Hi Coleen,

God the Father has several titles in the Old Testament all of which reveal a different attribute of God including His triune nature.

Jehovah, Yahweh, of I AM, is a title which implies the self sustaining eternal existence. The title was often compounded with another Hebrew word, e.g., Jehovah Jira, the provider, etc.

There are also titles such as Elohim, which are the first references in Genesis. It means the mighty ones (notice the plural). Elohim is combined with other words and we get titles such as
El Shaddai, the meaning of which escapes me right now.

Nevertheless, remember the Church is rooted in the Jewish Tradition whereby the Name of God is not spoken. Perhaps that is why Catholic churches aren't named after the Father.

Hope this helps,

John DiMascio

As to the question about God — yes, we do call some of our churches after God the Father:
Holy Trinity is an example.

Explicit reasons why we don't have the church named after the Father, that may have more to do with the Trinitarian formula Itself, and if used wrongly, it could easily slip into heresy.
(See the excerpts below from the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

However, taking the first aspect raised in the sender's e-mail, here is what I found under Names of God:

A host of names for God is found in the Old Testament:

• El
• Elohim
• El Elyon
• El Shaddai, and others.

The proper personal name for God is "Yahweh". Exodus 3:13ff gives the impression that this name was first disclosed to Moses on the occasion of the burning bush, for him to pass on to the Israelites.

• So, which one would you use?

I don't know. Anyway, here are some of the heresies which may assist you to further clarify and give you something with which to provide a clearer response.

Modalism

A third-century Trinitarian error which denied the distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, instead, regarding the Three Persons as three modalities, roles, or functions of the one God, thus making the Godhead a single Person. Among other varieties of Modalism are Sabellianism, so called because of its leader Sabellius; Monarchianism, because it stressed the oneness of the divinity; and Patripassionism, because it taught that in Christ it was the Father Who suffered the Passion and Death.

Sabellianism

This term is so named after its intellectual father, Sabellius, whose theory, that Christ was no different from God the Father, was an early variant on several similar heretical notions of the second and third centuries. After some initial overtures to Pope Callistus I, Sabellius was excommunicated in 217 A.D. Sabellius then returned to his native region, where Dionysius of Alexandria later attempted to engage him in discussion. By this time, however, Pope Dionysius was becoming concerned over the terms being used in the exchange by Dionysius of Alexandria, who thereupon submitted to the Holy See a clarification, which was accepted. There is no record indicating that Sabellius, meanwhile, was ever reconciled, and his notions apparently were submerged under the greater disputations of Tertullian. (Cf. Patripassionism.)

Monarchianism

This term refers to a family of second- and third-century theological positions, led into Christological and Trinitarian heterodoxy by their otherwise legitimate concern to affirm a strict monotheism in the doctrine of God. Tertullian (d. 225 A.D.) applied the term “monarchianism” to these positions because they stressed the unity, or “monarchy”, of the Godhead. The principal forms of monarchianism were adoptionist and modalist. Adoptionism (associated chiefly with Theodotus and Artemon) secured the divine unity by contending that Jesus was a human being upon whom, at some point in His earthly life (possibly at His Baptism in the Jordan), God conferred a share in the divine power. Modalism (expounded notably by Sabellius) maintained that the internally undifferentiated Godhead adopted the successive roles of Father, Son, and Spirit, in executing the economy of salvation. Adoptionism thus denied the consubstantial divinity of the Son, and modalism denied the reality of the processions and relations within God. Although the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) did not put an end to the debate, it did supply the doctrinal rule for the historic mainstream by insisting on the true divinity of the Son, and the reality of the doctrine of the Trinity. By insisting on the Trinity of Persons in one nature, the doctrine maintained the truth of monarchianism (affirmation of the unity of God) without prejudice to the reality of the divine self-identification as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is a good question, Coleen.

Cheers,

Fr. John, a priest-friend of Terry's