A philosophical problem with the Trinity

[Ghosty]

You know, after all that I realized that there’s a much more simple way to directly answer your question.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems to me that to identify the three Persons of the Trinity as “Being”, “Known”, and “Willed” is to reduce three actual Persons to abstract ideas. Akin to Socrates’ notion of the Forms, the ideas may describe the Persons of the Trinity, but how can the ideas be the Persons themselves? Should each Person be thought of as an ontological being, or simply as a modal relation within the Godhead?

They are not modalities because their identities are not “Knowledge” and “Being” and “Will” within the Divine Essence, but rather these Persons arise from those three fundamental features of the Divine Essence. The Son isn’t the action of the Divine Essence “Knowing”, with us just giving that action a personal name; it is the Person that arises from the Divine Essence being “known” by the Divine Essence.

The feature of “knowing” is actually shared by all three Divine Persons, but the Divine Essence “known” from eternity is a particular Divine Person (due to the reasons explained above).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

---

Doth this scandalize you to hear me say that you must to eat crackers and drink grape juice as a symbol of my Body and Blood?

I have been pondering this question for months. I wanted to be scandalised but in the end I realised that I am not. I have just heard too much about the unexpected things which go on in modern Catholic liturgy. So the use of crackers and grapejuice in the Mass would not be unexpected but the idea that it is merely a “symbol” evidences a level of destruction of the RC faith of which I was not aware.

 

[Hesychios]

I think Ghosty’s irony is a classic.

I am sure this is directed at the protestants, who should recognize that their practices and convictions are definitely NOT discussed in John chapter 6!

• For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Amen*

 

[Ghosty]

I have been pondering this question for months. I wanted to be scandalised but in the end I realised that I am not. I have just heard too much about the unexpected things which go on in modern Catholic liturgy. So the use of crackers and grapejuice in the Mass would not be unexpected but the idea that it is merely a “symbol” evidences a level of destruction of the RC faith of which I was not aware.

Hesychios is correct. It’s intended to show the inherent absurdity of claims to a purely “symbolic” Eucharist. The actual words of Jesus are replaced with the non-Apostolic understanding of it, and the contrast between the weight of Jesus’ words about scandal and the “sybolic” understanding becomes very obvious.

Nobody would be scandalized by eating crackers, but eating the very Flesh of God…

Peace and God bless!

P.S. I’ve actually wanted to replace my signature a few times, but everything I’ve wanted has been too long. My most recent intention was by St. Thomas Aquinas, and goes:

“And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.”

 

[yeshua]

yeshua,

As a Byzantine Catholic, let me assure that I am constantly awed by the mysteries of faith. The Trinity, being the ultimate mystery, is one that I can never even begin to fully understand. I trust the wisdom of the Church over my own intellect any day, and I believe firmly in the Trinity as understood and professed by the Church.

That said, I don’t see anything wrong with using one’s God-given intellect through philosophy, science, or math to better understand and appreciate one’s Creator. Does not submission of intellect and will to the mystery of God engender curiosity about that mystery? My experiences of God through natural science leave me only more certain of His transcendence, His power, and His love for His creation. Though one must be careful not to reduce God to an academic proposition, I think that any Christian, whether eastern or western, can draw from multiple disciplines to foster (through the grace of the Holy Spirit) a faith that is both experiential and intellectual.

God bless,

Chris

Thepeug,

I do appreciae your point. By no means am I attemping to disuade anyone from using their gifts to understand the world around them. It is, though, my Western Eastern brother, our means (philosophy, science, math) are refutable when compared to His means. I must whole heartedly agree that people can draw from multiple disciplines to accentuate one’s faith, but, again, develop your spiritul foundation by understanding Him, not defining Him. Alas, I do not wish to judge, if this exercise sttengthens you, who am I to disuade you, yet recognize that there exists a level far beyond the dialogue presented here that contains your “answer.”

I understand your intent and am grateful for the opportunity to see such diverse perspectives.

 

[Ghosty]

I must whole heartedly agree that people can draw from multiple disciplines to accentuate one’s faith, but, again, develop your spiritul foundation by understanding Him, not defining Him.

This is an extremely important rule to follow whenever engaging in philosophical questions about God, and it’s good you bring it up. Ironically, this was the first rule and attitude of the Scholastics, who sought simply to bring philosophy in-line with mysticism rather than replace mysticism with philosophy. This is especially true of St. Thomas Aquinas, who was himself a mystic and gained his “philosophical insights” through prayer before the Blessed Sacrament. It’s a critical facet of Mideval Latin theology that is sadly often forgetten by academics who wish to study the philosophy and leave out the deep spirituality. They forget that the Summa Theologica, for example, was written as a manual for Dominicans who were to be spending most of their day in prayer, not as a piece for intellectuals to pick apart (when having particular difficulties with matters, he was even known to stand with his head pressed against the Tabernacle in deep prayer).

First and most importantly you must meet God in Grace, and only then can you begin to “play” with philosophy. What’s more, a mere meeting is not enough, but a continued life within God’s Grace is necessary to gain any lasting fruit from philosophical matters. If the understanding of God is reduced to formulas, then we have begun to stray dangerously, if it’s not a sign of being lost already.

On that note, I recommend praying before the Blessed Sacrament (if you are a Latin), or engaging in your favorite traditional devotions, whenever you intend to tackle these matters. You can also pray “The Student’s Prayer”, written by St. Thomas Aquinas. It goes:

**

Creator of all things, true source of Light and Wisdom, lofty source of all Being, graciously let a ray of Your Brilliance penetrate into the darkness of my understanding and take from me the double darkness in which I have been born, sin and ignorance.

**

Give me a sharp sense of understanding , a retentive memory, and the ability to grasp things correctly and fundamentally.

Grant me the talent of being exact in my explanations, and the ability to express myself with thoroughness and charm.

Point out the beginning, direct the progress, help in the completion.

Through Christ our Lord.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Saint_Michael]

I’ve given up on trying to understand the Trinity, I never will, it makes little sense to me. Three yet One, O.K. if they say so basically. That’s where I’m at, I accept it on faith, but will never attempt to explain it. Because no matter how much I read on the subject, I sound like a fool when I attempt to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Freeway4321]

I’ve given up on trying to understand the Trinity, I never will, it makes little sense to me. Three yet One, O.K. if they say so basically. That’s where I’m at, I accept it on faith, but will never attempt to explain it. Because no matter how much I read on the subject, I sound like a fool when I attempt to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.

My dear man, maybe this will make you feel better:
The Trinity is a mystery; no doubt about it. Unless we had been told of its existence, we would never have suspected such a thing. Moreover, now that we know that there is a Trinity, we cannot understand it. The man who attempts to unravel the mystery is in the position of a near-sighted man straining his eyes from the Eastern Shore of Maryland for a glimpse of Spain. We cannot probe the depths of the ocean of divinity with the foot-rule of the human intellect.
domcentral.org/farrell/companion/comp107.htm

 

[Thepeug]

I guess you are bringing an assumption to the table that assumes God to be a person. But the church says no, God is not a person, God is three persons. Simply abandon your starting assumption and you’ll be ok.

Zaphod,

I think you’re exactly right; I’m coming at this with the wrong assumption. The “numerical identity” argument assumes that the subject in question is a part of creation or a created thing. While this is in some respects true concerning Jesus and the Holy Spirit, I think that, when experiencing the life of the Trinity, one must confront the entire Triune God, and not simply a part of it. My initial starting point (namely, the Triune God as a non-Triune, singular God) is a problem in itself. Thanks for the clarification.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Thepeug]

On second thought, instead of crowding the thread with another string of responses to individual posts, let me just thank you all for your contributions, particularly Ghosty and Gottle for your succinct summaries of the distinctions between Person and Essence, and Yeshua for your reminders of the necessity of understanding through experience. Though post # 41 really turned on a mental light-bulb, I still don’t quite understand all of the responses (and probably never will); I’ll have to mull them over and continue with more questions. Thanks again.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Greg27]

I’m not well trained enough in theology at present to give a useful explanation of how the Trinity can ‘work’ in a philosophical sense. I think the best approach is not to throw out logic and philosophy, nor rely on logic and philosophy to the point where no mystical contemplation of the Trinity is involved (as was the case in decadent Scholasticism). The Orthodox are right that theology is in a way a mystery the holy can best talk about, but at the same time, I believe Western Catholicism was not mistaken to use logic and philosophy in theology.