Caught off guard -- I couldn't explain the Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter njlisa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarySaves said:
Nope. Jesus is God. God has one will. Therefore Jesus has one will.
Click to expand...
Your arguing for monothelitism, which is contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches confirmed at Constantinople III.

Jesus was fully man in addition to being fully divine. As such, he had a human body and a human soul, a human intellect and a human will.

Do you actually attend a Roman Catholic Church in communion with Rome? Or do you perhaps attend one of the Arian churches that claim to be the “true” catholic church?
 
Last edited:
MarySaves said:
Because you cannot give a citation while I can
Click to expand...
An angelfire website is not a citation.
Christ’s human will

475 Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.110 Christ’s human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."111

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM
Click to expand...
 
MarySaves said:
40.png
Wesrock:
Heresy. Jesus Christ had two wills, the human will completely cooperating with the divine will.
Click to expand...
Not everything you disagree with is heresy. There can be respectful disagreements without resorting to calling me a heretic which I find insulting
Click to expand...
This isn’t disagreement with me. You’re speaking gross misunderstandings of Trinitarianism and positions which have been explicitly condemned as heretical by the Church.
 
MarySaves said:
40.png
Wesrock:
This isn’t disagreement with me . You’re speaking gross misunderstandings of Trinitarianism and positions which have been explicitly condemned as heretical by the Church.
Click to expand...
All i’m asking for is a ccc citation or a official church doctrine that prohibits a view of relational subordination within the trinity
Click to expand...
Goalposts = Moved.

It’s contrary to the dogma that Father, Son, and Spirit are consubstantial and God’s essence as Simple, both which are de fide dogmas. God is one being, not three. All persons are co-equal in everything, distinct only by relationship but not in essence. There are not multiple wills in the Divine Nature. I will look for supporting materials to link to.
 
Last edited:
MarySaves said:
What the Bible does teach is an economic (or relational) subordination within the Trinity. The three Persons of the triune Godhead voluntarily submit to each other respecting the roles They perform in creation and salvation. So, the Father sent the Son into the world (1 John 4:10). These roles are never reversed in Scripture: the Son never sends the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus and “proceeds from the Father” to testify of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26). And Jesus perfectly submitted His will to the Father’s (Luke 22:42; Hebrews 10:7).
Click to expand...
These are not submission. I have Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma at home. That should be a good starting point. Catholics have very specific terminology regarding the missions, what’s temporal, what’s not, what’s specific to which relationship, and so on.
 
MarySaves said:
We both know that relational subordination/submission within in the trinity is a perfectly acceptable belief and falls safely into a allowable spectrum of what we can believe. You’re now grasping at straws trying to portray me as a heretic.
Click to expand...
It is not, but we’re on firmer ground here than we were earlier in the topic when you were writing and quoting much more immediately obvious heresies. Don’t deny you’ve shifted the goal-posts. The denial of the divinity of Christ and the Spirit, the idea that the Spirit was captured and forced into submission and the godhead when it wasn’t originally, that Christ had one will.

I thought relational subordinationism was acceptable a couple years ago, but I was demonstrated wrong on that. I’ve been doing this entire discussion from the passenger seat of a car. The other things were much more blatant, if that makes any sense, much easier to quickly respond to off the cuff.
 
For reference.
MarySaves said:
@Roseeurekacross SAINT Irenaeus repeatedly insists the Father alone is the one and only true God…
Irenaeus envisions his God to be a one person being, out of whom came his Son, and therefore, Jesus is deity of the Supreme Deity. In other words, there is only one true God and this God is the Father alone and the divinity of the Son is simply a derivative of the Father who is the Deity and for this reason only the Father is the one true God. For Irenaeus, Jesus can be called “god/God” but only in the sense that he derives his power and immortal deity from the One and Only True God, the Father, and as such he is the Word of God, a manifestation of God, but is not himself 'the One and Only True God."
Click to expand...
MarySaves said:
God is God in 3 beings. The son is obedient to the father while the holy spirit was forced into submission at some point by the father and son. They are all God now and co eternal

The holy spirit submitted to the fact that the father is the head of the trinity.
Click to expand...
 
Mary you told me on another thread that you had a Catholic Priest and a Mormon pastor.

You are considering becoming Catholic but your pastor hopes you will go Mormon.

The teachings you are getting are understandably conflicted and confused.

Angelfire is not a web address that can be trusted for credible writing. But from that writing can you please show me where Ireneaus teaches what you claimed he did
 
Last edited:
The shamrock is too simple and perfect a symbol for over thinkers to accept. Modern philosophers can’t accept simple answers and explanations. They’d be more intrigued if you compared the Trinity to a 4 dimensional triangle.
 
I’d suggest reading John 1:1-5, then Genesis 1:1-2, then John 16:4(b) -15.

Then I’d go to the RCC 232-252.

Then I’d make a list of questions.

Then I’d make an appointment with my priest to discuss.

Then I’d go to the bar and drink a cold, tall beer.
 
I agree. I like the shamrock symbol as well. A priest at a former parish explained the trinity with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. We said that peanut butter, jelly and bread are three very distinct ingredients. Each can and does exist on its own. Each is good and wholesome on its own. Once you combine them, really nothing can pull them completely apart again. At the same time, each ingredient retains its unique substance. They aren’t all mixed up.
 
giuseppe96 said:
The shamrock is too simple and perfect a symbol for over thinkers to accept. Modern philosophers can’t accept simple answers and explanations. They’d be more intrigued if you compared the Trinity to a 4 dimensional triangle.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a “modern philosophy” issue. The simple question is this: Is one leaf on a clover identical to the entire clover? The answer is no. Furthermore, as a result of this, the leaves are only parts of the clover.
 
13pollitos said:
I agree. I like the shamrock symbol as well. A priest at a former parish explained the trinity with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. We said that peanut butter, jelly and bread are three very distinct ingredients. Each can and does exist on its own. Each is good and wholesome on its own. Once you combine them, really nothing can pull them completely apart again. At the same time, each ingredient retains its unique substance. They aren’t all mixed up.
Click to expand...
But the persons of the Trinity cannot exist on their own and are not three unique substances. The peanut butter is also not the entire sandwich. Neither is the bread or jelly.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that each exists on its own. But that each is a distinct part of a single substance. Same with the shamrock.
 
giuseppe96 said:
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that each exists on its own. But that each is a distinct part of a single substance. Same with the shamrock.
Click to expand...
Okay. But there are no parts in God. Each person is God in full, not a part of God.
 
He is one God in three district persons. I don’t think it matters whether one says persons or parts.
 
That may be closer to what Father said. It’s been several years ago when we lived in North Carolina, so about 15 years ago. I just remember it got my nephew to finally grasp the concept of the Trinity. He’s been on fire for the faith ever since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top