Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
LA PALABRA “TRADICIÓN” EN LA BIBLIA: 1 Cor 11, 17-26.33.
“Si os dividís en bandos, os resulta imposible comer la cena del Señor.Si hay divisiones entre vosotros, eso no es comer la Cena del Señor. Lectura de la primera carta del apóstol san Pablo a los Corintios. HERMANOS: Al prescribiros esto, no puedo alabaros, porque vuestras reuniones causan más daño que provecho. En primer lugar, he oído que cuando se reúne vuestra asamblea hay divisiones entre vosotros; y en parte lo creo; realmente tiene que haber escisiones entre vosotros para que se vea quiénes resisten a la prueba. Así, cuando os reunís en comunidad, eso no es comer la Cena del Señor, pues cada uno se adelanta a comer su propia cena, y mientras uno pasa hambre, el otro está borracho. ¿No tenéis casas donde comer y beber? ¿O tenéis en tan poco a la Iglesia de Dios que humilláis a los que no tienen? ¿Qué queréis que os diga? ¿Que os alabe? En esto no os alabo. Porque yo he recibido una tradición, que procede del Señor y que a mi vez os he transmitido: que el Señor Jesús, en la noche en que iba a ser entregado, tomó pan y, pronunciando la Acción de Gracias, lo partió y dijo: «Esto es mi cuerpo, que se entrega por vosotros. Haced esto en memoria mía». Lo mismo hizo con el cáliz, después de cenar, diciendo: «Este cáliz es la nueva alianza en mi sangre; haced esto cada vez que lo bebáis, en memoria mía». Por eso, cada vez que coméis de este pan y bebéis del Cáliz, proclamáis la muerte del Señor, hasta que vuelva. Por ello, hermanos míos, cuando os reunís para comer esperaos unos a otros.”
La proclamación del dogma de la Inmaculada Concepción fue en una época en que la Revolución anticatólica, propagaba una falsa igualdad, contraria a la armónica desigualdad querida por Dios.
Enseñar que una mera criatura humana, como María, tiene el privilegio extraordinario de la Inmaculada Concepción va directamente contra la falsa igualdad, pues proclama la superioridad de María Santísima sobre todos los Ángeles y sobre todos los hombres. Eso hizo espumar de odio a los espíritus orgullosos que no admiten que haya alguien por encima de ellos.
Pero hay otra razón por la que la Revolución anticatólica combatió este dogma: ella ama el mal y se alegra cuando encuentra en alguien un rastro de maldad; le entristece, por el contrario, cuando encuentra a una persona en la que no ve huella de maldad.
Por eso la idea de que alguien pueda ser tan bueno y santo desde el primer momento de su ser, provoca odio en los malos.
*Oración para todos los días*
Oh Madre Inmaculada, que por el inmenso privilegio de tu Inmaculada Concepción, fuiste preparada para ser digna Madre de Dios y excelsa Madre nuestra, ven en nuestro auxilio.
Tú que desde el primer momento de tu Concepción Inmaculada, aplastaste la cabeza orgullosa del diablo, ayúdanos en nuestra lucha diaria contra las seducciones del demonio, el mundo y la carne.
Tú que fuiste preservada de cualquier mancha de pecado, ten pena de nosotros, pobres pecadores, y concédenos las gracias que te pedimos en esta novena: _(formular las intenciones particulares)._
Pero, sobre todo, queremos pedirte que inflames nuestro corazón con aquel fuego ardiente de amor a Dios que habita en tu Corazón Inmaculado. Así sea.
_Rezar 3 avemarías, recitando después de cada una:_
Fue precisamente Nuestra Señora quien, a través del Mensaje de Fátima, anunció que vendría a pedir la Comunión reparadora de los primeros sábados de mes, por ser el sábado el día en que tradicionalmente se honraba a la Santísima Virgen desde siglos atrás. Hubo que esperar al día 10 de diciembre de 1925, para que se cumpliera aquel anuncio, teniendo ello lugar en el monasterio de Santa Dorotea, en Tuy (Pontevedra), donde se encontraba Sor Lucía, quien junto a sus primos Francisco y Jacinta, había tenido la dicha de ser testigo de las visiones marianas en Fátima. Fue así como la Santísima Virgen le pidió la institución de la devoción de los cinco Primeros Sábados de mes como modo de reparar las ofensas contra su Inmaculado Corazón.
¿En que consiste esta devoción?
Atendiendo el pedido de Nuestra Señora, sus fieles devotos podemos consolarla cumpliendo durante cinco primeros sábados de mes consecutivos los siguientes requisitos:
Confesión.
Asistir a la Santa Misa, recibiendo la Sagrada Comunión con intención de reparar las ofensas contra el Inmaculado Corazón de María.
Rezo del Santo Rosario.
Meditar al menos uno de los Misterios del Santo Rosario durante quince minutos.
¿Por qué cinco sábados?
Ello obedece a los cinco tipos de blasfemias con las que se ofende a Nuestra Señora, y que Ella misma reveló a Sor Lucía:
Blasfemias contra su Inmaculado Corazón.
Blasfemias contra su virginidad.
Blasfemias contra Ella en cuanto Madre de Dios y Madre de toda la humanidad.
Blasfemias de aquellos que públicamente infunden en los niños la indiferencia, el desprecio e incluso el odio a la Santísima Virgen.
Blasfemias de quienes ultrajan sus sagradas imágenes.
La Comunión Reparadora de los Primeros Sábados de mes
Aparición de Nuestro Señor y de la Santísima Virgen a Sor Lucia en Pontevedra
1. – ¿Cuándo? El 10 de diciembre de 1925. – ¿Cómo? Por una aparición de Nuestro Señor y de la Santísima Virgen que me mostró su Inmaculado Corazón cercado de espinas y pidiendo reparación. – ¿Dónde? En Pontevedra (Pasaje Isabel II). La primera aparición (tuvo lugar) en mi cuarto, la segunda cerca del portal del jardín donde estaba trabajando.
2. ¿Las condiciones requeridas? Durante cinco meses, el primer sábado, recibir la Santa Comunión, rezar el rosario, hacer compañía quince minutos a Nuestra Señora meditando los misterios del rosario, y confesarse con la misma intención. La confesión puede hacerse otro día, siempre que uno esté en estado de gracia al recibir la Santa Comunión.
3. Beneficios o promesas. «A las almas que busquen desagraviarme de esta manera (dijo Nuestra Señora), les prometo asistirlas a la hora de la muerte con todas las gracias necesarias para su salvación.”
4. ¿Por qué cinco sábados y no nueve, o siete en honor de los dolores de Nuestra Señora? “Encontrándome en la capilla con Nuestro Señor cierto momento de la noche del 29 al 30 del mes de mayo de 1930, y hablando a Nuestro Señor de las preguntas cuatro y cinco, me sentí de repente poseída íntimamente por la divina presencia y, si no me equivoco, esto es lo que me fue revelado:
«Hija mía, el motivo es simple. Hay cinco especies de ofensas y blasfemias proferidas contra el Inmaculado Corazón de María: – las blasfemias contra la Inmaculada Concepción. – las blasfemias contra su virginidad. – las blasfemias contra su maternidad divina, negando al mismo tiempo reconocerla como Madre de los hombres. – las blasfemias de aquellos que buscan públicamente sembrar en el corazón de los niños la indiferencia o el desprecio, o incluso el odio respecto a esta Madre Inmaculada. – las ofensas de aquellos que la ultrajan directamente en sus santas imágenes.
Este es, hija mía, el motivo por el cual el Inmaculado Corazón de María me ha inspirado a pedir esta pequeña reparación, y, en consideración de la misma, a conmover Mi misericordia para perdonar a las almas que tuvieron la desgracia de ofenderla. En cuanto a ti, busca sin cesar, por tus oraciones y tus sacrificios, conmover Mi misericordia respecto a esas pobres almas».
5. ¿Aquellos que no pudieran cumplir estas condiciones el sábado, pueden satisfacerlas el domingo? «La práctica de esta devoción será igualmente aceptada el domingo siguiente al primer sábado, cuando mis sacerdotes, por justos motivos, lo permitan a las almas».
The same Greek word “adelphoi” is used in 1 Corinthinas 15: 6. It simply cannot mean “son of the same mother”.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:6
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
“1. The James and Joseph mentioned in Matthew 13:55 are elsewhere (Matt. 27:56, John 19:25) said to be the sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas, not Mary the wife of Joseph. Cleophas and Joseph were different men, so these two Marys were different women. This means James and Joseph couldn’t be Jesus’ brothers german. When Matthew calls them “brothers of the Lord,” he must have in mind some wider usage of “brothers.”
(By the way, notice how many Marys appear in the New Testament: the Virgin Mary, Mary of Cleophas, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and possibly one or two more. It is said that the name Mary was held by about one in five women in the Holy Land during our Lord’s time.)
2. From the cross Jesus gave his mother into John’s care, something he would not have done if Mary had other children who could take care of her. It would be strange for our Lord’s last command to be, in effect, a denial of the family relationship, if the “brothers of the Lord” were his brothers in the modern sense. He gave his mother into John’s care precisely because he had no brothers who could assume the duty.
3. The “brothers of the Lord” are never called sons of Mary, although Jesus regularly is called her son. If they also were her sons, why this odd construction? It is not a natural way for the Evangelists to write. You would think that at least one of the Evangelists would have called these men the “sons of Mary,” but not so.
4. John 7:3-4 reports, “His brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the works you are doing. No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly.’” They were giving him advice about his future. In ancient times, younger brothers never gave older brothers advice on how to live their lives. It was considered rude to do so. (This remains the custom in the Orient and in other parts of the world: younger siblings defer to older siblings.)
This suggests either that the “brothers,” if Mary’s children, were older than Jesus—not possible, since he was the first born—or that they weren’t his brothers at all but were more distant relations, whether older or younger, who would have felt free to give him advice.
5. Answering the angel, Mary asks, “How can this be since I know not man?” If she had been intending to have a “normal” marriage with Joseph, she would have had no need to ask how she would have a child. She would have expected to have children. As a country girl, she certainly knew how babies came about; she wasn’t asking about the mechanics of the thing. Her question makes sense only if she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity.”
When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46;13:55; Mark 3:31–34; 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).
No Word for Cousin
Because neither Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)
In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage.
If Mary had anticipated having children in the normal way, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.”
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
Fundamentalist Arguments
Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
You get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child.
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but this was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.
Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome wrote a reply, a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.
So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?
Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One, known as the Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God.
Was James Jesus’s Half Brother?
Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider only James; similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).
Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.
So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.
This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question, but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004″
232 Christians are baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”53 Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: “I do.” “The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.”54
233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.
234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”.56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin”.57
235 This paragraph expounds briefly (I) how the mystery of the Blessed Trinity was revealed, (II) how the Church has articulated the doctrine of the faith regarding this mystery, and (III) how, by the divine missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Father fulfils the “plan of his loving goodness” of creation, redemption and sanctification.
236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). “Theology” refers to the mystery of God’s inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and “economy” to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God’s works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.
237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY
The Father revealed by the Son
238 Many religions invoke God as “Father”. the deity is often considered the “father of gods and of men”. In Israel, God is called “Father” inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, “his first-born son”.60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is “the Father of the poor”, of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61
239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.
240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father by his relationship to his only Son who, reciprocally, is Son only in relation to his Father: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”64
241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; as “the image of the invisible God”; as the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature”.65
242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is &uot;consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”.67
The Father and the son revealed by the spirit
243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of “another Paraclete” (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously “spoken through the prophets”, the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them “into all the truth”.68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.
244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. the Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus’ glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.”71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”.72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.”73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”74
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”75
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
III. THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE FAITH
The formation of the Trinitarian dogma
249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church’s living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”81
250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people’s sense of the faith.
251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82
252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
The dogma of the Holy Trinity
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.”84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”85
254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.”86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.”87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.”88 The divine Unity is Triune.
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.”89 Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.”90 “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”91
256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople: Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendour. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. .92
IV. THE DIVINE WORKS AND THE TRINITARIAN MISSIONS
257 “O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!”93 God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the “plan of his loving kindness”, conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: “He destined us in love to be his sons” and “to be conformed to the image of his Son”, through “the spirit of sonship”.94 This plan is a “grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”, stemming immediately from Trinitarian love.95 It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.96
258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.”97 However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are”.98 It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.
259 Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known both what is proper to the divine persons, and their one divine nature. Hence the whole Christian life is a communion with each of the divine persons, without in any way separating them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him.99
260 The ultimate end of the whole divine economy is the entry of God’s creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity.100 But even now we are called to be a dwelling for the Most Holy Trinity: “If a man loves me”, says the Lord, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him”:101
O my God, Trinity whom I adore, help me forget myself entirely so to establish myself in you, unmovable and peaceful as if my soul were already in eternity. May nothing be able to trouble my peace or make me leave you, O my unchanging God, but may each minute bring me more deeply into your mystery! Grant my soul peace. Make it your heaven, your beloved dwelling and the place of your rest. May I never abandon you there, but may I be there, whole and entire, completely vigilant in my faith, entirely adoring, and wholly given over to your creative action.102
IN BRIEF
261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
262 The Incarnation of God’s Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.
263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (⇒ Jn 14:26) and by the Son “from the Father” (⇒ Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. “With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified” (Nicene Creed).
264 “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).
265 By the grace of Baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG # 9).
266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).
267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Understanding the Holy Spirit – BISHOP BARRON
In Defense of the Trinity: A dialogue on the errors of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding this historic Christian teaching
El Misterio de la TRINIDAD ¿TRES DIOSES? | Lo que muchos no se atreven a decir. TEOLOGÍA PARA LAICOS
A Divine Act of the Trinity at play with each other, recreating with each other.
IN MARY THE HOLY TRINITY WERE OPERATING FULLY AND MARY WAS COOPERATING
MINUTE 1H03′
PROPER TRANSLATION OF PHILIPPIANS 2
EXPLANATION OF PHILIPPIANS 2
TRIPARTITION UNION
FATHER IN THE WILL
SON IN THE INTELLECT
SPIRIT IN THE MEMORY
DEFINITION OF A “PERSON”
In Catholic theology, a person is fundamentally an individual substance of a rational nature, defined by intelligence, will, distinctiveness, and self-subsistence (incommunicability), meaning they are complete in themselves but called to communion with others. This definition applies analogously to God (the Trinity), angels, and humans, but for humans, personhood also involves being a body-soul composite, uniquely reflecting God’s image through intellect and love in relationship, and possessing inherent dignity from conception.
Core Characteristics
Individual Substance: A complete, self-existing entity, not a part of something else.
Rational Nature: Possesses intellect and will, enabling knowledge and love, distinguishing persons from animals or inanimate objects.
Incommunicability: Each person is unique and distinct, unable to be completely merged into another.
Openness to Others: While distinct, persons are made for communion, not isolation, finding fulfillment in relationships, especially with God.
Types of Persons in Theology
God: The Holy Trinity is three distinct Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in one divine nature.
Angels: Purely spiritual, intellectual beings, existing as individual persons.
Humans: A unique composite of a rational soul and a body, made in God’s image, with inherent dignity from the first moment of existence.
Key Distinctions for Humans
Body-Soul Union: Humans are not just spirits but are embodied, allowing for unique forms of thought, love, and procreation.
Capacity for Change: Unlike angels, human persons have the capacity for growth, development, and change through their embodied lives.
Dignity: Every living human individual, regardless of developmental stage or capability, is a person with intrinsic worth and rights, reflecting God’s image.
Person
According to the generally accepted definition of Boethius, a person is an individual substance of a rational or intellectual nature. The notion of person is subject to analogical differences depending on whether the term is referring to human, angelic, or divine persons.
PERSON
“An individual substance of a rational nature” (Boethius). Therefore every individual intellectual substance which is complete in itself, uncommunicated and existing for itself, is a person. Essential to person in theological terms are intelligence and substantiality, wholeness in oneself and especially individuality. From individuality flow such features of personhood as distinctiveness, incommunicability, and uniqueness. Among human persons there are also the elements of responsibility and possession of distinctive rights. (Etym. Latin persona, actor’s mask; character; supposition of a rational nature.)
The Latin word persona was originally used to denote the mask worn by an actor. From this it was applied to the role he assumed, and, finally, to any character on the stage of life, to any individual. This article discusses (1) the definition of “person”, especially with reference to the doctrine of the Incarnation; and (2) the use of the word persona and its Greek equivalents in connection with the Trinitarian disputes. For the psychological treatment see PERSONALITY.
Definition
The classic definition is that given by Boethius in “De persona et duabus naturis”, c. ii: Naturæ rationalis individua substantia (an individual substance of a rational nature).
Substantia — “Substance” is used to exclude accidents: “We see that accidents cannot constitute person” (Boethius, op. cit.). Substantia is used in two senses: of the concrete substance as existing in the individual, called substantia prima, corresponding to Aristotle’s ousia prote; and of abstractions, substance as existing in genus and species, called substantia secunda, Aristotle’s ousia deutera. It is disputed which of the two the word taken by itself here signifies. It seems probable that of itself it prescinds from substantia prima and substantia secunda, and is restricted to the former signification only by the word individua.
Individua — Individua, i.e., indivisum in se, is that which, unlike the higher branches in the tree of Porphyry, genus and species, cannot be further subdivided. Boethius in giving his definition does not seem to attach any further signification to the word. It is merely synonymous with singularis.
Rationalis naturae — Person is predicated only of intellectual beings. The generic word which includes all individual existing substances is suppositum. Thus person is a subdivision of suppositum which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and non-living individuals. A person is therefore sometimes defined as suppositum naturae rationalis.
The definition of Boethius as it stands can hardly be considered a satisfactory one. The words taken literally can be applied to the rational soul of man, and also the human nature of Christ. That St. Thomas accepts it is presumably due to the fact that he found it in possession, and recognized as the traditional definition. He explains it in terms that practically constitute a new definition. Individua substantia signifies, he says, substantia, completa, per se subsistens, separata ab aliia, i.e., a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others (III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).
If to this be added rationalis naturae, we have a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) substantia– this excludes accident; (b) completa– it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or “aptitudinally” does not satisfy the definition; (c) per se subsistens–the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; (d) separata ab aliis–this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae–excludes all non-intellectual supposita.
To a person therefore belongs a threefold incommunicability, expressed in notes (b), (c), and (d). The human soul belongs to the nature as a part of it, and is therefore not a person, even when existing separately. The human nature of Christ does not exist per se seorsum, but in alio, in the Divine Personality of the Word. It is therefore communicated by assumption and so is not a person. Lastly the Divine Essence, though subsisting per se, is so communicated to the Three Persons that it does not exist apart from them; it is therefore not a person.
Theologians agree that in the Hypostatic Union the immediate reason why the Sacred Humanity, though complete and individual, is not a person is that it is not a subsistence, not per se seorsum subsistens. They have, however, disputed for centuries as to what may be the ultimate determination of the nature which if present would make it a subsistence and so a person, what in other words is the ultimate foundation of personality. According to Scotus, as he is usually understood, the ultimate foundation is a mere negation. That individual intellectual nature is a person which is neither of its nature destined to be communicated–as is the human soul–nor is actually communicated–as is the Sacred Humanity. If the Hypostatic Union ceased, the latter would ipso facto, without any further determination, become a person. To this it is objected that the person possesses the nature and all its attributes. It is difficult to believe that this possessor, as distinct from the objects possessed, is constituted only by a negative. Consequently, the traditional Thomists, following Cajetan, hold that there is a positive determination which they call the “mode” of subsistence. It is the function of this mode to make the nature incommunicable, terminated in itself, and capable of receiving its own esse, or existence. Without this mode the human nature of Christ exists only by the uncreated esse of the Word.
The Trinity and Baptism: Why it Matters What You Say (Aquinas 101)
Understanding The Trinity? – Explaining the Faith
God the Father: The Old Testament – Explaining the Faith
Understanding Jesus In a New Way – Explaining the Faith
MUST SEE: Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi: How the Holy Trinity Operated in Adam and Eve before Original Sin?
God is Love so He is a Triune God, One God in Three Persons, and We have a whole Divine Family waiting for us in Heaven in which we can be grafted in and united to already, even right here on Earth!!!
Rediscovering the nature, the essence, the very definition of what and who God is, is absolutely amazing!!! Understanding that God is a Holy Trinity, Three Persons in one God, one and only God, one only Divinity, one Essence in Three Persons: God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit.
To define God, we have to go back to 1st John chapter 4 verse 8: “God is love”.
But how do you define love when God is infinte and we humans as so limited to grasp the deep things of God?
Well, how would you define a table to an extraterrestrial being from another system? A text with a definition might do. A picture even better… How about cooking? We would need to show a person with some food doing some action of cutting, mixing, pouring, heating, stiring… We do agree that showing a picture of a person with a tomato in the hand would not do. We would also need to show the action of actually cutting or peeling or manipulating the tomato to convey the concept of cooking. It therefore must have 3 components: a person, some food, and the action of cooking…
Well love is also an action, love is a action verb. Not just a feeling as movies would have us believe. It is a verb. To define love, we first need a lover, a person who loves, who generates love, who gives love, and that person is God the Father.
We also need a recipient, a beloved, another person who receives love, that person is God The Son.
And because love is an action, it is an action verb, we need something to be done between them two, an action, a verb, love is embracing, giving, forgiving, gifting, protecting, caring, kissing, taking care of, feeding, providing, sacrificing, listening to, watching over, looking after, waiting, stroking, hugging, cuddling, covering, sheltering… it’s a verb and this verb is so powerful that it takes on its own identity with a will and an intellect, and as a rational individuality this person is God the Holy Spirit who is Charity, who is Love in action Itself. SEE SECTION ON “THE HOLY TRINITY”.
In the account of the Creation in Genesis 1:27 The Holy Trinity appears for the first time as God speaks in the first personal subject pronoun of the plural form, “Let us make man in Our Image”. Who was God speaking to in such a plural form? The Three Persons cooperated as One Concert of Love in This Divine Work of Creation.
This Triad, this Trio, those Three Persons, from the very same and unique Divine nature and essence, live as One God. They are co-eternal, they always existed, not one came before another as God lives outside of time, He created time for humans but He Himself is not subjected to time. They are co-equal and consubstantial of the same substance, the same Essence, the same God, one Divinity in three persons. They share the same Divine Nature or Essence. They are distinct persons, yet possess one inseparable, undivided Divine Substance.
To exemplify what God is in our little human minds and brains that are too limited to understand what the Holy Trinity is, God has tried to explain to us who He is using concepts that the human mind can grasp yet The Most Holy Trinity still remains a Mystery as God is infinite and cannot be contained nor understood by a limited mind.
The Holy Spirit has given us to understand that in the Holy Baptism we received the three theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Charity. Each one gifted by a Person of the Holy Trinity. Faith from The Father. Hope from the Son. Charity from the Holy Spirit.
In the Confiteor prayer, when we confess our sins we pray the following: “I confess to Almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do”, the thoughts being related to The Father, the words because God The Son is the Verb, The Word, The Logos, and in works relating to God The Holy Spirit in action in our lives that we offend by our wrongdoings or by our omissions of good actions or lack of action when we fail to act upon His promptings.
Also, The Holy Trinity acts in our lives through the three sacraments of Christian Initiation. The first Sacrament of Baptism makes us Sons of God of God the Father by adoption within the Son. Through the Sacrament of the Holy Communion we receive God The Son in the Holy Eucharist. In the Sacrament of the Confirmation we receive a personal downpour of God’s Holy Spirit.
The Triune God is LOVE; God The Father is the Source of Love, God The Son is the Incarnate Love and God The Holy Spirit is the Love being Poured out upon us.
God the Father is connected directly to our will and therefore we need to conform our will to the Will of God. As the Holy Mother of God The Son, the Will of God must become our own will, “Fiat Mihi Segundun Verbum Tuum” said the Virgin Mary to the Arcangel Gabriel relating to Her the Message of God. “Fiat Voluntas Tua” said Jesus Himself to His Father when He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. Our will must come to be what God The Father wills, our intellect relates to God The Son and all memory to God The Holy Spirit. These are the 3 highest faculties of our Human Soul, perfectly compatible and formatted to be configured according to God in His Three Persons.
NOTE: Father Iannuzzi explains that “God the Father was operating in Adam and Eve’s wills and He was also sustaining their heart beats, the center of the human being’s body. God The Son was operating in the intellect of Adam and Eve continuously through infused knowledge and He was also sustaining and maintaining their life blood, the same life blood that He would shed in atonement for their sin. The Holy Spirit was operating in the memory of Adam and Eve as well as in their breath, their exhalation and inhalation. The “Ruach”, the wind, the “breath of God”, “Ruach Yahve”, entered the nostril of Adam to give him divine life. The Spirit was breathing in and out of Adam’s lung with divine breath and divine life force and in the memory too. WATCH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw28h1CQwkA&t=
The Holy Trinity therefore consists of a Divine Family to which we are all called and predestined to belong to. God called all of us, every single human being, to become part of his Divine Family. Not all humans will respond to the call as every human has free will but all of us were called to be Sons and Daughters of God to enter into the Divine Family and to be adopted as Sons and Daughters of God.
ILLUSTRATION: The same as the human hand has five fingers, when we are created we are called to be part of a family with persons who take care of us whatever the circumstances that we may have on Earth.
– As the middle finger God The Father is the Central Person,
– God Our Father, as the middle finger of our hand has God the Son “at his right hand”, the index represents God The Son who points out to The Father: he came to the Earth to teach us about The Father. to show us The Father, to take us back to The Father and to bring us back to The Father. Jesus Christ is the index,
– God the Holy Spirit could be symbolized by what we interestingly call in English “the ring finger”; it is the finger where we put the ring of a married person. It is appropriate as God the Holy Spirit is the very person who literally married or espoused the Holy Virgin Mary to put the seed of God into her womb so that God the Son would be born as God Incarnate, as a human being and we, humans, are also called to receive God the Holy Spirit into our souls as it cleanses our entire being at our Baptism. We also receive Him contained in the Holy Communion and we receive Him personally too in the Holy Sacrament of the Confirmation.
– Therefore right next to the ring finger is the little finger: it is shorter than the others but it is still the closest to the Holy Trinity and that is Our Mother the Holy Virgin Mary, who is the closest being next to the Holy Trinity, above all angels, being Herself Queen of Angels. The little finger is actually right next to the ring finger because God the Holy Spirit is Her Spouse: The Holy Virgin Mary was literally impregnated by the Holy Spirit who put the seed of God into Mary’s womb to beget the Son of God Incarnate, God The Son in flesh, The Incarnate Word of God Jesus Christ and so Mother, The Holy Mother of God the Virgin Mary, is that fourth finger that is shorter than the other three, but the closest to them.
– And finally we have a fifth finger which is the thumb. The thumb seems to be separate from the others, it doesn’t even reach the height of the others, it is very mobile and that finger represents our Guardian Angel: it is of the Heavenly Realm. It is not human, it’s part of the hand because it does work and acts in presence of God the Holy Trinity but it is very mobile because it actually accompanies us here below on Earth since our conception all the way throughout our lives until our personal judgment. He is with us every single day of our lives. The thumb shows us the way. murmurs into our ears what we should or should not do, constantly reminds us of the right path and guides us. And therefore we pray: “Angel of God, my guardian dear, To whom God’s love commits me here, Ever this day (or night) be at my side, To light, to guard, to rule, and guide. From sinful stain O keep me free, And at death’s hour, my helper be. Amen”. He will try to put us on the right path to bring us back to the Holy Trinity, to show us the way to go home: that is our Guardian Angel.
Therefore every single one of us, every single human being, we actually live right in the palm of God’s hand, in the palm of a Divine Family watching over us, in the middle of a Heavenly cradle. This is when God closes His Hand and we are safe under the protection of God the Father, God The Son, God the Holy Spirit, with also The Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady Terror of Demons, Virgen Potens, Most Powerful Virgin and with the constant care of our Guardian Angel, whoever we are, whatever our circumstances here on Earth, social background, with a human family or without a human family. We are never alone, we have a family!!!!
We have God The Father God The Son God The Holy Spirit and Mother Mary and our Guardian Angel. every single one of us!!! We have a family and we are all taken care of!!!!
The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vult) is a statement of Christian doctrine traditionally ascribed to Saint Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century. It was designed to overcome Arianism.
“Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever. And the Catholic faith is this: we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being. Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there are not three lords, but one Lord. For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another. So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshiped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity. He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God. He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ. He died for our salvation, descended into Hell, and rose from the dead on the third day. He ascended into Heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. Amen. “
THE DEVIL PUNISHED WITH A SPLIT PERSONALITY OPPOSING THE HOLY TRINITY:
Satan, Beelzebub and Lucifer: same demon with a split personality – Watch Minute 3h02mn
Satan the Father of lie – The inversion of the Father
Because your free choice determines whether you go to heaven or hell, we can therefore say: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (C.f. CCC 1037 – IV. HELL:
“God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance””
He who created thee without thy help does not justify thee without thy help. (Sermo 169, II, 13)
God is good, and God is just. He can save a person without good works, because He is good. But He cannot condemn anyone without evil works, because He is just. (Contra Jul. III 18, 35.)
His mercy comes before us in everything. But to assent to or dissent from the call of God is a matter for one’s own will. (De spiritu et litt. 34, 60)
ABSOLUTE MUST READ: La Inquisición española pilar fundamental de la “Leyenda Negra”
Por Luis Antequera – 18/11/2023 Historia
Cifras de víctimas en España
Las cifras de víctimas de la Inquisición española han sido objeto de todo tipo de especulaciones. El primer trabajo al respecto, y el que ha dado pábulo a la peor “Leyenda Negra” de la institución, es el de Juan Antonio Llorente (1756-1823) quien, en su Historia crítica de la Inquisición española, escrita en 1818, habla de 300.000 procesos, con 31.192 quemados vivos, y 17.659 quemados en efigie –esto es, mediante un muñeco que representaba su persona– por no haber podido ser capturados, aunque sí juzgados in absentia.
Llorente es un personaje singular. Ordenado sacerdote, y tras ser comisario del Santo Oficio y secretario de la Inquisición de Corte, simpatizará con el movimiento religioso llamado “jansenismo”, condenado como herético por el Papa Urban VIII. Se une luego al bonapartismo, siendo componente de la Junta Nacional que reconoce como rey de España a José I Bonaparte, con el que es consejero de Estado para Asuntos Eclesiástico. Como tantos afrancesados, según se los llamaba, en 1813 abandona España y se instala en Francia, concretamente en Burdeos –como Goya, que lo retrata–, de donde es expulsado por su relación con la masonería. Con el Trienio Liberal, vuelve a España, donde muere al poco.
Su obra sobre la Inquisición está muy cuestionada, tanto por la animosidad que observa hacia la institución –de la que había formado parte, no lo olvidemos–, como por la oscuridad de sus fuentes, muchas de las cuales, de hecho, no se conocen por haberlas destruido él mismo, cosa que es lo último que haría un investigador bien intencionado y veráz.
Ya en tiempos más modernos, son muchos los trabajos que sobre la famosa institución se han hecho en lo relativo al número de víctimas.
El británico Geoffrey Parker cree que el tribunal causó unos cinco mil muertos. El también británico Henry Kamen, en su obra Inquisición Española, Historia y Mito, calcula que la Inquisición condenó a muerte al 2% de los acusados, lo que sobre 150.000 procesos, daría una cifra de unos 3.000 ejecutados.
El trabajo más preciso, aunque fragmentario, es el titulado El banco de datos del Santo Oficio. Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición Española, donde el danés Gustav Henningsen examina los documentos del Consejo de la Suprema y General Inquisición en el período 1550-1700, ciento cincuenta años, la mitad de la vida del tribunal, estableciendo que durante ese periodo, las causas abiertas fueron 44.674, de las que el tribunal condenó a muerte a 1.346 personas, un tercio de ellas en efigie, o sea unas 900 personas.
La actividad del tribunal en América es un tema muy estudiado por el propio Henningsen y por Jaime Contreras, que menciona exactamente 73 víctimas mortales: 38 condenados por el tribunal de Méjico, 32 por el de Lima, y tres por el de Cartagena de Indias; de los cuales sólo fueron ejecutados 50 en persona, los otros 23 en efigie.
Entre ellos, un único indígena, por cierto, Carlos Ometochtzin, quemado por herejía y por bigamia, en 1535, y ni siquiera propiamente por el tribunal, que aún no había sido implantado, sino por el obispo Zumárraga, en su condición de inquisidor apostólico de la diócesis de Méjico. Llegado el caso a oídos de Carlos I, éste se indignó, obligando incluso a la devolución de los bienes confiscados. El caso, en realidad, venía instigado por los propios familiares de Ometochtzin, y ocultaba toda una trama dinástica, pues el acusado pertenecía a la familia real azteca. El resto de los ajusticiados son españoles y europeos, ya que ejerció también la Inquisición española en América su jurisdicción sobre piratas protestantes, tal es el caso de los que componían la flota de John Hawkins, o de John Drake, sobrino de Francis Drake.
Comparación con otros procesos de persecución religiosa
Ningún hecho histórico puede ser juzgado en solitario, y ha de ponerse necesariamente en contexto con los procesos similares, única manera de conocer su alcance y gravedad. Sin ánimo de ser exhaustivos, se puede hablar de los siguientes genocidios por razones religiosas, contemporáneos todos ellos, aunque concentrados en períodos de tiempo infinitamente inferiores a los tres siglos y medio que dura la Inquisición española, lo que arroja índices de letalidad muy superiores a los del hispano tribunal:
Matanzas medievales de judíos realizadas por lo general en una única jornada, o dos, o tres: Worms (1096), 800 judíos; Meinz (1096), 1.100 judíos; York (1189), 150 judíos; Londres (1265), 500 judíos; Estraburgo (1349), 2.000 judíos; Basilea (1349), 600 judíos; Toledo (1355), 1.200 judíos; Viena (1420), 1.000 judíos. En Granada (1066), la matanza perpetrada por los musulmanes rondó las 4.000 personas.
Caza de brujas (1450-1750, con un pico entre 1550 y 1650). Con una cifra de víctimas mortales en toda Europa de unas 60.000 personas, esto es, veinte veces la cifra de la Inquisición española en un periodo similar pero incluso inferior. La palma se la lleva Alemania, sobre todo los estados protestantes, con unas 25.000. En Suiza se ejecutan unas 10.000 (¡tres veces más que la Inquisición en tres siglos y medio!). En Francia unas cuatro mil. En las Islas Británicas, unas 2.000. En España, la caza de brujas se encomienda a la Inquisición, y las ejecuciones no superan 60. El principal proceso es el de las brujas de Zugarramundi, con seis quemados en persona y cinco en efigie. El inquisidor Alonso de Salazar y Frías concluirá que se trata de un proceso de histeria colectiva, que debe ser tratado con poco rigor.
Guerra de los campesinos alemanes, llamada en alemán Deutscher Bauernkrieg (1525) con unos 100.000 campesinos muertos en el marco de la Reforma Luterana, una matanza avalada por Lutero con palabras como éstas: “La autoridad debe actuar con tranquilidad y asesinar con buena conciencia. Ésta es su ventaja, que los campesinos tienen mala conciencia, y hacen cosas injustas, y serán asesinados por ello, y presa eterna del demonio”.
Consistorio calvinista de Ginebra (1541-1564): Fabián Granobles da cifras muy exactas: 68 ejecuciones, entre las cuales Miguel Servet, y 76 destierros, en apenas cinco años, sobre una población de 000 habitantes. La ratio es bestial. Entre 1558 y 1559, el Consistorio imparte 414 condenas.
Reforma anglicana: Hasta la fecha, la Iglesia católica ha elevado a los altares a 265 mártires producidos en las persecuciones ocurridas entre 1535 y 1681 en Inglaterra y Gales.
Matanza de San Bartolomé, en Francia (1572). En apenas unos días, unos 3.000 hugonotes –así se llamaba a los protestantes franceses—, son masacrados sólo en París y hasta 20.000 en toda Francia.
La Vendeé (1793-1796): el movimiento contrarrevolucionario y de inspiración católica severamente reprimido por las autoridades de la revolución Francesa, acontecido en la región francesa de ese nombre, en el poniente francés. Alberto Bárcena, autor de La guerra de la Vendeé, recoge el dato de Reynald Secher según el cual son asesinadas y ejecutadas 117.257 personas. Y eso que el protagonista de los hechos, el general Hoche, asegura a su gobierno el 12 de febrero de 1796 haber acabado con la vida de 600.000 ciudadanos, sobre una población de 800.000, esto es, tres de cada cuatro habitantes de la región.
988 The Christian Creed – the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God’s creative, saving, and sanctifying action – culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.
989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.532 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.533
990 The term “flesh” refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.534 The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.535
991 Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings. “The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live.”536 How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain…. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.537
RESURRECTION IN THE BODY ASCENSION
ELIJAH AND ENOCH
ENOCH AND ELIJAH WILL COME BACK – END TIMES AND ESCHATOLOGY
Many Catholics are aware that Jesus “opened the gates of heaven” and allowed the righteous dead to go there.
The Catechism even says it:
CCC 637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.
This leads to a question that comes up periodically: What about figures like Enoch and Elijah, who seem to have been assumed into heaven prior to the time of Christ?
The obvious answer, I’ve always held, is that they were exceptions. As a general rule, heaven was not open to those who lived before the time of Christ, but God is omnipotent, and he can make exceptions if he chooses.
Some of the people I’ve discussed this with seem to struggle with it, and I haven’t understood the source of their difficulty.
God can clearly give the blessings of the Christian age to someone prior to the time of Christ, on the basis of what Christ did. After all, that’s why the Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived. The Catechism explains:
CCC 492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: She is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.”
CCC 508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
If God could apply the redemption Christ wrought to Mary before his death and resurrection, then he could similarly apply its fruits to others as well—at least on an exceptional basis.
And the way that Enoch and Elijah’s lives concluded was clearly exceptional.
In Enoch’s case, Genesis 5:24 says that God “took” him, but doesn’t say where. Sirach 44:16 and 49:14 make it clear that he was taken up from the earth, and Hebrews 11:5 adds “so that he should not see death.”
In Elijah’s case, 2 Kings 2:11 states that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” First Maccabees 2:58 adds, “Elijah because of great zeal for the Law was taken up into heaven.”
Both 2 Kings and 1 Maccabees both use the ordinary Hebrew and Greek words for “heaven” (shamayim and ouranos, respectively)—indicating that heaven was where they went. Recently I was rereading St. John Paul II’s general audience on heaven and noticed that he also acknowledged this:
The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11) [General Audience, July 21, 1999].
It thus seems that John Paul II—who is now himself in heaven—acknowledged the exceptional nature of Enoch and Elijah’s admission to that blessed realm.
se ejecutan unas 10.000 (¡tres veces más que la Inquisición en tres siglos y medio!). En Francia unas cuatro mil. En las Islas Británicas, unas 2.000. En España, la caza de brujas se encomienda a la Inquisición, y las ejecuciones no superan 60. El principal proceso es el de las brujas de Zugarramundi, con seis quemados en persona y cinco en efigie. El inquisidor Alonso de Salazar y Frías concluirá que se trata de un proceso de histeria colectiva, que debe ser tratado con poco rigor.