Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:32 AM']its not the words tehmselves its the attitude informing the words [right][snapback]642038[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Wow, you are impressive. To be able to sense my attitudes and the nuances of my theological position from a written text, clearly you must participate in God's omniscience.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 I am most certainly not a Palamite. As most people on phatmass know, I am Anselmian, and Anselm is the Father of Scholasticism. However, I still am totally opposed to any attempt to refer to some kind of "God the Mother," and this opposition is perfectly justifiable, and perfectly Scholastic. When Scholastics speak about the "feminine" Divine, they do so in reference to the generative power of God, from whom all things have their being. However, this is a reference to a [i]power[/i] of God, and not to a [i]person[/i]. The Scholastic would not refer to God as female, he would say that what is feminine mirrors a power of God. Now, as has been stated multiple times on this thread, all language like the above is apophatic. Thus, just as the feminine divine mirrors a power of God, so does the masculine divine. [i]But this does not give us the right to reference God as feminine[/i]. In fact, the apophatic nature of theological language gives us even more reason [i]not[/i] to: If none of our language will ever be totally accurate, that makes it that much more important to use the [i]most[/i] accurate language that we can. So, should we refer to God as masculine or feminine, which is more accurate? Referring to God as Masculine is more accurate, because in the Order of Authority, male is higher than female. Understanding that all of our words fall short in reference to God, we must never permit ourselves to use anything but the most fitting language concerning him. If the term "feminine" connotes being lower in the Order of Authority, and a subordinate role in the theology of Headship, then we must not refer to God as such if we can refer to Him in a more fitting manner. We can, we can refer to God as masculine. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:10 PM']ha! no he does not...he does it RIGHT...so there....and Christ IS the sum of Revelation and he is NOT data. he's a person...haha ...uh..hey do you know mike sirillo? he's a Thomist prof there...and like i said earlier....its only your loss to reject what the saints have been granted to know by grace...what about St. Faustina's revelations....you reject that too? dang, yer insane....even Dante is said in legend to have received his ideas for the Divina Commedia in visions...you really miss out on alot, buddy-haha-but hey, "stick with public revelation" by all means..... [right][snapback]642022[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This was extremely rude, and totally uncharitable. Since I know that Todd will continue this conversation without responding directly to the above, I would like to point out that he has read more [i]Western[/i] theology than I could ever hope to, and his understanding of Eastern Theology far surpasses anyone else here on Phatmass.
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:31 PM']No I must not, because that has not been revealed, and the hypostatic relations are only known because of divine revelation. No one can add to this definitive revelation. [right][snapback]642037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I know what the hypostatic realtions reveal. Thats not what i am talking about. We are not adding to any definition we are prodding deeper into what is already implied in revelation, perhaps. [b]man + woman[/b] = in God's image not man + 0 = in God's image not woman + 0 = in God's image how is this not revealed? we know its true...and it must have implications for how we define, know, and understnad God.....I am not saying we must define this today, ever, or in our lives...at all...if God wills us to delve deeper into Himself in such a way then so be it, if not, so be it...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:29 PM'][i]My concern is focused on Triadology, because the introduction of femininity into God's hypostatic relations would cause major theological problems.[/i] YOU MUST IN SOME SENSE INCLUDED SOME ASPECT OF FEMININITY in God's hypostatic relations---or else God would not be what he has revealed himself to be. Both male and female are created in God's image. If there is no aspect of femininity in God's hypostatic relations then we must assume that only males are made in the image of God. Whatever theological problems you have need to be addressed and not swept under the rug. [right][snapback]642032[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No, you must not. All I must acknowledge, as a Scholastic, is that feminimity mirrors a [i]power[/i] of God, not some aspect of His immutable substance or His unknowable essence.
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 It is possible to speak of femininity in ecclesiology, and in that sense it can be applied even to Christ Himself, for He is the Head and the body taken together. But you cannot inject this into the divine Triad or you will end up falling into heresy. The Father is the sole cause and font of Godhead, and He alone generates the Son and projects the Spirit, and there is no feminine principle involved this, in fact there is no masculine principle involved in this mystery either. This is where the West often fails to take seriously the apophatic nature of theology. The divine being remains in unapproachable light, for God is essentially beyond all categories and determinations. He is not a being among beings, and of course that is why the East denies the analogy of being, which is so popular in the West. In Byzantine theology there can be no analogy between God and the world, because God is uncreated and the world is created. Moreover, God is beyond being, in fact God is beyond God, or as St. Maximos was fond of saying, "God is infinitely beyond the infinite."
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:41 PM']This was extremely rude, and totally uncharitable. Since I know that Todd will continue this conversation without responding directly to the above, I would like to point out that he has read more [i]Western[/i] theology than I could ever hope to, and his understanding of Eastern Theology far surpasses anyone else here on Phatmass. [right][snapback]642053[/snapback][/right] [/quote] i was not being rude....or uncharitable....you misread... yes Todd you are very knowledgable....i don't dispute that you know more than me.... I hope you diden't take it as uncharitable...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:30 PM']wow, thank u for informing me of things i have known since 1st grade...always good to recap... [right][snapback]642033[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This also was extremely uncatholic. Sarcasm will not lead anyone to faith or understanding.
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:37 PM'] When Scholastics speak about the "feminine" Divine, they do so in reference to the generative power of God, from whom all things have their being. However, this is a reference to a [i]power[/i] of God, and not to a [i]person[/i]. The Scholastic would not refer to God as female, he would say that what is feminine mirrors a power of God. [right][snapback]642047[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That doesn't change the fact that many medievals personified God as feminine. Hildegard repeatedly spoke of the divine expressly and purposefully personified as feminine. Julian of Norwich did the same, as did many other medievals. btw, when I say "medievals" I'm not necessarily talking about scholastics.
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:45 AM']This also was extremely uncatholic. Sarcasm will not lead anyone to faith or understanding. [right][snapback]642061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Nor will pretending to know the intentions of another person.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 True, Semperviva, I apologize if I have misread your posts
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:46 AM']That doesn't change the fact that many medievals personified God as feminine. Hildegard repeatedly spoke of the divine expressly and purposefully personified as feminine. Julian of Norwich did the same, as did many other medievals. btw, when I say "medievals" I'm not necessarily talking about scholastics. [right][snapback]642062[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The medieval West, but I'm not a Westerner. Just as I don't recite the [i]filioque[/i] in the creed, I don't accept the speculations of the medieval Western theologians.
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:48 PM']The medieval West, but I'm not a Westerner. Just as I don't recite the [i]filioque[/i] in the creed, I don't accept the speculations of the medieval Western theologians. [right][snapback]642067[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Again, that doesn't mean that I can't or that they are contrary to truth. It means that [i]you[/i] don't agree with them. That's fine. Until something they said becomes part of defined Tradition, you are free to disagree. However, you cannot claim that anyone who disagrees with you is endangering the Faith or distorting the Truth.
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Semperviva, I found the whole "data" element of our discussion to be rather pointless, because I was only using the term in order to indicate that public revelation had ceased, and that there will be no new things added to the deposit of faith. Besides, where do you think I learned to use that word? You guessed it, from Cardinal Ratzinger. Of course the word can be misused, but it is possible to misuse any word. God bless, Todd
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:43 PM']No, you must not. All I must acknowledge, as a Scholastic, is that feminimity mirrors a [i]power[/i] of God, [i]not some aspect of His immutable substance or His unknowable essence.[/i] [right][snapback]642056[/snapback][/right] [/quote] ...as does masculinity... i am not saying his immutable substance is feminine...i am not saying I know more about God's essence then anyone else..... just in considering God.......you must include both....JUST as if i exclude FATHER from my unedrstanfding of GOD i have a warped concept of God NO we can never say God i[i]s[/i] mother..this give you pantheistic implications.... even if its just the simple understnading that male and female are both in the image of God...hence there is something feminine about God......not his immutable substance or essence, of course not!
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 10:54 AM']Again, that doesn't mean that I can't or that they are contrary to truth. It means that [i]you[/i] don't agree with them. That's fine. Until something they said becomes part of defined Tradition, you are free to disagree. However, you cannot claim that anyone who disagrees with you is endangering the Faith or distorting the Truth. [right][snapback]642075[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Certainly you can do what you would like, but I only see this kind of speculation as theologically divisive, and that isn't really something that the West needs more of at the present time. It reminds me of the West adding the [i]filioque[/i], the more that the West diverges from the unified tradition of the first millennium, the greater the length of the schism between East and West will be. Moreover, if the speculations distort the theology of the Trinity, then certainly I, and anyone else who wants to, can speak about it endangering the faith of the Church and distorting the Truth.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:46 PM']That doesn't change the fact that many medievals personified God as feminine. Hildegard repeatedly spoke of the divine expressly and purposefully personified as feminine. Julian of Norwich did the same, as did many other medievals. btw, when I say "medievals" I'm not necessarily talking about scholastics. [right][snapback]642062[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Both Hildegard and Julian of Norwich were mystics, not theologians, and their writings can easily be understood as discussions of how the feminine mirrors a divine power of God.
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:59 PM']Certainly you can do what you would like, but I only see this kind of speculation as theologically divisive, and that isn't really something that the West needs more of at the present time. It reminds me of the West adding the [i]filioque[/i], the more that the West diverges from the unified tradition of the first millennium, the greater the length of the schism between East and West will be. Moreover, if the speculations distort the theology of the Trinity, then certainly I, and anyone else who wants to, can speak about it endangering the faith of the Church and distorting the Truth. [right][snapback]642081[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The West doing something different from the East isn't bad, it's just different. I don't discount your traditions, don't discount mine.
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:34 PM'] Wow, you are impressive. To be able to sense my attitudes and the nuances of my theological position from a written text, clearly you must participate in God's omniscience. [right][snapback]642040[/snapback][/right] [/quoteI Lol, You know you did that same thing a while back.... I''m really sorry...that sarcastic thing was very uncharitable of me....please forgive me.... i misunderstood you to be condescending..
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:01 AM']The West doing something different from the East isn't bad, it's just different. I don't discount your traditions, don't discount mine. [right][snapback]642087[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not in an of itself, but if it distorts the faith, then problems arise.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now