Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[Assyrian412]

No. The Divine Will is the Divine Essence. The Divine Essence has no source. It simply is.

The Father is the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

From the Council of Florence:

“The Latins asserted that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations.”

The Divine Essence does not have a source but is it not true that everything the Son is and has comes from the Father, including the Divine Essence?

“The Latins asserted that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations.”

 

[Assyrian412]

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as **“the source and origin of the whole divinity”.**72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

The Son has his nature from the Father and the Holy Spirit has his nature from the Father and the Son. The nature is one.

So, the Son has his will from the Father and the Spirit has his will from the Father and the Son. Their will is one.

The divine nature has no source and just is as it is not generated but the Son derives it from the Father and the Spirit derives it from the Father and Son.

So, my previous question still stands.

 

[thephilosopher6]

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as **“the source and origin of the whole divinity”.**72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

The Son has his nature from the Father and the Holy Spirit has his nature from the Father and the Son. The nature is one.

So, the Son has his will from the Father and the Spirit has his will from the Father and the Son. Their will is one.

The divine nature has no source and just is as it is not generated but the Son derives it from the Father and the Spirit derives it from the Father and Son.

So, my previous question still stands.

Just to supplement this posts so no confusion arises as to what the Latin view is on the procession of the Holy Spirit (indeed, the procession of the Holy Spirit is actually quite semantically complicated and too many pointless debates arise among Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over the matter which ultimately lead nowhere).

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confession

• CCC [248]

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The Divine Simplicity pertains only to the Divine Substance. Otherwise, distinct Divine Persons would be impossible (and God would not be Love because Love requires a plurality of Persons).

The correlativity relation of “north” and “south” is a loose analogy to the correlativity of Father and Son in the Trinity … Father and Son are “internally” related: Father is Father only with respect to Son, and Son is Son only with respect to Father.

The fact that there can be internal relations at all is a denial of divine simplicity. In order for there to be a relation, there must be two parts to relate to each other, and simplicity denies that there are any parts at all.

 

[worldwideweary]

The fact that there can be internal relations at all is a denial of divine simplicity. In order for there to be a relation, there must be two parts to relate to each other, and simplicity denies that there are any parts at all.

If you deny divine simplicity, you might want to refer to a few “reliable” sources:

Catechism of the Catholic Church #202:
Jesus himself affirms that God is “the one Lord” whom you must love “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”. At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is “the Lord”. To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as “Lord and giver of life” introduce any division into the One God

Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Part I Question 3 Article 7:
I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways. (See link for more details)

 

[Wesrock]

No. The Divine Will is the Divine Essence. The Divine Essence has no source. It simply is.

The divine will is the divine essence, but I don’t know that I’m comfortable speaking of the essence in a way that makes it seem prior to the Father. That goes beyond the creeds, too.

 

[PluniaZ]

The divine will is the divine essence, but I don’t know that I’m comfortable speaking of the essence in a way that makes it seem prior to the Father. That goes beyond the creeds, too.

I didn’t say the Divine Essence was prior to the Father. The Father has no source. He simply is.

Each Divine Person is the Divine Essence.

newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm#article1

 

[Wesrock]

The fact that there can be internal relations at all is a denial of divine simplicity. In order for there to be a relation, there must be two parts to relate to each other, and simplicity denies that there are any parts at all.

If anything isn’t entirely simple, it’s the explanation. The classical thinking on Trinitarian divine simplicity, to my knowledge, focuses on their being no composite of Act and Potential, and there being no composite of Essence and Existence. That there is no distinction between God’s will and intellect, and furthermore that the actions of the Trinity are inseparable: they are not just in harmony; it is ONE act only.

Calling the different persons of the Trinity parts isn’t necessarily true either. The Father is not a part of God, He is fully God. The Son is not a part of God, He is fully God. The Spirit is not a part of God, He is fully God. And the Father is not the Son who is not the Spirit who is not the Father. Yet there are not three Gods, but only one.

Scholastics generally feel that the requirements of divine simplicity is met through there being no essence/existence and act/potential composites.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If you deny divine simplicity, you might want to refer to a few “reliable” sources:

Catechism of the Catholic Church #202:
Jesus himself affirms that God is “the one Lord” whom you must love “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”. At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is “the Lord”. To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as “Lord and giver of life” introduce any division into the One God

Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Part I Question 3 Article 7:
I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways. (See link for more details)

The fact that reputable sources assert a logical contradiction doesn’t make it not a logical contradiction.

 

[Wesrock]

The fact that reputable sources assert a logical contradiction doesn’t make it not a logical contradiction.

True, if there were any logical contradictions.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If anything isn’t entirely simple, it’s the explanation. The classical thinking on Trinitarian divine simplicity, to my knowledge, focuses on their being no composite of Act and Potential, and there being no composite of Essence and Existence. That there is no distinction between God’s will and intellect, and furthermore that the actions of the Trinity are inseparable: they are not just in harmony; it is ONE act only.

Calling the different persons of the Trinity parts isn’t necessarily true either. The Father is not a part of God, He is fully God. The Son is not a part of God, He is fully God. The Spirit is not a part of God, He is fully God. And the Father is not the Son who is not the Spirit who is not the Father. Yet there are not three Gods, but only one.

Scholastics generally feel that the requirements of divine simplicity is met through there being no essence/existence and act/potential composites.

Right. Which is equivalent to saying “current thinking on the trinity is that it contradicts divine simplicity, but no one is willing to admit it.”

So lets ignore the “no parts” language and just focus on the sameness you’ve described. If the father is identically the same thing as God, and God is identically the same thing as the son, then the father is identically the same thing as the son. This is logic 101; this is the principle of non-contradiction. To deny this requires a Clintonian “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

To say that the father is not identically the same as the son is to say there exists some respect in which they differ. That means, that if God is identically the same as both the father and the son, then in that respect, God violates the principle of non-contradiction.

 

[worldwideweary]

Right. Which is equivalent to saying “current thinking on the trinity is that it contradicts divine simplicity, but no one is willing to admit it.”

Observation: The same problem arises in a different way by one’s attempting to reconcile omnipresence with a finite entity’s being not God. The fact that you know you are not God proves the expression God is omnipresent is false, right? If you attempt to hold both degrees-of-presence and omnipresence, then you have yet to define the nature of degrees, and the existence of degree-based presence feels like an attack on Divine Simplicity, doesn’t it?

In a sense this raises an issue of either accepting that God is not omnipresent, which is unbecoming of the definition of God, or, that God isn’t divinely simple sans any reference to Trinity-based wording. I find this interesting. If someone has anything to counter or add to what is stated here, please unleash yo minds

 

[Lucretius]

Dear Fiasco,

The Father is the ULTIMATE Source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but don’t forget that the Catholic Church says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son, rather than from the Father THROUGH the Son.

Both formation are valid, as long as saying “Father and Son” doesn’t deny that the source alone of the Spirit is the Father, with the Son partaking in the spiration, and saying “Father through the Son” doesn’t reduce the Son to a mere impersonal instrument, or even worst, a creation.

Christi pax.

 

[Wesrock]

Dear Fiasco,

Both formation are valid, as long as saying “Father and Son” doesn’t deny that the source alone of the Spirit is the Father, with the Son partaking in the spiration, and saying “Father through the Son” doesn’t reduce the Son to a mere impersonal instrument, or even worst, a creation.

Christi pax.

The Father is the ultimate “first cause” of the Spirit, but the Spirit does not passively move through the Son. The Son actively spirates the Spirit, while He Himself is passively begotten by the Father.

 

[Lucretius]

The Father is the ultimate “first cause” of the Spirit, but the Spirit does not passively move through the Son. The Son actively spirates the Spirit, while He Himself is passively begotten by the Father.

Yes. I prefer your use of the concepts of active and passive in expressing this truth over my use of the concept of instrumentality

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

Dear River Child,

If the father is identically the same thing as God, and God is identically the same thing as the son, then the father is identically the same thing as the son. This is logic 101; this is the principle of non-contradiction

Your logic are correct: the Father is identically the same thing as the Son: that’s exactly what we mean when we say that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.

We agree that the Father and Son are identical in terms of substance/being the same thing, where we actually disagree is with the view that the Father and Son are identical in terms of relation. We mean that God knowing Himself is not the same relation as God as he is known by Himself, and God experiencing and loving Himself is not the same relation as God as experienced and loved by Himself. These are all the same thing, but they are not the same relation.

Christi pax.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Dear River Child,

Your logic are correct: the Father is identically the same thing as the Son: that’s exactly what we mean when we say that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.

We agree that the Father and Son are identical in terms of substance/being the same thing, where we actually disagree is with the view that the Father and Son are identical in terms of relation. We mean that God knowing Himself is not the same relation as God as he is known by Himself, and God experiencing and loving Himself is not the same relation as God as experienced and loved by Himself. These are all the same thing, but they are not the same relation.

Christi pax.

All this does is attempt to disguise the problem.

I have once again applied my substantial art skills to the problem:
-]img/-]

Edit: that picture is huge, here is a link instead
imgur.com/meDfRq4

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Incarnation was the common work of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The work of causing the human nature to be united to the Son was the common, undivided work of all three persons.

Augustine has a great piece on this: standingonshoulders.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/augustine-sermon-52.pdf

Just because the Incarnation was the common work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t undertaken by the Son in obedience to the Father.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Dear River Child,

Your logic are correct: the Father is identically the same thing as the Son: that’s exactly what we mean when we say that the Father and the Son are consubstantial.

We agree that the Father and Son are identical in terms of substance/being the same thing, where we actually disagree is with the view that the Father and Son are identical in terms of relation. We mean that God knowing Himself is not the same relation as God as he is known by Himself, and God experiencing and loving Himself is not the same relation as God as experienced and loved by Himself. These are all the same thing, but they are not the same relation.

Christi pax.

No, the Father and the Son are not the same “thing”. The closest approximation to “thing” in the Greek used by the Fathers and the Councils is the word “hypostasis” and the Fathers and the Councils are clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different hypostases. They share the same divine Nature, but they are different persons.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

This is heresy. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one will. They do not command and obey each other.

Actually your posts come very close to the heresy of Sabellianism.

Your basic misunderstanding is in assimilating obedience to coercion. I didn’t assert that any person of the Trinity coerces any other member. The Trinity is pure Love.