Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[Lucretius]

I think you’re misreading Damascus. He’s not actually asserting those positions, or urging anyone to use them. He’s providing a point of rebuttal to heretics who point out John 14:28: “The Father is greater than I.”

He is accepting that there is a sense that the Father is greater than the Son, because he also says and we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son, right after he talks about “if we say that the Father is greater than the Son,” indicating exactly what we mean by the phrase, and what we don’t mean by the phrase.

He clearly means that the Father can be said to be greater than the Son in this sense. After all, he clearly says that the Father births the Son, but the Son doesn’t birth the Father. The Son doesn’t give anything to the Father, the Son receives everything from the Father; the Father gives everything to the Son, nothing is given to the Father; the Son and Spirit are derived from the Father, but Father is not derived from the Son and Spirit, for he is underived/unbegotten/unbreathed:

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father, that is, because of the Father’s existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted.

For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference."

And of course St. John is very much correct. But none of this contradicts what I’m saying, because I’m not denying the sameness of the Father, Son, and Spirit in terms of Divinity and possessing the same Divine essence and goodness and power and the same substance/existence/underlying reality/instance. What I’m denying is the sameness of the Father and the Son in terms of generation, and the Father and Spirit in terms of spiration. All three persons are equally God, and the eternity, goodness, love, power, wisdom, energy, etc. that comes with it, but they are not equally each other.

The reason I avoided discussing this topic in terms of the relation between the Father and Spirit, right away, is because most have a better grasp of what paternity and filiation is over spiration.

Often times, I’ll use “breathed” based on the etymology of the word (“spirit” literally means breath), and its relevance in the analogy in Genesis, where the Trinity, in the act of creation, is likened to a Speaker, the source and creater of all things visible and invisible, the Spoken Word, through which all things were made, and the Breath that proceeds when the Word is Spoken by the Speaker, Who gives Life to the lifeless clay, moving over the waters and giving both birth and rebirth to Man. But even still, we more intuitively grasp the relation between parent and child than breath/spirit/experience/consummation, etc.

Christi pax.

 

[Assyrian412]

The fact is that Damascus does not use the expression “greater than” or urge anyone to use that expression. He says, “if we say” and even less committally, “when we heard it said.” He never goes on to use “greater” or “subordinate” to describe the relations of the Trinity. And he has not yet gotten to the Incarnation, which comes in Book III.

Saint Thomas Aquinas read Damascene but still concludes that the expression, “greater than” should be understood in terms 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

The Athanasian Creed is explicit:

“And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”

“Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.”

newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

The only support for your position consists of: (1) ante-Nicene Fathers who have been directly rebutted by the Vatican, (2) two subjunctive clauses in Damascene, and (3) 21st Century apologetics against Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Your position is contradicted by (1) every creed and council and (2) Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas is not an ecumenical council speaking on faith and morals nor is he a Pope who is speaking ex-Cathedra… his opinion should be greatly respected as a doctor of the Church and it is actually the more common one in interpreting those scriptures but that is not to say that these interpretations are unorthodox. You have already agreed with me on the meaning behind the words…

“And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”

“Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.”

I agree with the above quotes… they are quite clear. This does not mean that one cannot interpret the Word “greater” as applied to the Father to refer to orthodox dogmas of the Church…

I think you are creating unnecessary stumbling blocks for potential converts from sects such as JWs.

He is equal in the sense that he is everything that the Father is… Fully God. He is not equal in the sense that he is unbegotten. Begotten does not = Unbegotten. Cause does not = Caused.

This interpretation of scripture has not been directly refuted by the vatican… I suggest reading Philo of Alexandria followed by Justin Martyr to see what sort of pagan tendencies that is referring to… Origen as well. Their Christology largely involved matter as being separated from God with Christ as a portion of the Divine substance acting as an agent of God. It was semi-Arian in my opinion. It really has nothing to do with what I am implying.

If Damascus’ explanation did not help you understand; or if you do understand but continue to disagree, if it did not convince you, I do not see myself doing so. The only thing I can say at this point is I recommend reading what many of the subordinationists had to say as well as what orthodox writers took issue with… especially around the times the creeds were composed…

It has been a great conversation, nonetheless. I look forward to more in the future

 

[PluniaZ]

There were other Fathers who were not Ante-Nicene who have asserted that the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of being the cause of the Son. For example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus made this assertion in his Theological Orations.

OK found the cite:

“As your third point you count the Word Greater;31 and as your fourth, To My God and your God. And indeed, if He had been called greater, and the word equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favour. But if we find both words clearly used what will these gentlemen have to say? How will it strengthen their argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will. But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that That which is from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause; for it would share the glory of the Unoriginate, because it is from the Unoriginate. And there is, besides, the Generation, which is to all men a matter so marvellous and of such Majesty. For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about Greater.”

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ege.htm#bx

 

[RyanBlack]

Cite please.

His Fourth Theological Oration.

"For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will. "

 

[PluniaZ]

"For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will.

True. But he immediately follows up with the following sentence: “But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that That which is from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause; for it would share the glory of the Unoriginate, because it is from the Unoriginate.”

Which is consistent with Aquinas’ teaching that the relations of origin are in accordance with equality.

We also have the Pope himself, Leo the Great, definitively teach that these words are to be understood with regard to Christ’s human nature:

“The Lord Jesus does, indeed, say to His disciples, as was read in the Gospel lection, “if ye loved Me, ye would assuredly rejoice, because I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I9 ;” but those ears, which have often heard the words, “I and the Father are One10 ,” and “He that sees Me, sees the Father also11 ,” accept the saying without supposing a difference of Godhead or understanding it of that Essence which they know to be co-eternal and of the same nature with the Father. Man’s uplifting, therefore, in the Incarnation of the Word, is commended to the holy Apostles also, and they, who were distressed at the announcement of the Lord’s departure from them, are incited to eternal joy over the increase in their dignity; “If ye loved Me,” He says, “ye would assuredly rejoice, because I go to the Father:” that is, if, with complete knowledge ye saw what glory is bestowed on you by the fact that, being begotten of God the Father, I have been born of a human mother also, that being invisible I have made Myself visible, that being eternal “in the form of God” I accepted the “form of a slave,” “ye would rejoice because I go to the Father.” For to you is offered this ascension, and your humility is in Me raised to a place above all heavens at the Father’s right hand. But I, Who am with the Father that which the Father is, abide undivided with My Father, and in coming from Him to you I do not leave Him, even as in returning to Him from you I do not forsake you. Rejoice, therefore, “because I go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.” For I have united you with Myself, and am become Son of Man that you might have power to be sons of God. And hence, though I am One in both forms, yet in that whereby I am conformed to you I am less than the Father, whereas in that whereby I am not divided from the Father I am greater even than Myself. And so let the Nature, which is less than the Father, go12 to the Father, that the Flesh may be where the Word always is, and that the one Faith of the catholic Church may believe that He Whom as Man it does not deny to be less, is equal as God with the Father.”

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ghs.htm#cz

We should also heed Leo’s parting words: “Accordingly, dearly-beloved, let us despise the vain and blind cunning of ungodly heretics, which flatters itself over its crooked interpretation of this sentence, and when the Lord says, “All things that the Father hath are Mine,” does not understand that it takes away from the Father whatever it dares to deny to the Son.”

 

[Lucretius]

The fact is that Damascus does not use the expression “greater than” or urge anyone to use that expression.

And probably prudently, because what is meant by the phrase can be easily misunderstood. But, like the saint points out, when the phrase is used, it mean that Father is prior to the Son in procession, not that the Father has “more” Divinity than the Son, nor that the Son is not Divine, nor that the Son is not Divine in exactly the same way as the Father.

Saint Thomas Aquinas read Damascene but still concludes that the expression, “greater than” should be understood in terms 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.”

I don’t think saint Thomas would deny what we are saying, and that is because the sources he refers to in his answer to objection one affirm what we are saying, by both St. Hilary:

By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given

And whatever Synod he is referring to:

TheSonsubjects Himself by His inbornpiety"–that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by theircreated*weakness."

Which means that many Fathers affirm what we are saying.

The Athanasian Creed is explicit:

“And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.”

“Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.”

Let me express our insights negatively:

Are you saying that the Father is equal to the Son in the sense that the Father is both begetting and begotten, while the Son is both begotten and begetting?

And are you saying that the Son doesn’t receive his Divinity from the Father?

Because, if you affirm both statements, you affirm that the Son is passive in respect to the Father in even his very origin, for the Son receives his Divinity and Power and Authority from the Father, none of these originate in the Son, but in the Father, as St. John of Damascus teaches.

St. John uses an illuminating analogy of a spring, a river, and the sea: the water is Divinity, which comes forth from the Spring, and from the Spring is received by the River, and from the Spring and the River is received by the sea. All three are the water, and are equal in being water, but the way they are the water is different in respect to each other, if that makes sense

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

OK found the cite:

“As your third point you count the Word Greater;31 and as your fourth, To My God and your God. And indeed, if He had been called greater, and the word equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favour. But if we find both words clearly used what will these gentlemen have to say? How will it strengthen their argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will. But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that That which is from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause; for it would share the glory of the Unoriginate, because it is from the Unoriginate. And there is, besides, the Generation, which is to all men a matter so marvellous and of such Majesty. For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about Greater.”

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ege.htm#bx

Like I said, I think you understandably dislike how “greater” can be interpreted to mean that the Son is not the same essence nor substance as the Father. We don’t agree in concept, but in what way is best to express that idea in our circumstances

Christi pax.

 

[PluniaZ]

And probably prudently, because what is meant by the phrase can be easily misunderstood. But, like the saint points out, when the phrase is used, it mean that Father is prior to the Son in procession, not that the Father has “more” Divinity than the Son, nor that the Son is not Divine, nor that the Son is not Divine in exactly the same way as the Father.

I don’t think saint Thomas would deny what we are saying, and that is because the sources he refers to in his answer to objection one affirm what we are saying, by both St. Hilary:

By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given

And whatever Synod he is referring to:

TheSonsubjects Himself by His inbornpiety"–that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by theircreated*weakness."

Which means that many Fathers affirm what we are saying.

We don’t have the authority to interpret the Fathers. Only the Church can interpret the Fathers. It is well known that Hilary of Poitiers used, shall we say, “conciliatory” language to try to win over semi-Arians in debates, step by step, to full orthodoxy. Aquinas interprets Hilary to conclude that the relations of Fatherhood and Sonship are equal.

Are you saying that the Father is equal to the Son in the sense that the Father is both begetting and begotten, while the Son is both begotten and begetting?

No.

And are you saying that the Son doesn’t receive his Divinity from the Father?

No.

Because, if you affirm both statements, you affirm that the Son is passive in respect to the Father

Aquinas gives a technical explanation of what it means for the Son’s notional act to be considered passive. newadvent.org/summa/1040.htm

He goes on to affirm that the relations of orgin are in accordance with equality:

"Now principle, according to origin, without priority, exists in God as we have stated (I:33:1) so there must likewise be order according to origin, without priority; and this is called ‘the order of nature’: in the words of Augustine (Contra Maxim. iv): “Not whereby one is prior to another, but whereby one is from another.”

“But in God the relations themselves are the persons subsisting in one nature.** So, neither on the part of the nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to another**, not even in the order of nature and reason.”

newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

 

[RyanBlack]

St. Gregory of Nazianzus also asserts that the Father is greater than the Son on the basis or origin in his Oration on Baptism (43):

“Moreover, I look with suspicion at your insatiate desire, for fear you should take hold of this word Greater, and divide the Nature, using the word Greater in all senses, whereas it does not apply to the Nature, but only to Origination. For in the Consubstantial Persons there is nothing greater or less in point of Substance.”

If you read all of 43, it is clear that St. Gregory rejects any inequality among the Divine Person with regard to substance, honor, or dignity. However, he does affirm that the the Father is greater in the sense that he is the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Assyrian412]

We don’t have the authority to interpret the Fathers. Only the Church can interpret the Fathers. It is well known that Hilary of Poitiers used, shall we say, “conciliatory” language to try to win over semi-Arians in debates, step by step, to full orthodoxy. Aquinas interprets Hilary to conclude that the relations of Fatherhood and Sonship are equal.

No.

No.

Aquinas gives a technical explanation of what it means for the Son’s notional act to be considered passive. newadvent.org/summa/1040.htm

He goes on to affirm that the relations of orgin are in accordance with equality:

"Now principle, according to origin, without priority, exists in God as we have stated (I:33:1) so there must likewise be order according to origin, without priority; and this is called ‘the order of nature’: in the words of Augustine (Contra Maxim. iv): “Not whereby one is prior to another, but whereby one is from another.”

“But in God the relations themselves are the persons subsisting in one nature.** So, neither on the part of the nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to another**, not even in the order of nature and reason.”

newadvent.org/summa/1042.htm

Of course one is not prior to the other, it is not as if the Father existed prior to the Son as they are both eternal. The Son is from the Father which is correct.

 

[Lucretius]

Of course one is not prior to the other, it is not as if the Father existed prior to the Son as they are both eternal. The Son is from the Father which is correct.

I didn’t like using the word “prior,” and I think “from” is so much better, because it doesn’t contain as much of a temporal dimension in the imagination and intellect

Christi pax.

 

[PluniaZ]

St. Gregory of Nazianzus also asserts that the Father is greater than the Son on the basis or origin in his Oration on Baptism (43):

“Moreover, I look with suspicion at your insatiate desire, for fear you should take hold of this word Greater, and divide the Nature, using the word Greater in all senses, whereas it does not apply to the Nature, but only to Origination. For in the Consubstantial Persons there is nothing greater or less in point of Substance.”

If you read all of 43, it is clear that St. Gregory rejects any inequality among the Divine Person with regard to substance, honor, or dignity. However, he does affirm that the the Father is greater in the sense that he is the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Well, we don’t have the authority to interpret the Fathers. Nazianzen is using phrases of speech (“I should like to call”, “I am afraid to use”, “I look with suspicion”) that only the Church can interpret. The Church’s consistent teaching is that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. It would be the height of folly for lay persons to start saying the Father is “relationally greater” than the Son based on their own interpretation of the Church Fathers.

 

[Lucretius]

Well, we don’t have the authority to interpret the Fathers. Nazianzen is using phrases of speech (“I should like to call”, “I am afraid to use”, “I look with suspicion”) that only the Church can interpret. The Church’s consistent teaching is that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. It would be the height of folly for lay persons to start saying the Father is “relationally greater” than the Son based on their own interpretation of the Church Fathers.

We aren’t forcing any interpretation on the Fathers. We are simply saying that the Father is the source of the Son and Spirit, and that the Father has no source, which is actually what the Church has always taught.

This is clearly expressed in the Creed, in which we proclaim that the Son is birthed and the Spirit proceeded, but only proclaim that God the Father exists, never that he is born or that he proceeds.

Christi pax.

 

[Assyrian412]

Well, we don’t have the authority to interpret the Fathers. Nazianzen is using phrases of speech (“I should like to call”, “I am afraid to use”, “I look with suspicion”) that only the Church can interpret. The Church’s consistent teaching is that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. It would be the height of folly for lay persons to start saying the Father is “relationally greater” than the Son based on their own interpretation of the Church Fathers.

I would say it is explicit in the ante nicene Fathers, great doctors and saints of the Church, modern apologists, and scripture

Agree to disagree I guess?

 

[Assyrian412]

We aren’t forcing any interpretation on the Fathers. We are simply saying that the Father is the source of the Son and Spirit, and that the Father has no source, which is actually what the Church has always taught.

This is clearly expressed in the Creed, in which we proclaim that the Son is birthed and the Spirit proceeded, but only proclaim that God the Father exists, never that he is born or that he proceeds.

Christi pax.

This also. Nobody is saying your interpretation is heresy.

However, there is no reason to assume this interpretation is heresy. Especially when you consider that we are arguing for the same dogmas through different expressions of the faith

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, we don’t have the authority to interpret the Fathers. Nazianzen is using phrases of speech (“I should like to call”, “I am afraid to use”, “I look with suspicion”) that only the Church can interpret. The Church’s consistent teaching is that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. It would be the height of folly for lay persons to start saying the Father is “relationally greater” than the Son based on their own interpretation of the Church Fathers.

This is getting a bit silly. I’ve studied St. Gregory of Nazianzus in a graduate level seminary on Trinitarian theology taught by a first-rate, world-renowned scholar of Trinitarian doctrine. St. Gregory clearly taught that the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of being the origin of the Son–and only by virtue of being the origin. This claim does not deny the equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for that equality is explicitly affirmed in terms of substance and honor.

 

[PluniaZ]

This is getting a bit silly. I’ve studied St. Gregory of Nazianzus in a graduate level seminary on Trinitarian theology taught by a first-rate, world-renowned scholar of Trinitarian doctrine. St. Gregory clearly taught that the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of being the origin of the Son–and only by virtue of being the origin. This claim does not deny the equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for that equality is explicitly affirmed in terms of substance and honor.

It’s not silly. This is the most important dogma of the faith. We need to get it exactly correct. And the only correct teaching is that of the Church. And no one has demonstrated in this thread that the Church has ever taught that the Father is in any sense greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit, other than with respect to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

 

[worldwideweary]

Question: In (John 14:16), Why does Jesus say after he’s going to the Father that he’ll pray to the Father for the sending of the Paraclete if all the Father has is his and equal in person? Why would the Son at the Right hand of the Father pray to do so rather than simply act upon his own authority as co-equal? This isn’t in reference to his earthly life but rather is implied to take place once he’s with the Father in Heaven.

Thanks for any clarification and the previous responses.

 

[RyanBlack]

It’s not silly. This is the most important dogma of the faith. We need to get it exactly correct. And the only correct teaching is that of the Church. And no one has demonstrated in this thread that the Church has ever taught that the Father is in any sense greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit, other than with respect to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

What is silly is to deny that St. Gregory–along with other Eastern Fathers–taught what he taught. You don’t have to agree with that. Being a Father and Doctor of the Church does not mean that he was infallible. While I find his argument to be sensible and entirely logical. I do not pretend to know that his interpretation of the passage is correct. Perhaps the phrase “The Father is greater than I” does refer to the humanity of Christ. Prior to having encountered teaching of some of the Eastern Fathers concerning this passage, the interpretation that the passage refers to our Lord’s humanity is the only interpretation that I would have even considered, since I have always been taught and believed in the divinity of Christ. Having said that, I don’t see how the claim that the Father is greater than the Son and the Spirit by virtue of being the origin of the Godhead contradicts the Church’s teaching that the three are equal. It is clearly the case that the Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in substance, honor, and dignity. It is also the case that the Church teaches that the Father alone is without origin. So, I would ask, if the Father alone is without origin, then how are the three Divine Persons equal with respect to origin? They are not. So even if St. Gregory was incorrect in his interpretation of the meaning of John 14:28, the argument that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not equal to the Father with respect to the issue of generation is not correct, since the Father alone is unoriginate.

 

[PluniaZ]

What is silly is to deny that St. Gregory–along with other Eastern Fathers–taught what he taught. You don’t have to agree with that. Being a Father and Doctor of the Church does not mean that he was infallible. While I find his argument to be sensible and entirely logical. I do not pretend to know that his interpretation of the passage is correct. Perhaps the phrase “The Father is greater than I” does refer to the humanity of Christ. Prior to having encountered teaching of some of the Eastern Fathers concerning this passage, the interpretation that the passage refers to our Lord’s humanity is the only interpretation that I would have even considered, since I have always been taught and believed in the divinity of Christ. Having said that, I don’t see how the claim that the Father is greater than the Son and the Spirit by virtue of being the origin of the Godhead contradicts the Church’s teaching that the three are equal. It is clearly the case that the Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in substance, honor, and dignity. It is also the case that the Church teaches that the Father alone is without origin. So, I would ask, if the Father alone is without origin, then how are the three Divine Persons equal with respect to origin? They are not. So even if St. Gregory was incorrect in his interpretation of the meaning of John 14:28, the argument that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not equal to the Father with respect to the issue of generation is not correct, since the Father alone is unoriginate.

Let me try to distinguish two areas of concern: (1) language that is permissible for Catholics today to use when speaking about the Most Holy Trinity and (2) academic inquiry into the teachings of the Church Fathers.

My concern in this thread is solely (1).

(2) becomes relevant when people attempt to use it to justify how they speak in (1). That is what I am objecting to. We should not be using (2) to affect how we speak in (1), if it leads us to speak in a manner that could be seen as contrary to the consistent dogmatic teaching of the Church.