Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:19 AM']yoooooooooou drive me iiiiiiinsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaane LOL the pope is sooooo [b]not [/b]like, "the data for the sum of the equation of my faith is R (public revelation) + 0r ( private revelation) = me = " hahahahaha [right][snapback]642026[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Public revelation has ceased, because the incarnation is the definitive revelation of the Father by the Son. There will be no new public revelation until the Parousia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [i]My concern is focused on Triadology, because the introduction of femininity into God's hypostatic relations would cause major theological problems.[/i] YOU MUST IN SOME SENSE INCLUDED SOME ASPECT OF FEMININITY in God's hypostatic relations---or else God would not be what he has revealed himself to be. Both male and female are created in God's image. If there is no aspect of femininity in God's hypostatic relations then we must assume that only males are made in the image of God. Whatever theological problems you have need to be addressed and not swept under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:29 PM']Public revelation has ceased, because the incarnation is the definitive revelation of the Father by the Son. There will be no new public revelation until the Parousia. [right][snapback]642031[/snapback][/right] [/quote] wow, thank u for informing me of things i have known since 1st grade...always good to recap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:29 AM'][i]My concern is focused on Triadology, because the introduction of femininity into God's hypostatic relations would cause major theological problems.[/i] YOU MUST IN SOME SENSE INCLUDED SOME ASPECT OF FEMININITY in God's hypostatic relations---or else God would not be what he has revealed himself to be. Both male and female are created in God's image. If there is no aspect of femininity in God's hypostatic relations then we must assume that only males are made in the image of God. Whatever theological problems you have need to be addressed and not swept under the rug. [right][snapback]642032[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No I must not, because that has not been revealed, and the hypostatic relations are only known because of divine revelation. They cannot be known at all by the light of unaided reason. The hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit reveal the inner life of God, as He Himself has revealed it to mankind. No one can add to this definitive revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:24 PM']"The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the [b]data[/b] of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 7] [right][snapback]642029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] its not the words tehmselves its the attitude informing the words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:32 AM']its not the words tehmselves its the attitude informing the words [right][snapback]642038[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Wow, you are impressive. To be able to sense my attitudes and the nuances of my theological position from a written text, clearly you must participate in God's omniscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I am most certainly not a Palamite. As most people on phatmass know, I am Anselmian, and Anselm is the Father of Scholasticism. However, I still am totally opposed to any attempt to refer to some kind of "God the Mother," and this opposition is perfectly justifiable, and perfectly Scholastic. When Scholastics speak about the "feminine" Divine, they do so in reference to the generative power of God, from whom all things have their being. However, this is a reference to a [i]power[/i] of God, and not to a [i]person[/i]. The Scholastic would not refer to God as female, he would say that what is feminine mirrors a power of God. Now, as has been stated multiple times on this thread, all language like the above is apophatic. Thus, just as the feminine divine mirrors a power of God, so does the masculine divine. [i]But this does not give us the right to reference God as feminine[/i]. In fact, the apophatic nature of theological language gives us even more reason [i]not[/i] to: If none of our language will ever be totally accurate, that makes it that much more important to use the [i]most[/i] accurate language that we can. So, should we refer to God as masculine or feminine, which is more accurate? Referring to God as Masculine is more accurate, because in the Order of Authority, male is higher than female. Understanding that all of our words fall short in reference to God, we must never permit ourselves to use anything but the most fitting language concerning him. If the term "feminine" connotes being lower in the Order of Authority, and a subordinate role in the theology of Headship, then we must not refer to God as such if we can refer to Him in a more fitting manner. We can, we can refer to God as masculine. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:10 PM']ha! no he does not...he does it RIGHT...so there....and Christ IS the sum of Revelation and he is NOT data. he's a person...haha ...uh..hey do you know mike sirillo? he's a Thomist prof there...and like i said earlier....its only your loss to reject what the saints have been granted to know by grace...what about St. Faustina's revelations....you reject that too? dang, yer insane....even Dante is said in legend to have received his ideas for the Divina Commedia in visions...you really miss out on alot, buddy-haha-but hey, "stick with public revelation" by all means..... [right][snapback]642022[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This was extremely rude, and totally uncharitable. Since I know that Todd will continue this conversation without responding directly to the above, I would like to point out that he has read more [i]Western[/i] theology than I could ever hope to, and his understanding of Eastern Theology far surpasses anyone else here on Phatmass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:31 PM']No I must not, because that has not been revealed, and the hypostatic relations are only known because of divine revelation. No one can add to this definitive revelation. [right][snapback]642037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I know what the hypostatic realtions reveal. Thats not what i am talking about. We are not adding to any definition we are prodding deeper into what is already implied in revelation, perhaps. [b]man + woman[/b] = in God's image not man + 0 = in God's image not woman + 0 = in God's image how is this not revealed? we know its true...and it must have implications for how we define, know, and understnad God.....I am not saying we must define this today, ever, or in our lives...at all...if God wills us to delve deeper into Himself in such a way then so be it, if not, so be it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:29 PM'][i]My concern is focused on Triadology, because the introduction of femininity into God's hypostatic relations would cause major theological problems.[/i] YOU MUST IN SOME SENSE INCLUDED SOME ASPECT OF FEMININITY in God's hypostatic relations---or else God would not be what he has revealed himself to be. Both male and female are created in God's image. If there is no aspect of femininity in God's hypostatic relations then we must assume that only males are made in the image of God. Whatever theological problems you have need to be addressed and not swept under the rug. [right][snapback]642032[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No, you must not. All I must acknowledge, as a Scholastic, is that feminimity mirrors a [i]power[/i] of God, not some aspect of His immutable substance or His unknowable essence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 It is possible to speak of femininity in ecclesiology, and in that sense it can be applied even to Christ Himself, for He is the Head and the body taken together. But you cannot inject this into the divine Triad or you will end up falling into heresy. The Father is the sole cause and font of Godhead, and He alone generates the Son and projects the Spirit, and there is no feminine principle involved this, in fact there is no masculine principle involved in this mystery either. This is where the West often fails to take seriously the apophatic nature of theology. The divine being remains in unapproachable light, for God is essentially beyond all categories and determinations. He is not a being among beings, and of course that is why the East denies the analogy of being, which is so popular in the West. In Byzantine theology there can be no analogy between God and the world, because God is uncreated and the world is created. Moreover, God is beyond being, in fact God is beyond God, or as St. Maximos was fond of saying, "God is infinitely beyond the infinite." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:41 PM']This was extremely rude, and totally uncharitable. Since I know that Todd will continue this conversation without responding directly to the above, I would like to point out that he has read more [i]Western[/i] theology than I could ever hope to, and his understanding of Eastern Theology far surpasses anyone else here on Phatmass. [right][snapback]642053[/snapback][/right] [/quote] i was not being rude....or uncharitable....you misread... yes Todd you are very knowledgable....i don't dispute that you know more than me.... I hope you diden't take it as uncharitable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:30 PM']wow, thank u for informing me of things i have known since 1st grade...always good to recap... [right][snapback]642033[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This also was extremely uncatholic. Sarcasm will not lead anyone to faith or understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:37 PM'] When Scholastics speak about the "feminine" Divine, they do so in reference to the generative power of God, from whom all things have their being. However, this is a reference to a [i]power[/i] of God, and not to a [i]person[/i]. The Scholastic would not refer to God as female, he would say that what is feminine mirrors a power of God. [right][snapback]642047[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That doesn't change the fact that many medievals personified God as feminine. Hildegard repeatedly spoke of the divine expressly and purposefully personified as feminine. Julian of Norwich did the same, as did many other medievals. btw, when I say "medievals" I'm not necessarily talking about scholastics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:45 AM']This also was extremely uncatholic. Sarcasm will not lead anyone to faith or understanding. [right][snapback]642061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Nor will pretending to know the intentions of another person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now