Divine simplicity and relationships within the Trinity

[WinterSunrise]

I’ve recently become a classical theist and I’m hoping that Catholicism is true, but I have a certain doubt about the Trinity.

How is it reconciled between divine simplicity and the Trinity having relationships (as Catholicism teaches that the Father has the Son begotten and has the Holy Spirit proceed from Him)? My difficulty is that if x is begotten from Y, this really seems to contradict divine simplicity as well as the teaching that the Trinity is not made of parts.

I understand that the relationships are not merely within the mind, as that would be Modalism.

Help?

 

[Vico]

I’ve recently become a classical theist and I’m hoping that Catholicism is true, but I have a certain doubt about the Trinity.

How is it reconciled between divine simplicity and the Trinity having relationships (as Catholicism teaches that the Father has the Son begotten and has the Holy Spirit proceed from Him)? My difficulty is that if x is begotten from Y, this really seems to contradict divine simplicity as well as the teaching that the Trinity is not made of parts.

I understand that the relationships are not merely within the mind, as that would be Modalism.

Help?

Relations do not import composition. The Holy Trinity is in essence three persons, never independent.

Modern Catholic Dictionary

Perichoresis The penetration and indwelling of the three divine persons reciprocally in one another. In the Greek conception of the Trinity there is an emphasis on the mutual penetration of the three persons, thus bringing out the unity of the divine essence. In the Latin idea called circumincession the stress is more on the internal processions of the three divine persons. In both traditions, however, the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God.

 

[Wesrock]

I’ve contemplated this as well, using the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas to guide me.

I think the key is in how best to think of the internal processions. We have a tendency to look at the procession as going from A to B, where A and B are different things or parts. But that is not correct with the Trinity. All of the processions start from A and end in A. It’s not a case of A being the Father and B being the Son. “A” is both Father and Son, the origin and term of the procession. It is a question of how A relates to itself as both origin and term. The two relations are not reducible to each other, and the relations are real and not merely logical because the processions, the activity is a real activity. The same is true for the Holy Spirit. The processions/activity are God’s intelligible act of knowing himself and God’s intelligible act of willing himself. That each end of the relationship is itself not a part of God but fully God, the simple essence of God, and doing the whole activity as the whole essence, is what makes this type of activity in God starkly different than this activity in us, and why the relations are subsistent rather than accidental.

God’s experience of himself, of these relations as a Trinity of persons is known by revelation. And ultimately persons are relational.

Edit: I do feel it insufficient to refer to the Divine Essence by “A” at all in the example above, as He’s just another thing. It’s something like an anthropomorphic characterization. But I do believe it’s accurate as far as our finite conceptions go.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The idea of father, son and begotten are all anthropomorphisms to a certain extent, only fit for our human understanding. In the end, the Trinity is a great mystery which we cannot fully grasp.

 

[jochoa]

Glad to hear you have met God! I pray discovering God’s fullness will be as easy as possible!

Since God can be known with certainty when pondered through the lens of created things, ponder the Creator of Everything’s greatest creation and the logical plan to fulfill that creation.

You will find the greatest creation is eternally true friends, and the logical plan has the Creator of Everything as three distinct persons that are each fully the Creator of Everything.

The first person begets a second person from the substance of the first. And a third person proceeds from the first and second, by a single spiration.

The first person is capable of remaining the all-knowing judge that will only grant eternally true friends to stay in the heavenly kingdom.

In being begotten, the second person is capable of not knowing absolutely everything, such as not knowing the hour of return, so as to make eternally created friendship possible (because although a friend can know everything that matters about you, such as whether you are truly a good person, a friend cannot know absolutely everything about you because that would make the friendship purposeless).

In proceeding, the third person is capable of leading those intended to be eternal friends to heaven by way of inspiration.

To connect this back to divine simplicity: since these processions are eternal, where they occur outside of time, there is no change in God, therefore the Holy Trinity is as God is.

Furthermore, since each person is fully the Creator of Everything, the relationships of begotten and proceeding exist outside of each person being God, therefore the Trinity is not made of parts, rather the Holy Trinity is three distinct persons that are each fully God.

 

[Anesti33]

Hmm… need to run this one through the “Trinity Sunday Homily” checker.

 

[jochoa]

Please let me know what you find that is incomplete.

 

[bpd_stl]

I think the key is in how best to think of the internal processions. We have a tendency to look at the procession as going from A to B, where A and B are different things or parts. But that is not correct with the Trinity. All of the processions start from A and end in A. It’s not a case of A being the Father and B being the Son. “A” is both Father and Son, the origin and term of the procession. It is a question of how A relates to itself as both origin and term.

I would add to this: A=Father; B=Son; C=Holy Spirit.

Leaving aside Thomistic/Aristotelian categories which tend to muddle those not in the know, I say:

Our entire concept of “persons”/procession/generation/“begottens” is entirely based on our limited knowledge of the universe in which we inhabit. All that we know about the universe is limited by our means & method of observing the known universe in reference to our own experience as homo sapiens.

We exist (and are bound) within the 4 dimensions of spacetime. For us, time is linear…which gives us the concepts of causality and what not. The theistic God exists outside of all this. God exists outside of our anthropomorphism. Modalism and all related heresies are our attempt to make God understandable.

All 3 “persons” are God simultaneously & atemporally. Not one God that created 2 lesser entities to do It’s bidding who juggle for first in line of “procession.”

 

[kapp19]

Building off @Wesrock it is important to understand how an opposition of terms can exist within a single substance, thus how the substance is related to itself in real ways.

I do not think it is wise for people to claim that revealed identities and relations (“Father,” “Son,” “begotten,” “Person,” etc.) are “anthropomorphisms” or “human concepts” to explain something that we “can’t understand.” These are in fact given to us by God to understand something about His internal Life. Yes, it is a Mystery, but part of the Mystery has been clarified for us.

I’m writing some articles on it now, I can share by PM.

-K

 

[kapp19]

In being begotten, the second person is capable of not knowing absolutely everything, such as not knowing the hour of return,

This is absolutely incorrect. The Second Person of the Trinity is God, Who is omniscient. Distinguish the Divine Intellect from the human intellect of Christ, then we can discuss the relationship between the Divine Intellect and Christ’s knowledge, which clearly grew, as we are rather clearly told in the Gospel of Luke.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

In being begotten, the second person is capable of not knowing absolutely everything, such as not knowing the hour of return,

This is absolutely incorrect. The Second Person of the Trinity is God, Who is omniscient. Distinguish the Divine Intellect from the human intellect of Christ, then we can discuss the relationship between the Divine Intellect and Christ’s knowledge, which clearly grew, as we are rather clearly told in the Gospel of Luke.

I am praying about this and will respond soon.

Would you also pm me the articles you have written on the subject?

 

[Wesrock]

I understand that the relationships are not merely within the mind, as that would be Modalism.

Just an additional quick thought, St. Thomas argues for real distinctions in the persons, but for no distinctions in the essence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Modalism would be one person under different appearances, but there are really three persons in God, and there are four real relations (between the three), following those four real processions.

 

[Anesti33]

Building off @Wesrock it is important to understand how an opposition of terms can exist within a single substance, thus how the substance is related to itself in real ways.

I do not think it is wise for people to claim that revealed identities and relations (“Father,” “Son,” “begotten,” “Person,” etc.) are “anthropomorphisms” or “human concepts” to explain something that we “can’t understand.” These are in fact given to us by God to understand something about His internal Life. Yes, it is a Mystery, but part of the Mystery has been clarified for us.

I’m writing some articles on it now, I can share by PM.

-K

While it is true that we apply human terms as analogy to help us understand God, it is important to understand that human nature and relationship is actually a reflection of the Divine. My catechetics teacher said “human fathers are fathers by analogy to God the Father” and, I would also say, that human persons are persons after the personhood of God in the Holy Trinity. So properly understanding God does not involve jettisoning our “anthropomorphic” language but instead realizing that humanity is theomorphic.

 

[bpd_stl]

I do not think it is wise for people to claim that revealed identities and relations (“Father,” “Son,” “begotten,” “Person,” etc.) are “anthropomorphisms” or “human concepts” to explain something that we “can’t understand.” These are in fact given to us by God to understand something about His internal Life. Yes, it is a Mystery, but part of the Mystery has been clarified for us.

If intended as a response to my post…this was not my intent. I fully accept & assent to all the Trinitarian & Christological teachings of the Church. When I recite either the Roman (“Apostle’s”) Creed or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed…I mean it.

I just wanted to present a thought exercise to the OP that doesn’t rely on the traditional terminology. I myself am a convert from many years ago, and I found the classic terminologies confusing & off-putting back then.

 

[Anesti33]

Christology and Trinitarian theology are but two areas where terminology is really, really, important, and things get touchy if you refuse to use the proper terms to describe the concepts. The optics are bad when you say that Thomism “tends to muddle things” or that you patronize others “not in the know”. This is the Internet, where we can look up stuff we don’t understand. Hyperlink it if you’re worried, but theology shouldn’t be dumbed down lest it be truly muddled.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is One with the Father?

The Father loves the Son as he loves himself.

The Son loves the Father as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love; working through the perfection of the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version

Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Could the Father love the Son more than he loves himself, can there be any greater relationship between the Father and Son?

Just some thoughts

 

[bpd_stl]

Point taken.

Again, My intent was not to refuse and/or dismiss the necessity of proper terminology or to patronize anybody as not being “smart” enough to figure it out. It’s a lot of information to process and so little time. This is difficult to convey on the internet. My apologies if I have insulted anybody.

I was just trying to express the confusion many converts initially have when beginning to explore the expanse of Church teaching for the first time and being completely overwhelmed by the sheer size of it. Where do you start?

I’m a convert myself. I started from the perspective of “how does this jive with the physical sciences?” That was my first hurtle. I’ve moved quite a bit along since then.

 

[Anesti33]

I was just trying to express the confusion many converts initially have when beginning to explore the expanse of Church teaching for the first time and being completely overwhelmed by the sheer size of it. Where do you start?

Well, you start with RCIA, where if the leaders are worth their salt, they are aware of resources that they can furnish to the students to widen their horizons. Of course so many RCIA programs are shoddy, so hopefully there are mentors or continuing formation classes in the parish or diocese who can assist with such things.

I have a bookmarks folder as long as my arm and it’s free to anyone who wants it. I generously shared all kinds of information when I led RCIA.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

In being begotten, the second person is capable of not knowing absolutely everything, such as not knowing the hour of return,

This is absolutely incorrect. The Second Person of the Trinity is God, Who is omniscient. Distinguish the Divine Intellect from the human intellect of Christ, then we can discuss the relationship between the Divine Intellect and Christ’s knowledge, which clearly grew, as we are rather clearly told in the Gospel of Luke.

How about this for clarity?

In being begotten and incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity, participates as brother to humanity, and therefore, in his human intellect does not know absolutely everything that the Father knows, in return humans are capable of becoming friends with God.

 

[goout]

Christ is eternally begotten. Folks tend to confuse begotten with something like “made”, which doesn’t work. There was never “a time” when Christ was not begotten. His begotten-ness is not an event it is ae-ternal, or not subject to time.

In addition to that, the Incarnation is the entering into history of Christ in human flesh at a specific time and place with a specific body born to a specific woman. In this way, Christ can both

1. participate fully in creation with his divine nature and personhood,
2. while also growing in human intellect and knowledge through his incarnate human nature.

Anthropomorphisms are necessary. Christ spoke to us in human language so we might understand this mystery to the degree that humans can apprehend it. We can never claim to have full certainty of this mystery on the human side of the veil. Language and intellect are going to fail us, as they should.

For my understanding, love makes it come together. Love is not sterile or individualistic, it is between persons, it is unitive, and it is fertile (creative). Father loving Son loving Father loving Holy Spirit and breathing forth creation. So this power of love is unlimited, and can bind distinct persons united as one. For human beings this kind of perfect love and unity of persons isn’t possible.
But in marriage is the fullest sacramental sign of this love that we can see and participate in.