The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[Dorothea]

---

Nalingaw ko nag basa sa article sa yahoo about Pope Francis nga ningkaon sa cafeteria kauban ang mga ordinary church workers. I'm really digging this pope, jamming sa mga ordinary pipol.

[Jhared]

Like i said bai..kung mao nay imung tan.aw sa amuang doctrine ug mao nay imung pagsabut sa nahisuwat sa Bibliya. wa nakoy mabuhat ana..hehehe

I've already presented to you writings of the Church Fathers, predating the council of Nicaea..predating Constantine..
and explained the theological aspects of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
so i guess, humana ang akong part ani nga discussion.. if di ka mutuoo then we'll just have to agree to disagree
but as far as this thread is concerned, you already have your answers.

at the end of the day we either accept a new point of view or crawl back to the ones that we think is right..
in my case, i rest my beliefs with the side that has unbroken ties with the apostles...
mao ning ingun ko sa imu, in times of confusion regarding Church doctrines..that's where the Apostolic Succession comes in..
hence i asked you, kanang imung point of view..naa nay apostolic roots?
and of course everything in some sense can be debatable only because of our ability to have personal and different understanding on a certain subject. however, the statement of the early Church Fathers were absolute though.
by absolute i mean firm regarding their Trinitarian view on the One God.

in other words, i'd rather believe the early Church Fathers' writings and early Christian articles about the Trinity as verified by History than your conspiracy theories.

i would conclude my part in this discussion again with the writings of early Christians with Apostolic roots below confirming the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ only this time bai i hope you'd give extra attention to the dates when they were written. ALL predates the council of Nicaea which you claim when the doctrine of trinity has been realized.

Saying that what im saying here is a conspiracy theory is like saying that the WTC was predemolished by ninjas.. hahaha.. im just basing my contention on established documented facts, nothing more..

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

St. Ignatius? his life was surrounded by legends, his writings spurious.. the same guy who said that Bishops should be redeemed equally as the Lord Himself..

Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Justin Martyr was a Christian Philosopher who was inspired by Philo Judaeus' Hellenistic Judaism philosophy, he may or may not have been directly influenced, nonetheless he is following the philosophy, and perhaps all that follows followed the latter's philosophical nature of god and his creations not just Justin.. Philo Judaeus or Philo of Alexandria, formulated the very first foundation of trinitarinism, in finding resolution to the Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition, he believed that everything is a logos(Word) of god, or emanated therefrom, which lead Justin to believe that jesus was also a word of god, but not equal to in fact he made emphasis that it is only second to god.. so no trinity there

Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Yes presumably the first person to ever use the word Trinity:

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. - Theophilus

like so,

and like Justin Martyr before him he believed in this Hellinistic Judaistic philosophy of Philo., hence his frequent use of the the words "word" and "wisdom" instead of "Son" and the "Holy Spirit" which to me, had he known, would have been the subject of emphasis above all..

Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).

Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).

Hippolytus
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).


Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).

Pope Dionysius
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1–2).

"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (ibid., 3).

Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

source: The Trinity | Catholic Answers

The word "Trinity" was extensively used only during the late second century, but its usage didnt really relate to the Trinitarian doctrine as we believe of it now to be, it didn't refer to one god but rather its plurality, nor did they mean for the three to be equally divine. since you quoted Origen, i might as well quote him too:

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit... (Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3])

see the line of succession mentioned by Origen, this same order of divinity is expressed also by Justin Martyr which you also quoted earlier, to note, being that this two have differing views compared to the Trinitarianism we know, therefore in the purview of Christianity are they heretics as well?

This Christian Theology is what's referred to as "Subordination", a transitional stage before Trinitarianism,.

Gregory the wondermaker, having based his philosophy on his master Origen, had for the first time, for me described the almost exact definition of Trinity as viewed today, as evident to what you posted although he still believed in the succession of divinity as posited by Origen, although also he alleged that it was given to him by the Holy Virgin through a Marian Apparition (the first), talks sorrounding him also said that he had the power to cause death by placing his cloke on people, the 2 last part sounds BS to me, but nonetheless i have every reason to believe that Gregory was in fact the reason Trinity was recognized as is because of his creed...

but on the other hand...

One interesting fact in Christian history also was when during Iraneus time there was this famous gnostic named Valentinus, a candidate bishop but was more focused on tradition over Scriptures, though weird his teachings were Marcellus of Ancyra, one of the bishops who joined the Council of Nicea and fought against Arianism, and a well known Sabellianist later revealed the following statements:

"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato." [10]

"Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit."[11]

so you have to wonder, was the Trinity an original doctrine of the Catholic Church and one of those Apostolic Teachings that you always say? or was it a commixtion of Philosophical views, Gnostic views and Christian views that evolved to become what we know of it today as Trinity?

to settle the contention that there was never a clear common Trinitarian doctrine pre-Nicean time it is important to note that during the Council of Nicea, according to historical accounts, the attendees were split into three groups:

-those supporting Arius (about 10%)
-In betweeners, of which Eusebius was the spokesperson, (about 75%)
-and finally, the pro-trinitarians (15%)

notice that before the conclusion of said council, the majority of bishops did not hold the Trinitarian doctrine, now no matter what you say about the Trinity, how can we say that this was the main doctrine amongst Christendom during the time when the apparent belief of most bishops were mostly inclined to neutrality during this time? you have to wonder..

[slabdans]

kani moy nakanindot ani nga thread basta ang mga nag discuss mga tag-as ug pasensya, ang ma hisgutan dili lang religion, maapil ang history, naa sd tay makat-onan gamay hehehe

[Jhared]

@noy

i do extensive reading before making a reply inorder not to taint any of my contentions with malice, and for you not to easily dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, i take not only the words written but also the philosophical and historical aspects of what im reading.. and no i don't consider it as complete but so is your contention,

i took the liberty of taking a screenshot of my screen for you to see, as can be seen here:



i have a dual monitor, hence the wideness of the screen, but its more than 500 pixels so im guessing dili ni makita diri.. i hope ma view nimo ang picture,.. but in case dili it is a picture of my screen with perhaps more or less 40 tabs.. and that's just my first 1 hour., i don't pull rabbits from a hat..

[porbidaman]

Unsay view sa RC regarding euthanasia?

[noy]

@noy

i do extensive reading before making a reply inorder not to taint any of my contentions with malice, and for you not to easily dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, i take not only the words written but also the philosophical and historical aspects of what im reading.. and no i don't consider it as complete but so is your contention,

i took the liberty of taking a screenshot of my screen for you to see, as can be seen here:



i have a dual monitor, hence the wideness of the screen, but its more than 500 pixels so im guessing dili ni makita diri.. i hope ma view nimo ang picture,.. but in case dili it is a picture of my screen with perhaps more or less 40 tabs.. and that's just my first 1 hour., i don't pull rabbits from a hat..

bai,

by conspiracy theory i specifically mean that Trinitarianism as we know it today is formulated for political reasons authored by Constantine and not with the differing views of early Christianity regarding the Trinity..

just to be clear with this, i do not doubt that you do reserach on the things you'd like to discuss with nor your verification capabilities..i don't have any reasons to do so in the first place..i get it nga mao lang pud jud imung pagsabut.
hence i find the screenshot as something that is unnecessary hehehe although i appreciate you posting it.
di nuon nako ma view ang image here in the office..probably when i get home..

honestly, wa kaayo ko kita ug padulngan ani nga discussion bai kay mura ra nig istorya bahin ug Atheistic and Theistic claims where both persepctive uses the same factual basis which is the nature of creation and the order of things in the universe to support their claims but somehow differ with their respective analysis and conclusions nga prehas ra man untag basis..hehehe
mao2x ra pud ni atoa run..
people with good conscience will obviously eventually just agree to disagree..and i could see the same fate with our little discussion here..well at least eventually, so i thought..maypag humnon nalang samtang sayo pa Lol
also, i'm thinking nga basin OT na ta..
but to be fair with you, tubagon to nako imung last post. pero unya nalang kay nagbaha ang trabaho..

[heartthr0b]

kani moy nakanindot ani nga thread basta ang mga nag discuss mga tag-as ug pasensya, ang ma hisgutan dili lang religion, maapil ang history, naa sd tay makat-onan gamay hehehe

naa jud tay makat-unan nga historical and scientific facts ngari like mostorya nga bitin og tawo nga molakaw sa tubig

[Jhared]

bai,

by conspiracy theory i specifically mean that Trinitarianism as we know it today is formulated for political reasons authored by Constantine and not with the differing views of early Christianity regarding the Trinity..

just to be clear with this, i do not doubt that you do reserach on the things you'd like to discuss with nor your verification capabilities..i don't have any reasons to do so in the first place..i get it nga mao lang pud jud imung pagsabut.
hence i find the screenshot as something that is unnecessary hehehe although i appreciate you posting it.
di nuon nako ma view ang image here in the office..probably when i get home..

honestly, wa kaayo ko kita ug padulngan ani nga discussion bai kay mura ra nig istorya bahin ug Atheistic and Theistic claims where both persepctive uses the same factual basis which is the nature of creation and the order of things in the universe to support their claims but somehow differ with their respective analysis and conclusions nga prehas ra man untag basis..hehehe
mao2x ra pud ni atoa run..
people with good conscience will obviously eventually just agree to disagree..and i could see the same fate with our little discussion here..well at least eventually, so i thought..maypag humnon nalang samtang sayo pa Lol
also, i'm thinking nga basin OT na ta..
but to be fair with you, tubagon to nako imung last post. pero unya nalang kay nagbaha ang trabaho..

Because the reason was political in the first place.. i used to believe that inorder for the logos of god to materialize on earth it should pass through the normal course of time, as was the case with trinitarianism, it went through an evolution and pass through the normal course of philosophical development., but that's me..

honestly i rather nga dili nlang ka moreply kay mao rman ghapon mag tuyok2 ra gihapon ta, although same atong facts but the modes in which we interpret the facts is in parallel, you think divine i think evolution.. so because there is no reckoning point, let's just leave it...

[noy]

Because the reason was political in the first place.. i used to believe that inorder for the logos of god to materialize on earth it should pass through the normal course of time, as was the case with trinitarianism, it went through an evolution and pass through the normal course of philosophical development., but that's me..

yeah i see your point..i never said that this is not possible though, just as in the case of Scientific Laws and understanding about nature..things were revealed a few steps at a time..but they're neither political or false. just a part of the great discovery or revelation in the case of the Tinity.
Emperor Constantine uniting Christian churches may have been political but doctrinal definition is a separate matter.

the basis of the logos teaching bai goes back to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles themselves as well as with Trinitarianism and regarding St. Justin's connection with Philo of Alexandria..
"Justin's use of the idea of the Logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo of Alexandria in this particular. The idea of the Logos was widely familiar to educated men, and the designation of the Son of God as the Logos was not new to Christian theology."
source: Justin Martyr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the theological writings of St.Justin, St.Theophilus and the rest of the early Saints, Fathers and writers regarding the Trinity that pre dated the Nicaean Council could in one way or another still point out to the Trinity as we know it today although in an indirect fashion..

which could mean precisely the trinity we know today only not explained in the context that Later Christian Patriarchs have expressed or in Transition which would suggest that the Doctrine of Trinity therefore developed.a revision of the Doctrine perhaps.

i personally am inclined to believe that it should be the former. otherwise dili unta na sila ma recognised as saints sa Catholic or even sa Orthodox Churches..prehas ni Origen.
Origen by the way was never canonized as a saint either in the Catholic or in Orthodox churches he was even anathemized although he is considered as an ecclesiastical writer a valuable witness in his own time that's why you'll find me or other Christians qouting him.

honestly i rather nga dili nlang ka moreply kay mao rman ghapon mag tuyok2 ra gihapon ta, although same atong facts but the modes in which we interpret the facts is in parallel, you think divine i think evolution.. so because there is no reckoning point, let's just leave it...

thanks bai.
however, i don't have problems with doctrinal evolution though..'cause i don't think that it is contrary to the divine.

next question then perhaps?

[SioDenz]

this is excusable since you have NEVER heard of any Catholic mass, nga ang missa naa diay Gospel / Homily asa mag expound ang homilist sa gibasa gikan sa bibliya, ug ang paghisgot sa mga doktrinang katoliko.

WRONG

I attended Several Catholic Mass Before... A LOT in fact.

For me, Homily is Not about an In Depth Discussion of a Doctrine... maybe explanation like Baptism or Marriage but not in Depth.. That's Why i ASK..