Eternal Subordination economically

  • Thread starter Thread starter MCA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MCA

Guest
Hi there this my question for catholic brethern:

Can a person be catholic and believe the three persons of the trinity are consubstantial equal (ontologically) but yet also belive the son is subordinated eternally in his function.
 
Doesn’t scripture tell us that in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32?
 
MCA said:
Can a person be catholic and believe the three persons of the trinity are consubstantial equal (ontologically) but yet also belive the son is subordinated eternally in his function.
Click to expand...
No.
redal said:
Doesn’t scripture tell us that in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32?
Click to expand...
No, those verses are referring to Jesus’ human nature only.

Jesus in his divine nature is not subordinate to God the Father, certainly not “subordinated eternally” even if you wanted to make the case that somehow before Jesus’ death/ resurrection/ ascension he was in some way subordinate to the Father.
 
MCA said:
Can a person be catholic and believe the three persons of the trinity are consubstantial equal (ontologically) but yet also believe the son is subordinated eternally in his function.
Click to expand...
I’ve always found the trinity difficult to comprehend. It’s one of the first doctrines of the church yet it is still much of a mystery.

The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. 3 manifestations, 1 entity.

What was of the trinity before Jesus came along? Did it exist?
If God put himself on earth through Jesus why then do we see Jesus praying to God his father and speaking about God as another being?

Sure there are answers to these questions when one uses a fair degree of mental gymnastics but they are merely speculation as even the Church admits the trinity is a mystery
 
You missed the point, not in nature but economically. That’s why I wrote the words to explain it with word like consubstantial and ontologically.
 
Last edited:
That he voluntarily submits to the will of the Father. Agrees with him. In the eternal work of the trinity.

The Father is not the one who came to do the son’s will.
 
Well, my friend I get your point. But my question is more simple than the nature of God which we cant understand just get what is told about it and accept it. Like thinking in a being existing before time and space, I belive it but i cant explain it.

LET’S NOT MISS THE THREAD THO, Im talking about the subordination via role and economy, not difference on the nature
 
In Corinthians 15 speaking about the restoration it says that everything will submit to Jesus and Jesus will submit to the father.

The very issue that he is co eternal son. That means a lot in the minds of the jewish authors, a son is obedient and its subjected. It is not the brother of God the father but his son.

Jesus is the one who interceds for “eutechano” and he does to thr father. That words means to ask for like some body would do to an emperor. Is not the father who asks his son.

The holy trinity is equal ontologically, in nature, consubstantial but not in the role they have.

BUT MY POINT IS NOT TO DEBATE IS TO KNOW IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH VIEWS THAT AS HERESY.

Because most of the eastern orthodox view it like this. And pleny of catholic saints.

I WOULD NOT LIKE TO GET IN A DEBATE HERE, SO SORRY IF I SOUNDED LIKE THAT. JUST WANNA KNOW IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS SOME ABOUT IT
 
Last edited:
MCA said:
Hi there this my question for catholic brethern:

Can a person be catholic and believe the three persons of the trinity are consubstantial equal (ontologically) but yet also belive the son is subordinated eternally in his function.
Click to expand...
NO, Bishop Barron talks about this as one of the early heresies.

The Son proceeds internally from the father and the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son. This in no way means the Son is subordinant to the Father.
There is no subordination in role and economy.

 
I have come to understand that the three persons of the trinity are interdependent and cannot exist without each other since their relationship is the essence of their existence. Existence itself requires a relationship to someone else, and the trinity supplies the relationship to each other. The son is of course subordinate to the Father if we look at as you describe, how Christ desires to do the will of the Father and not his own. But this is not out of subordination but out of love. And the Love that flows between the Father and Son is the Holy Spirit itself. And the Father allows his Son to be sacrificed because Christ loved us and wanted to save us. Each defines itself in a subordinate way to the others thus making them all equal.
 
Last edited:
I think brother you got what I was saying. But let me go to your final part of the post. I dont see the Father subordinating to anybody. The sons I begoten and sent, but The Father is not begoten nor sent. Being sent needs two ppl, the sent and the “sender”.

Btw let me affirm the subordination is out of love. 100%.
 
Ty because you actually answered my question but nontheless the subordination if im not wrong is something your church does not dismiss (not ontologically) the question if its eternal or not eternal.

It is a functional subordination or a social hierarchy. This is where one or more persons voluntarily take a position of subordination. A man and wife do this, where the man is typically the head of the household but no one would say the woman is lesser would they? The president is greater by virtue of his office but he is by no means ‘better’ than you or me.

These are situations where all involved are equal but take a subordinate role to accomplish a thing. God, as always shows us through example how things should be done.

"Christ is only functionally subordinate to the Father, not ontologically subordinate Christians (catholics and Historical protestants) strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father. Yet it is difficult to find doctrinal statements in which the Son is said to be functionally subordinate to the Father. Yet John 14:28; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:28 all plainly teach the eternal subordination of the Son (John 14 and 1 Cor 11 speak of his present subordination; Phil 2 speaks of his subordination in eternity past; and 1 Cor 15 speaks of his subordination in eternity future). Since these same books strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father, the subordination in view must be functional

Plus dear brother or sister the article you posted, I read it and every Christian would agree the question here Im asking is not frequent but has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit in his procession. It has to do with the subordination of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit practice no subordination to each other. There is no Social Hierachy, This is because the Trinity is one.

It becomes very difficult when attributing human attributes and values , the values and attributes of a being, a human, to God.
God is not a being.
God Is being.
Big difference.

humans = created beings.

God = Is Being itself
 
Last edited:
I already stated my points and arguments and we speak a different language. I already gave the semantic reasons and used the scriptured. You can find that in the fathers, because the Eastern Orthodox are very close to this position. John Zizoulas, John Behr, Thomas Hopko etc… But again is not a debate what I want brother os sister

Nontheless here we dont matter I know the church the catholic one condemn the denial of the consubstantional of the three person.

But I have never seen anything from the catholic church that condemns the subordination (not ontologically but socially) of the son. If there is something please show me cause I am trying to find it and I cant.

Thank you.
 
MCA said:
But I have never seen anything from the catholic church that condemns the subordination (not ontologically but socially) of the son. If there is something please show me cause I am trying to find it and I cant.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Here is a different tack, given you think we are speaking past each other.
Show me where the Catholic Church in its official documents, thus official teaching, states subordination is a thing. Socially.
 
A few points.

(1) The current debate about the eternal subordination of the Son is largely confined to Reformed (i.e. Presbyterian) churches.

(2) Catholic theologians, for the most part, have not strayed into a theological controversy that draws upon theological doctrines (e.g. complementarian theology) and theologians (e.g. Calvin) that is foreign to the Catholic Church.

(3) A lot of the theological terminology utilised in this controversy are not co-terminous with Catholic theology, so there’s little ecumenical consensus across different churches.
 
I dont need to do that. I am saying where is the condemnation of it? If something is not condemned you cannot say thats a heresy . Am I right?

Btw if that’s the Easter Orthodox church is in disagreement with the catholic church on the very issue of the trinity .

Examples of the combination abound, including in the ad intra Trinitarian Godhead itself. Orthodox Christianity confesses both the ontological equality of all three Persons of the Trinity, as well as the monarchy of the Father (as it was called). There is a heretical subordination of the Son to the Father (as in Arianism, which the insertion of the homoousios in the Creed was designed to exclude), but there is also an Orthodox subordinationism which makes the Father the cause (Greek aitia ) of the Son. In the words of the late John Meyendorff (in his Byzantine Theology ), “The Cappadocian Fathers eliminated the ontological subordinationism of Origen and Arius, but they preserved a Biblical and Orthodox subordinationism, maintaining the personal identity of the Father as the ultimate origin of all divine being and action”. And this subordination of the Son to the Father can be found in the economy of salvation as well, for St. Paul writes that “God is the head of Christ” just as in marriage “the man is the head of the woman” (1 Cor. 11:3). At the end also, in the age to come, “the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him”—i.e. the Son will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). Clearly ontological equality is compatible with hierarchical subordination.

 
Last edited:
Ty for your answer. You actually responded what I was asking. I guess it this issue might not be considered in account in the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox speak about it. It is not a strange issue to them.

Examples of the combination abound, including in the ad intra Trinitarian Godhead itself. Orthodox Christianity confesses both the ontological equality of all three Persons of the Trinity, as well as the monarchy of the Father (as it was called). There is a heretical subordination of the Son to the Father (as in Arianism, which the insertion of the homoousios in the Creed was designed to exclude), but there is also an Orthodox subordinationism which makes the Father the cause (Greek aitia ) of the Son. In the words of the late John Meyendorff (in his Byzantine Theology ), “The Cappadocian Fathers eliminated the ontological subordinationism of Origen and Arius, but they preserved a Biblical and Orthodox subordinationism, maintaining the personal identity of the Father as the ultimate origin of all divine being and action”. And this subordination of the Son to the Father can be found in the economy of salvation as well, for St. Paul writes that “God is the head of Christ” just as in marriage “the man is the head of the woman” (1 Cor. 11:3). At the end also, in the age to come, “the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him”—i.e. the Son will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). Clearly ontological equality is compatible with hierarchical subordination.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top