@SupportiveDante Wow, so many various orders with their specific charisms. One time I happened to visit the Norbertines here, beautiful liturgy and music.

@OneGodtheFather the Catholic Church does have the right to deny you communion if you flat out refuse to intellectually assent to a matter of faith and morals she has dogmatically defined. If you aren't seeking to accept the Trinity as a matter of faith, and you know that the Church teaches that you must (as you seem to know), then you ought not receive communion from a Catholic Church. It is sacrilegious to do so.

As for Paul supposedly being a Unitarian or Trinitarian, I have not seen solid arguments one way or the other. But, I do know that even the very Early Church understood that God was a Trinity, and believed that they received this revelation from the Apostles, which as a matter of historical fact inclines me to believe Paul, along with the other Apostles, was a Trinitarian, even if he did not have the well-developed doctrines available to us today.

Either way, Paul's personal beliefs on Trinitarian vs Unitarian (which would be very loosely defined as neither term really existed during his lifetime) are not super relevant. Saints can be in error in personal beliefs, and he did not write down in any inspired writings that God is not a Trinity.

The fact of the matter is that the Church says you shouldn't receive communion from her if you are in schism or heresy, and if you are obstinately refusing to mentally assent to a point of dogma from her, you are in heresy.

@GratefulDisciple yeah at my university they came to promote vocations. The then-novice master was very nice. One of the guys was carrying relics of the 12 apostles in his pocket lol

Theres an all-faiths chapel on campus, and the catholics have Mass there on Thursdays. And I wasnt there but heard the novice master just went and pushed the altar forward so he could say Mass ad orientem lol

@SupportiveDante HEhehe... glad that they could make it work. BTW, Cathy responded saying that I should talk to a priest instead, which I'm the process of doing anyway. I'm somewhat surprised that she wouldn't want to comment on it. Maybe I should have mentioned that it involves an interpretation of Canon Law 1125 §1

Hm, yeah

I guess she also has a "no pastoral advice" rule

@jaredad7 I appreciate your concern and the seriousness with which you take the Catholic Church's position on this. I think we just disagree with the legitimate extents of the CC's authority on this. Jesus tells me to receive the Eucharist. If the CC tells me not to, who wins out? Jesus' authority > CC's authority. Where they diverge, I opt for the former. Jesus tells us the greatest commandment is the love God with (among other things) all our mind. That is my goal. ...

Oh I just remembered something important that I wish I had brought up in our conversation yesterday @OneGodtheFather

What do you believe is the Rule of Faith?

@jaredad7 ... But it's telling that, instead of arguing from what St. Paul himself wrote, which constitutes ~half of the NT, you argue from what you believe the Early Church understood. If it's so important, why isn't it clearer in St. Paul's writing?

@SupportiveDante Sure, I can try to help you on this. Do you mean 'how do I understand the Catholic view of the 'rule of faith'?' Or what is my 'rule of faith'? Or ...?

Well first do you know what I mean by "rule of faith"

@SupportiveDante Go ahead.

Is that a no?

@SupportiveDante I don't know if I know what you mean by 'rule of faith'. You're welcome to expand on what you mean.

I like to think of it as like a ruler that we use to literally measure up different ideas, in order to see whether they are a part of the Faith in which we are to believe

In other words it is used to answer the question of "what are the Truths of God which form the object of our faith?"

So, with that in mind, what is yours?

@SupportiveDante Like with all truth, I think we have a toolbox which we can use to figure things out. So there's no simple answer here.

@SupportiveDante Jesus' words and examples would form a large part of that, because I believe He has spiritual insight. Traditions informed by that are a significant part. Direct spiritual intuition forms a part. The God given gift of reason forms a part. And so on.

When you say Jesus' words, do you just mean Scripture?

@SupportiveDante That's what I was thinking of.

But you'd say that God Himself is the Rule, since only He is unchanging and external to man? And of course, as you just said, there are also other rules subordinated to Him

@SupportiveDante Proceed.

Well this is basically a more precise discussion of what we had yesterday

The all-important question of "What makes one a Christian?" has to answer "What is constitutes the rule of faith?"

@SupportiveDante I don't quite follow your logic here, but do you have an argument in mind based on this idea?

Well my proposition is that scripture cannot be the only/final rule (which is basically the point of contention between Catholics and Protestants), and that "internal revelation" (what Luther taught, that God reveals Himself inwardly to each man) neither exists nor was even promised to us at all

Like I said before there must be a means by which saving Faith is passed on to each generation, and that this must be external to man. And if God does not, as the sole cause, reveal Himself inwardly, then logically there must be a secondary cause which He uses and is thus kept in actuality for all time

@SupportiveDante OK, I see where you're going. I think the engine by which salvific practice is passed on is ultimately the body of Christ. The CC is an important part of that. I don't think unitarian-trinitarian is a salvific issue except in secondary aspects, in that trinitarians can be saved and so can unitarians.

You mean the Eucharist, right? "(Mystical) Body of Christ" is often used to refer to the Church itself, because Christ is the Head and we are the members, like the members of a body

So, as a brief tangent, here's a rather pointed question for you. If you were raised and inculcated in the Catholic Faith, you used to be a Trinitarian right? or no?

@SupportiveDante By body of Christ here I mean all individuals in Christ.

right okay

@SupportiveDante I assumed that there must be very good scriptural reasons for trinitarianism, so intellectually went along with it.

And you saw that it wasn't explicitly in the bible, right?

@SupportiveDante That's to put it mildly.

It's kinda funny because there's a book I really like which discusses the rule of faith and tradition, and it uses the Trinity as a counterexample, to say that Scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith because there are truths necessary for salvation not explicitly contained in scripture, and that's one of em

@SupportiveDante Sounds like they've put the cart before the horse to me.

Well, I wouldn't say that

I'd say putting Scripture as the rule is putting the cart before the horse

@SupportiveDante Do they make an argument re how they know trinitarianian belief is required for salvation?

Because the Church existed for centuries without a final and universal canon of Scripture

@SupportiveDante Trinitarianism was nowhere to be seen during those centuries!

@OneGodtheFather It doesn't get that precise, and the book, or that section rather, is more generally about tradition, scripture, and the rule

@OneGodtheFather Wasn't it?

Was Unitarianism?

@SupportiveDante Basically all theologians from the first 200 years of the church would be considered heretical from the standpoint of contemporary trinitarianism.

I think that's anachronistic

I wouldn't call St Thomas a heretic, even though he taught explicitly against what is now Catholic dogma

Because it was not defined dogma in his time and so was open to discussion to a certain degree

@SupportiveDante OK, so if Tommy was around today and saying the same things, he would be a heretic - correct? That's what I'm saying re first 200 years.

But your point about the formation of the canon is an interesting and important one. If one relies on the canon, one has to hold the early church got some things right. But that doesn't mean they go everything right. Indeed, trinitarians would agree on that as well - we both think the early church got some things right and some things wrong.

@OneGodtheFather If he were to say the same things, yes. But it would also be rather silly to think his arguments and expositions were prior to his obedience to the Faith.

@SupportiveDante Heh - I think trying to imagine what Tommy would say or think if magically transplanted to the 21st century is a difficult task indeed. Perhaps he would be a unitarian!

@SupportiveDante I do like the 'grand-fathering in' idea, though. These guys don't lose their salvation, but now that we men have decided on these creeds, anyone who disagrees with us loses their salvation! A nice trick, but silly IMO.

@SupportiveDante At least the book realizes the scriptural case for trinitarianism is weak, and to make the case you have to look elsewhere.

Well of course, because it's literally saying Scripture isn't the rule

@SupportiveDante Right, so take that conclusion re scriptural basis, weaken one's belief in CC's authority, and it's pretty easy to see how one arrives at unitarianism, no?

Well if you're asking me, I'd say not really, to be honest

@SupportiveDante So again, the question comes back to the argument for the CC's authority. That's where all the weight has to be. Does the Magisterium actually have the authority it claims? How would one figure that out?

Well, you can't deny that this visible authority structure was put in place by Christ Himself, and is something recorded in Scripture

And that also recorded in Scripture is that prior to Christ, God put into place an authority structure for the Israelites, who are a figure of the Church

@SupportiveDante OK, so why aren't you Orthodox?

What do you think of arguments from Scripture about the Trinity, such as the phrase bara Elohim in Genesis 1?

@OneGodtheFather Well in practical terms I was not raised Orthodox, so there's that. But really I investigated the claims of Orthodoxy, and found it to be neither Scripturally sound nor able to fulfil the Vincentian Canon.

@SupportiveDante Extremely weak. Singular pronouns are used thousands of times to refer to God in the Bible. A handful of plural pronouns (perhaps explained by a reference to the heavenly court) = trinitarianism? It's pretty straightforward eisegesis.

I think calling it a handful is a mischaracterization. And if you mean "Heavenly court" to be including the angels that would be rather confusing, since it would mean the Angels themselves were/are a principle of Creation ex nihilo and that opens a can of worms because how is it that God is not the only one who Creates? Doesn't that also imply a multitude of gods and so blatantly contradict Unitarianism?

@SupportiveDante The number of plural pronouns in the Bible to (supposedly) refer to God is a handful. How many can you cite? Look, is God singular or plural?

@SupportiveDante The King says to his court, "Today we shall sign a peace treaty." He proceeds to sign the peace treaty. Grandma says to her grandchild "Today we shall bake cookies." She proceeds to bake cookies herself. And so on.

Well "Elohim" is plural

@SupportiveDante No, it's not plural in the relevant sense. It is a singular term suggestive of a plurality of power.

Sure, you can say it's the "royal we" but that is a rather novel interpretation

@SupportiveDante Virtually no ancient Jews thought Gen. 1 indicated God was plural.

If you argue that Trinitarianism is not present in the Early Church, you still could not argue that Unitariansim was present, insofar as it is a denial of the plurality of persons

@SupportiveDante It is absolutely not a 'novel interpretation'. Instead, the trinitarian eisegetical attempt is what's novel.

So? We aren't Jews

@OneGodtheFather Okay, could you answer this question for me, please then?

@SupportiveDante No, we're Israelites.

Also, could you describe how you explain why Jesus Christ is God but His Father is also God?

@SupportiveDante Here's a decent primer on the term 'elohim'. britannica.com/topic/Elohim "A plural of majesty [...] Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. [...] The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning."

I don't think that answers my question about Christ

@SupportiveDante Jesus himself says the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). Where does Jesus say He is God?

John 8:58 "Yahweh"

So what do you think the Eucharist is? I presumed in that question that you believe Jesus is God, my mistake

@SupportiveDante John 8:58 Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am". = ego eimi. The beggar says the same thing in John 9. Was the beggar saying he was also God?

@SupportiveDante Jesus held up the bread, and said "This is my body." He held up the wine, and said "This is my blood."

@SupportiveDante Again, where does Jesus say He's God?!

@OneGodtheFather So do you believe that Christ is really present and that the bread and wine substantially become His Body and Blood? If so, what makes Jesus so special then that eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood would give us eternal life? If not, what is so special about this symbolic cannibalism?

@OneGodtheFather Obviously no one stoned the beggar. Why did they immediately start to stone Jesus if it wasn't obvious that He was blaspheming, that is, identifying Himself with God?

@OneGodtheFather John 10:30 "I and the Father are one"

How exactly did He blaspheme in Matthew 26:64-65, if He were not calling Himself God?

@SupportiveDante Blasphemy does not require 'claiming to be God'. Back up to John 8:56. Abraham is given a vision of the Messiah. Jesus then says "I am he." I.e., the Messiah that Abraham was given a vision of. Look at Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well in John 4 (in particular John 4:25-26), there it is very clear Jesus' 'ego eimi' in that situation refers to Messiahship.

How is it that He was before Abraham?

@SupportiveDante Re the beggar, exactly. It isn't the term 'ego eimi' (which obviously doesn't correspond to claiming to be God in general usage, it just means "I am he" or "It is I"), it is Jesus' claim the Messiahship.

What does John 1:1-3 mean to you?

@SupportiveDante Re 'before Abraham', we can get into that, but lots of things are before Abraham. Going from 'before Abraham' to 'must be God' is a non-sequitur IMO. To understand this passage requires an understanding of the ancient Jewish idea of 'notional preexistence'. Things in God's plan were talked about as existing.

@SupportiveDante Re John 10:30, Jesus explains what He means by 'I and the Father are one'. He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Note Jesus then goes on to say the disciples will be in Him and He in them. Does that mean the disciples are God too? He also says the disciples will be in the Father.

@SupportiveDante Re Matthew 26:64-65 (thanks for the scriptural workout today :) ), again, Jesus is referring to being the Messiah. It was blasphemy to claim to be God's chosen one if you weren't. The Jewish leadership had decided Jesus wasn't. Therefore, He was claiming blasphemy. Look at the question directly preceding it (Matthew 26:63), "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (co-referential terms, btw - 'Son of God' does not mean 'God the Son').

What about Revelation 1:8? This is John recording Christ speaking.

@SupportiveDante Surprised it took you until your 4th verse to cite John 1! ;) "The Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." I prefer Moffatt's translation. "The Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine." But either way, identifying the Logos with Jesus is a mistake. The Logos 'became flesh' in the way an idea or plan for a cup 'becomes the cup'. It's a causal process, not an identity in a normal sense.

What does Paul mean in Col 1:15-18 that all things were Created in Christ and by Christ?

@OneGodtheFather Your "preferred" translation?

Last Biblical ping-pong serve: Hebrews 1

How do you know this is not eisegesis on your part, but it is when Trinitarians read the Trinity in these verses?

@SupportiveDante Revelation 1:8, sounds like God speaking there, not Jesus. Revelation repeatedly and clearly distinguishes between God and Jesus.

@OneGodtheFather It doesn't seem to clearly distinguish there. We go straight from Jesus Christ in 5-7 to "I am the Alpha and the Omega" with no language to say "that was Jesus, now this is God"

@SupportiveDante We can talk about the scope of 'all things' and what 'in' means in Col 1:15-18, but just look at Col 1:15. Jesus is the image of God, not God!

@SupportiveDante Heb 1:8?

@SupportiveDante Re John 1:1, it's just that the sentence doesn't make any sense. If I am with someone, I am not that someone. Moffatt's at least makes sense. Either way, the Logos isn't identical with Jesus, though.

@OneGodtheFather What about it?

@SupportiveDante I'm clarifying if that's your question re Heb 1.

I said Heb 1 and I meant Heb 1, not any specific verse

@SupportiveDante Missed your question re the Eucharist back a bit. Jesus is the way to God. If Jesus says to do it, then my theological considerations are secondary. This is part of what bothers me with the Catholic approach (the criticism is also given by the Orthodox - Catholics are getting too specific and wedding themselves to a theology unnecessarily).

@SupportiveDante Re Heb 1, the author calls the Son a 'reflection' and 'representation' of God. What exactly do you think needs responding to?

@OneGodtheFather Why is that not your eisegesis?

@SupportiveDante What is what not my eisegesis?

" the author calls the Son a 'reflection' and 'representation' of God. "

@SupportiveDante Well, it's a standard translation. Here's the Berean version from Hebrews 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature" Representation means not the thing itself. Radiance of means not the thing itself being radiated.

In that same verse Christ "upholds all things"

How does He do this if he is only a "representation" in the sense that a mere man can be "representative"

@SupportiveDante Re 'upholds all things', Jesus has been given all authority by God.