Thoughts on the Trinity

[TOmNossor]

And knowing you are a former Catholic, and most former Catholics who are now Mormon I pick up on.

I really do not know what you are saying here.

I am also finding out Mormon apologists are going over more and more of our teachings, back to the early church fathers, to ironically prove that Joseph Smith was correct.

I am reading some Mormon re-writes and re-interpretations on Catholic thought.

Is it the intent of Mormon apologists to glean all our teachings and then overlay them with Mormon concepts of becoming gods, to interject such teachings into ours, and then now with the Mormon temple coming up, and reflecting as much as possible Catholic manner of teaching and reasoning, to simply re-create Mormonism to subtly contradict Catholicism in time…so then people are confused?..and then decide there is not much difference between Mormonism or Catholicism?, and the people are so nice, why not join us instead? We are not much different and we use all the early church fathers, and we have this idea of the Trinity that has evolved and progressed, that our baptisms are valid???
I think there is much in the ECF that do show the Joseph Smith was correct. Jerusha seems to think there is enough there that he is exploring the possibility that Joseph Smith read Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim.
I think there is much in the ECF that does not align well with the concept of the Maxim of St. Vincent de Lerins that most Catholic apologist seem to think makes Catholicism true (and is quite prevalent within the professional and amateur apologists at CA).
I think that few of the folks who use the ECF here have read them (I do not suggest I am the exception to this, but I try to make sure when I say something about what the ECF taught that I can back it up with words the ECF wrote).

So, if I says something that refutes the ideas offered by a Catholic and misuses the ECF, then just show me. Claiming that it happens doesn’t make it true.
I have been told on this thread that me and another poster could not be homoousian.
I have seen on other threads things I thought were wrong.

I have the impression that Mormon apologists already know that they have had ongoing changing ideas about their religion, while always claiming they are the only ones who have a creed, albeit always changing, that is not an abomination.

If I show that Catholicism CHANGED then Catholicism is false.
If you show Mormonism CHANGED, then I may or may not agree with you, but it is not what I would call a “fatal flaw.” Mormonism does not claim that it will not receive further revelation. Nor does Mormonism claim infallible leaders or councils. Mormonism does not even claim that our scriptures are inerrant. That does not mean there is no evidence against the truth claims of Mormonism, just that that particular line of investigation will not have the same impact upon Mormonism as it does upon Catholicism.
I have not researched the temple in Rome. Nobody asked me, but I personally am not scandalized by the symbol of the cross (or the symbol of the Angel Moroni).
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I am reading some Mormon re-writes and re-interpretations on Catholic thought.

Is it the intent of Mormon apologists to glean all our teachings and then overlay them with Mormon concepts of becoming gods, to interject such teachings into ours, and then now with the Mormon temple coming up, and reflecting as much as possible Catholic manner of teaching and reasoning, to simply re-create Mormonism to subtly contradict Catholicism in time…so then people are confused?..and then decide there is not much difference between Mormonism or Catholicism?, and the people are so nice, why not join us instead? We are not much different and we use all the early church fathers, and we have this idea of the Trinity that has evolved and progressed, that our baptisms are valid???
I assure you that I do not have such power. If I had such power, Catholic Answers Message Board would not be my first choice of where to learn what aspects of Catholicism I should appropriate into Mormonism.
I will not say that my study of Catholicism and other religions has not impacted my theology. I am a LDS, but I intend to embrace the concepts that I think best represent the truth about God and … Since I believe God restored the church through Joseph Smith, I place a great deal of weight upon the revelations contained in our 4 books of scripture, but questions like, “Is Justification forensic followed by Sanctification OR are Justification & Sanctification a process?” are open for the LDS who cares about such things. BTW (related to this) I embrace the New Perspective on Paul which is a scholarly movement that began with Jews and Protestants, but a small number of Catholic apologist have recognized how powerful it is in demonstrating the problems with the Reformation.

Here is an example of what I try to do sometimes. To my somewhat BIASED read of your above words, you have condemned the idea that I might come here, learn TRUTH, adopt it, and call it part of my theology as a LDS.

I just don’t see how anyone can come into another religion, draw from it, and then stake it as their own with its context, intent and purpose compromised and then made for another purpose…to become as a god, which totally violates the will of God, and is the work of the Serpent.

Are you unaware that Catholicism drew from paganism (not to mention Judaism)?
Now you can say, “Never happened!” Then I will quote Cardinal Newman saying that it did. Then I would might be able to find a few examples. Or you can say, well when Catholicism does it, it is different or …

Now, I was about to post to you about CCC460. It is about more than the Eucharist. If you do not believe, "Christ participated in your humanity so that you can participate in His divinity and that Christ is homoousian with you in His humanity and homoousian with God in His divinity, I think you have missed the message of the ECF.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm,

The term homoousion when applied to God was not used by the Greek-speaking Christians in a generic sense. The ousia of God is completely ineffable and transcends all being and essential differences, which precludes it from being either a genus or species. The term homoousion serves not to signify how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ontologically one (numerically, generically, etc.), but only attests to the fact of their oneness.

Hello,
I am glad I didn’t just miss this. Thank you for your response.
I said that there is a “numeric” sense that Homoousian can mean. This is how Augustine used the term when he said that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were one ousia (homoousia).
I said there was a “generic” sense that Homoousian can mean. In the generic sense one could say that Jesus Christ in his humanity (remember the hypostatic union) and I are homoousian. This would not be saying that we were numerically one.
Are you saying homoousian CANNOT be used in the “generic” sense by a Greek speaking father?
Are you saying that homoousian could be used in the “generic” sense, but no Greek speaking father ever did or would when referring to the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I see that you are an Easter Orthodox. From my interaction with internet EOs, I thought many EOs would be quite opposed to Augustine’s use of homoousian.
Anyway, if you can clarify, I will respond. If there is a way to define “generic” sense and “numeric” sense; I think that would be good. I can define “generic” by analogy, but I am not quite sure what to say for “numeric.”
Charity,
TOm

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Tom…

I just got my son off for the day and now I go back to work, and into the night. I am not free until tomorrow…and it depends on how rough the night is. Tuesday’s are getting better…and hopefully I will respond.

First off…I can almost always pick up on a former Catholic at CAF because a former Catholic who has education has a sense of reasoning and thought that I don’t find in other Mormons. Former Catholics retain this sense of reflection and contemplation and reasoning…could this be the effects of Trinitarian baptism?

You cannot wash off baptism, but you can refuse Christ.

It is all about documentation and context.

I think all your questions and searching are in the Eucharist. You come into the eternal life of the Eucharist, it will answer so much for you.

I would also add, it is about authority. Christ is the one Who chooses the priest, not the priest choosing his vocation. And all of them who are authentically called, all say they are NOT WORTHY of this calling, and are so happy, and I am referencing here the Latin rite priests who are celibate, not the Eastern Orthodox.

The office of the papacy holds the keys to the blood.

Our faith is based on Jesus’ life, His Body, His blood, His teachings, that are documented by the Apostles who witnessed Him and were among Him for over 3 years.

But I will be back.

God bless you!

 

[Jerusha]

I think there is much in the ECF that do show the Joseph Smith was correct. Jerusha seems to think there is enough there that he is exploring the possibility that Joseph Smith read Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim.

[John Lawrence] Mosheim’]s Church History, 1 Vol

“seems to think”?

He donated a volume to the Nauvoo Library.

 

[TOmNossor]

“seems to think”?

He donated a volume to the Nauvoo Library.

Should I consider this a confirmation of my statement.
I should not have said, “seems to think,” but “Jerusha thinks …”
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I would also add, it is about authority. Christ is the one Who chooses the priest, not the priest choosing his vocation. And all of them who are authentically called, all say they are NOT WORTHY of this calling, and are so happy, and I am referencing here the Latin rite priests who are celibate, not the Eastern Orthodox.

The office of the papacy holds the keys to the blood.
Kathleen,
Thanks for your post.
I understand well TIME. We get a gift of 24 hours each day (until we are called Home).
I think AUTHORITY is a huge area for LDS and Catholic discussion.
I do not believe that Peter passed Christ’s authority to Linus, Cletus, Clement, …
I do not believe that the earliest local leaders thought of their authority as that authority possessed by the apostles.

Charity, TOm

P.S.
I personally would not be unwilling to be a FAIR apologist. When Protestants say I am very Catholic in my thought it is intended in a derogatory way. When I was called a “FAIR Apologist” it was meant in a derogatory way IMO.
I have not refused to deal with any criticisms, I just choose what I can spend my time on. If you really think your criticism is so powerful, take it to a LDS board. Be respectful. You will get some uncharitable ****, but you will get some responses. Better yet, search for “xyz AND anti-mormon” on Google. That is how I explored anti-Catholic ****.

To those who say that I refuse to respond to criticism, I do not agree.

 

[Jerusha]

:tiphat: With Charity, Jerusha.

 

[TOmNossor]

I said:

TOmNossor:
I think there is much in the ECF that do show the Joseph Smith was correct. Jerusha seems to think there is enough there that he is exploring the possibility that Joseph Smith read Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim.
I should have said,
“I think there is much in the ECF that do show that Joseph Smith was correct. Jerusha THINKS there is enough there that he is exploring the possibility that that Joseph Smith read Institutes of Ecclesiastical History by Mosheim.”

Jerusha,
I have no reason to doubt that Joseph Smith possessed and donated Mosheim (but I have really not looked into it).
I also think that Joseph was quite bright and AFTER producing the BOM found great truth through STUDY. I have not read Mosheim. I am reading:
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21) by Father Leo D. Davis
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Christianity builds on Judaism because Christ is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. No doubt, Jews disagree, but disagreement is not the point.

To make the comparison of Mormons using the writings of ECFs, you would need to claim that Mormonism is the fulfillment of Christianity. Since Christianity is Person, Jesus Christ, you’re making a claim that Jesus needed to be fulfilled?



Further, we don’t rewrite Jewish history, as Mormonism strives to do with Catholic history. Mormonism relies on make believe and conspiracy theories. Cherrypicking ECF writings. The problem is, the ECF were CATHOLIC, and everything they wrote is in a CATHOLIC context. To claim there is a Mormon context is, as I said, make believe.

As for pagan influences, I’m kind of astounded that this would even be made a comparison. First, Judaism and Paganism are two entirely different things. Judaism is not a false religion. Second, the Church has always evangelized by turning people and cultures to Christ. Cultural traditions that are prevalent among a society can be, and are, turned to Christ. This doesn’t make Catholicism pagan, it makes the culture Christianized.

ECF writings can’t be “Mormonized”, since they are historical documents containing historical facts, including the beliefs held by its writers. Coming around hundreds or thousands of years and trying to Mormonize history is dubious, at best.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you saying homoousian CANNOT be used in the “generic” sense by a Greek speaking father?
Are you saying that homoousian could be used in the “generic” sense, but no Greek speaking father ever did or would when referring to the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The second. The application of the term homoousion to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the affirmation that they are different hypostases or subsistences is not meant to make the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit particular members of a species or genus of divinity, represented by the essence of God in the same manner that Peter and Paul are two hypostases in which the human essence subsists. These terms are used because they help approximate the Trinitarian mystery, but they do not define it. The manner by which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one is unknown, although we do know that the Father, being the origin of both, is the cause of this unity. Similarly, hypostasis is not used to denote how the three differ, but only that they differ, and that their difference is a true ontological difference, against the doctrine of the modalists and sabellians who taught that they are merely illusory roles taken on by one God in the history of human salvation, like actors in a play.

As for your question earlier in this thread on the Chalcedonian definition, I answer that the term homoousion was used differently depending on the subject matter. When applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, its intention is as above, only to state that the Son is one with the Father, sharing in His eternal and impenetrable inner being with the Holy Spirit. When applied to the consubstantiality of the Son with us, its meaning is that the complete human nature assumed by the Son is consubstantial with us in the manner of sharing the same species of humanity (the ‘generic’ sense of the term). The implicit difference between how the term is used in reference to God and in reference to the incarnation comes from the fact that positive or cataphatic thinking is applicable to creation, but not to the unknowable shared inner life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The consubstantiality of the Son with us can be known cataphatically, because we know that the Son became a true and real man (not an illusion of a man), and therefore became consubstantial with us as Peter is consubstantial with Paul, whereas the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is unknowable in its manner, only reflecting the revealed truth that the Father and Son are truly one from all eternity.

 

[TOmNossor]

although we do know that the Father, being the origin of both, is the cause of this unity.

Thank you for your response. I will try to defend the idea that “homoousian” is used in its “generic” sense when I have some more time.
Until then, I agree with what you wrote that I just quoted. I think it is the clearest read of the Bible and the ECF before Augustine. In fact, I think the East preserved this in many ways.
Do you believe that the Catholic Church has REJECTED this truth and now holds that the oneness of God is predicated upon the unitive substance not the oneness of God the Father?
Charity, TOm

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you for your response. I will try to defend the idea that “homoousian” is used in its “generic” sense when I have some more time.
Until then, I agree with what you wrote that I just quoted. I think it is the clearest read of the Bible and the ECF before Augustine. In fact, I think the East preserved this in many ways.
Do you believe that the Catholic Church has REJECTED this truth and now holds that the oneness of God is predicated upon the unitive substance not the oneness of God the Father?
Charity, TOm

I would not say that of Western triadology (which is basically held in common amongst both Protestants and Roman Catholics), in general, no. Aquinas, if I recall, understands the Divine nature as identical to both the Father and Paternity, and the Son and the Holy Spirit he understands as internal processions within the essence of God. Others like Rahner and Barth (to throw in a famous Protestant theologian), reject the psychological model which leads to the internalizing of the Trinity, but insist upon an identity between God as he is known to himself and God as he is revealed, making the Father unquestionably the source of the Son (and both the Father and the Son the source of the Holy Spirit) in eternity. One of them (I forget if it is Rahner or Barth), even goes as far as arguing that whenever God is mentioned in the New Testament, the term refers to the Father. That being said, in both triadological systems, either East or West, unity applies to all three: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God and are truly one, even though the Father is confessed to be the cause of that unity.

 

[TOmNossor]

Cavaradossi,
Thank you for your second reply. I am still exploring what I think the development of the Trinity is as it relates to the Oneness, so thank you for your answer, but I will return to your previous post.

Let me see if I can offer why I think Nicea understood “homoousian” in the “generic” sense and not the “numeric.” Then you can tell me why you disagree.
First, from JND Kelley, Early Christians Doctrines:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. ‘of the same nature’, was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand ‘of the same nature’ in the ‘generic’ sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic * theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word οὺσία could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such…Indeed, the doctrine of numerical identity of substance has been widely assumed to have been the specific teaching of the Nicene Council. Nevertheless there are the strongest possible reasons for doubting this. The chief of these is the history of the term ὁμοούσιος itself, for in both its secular and its theological usage prior to Nicaea it always conveyed, primarily at any rate, the ‘generic’ sense.*
Kelley then lists a number of pre-Nicene uses of the word that are “generic” in nature. The one I was most familiar with was Origen, who Catholics have a love/hate relationship with; but Kelly’s point was that this word was typically used in the “generic” sense before Nicea. He concludes:
JND Kelley, Early Christians Doctrines:

In view of all this it is paradoxical to suppose that the Nicene fathers suddenly began employing what was after all a familiar enough word in an entirely novel and unexpected sense. The only reasonable inference is that in selecting it for insertion in their creed they intended it to underline, formally and explicitly at any rate, their conviction that the Son was fully God, in the sense of sharing the same divine nature as His Father.

Kelley then talks about the future questions and the shifting of the meaning of the word.

Next let me offer Catholic Scholar, Father Don Davis, ["]The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology]("file:///C:/Users/terosson/Documents/personal/LDS%20Books/Discussions%20On%20Net/The%20First%20Seven%20Ecumenical%20Councils%20(325-787):%20Their%20History%20and%20Theology%20(Theology%20and%20Life%20Series%2021)%20[Paperback) (Theology and Life Series 21) by Father Leo D. Davis:

However, homoousios was at the time a notoriously slippery word and could have three principal meanings. First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals. Secondly, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay. Constantine himself explained that “homoousios was not used in the sense of bodily affections, for the Son did not derive His existence from the Father by means of division or severance, since an immaterial, intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily affection. These things must be understood as bearing a divine and ineffable signification.” The point was that the third meaning of homoousios, with its connotations of materiality was not the meaning used in the creed. That left the two previous meanings. It seems that the Council, intent on stressing the equality of the Son with the Father, had the first meaning explicitly in mind. Father and Son are homoousioi in that they are equally divine. But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council.

I believe Davis is heavily influenced by Kelley (in fact I believe he largely updated Kelley’s work with modern scholarship). His statement that “but implicit in their statement was numerical identity” seems like a bald assertion to me. Let me offer a little from Athanasius since Father Davis references him. I have previously thought that Athanasius moved towards the “numeric” use as he dealt with more and more sophisticated Arians / Semi-Arians, but shortly after the council he wrote this.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

Cavaradossi,
Thank you for your second reply. I am still exploring what I think the development of the Trinity is as it relates to the Oneness, so thank you for your answer, but I will return to your previous post.

Let me see if I can offer why I think Nicea understood “homoousian” in the “generic” sense and not the “numeric.” Then you can tell me why you disagree.
First, from JND Kelley, Early Christians Doctrines:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. ‘of the same nature’, was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand ‘of the same nature’ in the ‘generic’ sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic * theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word οὺσία could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such…Indeed, the doctrine of numerical identity of substance has been widely assumed to have been the specific teaching of the Nicene Council. Nevertheless there are the strongest possible reasons for doubting this. The chief of these is the history of the term ὁμοούσιος itself, for in both its secular and its theological usage prior to Nicaea it always conveyed, primarily at any rate, the ‘generic’ sense.*
Kelley then lists a number of pre-Nicene uses of the word that are “generic” in nature. The one I was most familiar with was Origen, who Catholics have a love/hate relationship with; but Kelly’s point was that this word was typically used in the “generic” sense before Nicea. He concludes:
JND Kelley, Early Christians Doctrines:

In view of all this it is paradoxical to suppose that the Nicene fathers suddenly began employing what was after all a familiar enough word in an entirely novel and unexpected sense. The only reasonable inference is that in selecting it for insertion in their creed they intended it to underline, formally and explicitly at any rate, their conviction that the Son was fully God, in the sense of sharing the same divine nature as His Father.

Kelley then talks about the future questions and the shifting of the meaning of the word.

Next let me offer Catholic Scholar, Father Don Davis, ["]The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology]("file:///C:/Users/terosson/Documents/personal/LDS%20Books/Discussions%20On%20Net/The%20First%20Seven%20Ecumenical%20Councils%20(325-787):%20Their%20History%20and%20Theology%20(Theology%20and%20Life%20Series%2021)%20[Paperback) (Theology and Life Series 21) by Father Leo D. Davis:

However, homoousios was at the time a notoriously slippery word and could have three principal meanings. First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals. Secondly, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay. Constantine himself explained that “homoousios was not used in the sense of bodily affections, for the Son did not derive His existence from the Father by means of division or severance, since an immaterial, intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily affection. These things must be understood as bearing a divine and ineffable signification.” The point was that the third meaning of homoousios, with its connotations of materiality was not the meaning used in the creed. That left the two previous meanings. It seems that the Council, intent on stressing the equality of the Son with the Father, had the first meaning explicitly in mind. Father and Son are homoousioi in that they are equally divine. But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council.

I believe Davis is heavily influenced by Kelley (in fact I believe he largely updated Kelley’s work with modern scholarship). His statement that “but implicit in their statement was numerical identity” seems like a bald assertion to me. Let me offer a little from Athanasius since Father Davis references him.
Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I have previously thought that Athanasius moved towards the “numeric” use as he dealt with more and more sophisticated Arians / Semi-Arians, but shortly after the council he wrote this.

From Athanasius (De Synodis (Councils of Arminum and Seleucia), 41 - NPNF 4.472.):

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential (homoousian), must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute about one word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, ‘Coessential’ (homoousian)…But since they say that He is ‘of the essence’ and ‘Like-in-essence,’(homoiousian) what do they signify by these but ‘Coessential?’ (homoousian)

So, if Athanasius at and immediately following Nicea thought the mark of orthodoxy was the word “homoousian” taken in the “numeric” sense, would he really be willing to call those who objected to the word and used “homoIousian.” I suspect you would agree that homoousian in the generic sense is MUCH MUCH closer to homoIousian than is the numeric sense. Had Athanasius thought the numeric sense was the mark of orthodoxy how could he possibly call those who professed “homoIousian” brothers?

Finally, this from Eusebius (as quoted by Socrates - Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, I.8 – NPNF 2 Series, vol. II, pp. 22-23)

Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions “of the substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father” Whereupon questions were put forth and answers, and the meaning of these terms was dearly defined; when it was generally admitted that ousias

(of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to us to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do we cavil at the word “homoousios” hating regard to peace, and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter. On the same grounds we admitted also the expression” begotten, not made”: “for made,” said they, “is a term applicable in consequently he is no creature like those which were made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.” Thus also the declaration that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father” having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, nor by abscission nor by any change of the Father’s substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these things. That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son.

I do not believe Eusebius intended homoousian in the “numeric sense” either.

Now, you commented about Chalcedon. Somewhat unrelated to the above is this from Chalcedon:
“consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood”
“ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα”

I am understanding your position to be that the fathers at Chalcedon used homoousian with the Father in the “numeric” sense and homoousian with us in the “generic” sense without any clarification. I find this problematic. Surely serious folks such as the Bishops at Chalcedon would not use the same words with different meanings across a simple couplet without at least explaining themselves. Why do I have this wrong?
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Language difference, translation difficulties, semantics. Those are angels on a pin arguments that I don’t participate in. Call me blonde, I don’t care. These arguments of fine points of semantics are exactly where Mormons take off on their speculative theology.

 

[Cavaradossi]

TOm,

I think you might not have fully understood me the first time around. The East, since the time of St. Basil, has never understood homoousios to signify being numerically the same. To be numerically the same would be to be homohypostatos, not homoousios. That being said, it is implicitly understood that these terms are applied to God conceptually. The one ousia of God is not understood to be a genus of divinity, and the three hypostases are not understood to be numerically distinct members of a genus. I think you perhaps misread my explanation of Eastern theology. When it is said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, the word signifies neither numeric nor generic sameness, because God utterly transcends these categories of being. We confess that the Son and the Father are ontologically the same, and confess that they are ontologically different, signifying that they are ontologically the same with the term homoousios, and confessing that they are ontologically different by saying that they are different hypostases. This is a basic and unwritten assumption in Eastern theology, that terms are predicated of God differently than they are predicated of creation, lest we should make God a creature too, by confessing Him to be one genus with three numerically distinct individuals within it. This is the analogy that we use to conceptualize God, yes, but it is not how we confess God actually to be, because God’s innermost being is unknowable. Thus we stay strictly to the deposit of faith, remaining faithful to Scriptural revelation and the liturgical tradition that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three and distinct, and at the same time are paradoxically one God, to be worshipped with the same act of worship and to be glorified together with one act of glorification.

With Chalcedon the issue is not that homoousios could mean either numeric or generic sameness, because by this point, homoousios came clearly only to carry the connotation of generic sameness in the East (where Chalcedon was held). The issue is that, as I detailed above, there is an implicit assumption not mentioned that language is not predicated of God in the same way as it is of creation. Thus, saying that the Son is one in substance with humanity definitely carries the generic meaning, because it comments on the created nature, which the Son assumed, and this created nature, born of a Virgin, is the same species and genus as we are. Saying that the Son is one in substance with the Father, however, does not carry either the precise meaning of being the same generically, or numerically, because it comments on the divine nature, which is ineffable. Instead, it only comments on the fact that the Father and Son are one, without explaining the category (generic, numeric, etc.) of their oneness, as God transcends all of these categories which are known to the human mind.

 

[Jerusha]

^2000 points

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly, and at this point is when First principle, thus procession comes into terminology and analogy such as the Living Water. And The Living Body and Blood.