Eucharist, Trinity, Holy Spirit, Temple, Body of Christ, Theosis idea

[tiny_augustine]

Hey again, jochoa. Thanks for the Tim Staples article. I have read it, but it doesn’t really affect my argument. Though I may have used verb tenses and neuter nouns and pronouns in the Greek in order to further back my argument up, my argument isn’t primarily a semantic argument. Rather, it’s a literal sense and typological one, first. The reason that bible translations add in “He” to John 14 is merely a translational choice, backed up by custom, as well as to make the Text more readable. The Greek is much more ambiguous then that. So don’t get hung up on the translation. It’s the Greek that counts…but then, again, this semantic approach is really only secondary to my argument. It’s the ideas, the images, the connections between the Old and the New…these are the basis of my argument concerning the femininity of the Holy Spirit. If semantics were the most important thing to my argument, I would have also mentioned that in Syriac and Hebrew “Spirit” is feminine…but I didn’t because these facts are only secondary to my argument.

The Fathers are one of the sources of our Tradition…and yet the Early Syriac Fathers, and their insistance on the femininity of the Holy Spirit are almost completely ignored. They, like me, only employ the semantic argument in a secondary way. Like me, their argument is based upon so much more. Check out this wonderful PDF essay, written by a priest, from within Scott Hahn’s “Letter and Spirit” academic journal (which is as faithful to the Catholic Church as you can get). Just copy and paste the entire link into your internet search bar:

google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwixt4_NhtzQAhUYzGMKHZhHAigQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2F8406c24de5442685c57b-57fa5852527c9e8686bcd34c9fdc4763.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com%2Ffiles%2Fletter-and-spirit%2FL3_Kaniyamparampil.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHg53EwFpEawyPY-Zoce_zVqKePGQ

Again, I will repeat an earlier point that I made, but I will let the author of the article help me out part of the way:

“It is generally accepted in Christian theology that the Godhead is beyond any gender and that the [D]ivinity transcends all sexual differentiation” (p. 170). However, we know that the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, in his Divine Personhood became male, and, after his resurrection and heavenly enthronement remains Incarnate as male. The Holy Spirit would, apparently have no gender in Its Divine Personhood, but I argue that It, too has chosen a gender, having manifested Itself in the “bodily” anointing, specifically to help us be able to relate to It.

I’m trying to understand where you are coming from:

If you’re looking at the Holy Spirit as a “He” because we refer to God, in general, in the Its Oneness, in this way, realize that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - Three Persons in One Shared Divine Essence AND One Shared Divine Energy. Just for simplicity, and to underscore the Trinitarian Oneness, we say “He,” but by this we mean "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ONE GOD. We would say “He” because Two of the Divine Persons have been revealed as masculine…but within the Book of Proverbs and other Wisdom Books of the Bible, God is also revealed as feminine.

If you’re looking at the Holy Spirit as a “He” just because the Church more commonly in history has referred to It in this way, realize that Early Syriac Christian Fathers disagreed with this. Realize also that the masculinity of the Holy Spirit is actually not dogmatically defined…it was never an issue, and if it was an issue, and this is the reason “She” was dropped in favour of “He,” we have only a vague idea as to why this pronoun change was made, as well as no Ecumenical Council ratifying this decision. There was merely a custom change that prevailed.

Therefore, you wouldn’t be in error for considering that the Holy Spirit is revealed in feminine way…you’d just be different.

God Bless

 

[jochoa]

Good day to you, tiny_augustine,

To give you a couple points of reference from my understandings in regards to your initial question, “Can anyone find anything wrong with this, according to the tradition, that i may be overlooking so that i can go back to the drawing board?”
First, do you have a Catholic source with imprimatur and nihil obstat, including any Bible translation, that refers to the Holy Spirit as “She”? If not, since there are several sources with imprimatur and nihil obstat seals that declare the Holy Spirit as “He,” presenting the Holy Spirit as “She” or “Herself” is not in accord with Catholic Tradition, and you should go back to the drawing board.

The second point of reference I am basing my critique on is my understandings of resolutions to questions of the divine nature. In consideration of God as the Creator of everything, if you were the person who created everything, what would be your greatest creation and what must logically occur to fulfill the creation? Although as Creator of everything, you are genderless, two aspects of the resolutions to these questions are you are three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), as well as leader to your creation, and therefore, each distinct person should be recognized traditionally as a masculine/head role, while your greatest creation as followers should be recognized traditionally as a feminine/body role.

Thanks for seeking to understand where I am coming from! If you have a resource that has the nihil obstat and imprimatur seal that refers to the Holy Spirit as “She” or “Herself,” please share and I will gladly go back to the drawing board on my understandings!

 

[tiny_augustine]

Hey, jochoa. Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate your feedback. I wasn’t trying to offend you, and I hope you’re not mad. When I said that I welcomed critique, I didn’t mean that I wouldn’t respond to it, and keep the conversation going. It’s good that we enjoy sharing our Faith together, and debating is fun.

The article that I sent you about the Holy Spirit being understood as feminine is from the Catholic academic journal “Letter and Spirit” Volume 3, wherein Archbishop Charles J. Chaput acted as episcopal adviser. Whether this is the same as an imprimatur and nihil obstat, I don’t know, but it could be. All that I know about imprimaturs and nihi obstats are that they are just a bishop’s permission to publish a book on Faith and morals. This permission, however, does not guarantee that what a particular book being published says is innerant or inspired. Imprimaturs and nihil obstats are not infallibly good conclusions in regards to a book being published, but, rather, just signify that the bishop found nothing objectionable in that book. Having Archbishop Chaput on board with the article that I sent you indicates that it’s ok to read. And, as i have said, a whole collection of early Fathers (a source from our Tradition) understood the Holy Spirit in this way. Also the Bible, in the Books of Proverbs and other Wisdom Books, present Wisdom as both Divine and feminine.

Concerning your second point of reference, the masculine and the feminine are equal in Christ. Women are no longer subordinate in penance to men because of the first sin (Galatians 3:28). There’s nothing wrong, then, with understanding one of the Divine Persons to be relating to us in a feminine way.

God Bless

 

[jcrichton]

Hey jcrichton! It’s good to hear from you again! Jesus never actually makes it clear enough in the Greek. Concerning the Holy Spirit, we only read of “He” in the translation from Greek. This is a translation issue, not an exegetical one. It’s true that the word “comforter” is masculine, but all the verbs are ambiguous (I’m pretty sure the same goes for the Nicene Creed), and “Holy Spirit” is feminine in Greek. It’s, also, not a dogma of the Church that the Holy Spirit is masculine or feminine…this has not been dogmatically defined. Like I said, the Early Syriac Orthodox Church, even before a schism, always spoke of the Holy Spirit in feminine terms. Later, however, around the 4th century or so, there was more of an insistence on the masculine. But it’s not dogmatically defined, and dogmatic definitions in general, from the source of the Fathers, would be subservient to the higher source of the Sacraments and Scripture, and their wonderful typological and literal meanings. What I am saying is that my argument does not rest on the femininity and masculinity of words, but on theological concepts, the literal sense of many passages, and typology. It’s, therefore, a theological argument, and not merely a semantic one.

Also, jochoa, saying that the Holy Spirit is a She, does not limit our theology, nor make it incomplete. I have said, within my first post: “I know there’s technically no gender within the Father and the Spirit, but I believe that the Holy Spirit chose a feminine way of relation to us, just as the Father and Christ chose a male way.” Within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit would have no gender, but, in terms of how It wants us to relate to it, would be in a feminine way. It’s just a manner of relation given to us, to help us understand and appreciate the Holy Spirit, not a Trinitarian revelation that the Holy Spirit, WITHIN the Trinity, in the Essence, is feminine. Within the Energy, however, this may be debatable, since the Holy Spirit was the bodily anointment upon Christ.

Hi!

I’m quite ignorant of many things… however I know that there does exist grammatical accidents; yet this fact means very little since we would have to understand gender through the language being used… while Greek may render “Spirit” as feminine, English is gender neutral (“the”) and Spanish would render it as “el Espíritu” (masculine)… so it would (must) fall to the understanding and usage of the Church… as you have stated, in the East (most probably do to language influence) the term was rendered in a feminine gender but it gave way to the masculine rendering…

Also, I think (unless I misread you) on a previous post you did intimate that there was a masculine rendering by qualifying verbs…

…so I wonder, how did the early Writings of the Church reflect her understanding of the Holy Spirit? …and what precipitated the Church, towards the forth century, to finalize her definition of the Holy Spirit in a male gender… it is clear to me that much was unfolded during the Church’s early history… it seems clear to me that most of the changes were caused by the challenges to the Faith and the need for uniformity… conversely, if the Church understood the Holy Spirit in a feminine gender, wouldn’t “…the Holy Spirit, the Lord, Giver of Life…” have been rendered: ‘the mistress?’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hey again, jochoa. Thanks for the Tim Staples article. I have read it, but it doesn’t really affect my argument. Though I may have used verb tenses and neuter nouns and pronouns in the Greek in order to further back my argument up, my argument isn’t primarily a semantic argument. Rather, it’s a literal sense and typological one, first. The reason that bible translations add in “He” to John 14 is merely a translational choice, backed up by custom, as well as to make the Text more readable. The Greek is much more ambiguous then that. So don’t get hung up on the translation. It’s the Greek that counts…but then, again, this semantic approach is really only secondary to my argument. It’s the ideas, the images, the connections between the Old and the New….these are the basis of my argument concerning the femininity of the Holy Spirit. If semantics were the most important thing to my argument, I would have also mentioned that in Syriac and Hebrew “Spirit” is feminine…but I didn’t because these facts are only secondary to my argument.

The Fathers are one of the sources of our Tradition…and yet the Early Syriac Fathers, and their insistance on the femininity of the Holy Spirit are almost completely ignored. They, like me, only employ the semantic argument in a secondary way. Like me, their argument is based upon so much more. Check out this wonderful PDF essay, written by a priest, from within Scott Hahn’s “Letter and Spirit” academic journal (which is as faithful to the Catholic Church as you can get). Just copy and paste the entire link into your internet search bar:

Again, I will repeat an earlier point that I made, but I will let the author of the article help me out part of the way:

“It is generally accepted in Christian theology that the Godhead is beyond any gender and that the [D]ivinity transcends all sexual differentiation” (p. 170). However, we know that the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, in his Divine Personhood became male, and, after his resurrection and heavenly enthronement remains Incarnate as male. The Holy Spirit would, apparently have no gender in Its Divine Personhood, but I argue that It, too has chosen a gender, having manifested Itself in the “bodily” anointing, specifically to help us be able to relate to It.

I’m trying to understand where you are coming from:

If you’re looking at the Holy Spirit as a “He” because we refer to God, in general, in the Its Oneness, in this way, realize that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - Three Persons in One Shared Divine Essence AND One Shared Divine Energy. Just for simplicity, and to underscore the Trinitarian Oneness, we say “He,” but by this we mean "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ONE GOD. We would say “He” because Two of the Divine Persons have been revealed as masculine…but within the Book of Proverbs and other Wisdom Books of the Bible, God is also revealed as feminine.

If you’re looking at the Holy Spirit as a “He” just because the Church more commonly in history has referred to It in this way, realize that Early Syriac Christian Fathers disagreed with this. Realize also that the masculinity of the Holy Spirit is actually not dogmatically defined…it was never an issue, and if it was an issue, and this is the reason “She” was dropped in favour of “He,” we have only a vague idea as to why this pronoun change was made, as well as no Ecumenical Council ratifying this decision. There was merely a custom change that prevailed.

Therefore, you wouldn’t be in error for considering that the Holy Spirit is revealed in feminine way…you’d just be different.

God Bless

Hi!

…again, I find that imagery can be useful but we must be consistent… in the Old Testament Yahweh God Reveals Himself as God… but He also Reveals Himself as the Father… conversely, we have the Apostolic understanding of Revelation where it is ascribed to the Holy Spirit that which is Claimed by the Father… it is He, the Holy Spirit, that Reveals to holy men the Word… it is He, the Holy Spirit, Who makes of these holy men “friends” of God… so by your own acclamation God, the Holy Spirit, as the Father, made these things happen…

…then there are the various visitations… every time it is personified by the male figure:

1 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw** three men **standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. (Genesis 18:1-2)

…we could engage in denial or extrapolation or even right out rejection… however, for us to find symmetry in the imagery argument this passage must either be excluded from Scriptures or have a female figure as part of this trio.

Yes, God is Spirit and the Spirit is devoid of gender.

Yes, God can, by definition, portray Himself as He Will.

No, I cannot determine for myself what gender to prescribe to God since He Himself has Revealed an affinity with the masculine personification.

Imagery does count. But we must have clear understanding of what is Revealed rather than what we “need” to define/understand.

Example:
The JWs are hanged up on “Logos…” their construct of this imagery forces them to become ignorant of God’s Revelation… they seek to know God through “knowledge” not through God’s Revelation… their quest fails even before it begins!

They teach a cartoonish understanding of God because they cannot go past what their imagery conception has forged as “God” in their theology…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jochoa]

I am not offended, and I am enjoying pondering this discussion! I especially enjoy learning Catholic Theology that I was ignorant of, prior to the discussion, and this is an opportunity for me to learn something new.

Please know, I do not perceive any issue with perceiving feminine-relations of the Holy Spirit because Love is genderless and qualities can be perceived as feminine or masculine because men and women can share the Love of the Holy Spirit, which generates imagery of masculinity and femininity.

The conflict I perceive is you presenting the Holy Spirit as “Herself” as Catholic Tradition, while the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed, the Bible, and Catholic Answers, refers to the Holy Spirit as “Himself,” as well as “He.”

I scanned the “Letter and Spirit,” and I did not find any direct reference to the Holy Spirit as “She” or “Herself.” I did notice a quote from the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” that shared, “…[Jesus’] Mother, the Holy Spirit…,” but seeing as this Gospel account is not included in Canon, it is not a fully reliable resource for Catholic Theology.

I still encourage you to present a Catholic Tradition that refers to God as “Herself,” “She,” or “Her.” This would resolve the discussion because the Holy Spirit is fully God, and I would gladly return to the drawing board regarding my understandings of Theology.

 

[tiny_augustine]

You guys are ganging up on me! Lol…bonjourno, my friends! I always say “bonjourno” to my coworkers…and then to freak them out just a little, I continue with the reference to “Groundhog Day”: “even winter’s sad face wears a smile of spring!” (or something like that, close to the actual reference).

jcrichton first…

It’s true that different languages have different grammatical “accidents:” “Spirit” was neuter in the Greek,” but feminine in the Syriac of the Peshitta Bible. While I did use this argument in order to further prove my interpretation of the Holy Spirit being feminine, this was never the full basis of my argument, and definitely not the most important evidence that helped me come to this conclusion. It was the literal sense of certain Old Testament passages (Proverbs), Jewish Tradition from around the first century AD, and typology. I would have to reread the article that I sent to jochoa (especially the footnotes therein) in order to remember if the Peshitta translation was actually later changed from feminine to masculine in regards to the Holy Spirit…I can’t remember.

You read me correctly concerning Greek verbs: the same verb, just say it was the verb “to eat,” can be translated as either masculine or feminine, and the only thing that helps to determine the meaning is the context: it could mean “he ate” OR “she ate.”

As I have said, probably not all of the early Church thought of the Holy Spirit as feminine, but the Syriac part did, and, since the Syriac Fathers are also a part of the source of the Tradition known as the Fathers, I think that their interpretations and understandings should also be studied in this matter. St. Ephrem the Syrian is still very respected and studied…but when he talks about the Holy Spirit being feminine, this is ignored. The Syriac interpretation, however, like mine, never rested its case on the grammar alone…it was the images, the ideas, the typology, etc, that was much more important to their understanding.

The early Syriac Church (again not sure if the Holy Spirit being feminine was universal), according to the article, changed from a feminine understanding of the Holy Spirit to a masculine one because certain gnostic groups were also saying the Holy Spirit was feminine. I guess it became more important to keep a distance between our theology and theirs. But, again, none of this is Ecumenically defined…it was just a custom change. Concerning the words “the Lord, the Giver of Life,” again, this could be argued to relate, by typological contrast, to Eve “the mother of the living;” there would be no need to add “Mistress.”

If you guys read through the article that I sent (don’t skim it!), you’ll partly get where I’m coming from with all of this. But the full argument is still found within my first few posts.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Concerning the first paragraph of your second comment…When you say “Revelation” with a capital “R,” do you mean the Book of Revelation, or just God the Father revealing Himself? According to what I know, the Father always reveals Himself through the Person of the Son, Jesus, who is the very Revelation (Logos or Plan) of the Father (a Revelation so powerful that it IS another Divine Person, who is Begotten), AND always reveals Himself, also, through the Person of the Spirit, who is the very Presence of the Father (a Presence so powerful that it IS another Divine Person, who is Spirated [Breathed]) (No one has ever experienced the Father firsthand in the Old Testament…they experienced the Father only through the Son. Though all three Divine Persons always work together, Jesus was the one, most often, presented to the people of the Old Testament, but in his pre-Incarnational State). Though the Spirit is the Presence of the Father IN A DISTINCT PERSON, this does not, therefore, mean that, just because the Father is masculine, the Holy Spirit can’t be feminine. Again, this is just a manner to help us relate to the Spirit. The Spirit could have chosen a feminine relation in regards to Christ’s Mission, but, before that, was genderless, or could have always been feminine (at least within the Divine Energies BUT NOT within the Essence).

Now, concerning your argument from Genesis 18, in the literal sense of the passage, these three visitors are not God, but bearers of the message of God, angels (whereas the Spirit is the Presence of the Father, it’s almost like angels are the Presence of the Spirit who is the Presence of the Father…complicated but cool!). The Hebrew Text even calls them enoshim, which can specifically mean “men,” or generically mean “persons,” but the Greek Septuagint calls them simply “men.” So you’re right, these three are explained to be masculine. And you are absolutely to be commended for employing a typological approach. I used Adam and Eve to typologically understand the Trinity; you used the three visitors to typologically understand the Trinity. But there’s one problem…typological interpretations do not ignore the foundational literal sense. Whereas in the literal sense of the Adam and Eve passage gender is very important (the first woman coming from the first man; marital union; marriage covenant; complimentarity of the sexes), within that of the Genesis 18 passage, gender is not. If the reader wanted to change even the Greek to say “three persons” instead of “three men,” it wouldn’t change the story or the interpretation thereof. Gender’s just not an important element to the story. Therefore, this doesn’t force the typological interpretation to be saying that the Holy Spirit is masculine. Couldn’t a man in the Old Testament be a type of a woman in the New? Sure! Is it wrong, however, that you typologically related the Trinity to the “three angels?” Not at all. The question, therefore, should be asked whether or not the imagery has to be consistent. Yes, to a point, since there should be flexibility with typology (it’s built off of a good literal sense understanding but, from here, takes on a life of its own, while not obliterating its foundation). But the imagery shouldn’t be totally set in stone either. This would make the poetry of the prophets lose much of their meaning, even in the literal sense, and would destroy the importance of poetic understanding. What I am saying is that there’s a difference between consistency, or, better yet, harmony, AND rigid uniformity (diversity within unity—not exact identicalness).

And you’re forgetting that, according to the article, in Deuteronomy, God is presented in feminine imagery…does this destroy our understanding of Him being masculine? By no means. Unless this was a veiled reference to the Spirit. Who knows? But, within my argument, remember that I am careful too of figurative language. When Jesus says, in the New Testament, “how I long to have gathered you together like a mother gathers her chicks,” I know that he’s only using figurative language, and so, I would never base on argument on that. But the Holy Spirit being feminine is much more complex than mere figurative language, especially in Proverbs and the other Wisdom Books. The Father, therein, is masculine, but the Wisdom called colloquially “an emanation from God” is presented as feminine. But this is only Two Divine Persons so far…what about the Third? The Third is there…within the Second Person, as Eve was in Adam.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Now to jochoa…Bonjourno! Cools, I’m glad you’re not offended (sometimes with internet chatting it’s hard to tell since we cannot tell the other person’s body language…we’re missing the context of a face-to-face conversation).

Concerning what you wrote: the Catechism is not an infallible source, believe it or not…I was shocked too when I found this out. The Nicene Creed doesn’t actually say “He”…again the Greek is ambiguous, and we’ve gotten used to the custom of translating the Greek as “He” instead of as “She.” The Bible, again, makes a real case for this through typology, the literal sense of the Wisdom Books, etc. Catholic Answers is great…but it’s not infallible. Again, the masculinity of the Holy Spirit has never been dogmatically settled. “He” does appear in Ecumenical Council documents, but the point was never to prove that the Holy Spirit was masculine, for this wasn’t an Ecumenical Issue with an infallible interpretation, but only a custom and way of reference. Just because a Ecumenical Council refers to the human race as “mankind” does not mean that we are all male, nor does it mean that the human race is one big guy…it’s just a custom and way of reference with language.

I dislike calling the Holy Spirit the Mother of Jesus…I find this groundless. Calling the Holy Spirit our Mother, this may be a possibility: we are the Living Stones that make up Her who Is the Temple, but, until we are fully “translated” out of Adam, we’re in her womb, so to speak. I’m still debating this. But read the article that I sent you in full…don’t just scan for keywords or skim…it’s got a lot more to say on the matter.

 

[jcrichton]

…first paragraph of your second comment…When you say “Revelation” …do you mean the Book of Revelation, or just God the Father revealing Himself? According to what I know, the Father always reveals Himself through the Person of the Son, Jesus, who is the very Revelation (Logos or Plan) of the Father (a Revelation so powerful that it IS another Divine Person, who is Begotten), AND always reveals Himself, also, through the Person of the Spirit, who is the very Presence of the Father (a Presence so powerful that it IS another Divine Person, who is Spirated [Breathed]) (No one has ever experienced the Father firsthand in the Old Testament…they experienced the Father only through the Son. Though all three Divine Persons always work together, Jesus was the one, most often, presented to the people of the Old Testament, but in his pre-Incarnational State). Though the Spirit is the Presence of the Father IN A DISTINCT PERSON, this does not, therefore, mean that, just because the Father is masculine, the Holy Spirit can’t be feminine.
…to help us relate to the Spirit. The Spirit could have chosen a feminine relation in regards to Christ’s Mission, but, before that, was genderless, or could have always been feminine (at least within the Divine Energies BUT NOT within the Essence).

Now, concerning your argument from Genesis 18, in the literal sense of the passage, these three visitors are not God, but bearers of the message of God, angels (whereas the Spirit is the Presence of the Father, it’s almost like angels are the Presence of the Spirit who is the Presence of the Father…complicated but cool!). The Hebrew Text even calls them enoshim, which can specifically mean “men,” or generically mean “persons,” but the Greek Septuagint calls them simply “men.” So you’re right, these three are explained to be masculine. And you are absolutely to be commended for employing a typological approach. I used Adam and Eve to typologically understand the Trinity; you used the three visitors to typologically understand the Trinity. But there’s one problem…typological interpretations do not ignore the foundational literal sense. Whereas in the literal sense of the Adam and Eve passage gender is very important (the first woman coming from the first man; marital union; marriage covenant; complimentarity of the sexes), within that of the Genesis 18 passage, gender is not. If the reader wanted to change even the Greek to say “three persons” instead of “three men,” it wouldn’t change the story or the interpretation thereof. Gender’s just not an important element to the story. Therefore, this doesn’t force the typological interpretation to be saying that the Holy Spirit is masculine. Couldn’t a man in the Old Testament be a type of a woman in the New? Sure! Is it wrong, however, **that you typologically related the Trinity to the “three angels?” **Not at all. The question, therefore, should be asked whether or not the imagery has to be consistent. Yes, to a point, since there should be flexibility with typology (it’s built off of a good literal sense understanding but, from here, takes on a life of its own, while not obliterating its foundation). But the imagery shouldn’t be totally set in stone either. This would make the poetry of the prophets lose much of their meaning, even in the literal sense, and would destroy the importance of poetic understanding. What I am saying is that there’s a difference between consistency, or, better yet, harmony, AND rigid uniformity (diversity within unity—not exact identicalness).

And you’re forgetting that, according to the article, in Deuteronomy, God is presented in feminine imagery…

…Holy Spirit being feminine is much more complex than mere figurative language, especially in Proverbs and the other Wisdom Books. The Father, therein, is masculine, but the Wisdom called colloquially “an emanation from God” is presented as feminine. But this is only Two Divine Persons so far…what about the Third? The Third is there…within the Second Person, as Eve was in Adam.

Hi!

…I understand your conclusions…

…as I’ve stated before, I am ignorant of much… though I study Scripture from that simplistic plane… there’s no way that Genesis 18:1, 2 suggest that these were “angels.” Sadly, we jump to conclusions when things seem impossible to comprehend and we turn to that which is familiar, to fill-in-the-blanks, so to speak.

A monotheistic religion cannot by definition perceive three Gods… so the imagery has to conform to what was known and understood: three = representatives…

Jacob’s wrestling with God is easily accepted because he battled with one person… never mind that the story apex is that he bested God and that God cheated! (Super Collider Conundrum.)

…usage (as in practice) can also serve to determine the point of view/conclusions drawn by the interested parties… take the Judaic understanding of the Name of God… when we study the Scriptures we will never find a Command from God not to use His Name nor that it is any sin/heresy to Call on His Name. However, we do find the Command to not take His Name in vain (desecration, disbelief, used as a curse, etc.)… Jesus Called God His Father and the Jewish religious were quick to seek His death… at Jesus’s query they promptly clarify that He makes Himself equal to God by Calling God His Father!

While the Jews were right to have an issue with Jesus, yet, as with the Sabbath, they fell short of Understanding God’s Revelation (not the book of Apocalypse); usage, created a rift from which they could not return, in spite of Jesus’s Invitation to form an intimate relationship with God, our Father: Abba (Dad, Papa…); they got stuck on what they knew, in spite of Revelation.

…we also get stuck on things (as with this thread)…

May the Holy Spirit Guide and Enlighten you!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[tiny_augustine]

Hey again! Thanks for the reply. I don’t mind getting stuck on thread! This is some cool conversation.

Concerning the three visitors…the context of Genesis 18, doesn’t end there. The beginning of Genesis 19 makes it clear that two of these visitors were angels (in the Greek and in the Hebrew). If you wanted to argue that God appeared directly to Abraham, and not through his angels, you’d have to argue that Jesus was the one who didn’t go to Sodom to overthrow it, but that the other two who went that way were ordinary angels. This would be a literal sense interpretation, which may or may not work, but not necessarily a typological one.

Therefore, again, this doesn’t affect the interpretation that the Holy Spirit is feminine.

God Bless

 

[jochoa]

Bonjourno, tiny augustine!

I have done some research on whether the Holy Spirit is a "He or a “She,” and the most significant point I found was from Bishop Bruskewitz’s review of Hahn’s “First Comes Love,” in which he states, “…there is no intention to indicate any kind of gender or sexual differentiation in the Godhead.” Therefore, since the Catholic Dogma declares God as “Himself,” “He,” and “His,” the Holy Spirit should not differ.

Hope this helps you in your journey to finding understandings in complete union with the Church.

Please know that I love seeing the feminine love of the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit working through my wife, daughter, mother, mother-in-law, grandmother are some of my major inspirations in life, however, it is not Catholic to refer to the Holy Spirit as "She, “Her,” or “Herself.”

 

[tiny_augustine]

Here’s an interesting question…I’m gonna turn the tables on you guys! Just say that we did understand the Holy Spirit to be feminine (the Eschatological and Pre-existent Bride of Christ…They were the ultimate Couple before the Incarnation, though then without gender, and the ultimate Couple after it, but now in an Incarnational way, according to gender)…does understanding the Holy Spirit to be now feminine after the Incarnation actually change anything important, or anything at all, in regards to our Faith? Does it really affect anything in a negative way? Does it affect any other dogmas or important truths?

We’ve already established that the Holy Spirit being the Spouse of Mary is only a devotional and popular interpretation, but not a dogma. So it’s ok to disagree with this.

What else within the Faith do you guys think would be distorted or contradicted, on a fundamental level, and not merely on the level of custom or popular interpretation?

 

[jcrichton]

Hey again! Thanks for the reply. I don’t mind getting stuck on thread! This is some cool conversation.

Concerning the three visitors…the context of Genesis 18, doesn’t end there. The beginning of Genesis 19 makes it clear that two of these visitors were angels (in the Greek and in the Hebrew). If you wanted to argue that God appeared directly to Abraham, and not through his angels, you’d have to argue that Jesus was the one who didn’t go to Sodom to overthrow it, but that the other two who went that way were ordinary angels. This would be a literal sense interpretation, which may or may not work, but not necessarily a typological one.

Therefore, again, this doesn’t affect the interpretation that the Holy Spirit is feminine.

God Bless

Hi!

…the problem with such understanding is that Abraham prostrates himself to the angels and the angels are ok with being worshipped; check the response of the angel when John bows down in Apocalypse:

10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.” (Apocalypse 19:10)

…less it was ok to worship the angels in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament… Huston, we have a problem!

…then there’s the issue of Singularity… though the Visitors are Three Abraham continues to address them as “Lord;” either he is confused or we have been given a window to the Triune Existence of God… if he is confused, then which one of the three is he addressing?..

…also, we have one of the Visitors addressing the couple, and, on verse 13, the one speaking is given the title “Lord” not “angel.” Could Scriptures also be confused?

…anyhow… your ending statement is the reason why I made my previous statement about getting stuck… we could go on till Kingdom come but we will advance no further since I cannot shake you loose from your theological approach to the Holy Spirit and I cannot afford to acquiesce to your understanding.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Here’s an interesting question…I’m gonna turn the tables on you guys! Just say that we did understand the Holy Spirit to be feminine (the Eschatological and Pre-existent Bride of Christ…They were the ultimate Couple before the Incarnation, though then without gender, and the ultimate Couple after it, but now in an Incarnational way, according to gender)…does understanding the Holy Spirit to be now feminine after the Incarnation actually change anything important, or anything at all, in regards to our Faith? Does it really affect anything in a negative way? Does it affect any other dogmas or important truths?

We’ve already established that the Holy Spirit being the Spouse of Mary is only a devotional and popular interpretation, but not a dogma. So it’s ok to disagree with this.

What else within the Faith do you guys think would be distorted or contradicted, on a fundamental level, and not merely on the level of custom or popular interpretation?

Hi!

…I think that it goes to human need and understanding… we need margins… we need time-lines… we need weights and measurements…

God exists outside of human limitations… what you propose is not possible by definition since God did not exist in a marital form.

Jesus corrects the incredulity of the Sadducees as He clarifies that, in Heaven, people will not get married for they will be as angels… our finite being needs parameters so God Revealed Himself through means that we could better accept/understand.

In the quest to know God better, sometimes, man reaches far beyond reason and Revelation as he defines (projects) humanity onto God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[tiny_augustine]

Hey again, jcrichton! Awesome response. But here’s what I’ll say starting with Abraham and the angels: actually, there was a difference between the Old and New Covenants concerning our relation to angels. As I have said before within this thread:

“Second Temple Judaism believed that the earthly Jerusalem Temple was only a copy and imitation of the Heavenly Temple. The former was not good enough, and entry into the latter, the True Temple, was desired (this idea stems from Exodus 25:9, wherein Moses enters the Glory Cloud, which is the manifestation of the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, and, according to what he sees therein, he must follow this “pattern” by making an earthly imitation of it). Both Temples are distinct, the earthly one not sharing in the reality of the heavenly one, but merely imitating it.”

Furthermore, the angels had their true liturgy above, and the Israelites had their imitation liturgy below. You’d have to do the research for yourself since I’m too tired at the moment to dig it up, but, if the Israelites prostrated themselves to their High Priests, which they did, how much more so should they prostrate before an angel, a higher priest from the true liturgy above?

We know from the literal sense of the beginning of Genesis 19, that, at least, two of three visitors were angels. We also know that Abraham didn’t offer them a sacrifice, but, instead, merely offered them a meal. This difficulty is resolved from the fact that prostration, in the Old Covenant, may be done to BOTH God and creatures (especially the High Priest or even higher angels). This is not latreia…it’s dulia, or veneration.

In the New Covenant, specifically in the Book of Revelation, the angel asks not to receive this veneration (how could John, after all that he has seen, possibly think of offering latreia to an angel?), for, John having veneration of high priestly figures from Second Temple Judaism fresh in his head, was going to do this. The reason why the angel doesn’t want it? Offer it to the True High Priest, Jesus, and, therefore, “venerate God alone!” What did the angel further mean by this? “Me, an angel, and you, a human being, are now equally priestly figures underneath the High Priest Jesus who is God,” hence the reason why the angel also says “I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus.” John knew not to give latreia to anyone but the Trinity but he did not realize yet that he was equal to angels!

What Abraham did, or what John was going to do, with veneration is, again, not latreia. Furthermore, there’s much more to idolatry than most people realize. Check out my post within the threads entitled “Scriptural idolatry?” and “Magic and Miracles.”

Now, concerning angels being addressed to as “Lord” within the Old Testament: the idea, as I have already said is that they are like the revelation/presence of the Trinity. But the Holy Spirit is the Presence of the Father, and the Son is the Revelation of the Father. Again, angels are like the presence/revelation of the Holy Spirit (the Presence of the Father), the Son (the Revelation of the Father), and the Father together. When an angel appeared, it meant that the Trinity was present through the angel. They were like Old Testament intermediaries, but, in the New Covenant…we are equal to them being Temples of the Trinity ourselves. Therefore, (while I mean “Trinity” I will substitute this word with “Holy Spirit” ONLY to make a case) an angel is "the presence of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is the Presence of the Father, but an angel is NOT the direct presence of the Father, as the Holy Spirit is. Confusing, I know. When an angel speaks in the Old, God speaks through the angel. They are like a conduit. Abraham addresses the singularity of the Lord through the three angels because there’s only one Trinity that is here speaking through three non-divine angels who are like conduits. That was tough to explain!

Now concerning your second post: God has always been in marital form…he was always presented, even in the Old Testament as the Bridegroom, an image Jesus reiterates in the New. In the Prophets, God was considered to be betrothed to Israel. So marital imagery with God is quite appropriate. That is yet another reason I say that the Holy Spirit is the Church…because the Church is the Bride of Christ. Unless, however, you are willing to argue that God being married to the Church and married to Israel in the Od Covenant are merely metaphors? This would destroy the point Paul so often makes.

What do you think?

God Bless

 

[jochoa]

Here are a couple of the conflicts I perceive between the proposed understanding of the Holy Spirit as She, the Church/Bride of Christ/God and the Dogmas of the Catholic Church (holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc):
Dogma #42: “All the ad extra Activities of God are common to all Three Persons.”
Since the Church is a creation, then the Holy Spirit would be a creation, and being created is not common to the Father and the Son.
Dogma #143: “Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.”
If the Holy Spirit is the Church, then either:
a. the Apostle Peter, as head of the whole Church, is greater than the Holy Spirit, his body.
OR
b. The Holy Spirit, understood as the Church, should either be referred to as masculine because the visible head is masculine or should have a female as visible head.

From further evaluation of your understanding, I perceive that you do not accept the Holy Spirit fully as God, our Creator and Lord(#1) being moved by His Goodness to create the world(#44).

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is fully God?

Thank you for the discussion! I have greatly enjoyed pondering the Amazing Grace in the Dogmas of the Catholic Church!

 

[jcrichton]

Hey again, jcrichton! Awesome response. But here’s what I’ll say starting with Abraham and the angels: actually, there was a difference between the Old and New Covenants concerning our relation to angels. As I have said before within this thread:

“Second Temple Judaism believed that the earthly Jerusalem Temple was only a copy and imitation of the Heavenly Temple. The former was not good enough, and entry into the latter, the True Temple, was desired (this idea stems from Exodus 25:9, wherein Moses enters the Glory Cloud, which is the manifestation of the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, and, according to what he sees therein, he must follow this “pattern” by making an earthly imitation of it). Both Temples are distinct, the earthly one not sharing in the reality of the heavenly one, but merely imitating it.”

Furthermore, the angels had their true liturgy above, and the Israelites had their imitation liturgy below. You’d have to do the research for yourself since I’m too tired at the moment to dig it up, but, if the Israelites prostrated themselves to their High Priests, which they did, how much more so should they prostrate before an angel, a higher priest from the true liturgy above?

We know from the literal sense of the beginning of Genesis 19, that, at least, two of three visitors were angels. We also know that Abraham didn’t offer them a sacrifice, but, instead, merely offered them a meal. This difficulty is resolved from the fact that prostration, in the Old Covenant, may be done to BOTH God and creatures (especially the High Priest or even higher angels). This is not latreia…it’s dulia, or veneration.

In the New Covenant, specifically in the Book of Revelation, the angel asks not to receive this veneration (how could John, after all that he has seen, possibly think of offering latreia to an angel?), for, John having veneration of high priestly figures from Second Temple Judaism fresh in his head, was going to do this. The reason why the angel doesn’t want it? Offer it to the True High Priest, Jesus, and, therefore, “venerate God alone!” What did the angel further mean by this? “Me, an angel, and you, a human being, are now equally priestly figures underneath the High Priest Jesus who is God,” hence the reason why the angel also says “I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus.” John knew not to give latreia to anyone but the Trinity but he did not realize yet that he was equal to angels!

What Abraham did, or what John was going to do, with veneration is, again, not latreia. Furthermore, there’s much more to idolatry than most people realize. Check out my post within the threads entitled “Scriptural idolatry?” and “Magic and Miracles.”

Now, concerning angels being addressed to as “Lord” within the Old Testament: the idea, as I have already said is that they are like the revelation/presence of the Trinity. But the Holy Spirit is the Presence of the Father, and the Son is the Revelation of the Father. Again, angels are like the presence/revelation of the Holy Spirit (the Presence of the Father), the Son (the Revelation of the Father), and the Father together. When an angel appeared, it meant that the Trinity was present through the angel. They were like Old Testament intermediaries, but, in the New Covenant…we are equal to them being Temples of the Trinity ourselves. Therefore, (while I mean “Trinity” I will substitute this word with “Holy Spirit” ONLY to make a case) an angel is "the presence of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is the Presence of the Father, but an angel is NOT the direct presence of the Father, as the Holy Spirit is. Confusing, I know. When an angel speaks in the Old, God speaks through the angel. They are like a conduit. Abraham addresses the singularity of the Lord through the three angels because there’s only one Trinity that is here speaking through three non-divine angels who are like conduits. That was tough to explain!

Now concerning your second post: God has always been in marital form…he was always presented, even in the Old Testament as the Bridegroom, an image Jesus reiterates in the New. In the Prophets, God was considered to be betrothed to Israel. So marital imagery with God is quite appropriate. That is yet another reason I say that the Holy Spirit is the Church…because the Church is the Bride of Christ. Unless, however, you are willing to argue that God being married to the Church and married to Israel in the Od Covenant are merely metaphors? This would destroy the point Paul so often makes.

What do you think?

God Bless

Hi!

I respect your efforts… I’ve come across some similar explanations (ditto with the YHWH); but I still do not see it as such… my conclusions are completely different…

…as for the marital imagery, I do not question that… I question the inference that the Holy Trinity exists in a marital unity where the Holy Spirit is somehow the feminine value…

…as bridegrooms go, they are not in a state of marriage but in a state of expectation… so while Jesus could be the Eternal Bridegroom, He is to be Wed to the Church; He is not the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

…just as the Word would not become Incarnate as Jesus, the Messiah, till the fullness of times (as St. Paul reveals), the Bride of the Bridegroom did not come into existence until the Incarnate Word Founded the Church… further, the Bridegroom remains the Bridegroom until the Wedding to the Church which remains hidden:

17 And the spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely. (Apocalypse 22:17)

This event will take place at the Parousia… till then, Christ remains the Bridegroom not the Spouse.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Eric_Hyom]

all Three Divine Persons are always working together as a Unity in every action.

I think you may have missed out the greatest commandments; from your ‘thesis idea’.

Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is one with the Father? When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, he could do nothing greater.

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

God the Father loves God the Son, with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
The Father loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love, working through these commandments?
1 Samuel 18 - Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Could God love us more than he loves himself?

Before the creation of the universe began, could the greatest commandments possibly describe a Trinitarian relationship, between the Father, Son, and Spirit? Is it possible that God’s purpose is for each and every one of us to have this Trinitarian relationship with God and with each other?

Just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think.