Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[Giggly_Giraffe]

One mind.

God the Father is spirit. Spirits do not have the same “mind” as humans and animals do.
God the Son has a mind; which is now glorified.
God the spirit - again, spirits embodiment of a mind is different than that of flesh.

Since these three are uniquely “one” then the mind is embodied within our Lord and Savior, Jesus ,Christ.

 

[Assyrian412]

They have three minds.

The father is almighty, and the son and holy spirit are obedient and subjucated to his will. Together they make one supreme God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one will and divine substance. However, it is Orthodox to believe that the Son is positionally subordinate to the Father in the same way one who begets is “greater” than the one who is begotten but the Son must be understood to be ontologically equal in that he is everything that the Father is except “unbegotten” as the Father is the source of the Godhead.

For example… the Father created all things through the Son. The Father is the one who “sent” the Son into the world, not vice-versa. The Father saved us through the Son. The Father spoke to us through his Son, etc. The Father, Son, and Spirit, as the One True God, share their will, substance, and action but they have different roles. So, in a sense the Son and Spirit are obedient and subjected to the Father’s will but the Son and Spirit’s wills are not distinct from the Father’s. They share one will.

It is Orthodox to believe in the positional subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father within the Godhead as the Father is the unbegotten source of the Godhead.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I feel you were trying to get across.

Arianism is the belief that the Son was created ex nihlo and is of a different substance than the Father and this is not what I perceive you are trying to get across, correct?

“…the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: “Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . .” (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.”
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

 

[PluniaZ]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one will and divine substance. However, it is Orthodox to believe that the Son is positionally subordinate to the Father in the same way one who begets is “greater” than the one who is begotten but the Son must be understood to be ontologically equal in that he is everything that the Father is except “unbegotten” as the Father is the source of the Godhead.

For example… the Father created all things through the Son. The Father is the one who “sent” the Son into the world, not vice-versa. The Father saved us through the Son. The Father spoke to us through his Son, etc. The Father, Son, and Spirit, as the One True God, share their will, substance, and action but they have different roles. So, in a sense the Son and Spirit are obedient and subjected to the Father’s will but the Son and Spirit’s wills are not distinct from the Father’s. They share one will.

It is Orthodox to believe in the positional subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father within the Godhead as the Father is the unbegotten source of the Godhead.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is what I feel you were trying to get across.

Arianism is the belief that the Son was created ex nihlo and is of a different substance than the Father and this is not what I perceive you are trying to get across, correct?

“…the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: “Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . .” (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.”
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

I disagree. Aquinas is explicit that the words, “The Father is greater than I” are to be understood in respect of Christ’s human nature: “These words are to be understood of Christ’s human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father.” newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

Aquinas also says that origin of procession “is according to equality.” newadvent.org/summa/1043.htm

We should stick to the creeds and always affirm the equality of the Divine Persons.

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/romancat.html

 

[Lucretius]

The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son is begotten while the Father is not. The only difference between the Father and Spirit is that the Spirit is breathed and the Father is not. And so forth. The Father is God unbegotten and unbreathed, the Son is God begotten, and the Spirit is God breathed.

The mind, nature, will, goodness, justice, mercy, etc., etc. of God are all the same in each Person, both in essence (the same kind of thing, the same nature, the same universal: this is called Divine Simplicity) and in instance (there is only one Divine Mind, Nature, Will, Goodness, Justice, Mercy, etc.; they are all the same particular, substance: this is called monotheism). None of them are distinct in God, only the relations are distinct from each other within the inner life of God. The one Mind of God is the Mind of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the one Will of God is the Will of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. And so forth.

When we hear the thoughts of the Son, we hear the thoughts of the Father and Spirit, not because the same thought exists in three minds, nor because the thought exists in one mind that is the collective of three different minds, but because God has one mind, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are God consubstantial.

The understanding that God has three minds is based on the idea that each person is an individual substance/thing/particular, which would make each person a separated substance from each other, which is why PluniaZ keeps calling this approach polytheistic. In human persons, this idea that each person is a separate substance/thing is correct, but this is not true in God. Our ideas are based on our experiences with created things, and since God transcends created things, which only share a degree of likeness to God, our concepts only approximates the infinite reality of God.

This is why our understanding of God appears so paradoxical to us: normally contradictory -or at least unassociated- concepts from our experiences are being used to understand a reality where they are unified. Something being a particle and a wave is paradoxical from normal macro-level experience, but not so in the quantum realm. Something’s mass not changing in motion is true in the relatively slow motion of common things on Earth, but in the world of very fast objects, mass increases as velocity increases. In the same way, in normal experience (with created things), three people aren’t or can’t be the same substance/thing. But not so with God: our concepts are based on observing only a small part of reality -one derived too-, not the whole.

The only way to really intuitively know God and what he is truly like “on the inside” is through santifying grace, and ultimately in the experience of the beatific vision, where we no longer use concepts derived from created things to understand God, but rather experience God directly.

And even then, our created minds can never fully and exhaustively comprehend Him.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

I disagree. Aquinas is explicit that the words, “The Father is greater than I” are to be understood in respect of Christ’s human nature: “These words are to be understood of Christ’s human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father.” newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

Couldn’t we say that the words can also refer to the Father and Son’s unequality in relation, and from this inequality of relation, which everyone agrees with, that a kind of heirarchy arises, since being unbegotten is in some sense prior (not temporarily) to being begotten, as so forth?

This is one of the things Eastern Christians, I think, point out during the Filioque debates. I mean, St. Athanasius and St. Thomas both seem to mean by equality simply that the Persons are completely and utterly Divine.

Christi pax.

 

[Fiasco]

They are three distinct persons.
They have three seperate minds.
This is hardly hersey, in fact this is church teaching my friend.

It’s not.
And it’s misleading to use a lower case “p” for “Person”. The meaning of “Person” when applied to the Trinity is vastly different from when it’s applied to us.
There’s a bad hobbit, too, of conceiving of God in Man’s image, rather than vice versa.
During a sermon, i heard a priest say “people” instead of “Persons”.

For those who genuinely want to dive into a deeper understanding of the inner Life of God, Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity” is a good source, apart from New Advent and others, already linked to by other posters… But T & S is probably more comprehensible, more layman-friendly, less theologically heavy.
A quote from the 1978 Ignatius Press edition of the book:

Of Sheed’s many books, this is my favorite, not just because it includes the clearest explanation of the Trinity ever put on paper, but because it proves that only the Catholic view of reality can satisfy our mental hunger. Karl Keating

An online 1947 version, virtually identical (expired copyright):

www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.html

The entire book should be read, but it’s easy enough to find the chapters on the inner Life of God. The print is easier to read than the lousy spidery print in the Ignatius Press edition, at least for someone with crook eyesight.

Why the doctrine isn’t taught in schools and in sermons is beyond my understanding! Senior primary school children could grasp the essentials.

Sorry, Assyrian412 for not getting back to you. i put it in the “too hard basket” and just let it slip!

 

[thephilosopher6]

The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son is begotten while the Father is not. The only difference between the Father and Spirit is that the Spirit is breathed and the Father is not. And so forth. The Father is God unbegotten and unbreathed, the Son is God begotten, and the Spirit is God breathed.

The mind, nature, will, goodness, justice, mercy, etc., etc. of God are all the same in each Person, both in essence (the same kind of thing, the same nature, the same universal: this is called Divine Simplicity) and in instance (there is only one Divine Mind, Nature, Will, Goodness, Justice, Mercy, etc.; they are all the same particular, substance: this is called monotheism). None of them are distinct in God, only the relations are distinct from each other within the inner life of God. The one Mind of God is the Mind of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the one Will of God is the Will of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. And so forth.

When we hear the thoughts of the Son, we hear the thoughts of the Father and Spirit, not because the same thought exists in three minds, nor because the thought exists in one mind that is the collective of three different minds, but because God has one mind, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are God consubstantial.

The understanding that God has three minds is based on the idea that each person is an individual substance/thing/particular, which would make each person a separated substance from each other, which is why PluniaZ keeps calling this approach polytheistic. In human persons, this idea that each person is a separate substance/thing is correct, but this is not true in God. Our ideas are based on our experiences with created things, and since God transcends created things, which only share a degree of likeness to God, our concepts only approximates the infinite reality of God.

This is why our understanding of God appears so paradoxical to us: normally contradictory -or at least unassociated- concepts from our experiences are being used to understand a reality where they are unified. Something being a particle and a wave is paradoxical from normal macro-level experience, but not so in the quantum realm. Something’s mass not changing in motion is true in the relatively slow motion of common things on Earth, but in the world of very fast objects, mass increases as velocity increases. In the same way, in normal experience (with created things), three people aren’t or can’t be the same substance/thing. But not so with God: our concepts are based on observing only a small part of reality -one derived too-, not the whole.

The only way to really intuitively know God and what he is truly like “on the inside” is through santifying grace, and ultimately in the experience of the beatific vision, where we no longer use concepts derived from created things to understand God, but rather experience God directly.

And even then, our created minds can never fully and exhaustively comprehend Him.

Christi pax.

Thank you for clarification. I have read Aquinas on this before but I guess I never fully understood it until now.

 

[PluniaZ]

Couldn’t we say that the words can also refer to the Father and Son’s unequality in relation? This is one of the things Eastern Christians, I think, point out during the Filioque debates. I mean, St. Athanasius and St. Thomas both mean by equality that the Persons are completely and utterly Divine.

Christi pax.

I have yet to see any authoritative statement to the effect that there is any inequality in the Godhead. Aquinas is explicit, as I quoted above, that the relations of origin are according to equality. He also says, “As the same essence is paternity in the Father, and filiation in the Son: so by the same power the Father begets, and the Son is begotten. Hence it is clear that the Son can do whatever the Father can do; yet it does not follow that the Son can beget; for to argue thus would imply transition from substance to relation, for generation signifies a divine relation. So the Son has the same omnipotence as the Father, but with another relation; the Father possessing power as “giving” signified when we say that He is able to beget; while the Son possesses the power of “receiving,” signified by saying that He can be begotten.” newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

As for the easterns, the ones who object are in schism, and from what I have read obstinately refuse to accept the teachings of anyone other than particular teachers in a particular time (primarily the 4th Century Cappadocians) whom they have arbitrarily selected as the sole authorities on this matter, as if Rome hadn’t already addressed the fundamental issue of the Trinity 100 years earlier when Pope Callixtus I excommunicated Sabellius, while ignoring Alexandrian fathers such as Didymus and Cyril who teach the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. So I see no reason to change the historic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to accommodate schismatics.

 

[Lucretius]

Thank you for clarification. I have read Aquinas on this before but I guess I never fully understood it until now.

I always understand it like this: when we look at the Son, we see the very same -same in every sense of the word- mind, will, goodness, justice, mercy, etc. The only thing we see the Son having that the Father doesn’t have is the “quality” of being begotten, that is, the only thing that distinguishes the Son from the Father is that he isn’t the Father, he doesn’t beget, but is begotten.

In St. Thomas’ understanding, the relations of God are not different “things” forming a relationship, like how the chair and the table for the relation of being “near each other,” or how you and I form a relationship of acquaintances from discussing theology. In these sort of relations, the polar ends of the relation are prior to the relation itself, and can subsist without the relation.

Rather, the relations within God are what is prior, it is from the relation that the polar ends stem from, and each end cannot exist without the relationship. This is more like the relation of parent and child (which is why we name the Persons of the Trinity the way we do). The child, as a child, cannot exist without a father, just as a father, as a father, cannot exist without a child (we call a man with a child a father, but we don’t call a man without a child a father). There is no father without a child, and there is no son without a father, because the very act of begetting inherently implies a begotten, while the very act of being begotten implies a begetter.

Another example of this kind of relation is that between mind and thought (which is why we call the Son the Logos): a mind doesn’t exist without thought, and a thought doesn’t exist without a mind. It is from this analogy that we say that the Father is God Knowing Himself, and the Son is God as He is Known by Himself.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

I have yet to see any authoritative statement to the effect that there is any inequality in the Godhead. Aquinas is explicit, as I quoted above, that the relations of origin are according to equality. He also says, “As the same essence is paternity in the Father, and filiation in the Son: so by the same power the Father begets, and the Son is begotten. Hence it is clear that the Son can do whatever the Father can do; yet it does not follow that the Son can beget; for to argue thus would imply transition from substance to relation, for generation signifies a divine relation. So the Son has the same omnipotence as the Father, but with another relation; the Father possessing power as “giving” signified when we say that He is able to beget; while the Son possesses the power of “receiving,” signified by saying that He can be begotten.” newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

As for the easterns, the ones who object are in schism, and from what I have read obstinately refuse to accept the teachings of anyone other than particular teachers in a particular time (primarily the 4th Century Cappadocians) whom they have arbitrarily selected as the sole authorities on this matter, as if Rome hadn’t already addressed the fundamental issue of the Trinity 100 years earlier when Pope Callixtus I excommunicated Sabellius, while ignoring Alexandrian fathers such as Didymus and Cyril who teach the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. So I see no reason to change the historic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to accommodate schismatics.

When we talk about equality, we have to ask ourselves in what way, and to what degree?

So, we can say that you and I are equal in that we are both human, we are equal in nature, but we can be unequal in other aspects.

What I’m saying is that the Father is unequal to the Son, not in the qualities nor degrees of Divinity, intellect, will, goodness, justice, mercy, etc., but in Paternity and Filiation, which just another way of saying that the Father and the Son are not equal in the sense that the Father is not the Son, the Father is not begotten, and the Son is not the Father, the Son isn’t begetting, and so forth. In other words, by unequal I mean distinct in some way.

In fact, I insist that this is the only inequality between the Persons, the only distinction within God. The Son has the same one Divinity, Intellect, Will, Goodness, Justice, Mercy, as the Father has, and to the same degree. When we see the Son’s Goodness, we see the Father’s goodness, because they are both the same thing, not just in essence, but literally the same instance of the same goodness. The only thing we see in the Son that is not in the Father is the quality of being begotten.

And so, from this Divine relation, a kind of heirarchy emerges, where that which begets is active while that which is begotten is passive (look at the grammatical voice!). This is why Christ is said to receive, which inherently implies being passive in the possession of that which is received.

This is where I’m getting at, that the very idea of being the Son means some kind of passivity to the Father, which is what I think many Eastern Christians (this includes the Easter Catholics too you know ) are considering when they talk about the “Father being the source of the Spirit” and especially “the monarchy of the Father.”

Christi pax.

 

[PluniaZ]

When we talk about equality, we have to ask ourselves in what way, and to what degree?

So, we can say that you and I are equal in that we are both human, we are equal in nature, but we can be unequal in other aspects.

What I’m saying is that the Father is unequal to the Son, not in the qualities nor degrees of Divinity, intellect, will, goodness, justice, mercy, etc., but in Paternity and Filiation, which just another way of saying that the Father and the Son are not equal in the sense that the Father is not the Son, the Father is not begotten, and the Son is not the Father, the Son isn’t begetting, and so forth. In other words, by unequal I mean distinct in some way.

In fact, I insist that this is the only inequality between the Persons, the only distinction within God. The Son has the same one Divinity, Intellect, Will, Goodness, Justice, Mercy, as the Father has, and to the same degree. When we see the Son’s Goodness, we see the Father’s goodness, because they are both the same thing, not just in essence, but literally the same instance of the same goodness. The only thing we see in the Son that is not in the Father is the quality of being begotten.

And so, from this Divine relation, a kind of heirarchy emerges, where that which begets is active while that which is begotten is passive (look at the grammatical voice!). This is why Christ is said to receive, which inherently implies being passive in the possession of that which is received.

This is where I’m getting at, that the very idea of being the Son means some kind of passivity to the Father, which is what I think many Eastern Christians (this includes the Easter Catholics too you know ) are considering when they talk about the “Father being the source of the Spirit” and especially “the monarchy of the Father.”

Christi pax.

You can say they are distinct persons without saying they aren’t equal. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. Aquinas says it. Every creed says it. I haven’t even seen the Cappadocians or any other eastern Father deny it except maybe Origen, who was condemned as a heretic for it.

What I see today is yet another attempt to bring back semi-Arianism by people who make vague, uncited references to the Cappadocian fathers to insist that the “monarchy of the Father” makes the three persons unequal.

The Catholic Church has always affirmed the equality of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that will never change.

 

[Assyrian412]

I disagree. Aquinas is explicit that the words, “The Father is greater than I” are to be understood in respect of Christ’s human nature: “These words are to be understood of Christ’s human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father.” newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

Aquinas also says that origin of procession “is according to equality.” newadvent.org/summa/1043.htm

We should stick to the creeds and always affirm the equality of the Divine Persons.

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/romancat.html

This does stick to the creeds and it does affirm the equality of the Divine Persons.

I would suggest looking at what the Ante-Nicene Fathers had to say on the matter; the writers before 325AD. They were not combatting Arianism and are not afraid to attribute verses like this to the Son in his divine nature and rightfully so.

The Church permits both of these understandings of the text.

Origin was condemned because he believed the Son to be a lesser divinity to his Father; he taught that the Son’s substance was different than the Father’s . Not because he believed the Son was relationally subordinate to the Father.

 

[Assyrian412]

It’s not.
And it’s misleading to use a lower case “p” for “Person”. The meaning of “Person” when applied to the Trinity is vastly different from when it’s applied to us.
There’s a bad hobbit, too, of conceiving of God in Man’s image, rather than vice versa.
During a sermon, i heard a priest say “people” instead of “Persons”.

For those who genuinely want to dive into a deeper understanding of the inner Life of God, Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity” is a good source, apart from New Advent and others, already linked to by other posters… But T & S is probably more comprehensible, more layman-friendly, less theologically heavy.
A quote from the 1978 Ignatius Press edition of the book:

An online 1947 version, virtually identical (expired copyright):

www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.html

The entire book should be read, but it’s easy enough to find the chapters on the inner Life of God. The print is easier to read than the lousy spidery print in the Ignatius Press edition, at least for someone with crook eyesight.

Why the doctrine isn’t taught in schools and in sermons is beyond my understanding! Senior primary school children could grasp the essentials.

Sorry, Assyrian412 for not getting back to you. i put it in the “too hard basket” and just let it slip!

No worries Fiasco, hope all is well

 

[PluniaZ]

This does stick to the creeds and it does affirm the equality of the Divine Persons.

I would suggest looking at what the Ante-Nicene Fathers had to say on the matter; the writers before 325AD. They were not combatting Arianism and are not afraid to attribute verses like this to the Son in his divine nature and rightfully so.

The Church permits both of these understandings of the text.

Origin was condemned because he believed the Son to be a lesser divinity to his Father; he taught that the Son’s substance was different than the Father’s . Not because he believed the Son was relationally subordinate to the Father.

There was greater freedom of language before the theological and Christological heresies of the first millennium forced the Church to adopt more precise language in the creeds. The fact that you have to look prior to these creeds to find language supporting a “positional subordination” of the Son to the Father suggests that the Church found such language inappropriate and stopped using it. So it would not be wise for us to resume using such language today.

 

[Assyrian412]

There was greater freedom of language before the theological and Christological heresies of the first millennium forced the Church to adopt more precise language in the creeds. The fact that you have to look prior to these creeds to find language supporting a “positional subordination” of the Son to the Father suggests that the Church found such language inappropriate and stopped using it. So it would not be wise for us to resume using such language today.

I am not finding language to support it. I am pointing out how that verse was universally understood until there was a need to combat arianism. I am also pointing out that the Church permits this understanding of the text.

 

[PluniaZ]

I am not finding language to support it. I am pointing out how that verse was universally understood until there was a need to combat arianism. I am also pointing out that the Church permits this understanding of the text.

Where does the Church teach that it is permissible to speak of the Son as “subordinate” to the Father?

 

[Assyrian412]

Where does the Church teach that it is permissible to speak of the Son as “subordinate” to the Father?

Relationally subordinate. Ontologically Equal.

Forgive me for not finding more sources but I did link you to Apologists from Catholic Answers previously…

Where does the Church teach that it is not permissible to describe the Son as relationally subordinate? Why is it wrong to refer to him as such when describing…

The Father is the source of the Trinity…

The Father shares all that he has and is eternally with the Son…

The Father sends the Son…

1 Corinthians 11:3: 3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Men and women are both equal in regards to their humanity but share different roles. The Father and Son are equal in regards to their divinity but share different roles.

Then there is John 14:28 and I already showed you what Tim Staples had to say about that. I linked you the article and quoted him but here it is again… catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

Would you not agree that within a Family the Father’s role is greater than the Son’s as the Father is the head of the family and yet, a Father and Son are equal in their humanity? The reason the Father is described as Father and the Son is described as Son is to give us an understanding of the relationship between the two; this relation is eternal. Christ’s Sonship is eternal and God is naturally a Father…
catholic.com/tract/the-eternal-sonship-of-christ

Note also that the Father is described as the 1st person of the Trinity.
The Son is the 2nd.
The Spirit the 3rd.

This is because the Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

In the above sense, it is perfectly Orthodox to state that the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father but ontologically equal.

This does not in anyway challenge the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

"240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; as “the image of the invisible God”; as the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature”.65

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”.67"
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

Notice how the word consubstantial here is explained. It is in regards to his divinity; him being God in the sense that Hebrews 1:3 describes him in the above quote.

Please explain to me why it is incorrect to describe the Son as relationally subordinate while considering all of the above and then explain to me where the Church says we are unwise or prohibited to do so.

It sounds to me that your disagreement arrises for similar reasons that EO Christians deny that Mary is Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix. I bring this up because it seems your problem lies with the phrase “relationally subordinate” as opposed to the intended meaning behind the phrase; the actual substance of teaching behind the phrase.

 

[PluniaZ]

Relationally subordinate. Ontologically Equal.

Forgive me for not finding more sources but I did link you to Apologists from Catholic Answers previously…

Where does the Church teach that it is not permissible to describe the Son as relationally subordinate? Why is it wrong to refer to him as such when describing…

The Father is the source of the Trinity…

The Father shares all that he has and is eternally with the Son…

The Father sends the Son…

1 Corinthians 11:3: 3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

Men and women are both equal in regards to their humanity but share different roles. The Father and Son are equal in regards to their divinity but share different roles.

Then there is John 14:28 and I already showed you what Tim Staples had to say about that. I linked you the article and quoted him but here it is again… catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

Would you not agree that within a Family the Father’s role is greater than the Son’s as the Father is the head of the family and yet, a Father and Son are equal in their humanity? The reason the Father is described as Father and the Son is described as Son is to give us an understanding of the relationship between the two; this relation is eternal. Christ’s Sonship is eternal and God is naturally a Father…
catholic.com/tract/the-eternal-sonship-of-christ

Note also that the Father is described as the 1st person of the Trinity.
The Son is the 2nd.
The Spirit the 3rd.

This is because the Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

In the above sense, it is perfectly Orthodox to state that the Son is relationally subordinate to the Father but ontologically equal.

This does not in anyway challenge the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity.

"240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; as “the image of the invisible God”; as the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature”.65

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”.67"
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

Notice how the word consubstantial here is explained. It is in regards to his divinity; him being God in the sense that Hebrews 1:3 describes him in the above quote.

Please explain to me why it is incorrect to describe the Son as relationally subordinate and then explain to me where the Church says it is unwise or prohibited to do so.

Subordinationism is a heresy, and was at least “latent” in many of the apologists, whose “presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned.” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html

In none of the links you gave is any Person of the Trinity said to be “subordinate” to any other person.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of the relations among the Persons and concludes that these relations are according to equality:

“Mission implies inferiority in the one sent, when it means procession from the sender as principle, by command or counsel; forasmuch as the one commanding is the greater, and the counsellor is the wiser. In God, however, it means only procession of origin, which is according to equality, as explained above (I:42:6).”

newadvent.org/summa/1043.htm#article1 Reply to Objection 1

 

[Wesrock]

PluniaZ is correct. I had a related debate with him a few months ago and was convinced I was in error.

The Father begets the Son. That ordering is a truth. But within the interior life of the Trinity, they are more than just ontological equals, they are economical equals. The Son is not subordinate to the Father. As a matter of Christology, the person of Christ subordinates his human will to God’s, but as a matter of Trinitarianism, the (divine) Son is not subordinate to the Father.

And that was only a tangent. PluniaZ is correct in saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit have one intellect and one will.

Remember that the person of Christ had two wills, one being that of God, the other pertaining to his human nature.

 

[Assyrian412]

Subordinationism is a heresy, and was at least “latent” in many of the apologists, whose “presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned.” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html

In none of the links you gave is any Person of the Trinity said to be “subordinate” to any other person.

Saint Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of the relations among the Persons and concludes that these relations are according to equality:

“Mission implies inferiority in the one sent, when it means procession from the sender as principle, by command or counsel; forasmuch as the one commanding is the greater, and the counsellor is the wiser. In God, however, it means only procession of origin, which is according to equality, as explained above (I:42:6).”

newadvent.org/summa/1043.htm#article1 Reply to Objection 1

I just read through your link vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ologia_en.html

Thank you for the read, and I am in full agreement with that article. However, it does not address any of what I have said. It mentions Arius and Origen who deny that Christ was fully divine and mentions modern scholars who also deny this… I have already addressed what Origen and Arius were condemned for. It also does not mention what I said about Tim Staples or mention the verse I mentioned and described to you. I am speaking of apologists who uphold and defend the councils mentioned in this link. I am not not appealing to modern scholarly skeptics…

And yes; the word subordinate is not mentioned. I was describing to you what was meant by saying Christ is relationally subordinate.

You are correct in saying that subordinationism is a heresy. It is the belief that Christ’s being is inferior to the Father’s… that it is “subordinate” to the Fathers.

“Subordinationism is a belief in Christianity that asserts that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism

Origen, unlike Arius, affirmed that the Son is eternal. However, he claimed that he was not of the same substance as the Father. He claimed that he was a lesser being than the Father… this is the subordinationism heresy.

Arius, like Origen, claimed Jesus was not of the same substance as the Father. Unlike Origen, he did not believe that Jesus was eternal and claimed that he is a creature. So, like Origen, he is guilty of ascribing to the subordinationism heresy.

I am not advocating for any of this…

I am not advocating for the subordinationism heresy; unlike Arius and Origen, I am affirming that the Father and Son are of the same substance; both fully God. And, unlike Arius, I am affirming that the Son is eternal. But it is not incorrect to claim that the Father is greater than the Son in terms of their relation. It is an eternal Father-Son relationship. Hence: relational subordination and ontological equality.

I still feel your problem is with the word subordinate as opposed to what I am actually trying to describe…

I feel as though we are saying similar, if not the same thing, while using different terms.