Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer
We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.
Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.
He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.
Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.
When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.
This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.
It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.
These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.
As a Christian, I can guarantee you, I have never heard that Jesus Christ was an only child or that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I posted valid reasons why this cannot be so. I assumed this was something you, as a Catholic were taught and you believed. I as a Christian was never taught that and I have never believed it.
So as you say...Spare me the victimhood game. Then cut the crap.
"And where did that Bible come from? Did it write itself? Did Jesus instruct His disciples to write down the events during His lifetime?"
I've already addressed that.
It was inspired by God and through various men and women written. IN a previous reply I cite the verses. It certainly wasn't inspired by the Catholic church! LOL!!!
God knows precisely what He is doing and what He wants us to do and believe. He doesn't need sinners thwarting eyes to fabricated beliefs that violate His teachings.
Thank you.
With all due respect, I'd like you to list in great detail what tradition(s), not found in Holy Scripture, that are necessary for knowledge of how God has given us the gift of salvation through Christ.
I eagerly anticpate your response.
Let me help you out.
NO WHERE!
So by your description in your answer there has NEVER been disagreement in what certain scripture means w/in the Catholic Church...most interesting...
with all due respect, what traditions that are not found in Holy Scripture are necessary for salvation?
Thanks for the respect. I was speaking specifically of the Holy Trinity. A doctrine that is denied by some churchs. Such as Jehovah Witness, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals. They will use Scripture to prove that there is no Trinity, and/or that Jesus is not God.
But Christianity also has the witness of the Early Church and what they believed and taught. These writings defend against the Arian and other heresies. That is why I say that using the Bible alone to argue for the Trinity doctrine may be ineffective. I do think that the Trinity and Christ's divinity.can be shown to be scriptural. But why not use the witness of those who learned from the Apostles or their students.
I was not speaking about the gift of salvation through Christ. That I would argue is very clear in Scripture. Both in the NT and the OT Psalms and Prophets.
However it is good to have arguments from outside of Scripture when dealing with people who do not regard the Bible as inspired and inerrant.
"The reason it didn't take you hundreds of years to figure it out is because the Church had already defined it for non-Catholics."
Again, I speak for myself. It's CLEARLY in the Bible for ANYONE to read and accept. THAT is what I did. I didn't look to the "church". I simply read it in the Bible. I NEVER take the word of man to heart. I have to see the truth myself.
"It didn't take the Church hundreds of years to figure it out either. They already knew it, but had to set down definitions to combat heresies, such as the Arian heresy."
Heresies will happen regardless of what "is written". It is God who inspired the writing of the Bible by particular people - NOT the "church".
"The reason it didn't take you hundreds of years to figure it out is because the Church had already defined it for non-Catholics."
Again, I speak for myself. It's CLEARLY in the Bible for ANYONE to read and accept. THAT is what I did. I didn't look to the "church". I simply read it in the Bible. I NEVER take the word of man to heart. I have to see the truth myself.
"It didn't take the Church hundreds of years to figure it out either. They already knew it, but had to set down definitions to combat heresies, such as the Arian heresy."
Heresies will happen regardless of what "is written". It is God who inspired the writing of the Bible by particular people - NOT the "church".
Respectfully...please help me understand when the Pope is NOT speaking on Faith and Morals...It would seem that anytime he speaks to what the faithful are to believe he is speaking to Faith or Morals...therefore he has to be"infalliable" virtually all the time. I am not asking to be incindiary but rather to understand this concept...thanks.
With all due respect, Did not a pope tell us in ex cathedra that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Chruch, but today that same doctrine is not accepted? So which is right? Help me understand how error was not delivered in ex cathedra if the doctrine is not in force today?
I have no disagreement that Christ will NEVER let His Church be overtaken by Satan because it won't...what I am confused on is how did infallibility get into doctrine...What Church Fathers agree with this doctrine? I don't know and am curious to learn...
Blessings.
Where did I say that? Individuals can certainly disagree, but the official doctrine of the church is certain.
I found a good site called Darkness to Light which shows how the Church Fathers defended the doctrine of the Trinity. I think it is a site designed to answer challenges by JW's. It is non Catholic but I do not know if it is sponsored by any specific denomination.
You might find it interesting.
Here is the URL http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/post-apostolic/pt-1.htm
Phatus. http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
This link is to a rather long article about Papal Infallibility. It does take a bit to wade through but may give you some insight to the definition. The article is structured to conclude that the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae meets the criteria for being considered infallible. An issue that is still debated by theologians within the Catholic Church.
God Bless.
I honestly don't know whether I believe that anymore. The hatred, venom, and contempt expressed here for me and my co-religionists by a certain subset of (self-proclaimed) Christians leads me to believe that I have nothing in common with them, and am not on their side in any way, shape, or form.
I used to hope that conservative Catholics and Protestants could learn to work together to reverse the decline of our civilization.
I no longer expect that to happen, nor do I expect the decline to be reversed. Sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.