Eternal Subordination economically

[Bithynian]

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

Yes, some Eastern Orthodox theologians (namely Fr Farley as in your link) have written of subordination largely within an Orthodox theological context of the priesthood and why it ought to remain exclusively male. However, there are others (namely Sr Harrison and +Ware) who have rejected either subordinationism outright or its implications in view of social trrinitarianism.

Further to that, I’m very reluctant in lifting a superficially identical term - subordination - from the complex matrices of Orthodox theology and using it to adjudicate a theological controversy in a radically different Christian community.

In any case, given that Catholic theology diverges from EO theology in respect to some nuances of priestly theology (namely an ontological change in the ordained), I’ve not found our theologians paying much attention to subordination.

 

[Bithynian]

In case other Catholics are curious, I can offer a quick and dirty summary of the eternal subordination controversy.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it’s a theological debate that’s currently confined to Reformed churches, and it’s been the subject of ongoing dispute for perhaps two decades.

It’s intimately tied to their particular theology of “complementarianism” that governs the relationship between men and women. That is to say, men and women are ontologically equal, but nonetheless complement one another in different roles.

The essence of this “complementary” relationship is that women are functionally subordinate to men per Reformed understandings of male headship. One of the theological arguments put forth to support this position is that of social trinitarianism. That is, the relationship between people in society can be pattered after the relationship between persons of the Trinity.

In this context, it is argued by some Reformed theologians that the Son is ontologically equal yet functionally subordinate to the Father. Furthermore, this relational dynamic is argued to be the orthodox relationship between men and women: women are ontologically equal to but functionally subordinate to men.

Needless to say it’s a hot button issue in Reformed theology with many impassioned arguments on both sides. But it’s a debate that I don’t see as especially relevant to Catholic theology, and I’ve not read of any Catholic theologians wanting to get caught in the theological crossfire of another Christian community.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

dont need to do that. I am saying where is the condemnation of it?

You have proposed a condition, it is on you to show where it is supported by the Church…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

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.

I’m sorry, but your use of large words does not make sense. I have no idea what you mean by “economically” and I’m sure others reading this also don’t understand.

Please explain in simple English, if you think I missed the point.

Edited to add, if what you meant is what was explained by Bithynian, then no, a Catholic can’t go around applying some strange teaching of Reformed theology to the Trinity and still call themselves a good Catholic. They’d basically be accepting Protestant teaching, which is wrong.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks for the explanation, Bithynian. I’m not sure why the OP expected the ordinary Catholic person on here to be knowledgeable about what seems to be not only a hot button topic, but an extremely obscure one. I’ve literally never heard of this issue.

I agree with you that it does not sound relevant to Catholic theology, and I don’t think a Catholic could go around in good conscience applying such a concept to the relationship between God and his son Jesus Christ. It frankly sounds disrespectful to God and at odds with the Trinity. If it’s coming from Reformed theology then I’m not surprised it is at odds with Catholic teaching and I don’t see how a Catholic could or would even want to bother with it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

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.

They don’t condemn it because this stuff you are posting is not relevant to Catholic teaching and there is no reason for Catholic theologians to even address it. It’s clearly at odds with Catholic teaching.

If you’re looking for someone on this forum to tell you it’s okay for you as a Catholic to believe in this subordination concept, you’re not going to find that approval here. It’s not okay. End of discussion.

You said you didn’t want to get into an argument, yet you have proceeded to argue with posters telling you quite plainly that this concept is at odds with Catholic teaching and is likely to be heretical. I do not see any point in arguing this further so I will be muting thread now. Have a good day.

 

[Bithynian]

I’m not sure why the OP expected the ordinary Catholic person on here to be knowledgeable about what seems to be not only a hot button topic

From what I’ve read of the controversy and what my patient Reformed friends have explained to me, the (Reformed) theologians in favour of this doctrine have deployed a significant amount of Patristic documentation (that is, the writings of the early Church Fathers) to shore up their argument that the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father has been a doctrine that has been universally taught as orthodox since the earliest centuries of Christianity.

The implication of this is that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches teach this doctrine, which is untrue for the most part. Generally Catholic theologians have neither affirmed nor denied the idea of a “hierarchical Trinity”: they simply don’t have an opinion on this debate inasmuch as they don’t have an opinion on the infralapsarianism vs supralapsarian dispute in Reformed theology. Now that is an obscure theological controversy!

 

[redal]

I’m sorry, but your use of large words does not make sense. I have no idea what you mean by “economically” and I’m sure others reading this also don’t understand.

I personally don’t think that is fair criticism…economy is the root word for economics and economical, it merely means management. Economy is a very important theological term that is used frequently in Catholicism. The CCC uses it frequently, most notably, the Economy of Salvation.

 

[Zaccheus]

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?

Jesus has two natures: Divine and Human. The Human Jesus prayed to the Father. This does not change the fact that God the Son is eternally equal with God the Father.

Sure there are answers to these questions when one uses a fair degree of mental gymnastics

The phrase ‘mental gymnastics’ implies deception or self-deception.
Which is not needed to answer your questions.

the Church admits the trinity is a mystery

The Church asserts the Trinity is a mystery. Please do not talk as if we had to be forced to admit something we’ve been teaching all along.

 

[OddBird]

Excellent post, to which I would add that here in Europe, complementarianism is non-extent except in some evangelical circles. Anyone postulating that the Son is in any way subordinate to the Father is likely to be a liberal Reformed theologian with beliefs close to Arianism, using Jesus’ subordinate status, in the Arian sense, in order to advance their agenda on societal issues like gay marriage (because downplaying who Jesus is allows them to downplay what He taught).

 

[MCA]

Check the link and get into the fathers to see it. Plus my question is if the Catholic church condemnds it and I did not have an aswer from you my friend

 

[MCA]

Ty for being respectfull, educated and non biased. And ty again for answering me Bithynian. So my point would be that if some catholic individual believed as some orthodox and some protestants the hierarchy in the trinity would not be considered heretic. There is no stance on this issue.

Am I right?

Thanks again I enjoyed your posts so far

 

[Wesrock]

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.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have one divine intellect and one divine will they participate in equally. It’s not that there are three wills working in perfect harmony, it’s that there’s only one divine will. It becomes silly to speak of economic subordination in this regard.

 

[MCA]

I am European and you are right but my concern was more about the theology per se and not what groups here do. But you are right.

Nontheless I would not say is close to arianism cause ontologically its affirmed the consubtantiallity of the person.

ty

 

[MCA]

I would thank not to call it silly and yes there is one divine will. But we gotta understand that even in the creation of the World the son is used as in instrumental cause to create the world. The thing is not about the will ( before encarnation and after ressurrection). In the very time of the encarnation Jesus has two wills and he is part of the trinity. How many wills were there in the times of Jesus walking down the streets of Palestine? It sounds incorrect right? Well it is the same that you did with my arguments.

Plus the submission is totally voluntary nobody argues against but stills being a subordination.

 

[Wesrock]

MCA:

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.

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

The Church’s terms are persons or hypostases and being or essence.

What was of the trinity before Jesus came along? Did it exist?

Yes. If God had never even created anything he would still be Trinity.

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?

Jesus was also a man with a human intellect and will and who could feel anxious, and the human nature is properly ordered to praying to God.

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

Mystery is a word typically associated with sacrament, but even in the normal use it doesn’t mean absolutely incomprehensible, but instead means not fully comprehensible. The idea of what it is to exist as a Simple, immutable, eternal Godhead that subsists as one being in three persons is indeed not an experience we can imagine ourselves as existing in.

 

[Wesrock]

I would thank not to call it silly and yes there is one divine will. But we gotta understand that even in the creation of the World the son is used as in instrumental cause to create the world. The thing is not about the will ( before encarnation and after ressurrection). In the very time of the encarnation Jesus has two wills and he is part of the trinity. How many wills were there in the times of Jesus walking down the streets of Palestine? It sounds incorrect right? Well it is the same that you did with my arguments.

Plus the submission is totally voluntary nobody argues against but stills being a subordination.

Jesus had two wills: the divine will and a human will.

The doctrine of the Church is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share equally in all acts that have their end in something eternal to God, including the relation of the world. We just notionally attribute some aspects more to one person than the other, but they all participate equally (not different but equal, but identically) in the act of creation of the world. The Son and Holy Spirits were not instruments of the Father.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Jesus has two natures: Divine and Human. The Human Jesus prayed to the Father. This does not change the fact that God the Son is eternally equal with God the Father.

Two or three natures? Divine, human and spirit? I never said God the Son is not eternally equal with God the Father.

The phrase ‘mental gymnastics’ implies deception or self-deception.
Which is not needed to answer your questions.

Mental gymnastics is the description I gave to the complex explanations I’ve heard from people trying to explain the trinity as if it’s not a mystery.

Please do not talk as if we had to be forced to admit something we’ve been teaching all along.

What exactly did I say to make you think that?
If I came across that way I apologize.
I’m not making any assertion from a knowledgeable position, rather making inquires from a ignorant one. Only by asking questions can we learn more, right?

 

[MCA]

I agree entirely just notice is not the same to be the instrumental cause than the primary cause. But I hope as @Bithynian you see I am not holding any heresy, I am not denying the creeds. I am talking about a subject which is just not adressed by the Catholic brethern.

 

[Wesrock]

Zaccheus:

Jesus has two natures: Divine and Human. The Human Jesus prayed to the Father. This does not change the fact that God the Son is eternally equal with God the Father.

Two or three natures? Divine, human and spirit? I never said God the Son is not eternally equal with God the Father.

Two natures: Divine and human. The Son is eternally equal with the Father and Holy Spirit as they are one being.