Lack of Feminine Identity in the Idea of Trinitarian God

[FightingFat]

I think I’ll stick with 2000 years of Catholic Tradition, thank you…

I’m happy it’s enough for you!

 

[rider]

Because it might be wrong! (have you never met any JW’s or Mormons or Baptists??? They all accept without question and they’re not Catholic!!!) and also God gave me this enormous brain for a reason, and because all this talk of faith and reason post Regensburg stimulates my juices, and because I’m an aspiring theologist and theology is fides quaerens intellectum!!!

If you think you need to question the Trinity because it “might be wrong” you are putting yourself on the same level as all those who remake the Catholic faith into their own image. Beware.

 

[FightingFat]

If you think you need to question the Trinity because it “might be wrong” you are putting yourself on the same level as all those who remake the Catholic faith into their own image. Beware.

No I’m not- please don’t be silly and disrespectful. If you can’t answer the question that’s fine. Faith seeks understanding, are you saying the Trinity is a simple aspect of our faith? Something that doesn’t deserve consideration, reflection? careful thought and enquiry? If you read Gadium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) you will see that Mother church espouses that we educate ourselves about these matters to the highest degree:

1. Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind. By relentlessly employing his talents through the ages he has indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. In our times he has won superlative victories, especially in his probing of the material world and in subjecting it to himself. Still he has always searched for more penetrating truths, and finds them. For his intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened.

I’ve found some pretty interesting information covering the question in a copy of “Catholicism” by Richard McBrien. I’m happy to share if anyone is interested!

Questioning is part of faith, blind acceptance is fine if that’s what you want, but don’t criticise others who seek understanding to back up their faith. Consider- this may have been a question I have been asked and came here trying to find out more. It may be something that is causing me a real problem in my faith. It may be something that just interests me. Either way, the best method of meeting my enquiry hardly seems to be to denegrate my asking questions, my search for knowledge, or intimate I am suffering from a lack of faith!

Thank God almighty my own spiritual mentors never thought like that!

 

[mosher]

No I’m not- please don’t be silly and disrespectful. If you can’t answer the question that’s fine. Faith seeks understanding, are you saying the Trinity is a simple aspect of our faith? Something that doesn’t deserve consideration, reflection? careful thought and enquiry? If you read Gadium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) you will see that Mother church espouses that we educate ourselves about these matters to the highest degree:

1. Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe, for he shares in the light of the divine mind. By relentlessly employing his talents through the ages he has indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. In our times he has won superlative victories, especially in his probing of the material world and in subjecting it to himself. Still he has always searched for more penetrating truths, and finds them. For his intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened.

I’ve found some pretty interesting information covering the question in a copy of “Catholicism” by Richard McBrien. I’m happy to share if anyone is interested!

Questioning is part of faith, blind acceptance is fine if that’s what you want, but don’t criticise others who seek understanding to back up their faith. Consider- this may have been a question I have been asked and came here trying to find out more. It may be something that is causing me a real problem in my faith. It may be something that just interests me. Either way, the best method of meeting my enquiry hardly seems to be to denegrate my asking questions, my search for knowledge, or intimate I am suffering from a lack of faith!

Thank God almighty my own spiritual mentors never thought like that!

You are correct that the approach you are speaking about does more harm than good. Since nothing further has been said about my addition to the conversation I will assume that it was sufficient.

However, as to the book Catholicism by Fr. McBrian I would warn you caution. Fr. McBrian has posited many heretical opinions and as such was removed as the editor of the Catholic Publication in Hartford (his home Archdiocese). Really what I am saying is that you can put his book(s) back on the shelf because it is only useful as a paperweight.

 

[FightingFat]

You are correct that the approach you are speaking about does more harm than good. Since nothing further has been said about my addition to the conversation I will assume that it was sufficient.

It’s pretty much my position thus far from what I’ve read; it doesn’t really address the issue of the andocentric bias in which God is imaged and conceptualised as male. My thoughts seem pretty much in cohesion with yours (in that this is pretty much the position of the Church) but I am attempting to try and tie this down even further (in the light of questions I myself have been asked). The words- the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit will still be used by us and other Christian trinitarians and with that neat little symantic bundle of information the denial is perpetuated. The words we use to define the Christian reality matrix even the strong female principle Mary, Mother of God is denied femine attribute by the title; “Blessed Virgin Mary”… she has to be a virgin.

mosher:

However, as to the book Catholicism by Fr. McBrian I would warn you caution. Fr. McBrian has posited many heretical opinions and as such was removed as the editor of the Catholic Publication in Hartford (his home Archdiocese). Really what I am saying is that you can put his book(s) back on the shelf because it is only useful as a paperweight.

I wonder if my Course Director knows that? It’s on my reading list for a theology degree at a Pontifical University…Someone must think he has, at least at some point, had something to say worth listening to!

 

[buffalo]

Interesting stuff here:

This is an ongoing dialogue between Jonathan Field and Robert Sungenis concerning Scott Hahn’s theology of the Holy Spirit, and Robert Sungenis theology concerning the anger of God.

…So since Hahn has founded the “search for the identity of the Holy Spirit” on his premise that God the Father is our Father, and Christ is our brother, yet Scripture understands God’s fatherhood to us and Christ’s brotherhood to us in a real and legal manner, then in order for Hahn to make his “identity” of the Holy Spirit as “mother” or “feminine dimension of God” or “prototype of the female” fit his paradigm, it will also have to be in a real and legal manner. The problem is that there is no such legal relation between us and the Holy Spirit. The paradigm of family relations breaks down when we come to the Holy Spirit, and that is precisely why neither the Fathers of the Church, the medievals or Church dogmatics have pushed the father-mother-child paradigm into the Trinity or ever referred to the Holy Spirit in feminine legal terms. The only familial relation the Church has taught is that between the Father and the Son.
As for Hahn’s addition, it is quite clear that he wishes to go beyond mere analogies and metaphors. First, on page 138 of FCL at the top Hahn says: “Thus, what we said earlier of the Trinity in general, we apply here to the Persons of the Godhead. By divine actions that are bridal and maternal, we may come to discern a divine bridal-maternity in the Holy Spirit.” He does not say “the analogy of bridal-maternity” but “a divine bridal-maternity in the Holy Spirit.” There is quite a difference between the two.

more…

 

[buffalo]

The Need to Renew Masculine Spirituality

 

[buffalo]

**Why Father and not Mother?

…**The use of feminist language and imagery in Christian worship is especially dangerous because it places a further obstacle in the way of an appreciation of the theological meaning of gender. Such appreciation is necessary if we are to begin to overcome the feminization of Western Christianity. Masculinity plays a central role in Judaism and Christianity, and men can be shown that Christianity does not want to convert them into pseudo-women, but help to fulfill the deepest meaning of masculinity. In Christ men should be able to see what it is to be a man. Ecce homo, et ecce vir. The powerful currents of masculinity, especially the admiration that verges on eros that men feel for the exemplars of masculinity, the athlete and the soldier, can be directed away from crime, violence, and quasi-fascist nationalism into a relationship with God in Christ. The Church will benefit, men will benefit, and society as a whole will benefit. A key to beginning this work is to use the language of Scripture rather than a language constructed by feminists, because in the religion of the Word made flesh words can be both creative and destructive.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Does the Bible Support the Feminist God/Dess?

…
hese folks argue that
Scripture itself employs feminine images for God and therefore
provides a “depatriarchalizing principle”[1] which, when
developed, overcomes the “patriachalism” of other parts of the
Bible. In other words, the Bible corrects itself regarding gender
stereotypes for God.

Is this true? Does the Bible itself provide reasonable grounds for
feminine language about God? As we shall see, a careful
examination of Scripture reveals that the biblical authors,
notwithstanding their so-called “feminine images” of God, conceive
of the God of Israel and of Jesus Christ, in essentially masculine
terms. The Bible does not in fact introduce a “depatriarchalizing
principle” into the biblical tradition as some feminists claim, so
efforts to justify feminist notions of God based on Scripture
amount to a feminist form of fundamentalist proof-texting,
replacing the historical-cultural worldview of the biblical

authors with that of modern feminist ideology.

more…

 

[mosher]

It’s pretty much my position thus far from what I’ve read; it doesn’t really address the issue of the andocentric bias in which God is imaged and conceptualised as male.

This is simply a matter of man. Since man can only directly know that which comes through the senses (St. Thomas) we only have immediate knowledge of things in the created order. So, in order for God to communicated with man He has always used those things that man can relate to in his experience of the world. In this instance we have to understand that God uses father to explain His relation to everything in the created order.

Think of the image of a family. In a family you have a father, mother and a child. For the child to be produced the father infuses the mother with his power (semen) and a child is created in the usual manner. This child in a sense takes its flesh from the mother but only its identity from the father but the father is a true component to the life of the child. This is an analogy of creation itself. God, by His power infuses life into the void (that which was lifeless) and life (creation) progresses from this power. Yet, creation is not God as creation does not “take its flesh” from God but He is a true and necessary principle just as the father with his child. This helps keep a proper understanding of God so that we don’t fall into a form of pantheism.

It also speaks to the relationship that God has with His people. It is both guiding but distant. So, in a sense, the Fatherhood of God is to help us understand the relationship that he has as both completely other but at the same time completely united by His power - really it expresses a number of His attributes.

The words we use to define the Christian reality matrix even the strong female principle Mary, Mother of God is denied femine attribute by the title; “Blessed Virgin Mary”… she has to be a virgin.

Femininity is not defined strictly by biological motherhood but rather by motherhood in its other perfections.

I wonder if my Course Director knows that? It’s on my reading list for a theology degree at a Pontifical University…Someone must think he has, at least at some point, had something to say worth listening to!

Well technically speaking everyone has something to say even the atheists. However, as a corpus of work his is not one that can be fully trusted. One of my own professors was the man who took his position as editor of the Catholic magazine and who before that wrote extensively against his works.

 

[porkscratchings]

In the way that it appears to consist of three blokes. Unless you know different?
:ehh:

does it matter if the trinity consists of 3 blokes?

Or can u only worship a god in a skirt?

If that’s the case, then what would u say to those black, asian chinese, indian, worshippers who don’t seem to have a problem with praying to a dead jewish causasian male (jesus)?

 

[FightingFat]

does it matter if the trinity consists of 3 blokes?

Maybe, maybe not. The point of the question asked in this thread is exactly that. Does it matter?

Or can u only worship a god in a skirt?

That misses the point. We are made “male and female…In the image of God” yet we refer to God as Father Son and Holy Spirit.

If that’s the case, then what would u say to those black, asian chinese, indian, worshippers who don’t seem to have a problem with praying to a dead jewish causasian male (jesus)?

There are two seperate issues here.

Jesus’ ethnicity has been misrepresented, or, he has been integrated into many different cultures- he is the universal human and the history of his pictoral representation is fascinating.

Jesus’ ethnicity is not as fundamental or as relevant to this question as is his gender when considered in union with the Trinity.

 

[mosher]

Jesus’ ethnicity has been misrepresented, or, he has been integrated into many different cultures- he is the universal human and the history of his pictoral representation is fascinating.

Jesus’ ethnicity is not as fundamental or as relevant to this question as is his gender when considered in union with the Trinity.

I would take issue with this. It is very important that He was a Jew.

However you are correct. This point does not necessarily factor into His incarnation as a man.

 

[FightingFat]

I would take issue with this. It is very important that He was a Jew.

I agree mosher, perhaps what I was trying to say was unclear. I mean Jesus was a Jew from the Middle East- most likely he had brown skin, yet most of us know him as a white bloke with a beard.

 

[st_julie]

The accusation is hooey but shows a complete lack of spiritual maturity in those who utter it.
stjulie

 

[mosher]

I agree mosher, perhaps what I was trying to say was unclear. I mean Jesus was a Jew from the Middle East- most likely he had brown skin, yet most of us know him as a white bloke with a beard.

Which is probably more accurate. Arabs tend to be brown but Jews tend to be of a lighter complexion but with a slight olive tone. So, yes, the Irish, East Asian, or Black African looking Jesus is silly but the common image is probably not too far off.

 

[FightingFat]

The accusation is hooey but shows a complete lack of spiritual maturity in those who utter it.
stjulie

Well perhaps you might be able to elucidate for those of us who are immature?

 

[porkscratchings]

Maybe, maybe not. The point of the question asked in this thread is exactly that. Does it matter?

I don’t think it does - unless someone is trying to taint faith with political correctness.

FightingFat:

That misses the point. We are made “male and female…In the image of God” yet we refer to God as Father Son and Holy Spirit.

No it doesn’t. The q is: should pple be sexist so that u can only esteem pple in ur own gender? Including God? If millions can respect jesus for being a jew and male, without being jewish and male themselves - does that not shame those who can only love God if he were a she. Surely the former group has the greater love that can embrace all - regardless of appearance, whereas the second group is so self-centered that can only embrace something or someone that looks the same as them? If u reduce religion to folks looking after their own kind - why bother with religion at all?

FightingFat:

There are two separate issues here.

No they’re not. Should ethnicity and gender of God/Jesus get given such emphasis these superficial things have more importance than what God/Jesus actually did?

FightingFat:

Jesus’ ethnicity has been misrepresented, or, he has been integrated into many different cultures- he is the universal human and the history of his pictoral representation is fascinating.

Jesus’ ethnicity is not as fundamental or as relevant to this question as is his gender when considered in union with the Trinity.

His gender is only relevant if someone wishes to make gender more important than the central Christian message - that God died to save the world. The trinity is genderless - the relevancy of gender is modern invention not part either the NT or Jewish tradition on which Christianity follows.

Turning a religion that is capable of embrace pple from all walks of life, ethnity and gender into a narrow sectarian view of faith that embraces no-one who is not the right gender or race - rips the guts out of religion and makes it as worthless as the latest fashionable trend.

 

[FightingFat]

You seem to be really missing the point entirely (although constructing rather an impressive argument in the process )

We are mad in the image of God- we are made male and female- where is the female reflected in God?

You seem to be saying this is not important. I have my own theological position- I am trying to view how others think about it.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

To what extent do you feel the accusation that the christain idea of the Trinity is fundementally flawed due to its denial of the feminine is valid?

The accusation is pointless.

Though God the Holy Ghost can take on some feminine qualities, God is masculine.

Adam was made in the masculine image of God, and Eve out of Adam.

The gender hiearchy in nature is, in my opinion, something instituted by God.

Thankfully, the New Testament took some of the totalitarian aspects out of this “hiearchy”.

But in my opnion God is masculine and should always be seen in that light. So the accusation is both pointless…and well correct lol.