Difficulties understanding the Holy Trinity

[stephenSTOSS1]

I find it hard to understand the Holy Trinity.

Here is a quote from a previous post

To understand what it means to be “in” Christ, we must first understand what it means to be a Trinitarian God. The word knowing is critically important. God is not just Truth; God is Truth known . Truth that is known, however, is always good. Truth can never be otherwise. What is Good is loved. What is not Good is not loved. The begetting of the Son of God is an intellectual generation. It is the Father’s knowledge of himself; the Father is eternally “knowing” himself, i.e. generating the Son. This knowledge is eternally penetrated by the Holy Spirit who sees that what is known is perfect goodness that should be communicated to others (i.e. creation of man). Likewise, the Son is always knowing the Father by knowing himself. When the Father sends the Son into creation, does the Father forget his knowledge of himself? Of course not. That is why the Son is never absent from the Father, even though he has been sent, together with the Breath, the Holy Spirit, into creation. This is what is meant when Jesus tells us that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him.

In the garden Jesus prayed to God His Father in Heaven to take his fate away if it be Gods will but how does this make sense if Jesus is God?

Jesus is both fully human and fully Divine. His human part also possessed human free will, which was capable of willing that he not suffer.

How can he pray to a God in heaven if God is him?

In addition to what I quoted above, let me add this: God is a Trinity of three Persons in an eternal and unending dialogue. Human prayer is the human way of imitating that dialogue … participating from the sidelines, so to speak. Jesus’ humanity, since it had not yet been glorified and ascended to the Father, was participating in that dialogue through prayer, which is What God wants us to do. This is evident in Isaiah (or Malachi) when God says to the Son something along the lines of: if you ask it of me, I will give you the Gentiles. That asking is a form of prayer.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

I explained the Trinity elsewhere in this thread, but I will add to it a little. Whenever we know ourselves, this knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, so to speak. This generation of knowledge is always accompanied by a sort of knowledge of the Truth of the Truth relative to that whiich is penetrated, and the goodness or badness of that which is known. That is where the Holy Spirit comes in. We are told that the HS is eternally penetrating the thoughts of God. This knowledge leads (in the poverty of human language) to Divine Charity … the actions of Love. To put it in human terms, when I look in the mirror, do I like what I see or do I dislike the person staring back at me.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thanks for the explanation. Another question, this time about Jesus. I believe the question was raised previously by a Muslim person. The question is if Jesus is FULLY human as well as fully divine, then why is He not subject to sinful behavior, which, after all, is a human behavior? I realize that His human will is totally in accord with His divine will; but if this is so, then can it be said that Jesus is FULLY human?

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Thanks for the explanation. Another question, this time about Jesus. I believe the question was raised previously by a Muslim person. The question is if Jesus is FULLY human as well as fully divine, then why is He not subject to sinful behavior, which, after all, is a human behavior? I realize that His human will is totally in accord with His divine will; but if this is so, then can it be said that Jesus is FULLY human?

If we want to know why he is not subject to sinful behavior, we can look to why Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, were not subject to death, hunger, pain, etc. The soul is the substantial form of the body. In other words, the body was completely subject to, and in harmony with, the soul’s desires. Then on top of that, the Holy Spirit gave them the gift of supernatural grace, which elevated them to a nature above their human nature. As a result, all those bodily functions that provide the inclination and lusts for sin we’re completely under control of a soul that knew and desired the only true good … God. For example, the hormone that produces hunger is called ghrelin. No ghrelin expressed by the genes, no hunger. This is why our First Parents were not susceptible to any temptations of the flesh.

So the next question would be, why did Jesus experience hunger? After all, he didn’t “fall.” As we said earlier, because it is the soul that is the susbstantial form of the body, an unfallen soul would still be in complete control of his entire body. Jesus chose to become sin. In other words, because it was his desire to take upon himself the sins of all man so that he could elevate all man through his redemptive suffering. So, even though he is without sin, he desired to take upon himself the consequences of all our sins. He willed his body to function as though it was fallen, so his body obeyed Jesus’ soul.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thanks again, StephenSTOSS1. I believe I understand. Still, if the human natures of Adam and Eve were elevated by the Holy Spirit to a “nature above their human nature,” it seems to me that the human nature of Jesus must have also been elevated above His human nature by the Holy Spirit, if, as you state, He took upon Himself all the sins of humanity. No human, even a Tzaddik, is capable of doing that. In that sense, it appears that Jesus could not have been fully human. Or I am missing something?

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

it seems to me that the human nature of Jesus must have also been elevated above His human nature by the Holy Spirit, if, as you state, He took upon Himself all the sins of humanity. No human, even a Tzaddik, is capable of doing that.

That is not the case. Scripture tells us that Jesus was fully human in every way … except sin. He took upon his shoulders (body and soul) the effects of all sin, but not the sins themselves. As for the Holy Spirit, prior to the fall Adam and Eve would not be subject to death. When Jesus chose to take on human nature and the consequences of sin, he accepted a mortal body; one subject to death. He didn’t have to, but he chose to. He chose to be fully human. Jesus chose to fully empty himself and descend to humanity so that, by his death and resurrection, humanity, through Baptism, could be raised to the divine. The Hypostatic union is such that the Divinity of the Son of God can be united with his human nature in Person, not in nature. The two natures cannot be mixed, but they are united in the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus.

 

[Wesrock]

One question, 1ke. My confusion about the Trinity is not so much the difference between Jesus, the Son and Gd, the Father, since Jesus is both human and divine while the Father is only divine. Or am I wrong about this? My problem is with the Holy Spirit; that is, how is the Holy Spirit a different Person from Gd the Father? Is it that the Holy Spirit is within each of us, while Gd the Father is not? But I thought Gd the Father is omnipresent, which would mean He too is within us. So what exactly is the distinction?

If I remember right, there are a handful of distinctions in their mission. However, their missions with creation aren’t the basis of the Trinity. The basis of the Trinity is the three distinct relationships within God. Speculatively, following Aquinas mostly (but not only, as Augustine had something similat), and I am rushing here, the act of God knowing himself, knowing and being known, is one relationship (and there are reasons why we might say this is a natural generation which results in the relationships of Paternity and Filiation), and so we have the Father and Son. Whereas that is a movement of the Intellect, the Holy Spirit is a movement of the will, in which God wills his own good, which is a procession unique from the generation, insert speculative philosophy of the mind logic here. Now, the Son can’t have a Son, because God is one being, and an additional generation would be identical to the first and so the same generation, not a different one. Likewise there can’t be two “spirations”. But again, this is speculative theology. What is dogmatic is that when we say “persons” in the Trinity we are referring to distinct relations in the Godhead, not different intellects or wills or beings.

I don’t think my rushed ramblings will.help much, now that I think of it.

 

[meltzerboy2]

On the contrary, I always find your comments helpful. One point though (there is always one more point): Gd knowing Himself and so on, are not all of these relationships based on our understanding of human relationships, which of course is our only reference? In other words, what makes us think that Gd needs these relationships based on intellect in one case and will in the other? Gd just is, He is the essence of all existence, His intellect, emotion, will and so on are not distinct aspects of His being in the way they are for humans.

 

[Wesrock]

On the contrary, I always find your comments helpful. One point though (there is always one more point): Gd knowing Himself and so on, are not all of these relationships based on our understanding of human relationships, which of course is our only reference? In other words, what makes us think that Gd needs these relationships based on intellect in one case and will in the other? Gd just is, He is the essence of all existence, His intellect, emotion, will and so on are not distinct aspects of His being in the way they are for humans.

When we speak of the Intellect of God and the Will of God, we’re referring to the same, non-composite essence in different ways based on our finite experience.

For the rest, to quote Aquinas (speculative theology):

I answer that, There are two processions in God; the procession of the Word, and another. In evidence whereof we must observe that procession exists in God, only according to an action which does not tend to anything external, but remains in the agent itself. Such an action in an intellectual nature is that of the intellect, and of the will. The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation. The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love.

Reply to Objection 3. Though will and intellect are not diverse in God, nevertheless the nature of will and intellect requires the processions belonging to each of them to exist in a certain order. For the procession of love occurs in due order as regards the procession of the Word; since nothing can be loved by the will unless it is conceived in the intellect. So as there exists a certain order of the Word to the principle whence He proceeds, although in God the substance of the intellect and its concept are the same; so, although in God the will and the intellect are the same, still, inasmuch as love requires by its very nature that it proceed only from the concept of the intellect, there is a distinction of order between the procession of love and the procession of the Word in God.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Gd knowing Himself and so on, are not all of these relationships based on our understanding of human relationships, which of course is our only reference?

We can never fully understand the Trinity … three Persons in one God. However, we are created in the image and likeness of God, so knowing ourselves can give us insight into the Trinity. We have a trinitarian nature, except ours does not involve three persons. We are called to know ourselves and to love what we know. Unfortunately, due to our fallen nature, it is hard to love what we know of ourselves.

what makes us think that Gd needs these relationships based on intellect in one case and will in the other?

It’s not so much that God needs these relationships, rather is an undivided unity that cannot broken. St. Hildegard of Bingen was informed by God of this relationship and this unity. God informed her that if any Person of the Trinity were missing, then Gog would not be God.

 

[Rozellelily]

But if not three aspects but literally three persons isn’t that believing in multiple Gods?
It’s so confusing.

 

[porthos11]

No, absolutely not. That’s polytheism.

We are talking about three Persons, one God, and it is a mystery. The Trinitarian Shield says thus:

The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

“Confusing” is not the right term. The proper term is “incomprehensible.” You’re trying to think in terms of numbers while God is by nature infinite.

 

[goout]

Meditate on marriage.
Marriage is “the primordial sacrament” of Gods’s love (JP2) and the best sign we have of God’s trinitarian nature.

 

[adgloriam]

It’s so confusing.

That is brilliant @Rozellelily

It’s not every day a thread gets started by someone I really like on my favorite subject. So I’m a bit late to this thread and I don’t wish to write too much. I’m a craddle Catholic and I always went to mass as a child. A couple of months ago another person I really appreciate (and who’s a convert) started a thread that ended up being about her faith in the Trinity, I was taken to realize how privileged I am to have understood this since I was a child.

Well, I think your pilgrimage in the Faith has been brilliant @Rozellelily because I remember your threads since I first joined CAF and I think I’ve honestly seen you progress a lot in the faith over this past year - speaking for myself, I sure have and in ways I couldn’t have imagined.

The answer to your question is in here:

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Vico]

But if not three aspects but literally three persons isn’t that believing in multiple Gods?
It’s so confusing.

Catechism

252 The Church uses

• (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity,
• (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and
• (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another . Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: …