Can a faithful Catholic affirm this?

[Guest JeffCR07]

yep, and you can find a concise explanation of the doctrine on New Advent as well. The point is, the intent and the statement itself most certainly [i]can[/i] be seperated with no wrongdoing.

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 11:30 PM']yep, and you can find a concise explanation of the doctrine on New Advent as well. The point is, the intent and the statement itself most certainly [i]can[/i] be seperated with no wrongdoing.
[right][snapback]852309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, would you sign the hypothetical letter from a Pagan emperor, and if not, would you justify someone else doing so?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:31 PM']Just out of curiosity, would you sign the hypothetical letter from a Pagan emperor, and if not, would you justify someone else doing so?
[right][snapback]852313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, but not because I can't seperate intent from statement. I wouldn't sign it because there is absolutely no theological understanding that allows me to do so. If the statement was "Jesus is not God the Father" sure, I'd sign it.

Your argument that the common usage of the word "God" applied only to the Father is fallacious, because we are talking about a time prior to the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine. They didn't know that God was Three Persons, so of course the term was usually applied to the Father.

[Guest JeffCR07]

also, forgive me if I sound rude or overbearing, but do you have an actual reply to my arguments?

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 11:38 PM']No, but not because I can't seperate intent from statement. I wouldn't sign it because there is absolutely no theological understanding that allows me to do so. If the statement was "Jesus is not God the Father" sure, I'd sign it.

Your argument that the common usage of the word "God" applied only to the Father is fallacious, because we are talking about a time prior to the formulation of the Trinitarian doctrine. They didn't know that God was Three Persons, so of course the term was usually applied to the Father.
[right][snapback]852321[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I disagree. Paul knew very well that God was a Trinity. His language is still used to this day. For example:

[quote]Now God's Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance

--CCC #687[/quote]

We see here that God (ie, God the Father) is distinguished from his "Spirit", and "his Word" (ie, Christ). This is just a biblical manner of speaking.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 11:39 PM']also, forgive me if I sound rude or overbearing, but do you have an actual reply to my arguments?
[right][snapback]852322[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I don't. Honestly, I haven't studied the question of mental reservation enough to give an informed opinion, except to say I would not, in fact, sign such a statement of faith, because for me, it would be a lie, either way.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:45 PM']I disagree. Paul knew very well that God was a Trinity. His language is still used to this day. For example:
We see here that God (ie, God the Father) is distinguished from his "Spirit", and "his Word" (ie, Christ). This is just a biblical manner of speaking.
[right][snapback]852328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here is the whole par.
[quote]687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." 7 Now God's Spirit, who [b]reveals God[/b], makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who "has spoken through the prophets" makes us hear the Father's Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which [b]he reveals the Word to us [/b]and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who "[b]unveils" Christ[/b] to us "will not speak on his own." 8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why "the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him," while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them. 9 [/quote]
It would sound to me as though the first bolded section is speaking about God as Trinity and not simply as God the Father. The Spirit reveals God as Trinity because, as pointed out later, it unveils Christ to us, the Word. The Spirit, in this case, reveals God to us as He is, Trinitarian, and not simply the Father as we would have to read it as you propose. The Spirit of God reveals God (as Trinity) with the unveiling of Christ as the Word.

My point is that the first use of the word "God" cannot be understood as applying only to the Father for the paragraph goes on to mention how the Spirit reveals Christ to us as the Word.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Jan 11 2006, 12:02 AM']Here is the whole par.

It would sound to me as though the first bolded section is speaking about God as Trinity and not simply as God the Father. The Spirit reveals God as Trinity because, as pointed out later, it unveils Christ to us, the Word. The Spirit, in this case, reveals God to us as He is, Trinitarian, and not simply the Father as we would have to read it as you propose. The Spirit of God reveals God (as Trinity) with the unveiling of Christ as the Word.

My point is that the first use of the word "God" cannot be understood as applying only to the Father for the paragraph goes on to mention how the Spirit reveals Christ to us as the Word.
[right][snapback]852353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, I disagree, because the Spirit is said to reveal "God". This God is then referred to personally, as "his", and Christ is said to be "his" Word. Christ is begotten of the Father alone.

[quote]Now God's Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance[/quote]

The phrase "his Word" makes it clear that the "God" spoken of is God the Father. The entire statement is a delineation of the particular roles of each person in the Trinity: God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:46 PM']Perhaps, but I don't think you can take a statement of faith apart from the intent of its author. If, for example, a pagan emperor told you to sign a statement that read "Jesus is not God", you would refuse to sign it; not because it can't be read in a Catholic way (biblically, the title of "God" usually refers to the person of God the Father), but because the intent would be to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.
[right][snapback]851880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The difference between your example and the Wheaton's statement is that your statement explicitely 'negates' a possibility, while the Wheaton statement affirms something.

To draw a proper parrallel from your example to the Wheaton statement one would say "Do you agree that the Magistorium does not form an authority upon the interpretation of the scriptures." or some negation to that effect. But this meaning is not explicitely expresed in the Wheaton statement itself.

As i posted before, the Wheaton statement does not say that Scriptures are the only source of authority; it is open to other sources of authority, and thus does not (IMHO) contradict explicitely, the Catholic faith.

If the intent was to exclude the Catholic faith with this Wheaton statement, then it is my opinion that the protestants who formed the statement better do a bit more homework and come up with something clearer - maybe a bit more clever even, than the statement they came up with, since this statement falls short of its purpose.

But was the intent specifically to reject the Catholic doctrine(s) or to affirm the Protestant one which happens not to contradict the Catholic doctrine.


I am not convinced this Wheaton statement is wrong for a Catholic to take. At least not yet.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:30 PM']The point is, the intent and the statement itself most certainly [i]can[/i] be seperated with no wrongdoing.
[right][snapback]852309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

<pointless>
I have lots of fun with that! I love to answer the question or statement instead of the intended question.
</pointless>

By agreeing to the statement, by saying it is the supreme authority, doesn't that mean there's no equal, ie out with Tradition?

[Thumper]

To take a bit of a different tack, I was struck by tail end of the quote from Wheaton:

"[T]he Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say."

"In all they say" seems troublesome to me. As a Catholic I'm happy to affirm scripture's authority and trustworthiness with regard to faith and morals. However, I don't look to scripture as an accurate historical record or science textbook.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Thumper' date='Jan 11 2006, 08:19 PM']To take a bit of a different tack, I was struck by tail end of the quote from Wheaton:

"[T]he Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say." 

"In all they say" seems troublesome to me.  As a Catholic I'm happy to affirm scripture's authority and trustworthiness with regard to faith and morals.  However, I don't look to scripture as an accurate historical record or science textbook.
[right][snapback]853504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I also noticed the phrase "in all they say." Since the bible is silent about (for example) computers and jet planes, it seems plausible under the Wheaton language that the Bible has no authority in matters involving them . . . this is probably not the meaning intended by the drafters

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:45 PM']I disagree. Paul knew very well that God was a Trinity. His language is still used to this day. For example:
We see here that God (ie, God the Father) is distinguished from his "Spirit", and "his Word" (ie, Christ). This is just a biblical manner of speaking.
[right][snapback]852328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You are sidestepping the point. I am not denying that evidence for Trinitarian belief is backed by Scripture and Tradition - of course it is. But my point is that it was not explicitly defined at that time, so until the point that it [i]was[/i] defined, you could still be an orthodox christian and believe it, just like Thomas Aquinas wasn't a heretic for rejecting the Immaculate Conception.

The terms had not been defined, hence the claim that you are making about the word "God" applying only to the Father and not to the Son doesn't make sense, because theologians were still working out exactly what those terms meant.

[Era Might]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 11 2006, 10:53 PM']You are sidestepping the point. I am not denying that evidence for Trinitarian belief is backed by Scripture and Tradition - of course it is. But my point is that it was not explicitly defined at that time, so until the point that it [i]was[/i] defined, you could still be an orthodox christian and believe it, just like Thomas Aquinas wasn't a heretic for rejecting the Immaculate Conception.

The terms had not been defined, hence the claim that you are making about the word "God" applying only to the Father and not to the Son doesn't make sense, because theologians were still working out exactly what those terms meant.
[right][snapback]853545[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, we will have to disagree about what the Apostles did and did not know about the nature of God. The word "God" does not apply ONLY to the Father. Rather, it is frequently used to distinguish the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit, particularly by St. Paul.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 11 2006, 09:04 PM']Well, we will have to disagree about what the Apostles did and did not know about the nature of God. The word "God" does not apply ONLY to the Father. Rather, it is frequently used to distinguish the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit, particularly by St. Paul.
[right][snapback]853559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It seems to me that you are equivocating between explicit and implicit knowledge. The Dogma of the Trinity is most certainly something that Paul and the rest of the Apostles would have agreed upon, if they had the opportunity to sit down with the Nicean Fathers and come to an understanding of all the philosophical meanings of the terms involved. That does not mean that, if we zapped Paul here from the past, he would have been familiar with our way of speaking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What was [i]implicit[/i] in his writings, teachings, and thought is now made [i]explicit[/i] in our formal language. Your argument hinges on trying to force me, who knows the formal language, into a situation in which it was unknown. That kind of argument doesn't work.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff