A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:43 AM']Here are a few of the names (not everyone said who they were):

I wish it was Mother Angelica.
[right][snapback]711928[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I've never heard of any of them. But I can certainly understand why not everybody wanted to give their name.

But from the Jesuit magazine "America" there is this:

"When the second edition of Thomas Bokenkotter’s book appeared in 1990, the publisher boasted that over 125,000 copies were already in circulation. Tens of thousands more have surely been sold in the meantime. That fact alone testifies to the merits of the book and the need it has filled. This new edition has four features that justify calling the book once again to the attention of readers of America."

But also:

"If I were a member of whatever board it is that assigns ratings to movies, I would give this chapter an R rating: for mature audiences only. Bokenkotter tries to “tell it like it is,” pulling no punches. He is frank in his judgments of the strengths and weaknesses of the present pontificate, over a wide range of issues."

So conservatives, traditionalists, and the Pius X folks, or anyone else who wants to go on pretending that the pre-Vatican church was "the best of all possible worlds," probably isn't going to like Bokenkotter (who is a professor at Xaiver University).

LittleLes

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:58 AM']RESPONSE,

Ah yes, apopthaic (or apopthatic) theology. From the Wikipedia we have:

"Negative theology, also known as the Via Negativa (Lat. for "Negative Way") and Apophatic theology, is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God. In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is."

Actually, the discrepancy is the contradictions in the theory itself, however some might want to rationalize them.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]711867[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You tend not to look further into something than Wikepedia, don't you Les?

The apophatic nature of theological language extends far beyond the two sentences you have quoted above. Moreover, you really haven't actually provided a counterpoint to anything I said above.

If it is understood that theological language is apophatic, then seeming contradictions are to be expected - not on account of an actual contradiction within God's being, but rather, because human language is inherently limited, it will be unable to express the whole truth about certain aspects of God's being, and these inadequacies of our [i]language[/i] produce contradiction.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:53 AM']Its a tract for the liberal agenda. The entire atheistic tone of the presentation is simply setting the stage for the agenda that is made more explicit toward the end of the book, namely the liberalization of the Church, the destruction of Papal authority, the bending of the Church's moral teachings and disciplines to the spirit of the age, etc.
[right][snapback]711862[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ummmm . . . Sounds familiar.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 5 2005, 02:58 PM']But from the Jesuit magazine "America" there is this:
[right][snapback]712185[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh carp, hold on... oh.. I'm gonna barf!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 5 2005, 06:04 PM']You tend not to look further into something than Wikepedia, don't you Les?

The apophatic nature of theological language extends far beyond the two sentences you have quoted above. Moreover, you really haven't actually provided a counterpoint to anything I said above.

If it is understood that theological language is apophatic, then seeming contradictions are to be expected - not on account of an actual contradiction within God's being, but rather, because human language is inherently limited, it will be unable to express the whole truth about certain aspects of God's being, and these inadequacies of our [i]language[/i] produce contradiction.
[right][snapback]712352[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

But you haven't yet said anything specific to respond to.

Plain English can explain most contradictions just fine. Trying to make things sound more profound than necessary just doesn't make a convincing argument if the contradiction is obvious.

Origen of Alexandria, (185-254) one of the most famous early Christian theologians, in his classic treatise "On First Principles" observed this contradiction:

"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote)."

Thus the Son is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit less than the Son. This follows from "unbegotten, "begotten" and "proceeds from" or else we have a contradiction by claiming equality.

No need to get hung up in "apophatic" at all, see?

[White Knight]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 5 2005, 10:19 PM']RESPONSE:

But you haven't yet said anything specific to respond to.

Plain English can explain most contradictions just fine. Trying to make things sound more profound than necessary just doesn't make a convincing argument if the contradiction is obvious.

Origen of Alexandria, (185-254) one of the most famous early Christian theologians, in his classic treatise "On First Principles" observed this contradiction:

"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote)."

Thus the Son is less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit less than the Son. This follows from "unbegotten, "begotten" and "proceeds from" or else we have a contradiction by claiming equality.

No need to get hung up in "apophatic" at all, see?
[right][snapback]712612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You dont get it do you? I'll say this again and back up what the others have stated, All your questions that you stated earlier in ANY of your replies in any threads you've posted in, have been answered. and the answers are valid in every way, your just posting to agure and thats it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Qui non intrat per ostium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est et latro.
Si quis vero per ostium introierit, ingredietur et egredietur et pascua inveniet.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:13 PM']Qui non intrat per ostium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est et latro.
Si quis vero per ostium introierit, ingredietur et egredietur et pascua inveniet.
[right][snapback]712709[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What does that say in English?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I think we should only debate in Latin from now on. It is more precise.

Propter quod dicit Ioannes in Apocalypsi: Beati qui lavant vestimenta in sanguine Agni, ut sit potestas eorum in ligno vitae, et per portas ingrediantur civitatem; quasi dicat, quod per contemplationem ingredi non potest Ierusalem supernam, nisi per sanguinem Agni intret tanquam per portam. Non enim dispositus est aliquo modo ad contemplationes divinas, quae ad mentales ducunt excessus, nisi cum Daniele sit vir desideriorum. Desideria autem in nobis inflammantur dupliciter, scilicet per clamorem orationis, quae rugire facit a gemitu cordis, et per fulgorem speculationis, qua mens ad radios lucis directissime et intensissime se convertit.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:16 PM']I think we should only debate in Latin from now on. It is more precise.

Propter quod dicit Ioannes in Apocalypsi: Beati qui lavant vestimenta in sanguine Agni, ut sit potestas eorum in ligno vitae, et per portas ingrediantur civitatem; quasi dicat, quod per contemplationem ingredi non potest Ierusalem supernam, nisi per sanguinem Agni intret tanquam per portam. Non enim dispositus est aliquo modo ad contemplationes divinas, quae ad mentales ducunt excessus, nisi cum Daniele sit vir desideriorum. Desideria autem in nobis inflammantur dupliciter, scilicet per clamorem orationis, quae rugire facit a gemitu cordis, et per fulgorem speculationis, qua mens ad radios lucis directissime et intensissime se convertit.
[right][snapback]712715[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What about those who dont speak Latin?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:20 PM']What about those who dont speak Latin?
[right][snapback]712725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
just pretend :

j/k, it was a dumb idea. Just some things sound so much better in Latin, like that stuff I posted.

God bless.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:22 PM']just pretend :

j/k, it was a dumb idea. Just some things sound so much better in Latin, like that stuff I posted.

God bless.
[right][snapback]712734[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I wouldn't mind learning Latin, I heard it is a much more effective language than English, its more professional in a sense, from what I heard.

Do you teach Latin?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:25 PM']I wouldn't mind learning Latin, I heard it is a much more effective language than English, its more professional in a sense, from what I heard.

Do you teach Latin?
[right][snapback]712741[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh my, I could never teach Latin.. I don't agree with the way it is taught but I don't have a better way in mind.
Hmm...

Anyway, it is a really cool language. I think I like Greek better though. I know that is sad since I'm Roman Catholic, but I'm just being honest.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 5 2005, 11:29 PM']Oh my, I could never teach Latin.. I don't agree with the way it is taught but I don't have a better way in mind.
Hmm...

Anyway, it is a really cool language. I think I like Greek better though. I know that is sad since I'm Roman Catholic, but I'm just being honest.
[right][snapback]712752[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Greek would be awsome to learn, to get a better understanding of the New Testmant, and if you know Hebrew, which is what the Old Testmant is in, you could read the whole Bible in another language other than English, that would be awsome.

Thats off topic but oh well lol.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]"The Eastern Orthodox church holds that the filioque clause, i.e., the added words "and the Son" (in Latin, filioque), constitutes heresy. One reason for this is that it undermines the personhood of the Holy Spirit; is there not also perfect love between the Father and the Holy Spirit, and if so, would this love not also share the perfection of real existence? At this rate, there would be an infinite number of persons of the Godhead, unless some persons were subordinate so that their love were less perfect and therefore need not share the perfection of real existence."[/quote]

This makes no sense. There is a clear lack of understanding of Who God is, and What God is.

There is perfect Love between the Father and the Holy Spirit, but it doesn't necesitate an infinite number of "persons". Whoever wrote the quote above needs to open their minds and pray that God gives them the grace to understand the difference between Person and Being. God loves Himself, as He loves us. And because God loves Himself, there is perfect love between the Father and the Holy Spirit. In this, we say that God loves WHAT He is. God is love. But since the Father has a Son, which necessitates two Persons, then they not only love WHAT they are - God, but they Love WHO they are! And this Love between two Persons, that are God, must also be God - precisely because He is infinite and perfect! And because the Love between the Father and the Son is God, yet He isn't the Father, nor is He the Son, must be a third Person!


[quote]At this rate, there would be an infinite number of persons of the Godhead, [/quote]

This is clearly an example of the misunderstanding of WHAT God is. This should read... "At this rate, there would be an infinite Person of the Godhead - which is God". And you're back at the explenation for the Holy Spirit!

The Love between the Father and the Son is infinite - therefore it is God, and since it isn't the Father or the Son, it must be a third Person.

The Love of God for Himself is simply What God is. The Love of the Father for the Son is Who the Holy Spirit is.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Jake Huether