K ... you are being too scrupulous with the text. Catholics believe the same thing, even Protestant converts. Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, words limit our ability to express the ineffable.
40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".15
42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - "the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable" - with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.
43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
15 Wis 13:5.
16 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora.
17 Lateran Council IV:DS 806.
18 St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG I,30.
Having previously been an altar server in the Roman Catholic Church, you already know this.
Perhaps dear Kolokotronis was making the (IMO correct) point that God isn’t a person, but God the Father is (like God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are too). IOW, to correctly convey the Triune concept of God, it’s best to not refer to “God” as a person, but only refer to a person of the Trinity when speaking of such. In the context of the text in dispute, it seems the author was speaking of God the Son, so in that sense he (the author) was right, but in a technical sense it can be said that the author should have been more clear. (i.e. saying “Objectively, the core of faith is God the Son, who is a Person, not a concept.”)
Maybe?
“Catholics believe the same thing, even Protestant converts.”
I know, NYer, I know. I am not saying the Latin Church doesn’t have an orthodox belief in this regard. I am saying that the formerly Protestant preacher is either just plain wrong, or reverting to a Protestant mindset and vocabulary, neither of which are appropriate if one purports to be speaking the Truth as The Church knows it.