what do we know of the trinity
today at mass we heard a story
a short story of LEO TOLSTOY
called THE THREE HERMITS
once there was a bishop who was travelling
to assume the role of leader of a local church
on the way there he was informed about
a group of hermits who lived alone on a tiny island
the bishop decided he must acknowledge the
holy life of these men so he commanded
the captain of the ship for
he was travelling by boat to
go to the island where the hermits lived
as he arrived he saw the three men standing
on the beach holding hands and awaiting the visitor
when the bishop arrived there were some simple greetings
but then the hermits had little to say to the bishop
the hermits were very different one from another
the eldest was very gaunt and serene
bent over with age but possessing the countenance
of an angel
then there was the big tall young hermit
who was jolly and full of strength
and then there was another hermit
who was dark in the eyes and looked to be
suffering interminably
after a long period of wrestling with the
seeming dim-wittedness of the hermits
the bishop asked
how do you pray here?
the three chuckled to themselves then offered
in a stammering chorus
"you three pray for us three"
the bishop stood back and determined
that it was his obligation to teach these men
how to pray again
so he began with them
you must say
"OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN..."
the three stammered out in echo
the words as they heard them
the bishop stayed with the men all day
getting them to somehow memorize the words
the three stammered and rehearsed
and were pretty well on their way
to memorizing the prayer when the bishop
noted that the day was ending and he had to finish his journey
as the boat left the little island
the bishop stood in the stern
watching the island recede
and as he watched he saw
the three hermits come running across the water
as if running on dry land
and they came to the boat and beseeched the bishop
to teach them again the OUR FATHER for they had
already forgotten the words
with this the bishop went to his knees and said
it is not i who must teach you to pray
i must learn from you the way of prayer
and with that the three hermits left
and returned to their island
and the bishop saw only a place
of bright light where the three had gone
when making the sign of the cross
it may do you well
to think of the response
CHRIST HAS DIED
CHRIST IS RISEN
CHRIST WILL COME AGAIN
or
GOOD FRIDAY
HOLY SATURDAY
EASTER SUNDAY
or
FATHER
SON
SPIRIT
"you three pray for us three"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Justice before
dogma.
thanks for this
Recently Paddy jh I did peruse some commentary on the..Trinity, wherein the author asserts the Trinity must be interpreted as...neo-platonic. Sans the NPism, the Trinity is meaningless, said author (linked on my blog to the Hypatia primary sources)
the idea of the trinity was implicit in the experience of the first christian community
the tradition of the "HOLY SPIRIT" existed in the jewish world/mind -- it was associated with the proclamations of the prophetic tradition
God as Father
is an inherently jewish notion
jesus/GOD as Son
needs no neoplatonic justification
the real troubling notion associated with the understanding adn declaration of TRINITY
is the understanding of PERSON
which comes from aristotle and to some lesser extent
PLATO
the world of the first 3 centuries after christ was decidedly neo-platonic -- but it would be a huge ignorance to read the apostolic fathers with that decdied bias alone
justin martyr
IRENEUS
gregory nazianzen
basil the great
athanasius
clement of alexandria
john climacus
maximus confessor
john of damascus
ignatius of antioch
all these guys possessed an understanding
of CHRIST in ways that are
beyond neoplatonic
neoplatonic dualism
gnosticism
did make its way into
the mindset of many people
and it created a distraction
and upheaval in many ways
it still does
but the essential line of reasoning about
the TRINTIY is rooted in
scripture and the shared tradition of ISRAEL
more than anything else
the body and blood of christ
now that's a festival
jh
well sir....I agree for the most part, and I'm not defending a gnostic or mystic position (though I do think some gnostic writers--even Marcion-- had interesting, even quite rational explanations of many theological problems, such as the...problem of evil so-called)
The New Testament was written in Greek (--then so was the Septuagint), and many of the terms are not found in the Old T. (such as the interesting...Ouranon), and much of the new testament imagery shows similarities to neo-platonic writing (ie the light-/dark symbols in Gospel of John). Ergo, it seems fairly reasonable to see a relationship, even a close relationship--the...paraclete itself seems remarkably platonic .
And many of the writers you refer to also had neo-platonic aspects (at least Ireneus and Clement, two I have read a bit of--as does Augustine, really). The aristotelian aspects seem to arrive later with Aquinas.
j
it would be difficult to argue against the influence of the neoplatonist school in early christian thought
plato
or at least the way he was read
seems to have given a great freedom of thought to the first apologists
"the cave" story was utilized as a basic christian metaphor
the notion of the "ideal" seemed to charge up the thinking of many of those early writers...but they knew their aristotle too
the more involved concepts around the "creeds" notions like "person" "one in being" "trinity" 'one being two natures' these concepts were worked out through the understanding of aristotelian metaphysics...augustine was dyed in the wool platonic for most of his life...the last few years of his writing betray some light coming from aristotle
the latins got their aristotle in the 9th - 10th centuries from the muslim scribes who had copied and preserved almost all that survived of aristotle and plato -- one of the great gifts of the islamic world to the west- tomes that existed for years in benedictine monastery libraries
aquinas knew his early church fathers and knew his aristotle and his plato well...and... he does a great job utilizing what is best in both thinkers
but he comes down heavily in favor of the stagirite
the trinity as NEOPLATONIC???
well i don't know
no doubt the apologists were utilizing all the tools at their disposal and they had to somehow resonate with the thought and rhetoric of the day...but in the working out of the theology there is nothing to be said for "gnosis" or a "matter vs spirit" dualism
the debate about " 3 persons "
being still a debate far too involved to go into with much depth here
was generally decided in aristotelian terms - over and above stoic and platonic concepts
adn this was as you indicate "ratified" largely by thomas d'aquino
as time passed and the formulations of doctrine became more precise more relevant to all believers it must be understood that the "sensus communis" the common sense approach to application inevitably won out...when push came to shove philosophically it became apparent that revelation was far more easy to reconcile with aristotle than with plato and any sort of dualism that might've developed from him
plato is valuable
i think the church's leaning on high aesthetics can be traced to platos' notion of beauty
umberto eco wrote a book on the aesthetics of thomas aquinas where it become obvious that plato figures high in t's mind when discussing the value of aesthetics
another book
THE BODY AND SOCIETY
by
PETER BROWN
is valuable study on how various philosphical currents played out in the cultural evolution of western christianity
as for the trinity
and the essential theology surrounding the doctrine i think it is safe to say that it is somewhat engimatic even today
on one hand it is very practical
the GOD of ISRAEL
the SPIRIT OF GOD inspiring the writings of scripture i.e. prophets
and finally the
appearance of THE SON and the prevalence of the SPIRIT in the stories of the gospels was really all that was needed to affirm 3 distinct activities...but the understanding also gave rise to the awareness of the interconnectedness of the 3
when it had to be "defended" against "tri-theism" or arianism or nestorianism or pelagianism - the use of mathematics logic dialectic personalism all seemed to come into play
aristotle wrote the best book on metaphysics so his conceptual arrangtements generally won the day
we can thank plato for the art of christendom
we can thank aristotle for the use of principles of definition and metaphysical language which is replete in our doctrines
the extent and variety of your knowledge is quite impressive to say the least
cognitive recreation with an edge
pax
dude
br john
thank you for the explication.
At times, Aristotelians (or thomists for that matter) sound nearly like...naturalists to me, with the substance, causes, etc (tho' thomistic mysteries are rather complex)--I think some of the protestants say that about catholics as well (at least thomistic sorts) paganism, brrutherr!---a dualistic view of some sort at least means yr soul's intact...Bertrand Russell wrote somewhere that the Platonists were mathematical, and Aristotelians, early biologists and physicists (tho' the physics mostly ...repudiated now). Either way I think many 'Mericans don't realize the extent of the greek influence, or are slightly...taken back by it (and the pagan aspects, ie, toga parties, etc). Even reading a bit of the history of how the Septuagint was arranged (over quite a long period of time) was quite eye-opening ..uncanny really. It isn't as hard and fast as many biblethumpers think (as ..Schopenhauer realized), but more like a collection of semitic wisdom. .
thx again,
J.
Post a Comment