The new Romish dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or, Trial of the church of Rome Book

O'Donnell makes several good points, including masterfully uniting Aquinas' Analogy of Being with the Analogy of Faith. Unfortunately, I think he makes a fundamental error.

O'Donnell accepts the Grundaxiom of Karl Rayner, which says that the Trinity as it is revealed to humanity is the same as the inner-life of the Trinity. The former is called the ''Economic Trinity,'' while the latter is called the ''immanent Trinity.'' That's not the problem. The trouble starts when O'Donnell - claiming that the Asians were wrong to say that Christ is ontologically subordinate to the Father - still says that, since in 1 For 15:20-28 Christ is portrayed as presenting the Kingdom (with the communion of the baptized) to the Father, there must be an ''eschatological subordination'' of Christ to the Father. But the eschatological-deminsion is nothing if not an elemental part of the Economic Trinity; this means that, if Christ is subordinate to the Father in the Economic Trinity, and the Economic Trinity is the Imminent Trinity, then Christ must be subordinate to the Father in the Imminent Trinity. That would mean that the Arians are correct after all: The Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father.

There are several good parts, but I can't quite see my way over the problems.