Yogananda on the Trinity

[GlorytoGod]

No, it is about the Christian Trinity specifically, and it is wrong.

There are plenty of triunes in Hindu Theology, and in reference to these, Yogananda is right, and I have no argument with him — but if you're going to talk about a specific trinity, and indeed the Trinity, then get it right.

Thomas

look Thomas its only your opinion, and your opinion is not necessarily the truth. now Yogananda's view on the trinity is as valid as anyone else's, now how about moving on you have stated your opinion which I accept even though I think its wrong.

 

[citizenzen]

Because God isn't unknowable.

Thomas.

I'm glad you think so too.

But in the glimpses that I've had of God, I was filled with compassion, not doctrine.

I came away from those encounters with the understanding that there are many paths that lead to God.

 

[Thomas]

The Bible tells us otherwise.

The Bible tells us many things:
John 14:9
"Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, show us the Father?"
1 John 3:2
"We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is."
John 17:11
"Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are."
John 17:22
"And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one"
1 Corinthians 13:12
"Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known."

+++

To know G-d's will through revelation is not the same thing as comprehending His essence or His divine mind. This is covered in the Catholic Encyclopedia in the page on the Hesychastic controversy:

Quite, but the controversy is over the very fact that Orthodox doctrine says God can only be known in His energies, not in His essence, whereas Catholic doctrine says God can be known in His essence, and His energies. It is a point of distinction between us, and I would argue implies an over-emphasis on apophaticism.

I would also point out that Hesychism is rejected by the Catholic Church: not the practice of silence, but the pursuit of the vision of the Uncreated Light through psychodynamic means, and is regarded as questionable even in Orthodox circles.

I would add that knowing G-d will is not the same as knowing G-d's design.

And I would agree. We can know His will now, we will know His design when the time is right, and we will (God willing) know Him. Jesus tells us we can be His sons by adoption, but that adoption does not imply the father rmains anonymous.

Your list of non-Trinitarian denominations shows the genuine ones to be born of rationalising the data of Scripture, that is rejecting that which the rationalist cannot bring himself to accept, as if he were the arbiter of revelation. There has latterly emerged a stream of those who saw religion as another consumer stream by which to amass a large amount of money, and later still those who embrace pure Christian fundamentalism and eschew any notion of philosophy and theology.

What separates the genuine non-Trinitarian denominations from the Trinitarian is that the latter allow that God might be more than man is, and know more than man does.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

The above is a Latin idiom coined by Tertullian (again), interpreting the Greek idea of One God in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which was the faith of the Church.

I'm puzzled by your persistent attempt to portray Tertullian as authoritative. I pointed out that there is no mention of him in the Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of the Nicean Creed. Your response did not shed any light on why that is. Could it be that Tertullian's view was not of a trinity that consisted of uncreated, co-eternal and co-equal persons?

In fact, isn't it the case that the Church accused Tertullian (and also Irenaeus) of "teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son"?
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

I said the Church did not have a coherent statement regarding the Trinity almost 300 years after Jesus departed. To which you replied:

I would rather say you evidently do not have a coherent understanding of the Trinity even now.

I would say that your insistence on glossing over the variety of opinions concerning the matter of the Trinity is suspect. Isn't it the case that there is now agreement that St. Gregory of Neocaesarea wrote his Ekthesis tes pisteos between 260 and 270 AD? And likewise isn't it the case that St. Gregory's creed is yet another opinion on the Trinity, one that elaborated Origen's earlier views with respect to the qualities of "eternity, equality, immortality, and perfection"?
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Gregory of Neocaesarea

Given the variety of opinions on the matter of the Trinity. and based on the fact that the first Creed doesn't show up until the late part of the third century, I think my suggestion that Church didn't have a coherent statement regarding the Trinity almost 300 years after Jesus' departure is a fair statement and calls attention to the largely provisional character of Church doctrine.

theology advances by degee

If there was adequate Biblical support, why did it take Church ideologues three centuries to come up with a 40 word Creed? When Revelation is not enough, that's when we see man-made doctrines being elaborated over time.

you're certainly not in any position to critically evaluate the coherence of Catholic theological doctrine.

I don't presume to. I'm sure there are entire books on the subject.

I'm merely presenting information I can attest to based on a presumably legitimate authority, the Catholic Encyclopedia. I seriously doubt that it is complete, but at least it gives us some sense for how views developed in a rather erratic, piecemeal fashion. Your ad hominizations indicate a lack of appreciation for my good faith efforts to explore Church doctrine.

I'm not prepared to devote more than a half hour on this forum at this point. I respectfully ask you to at least try to make sense out of my posts instead of fending them off and glossing over particulars.

 

[Thomas]

look Thomas its only your opinion, and your opinion is not necessarily the truth.

Actually I am one of the very few people who post here not from their own opinion, but from the data of the doctrine.

So if you think I'm wrong, please show me where I misrepresent the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity — that's the point, surely.

Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.

now Yogananda's view on the trinity is as valid as anyone else's,

OK. So you go and see a doctor, and he says "Either operate today, or die next week" ... suddenly his opinion matters, and you want to know the truth.

But when it comes to spiritual truths, and the life of the soul, people don't really believe it, it's not a matter of life and death, so it doesn't matter what the truth is, as long as you have an opinion.

Sorry — but I take my faith seriously, which is why I interrogate it, constantly — my life might actually depend on it.

Thomas

 

[GlorytoGod]

Actually I am one of the very few people who post here not from their own opinion, but from the data of the doctrine.

So if you think I'm wrong, please show me where I misrepresent the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity — that's the point, surely.

Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.


OK. So you go and see a doctor, and he says "Either operate today, or die next week" ... suddenly his opinion matters, and you want to know the truth.

But when it comes to spiritual truths, and the life of the soul, people don't really believe it, it's not a matter of life and death, so it doesn't matter what the truth is, as long as you have an opinion.

Sorry — but I take my faith seriously, which is why I interrogate it, constantly — my life might actually depend on it.

Thomas

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/trinity-once-and-for-all-11085.html

 

[Thomas]

I'm puzzled by your persistent attempt to portray Tertullian as authoritative.

You brought him up, not me! I'm just answering your questions. He's instrumental in the story, but a step on the journey, though ... that's all.

In fact, isn't it the case that the Church accused Tertullian (and also Irenaeus) of "teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son"?
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

Fantastic, isn't it? They both made mistakes. Tertullian ended an outcast. Irenaeus is a Doctor of the Church. Shows how the Church has always been very careful to distinguish between error in doctrine, and error in person.

There are errors in the works of all the Fathers, how can there not be? Some made more, some less. Origen is a case: He is loved by many, yet he was prone to a too-heavy dependence on Platonism. Augustine could be very pessimistic, but the world was collapsing around his ears. Athanasius was short-tempered. Tertullian could be cruel. They are real people, not cyphers, and they are not infallible, and they are not dealing with empirical determinations ... they're trying to fathom Revelation, to get to its implications.

I think in all the writings of the era we have, the only one never to have made an error is Gregory of Nazianzen. That doesn't make him special, by any means, just an intersting aside.

I said the Church did not have a coherent statement regarding the Trinity almost 300 years after Jesus departed.

And I said, from your speculations, you don't have a coherent understanding of the doctrine, which I stand by.

Furthermore, I think the Church did have a coherent statement regarding the Trinity, and it was the baptismal confession of every Christian — the rite was Tripartite from very early on.

In Acts, it is evident that, in the beginning, a presbyter or deacon or commissioned disciple could baptise in the name of Jesus, but only an apostle — one of the twelve — could baptise in the name of the Holy Spirit. Read Acts, it's right there. Baptism in the name of Jesus was considered incomplete until that laying on of hands by an apostle.

The Holy Spirit was promised of Christ ('another' Paraclete, so someone of equal status to Himself) but was not revealed by Him until Pentecost. He turns up with wind and fire — all the markers of Divine Revelation from the Hebrew Scriptures, and many Biblical scholars are convinced this was an experiential event, not some Lucan prosaic invention.

Peter starts talking about the Holy Spirit for the first time, then next thing Paul, who never met an Apostle before his conversion but received his message direct from God, speaks about the Spirit in the most personal terms, as a person.

Luke wrote Acts around 80AD, Paul started around 50Ad ... so a tripartite Baptism, and a tripartite Confession of Faith, was in place then. Whether the Christian's belief in the Holy Trinity would survive your investigation is another matter, but then that's not the point.

The point is that:
The Church was Trinitarian from the very beginning.
The Trinity was explained to the catechumen.

There was no serious debate questioning the belief until Arius began preaching that Christ was not co-eternal with the Father, and his congregation, of dockers, fishermen and 'the working class', knew enough to spot something wrong with his Christology, and complained to their bishop that their presbyter was preaching contrary to the Faith they professed.

So no-one wanted to hear what Arius wanted them to think, they only wanted what the Church believed. But Arius would not pipe down. And so a dispute, and then Arius got his political friends on side ... and so something had to be codified officially, as a statement of faith.

I would say that your insistence on glossing over the variety of opinions concerning the matter of the Trinity is suspect.

There was a huge variety of opinion, but all believed that:
There are Three Persons
There is One God

The rest is down to good theology.

But I'm not glossing over anything, I delight in it, I love this stuff ... the argument, the wrangling ... but do not read history and assume with all this going on, people didn't know what they believed in. They believed in it without question, they just couldn't explain it, they left that to the theologians.

Thomas

 

[citizenzen]

Actually I am one of the very few people who post here not from their own opinion, but from the data of the doctrine.

I think that's how Buddha and Jesus found enlightenment.

They said, "Look to the data of the doctrine."

 

[seattlegal]

I think that's how Buddha and Jesus found enlightenment.

They said, "Look to the data of the doctrine."

Data of forum doctrine:

Belief and Spirituality General thinking beyond the boundaries of religion and organised belief

​

{red color added for emphasis...}

 

[Bandit]

thinking beyond the boundaries of religion and organised belief

I never could grasp the obsession of the godhead wars except for evil itself influencing the spite and nasty obsession. You go to the forum that says thinking beyond the boundaries of religion and organised belief and you get the same old boundary of religious organised crap shoved down your throat.

Back to the OP which was a nice pleasant change for a change. The Yogananda god is very much like my god - one person, one spirit, who is one god. I do not always view god as a person. It was not all that deep to me because that is what resons with me and always has except for my god is not limited to a threefold nature and can be revealed in many different ways with many natures.

 

[Bandit]

thinking beyond the boundaries of religion and organised belief

Data of forum doctrine:

Belief and Spirituality General thinking beyond the boundaries of religion and organised belief

​

{red color added for emphasis...}

exactamundo

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas, I asked you earlier on what is the criteria is for "traditional Christian doctrine" (Post #7). Your response was as follows:

That which was taught by the Apostles, and hasn't been substantially trivialised by skeptics, or restricted according to what seems reasonable to me (whoever 'me' might be).

I would argue that Trinity doctrine does not meet your own criteria or, alternatively, that you have misrepresented the Church's criteria for doctrinal truth.

It's theoretically possible that Trinity Doctrine is true. My objection is that the position must be accepted on the basis of the Church's authority. To accept Trinity doctrine is implicitly to accept the Church's premise regarding the importance of Tradition and Living Magisterium. The premise is that Revelation/Apostolic teaching is not enough and that that Church positions are of equal importance to Scripture. Specifically, the Church maintains that

there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.

Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition....
​

http://www.catholiclibrary.com/content/view/5363/5805

There is no apostolic teaching of the Trinity. So it must be purely Church doctrine. Your criteria is for traditional Christian doctrine is "that which was taught by the Apostles." It follows, therefore, that Trinity doctrine does not qualify as 'traditional Christian doctrine' by your own criteria.

 

[citizenzen]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

 

[Netti-Netti]

It's also worth noting that anything we say about the Trinity can only be analogous, as we cannot conceive of the Trinity, any more than we can know what it's like to be God.

I think we agree here.

Would it be fair to say that making definitive statements about the Trinity is equivalent to making definitive statements about G-d's nature?

 

[citizenzen]

Yesssszzzzzz....zzz....zzz....zzz....

 

[Netti-Netti]

According to the Athanasian Creed, "We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being." But how does one worship an unknowable being/force?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

Thomas, I asked you earlier on what is the criteria is for "traditional Christian doctrine" (Post #7)...

My criteria is taken from the Constitutional Documents of the Church given in the most recent Council, Vatican II, which are in line with historical precedence, and are available here. These statements are founded on Scripture itself, and the manner in which Jesus determined His message would be promulgated to the word:
"Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given" Matthew 13:11 — the 'you' being the Twelve, and their appointed successors, the Magisterium — in His words it is explicit that the knowledge of the Mysteries is imparted to them alone, and this is affirmed by His post-Resurrection statement:
"... he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth ... you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence ... But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you ... to the uttermost part of the earth" Acts 1:4-8. The 'you' is emphatic — it is not given to all.

Furthermore Luke opens Acts with:
"Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up" Acts 1:2. The commandment is given by the Holy Ghost, not in the Father's name, nor in the Son's, but the Holy Ghost's. The Holy Ghost is thereby introduced as a third player, as it were, in the story, or as we would say, the Mission of the Holy Ghost differs from the Mission of the Son, although it is a continuation of that selfsame Mission — the Salvation of humanity.

The Holy ghost is introduced therefore as an Actor in the unfolding Drama of Salvation, equal to the Son, but distinct from Him, and distinct from the Father: "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever" (John 14:16 my emphasis).

If the Son is a Paraclete, and the Holy Ghost is a Paraclete, then both share in common a relation to the Father, distinct only by virtue of their own individual natures — the Son is begotten of, the Holy Sprit proceeds from, the Father.

Again, we engage with the Son as a person — the God-man Jesus Christ, and we understand His humanity is common to us, but His personhood is unique to Himself, as ours is to us, and unique in the sense that the Divinity has chosen to make Itself present among men as a particular person in Christ Jesus, whereas before It made Itself present in its call to people, in the giving of the Law and Its witness on the tongue of the Prophets. For this reason the Catholic church holds that the Jews are in receipt of the Word of God, His promise of salvation, as we are, and that promise is immutable, as is ours.

By Christ we were taught to know, think and speak of God in the most intimate and immediate terms available to man, as a particular person, as the Father, as he taught us to know Himself, as the Son.

It is unthinkable then for us, to consider the Holy Ghost, who is sent as the Son is sent, who is equal to the Son and to the Father in all things (as the Son is), and in whom, according to the will of the Father "that all fullness should dwell" in any terms other than those by which we are called to the Father and the Son, as a person, for no other relation equals the intimacy, immediacy and fullness of the Holy Ghost's being as does access through our being's existential nature — as a person because we are persons, and God desires we know Him as we know ourselves. If our personhood ceases to exist in the knowledge of God, then God, as father and as an object of knowledge, ceases to exist also.

"The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" Mark 2:27, and let me dare say (personally, I cannot affirm this doctrinally) that man — the person — was made for the soul, not the soul for the person.

By which I mean the human person is the means by which the soul, a created spirit, should be and know its own self, and the Divine Person is the means by which the Uncreated Spirit is known ... no greater act of love can God demonstrate than to be known to its creature through the very nature of that creature ... as a person.

And Christianity is a Revelation without equal of God, Person to person, Being to being.

At this point I should provide a theological understanding of the person, of being, for the definition differs according to paradigm (person in Buddhism, for example, is radically different from its Christian understanding) — and certainly the common cultural definition, a psychological definition — will not suffice.

For this reason I suggest we close this dialogue here — poor old Yogananda got a bum deal on this thread so far — and close our discussion on the Holy Trinity. Knowledge of the Holy Trinity is an authentic Christian gnosis, knowledge of things 'hidden' within the material content of Revelation, the written word.

I think a more viable approach the Mystery is to examine the nature of being as person, and I will take that up on the Theology Board.

It's theoretically possible that Trinity Doctrine is true.

It's materially actual in the sense that it is the faith of the Church, and it is the Church to whom the Mysteries are revealed, and in Her the essence of the Mysteries resides. St Paul teaches the Doctrine of the Mystical Body, and it should be understood that the people reside in that Body, not the other way round.

My objection is that the position must be accepted on the basis of the Church's authority.

But that is natural. Someone who has never seen nor heard of Scripture has no authority on its interpretation. The Church produced the Scripture, not the other way round, so Scripture is founded in the Church, and the Church is founded in Jesus.

To accept Trinity doctrine is implicitly to accept the Church's premise regarding the importance of Tradition and Living Magisterium.

Yes. That's just what your quote says. Revelation is not just in Scripture, but also in Tradition. Scripture and Tradition flow from the Church. The Church flows from the side of Christ.

Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition....

And the one affirms the other.

The premise is that Revelation/Apostolic teaching is not enough and that that Church positions are of equal importance to Scripture.

Yes. That is the Apostolic teaching, only through which can Scripture be explained and understood. The can be no question that, without proper explanation, one can get Scripture utterly wrong — just look at Christian fundamentalism. The dialogue between Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8 says it clearly.

Only today do men assume that because they can read, there is nothing in what they read that lies beyond their understanding — another assumption easily disposed of.

There is no apostolic teaching of the Trinity. So it must be purely Church doctrine.

Well, I have demonstrated there's sufficient data to render that initial statement not the case — the Triune Godhead was very much taught by the Apostles. That they didn't say 'Trinity' only means they didn't have Tertullian's turn of phrase.

And, as the Trinity is a Church doctrine, and as it is a Baptismal formulae from the very beginning, it is Tradition, and thus it is Revealed through the Church, so that's a self-defeating argument.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

Revelation is not just in Scripture, but also in Tradition.

As noted in my Post #52, this is presumptive.

That is the Apostolic teaching, only through which can Scripture be explained and understood. The can be no question that, without proper explanation, one can get Scripture utterly wrong

Claims of infallibility notwithstanding, there is no guarantee that the Catholic Church will always get it right. But your comment obscures an important issue. It's not just a question of interpretation. The point made in Post #52 is that the Church has authority to promulgate doctrine about the nature of G-d in the absence of a Biblical basis. To assume such authority is going well beyond interpretation and into the realm of theological invention. You seem to sugegsting that there is no difference. I think they are very different.

From your speculations, you don't have a coherent understanding of the doctrine, which I stand by.

I'm fairly confident that my "speculations" are consistent with the Scripture, whereas the Church doctrine on the so-called "Christian Trinity" you are trying to defend is not.

Consider Colossians 1:15. Christ Jesus is described as "the image of the invisible G-d, the firstborn of all creation." Jesus came into being by G-d's creative action. If Christ Jesus is an aspect of G-d's creation — i.e., "the first of all creation" — then he would be one among other created things that have a beginning. Because they have a beginning, created things cannot be eternal. Christ Jesus had a beginning. Therefore, he cannot be eternal.

Given the varieties of opinion on its various aspects, there is little indication that the Christian Trinity ever attained the status of Church orthodoxy. The earliest discussions we see on the unitary substance of the divine persons pertain almost exclusively to Christ Jesus and had very little to do with the Holy Spirit. The notion of "Unity of Person" was developed in a post hoc effort to equate the Son with the Father so as to avoid the impression of polytheism. Later attempts to incorporate the Holy Spirit into the Trinity appears as an afterthought. Rev. Dr J.N.D. Kelly at Oxford observes that the early church fathers were at a loss as to what to do about the Holy Spirit . Even now, there are ongoing ideological efforts concerned with making the addition of the Holy Spirit plausible (e.g., Fr Gilles Emery). It may be intellectually satisfying, but it's all post facto.

The suggestion that Trinity was ever orthodoxy is very hard to reconcile to what we know about the concept's historical development. As for the scriptural basis for the Man-G-d, it appears lacking. The Scripture repeatedly attests to Christ Jesus' dependence on the higher power, thus undercuttig the notion of Jesus being co-equal with the Father (e.g., St Thomas Acquinas):

Jesus said, I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John (13:16)

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

The living Father sent me and I live because of the Father (John 6:57)
​

the Triune Godhead was very much taught by the Apostles....

It suspect your interpretation of Mark and John is different from mine.

 

[Thomas]

As noted in my Post #52, this is presumptive.

But, unless one refuses Revelation, in which case the entire conversation is void, this response presumes on less data than that which it opposes.

Claims of infallibility notwithstanding, there is no guarantee that the Catholic Church will always get it right.

Infallibility derives from the nature of the Church as Indefectible, as assured by Our Lord: "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

It's not just a question of interpretation.

Well it is, as the Church alone is enabled to interpret Scripture: "unto you it is given ..." (Matthew 13:11).

The point made in Post #52 is that the Church has authority to promulgate doctrine about the nature of G-d in the absence of a Biblical basis.

The above is its Biblical basis, as are others:
John 14:17 "The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you."

John 15:26 "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me."

Christ Jesus is described as "the image of the invisible G-d, the firstborn of all creation." Jesus came into being by G-d's creative action. If Christ Jesus is an aspect of G-d's creation — i.e., "the first of all creation" — then he would be one among other created things that have a beginning.

Ah, the Arian Question. As was proved then, this is dependent on the interpretation of the term 'firstborn' — Hellenic (and therefore alien) interpretations aside, the root of the idiom derives from the Hebrew Scriptures:

The title "firstborn" has a rich significance in this passage especially when we look first at its Old Testament backdrop. The firstborn son of the patriarchal age was the heir to the majority or all of his father's property, a practice continued in the Mosaic period (cf. Deut. 21:17).
...
Thus by calling the Son of God the "Firstborn over all creation," Paul is acknowledging him as heir and ruler of the world from the beginning. And look at the lavish extent of his reign: all things, not all Eden, nor all Israel, nor even all the world, but ALL things–"because in him all things were created, in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through him and for him" (v.16).

The Online Journal of Biblical Theology.

Given the varieties of opinion on its various aspects, there is little indication that the Christian Trinity ever attained the status of Church orthodoxy.

The Baptismal Rite indicates otherwise — that was not and never was a question of opinion. It is nonsense to suppose that Monotheists would require that Baptism in the name of the One True God would then call on someone or something else to be effective or meaningful.

The Church never baptised in the name of John the Baptist, Peter, John, James, Paul, or any of the Apostles ... whereas the baptism of an Apostle was seen as superior to that of anyone else.

Rev. Dr J.N.D. Kelly at Oxford observes that the early church fathers were at a loss as to what to do about the Holy Spirit.

RAOFL! Please show me where Kelly suggests, as you presume from his comments (I assume you're referring to Early Christian Doctrines, which I have, and which is required reading on my course), that the doctrine was fabricated out of their own imagination without foundation, or without the Illumination of Revelation. He does not.

Nor does Fr Giles Emery, nor does Aquinas, so all three would be very annoyed at how you are misrepresenting them. All three profess the Blessed Trinity, so your argument refutes itself on its own illogicality. As Aquinas wrote on the Blessed Trinity in the Summa Theologiae (which I have on my Mac) and elsewhere, in a fully Catholic and Orthodox fashion — never, ever making the unsustainable implication you read into him. As Emery has written Trinity in Aquinas (another book on my shelf) as an exegesis of this theology, indeed advanced our understanding exponentially, your arguments are growing transparent in their dogged attempts to disprove what you have so far signalled failed to do.

I suspect your interpretation of Mark and John is different from mine.

Yes, indeed. The point is, mine is not mine, but belongs to the Tradition that gave me Scripture in the first place. Yours is entirely your own, supported by whatever text you can interpret according to your own presuppositions.

Get hold of "The Christian Trinity in History" by Bertrand de Margerie SJ. That should answer all your questions.

I'm sorry, Netti-Netti, but not only does it seem you not understand Scripture, you do not even understand the textbooks you cite in your argument — they certainly don't say what you want them to!

This is my last comment on this thread.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Fr Gilles Emery recently published a book that explains the purpose of Trinitarian theology. I hope to purchase it to fill in the rather big gaps I am left with in the wake of this discussion. The title is Trinity, Church, and the Human Person.

I was hoping this discussion would eventually get to the meaning of hypostatic union of the divine and human, so that we could at least make some sense of the idea of becoming more human in a divine way, which I believe it what it's all about.

However, it seems our discussion has concluded with a circular argument to the effect that Church doctrine must be accepted as true because the Church said so. This is a very dangerous position from which to argue because the logic can be used to defend any position, regardless of its merits.

Tradition has value but is not self-validating. But that is how the Church has defined it. This approach strikes me as incompatible with the ecumene of humanity. As I understand it, the Church was commissioned to call the
world to a universal priesthood, not to become an exclusive and finite community founded on cult doctrine that even by Bro. Thomas admission lacks official statement.

I'm concerned the approach in question could actually be interfere directly with building the community of faith inaugurated by Jesus, whose mission was to expand in the direction of universal practice the applicability of the L-rd's goal for perfecting fellowship among humankind in a manner that far transcends medieval notions of corporate ecclesiology.