Do the three Persons of the Holy Trinity know different things?

[Malperdy]

It seems that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity know different things, for when Jesus spoke of the end of the world (“Heaven and earth will pass away…”) He also said:
“No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come–neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father knows.” (Mark 13:32)

What is the implication of this for the belief in the omniscience of God?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

It seems that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity know different things, for when Jesus spoke of the end of the world (“Heaven and earth will pass away…”) He also said:
“No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come–neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father knows.” (Mark 13:32)

What is the implication of this for the belief in the omniscience of God?

You also forgot to mention that Jesus said, “I and the Father are one”. Also, none of us can understand the Trinity, as this is a Mystery of our faith. Finite human logic, is incapable of understanding the infinite.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[teachccd]

Jesus is fully human and fully divine. He had to learn how to talk like every other child. The Trinity is revealed but never understood. It has been revealed that the three Persons have one divine nature. Their being distinct is relational. The Father begets (eternally generates) the Son, the Father sends the Son, the Son prays to the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds (spiration) from the Father and the Son and so on. So why Jesus chose not to know the hour is not for us to understand. It is like when He says “The Father is greater than I” and “The Father and I are one.” Both are true since those are our Lord’s words. The first may be relational and the second reveals their nature…teachccd

 

[JimG]

There is but one divine intellect and one divine will, entirely possessed by each of the three persons. Jesus as man also possessed a human intellect and will, which are by nature finite. (As God, he of course also possessed the divine intellect and will.)

 

[Aquinas74]

I am reminded of a story I heard about Augustine, he had a dream in which he was walking on the seashore. He came upon a boy who was trying to get water into a small hole he had dug. Augustine quizzed the boy as to what his intentions were. He told Augustine that he was trying to capture the whole ocean in this little hole he had dug. Augustine exclaimed that was nonsense. The Young man stared at Augustine and said, so too it is impossible for you to fully understand the trinity. The Trinity is an act of faith. And an awesome one at that.

 

[rwoehmke]

Jesus, as God, the Divine Son, chose to become a man like us in all ways but sin. He often put aside his divine nature and lived fully his human nature. For example he suffered real fear in the garden before his passion and death. He relied on the Father for much that he had. He apparently grew both physically and mentally between his birth and his public life. I think that only as human, there were things Jesus did not know while he was here on earth. There is a passage in the Epistles that says something to the effect that he did not claim to be equal to God, but I cannot recall the citation.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Jesus, as God, the Divine Son, chose to become a man like us in all ways but sin. He often put aside his divine nature and lived fully his human nature. For example he suffered real fear in the garden before his passion and death. He relied on the Father for much that he had. He apparently grew both physically and mentally between his birth and his public life. I think that only as human, there were things Jesus did not know while he was here on earth.** There is a passage in the Epistles that says something to the effect that he did not claim to be equal to God, but I cannot recall the citation**.

The passage you want is found in Paul’s letter to the Philippians 2: 6-11… It says , ** “Though he was in the form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. He was known to be of human estate, and it was this that he humbled himself, obediently accepting even death, death on a cross! Because of this, God highly exulted him and bestowed on him the name above every other name. So that at Jesus’ name every knee must bend in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth, and every tongue proclaim to the glory of God the Father, Jesus Christ is Lord!”**
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[nablaise]

Hi,

I think what the Lord was saying is that it is only up to the Father to decided the End.
Otherwise we know that he said that the Father gave him everything. So I think what is explaining here is the relationship of Father-Son. The Son get everything from the Father and does the will of the Father.

Also it could be that this day have not been decided yet, And as God is not in the Future but in the Present, then, no one knows except the Father who is the origin of everything including the Son himself. And since the Son did not it, it meant the Father had not decided it yet.

God bless

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Also it could be that this day have not been decided yet,

God has not decided??? God does not have to ponder to make decisions. For God to make a decision suggests he exists in time, which he does not and is not omniscient, which he is. .

And as God is not in the Future but in the Present, then, no one knows except the Father who is the origin of everything including the Son himself. And since the Son did not it, it meant the Father had not decided it yet.

Again, this is totally incorrect terminology. God does not decide. ** God knows** as everything is of his creation. He does not exist in time. Time is of his creation. He is not subject to its laws, as are we. For God, there is no past, present or future. All things are before him in what theologians call "the eternal Now. " Using terms like, God has not decided, contradicts Gods omniscience. It contradicts the infinite. It is we who are totally inadequate in understanding God.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[fellowChristian]

**ARTICLE 1
“I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH”

Paragraph 2. The Father

I. “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

232 **
Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."53 Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son, and the Spirit: “I do.” "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."54

**
233 **
Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

**234 **
The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith."56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin."57

[Edited]

for the rest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p2.htm

 

[nablaise]

God has not decided??? God does not have to ponder to make decisions. For God to make a decision suggests he exists in time, which he does not and is not omniscient, which he is. .

Again, this is totally incorrect terminology. God does not decide. ** God knows** as everything is of his creation. He does not exist in time. Time is of his creation. He is not subject to its laws, as are we. For God, there is no past, present or future. All things are before him in what theologians call "the eternal Now. " Using terms like, God has not decided, contradicts Gods omniscience. It contradicts the infinite. It is we who are totally inadequate in understanding God.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Yes, the word ‘decide’ is incorrect terminology from God’s point of view. I also understand ‘eternity’ as ‘eternal Now’. But I think when we are speaking in function of time, just for us I think we can use it without forgetting that God is not in time.
After all, why would Jesus say that 'the Son does not know …" It seem to imply that one day he will know and that one day in time the Father will say something he is not saying now to the Son.

Hmmm this whole thing reminds me of St. Augustine’s “what was God doing before he created ?”.

What is Time exactly?

If God created, does this means that ‘there was a ‘time’ when Creation did not exist and then God ‘decided’ to create’?
Again this would bring us back to the fact that God’s knowing everything does not mean that he has decided everything.

This is a hard subject, but I think it is good to reflect upon it because this is how our faith grows. I believe that meditation in on the Trinity is a most important exercice of our Faith. As we are baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we are expected to be intimately united with each person, and we can’t do it unless we know them. And we can’t know them unless we chat as a family about them and ask them questions too

God bless

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Yes, the word ‘decide’ is incorrect terminology from God’s point of view. I also understand ‘eternity’ as ‘eternal Now’. But I think when we are speaking in function of time, just for us I think we can use it without forgetting that God is not in time.
After all, why would Jesus say that 'the Son does not know …" It seem to imply that one day he will know and that one day in time the Father will say something he is not saying now to the Son.

How then would you explain Jesus’ statement, “The Father and I are one”. Even the Creed says that Jesus is “One in being with the Father”. the whole point is we, man, cannot understand the infinite.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[nablaise]

Hi,

I undersand it in terms of love. I think the key to understanding God is to go from his identity as ‘God is love’.

“The Father and I are one” means that they are one in heart. They have one heart. Perfect harmony reigns in them. There is not desagreement, yet every one of them is free infinately.

Otherwise, as we know, here we have two persons. The oneness does not mean one ‘person’. It means one God.

You know, think of many persons in an orchestra. They can use many instruments and yet make one wonderful song. They can use many voices and sing one Song at the same time.

God is perfect love. And this to him is natural. This is how is is in all eternity. It is his way of being.

I don’t remembert the correct wording. But St. Thomas Aquinas once put it greatly. He was talking about ‘knowlegde’ and ‘love’. He said that in this life we can not understand love with the light of our intelligence. In fact we were not commanded to ‘know’ but ‘to love’.

St. Pauls seem to indicate it at Eph. 3: 17-19

So our knowledge of God in this life is through love. St. Thomas said that this is the only way the finite can understand the infinite anyway. This is how he put it:

• our intelligence seeks to represents to itself that which it wants to understand, and this is impossible for a finite creature trying to contain the infinite.
• but love works differently. It seeks to imitate that which it loves. So the more we try to imitate what we already know about God, we become more and more better at it and our love keep growing…
  So only in this life our hearts can be able to understand they mystery of God way better than our intelligence.

St. John of the cross argues () that our heart/will can receive more love from God without God necessary revealing all distinct details to our intelligence. So from the supernatural order it is possible to love without ‘knowing’ (understanding with intelligence)…

God bless

 

[mizznicole]

So our knowledge of God in this life is through love. St. Thomas said that this is the only way the finite can understand the infinite anyway. This is how he put it:

• our intelligence seeks to represents to itself that which it wants to understand, and this is impossible for a finite creature trying to contain the infinite.
• but love works differently. It seeks to imitate that which it loves. So the more we try to imitate what we already know about God, we become more and more better at it and our love keep growing…
  So only in this life our hearts can be able to understand they mystery of God way better than our intelligence.

Hi, can you cite these references?

I don’t think your first statement is correct. The mind doesn’t represent to itself what it wants to understand. It receives the impression of the object internally; from this internal impression it comes to know the object in act. A created intellect cannot comprehend God because only an infinite act of intelligence can conceive an infinite object; this is because the mind actually “becomes” the object that it knows, but interiorly and immaterially.
(See S.T. I, treatise on God, treatise on man)

St. Thomas certainly says we can come to know God through the mind. We know him by analogy, through the created world. Otherwise we could not love God–we do not love the unknown; we love to know the unknown. (ST I, 4-ish)

What you’re saying about love doesn’t seem like Thomas either. He does not separate knowing and loving. Theological charity draws us to the object–God–who enters into our knowing supernaturally. So that those who love God more in this life will see him more in the next. But it doesn’t cancel our knowledge of him in this life. The infusion of wisdom through our loving allows us to make right judgments; so that the faithful rosary ladies can know what’s sacred doctrine better than many so-called theologians.

I’m interested in where/how you are drawing these interpretations. It’s very different from my study of St. Thomas.

To the OP–I think this statement refers to Christ in his humanity. His human intellect is finite; his divine intellect is per se infinite and knows everything the Father knows, since he is the perfect expression (WORD) of the Father’s knowledge. It’s very helpful to make these distinctions about Christ in his humanity and his divinity, but we must remember that they not separate persons.

 

[nablaise]

Hi,
I like that picture of our Lady

I was paraphrasing St. Thomas and St. John of the Cross.
I got those point from an article in french from an old french Revue called ‘Psyche’. The Title of the article is ‘La Connaissance et l’Amour’.

Here are the referances as given:
(Summa théol, la, qu. 82, art. 3)
(Ibid., IIa IIae qu. 27, art. 4).
(Commentaire sur les Sentences, Liv. 1, Dist. XIII)

For St. John of the Cross:

(Cantique spirituel. Eclaircissement à la Strophe XXVI)
(Ibid. Eclairc. à.la stroph XIII).

I am going to try to find them in English for you.

God bless

Alain

 

[eigerhar]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost have ONE divine essence. They have ONE will and ONE intelligence.

Jesus has TWO wills (divine and human) and TWO intelligences (divine and human).

What does mean: Not even the Son? Humanity!

Solution:
The Son of God is living on earth when he is asked. The end of the world is not yet defined. It is depending on the FREE WILL of human beeings. If Jesus would tell the date of the end of the world (or even know it) then this would be a contradiction to the liberty.
The end of the world is known by the prescience in heaven. This is a mode of knowledge in heaven. But being on earth this knowledge can’t be communicated to the humanity.
During his incarnation the Son of God is humiliated to his humanity, under the angels.
In this special case his divine knowledge in heaven can’t be communicated to his humanity on earth!!!

 

[nablaise]

Hi, can you cite these references?

Hi mizznicole,

I am still trying to translate those referances from french to english it seem that these are some of the parts referanced to:

I answer that, The procession of love in God ought not to be called generation. In evidence whereof we must consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object.

So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit; which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or impelled by love to perform an action.

• Summa Theologica > First Part > Question 27 > Article 4

Here are more related quotes I found since ‘will’ is related to ‘love/charity’.

Hence the intellect which has more of the light of glory will see God the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory who has more charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified…

• Summa Theologica > First Part > Question 12 > Article 6

Reply to Objection 1. “Comprehension” is twofold: in one sense it is taken strictly and properly, according as something is included in the one comprehending; and thus in no way is God comprehended either by intellect, or in any other way; forasmuch as He is infinite and cannot be included in any finite being; so that no finite being can contain Him infinitely, in the degree of His own infinity. In this sense we now take comprehension. But in another sense “comprehension” is taken more largely as opposed to “non-attainment”; for he who attains to anyone is said to comprehend him when he attains to him. And in this sense God is comprehended by the blessed, according to the words, “I held him, and I will not let him go” (Canticles 3:4); in this sense also are to be understood the words quoted from the Apostle concerning comprehension. And in this way “comprehension” is one of the three prerogatives of the soul, responding to hope, as vision responds to faith, and fruition responds to charity…

• Summa Theologica > First Part > Question 12 > Article 7