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

[Wesrock]

He is one God in three district persons. I don’t think it matters whether one says persons or parts.

Considering that “God has no parts” is de fide dogma, it does matter. Each person is the entire Godhead. Let’s do a pie metaphor. It’s not a matter of the Father, Son, and Spirit each being slices of the same flavor of pie (how about apple). Each one is also the entire pie, not a slice of it.

Substituting the word “apple pie” for “God” to make it clearer: The Father is apple pie, the Son is apple pie, and the Spirit is apple pie. And the Father is the whole apple pie, and the Son is the whole apple pie, and the Spirit is the whole apple pie. They are not parts of the apple pie. And the Father is not the Son and is not the Spirit, and the Son is not the Spirit. But there is only one apple pie, not three apple pies.

Anyone getting hungry?

Obviously there is a difference between apple pie and God, but I feel like it really draws out the gaps in the shamrock/PB&J sandwich metaphors.

 

[giuseppe96]

Yes, but you could argue that the Father is the crust, the Son is the apples, and the Holy Spirit is the sugar and spices. They’re all the apple pie, but the three parts are not identical to each other.

 

[Wesrock]

Yes, but you could argue that the Father is the crust, the Son is the apples, and the Holy Spirit is the sugar and spices. They’re all the apple pie, but the three parts are not identical to each other.

God is one substance, Father, Son, and Spirit are consubstantial. What you are proposing here is that they are different substances. Claiming you mean otherwise doesn’t change that. It’s just exactly what “consubstantial” is intended to rule out by definition. They are not parts. Each is the whole “apple pie” in itself. That you press the issue tells me you don’t understand where the gaps are in the metaphor. And, I mean no insult as this is difficult stuff, it tells me you don’t grasp some of the dogmas regarding the Trinity. God is one substance, without parts.

 

[Crocus]

Yes, but you could argue that the Father is the crust, the Son is the apples, and the Holy Spirit is the sugar and spices. They’re all the apple pie, but the three parts are not identical to each other.

I appreciate the effort you put unto this.
Plus, a whole new (and might I say fragrantly delicious) meaning to “pie in the sky, when you die.”

(Thanks, @Wesrock for keeping us focused on the mystery.)

 

[giuseppe96]

I’m not placing the ingredients as separate entities. I’m looking at the picture as a complete pie: the crust, apples, and spices are all one together in the pie, but the pie isn’t all apples all crust or all sugar. I think we’re getting way too deep into the pie analogy Maybe I’d word it better if it were a peach pie or blueberry pie, I don’t even like apple pie. But in all seriousness, I believe in the consubstantial Trinity, I’m just not very eloquent on the computer keyboard.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The simple question is this: Is one leaf on a clover identical to the entire clover? The answer is no

Actually, I could argue that yes it is the same, because it is all one plant. I realize from past discussions philosophy heads aren’t going to agree with that answer. Nevertheless, all kinds of old Catholic churches are full of shamrock motifs because it symbolizes the Trinity.

Because the Trinity is a holy mystery, any earthly explanation or symbol we try to give is going to lack in some way or be able to be argued against. This is where faith comes in. Are you going to see what the symbol is trying to tell you, or are you going to poke holes in it? Many of the hole poker types in my experience are also just trying to show off how much they know and what great apologists they are.

A little kid would understand the shamrock or the PBJ sandwich. Little kids are smarter than the entire apologetics and philosophy contingent together, IMHO. I think Jesus thought so too.

 

[Wesrock]

Analogies will always come up short. And they’ve been valuable teaching tools for some, including children or those untrained in Trinitarian theology. One doesn’t need to be a theologian to be a good Christian. And knowing theology doesn’t make one a good Christian, as Saint Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 13.

This discussion is also not so much philosophy as it is theology, just to be clear.

Wesrock:

The simple question is this: Is one leaf on a clover identical to the entire clover? The answer is no

Actually, I could argue that yes it is the same, because it is all one plant.

This misses the point, but again, all analogies come up short. So long as we’re all understanding of that.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You and I agree that no analogy is perfect.
However, the three-leafed clover/ trefoil/ shamrock has been used for hundreds of years to teach the Trinity, and seems to have worked well for most people to get the idea of “three in one” across.

In addition to the many old churches using the symbol, many newer churches use it superimposed with the triangle as a Trinity symbol.

I realize there are some groups of people who concentrate on the finer points of apologetics, either because that’s how their minds work, or to overcome some doubt, or because they are very concerned about people misunderstanding a fine point of dogma. In some cases these people are Protestants or skeptics and are approaching Catholicism from a very different angle than a cradle Catholic who is likely to be just fine with the Trinity but way more concerned with the Church’s moral teachings on sex or similar.

I have mixed feelings about picking on time-honored teaching tools like the shamrock / trefoil because while it might help those who are more concerned with fine points of doctrine, it doesn’t help and in fact might hurt/ confuse those who were taught with the long-accepted symbol. One might say, “if they were poorly catechized then it’s time we fix that” but in my experience most people know the concept “three persons, one God” which is also in hymns and the like, but cannot articulate it well (including Pope Francis when he tried to explain the Holy Spirit). Then they go to church and see trefoils on the walls or floor or the priest’s vestments. I figure it’s better to just stick with the symbol rather than having partialism arguments, since there isn’t a great alternative symbol or complete explanation available.

 

[TheLittleLady]

First thing to remember, the Trinity is a mystery. Many people, the best Catholic minds, have tried to at least give ways for us to understand, they all fall apart at some point.

Once you surrender that some things are beyond our understanding, and simply spend time praising and worshiping the Triune God, it brings a sense of awe, wonder and peace.

For some levity:

 

[bradleesargent]

I was talking to a Jehovah’s witnesses and I asked her, are you a daughter, a sister and a woman??? Well, are you three people or one person??? You have three roles to play, one as a daughter, another as a sister, and a third as your own woman, but you aren’t three people!

 

[TheLittleLady]

That is modalism.

 

[PeterT]

I would explain to the person that the Holy Trinity is three distinct divine beings (the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) eternally united and working together as the true one God but that each (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in and of themselves are to be considered fully divine as God: three divine persons in holy communion that is the one true God.

 

[gazelam]

Ask your Mormon friend to think about God existing absolutely alone, with nothing else but God existing.

Latter-day Saint here…

I believe that you are correct that it’s hard for us to image some of the Trinitarian concepts. For example, the Bible teaches that there are other eternal things besides God.

2 Corinthians 4:18 (DR) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen, are temporal; but the things which are not seen, are eternal.

I hope this helps…

 

[gazelam]

Marysaves is not catholic and is being taught these ideas by a Mormon pastor.

Latter-day Saint here…

For the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does NOT teach that the Holy Spirit was forced into submission at one point by The Father and The Son.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Out of interest, what does the mormon church teach about the Holy Spirit, does it teach He is an angel or God

 

[Asonglaw]

I think Christ is fond of “children”, for the kingdom, He says, is made up of those with such a mindset.

 

[gazelam]

Out of interest, what does the mormon church teach about the Holy Spirit, does it teach He is an angel or God

A bit of background before answering the question…

The Church of Jesus Christ refers to The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit as the Godhead. Each Being is fully divine and each is separate and distinct from the other Two. The Three are One in unity and purpose. (John 17:22)

The Church of Jesus Christ also teaches that The Father and the Son have a body of flesh and bone and that The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches us of truth.

So, in answer to your question, The Holy Spirit is not an angel. The Holy Ghost is a divine being, but is not God in the Trinitarian sense. The Holy Ghost in His divine role is subordinate to The Father.

For more information regarding the latter-day Saint teaching regarding the Holy Spirit, please refer to this link to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Holy_Ghost

 

[EXdrinker]

In order to understand better the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, one needs to understand the concepts of mystery, eternity, person, nature, etc. This is laid out well by Frank Sheed in his classic book, “Theology and Sanity”. Karl Keating has called the section on the Trinity, “the clearest explanation of the Trinity ever put to paper.” It is $1 on Kindle.

https://www.amazon.com/Theology-San...id=1540647058&sr=8-2&keywords=theology+sanity

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What causes the mormon Church to believe God the Father has a flesh and bone body?

 

[NewSeeker]

You should have said “For example, [in my opinion, I think] the Bible teaches that there are other eternal things besides God.”

That’s one interpretation, grounded on the LDS belief that the Father was not always God, but became God. This implies a plurality of gods.

Here’s another interpretation. Whatever is meant by ‘eternal things,’ God alone is uncreated. There is only one God. That is the proper context for that passage.

When considering which interpretation is correct, don’t forget that any Bible passages you interpret were given to you to interpret by the Catholic Church. Our church fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, made all the decisions about which NT books would count as scripture. The New Testament is a Catholic collection that you’ve borrowed.