Could there be additional persons in the 'Trinity'?

[LilyM]

Exactly my point. We now know it comes in plasma as well. We knew of three, now we know of more. It was never exclusive. There may yet be other forms of matter.

windows2universe.org/sun/Solar_interior/Sun_layers/Core/four_states.html

That’s because we have to examine water and make educated hypotheses, based on our limited ability to test our theories, about it. And human theories are testable and falsifiable and susceptible to error.

The knowledge we get from God about Himself is not a hypothesis that we make about Him. It’s revealed fact that He tells us about Himself. And He doesn’t lie nor change His nature.

 

[Hokomai]

That’s because we have to examine water and make educated hypotheses, based on our limited ability to test our theories, about it. And human theories are testable and falsifiable and susceptible to error.

The knowledge we get from God about Himself is not a hypothesis that we make about Him. It’s revealed fact that He tells us about Himself. And He doesn’t lie nor change His nature.

But where has he said, or his representatives said, in an unambiguous way, that there are three, and only three persons in the Godhead? I understand that you have deduced that this is so, but where does it say it, if anywhere?

 

[LilyM]

But where has he said, or his representatives said, in an unambiguous way, that there are three, and only three persons in the Godhead? I understand that you have deduced that this is so, but where does it say it, if anywhere?

It’s not deduction. It’s knowledge God has that He imparts to us.

When I say that I finished high school in 1991 I mean just exactly what I say - that I finished in 1991. I don’t mean anything different. I don’t mean that it was possibly 1991 but might be 1973 or 1776, or that I left without finishing, or that I am really still in high school, or anything other than just exactly what I said. And that’s not deduction, that is me flat out telling you.

And I say it was 1991 with certitude and exactness because I was there and I jolly well know what year it was. And my memory is accurate. And I express myself perfectly accurately, especially in situations where other people might be relying on what I say. So if I meant to say anything different I would say it different. If I was unsure, or never finished, I would say that and not say 1991.

Same with God, when He (the Holy Spirit) teaches us important facts about the Godhead - like that God is Trinity and not Duo or Quartet or anything else. Including when He teaches us through infallible Church Councils.

He is capable of expressing Himself accurately and exactly and transmitting clearly precisely what He wants known. And exactly what is true, and no more, less or different. He promised to do no less than teach us accurately the truth about Himself. And so we trust that He says to us what He means and means what He says.

We are not scientists making educated but possibly still wrong guesses about the nature of God like we do about the nature of water. He is telling is the truth about Himself like I might tell you about the year I finished high school.

And like the year I finished high school, the composition and nature of the Godhead is a fixed fact - unchanging and unchangeable. The correct information about each could not be different yesterday, nor can it be different tomorrow or in 50 years time. And the answer in each case is accurate as described. I finished in 1991 and no other year, and there are three persons and no other number in the Godhead.

 

[ricks1948]

The Virgin Mother Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. I see her as potentially becoming a part of the Trinity, making the Trinity into a Quad. .

Careful Stock! Please, I say this with all love, but this is heresy.

 

[empther]

From post 13

The Virgin Mother Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. I see her as potentially becoming a part of the Trinity, making the Trinity into a Quad. .

This is impossible:
Mary is a finite human being. You can’t go from finite to infinite.
For the Trinity to become the Quad would be a change, but God is unchangeable.

---

To the Father is attributed creation, omnipotence, and knowing.
To the Son is attributed the Father’s knowledge, and therefore the Son eternally proceeds from the Father.
To the Holy Spirit is attrivuted the love of the Father and Son for each other.

That would seem to cover all of God’s activities: creating, omnipotence, knowledge, and love.
There’s nothing else, nor does there need to be anything else. Therefore, there could not be more divine Persons.

 

[Theophorus]

But where has he said, or his representatives said, in an unambiguous way, that there are three, and only three persons in the Godhead? I understand that you have deduced that this is so, but where does it say it, if anywhere?

My earlier quote from the second council of constantinople stated definitively that God is Trinity, or if you prefer God is three Persons, this excludes the possibility of God simultaneously being another multiple of persons.

Just as if I were to say “this table is brown” is to make a definative statment regarding the table I am sitting at, which excludes the possibility of it simultaneously being blue,green,orange etc. so it is with God, by saying He is three is to exclude the possibility of Him being 4,5,6,7,8 etc. [unless you have managed to definitively say both yes and no at the same time without contradicting yourself, which as far as I am aware is impossible.]

 

[Theophorus]

The Virgin Mother Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. I see her as potentially becoming a part of the Trinity, making the Trinity into a Quad. .

That’s an interesting position to take. How do you see that happening?

As afar as I’m aware Mary being finite, the Trinity being infinite, eternal and unchanging, and both of them being different in substance would rule out such a development.

 

[RedDuke50]

I don’t think there would be more than three Persons in the Trinity. Jesus only exposed to us that there were three Persons. I read in a book that God the Son is from the idea that God the Father has of Himself; the Holy Spirit is from the infinite love that they shared. So, I can’t really think of how a fourth could come, but I suppose that anything is possible.

 

[Hokomai]

My earlier quote from the second council of constantinople stated definitively that God is Trinity, or if you prefer God is three Persons, this excludes the possibility of God simultaneously being another multiple of persons.

Just as if I were to say “this table is brown” is to make a definative statment regarding the table I am sitting at, which excludes the possibility of it simultaneously being blue,green,orange etc. so it is with God, by saying He is three is to exclude the possibility of Him being 4,5,6,7,8 etc. [unless you have managed to definitively say both yes and no at the same time without contradicting yourself, which as far as I am aware is impossible.]

The Council said:

If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

I do not want to seem obtuse, but I cannot see why one could not give full intellectual assent to this, and also to the proposition that there may be other persons in the Godhead, unknown to us. The Council says that three persons are one; and as they are three they are a Trinity, but this may be how they have been revealed to us (so far) and not be the total persons who make up God.

This does not seem to me to be a definitive statement along the lines of: “if anyone says there are, or could be, more than three persons in the Godhead, let him be anathema”. In fact, I cannot see that it makes any statement about this possibility.

 

[Hokomai]

It’s not deduction. It’s knowledge God has that He imparts to us.

When I say that I finished high school in 1991 I mean just exactly what I say - that I finished in 1991. I don’t mean anything different. I don’t mean that it was possibly 1991 but might be 1973 or 1776, or that I left without finishing, or that I am really still in high school, or anything other than just exactly what I said. And that’s not deduction, that is me flat out telling you.

And I say it was 1991 with certitude and exactness because I was there and I jolly well know what year it was. And my memory is accurate. And I express myself perfectly accurately, especially in situations where other people might be relying on what I say. So if I meant to say anything different I would say it different. If I was unsure, or never finished, I would say that and not say 1991.

Same with God, when He (the Holy Spirit) teaches us important facts about the Godhead - like that God is Trinity and not Duo or Quartet or anything else. Including when He teaches us through infallible Church Councils.

He is capable of expressing Himself accurately and exactly and transmitting clearly precisely what He wants known. And exactly what is true, and no more, less or different. He promised to do no less than teach us accurately the truth about Himself. And so we trust that He says to us what He means and means what He says.

We are not scientists making educated but possibly still wrong guesses about the nature of God like we do about the nature of water. He is telling is the truth about Himself like I might tell you about the year I finished high school.

And like the year I finished high school, the composition and nature of the Godhead is a fixed fact - unchanging and unchangeable. The correct information about each could not be different yesterday, nor can it be different tomorrow or in 50 years time. And the answer in each case is accurate as described. I finished in 1991 and no other year, and there are three persons and no other number in the Godhead.

Your statement that you finished High School in 1991 does not preclude the possibility that you later returned, and finished a second time. It depends what ‘finish high school’ means where you live. If you told me “I finished high school and did not return”, then the point would be beyond doubt. But it is not. So too, it seems to me, with Church teaching on the trinity: it does not put the possibility of further persons beyond doubt. So far the clearest statement in the thread is that cited by Theophorus, but as I noted in my previous post I cannot see that this clearly precludes the possibility of other persons in the Godhead.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Your statement that you finished High School in 1991 does not preclude the possibility that you later returned, and finished a second time. It depends what ‘finish high school’ means where you live. If you told me “I finished high school and did not return”, then the point would be beyond doubt. But it is not. So too, it seems to me, with Church teaching on the trinity: it does not put the possibility of further persons beyond doubt. So far the clearest statement in the thread is that cited by Theophorus, but as I noted in my previous post I cannot see that this clearly precludes the possibility of other persons in the Godhead.

Your avoidance of my exegesis on John 3:16 is not helping your case. From Christ’s own mouth he said he is the only begotten Son. There, we can establish there is no other person in the Godhead that is begotten. The only way then to advocate the possibility of other Persons is by way of procession, not begetting. There can then be only one procession from the Father and the Son, to say otherwise is ignorance of the word procession. Hence, there is only three Persons of the Godhead.

Furthermore, there is no hint or support for other Persons beyond three. Proper research is not done with eisegesis, which seems to be what you are doing. We come to the conclusions of, not presuppose something to be true or possible and then look for support of it.

 

[LilyM]

Your statement that you finished High School in 1991 does not preclude the possibility that you later returned, and finished a second time. It depends what ‘finish high school’ means where you live. If you told me “I finished high school and did not return”, then the point would be beyond doubt. But it is not. So too, it seems to me, with Church teaching on the trinity: it does not put the possibility of further persons beyond doubt. So far the clearest statement in the thread is that cited by Theophorus, but as I noted in my previous post I cannot see that this clearly precludes the possibility of other persons in the Godhead.

Lord, you sound just like Bill Clinton - ‘depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is’.

‘Finished’ means finished. All requirements completed. Nothing further remaining undone. A half-built house or car is not ‘finished’ if the builder simply abandons his work rather than completing it!

If in 1991 I merely left for a time with my high schooling incomplete, but returned at a later date, that’s not being ‘finished’ and I would not SAY ‘finished’, I would SAY ‘I left for x amount of time, and finished in year y’ rather than 1991.

If I repeated it again at a later date, again that would not mean that I was ‘finished’ with my high schooling in 1991 either. Like the builder who has to redo the flooring or the car maker the electronics, because he didn’t do it right the first time or something (and the only reason you would repeat high school would be if you didn’t succeed at it the first time). And again, that wouldn’t mean that I was ‘finished’ in 1991 and I wouldn’t SAY ‘finished’!

See, God doesn’t change. If He reveals Himself as three persons now, it means that He always has been and always will be three persons, no more and no less. He doesn’t lie, He doesn’t conceal an extra person in His pocket like a magician might conceal a coin in his hand, He isn’t inaccurate. And there’s no possibility of an extra person being magicked into existence in the future or anything.

 

[Hokomai]

Lord, you sound just like Bill Clinton - ‘depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is’.

‘Finished’ means finished. All requirements completed. Nothing further remaining undone. A half-built house or car is not ‘finished’ if the builder simply abandons his work rather than completing it!

If in 1991 I merely left for a time with my high schooling incomplete, but returned at a later date, that’s not being ‘finished’ and I would not SAY ‘finished’, I would SAY ‘I left for x amount of time, and finished in year y’ rather than 1991.

If I repeated it again at a later date, again that would not mean that I was ‘finished’ with my high schooling in 1991 either. Like the builder who has to redo the flooring or the car maker the electronics, because he didn’t do it right the first time or something (and the only reason you would repeat high school would be if you didn’t succeed at it the first time). And again, that wouldn’t mean that I was ‘finished’ in 1991 and I wouldn’t SAY ‘finished’!

See, God doesn’t change. If He reveals Himself as three persons now, it means that He always has been and always will be three persons, no more and no less. He doesn’t lie, He doesn’t conceal an extra person in His pocket like a magician might conceal a coin in his hand, He isn’t inaccurate. And there’s no possibility of an extra person being magicked into existence in the future or anything.

I hope that yesterday you did not finish your dinner. You will be a hungry CAFer today!

 

[Hokomai]

Your avoidance of my exegesis on John 3:16 is not helping your case. From Christ’s own mouth he said he is the only begotten Son. There, we can establish there is no other person in the Godhead that is begotten.

This does not follow at all. Might he not have an only-begotten daughter? Of even severally-begotten daughters?

The only way then to advocate the possibility of other Persons is by way of procession, not begetting.

Why? Might God not have an entirely different relationship other than begetting or procession for other persons?

There can then be only one procession from the Father and the Son, to say otherwise is ignorance of the word procession.

Why? What does the word procession mean that it can only occur singly?

 

[LilyM]

I hope that yesterday you did not finish your dinner. You will be a hungry CAFer today!

I indeed finished yesterday’s dinner in that I ate until I was satisfied.Of course I did not fnish with dinners altogether, because it’s very well understood and implicit that one regularly repeats the process of dining - one has dinner every day, or nearly every day.

By contrast I don’t plan on going on a contiinuous daily round from high school to high school unto eternity. No one does. It is very rare even to repeat one’s high schooling, having graduated. And one who fails to graduate at all is most commonly referred to as a ‘dropout’. I’ve never heard anyone but you refer to such a person as having finished their high school or university or what have you.

We’re getting off track here. The definition of the Trinity is quite clear - one eternal God consisting of three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. This is through revelation, our creeds being infallible teaching. So there is no possiblity of mistake or anything less than complete truth.

The meanings of ‘eternal’, ‘one’, ‘three’ and even ‘persons’ are all much clearer than the meaning of ‘finish’ - at least clearer than the meaning of ‘finish’ is to you.

And as clear as the word ‘is’ was to everyone in the world but Bill Clinton.

And the definition of those words, combined with the fact of it being infallible and therefore trustworthy teaching, simply does not admit of any possibility of there ever having been, or ever being now or in the future, any other number than three persons in the Godhead.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

This does not follow at all. Might he not have an only-begotten daughter? Of even severally-begotten daughters?

There is only one who subsists in filiation, “a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son.”

Why? Might God not have an entirely different relationship other than begetting or procession for other persons?

The onus is on you to demonstrate how other relationships can be other than begetting or procession that would not hinder an eternal agent, so creation is out of the question.

Why? What does the word procession mean that it can only occur singly?

“The other two relations are not opposed to either of these, but are opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above (27, 3 and 4). We must frequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Are we going to hear any argument based on Sacred Scripture that demonstrates Persons beyond three? Or are we doing all the fact finding and proper argumentation while you throw simplistic and baseless assumptions in the air?

 

[Hokomai]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Could there be additional persons in the ‘Trinity’?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokomai forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
This does not follow at all. Might he not have an only-begotten daughter? Of even severally-begotten daughters?

TS Aquinas There is only one who subsists in filiation, “a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son.”

This quote from Aquinas l does not address the question. He is talking about whether the father and the Son are two, not the possibility of the Father having one or more daughters.
Quote:
Why? Might God not have an entirely different relationship other than begetting or procession for other persons?
TS Aquinas The onus is on you to demonstrate how other relationships can be other than begetting or procession that would not hinder an eternal agent, so creation is out of the question.

I do not know what ‘hinder and eternal agent’ means. Any ‘onus’ would be on me only were I to be advocating a position. I am asking a question.

Quote:
 	 		 			 				Why? What does the word procession mean that it can only occur singly?

TS Aquinas “The other two relations are not opposed to either of these, but are opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above (27, 3 and 4). We must frequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

I am not sure exactly what Aquinas l is saying here. It seems to me that he is saying that the known three persons may not be further divided, and do not produce of themselves further persons. This does not address the question I am asking which is whether further persons, unknown to us, might exist.

Are we going to hear any argument based on Sacred Scripture that demonstrates Persons beyond three? Or are we doing all the fact finding and proper argumentation while you throw simplistic and baseless assumptions in the air?

No, you are not going to hear any argument at all from me. I having been seeking information, which is a different thing from making an argument. I appreciate your responses to my questions, and do not understand why you have put this point to me in this way.

 

[hglundahl]

Like when your science book says water comes in three forms - solid, liquid, and gas - it means three. It doesn’t mean that water ever has or ever will come in anything less than or more than three forms.

Exactly my point. We now know it comes in plasma as well. We knew of three, now we know of more. It was never exclusive. There may yet be other forms of matter.

In summary, when electrons are no longer trapped in orbits around the nucleus, we have the plasma state. This is when a gas becomes a bunch of electrons which have escaped the pull of the nucleus and ions which are positively charged because they have lost one or more electrons. Source.

In that case there are no water molecules, so though it is a state of matter it is no state of water.

The Councils stated the persons were three back when “unus” as in “one” was not used as indefinite article but really only if there was a reason to underline oneness - like the “one” being the only.

But as we do not know the fullness of God, and cannot, surely it is possibly if it is not definitively excluded? And calling the Godhead 'the Trinity" could mean “the persons and unity of God we can discern”.

But we cannot discern them.

It is not our talents, but God’s truth we rely on when affirming them.

So, if there were eleven persons - like kabbalistic sephiroth or something like that - and Christ had still said we are to be baptised in the name of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” without naming other persons if existing, that would have been wilfully misleading.

Not like us not understanding enough through lack of progress.

Which is precisely what we cannot attribute to God: wilfully misleading us.

“The other two relations are not opposed to either of these, but are opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above (27, 3 and 4). We must frequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

I am not sure exactly what Aquinas l is saying here. It seems to me that he is saying that the known three persons may not be further divided, and do not produce of themselves further persons. This does not address the question I am asking which is whether further persons, unknown to us, might exist.

No, no, no. He is talking of a theology based on Christ giving us the real fulness of revelation. And demonstrating philosophically what we already knew theologically from the words of Christ: that there are no more persons than three, and from St Athanasius, as well as St Leo and St Hilarius, that the Spiration of the Holy Ghost is from both Father and from Son at same time.

 

[thistle]

What in these creeds precludes the possibility of there being others?

The Catholic Church holds the Deposit of Faith and has the fullness of divine truth so everything has already been revealed to the Church. In other words there is no possibility that the Holy Trinity can be enlarged.

 

[Hokomai]

The Catholic Church holds the Deposit of Faith and has the fullness of divine truth so everything has already been revealed to the Church. In other words there is no possibility that the Holy Trinity can be enlarged.

I am not sure that this accurately expresses the doctrine. There are still thing that the Church considers has not been revealed, such as all the ‘mysteries’. It does not consider that everything has been revealed, but that everything that is going to be revealed, has been. So it should still be open to ask if things are possible. This is not the same as asking if they will be revealed in the sense you mean, Thistle.