www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Icon of the Trinity

Dear John,

Dear John,

What you are posing is exactly what I referred to in my earlier post when I said that:

"...this discussion hinges around the issue of sacrifice. If we see all images of the Son as images of a sacrificed Son, then we see prefiguations of THE eucharist almost everywhere and I think that the image is at risk of losing its power (for us). That's just part of why I'm cautious."

After all, He was ordained to be sacrificed before all ages. So any reference to Him ultimately is refrence to Him as a sacrifice.

So it is the same for God as Trinity. If we read all mention of God in scripture as mention of the Trinity (because God is indeed the Holy Trinity), then every manifestation is Trinitarian. At that point, one might just drop the word "God" and substitute the word "Trinity." [I wrote a paper that demonstrated this point via Proverbs without ever using the word "Trinity."] But do we have authority to do that with His word?

In other words, functionally, of course, God works as Trinity. But how are we to explain his actions without referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? These are the categories HE gave us to use. Trinity is only the category that we came up with. So when analyzing scripture, one is obligated to use scripture as the key, not an imported term such as Trinity. [This basic tenet also is the basis of cryptology, in which I served as a naval officer for seven years.]

Surely, you understand that I am proposing a methodology, not some crazy anti-trinitarian polemic.

If we use your methodology, then reference to God the Father is also reference to the Trinity. And refrence to the Trinity is reference to the Son. And reference to the Son is refrence to a sacrificed Son. Are we willing then to say that God the Father was sacrificed on the cross?

He made us logikos/logical. With logic we can draw the lessons from the lesson book that He gave us. Therefore, we need the categories that He gave us because we are not as "sane" as He is. At least not yet.

With love in Christ.

Dear Andrew:

Yes, yes, a resounding yes.

Yes, the Trinity always acts together because of the Perfection of their union. They always have, they always will. The Father was crucified with his Son, it was not only the humanity of Christ that was crucified, but Christ in His fullness that is God in God's Trinitarian fullness.

Yes, we CHRISTIANS should replace, in a sense, all reference to God with Trinity or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In His mercy and providence, this is what He has given us. This is what has been revealed by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. This is what we may now depict because it has been revealed to us!

This is why the Byzantine Liturgy is so resplendent in its awe of the Trinitarian Mystery! This is why, as many a Roman Catholic has pointed out to me, we seem to do everything three times.

There is no methodology, there is only you, me, us and the Trinity. There is no formula to postulate.

We have been given the Image and it is our responsibility to enjoy it. We don't deduce it, adduce it, create it, postulate it, or draw it. We simply resound in the fullness of its splendor!

John

Dear John,

Thanks for your response.

As I discern it, by comparison with you, I'm approaching these issues from a theological direction that believes that we have not been given license to say everything that we may believe or know to be true.

For this reason, the Apostle Paul said that there were things that he witnessed in the seventh heaven that he may not reveal.

For this reason true hesychasts never tell the rest of us what they've seen. Gregory of Palamas very relunctantly spoke regarding the hesychast community, and then only in order to protect it from further criticism.

As one very wise professor once said (paraphrase), 'How do you think the other brother will feel knowing that God has revealed to you what he won't reveal to other, equally devout believers. So if you see or hear something, tell your spiritual guide about it, don't publish a book about it or write a new icon.'

I'm using this same approach to scriptural interpretation. There may be things that certain believers may be blessed to find, but these same explanations may confuse the flock, or worse, open up interpretations that can be twisted into heresies.

You know that I'm not even faintly implying this in regard to you or anyone else on this forum. I'm raising it in order to explain why I use the methodology that I use.

With love in Christ.

Dear John,

Not to squash the resplendent joy of you previous post (in which I share at some level), I'll remind you that I did previously pose some intersting points to which I'll ask you and other participants to consider responding.

(1) Orthodox understanding of the eucharist as a parallel symbol to the incarnation of God, fully divine/uncreated and fully human/created.

(2) Would one properly teach to a normal parish of belivers that "God the Father" died on the cross?

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

I suppose your next assertion will be that you actually DO know how many angels fit on the head of a pin!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Shhhh! I haven't yet secured the copyright!

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Any number I'd come up with would simply be "winging it."

I look forward to the advance copies!

Alex

Dear Alex,

And I thought that that was still a cryptologic secret; that we got them to fold their wings first before we counted them.

Andrew :p

Dear Andrew:

Here are you points for discussion:

(1) Orthodox understanding of the eucharist as a parallel symbol to the incarnation of God, fully divine/uncreated and fully human/created.

I've always liked this teaching, especially the fact that the bread and wine require human initiative in their making. Bread would not be bread, and wine would not be wine without the assistance of man. Yet the essence of the Eucharist defies all understanding.

(2) Would one properly teach to a normal parish of belivers that "God the Father" died on the cross?

You are hardly within the "normal parish of believers" to start with. I merely wish to push you as hard as I can. Secondly, I do think that the normal parish believer needs to learn this. The "normal parish believer" has too much of a tendency to identify with the humanity of Christ (the crown of thorns, the stations of the cross, the sorrowful mysteries, WWJD, and all that) and completely neglects his divinity. If we fail to appreciate the fullness of his divinity, we fall into heresy. Jesus becomes a moral compass, a juridical ruler, the greatest of all creatures but a creature nonetheless.

In fact, I would be so bold as to state that this is the fundamental responsibility of the Eastern Church. We are to remind everyone that Jesus was God and always dwells within the intra-divine Unity of the Trinity. We are encompassed by this Tri-Unity, and are thus invited into this triune life.

I am a little troubled by the fact that some may be upset with this conception, that is, that God the Father was crucified with Jesus. If the Father was not, then there was a time when there was not Unity, when One of the Trinity acted alone and accomplished something alone. This would imply that the Son would be greater than the Father because of what He accomplished for us! It would imply that he was not in line with the will of the Father which is equally absurd. For if he was doing the will of the Father, then He was in union with the Father.

I think the "normal person" can appreciate the greatness of this Mystery.

John

Dear John,

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. If you push too hard, I may just fall over!

I think that your point about the unity of the Trinity cannot be brushed off, but all the same, if we take another model (all of which are ultimately inadequate) that the Spirit and Word are the two hands of God, we can come to accept that one part does a specific function that the other does not (die on the Cross).

Does God die on the cross? Yes! But I wouldn't say that God the Father died on the cross.

More to this point, and I apologize for not having time to formulate this more completely, much of the scriptural and litugical tradition mentions that God raised Him from the dead, thus emphasizing the specific function accomplished by the Son. In other places it simply says that He rose from the dead, and this reminds us again of the unity of the Trinity.

I tend to stay with the simple scriptural definitions so as not to confuse others, or more importantly, myself. Whatever I'd say here, I'd say to others, perhaps using different language. To date, even on the Holy Theophany, I've never seen the need to preach specifically to the Trinity, but rather to the role of each in our salvation.

With love in Christ.

Dear Andrew,

It would be more theologicall correct to say that "Our Lord, God and Savious Jesus Christ died on the Cross according to the Flesh or His Human Nature."

At least I think so - although I was never in a seminary.

(Thank God . . . )

Alex

Dear Alex,

Again (although not always) you are correct!

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

Although an Orthodox Catholic in communion with Rome, the matter of "infallibility" is, happily, not one of those things I have to go around asserting as far as I am personally concerned . . .

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!

"The Orthodox faithful partake of both bread and wine and the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour. We hold this symbol as we hold the mystery of the incarnation. Consubstantiation "appears" closest to this view. Perhaps Luther was correct (not that he had it first) but I understand that their Missouri Synod sees things very close to how we do in the Orthodox Church."

Wow. I've never heard an Orthodox Christian agree with consubstantiation before! (Or at least say that it might be a correct understanding of the Gospel.) I always thought transubstantiation and consubstantiation were opposed to each other. Either the bread and wine cease being bread and wine or they don't. Does the Orthodox Church hold that they receive the "appearances of bread and wine" only? Interesting...but then again a lot of things on this forum is !

Adam