User talk:Pfortuny/Trinity/Archive1

a) In the "Three Persons" I'd add more "explanation", if possible: as it is it only explains "differences with other beliefs".


 * More "explanation" added

b) "This communion with the Father is the goal of the Christian faith, and is eternal life. It is acheived through God's union with human nature, in Jesus Christ who although fully God, humanly died for sinners to purchase their redemption; and this forgiveness and friendship with God is made accessible through the gift to the church of the Holy Spirit, who raised Christ from the dead, and who, being God, knows God intimately and leads and empowers the Christian to fulfill the will of God. Thus, this doctrine touches on every aspect of the trinitarian Christian's faith and life; and that accounts for why it has been so earnestly contended for, throughout Christian history, despite the difficulty inherent in explaining the doctrine."
 * I like it but I think it must seem rather obscure for non-believers?
 * A problem throughout the article.


 * This point is illustrated in Rublev's icon of the Trinity, shown at the top of the article. The communion between and among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is represented by the three figures sitting at a table. We, the viewers of the icon, are invited to join them at the table in the same fellowship. Note that the side of the table nearest the viewer is unoccupied, waiting for us to sit at it, figuratively speaking of course. Worth including in some form?? Wesley

c) "the common conception is a profoundly mistaken one, which thinks of the Father as the God of the Old Testament, who talks to and through Christ in the New Testament"
 * Find a better wording.
 * Reconstructed to more clearly indicate a common error.

d) "These terms are employed in an effort to expand upon the economical subbordination, implied by the genitive of terms like "Father of", "Son of", and "Spirit of". While orthodox trinitarianism rejects ontological subordination, it affirms that the Father has a monarchial relation to which the Son and Spirit submit themselves - the willing subject from which the mission of the Breath and Word originate; and yet, this language is hemmed in with qualifications so severe that the analogy in view is easily lost, and is a source of perpetual controversy."
 * Meaning of orthodox (or should it be Orthodox).
 * Father: Principium totius Trinitatis. (?)
 * It would be so nice to find a common expression! :)
 * Yes it would!

e) My personal interest: how do Orthodox """"differentiate"""" the Son's procession from the Holy Spirit's?
 * Maybe Wesley has the words you are looking for.
 * Look at the Athanasian Creed, lines 21-23 in the Wikipedia article. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, while the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. These are deliberately not defined too precisely, but different words are used simply to indicate that being begotten is different from procession; if we don't know more than this, then we should not say more than this, lest we stray into error by attempting to be too precise.
 * Did not recall the Athanasian Creed, you are right. But hence "of the Father and of the Son" (?) I -obviously- do not know Orthodox theology, but then of the Father and of the Son is properly Orthodox? Then what is the difference with Catholic dogma? I want to know, I am not trying to discuss, really. Pfortuny 08:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Good question. Can't say for sure... I'll guess and say that yes it's orthodox, and that saying the Holy Spirit is "of the Father and of the Son" isn't quite the same as saying the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son". Don't ask me what the difference is exactly. Of course, with all these small tweaks in verbiage, what really matters is what you mean by it, what you're trying to say. And the difference with the Catholic dogma over the filioque clause is only partly about the change in wording; it's just as much about the way they changed the creed unilaterally on the basis of the Pope's authority alone, when the Third Ecumenical Council forbade making any further changes to that particular creed. I know that North American Orthodox and Roman Catholic bishops are meeting periodically to discuss, among other things, whether they really mean anything different by including or not including the filioque clause in the creed. Apparently that's not an easy question for them to answer. I'll let them figure it out. :-) I do think it would be easier for them to agree on that subject if it weren't so tied to the extent of the Pope's authority, something they are much less likely to agree on. Wesley 20:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. As long as we can say the Athanasian and the Apostles' Creed together, I think we are in the good way of Ecumenism, aren't we? Thanks for the explanations.
 * Didn't know anything about the prohibition to change the creed, I am getting a broader picture of the Schism. Have you got a good link on it? Pfortuny 20:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

f) A bit long for my taste, but it might be necessary.


 * It's not ready for prime-time; I'm just plopping a glob of clay on the wheel, for you to work on. Thank you for your interaction with it, which is good.  I'm done for the present, and I'll keep an eye on your progress in fixing the problems you point out.  Mkmcconn 23:34, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll be off for the week-end. YOur (Mkmcconn and Wesley) work is going on quite well, as I see it. Pfortuny 16:43, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)