Talk:Trinity/archive Emmerich

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Holy Trinity image

I putted the Holy Trinity image, as viewed by Maria Valtorta and Catherine Emmerich private revelations. -- User:Wikinger 12:23, 24 September 2006

And what exactly is the image supposed to illustrate, what is the information it adds? Furthermore, to me it seems to directly contradict the concept of mutual indwelling, detailed in the following paragraph. If there's no good reason why we need exactly this scheme, I would remove it. (Umm, and "private revelation"? Seems a bit fishy to me. Theology is scholarship. Who are Valtorta and Emmerich?) Varana 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Catherine Emmerich and Maria Valtorta are authors of two books: The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ (upon which the Passion movie was based), and Poem of God-Man. God revealed to them both as in my scheme. My scheme shows Holy Trinity as is, and without alterations and symbolizations. You will view the Holy Trinity as three-dimensional three-layered sphere in your eternal life. Scutum Fidei is logical/algorithmic diagram of Holy Trinity, not Holy Trinity as is. Mutual indwelling is of another nature: the Spirit-Person is inside the Son-Person, the Son-Person is inside the Father-Person, and the Father-Person is inside the human Soul of Christ, which human Soul of Christ is inside of human Body of Christ. Thus you get: I (Person) am in the Father (Person) and the Father (Person) is in Me (body+soul). My scheme is good too because Bible states: My Father is greater than Me. Christ identifies Him since Incarnation with Son-Person, His human soul, and His human body at once. Earlier, before Incarnation Christ identified Himself only with Son-Person. Catherine Emmerich is now stated blessed and her revelations valid by Pope John Paul II since October 3, 2004. Theologians uses only Bible (sola scriptura) and their concepts are thought by themselves, thus they cannot be as reliable as direct private revelations from God. Theologian concepts can be only approximations of reality, while private revelations transmits reality itself as is. -- User:Wikinger 14:58, 24 September 2006

Actually, the Anne Catherine Emmerich page says that the Pope specifically did not endorse all the details of her visions or mystic speculations as they have come down to us -- and even if he had, the Catholic church is only one of the groups whose beliefs are discussed on the Trinity article page. Furthermore, theologians would say that reason and logic (along with the Biblical text and the historical tradition of mainstream orthodox Christianity) can provide a much-needed check on possibly uncontrolled and extravagant personal idiosyncratic mystical visions... AnonMoos 14:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Problematic image Image:Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg

The image Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg is rather problematic as it was added onto this page, since it could very easily lend itself to non-traditionally-orthodox interpretations (such as that the Spirit is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Son, while the Son is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Father). The caption "The Holy Trinity Itself" was also very problematic.

For the image to be added to the article, it needs to be demonstrated that the image falls within an acceptable range of fairly widely-used traditional iconography or symbolism, and it needs to be given a link to some appropriate context and explanation. (The Shield of the Trinity diagram is relatively self-explanatory, and has a whole article devoted to exploring its ramifications, while neither is true of Image:Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg).

In the past, Image:Trinity faces.jpg was kicked off this article for somewhat similar reasons... AnonMoos 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i think we can consider that diagram as a Father-centric, where the Father became the source from where the Son & the Holy Spirit came fort. 125.163.225.205 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. A friendly suggestion

Why not add the image to Anne Catherine Emmerich first, with an appropriate explanation of what the diagram meant to her at the time? Then, depending on how the Anne Catherine Emmerich article develops, a future decision can be made as to whether to add the image to this article also... AnonMoos 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

the Emmerich article has "three concentric spheres" (unsourced at that). It doesn't say which sphere was which. Until we can reference that this images labels the spheres in accord with Emmerich's vision, they have no place there. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Father Son and Spirit are different in diameter and shiverness separately, but equal in sum of these properties

In Catherine Emmerich model, Father, Son, and Spirit are different in diameter and shiverness separately, but equal in sum of these properties. I explain:

Father is big in diameter (2/3), but small in light shiverness (1/3), -> 2/3 + 1/3 = 1

Son is middle in diameter (1/2), but middle in light shiverness (1/2), -> 1/2 + 1/2 = 1

Spirit is small in diameter (1/3), but big in light shiverness (2/3), -> 1/3 + 2/3 = 1

Father = Son = Spirit, -> 1 = 1 = 1

That means, that increasing diameter decreases simultaneous performance, and decreasing diameter increases simultaneous performance of each God's Person's properties. God's Persons are equal in sum of Their properties, but different in separate of each properties.

For Example:

Father is named Mind - low performance, big diameter

Son is named Word - middle performance, middle diameter

Spirit is named Deed - high performance, small diameter

God is omniscient, omnipotent, luminous, etc... but each of these properties for Father, Son and Spirit have low, middle, and high simultaneous performance. While Father can do something in long time, Son will do that something in moderate time, and Spirit will do the same something in short time.

That means, that that the Spirit is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Son, while the Son is lesser than, and wholly contained within the Father, but only in diameters, and *NOT* in all other properties, because lessening diameter, increases performance of other properties of each Person. That gives summarical equality of each from Three Persons.

Additionally, these Biblical passages:

I [God Person] am in the Father [God Person] and the Father [God Person] is in Me [Human Soul]. (Jesus's Soul since Incarnation contains whole undividable Holy Trinity, and this Jesus's Soul is contained within Jesus's Body. Jesus identifies Himself since Incarnation both with Person and Soul) (John 14:11)

and

My Father is greater [in diameter] than Me. (John 14:28)

are now easily understood. -- User:Wikinger 19:14, 24 September 2006

Please do tell me, what does 'shiverness' mean?? AnonMoos 19:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shiverness means intensity of light shivering, and subsequently degree of light power in each of Holy Trinity Persons. I restored indents, and stopped altering other comments. More shivering gives brighter light, and less shivering gives darker light. -- User:Wikinger 20:14, 24 September 2006

I'm sorry, but it's not a word of standard English, and so does not help to advance this discussion. There are rather few Google hits on shiverness, and most of them seem to refer to bodily reactions to cold temperatures. AnonMoos 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Stop declarifying the comment threading indenting, and stop altering other people's talk-page comments... AnonMoos 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mess with the indent levels if you don't know what they're for... AnonMoos 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My messing with indents ended now. User:Wikinger 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP MESSING WITH THE FERSHLUGGINER INDENT LEVELS IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE FOR!!! It's extremely annoying, and does nothing to advance discussion... I just had an edit conflict with you because you were messing with the indent levels after you said you weren't messing with the indent levels... AnonMoos 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My messing with indents ended now finally. I thought that you mistaked. User:Wikinger 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly clarificatory diagram

As far as I understand your intentions, it seems you would really need a 3D-diagram to clearly express your meaning, perhaps roughly along the lines of the rather crude image offerred at right; however, it's far from clear to me that such a diagram would express a mainstream traditionally-orthodox view of the Trinity, or would have a place on the Trinity article. My suggestion still stands -- go to the Anne Catherine Emmerich page first, and once you've worked the bugs out there, we'll see if anything there is useful for the "Trinity" article. AnonMoos 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Better Holy Trinity clarificatory image would look like this image with equations, but with three spheres instead of four.User:Wikinger 19:27, 25 December 2006

There are three spheres, not three cylinders

Holy Trinity consists of three concentrically placed spheres, not from three cylinders as you tried to guess. These Holy Trinity Spheres-Persons are placed like Earth's crust, mantle and kernel. Please replace in talk your bad cylindrical guess with proper spherical model. Holy Trinity has nothing to do with Towers of Hanoi type of shape. Holy Thinity rather resembles concentrical layers of any star or planet. I already got to Anne Catherine Emmerich page and placed there my Holy Trinity 2D image and explanation. User:Wikinger 21:05, 24 September 2006

Unfortunately, it's basically impossible to make an unambiguous drawing of a uniformly dark outer sphere surrounding a uniformly bright inner sphere -- and your 2D-cross section image with concentric circles is also very ambiguous, and lends itself to a quite a wide variety of possible interpretations. The image Image:Emmerich-Trinity-maybe.gif doesn't attempt to replicate the appearance of Emmerich's visions (which was itself necessarily a limited metaphor), but rather is a kind of 3-D graph, with encompassingness (or "big diameter" as you seem to call it) on the X- and Y-axes, and intensity (or "shiverness" as you seem to call it) plotted along the Z-axis. It's a lot clearer in representing that aspect of your apparent view of the Trinity than the lightening of the yellow inner circles in your graphic. AnonMoos 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of your objections, my view of the Holy Trinity is as is, e.g. if you would have to look at Holy Trinity itself in Heaven, you would have see Holy Trinity as is in my drawing, in shape of big low-intensity Sun (Father) that contains middle mid-intensity Sun (Son), that in turn contains small high-intensity Sun (Spirit). My drawing looks simply like Holy Trinity photo. Your Hanoi-Tower shape is rather a logical diagram, much like Scutum Fidei, than Holy Trinity direct image. Better commentary image would be in manner of this image: http://geomag.usgs.gov/images/faq/Q5.jpg User:Wikinger 01:05, 25 September 2006

I now recently discovered in revelations by Anna from Warsaw, that Holy Trinity's bigger Persons have no cavities for smaller Persons, but each big, middle and small Person-Sphere is fully lite and all Persons-Spheres are permeating each other in manner of

  |                                                          |
 ||                                                         |
||| , thus there is no containning of Persons in manner of |   .
 ||                                                         |
  |                                                          |

User:Wikinger 01:00, 29 September 2006

Even unambiguous image of such permeating between Three Persons was made recently here: Image:Holy_Trinity_interpenetration.png, where density of Substance of each Person is intended to increase when diameter of each Person decreases. 79.162.45.188 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dragging this back on-topic

The topic of this page being development of the article. This material strikes me as a theological nullity. I suppose there's a small population of Catholics who might particularly venerate this saint and give some attention to the visions, but for Christianity at large -- particularly historical Christianity -- this is barely noticeable. Based on its notability, I don't think it merits more than a line or two in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I heartily concur with TCC. Giving it a line or two in this article seems rather generous in fact. Wesley 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich image of Holy Trinity for avoid misconcepting Holy Trinity by Muslims.

The Trinity article lacks Holy Trinity spherical picture as present on right side, that can be useful for purpose of documenting that Christian God is One Complex God in Three Persons *BUT NOT* three separate one-person gods. Additionally, images already included in Trinity article are misleading for Muslims in this matter, because they are presenting falsely Holy Trinity as three separate one-person gods.--83.5.24.96 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, a picture that is theologically meaningless, not accepted by any major tradition, and misleads in a different direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikinger, see section #Problematic image Image:Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg above. In addition to the problems of whether Emmerich's vision was theologically sound, or is widely known and accepted, there's also the problem of whether your image clearly reflects the essential details of Emmerich's vision in a way that would be useful for Wikipedia. The idea that the lightening/desaturation towards the center in your image represents a greater "intensity" (whatever that means) is not at all obvious from just looking at it (certainly I didn't understand it until you had explained it at length). Clarity is not helped by the fact that the white at the edge of your image should be even more intense than the shade in the center circle of your image, according to the "more brightness and less saturation means more intense" rule. Nor does it make clear that the circles are supposed to interpenetrate, rather than being separate concentric onion-shell layers (if I understood your explanation correctly).

However, I do agree with you on at least one thing -- Image:La_Trinité_et_tous_les_saints.jpg is certainly rather theologically dubious. On the French wikipedia Trinity article, this image is accompanied by a disclaimer that anthropomorphism of this type would be considered completely unacceptable in the Orthodox tradition. (The other picture Image:Andrej_Rublëv_001.jpg, which shows three angels manifesting themselves in human form at Mamre as an allegory of the Trinity, is different, since it doesn't depict the Trinity directly.) If you confined your efforts to getting Image:La_Trinité_et_tous_les_saints.jpg removed from this article (instead of getting your own image added), then you would have a greater probability of success... AnonMoos 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You correctly understood that Holy Trinity itself is in form of three full and concentrical spheres, that are permeating themselves. Big (less lit) sphere is Father, middle (mid lit) sphere is Son, and small (most lit) sphere is Spirit. White at the edge is outer space, and this white is not a part of Holy Trinity itself, but substitition of spacial environment in which Holy Trinity floats.--83.5.24.96 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have stated the problem with this image perfectly. Is there any Christian community for which the above explanation is not heretical? TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This explanation is based on Catholic private revelations from Catholic Saints, thus at least for Catholics it will not be heretical. God's Persons are equal, because each of Them is a full sphere, but with different density. Thus big Father is low densited, middle Son is middle densited and small Spirit is high densited. That means, that if God's Persons would have equalified Their densities, that is not in place, Their diameters also would be equalified.--83.5.24.96 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, it seems that the Pope specifically did not endorse all the details of Emmerich's visions or mystic speculations as they have come down to us -- and furthermore, theologians would say that reason and logic (along with the Biblical text and the historical tradition of mainstream orthodox Christianity) can provide a much-needed check on possibly uncontrolled and extravagant personal mystical visions. In any case, I think that Csernica was assuming that you deny divine Omnipresence.... AnonMoos 12:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny divine Omnipresence, I precise that God is Omnipresent by His external light emited from Trinity, but not by Trinity itself. Trinity is Holy and inpenetrable by any of God's creations. This explanation of God's Omnipresence avoids possiblility of floating created and both holy/sinful creations in God's Substance itself. These all created and both holy/sinful creations are floating in God's external light.--83.5.24.96 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You make is sound as if God is present only in his energies. According to Orthodox theology at least, he is only sensibly present in his energies, while hypostatically he is omnipresent throughout all the universe. (A quality expressly attributed to the Holy Spirit, but one would hesitate to deny that all Three are not equally omnipresent.) To speak of "densities" within the Godhead, when according to the dogmatic definitions of the Three cannot be distinguished except by their relations, is an error. The image is also misleading by placing God in an "environment", as if he required some pre-existing surroundings in order to exist Himself. And, as AnonMoos pointed out, these visions were never fully endorsed by any competent authority. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Environment outside God existed only since creation. Before Creation, God was self-environmental. God cannot be hypostatically omnipresent, but only can be emanatically omnipresent, because if He would be hypostatically omnipresent, He would be profanated by sinful things such as e.g. various filthy adult XXX elements placed inside His Substance, that is not in place. Various created things, including sinful things are placed only in His external emanation. This explanation avoids placing inside God's Holy Substance various filthy elements, that would be profanation of God.--83.5.24.96 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what the ancient Greeks said -- παντα καθαρα καθαροις. Anyway, the upshot of all this, is that you haven't even provided a verifiable bibliographical reference or direct quote from Emmerich's reported visions (which would allow us to assess independently whether your image is a valid visual representation of her reported visions) -- much less shown that this is fairly widespread and accepted traditional mainstream Christian iconography (which is the criterion for putting images on this page, as has been explained before). AnonMoos 21:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change my indents. At this depth the text column becomes absurdly narrow if we indent one more level for each response.

You confuse substance with hypostasis. Be that as it may, there is no "outside" to God. Do you realize what you are saying here? That sin has power over God? We cannot repel God merely by sinning. If you think the Roman Catholic Church teaches something different, I refer you to [1]: "[A]s every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtutem et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature -- conserving it in being and enabling it to act." Moreover, creation is not an "eternal emanation" from God. It is temporal and finite, and is the result of a free-willed act of God and not an involuntary emanation.

The point of all this WRT the article is that the model presented is incompatable with the teaching of any significant Christian body, and for that reason alone ought not be included, even if it were well-known enough to be notable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I should add that I don't agree with the quotation above. However, lex orandi, lex credendi and we constantly pray to God "who is everywhere present and fillest all things." TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't talked that sin has power over God. I talked how God avoids possibility of sin having power over God, and I talked that sin has no power over God, due to using only external God's emanation by God for sustaining created reality. I talked that creation is an "half-eternal emanation" from God, but not "full eternal emanation" from God, because while God exists from minus infinity to plus infinity, His creation exists only from point in distant, but finite past to plus infinity. God's emanation is voluntary, but not involuntary. --83.5.24.96 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please give it up, Wikinger -- the more you talk about your personal theology, the more it seems that it departs from the range of what has been considered traditionally orthodox in mainstream Christianity, thereby detracting from the claim that your image represents the traditional accepted view of the Trinity. In any case, this is not actually the place to hold a debate on your theological views... AnonMoos 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus I'm giving up here. But I still think that private revelations are much better than official theological treatises. At last, I remind that all private revelations that doesn't treat Catholic Church as false religion are really true revelations. In this way, all private revelations which treats Catholic Church as false religion are false. Example of such false revelation is here: [2]--83.5.24.96 17:538, 276 October 2006 (UTC)