Priest's inaccurate comparison?

[PluniaZ]

The running joke among priests is that we all give our deacons the opportunity to preach on Trinity Sunday. It’s tough…be patient with us. We’re doing the best we can!

You’re a priest? It’s great to have you here. Thank you for being with us, Father.

 

[buc_fan33]

You’re a priest? It’s great to have you here. Thank you for being with us, Father.

Guilty.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My priest compared the trinity to the three branches of the united states government in his homily.

What are the strengths of this comparison, and in addition are they outweighed by the weaknesses of the arguement?

There is no adequate matter or temporal based metaphor that can ever properly demonstrate how 3 can be 1 without losing 3ness (and vice versa).

All we can do is hold on to a variety of propositions which while understandable individually cannot be grasped when bundled together.

My favourite is that of a mirror and the image it holds representing how the Son proceeds from the Father yet not being less or before the Father.

Similar is that of a concept/truth held by the mind and the bond between the two (love).

Both Augustine and both of no practical use whatsoever…other than to gaze lovingly at the deep mystery of our God who is for us.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…All analogies of the Holy Trinity end up being heretical. This one, as are many, is monalism. This is not to criticize the priest. Whenever you analogize the Trinity you run quickly into problems as it is unlike anything else, one nature with three persons.

I don’t think all analogies are necessarily heretical, for the same reason I don’t think Jesus is a literal door or a vine. Analogies are just linguistic devices used to help give us a glimpse into something we might otherwise find even harder to grasp.

Lion IRC;14653949:

The best analogy I ever heard was a rock band.

God writes the lyrics.
The Holy Spirit plays the music.
And Jesus is the Lead Singer.

I’m sure just a mistake, so I assume it was God the Father writes the lyrics.

No. Not a mistake.
If we need to disambiguate God the Father for fear or heresy are we not similarly at risk of the very thing to which you’re alluding. ‘Modalism’ ? Monism?
God. God The Father. YHWH. Jehovah. Elohim…
No misunderstanding Him as far as I’m concerned. I know who we are talking about.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Thanks, so we can say God ? Or do we always say God the Father?

 

[PluniaZ]

Thanks, so we can say God ? Or do we always say God the Father?

The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God.

 

[Wesrock]

Thanks, so we can say God ? Or do we always say God the Father?

Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Granted, we knew what was meant when it was written, but now that we have full understanding of God as Trinity, it seems unusual to separate the Father out as God in a way that could be misconstrued as implying that the Son and Holy Spirit are not. But mayne I’m just being too technical.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t think all analogies are necessarily heretical, for the same reason I don’t think Jesus is a literal door or a vine. Analogies are just linguistic devices used to help give us a glimpse into something we might otherwise find even harder to grasp.

No. Not a mistake.
If we need to disambiguate God the Father for fear or heresy are we not similarly at risk of the very thing to which you’re alluding. ‘Modalism’ ? Monism?
God. God The Father. YHWH. Jehovah. Elohim…
No misunderstanding Him as far as I’m concerned. I know who we are talking about.

To be more accurate I think the point was you should have been consistent

God (father)
God (son)
God (Holy Spirit)

You just assigned the title God, to one band participant…

 

[Rau]

…“To Me redounds every assault they make on My ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse.Whatever is done to them I count as done to Me. For I have said and I say it again: No one is to touch My Christ’s. It is My right to punish them, and no one else’s.”

Saint Catherine of Siena, Dialogue 116

4kingdoms.com/dialogue_of_st_catherine_of_Siena_chapter_14_newest.pdf

And earlier in that writing of Catherine’s you will read: “Civil law has no power whatever to punish them; this right belongs solely to the one who has been appointed to rule and to service according to divine law.”… “A person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers.”

It would be useful to recall that Catherine wrote in the Middle Ages when the Church-State relationship was not what it is today. Catherine wished the role of disciplining priests to be limited to the Pope. “…it is his task to correct them for their faults”

Given recent grievous transgressions, I suggest all would have welcomed the Episcopate stepping up and disciplining the seriously wayward. Sadly, Catherine’s words in this respect have not been heard so clearly. But I suggest that there would also be overwhelming support for the civil law (contrary to Catherine’s words) to play its proper role in these circumstance, and nowhere in the Church hierarchy will you hear anything said to oppose that.

I make these remarks in the context of Catherine’s words applied to the disciplining of the clergy on serious criminal matters, not on minor matters such as that addressed by the OP.

 

[PluniaZ]

And earlier in that writing of Catherine’s you will read: “Civil law has no power whatever to punish them; this right belongs solely to the one who has been appointed to rule and to service according to divine law.”… “A person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers.”

It would be useful to recall that Catherine wrote in the Middle Ages when the Church-State relationship was not what it is today. Catherine wished the role of disciplining priests to be limited to the Pope. “…it is his task to correct them for their faults”

Given recent grievous transgressions, I suggest all would have welcomed the Episcopate stepping up and disciplining the seriously wayward. Sadly, Catherine’s words in this respect have not been heard so clearly. But I suggest that there would also be overwhelming support for the civil law (contrary to Catherine’s words) to play its proper role in these circumstance, and nowhere in the Church hierarchy will you hear anything said to oppose that.

I make these remarks in the context of Catherine’s words applied to the disciplining of the clergy on serious criminal matters, not on minor matters such as that addressed by the OP.

I’ve never been a big fan of the interpretive method:

Paragraph 1 describes a particular wrongdoing.
Paragraph 2 issues a general declaration against all sorts of wrongdoing.

Therefore, Paragraph 2 is only condemning the type of wrongdoing described in Paragraph 1.

 

[Rau]

I’ve never been a big fan of the interpretive method:

Paragraph 1 describes a particular wrongdoing.
Paragraph 2 issues a general declaration against all sorts of wrongdoing.

Therefore, Paragraph 2 is only condemning the type of wrongdoing described in Paragraph 1.

Sorry, don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

 

[PluniaZ]

Sorry, don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

Your argument seems to be:

Paragraph 7 of Section 115 says the civil authorities have no power to punish priests.
Paragraph 4 of Section 116 says, “To Me redounds every assault they make on My ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to Me.”

Therefore, Paragraph 4 of Section 116 is only referring to civil authorities who try to punish priests.

 

[Rau]

Your argument seems to be:…

My observation is that Catherine:
a) expected the Pope [as a duty] to discipline clergy;
b) asserted that civil authorities may not do so, and do wrong should they attempt to do so.

My view is that:
a) the episcopate, Pope included, have done a poor job of such disciplining in the context of child sexual abuse (and they have publicly accepted this to be the case);
b) there is wide acceptance, including within the Episcopate, that the civil authorities have an entirely proper role in arresting, charging and punishing criminal wrongdoers who are also clergy.

 

[PluniaZ]

My observation is that Catherine:
a) expected the Pope [as a duty] to discipline clergy;
b) asserted that civil authorities may not do so, and do wrong should they attempt to do so.

My view is that:
a) the episcopate, Pope included, have done a poor job of such disciplining in the context of child sexual abuse (and they have publicly accepted this to be the case);
b) there is wide acceptance, including within the Episcopate, that the civil authorities have an entirely proper role in arresting, charging and punishing criminal wrongdoers who are also clergy.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.