Thoughts on the Trinity

[R_C]

]As a TEASEr for the thread I hope to start let me say, that I believe (and I think virtually all LDS could and should agree with me):
“God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are homooúsios and three hypostases.”
One caveat to the above as I mentioned earlier in this thread: the WORDS have had different meanings over time, but the meanings I impute to the words above have solid precedence in the first four eccuminical councils of the Catholic Church.

Well, “in the Holy Trinity there is one substance/essence/ousia” (thus, homoousion applies well), “and three hypostases (subsistences)”, so I see nothing unusual (unless you want to translate hypostasis as substance/essence…but then the phrase would lose its sense, because it would literally mean “same essence, but three essences”

 

[GaryTaylor]

All attempts to define monotheism with the revelation of God the Father whom ‘no one has seen nor can see’, and the ‘Only-begotten Son’, who is ‘the Word, who was with God, and was God’ and 'through whom all things were made’ are in my opinion, endless endeavors with endless unanswerable objections.

So, for myself, I keep it simple. I believe in the Apostle’s Creed, and I believe what Jesus prayed to God his Father: And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent

God’s peace be with you all

micah

Simple works for me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, “in the Holy Trinity there is one substance/essence/ousia” (thus, homoousion applies well), “and three hypostases (subsistences)”, so I see nothing unusual (unless you want to translate hypostasis as substance/essence…but then the phrase would lose its sense, because it would literally mean “same essence, but three essences”

Right key word, first Council.

 

[DeSanto]

I’m a bit confused about what your question or intention is, but I’m going to offer a response. I being Catholic obviously believe God is one and three persons; the Trinity. Jesus is not a mere prophet but God.

Firstly, I think one of the reasons people have a hard time accepting the Trinity is because humans minds cannot grasp how something can be one and three at the same time. It is a human limitation. I remember being, one point, very peturbed by this as well, even though I just accepted it. What put me at rest was realizing that if God is so mighty and great, then obviously he will be beyond human comprehension. So the fact that we cannot understand God’s nature as one and three at the same time does not take away from his divinity, but reinforces it.

Eventually, by the grace of God, I came to comprehend the Trinity a bit better. If you look at creation, God reveals this idea, of being one yet seperate, everywhere. Think about a man and women during sexual intercourse. The Bible says a husband and wife become one flesh. They literally do, yet even at the moment of intercourse they are still distinct persons. They become one and yet are seperate. And of course, if you think about the creation of a baby then you have a parallel for the Holy Spirit. After all, the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and Son becoming another person itself. So are babies.
As well, our ultimate goal in life is to unite with God. We do so completely in Heaven. When we do so, we will become one with God, yet we will not be God. We will be distinct persons.

Now these analogies only carry us so far. Obviously the relationship between ourselves and God, and that between a husband, wife and child are NOT exactly the same as the Trinity’s relationship. But what is evident is that this idea, of being one and yet different persons, penetrates creation. Creation reflects the Creator. Honestly, after coming to understand these things, I realize how beautiful the Trinity is. It fills me with joy.

I’m under no delusion that this will convince anyone who adamantly rejects the Trinity. However I just wanted to offer a few thoughts and explain a Catholic’s thinking behind the Trinity,

God Bless

I love that! Beautiful! I’m with you, keep it simple. It’s not something that can be easily explained. I always like to think of it like this…

We are made in the image of God. We have a mind, a body, and a spirit. Simple. But, this explaination never went deep enough. Your take on it, I believe, has taken my simple understanding to a deeper level of simplicity.

Ultimately, it does come down to faith.

A glorious mystery!

 

[chimo]

Just a hypothetical question. Do you think even the apostles knew that Jesus was God before the resurrection?

That is a very good question for our Lord does not reveal Himself in Glory but in humilty. It took time for the Apostles to believe as it can for each one of us. Time can be a precious gift for we all need it to understand and be accepting of the truth. God reveals Himself in time to us and not all at once as He did for the Angels. Man was created to acquire truth within time.

Your question is an interesting one to permit one to say when does one believe this Jesus to be God. The Apostles did stick with our Lord for those three years and by reading the Gospels we can see them coming to believe steadily as children do when growing with their parents. St. Peter acknowledges this truth with his dramatic response when Jesus asked to them “Who do you say that I am?” Certainly each one of us needs to be asked that question.

It is certain for me that yes some of the Apostles did believe fully He was God while others like Thomas had his doubts. Your queston is an interesting one because the Apostles were much like us wondering if this Jesus is truly God and if so what kind of God is He that makes Him take on our own humanity. Certainly our Lord reveals to us in time His timeless truths about Himself and once we permit truth to enter so does our faith in Him soar and like Peter we can confess Him or like Thomas also confess Him when He does reveal Himself in Glory. Yet our Lord gives to us more credit when we believe in Him without seeing first His Glory and rewards our acknowledgement of Him with our faith and trust we can have in Him for He said “It is more blessed for those who believe and have not seen.”

 

[Reuben_J]

That is a very good question for our Lord does not reveal Himself in Glory but in humilty. It took time for the Apostles to believe as it can for each one of us. Time can be a precious gift for we all need it to understand and be accepting of the truth. God reveals Himself in time to us and not all at once as He did for the Angels. Man was created to acquire truth within time.

Your question is an interesting one to permit one to say when does one believe this Jesus to be God. The Apostles did stick with our Lord for those three years and by reading the Gospels we can see them coming to believe steadily as children do when growing with their parents. St. Peter acknowledges this truth with his dramatic response when Jesus asked to them “Who do you say that I am?” Certainly each one of us needs to be asked that question.

It is certain for me that yes some of the Apostles did believe fully He was God while others like Thomas had his doubts. Your queston is an interesting one because the Apostles were much like us wondering if this Jesus is truly God and if so what kind of God is He that makes Him take on our own humanity. Certainly our Lord reveals to us in time His timeless truths about Himself and once we permit truth to enter so does our faith in Him soar and like Peter we can confess Him or like Thomas also confess Him when He does reveal Himself in Glory. Yet our Lord gives to us more credit when we believe in Him without seeing first His Glory and rewards our acknowledgement of Him with our faith and trust we can have in Him for He said “It is more blessed for those who believe and have not seen.”

Thank you for taking the time to respond to that question. It was not a debate question actually, only wanting to know what others would think on this subject.

The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Can we believe in the Trinity from the account in the Bible alone without taking the cue from the early believers?

You said that some apostles believed that Jesus is God and some did not. I wonder who that apostles would be and how do you arrive at that conclusion? Would it be Peter (ref Mt16) because of his declaration or did he say it and not knowing what he said?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m pretty sure we can all agree we won’t be defining Gods essence anytime soon. My point is how do we disagree with the Trinity when we have no other like Christ?

 

[chimo]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to that question. It was not a debate question actually, only wanting to know what others would think on this subject.

The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Can we believe in the Trinity from the account in the Bible alone without taking the cue from the early believers?

You said that some apostles believed that Jesus is God and some did not. I wonder who that apostles would be and how do you arrive at that conclusion? Would it be Peter (ref Mt16) because of his declaration or did he say it and not knowing what he said?

Thomas be one of those apostles who had doubt. When Jesus appeared to them after the resurrection we read in the Gospels that some doubted. Certainly faith in some of the apostles were much stronger than in others and this can be the same for any of us. Peter’s confession of faith was the turning point of his life and it can be for us as well when the eternal truths about God are more real to us and becomes for us a living faith.

It is certain Peter knew what he was saying but he still needed to be taught and to be corrected as confirmed in his Lord’s rebuke of him shortly after his own confession. Confession is important but more important is your own growth in your relatonship with Jesus which will depend on this correction and teaching by our Lord.

If one needs to look at the Trinity from the perspective of the Scriptures rather than from Tradition I would go right to the source and look to the Gospels. I will mention two sources that can confim the Trinitarian God by looking to the Baptism of Jesus and the Transfiguartion of Jesus. Words are not enough to satisfy some so the best answer can come from seeing. In both instances we can see the Trinity in action. We can even hear the voice of the Father in both stories. The Holy Spirit is there as well. This can teach us about the unity which the Trinity has and not one person of the Trinity acts on His own but together in unison and with love.

If you need a OT story look no further than the story of the three men who visited Abraham in Genesis. The Eastern Church sees in these three men a representation of the Trinity. St. Rebluv’s icon of the Trinity was painted from this perspective of the Genesis story. Any website can show you this painting when you click on Rebluv’s Trinity.

 

[TOmNossor]

Modalism is an erroneous understanding of the Trinity, established as such already in c. 220 AD, which thinks that the divine persons are different modes as perceived by the believer,

rather than three distinct divine persons. The error is in the idea that the believer would perceive three modes. This would contradict the Scriptures, for the Son himself speaks of a Son, a Father, and a Spirit, and quite the contrary, the disciples and followers always understood that there is only one God. The root of the error is the preference of the word mode over person, because perhaps the word person appears to hint at three distinct gods - an intollerable heresy. In truth, the word “person” would be more properly replaced by the word “hypostasis”.
I would have said that adherents of the idea of modalism would say that the different modes are not merely perceived by the believer, but are intentionally presented by God. I could be wrong, but either way it is a minor point.

I do not believe modalism is a good read of scripture, but it is a position embraced by intelligent thoughtful folks even today. There were modalists long after Nicea. In the theological melee that is sola scriptura Christianity there are modern modalist, Oneness Pentecostals (and perhaps UU’s, but they do not seem overly concerned with theology to me). To be a modalist all you need to do is emphasize the oneness scriptures and excuse any time Christ and the Father interact by explaining why this is God’s plan or …
Hypostasis is certainly a word that finds itself prominent in the early councils.
The antecedents of “person” have an interesting history in all of this too.

Hypostasis

(a Greek word) means “underlying state”. It is closely related to the Greek word ousia, essence or nature.

Eventually the formula “Three Hypostases in one Ousia” came to be everywhere accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. However, confusion came into play when some started translating hypostasis as “substance” rather than “subsistence”, because in the Holy Trinity there is one substance/essence/ousia but three hypostases (subsistences), and to use the erroneous meaning was to fall into the terrible heresy of Tritheism (3 substances = 3 gods).

It is true that there is Greek verses Latin words in conflict here. There are a lot of Greek vs. Greek words in conflict here too. Much ink has been spilt about this. This is part of what I hope to post about in another thread if I ever think I am caught up.
Charity, TOm

 

[Reuben_J]

Thomas be one of those apostles who had doubt. When Jesus appeared to them after the resurrection we read in the Gospels that some doubted. Certainly faith in some of the apostles were much stronger than in others and this can be the same for any of us. Peter’s confession of faith was the turning point of his life and it can be for us as well when the eternal truths about God are more real to us and becomes for us a living faith.

It is certain Peter knew what he was saying but he still needed to be taught and to be corrected as confirmed in his Lord’s rebuke of him shortly after his own confession. Confession is important but more important is your own growth in your relatonship with Jesus which will depend on this correction and teaching by our Lord.

If one needs to look at the Trinity from the perspective of the Scriptures rather than from Tradition I would go right to the source and look to the Gospels. I will mention two sources that can confim the Trinitarian God by looking to the Baptism of Jesus and the Transfiguartion of Jesus. Words are not enough to satisfy some so the best answer can come from seeing. In both instances we can see the Trinity in action. We can even hear the voice of the Father in both stories. The Holy Spirit is there as well. This can teach us about the unity which the Trinity has and not one person of the Trinity acts on His own but together in unison and with love.

If you need a OT story look no further than the story of the three men who visited Abraham in Genesis. The Eastern Church sees in these three men a representation of the Trinity. St. Rebluv’s icon of the Trinity was painted from this perspective of the Genesis story. Any website can show you this painting when you click on Rebluv’s Trinity.

Well said brother. Probably that would what I have said except for the first part though I can understand your reasoning. I think you explain it well.

For those who believe it was Peter’s confession, would this be what we do in real life? I am saying, at least in my circle, I do not see this kind of thing being said publicly. I mean I cannot see the reality of it in practice. When we talk about confession, it is about confession of sin in the Sacrament. Maybe I miss something here though.

You picked good examples from the Gospels to support the Trinity. I learned something when you said, “Words are not enough to satisfy some so the best answer can come from seeing.” Have been thinking about this. We believe because we are Christians but can these examples sufficiently persuade a non-believer’s mind that they are portraying the Trinity indeed? The phrase ‘this is my Son’ is often said not to mean that the Son is literally God’s son or is the same as God. The Bible usage of the ‘son of God’ surely is never meant as how we use it for Jesus.

I checked St. Rebluv’s icon of the Trinity. It is a wonderful painting really. This is the first time I hear that the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre - to be interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.

God bless.

 

[TOmNossor]

We find a fair discussion in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

[W]e have a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) substantia-- this excludes accident; (b) completa-- it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or “aptitudinally” does not satisfy the definition; (c) per se subsistens–the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; (d) separata ab aliis–this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae–excludes all non-intellectual supposita.

I would have bet that I had read this long ago, but I think this time it hit me what is being said. The reason MIGHT be my increased exposure to Aristotelian meta-physics due to looking at Transubstantiation, but it might be that I just need to be hit a few times with the same thing (or I still might not understand)
Anyway, let me see if I can distill some of this.
R_C and TOm have a relationship. This relationship is not part of our “substantia.” This is the normal case for things in relation to one another. The pillar is not altered in its “substantia” because it is next to a bus one minute and next to a car a week later.
The divine relationships are just different. There relation is not accident but substantia. There are a few results from this, but this idea is what explains what I called your poetic language from post #4.
I want to offer two challenges to this (and remember we are at or beyond the limit of my metaphysics).

First, in post #11 I criticize the idea that postulating something illogical and then saying, “I mean God … illogical xyz” does not make that which is illogical somehow reasonable. Some theologians have suggested that God’s omnipotence extends to the point of making a square circle. I am fairly certain Thomas Aquinas is not among those theologians. I am not either. So how would you respond to the reason associated with “relations” not being part of “substantia” UNLESS the relations are divine? Added to the difficulty here is that there is a logic associated with defining relations as “accidents” as is clearly demonstrated by my pillar discussion (which of course is not mine at all but something I picked up from somewhere).

Second, for me the poetic force of your statement is PRECISELY in the fact that I know a self-reflective image I have of myself is not another being. So when we call Christ the self-reflective image of the Father, we enjoy the poetic force of the singularity of being evident in such words. But your Catholic Encyclopedia article points us straight away from such a thing by saying that this self-reflective image is totally different than any concept we have from forming self-reflecting images of ourself. And it is “totally different” in precisely the way that was giving your explanation poetic force.

I hope what I say above makes sense.
Charity, TOm

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I have seen people of religious conviction make assertions and stick to them without explanation and without evidence. Simply asserted.

I have seen some of these same people confronted with thoughts contrary to their assertions who have reacted with anger and indignation.

While others continue to simply assert the truth written in their hearts. A heart open to God’s grace- and as such, remain at peace in their simple assertion of truth: inviolable and invincible.

I have seen religious people who make assertions followed by violence and the sword should their beliefs be brought into question; into reason or into the light of truth tempered by reason.

I am of the third group: Jesus Christ is the one, true Lord and God of all and St. John the Baptist is His prophet. There is no greater prophet.

I’m sure there are other groups but I would view them all in light of the truth of Sacred Tradition; Sacred Scripture and Divine Revelation.

 

[TOmNossor]

R_C
I said:

“Consubstantial” is certainly a word I recognize from my study of the early church.
What do you mean by “Consubstantial?”
Would you say that you and I are “Consubstantial” or would you say that the only three “persons” who are consubstantial one with another are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? My reading of early church history suggests there is at least these two and maybe a third way of using this word (though sometimes I think two of them are really the same).
(There is absolutely a third way, but I should have said that there are at least two ways that are possible and some might try to say there is a third way that is possible, but the accepted third way -Explicitly denied by Constantine, is not a possibility)

You responded:

R_C:

You and I could not be consubstantial, because (as the previous post covers) you and I are distinct individuals.

R_C:
The word actually relates to the Greek homoousion, “of one essence”. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. The term homoousion or consubstantial - while not perfect - was enough to address his error, though it is rather obvious when we read of Christ speaking of the Son not doing anything on His own, but doing only what he sees the Father doing, and the Son and the Father addressing one another, and yet later we see Christ saying: “I and the Father are one”, and “just like you and I are one, Father”. That leaves no room for doubt on the unity of the Father and the Son in essence, and yet on the fact that in this unity they are distinct persons. Which is why some heretical doctrines only accept the Father while others only accept the Father and the Son.

Athenagoras (133-190) writes that Christians “are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity.”

Nicea decided that Homoousian was the only word that could sufficiently rule out the Arians confession. There was fear of using this word because of its modalist and materialistic history/connotation, but ultimately it was chosen. At least some of the Bishops and perhaps even Athanasius (who was not a bishop at the time) embraced Homoousian in its “generic” sense.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

Eusebius (the historian, not the one who refused to sign the Nicene confession) sent a note back to his church saying that Father and Son were declared “homoousian” and elucidated his remarks such that it is obvious Eusebius meant “homoousian” in the “generic” sense.

Augustine many years later absolutely used “homoousian” in the “nominal” sense. In this usage, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the only three “persons” who are one “homoousian” (hence my comment above). What being homoousain means to Augustine when he says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian AND their three personhood is not merely three modalities, I cannot ascertain.

The Council of Chalcedon (shortly after Augustine’s death) then used “homoousian” in its “generic” sense again when it said,
“consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood”
“ὁμοούσιοντῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιοντὸ****ν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα”

Well, truth be told there are actually folks who argue that the first half of the Chalcedon couplet is homoousian in the “numeric” sense and the second half is homoousian in the “generic” sense. I think such a position makes the Chalcedon authors into folks who intentionally deceived in their statement OR into folks who care almost none as to how one takes the two meanings. It is the very poor communication and/or the stuff of humor which I do not believe was the purpose of the creedal statement at Chalcedon. I think folks who demand that homoousian should be used in different senses at Chalcedon are reading their DEVELOPED theology back into the councils.

So, I do not agree with you when you say, “You and I could not be consubstantial, because (as the previous post covers) you and I are distinct individuals” I recognize that you have in mind the “nominal” sense of homoosuian. I do not believe the majority of Bishops at Nicea meant this term in the “nominal” sense. Certainly this term has been DEVELOPED such that it is embraced in the “nominal” sense, but Chalcedon demands that this developed understanding be qualified by saying, “well not ‘nominal’ in the second half of the Chalcedon couplet.” This is a lot to accept.
Charity, TOm

P.S. I can neither speak nor read Greek. I have seen “ousia” written enough in Greek characters that I just read it as ousia, but that is not the case for homoousian or any other set of Greek characters. Just so nobody thinks I am claiming to be a Greek scholar or anything!!!

 

[Pepband_Mom]

There is only 1 God but not 3 Persons who are God is a very old heresy. ECF tackled that numerous times; see William Jurgens “The Faith of the Early Fathers” & read it for yourself. Heresies tend rear their ugly heads in history over & over. If it works @ one point, why would the evil one change it. there’s always another set of ignorant people at any particular point in history who will fall for it all over again.

Jesus’ Body is Human, His NATURE is DIVINE. Our souls come from God & of divine origin but we do not have a DIVINE NATURE, right? Jesus’ nature did not or COULD NOT CHANGE IF He changed, then He would have been IMPERFECT, which means God would NOT be God. “I changeth NOT” He says.

Mary gave birth to a WHOLE person with a soul, a hylomorphic being (now that Christ Mass is just around the corner), not just a human being with a soul like ours but one who’s had the same UNCHANGING DIVINE NATURE from the Beginning as the WORD or the LOGOS, who is One with the Father “I and the Father are One”.

Jesus says “I AM” 7 times (the perfect number, the # of God) and is the WORD/LOGOS made flesh who dwelt among us. God HIMSELF came down from heaven & Jesus is & was in the beginning WITH God as the Logos. God spoke His Word/Logos, namely Jesus, and the world came into existence as a result did it not? This resulted in a near stoning as to equate oneself with God at that time would set one up for the penalty of stoning.

Realizing God’s ways are as far above man’s ways as the heavens are above the earth &
accepting the concept of MYSTERY is just something we HAVE TO ACCEPT like it or not

 

[TOmNossor]

As for the Bible not demanding His divinity simply because of the name Son of God:

• because He was asked in the name of God to admit if He was the Son of God and in truth He acknowledged that He was Him, Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and indeed they had time and again told him that they wanted him put to death for a very simple reason:

The teachers of the Law understood very well what Christ was saying, though He never said: I am God. Even without the title Son of God or Son of Man or Messiah, his works spoke for himself: above all else, his authority to remit sins. There was no doubt that he had that authority, and yet the teachers of the law were baffled because, indeed, “only God can forgive sins.”

Even in what Christ did in life, when we read the Scriptures we find that these are things that the prophets spoke of as God Himself doing. Ex: his walking on water and calming down the storms. The prophets in Psalms clearly address He who does this as God. And the prophet Isaiah spelled it out very clearly, ruling out the subsequent heresies of Christ being either a prophet or an angel:

Ultimately the fact that Thomas addressed Christ as Lord and God and Christ accepted the title and said: “you say this because you have believed, but blessed are those who will believe without having seen” is a clear acceptance of His divinity - else, like the angels and the apostles did, He would have mentioned that He was only a messenger of God.

I think I have opened up a lot of stuff in my response before this quote. The concept of “Son of God” is not simple in the Bible. We are to become sons of God via the adoption. We are in a certain sense sons of God even before being reborn. And the Old Testament has other references.
I do agree with you that Christ left no doubt in the minds of His accusers that He was claiming divinity.
I think “sola scriptura” is a lot more complex of a position than I as a rejecter of “sola scriptura” once thought, but from the Bible alone reasonable people have been coming to different conclusions for thousands of years. I think many but not all of these different conclusions can be traced to different starting points and different presuppositions, but I do not think the Bible is a theologically precise book (and I do not think God intended for it to be). So even if we 2-4 found a presupposition-less people, I do not think they would come up with the same theology solely from the Bible. The CCC is FAR BETTER at defining a singular systematic theology than is the Bible. Even sola scriptura Christians with their “statements of faith” acknowledge that the Bible does not produce a single theology.
There is much here for the Catholic concerning “material sufficiency” vs. “formal sufficiency.”
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

This is a very different and yet very related topic, worth of a separate thread! To understand this, we must address what we call the hypostatic union of the human nature and the divine nature in Jesus, the Son of God who took flesh and became true man. “God became what He was not”, and yet in doing so the Trinity was not enriched in any way, for it is already perfect. It is very complex. Ultimately we are becoming one with the Son by partaking in the flesh - the Son, who is Bridegroom, gives His body to each and everyone of us (collectively, the Bride), and “the two become one flesh”. As such, we partake in the divine nature, becoming truly one with the Son, one mystical body of which the Son is Head and we are members.

But in this there is no consubstantiality, just like there is no consubstantiality between the human nature and the divine nature in Jesus, but, rather, a hypostatic union, or “subsistence of the natures in one person”. We truly become the Son. St. Paul understood this very clearly when he wrote: “your body is not your own” and “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”.

We could here branch unto three entirely different discussions: one on the hypostatic union, a second one on the fulfillment of this unity in the partaking of the bread which truly becomes the body of Christ (and thus we could dwell into the theology of the transubstantiation), and a third one on the nature of Satan’s temptations and their underlying pattern (that is, how his temptations rely on enticing men with things that God has already planned to give them - ex he tempts Christ offering all the kingdoms on earth, he tempts Eve offering her to become like God, both things he could not give but God already had intended to give).

I think I will just respond here with the hopes of not starting many interesting discussions at the moment.
I have holy envy for the doctrine of “the real presence of Christ” in the Eucharist. I think it is the most clear read of John 6, and it is a beautiful and awe inspiring teaching.
I think the “hypostatic union” is a difficult doctrine built upon the ABSOLUTE distinction between creator and creature and I do not think it necessary based upon the teachings in the Bible.
And, while I reject a number of aspects of deification teachings plastered upon me, I consider myself an adherent of a “full deification.”
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

I reject a number of aspects of deification teachings plastered upon me,

Tom, you might find it useful to change your “religion” statement to “Mormon heretic”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it I think the “hypostatic union” is a difficult doctrine built upon the ABSOLUTE distinction between creator and creature and I do not think it necessary based upon the teachings in the Bible.

The Church doesn’t create new Doctrine, they define the always existing, but not always immediately known, Truth of Jesus Christ as it is revealed to His Church by those sent by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person Trinity. The why is, always in the moment conflict with Christology gone astray, persecution, or some other heresy, the message is sent forward to remember, some of the greatest heresies and trials the Church has faced. The continuity of the Church has remained for 2000 years, there is no reason to believe otherwise. The passing thought that one might see things differently or have a different kind of opinion, is really not new. In fact its common that many do not like what the Church has to say, the Church does not do likes and dislikes, just truth. That which I cannot wrap my head around, I digress to the Church in its prudence and wisdom. The common mistake is souls say; “I don’t believe that”, when in fact they do not “know” this. Its better to say I am not completely understanding than I do not believe.

There is not a reason to believe the indefectibility of the Church in not intact. I’m so confident of this that I believe if it wasn’t the Truth then we can all write this off as a fairy tale. The striking similarity in all the Apostolic Church’s in the consecration of the Eucharist, the mysteries of the Church remain…that is Jesus Christ, the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

The CCC is indeed a beautiful document giving solid explanations that requires those with a sound bite mentality to spend the time to digest & ponder. The Faith is far beyond deep, it’s eternal & Divine - no one will never know the mind of God - His ways are as far from man’s ways as the heavens are above the earth.