeLike
Perhaps this is where your difficulty lies Jabba?
“my” difficulty ???
I have no idea what the ‘Oxford intellectual methodology’ is.
Not “Oxford methodology” ; “Oxonian” — it is of Mediaeval Oxford origin, but it is present throughout the English-speaking West as the general basis of most English-speaking intellectuality.
My own background is in Patristics, and I use only language and concepts found in the Fathers. Take me beyond the nineth century and I am lost.
I’m discussing method, not subject matter — in this particular point.
As the Church itself uses ‘the Father is not the Son’ (see above)
NOT as a doctrinal statement — and NOT as a solitary sentence, even in that diagram.
and as the Church does not use the formulations you offer
Oh, really ????
Catechism of the Catholic Church — 255 Personae divinae inter Se sunt relativae. Distinctio realis Personarum inter Se, quia divinam non dividit unitatem, in relationibus solummodo consistit quibus aliae ad alias referuntur: « In relativis vero Personarum nominibus Pater ad Filium, Filius ad Patrem, Spiritus Sanctus ad Utrosque refertur: quae cum relative Tres Personae dicantur, una tamen natura vel substantia creditur ». Inter illas utique « omnia […] sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio ». « Propter hanc unitatem Pater est totus in Filio, totus in Spiritu Sancto; Filius totus est in Patre, totus in Spiritu Sancto; Spiritus Sanctus totus est in Patre, totus in Filio ».
Sorry — but given the nature that this discussion is starting to assume, I can no longer do otherwise than refer to the Latin, as is my duty in any case of any more serious doctrinal difficulty.
The ONLY differences between the Persons of the Trinity are clearly designated as being relational in nature.
omnia … sunt unum — is extremely clear.
Propter hanc unitatem Pater est totus in Filio …. Filius totus est in Patre —
The Latin adjective “totus” is extremely strong. It expresses an attribute of full entirety and uncompromising totality. It leaves no leftovers nor wiggle room.
So : “By virtue of this unity/unicity, the Father is //completely and entirely// in the Son … the Son is //completely and entirely// in the Father
They remain different by virtue of the Father/Son relationship ONLY — and we do NOT understand the nature of that relationship.
The phrase “The Father is not the Son” denies Catholic doctrine ; the phrase “The Father is different to the Son” does not
if we are to exercise care, we should, err, if at all, on the side of extreme caution and use the words the Fathers used.
In fact, we should use words that are coherent with Catholic doctrine, instead of words denying that doctrine.
Doctrine is made of *meaning*, it is not made of *words*.
LikeLike
Jabba – do look at what Lzarus posted from the Council of Toledo.
Doctrine is expressed in words Jabba, and the words I am using are the ones used by your Church.
LikeLike
Doctrine is expressed in words Jabba
How else can you express *anything* if not with words ?
The nature of Revelation, therefore of doctrine, is not constituted of words — it is constituted of meaning.
That is why doctrine needs to be constantly renewed, as the very meanings of words shift and change beneath it from ordinary linguistic shift.
LikeLike
But surely, Jabba, we need to use words to convey meaning. What do you mean when you say ‘constituted of meaning’? How are you going to communicate meaning if not by words?
LikeLike
the words I am using are the ones used by your Church
No, they are not — the Church has NEVER made the claim that “the Father is not the Son”.
A devotional device created in latter centuries for explanatory and initiatory purposes is NOT a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
The 4th clause of the Athanasian Creed:
4. Neque confundentes personas: neque substantiam separantes. = Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence].
The 5th clause:
Alia est enim persona Patris: alia Filii: alia Spiritus Sancti. = For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.
alia means ‘another’ here, surely. The Person of the father is not the Person of the Son Jabba. I really can’t be clearer, and if you are denying that, then so be it. Show me where your Church teaches other than that the Father is one Person, the Son is another Person.
LikeLike
How are you going to communicate meaning if not by words?
You can’t, at least not unless you’re physically there to do so in person 🙂
My point is that meaning transcends words — any meaning provided by words is greater than the sum of its parts.
LikeLike
Here is the Athanasian Creed (6th Century) that the (far, far later) Shield of the Trinity took its inspiration from :
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.
The meaning of Latin alius, a, um is “other, different” — “The Father is different to the Son”
Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Qualis Pater, talis Filius = The Father is the same as the Son.
Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus.
Unus est Deus
Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.
Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est. Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis]. Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis; Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.
________
This is the Creed that this Scutum Fidei is based on :
Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti:
The Father is different to the Son
Sed Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.
The Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one
Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
Qualis Pater, talis Filius = The Father is the same as the Son.
>>>>>> The Father is the same as the Son, and the Father is different to the Son, and they are One (with the Holy Spirit, Whom I am neither forgetting nor setting aside)
It does NOT contain the phrase “Pater non est Filius”
LikeLike
The Father is of the same substance as the Son, He is not the same in Person. Is that not the case Jabba?
LikeLike
Quite frankly, if the creed can not be expressed in the common language it is of no use to the church. It is of course the original language of the document but, in my experience, if the goal of the church is to help the laity to redemption, using a creed in a language that less than 1% speak fluently, if at all, is counterproductive. That said the relevant portions of Anathasian Creed as used in my church:
“….For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity. …”
This is what I believe, how am I wrong?
LikeLike
Quite frankly, if the creed can not be expressed in the common language it is of no use to the church
Please don’t misinterpret my intentions here — the point is, if we’re going to be discussing the orthodoxy of the Latin Church with any sort of precision, to try and get to the bottom of it and resolve things, then reference needs to be made to the original Latin sources.
LikeLike
Oh, my mistake, I’ sorry, I thought we were discussing the nature of the Trinity in the Christian church, I must have misunderstood Jessica’s intention. Since I’m completely uninterested in the orthodoxy of the Latin church, which in this discussion has devolved to the Roman Catholic Church, I’ll find more appropriate uses for my time. Thank you for explaining to me what my dearest friend’s purpose was.
LikeLike
Since I’m completely uninterested in the orthodoxy of the Latin church, which in this discussion has devolved to the Roman Catholic Church
oh dear oh dear, I deliberately used “Latin church” to try and be as inclusive as possible, whilst recognising that there are at least *some* doctrinal differences with the Eastern Church on these questions due to the “filioque” argument, but … whatever … 😦
LikeLike
Since we appear to all be on the same page at this point, I happily withdraw the remark.
LikeLike
Thank you my dear friend 🙂
LikeLike
No problem whatsoever, I apparently misunderstood Jabba, and am happy I did. 🙂
LikeLike
In the press of so many comments, easily done 🙂
LikeLike
It is, indeed. 🙂
LikeLike
This is all very interesting but it’s getting tiresome. Why don’t the both of you go off in a corner thrash it out and report back.
LikeLike
Jabba you said ”That *did* take about 2-3 hours research and translation, so I’m a bit disappointed at no responses at all to it …”
I would like to say thank you for the time you spent, I can give you a very nice shine on your boots, or paint your portrait, but this is beyond my pay grade, I will continue to read what you have posted, but I can put my elbow in my ear easier then I can understand. I will continue to listen carefully, and for a fact I wish I knew Latin, I have always used it as a mark of an educated man. The Latin church made a grievous error in the ending of the church speaking a common language since language is a shared vision of the world, without it, it is the tower of babel.
I will go back and re-read what you had written.
LikeLike
No, Latin remains necessary as a common doctrinal and theological language, but its demise as a lingua franca as such for all of the Church became inevitable after 15th century.
LikeLike
Yes, in the West and areas of Latin Church mission.
LikeLike
Pingback: Triads, Trinity and Paraclete | All Along the Watchtower