Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[JimG]

According to Professor Kenneth Baker, S.J.:

“Some Catholics think that the three Persons are separate, independent beings. In this view each of the three is thought of as having his own thinking, willing and separate consciousness. In other words, they are considered to be similar to three human persons, but only on a higher level and endowed with “divine” power. That view is false and is equivalent to affirming three gods. For, in God everything is one where there is not an opposition of relation. Thus, in him there is only one thinking, one willing and one “consciousness.” The three Persons share equally in all the divine actions and operations that are proper to the divine nature.”

books.google.com/books?id=yBW8l1opH-oC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=catholic+trinity+one+consciousness&source=bl&ots=NNCSzfZzpR&sig=Aqz_rAnl4dQTlO1-t7Eip7_NrUI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwz8aTw-HTAhWFg1QKHe3ZCPMQ6AEIRTAG#v=onepage&q=catholic%20trinity%20one%20consciousness&f=false

The quote from Fr. Baker is apt, and correct.

We are monotheists. There is One God, not three.

There is one divine nature, one divine being, one divine essence. Three Persons (not three people) possess the one divine nature. The divine nature—the Godhead—is expressed in a relationship of Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since intellect and will are faculties of the divine nature, there is one divine intellect and will.

 

[levinas12]

… This is more like the relation of parent and child (which is why we name the Persons of the Trinity the way we do). The child, as a child, cannot exist without a father, just as a father, as a father, cannot exist without a child (we call a man with a child a father, but we don’t call a man without a child a father). There is no father without a child, and there is no son without a father …

The relation of father to son, and son to father, is an “internal” relation, like the relation between north and south - that is, no “north” without a “south”, and no “south” without a north.

Except, in the case of the Trinity, the relations are self-subsistent Persons … so the question now turns to the notion of “person”. I’ve discussed this on other threads.

“Person” is not “substance” … “person” is relation, so “person” is “internally” or “intrinsically” a being-related-to-another person … it is philosophically impossible for there to be just one person, in the absence of another person, or other persons …

“Person” is not a genus or species or a specific difference … “person” falls outside the traditional Aristotelian categories (including the Aristotelian accident of "relation) … the ancient Greeks did not have access to this notion of “person” (which derives from Christian discussions of the Trinity) … that is, “person” is not equivalent to the ancient Greek notion of “personna” (role, function, mask, etc)

“Person” is outside “essence” … outside “matter” … although the human person requires “essence” and “matter” …

“Person” is unique, unrepeatable, singularity … John Doe qua John Doe … not John Doe qua human being …

 

[Assyrian412]

I think the Councils of Lyons and Florence accepted that the Father is the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. But in Latin theology, the Divine Nature simply is. It doesn’t have a source. It is said that Soren Kierkegard began the existentialist movement when he asserted that the Father’s person is prior to the Divine Nature - existence precedes essence. But that’s a whole other tangent.

I think we basically agree on the 5 points you listed, acknowledging that there are different traditions in the Church that are the subject of ongoing theological dialogue by the experts. Not that those 5 points are the entirety of Trinitarian dogma. But I think it’s been a good conversation and has certainly sharpened my understanding of the Trinity - I hope it has for you too.

I agree with everything you’ve said about the Divine Nature And yes, they are not the entirety of Trinitarian dogma, I was just trying to get across what I was meaning to imply by my claim that the Son is relationally subordinate as I did not intend to reference the heresy of subordinationism and I felt as though beyond that term we were pretty much in agreement!

It definitely has done so for me to, I appreciate the conversation.

God bless :tiphat:

 

[Assyrian412]

The father is the creator,

The son is the redeemer

Perhaps jesus own word will convince you.

For the Father is greater than i

There has just been a long discussion about the verse you just mentioned throughout this thread… I suggest going back to it and actually reading it all…

I will post this here for the 3rd time…

"Greater Than and Equal To

In John 14:28, Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” For many, this statement seems obvious: Jesus is not God. But is this really what our Lord was saying?

In Catholic theology, this text can be understood in two ways. First, being “greater” than another does not have to mean one is essentially different from the other, as when we say a man is essentially distinct from an animal. Greatness can refer to one person functioning in a greater way quantitatively, qualitatively, or even relationally in comparison to another without there being an essential distinction. For example, Matthew 11:11 tells us there has never “risen among [men] a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” John is not something other than human because he is said to be greater than certain other people. All human beings share the same nature; therefore, they are absolutely equal in dignity.

Similarly, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: “Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . .” (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.

Another—and perhaps simpler—way one can legitimately interpret this text is to point out that John 14:28 seems to be emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Thus, because Jesus is fully man, it would be appropriate to say the Father would be greater than the Son. The entire verse reads: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

 

[levinas12]

The relation of father to son, and son to father, is an “internal” relation, like the relation between north and south - that is, no “north” without a “south”, and no “south” without a “north”.

Except, in the case of the Trinity, the relations are self-subsistent Persons … so the question now turns to the notion of “person”. I’ve discussed this on other threads.

“Person” is not “substance” … “person” is relation, so “person” is “internally” or “intrinsically” a being-related-to-another person … it is philosophically impossible for there to be just one person, in the absence of another person, or other persons …

“Person” is not a genus or species or a specific difference … “person” falls outside the traditional Aristotelian categories (including the Aristotelian accident of "relation) … the ancient Greeks did not have access to this notion of “person” (which derives from Christian discussions of the Trinity) … that is, “person” is not equivalent to the ancient Greek notion of “personna” (role, function, mask, etc)

“Person” is outside “essence” … outside “matter” … although the human person requires “essence” and “matter” …

“Person” is unique, unrepeatable, a singularity … again, we are speaking here of John Doe qua John Doe … not John Doe qua human being …

For more on this, see essay #14, On the Understanding of “Person” in Theology, in Ratzinger’s book, Dogma and Preaching … chapter 1, Why We Speak of Persons, in Robert Spaemann’s book, Persons … chapter 10, Person, Being, and St Thomas, in Norris Clarke’s book, Explorations in Metaphysics … essay # 11, Language, the Human Person, and Christian Faith, in Robert Sokolowski’s book, Christian Faith & Human Understanding …

For the most comprehensive and best account of “person”, see Robert Sokolowski’s book, Phenomenology of the Human Person …

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

There has just been a long discussion about the verse you just mentioned throughout this thread… I suggest going back to it and actually reading it all…

I will post this here for the 3rd time…

"Greater Than and Equal To

In John 14:28, Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” For many, this statement seems obvious: Jesus is not God. But is this really what our Lord was saying?

In Catholic theology, this text can be understood in two ways. First, being “greater” than another does not have to mean one is essentially different from the other, as when we say a man is essentially distinct from an animal. Greatness can refer to one person functioning in a greater way quantitatively, qualitatively, or even relationally in comparison to another without there being an essential distinction. For example, Matthew 11:11 tells us there has never “risen among [men] a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” John is not something other than human because he is said to be greater than certain other people. All human beings share the same nature; therefore, they are absolutely equal in dignity.

Similarly, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: “Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . .” (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.

Another—and perhaps simpler—way one can legitimately interpret this text is to point out that John 14:28 seems to be emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Thus, because Jesus is fully man, it would be appropriate to say the Father would be greater than the Son. The entire verse reads: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

I understand your point, but I would like to direct you to some bible quotes that may have you think in a different light about the subject.

I am not a polytheist, I am not a arian, I am not a heretic. Perhaps I have done a poor job of expressing my beliefs which is my fault.

The bible clearly states (with support from the church) that Jesus is not the Father. And Jesus views The Father, as a Father. Jesus is the perfect son which means he is obedient to the Father. Jesus is as equally divine and eternal, but recognizes the monarchy and authority of HIS FATHER.

Bible Quotes

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to **the One able to save Him from death, **and He was heard because of His piety. From Hebrews

The one is his father!

Luke 6:12
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God
Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument suggests he is always praying to himself. that is incorrect.

Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
The sons destiny is up to the father. The nature of a perfect father-son relationship. Jesus was obedient to his Fathers wishes despite his doubts.

 

[Assyrian412]

I understand your point, but I would like to direct you to some bible quotes that may have you think in a different light about the subject.

I am not a polytheist, I am not a arian, I am not a heretic. Perhaps I have done a poor job of expressing my beliefs which is my fault.

The bible clearly states (with support from the church) that Jesus is not the Father. And Jesus views The Father, as a Father. Jesus is the perfect son which means he is obedient to the Father. Jesus is as equally divine and eternal, but recognizes the monarchy and authority of HIS FATHER.

Bible Quotes

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to **the One able to save Him from death, **and He was heard because of His piety. From Hebrews

The one is his father!

Luke 6:12
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God
Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument suggests he is always praying to himself. that is incorrect.

Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
The sons destiny is up to the father. The nature of a perfect father-son relationship. Jesus was obedient to his Fathers wishes despite his doubts.

My argument never rested on the Father and Son being the same person; I am not a modalist. That is a heresy. I am a Trinitarian as I am Catholic.

Christ prayed to the Father as Christ was fully man; this is quite clear. Christ also emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, which is clear (Philippians 2:6). It is clearly the Son praying to the Father. Nowhere in this whole thread did anybody that I have seen claim that the Father and Son are the same person and Jesus obviously did not pray to himself. As a man, his human will was perfectly subject to his Father’s. So yes you are correct in that regard; I nowhere disagreed with that. In his divinity, everything Christ is and has comes from the Father. He is everything the Father is except the Father. He gets his will from his Father and their will is one.

Again, please re-read the previous conversations on this thread.

Also…

“The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ’s supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.”
catholic.com/qa/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revelation-and

 

[Wesrock]

I understand your point, but I would like to direct you to some bible quotes that may have you think in a different light about the subject.

I am not a polytheist, I am not a arian, I am not a heretic. Perhaps I have done a poor job of expressing my beliefs which is my fault.

The bible clearly states (with support from the church) that Jesus is not the Father. And Jesus views The Father, as a Father. Jesus is the perfect son which means he is obedient to the Father. Jesus is as equally divine and eternal, but recognizes the monarchy and authority of HIS FATHER.

Bible Quotes

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to **the One able to save Him from death, **and He was heard because of His piety. From Hebrews

The one is his father!

Luke 6:12
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God
Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument suggests he is always praying to himself. that is incorrect.

Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
The sons destiny is up to the father. The nature of a perfect father-son relationship. Jesus was obedient to his Fathers wishes despite his doubts.

It’s important to distinguish between Christological statements relating to the person of Christ as the hypostatic union of God and man and theological statements pertaining to the inner life of the three persons of the Trinity. The statements you quote pertain to the former.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

My argument never rested on the Father and Son being the same person; I am not a modalist. That is a heresy. I am a Trinitarian as I am Catholic.

Christ prayed to the Father as Christ was fully man; this is quite clear. Christ also emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, which is clear (Philippians 2:6). It is clearly the Son praying to the Father. Nowhere in this whole thread did anybody that I have seen claim that the Father and Son are the same person and Jesus obviously did not pray to himself. As a man, his human will was perfectly subject to his Father’s. So yes you are correct in that regard; I nowhere disagreed with that. In his divinity, everything Christ is and has comes from the Father. He is everything the Father is except the Father. He gets his will from his Father and their will is one.

Again, please re-read the previous conversations on this thread.

Also…

“The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ’s supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.”
catholic.com/qa/can-the-catholic-church-list-all-the-teachings-given-to-the-apostles-by-divine-revelation-and

I am getting the sense that you are angry with me, however I am unclear why.
I am a little perplexed by your distinction between the father and son. When you say “they have the same will”. Are you saying they share the same mind, or share the same belief. This is a huge point, as two Persons can share the same will, yet have different minds, and are disticnt from one another.

The Father is the God of Jesus, while Jesus is the Son. The son is begotten by the Father. The Son was always with The Father, but never greater then him and always obedient. The Father sent the Son to earth to save our sins, everything the Son does is because of the Father.

 

[PluniaZ]

There has just been a long discussion about the verse you just mentioned throughout this thread… I suggest going back to it and actually reading it all…

I will post this here for the 3rd time…

"Greater Than and Equal To

In John 14:28, Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” For many, this statement seems obvious: Jesus is not God. But is this really what our Lord was saying?

In Catholic theology, this text can be understood in two ways. First, being “greater” than another does not have to mean one is essentially different from the other, as when we say a man is essentially distinct from an animal. Greatness can refer to one person functioning in a greater way quantitatively, qualitatively, or even relationally in comparison to another without there being an essential distinction. For example, Matthew 11:11 tells us there has never “risen among [men] a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” John is not something other than human because he is said to be greater than certain other people. All human beings share the same nature; therefore, they are absolutely equal in dignity.

Similarly, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: “Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . .” (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.

Another—and perhaps simpler—way one can legitimately interpret this text is to point out that John 14:28 seems to be emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Thus, because Jesus is fully man, it would be appropriate to say the Father would be greater than the Son. The entire verse reads: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god

If you’re going to keep saying the Father is “relationally greater” than the Son, then I must staunchly oppose you. The creeds and councils say that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal, never that one is greater than or subordinate to another. We need to follow the creeds and councils and not make up our own teachings.

 

[Wesrock]

I am getting the sense that you are angry with me, however I am unclear why.
I am a little perplexed by your distinction between the father and son. When you say “they have the same will”. Are you saying they share the same mind, or share the same belief. This is a huge point, as two Persons can share the same will, yet have different minds, and are disticnt from one another.

The Father is the God of Jesus, while Jesus is the Son. The son is begotten by the Father. The Son was always with The Father, but never greater then him and always obedient. The Father sent the Son to earth to save our sins, everything the Son does is because of the Father.

Jesus had the Divine Intellect and a human intellect, the Divine Will and a human will.

The Divine Intellect and Divine Will of Jesus is the Divine Intellect and Divine Will of God, shared (for lack of a better word) by Father, Son, and Spirit. God only has one Intellect and Will. Not three. And by one, I don’t mean three wills that are in unison, but one Will only.

 

[Assyrian412]

If you’re going to keep saying the Father is “relationally greater” than the Son, then I must staunchly oppose you. The creeds and councils say that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal, never that one is greater than or subordinate to another. We need to follow the creeds and councils and not make up our own teachings.

That post was not my own words but again a quote from Tim Staples from Catholic Answers. I just quoted more of it. It is going off of a long tradition going back to the Ante-Nicene Fathers until now. I already defined what the subordinationism heresy was and nothing in that quote is heresy; there is no creed or dogma that says that John 14:28 cannot be understood this way and it can be better understood by reading about the Monarchy of the Father which you already seem familiar with so I guess I will agree to disagree I think I have demonstrated what I mean by the term and you have agreed that you have no problem with what I am saying besides the term. I will look at my catechism as I remember seeing a good explanation about this and John 14:28. I will get back to you if I find anything.
Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers would agree with Tim Staples as well.
jimmyakin.com/jehovahs-witnesses-and-john-1428

TheTrinitySaves, my apologies if I am coming off as angry with you as I am not! I just wanted to make it clear that I am not a modalist as you implied. I am not recommending to go back and re-read prior posts out of anger but because I feel as though much of what your asking or claiming has already been answered extensively.

 

[Wesrock]

Assyrian412, is using the word subordination accurate, even in terms of relation only? I know quoting a dictionary is not always the best track to go when discussing theology, but to start:

Definition of subordinate
1: placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position : inferior a subordinate officer
2: submissive to or controlled by authority
3a : of, relating to, or constituting a clause that functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb
b : subordinating

Merriam-Webster

If I said that three men are ontologically equal by nature but that there was a relational subordination in their relationship, that should connote the idea of one having authority over the other, such that the devision making of the group is not “economically equal.”

 

[PluniaZ]

That post was not my own words but again a quote from Tim Staples from Catholic Answers. I just quoted more of it. It is going off of a long tradition going back to the Ante-Nicene Fathers until now. I already defined what the subordinationism heresy was and nothing in that quote is heresy; there is no creed or dogma that says that John 14:28 cannot be understood this way and it can be better understood by reading about the Monarchy of the Father which you already seem familiar with so I guess I will agree to disagree I think I have demonstrated what I mean by the term and you have agreed that you have no problem with what I am saying besides the term. I will look at my catechism as I remember seeing a good explanation about this and John 14:28. I will get back to you if I find anything.
Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers would agree with Tim Staples as well.
jimmyakin.com/jehovahs-witnesses-and-john-1428

TheTrinitySaves, my apologies if I am coming off as angry with you as I am not! I just wanted to make it clear that I am not a modalist as you implied. I am not recommending to go back and re-read prior posts out of anger but because I feel as though much of what your asking or claiming has already been answered extensively.

Akin and Staples are doing apologetics. They’re trying to convince Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Trinity is a biblical doctrine. They are not having a theology discussion among Catholics. We need to look for a source intended to deepen theological understanding if we are going to be making precise statements about the Trinity.

 

[RyanBlack]

1. There is a difference of traditions between the Latin school and some members of the Alexandrian school (e.g., Didymus) and the Cappadocian Fathers, explained at newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm. Thus, in the Latin tradition the Father is acknowledged as the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father is not said to be the source of the Godhead.

The CCC (2789) affirms the Father as the “source and origin” of the Godhead.

 

[Wesrock]

The CCC (2789) affirms the Father as the “source and origin” of the Godhead.

If the Father is the only unbegotten and “unspirated”, and the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit spirated from the Father as a first principle and from the Son as receiving all He is from the Father, I don’t see a conflict with calling the Father the source or origin of the Godhead, as long as we fully explain what is meant so as to avoid confusion.

 

[Lucretius]

You can say they are distinct persons without saying they aren’t equal. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal. Aquinas says it. Every creed says it. I haven’t even seen the Cappadocians or any other eastern Father deny it except maybe Origen, who was condemned as a heretic for it.

What is meant by equal is “identical in some degree and/or respect.” When we say the Father is equal to the Son, we mean in respect to Divinity and Substance, and when we say that the Father is not equal to the Son, we mean in respect to paternity and filiation.

And so what I’m saying is that this inequality or division between the Persons is inherently hierarchical, because begetting is active while being begotten is passive. We actually habitually recognize this, because we always, when listing the persons, put the Father first, followed by the Son.

What I see today is yet another attempt to bring back semi-Arianism by people who make vague, uncited references to the Cappadocian fathers to insist that the “monarchy of the Father” makes the three persons unequal.

The Catholic Church has always affirmed the equality of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that will never change.

I understand how seeing the word “unequal” can cause someone to automatically think of Arianism, but I invite you to reflect on what I wrote: a wise person looks not only at the words someone uses, but what they mean and intend by them. I find that a lot of disagreements between Christians, and honestly people in general, amount to little more than disagreements about what words are used, while in agreement with what reality the words signify, sharing the same intention in what is trying to be conveyed with the words

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

The relation of father to son, and son to father, is an “internal” relation, like the relation between north and south - that is, no “north” without a “south”, and no “south” without a north.

Except, in the case of the Trinity, the relations are self-subsistent Persons … so the question now turns to the notion of “person”. I’ve discussed this on other threads.

“Person” is not “substance” … “person” is relation, so “person” is “internally” or “intrinsically” a being-related-to-another person … it is philosophically impossible for there to be just one person, in the absence of another person, or other persons …

“Person” is not a genus or species or a specific difference … “person” falls outside the traditional Aristotelian categories (including the Aristotelian accident of "relation) … the ancient Greeks did not have access to this notion of “person” (which derives from Christian discussions of the Trinity) … that is, “person” is not equivalent to the ancient Greek notion of “personna” (role, function, mask, etc)

“Person” is outside “essence” … outside “matter” … although the human person requires “essence” and “matter” …

“Person” is unique, unrepeatable, singularity … John Doe qua John Doe … not John Doe qua human being …

Yes, I am in agreement, and I don’t see anything that you wonderfully explained that is in contradiction to what I have previously wrote, but rather complimentary (I’ve already repeated some of the insights you’ve shared here)

Christi pax.

 

[Wesrock]

What is meant by equal is “identical in some degree or respect.” When we say the Father is equal to the Son, we mean in respect to Divinity and Substance, and when we say that the Father is not equal to the Son, we mean in respect to paternity and filiation.

And so what I’m saying is that this inequality or division between the Persons is inherently hierarchical, because begetting is active while being begotten is passive. We actually habitually recognize this, because we always, when listing the persons, put the Father first, followed by the Son.

I understand how seeing the word “unequal” can cause someone to automatically think of Arianism, but I invite you to reflect on what I wrote: a wise person looks not only at the words someone uses, but what they mean and intend by them. I find that a lot of disagreements between Christians, and honestly people in general, amount to little more than disagreements about what words are used, while in agreement with what reality the words signify, sharing the same intention in what is trying to be conveyed with the words

Christi pax.

When it is said that the Father and Son are equal, we don’t mean it in mathematical terms such as 1 = 1, such that we imply modalism. But it is important to stress a few things:
(1) They have the same nature. One is not ontologically greater than the other.
(2) They equally have the same divine Will and Intellect. One does not dictate to the other as if one has authority over the other.

We can certainly admit that the Father alone is without origin, that the Son is generated and that the Spirit is spirated. Some of the Fathers allowed the term “greater” to be used in this respect only, to denote one as the source of the other, but greater must not imply greater in nature or in authority or that there is subordination, as if there could be multiple wills and intellect such that one could dictate to another.

 

[JimG]

The Persons of the Trinity must be equal because each Person possesses the same one divine nature. There is one divine nature, not three, and each Person fully possesses the One divine nature or essence.

When it comes to generation and spiration, we speak of it as if it were a process, because that is how we think: the Father generating the Person of the Son by his knowing himself, the Father and Son spirating the Holy Spirit by the exercise of the divine will.

But keep in mind that no time passes between the existence of the Father and the generating of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit—not the tiniest nanosecond. God exists in eternity, not time, and his existence has no beginning. Consequently the generation and spiration are simply an eternal aspect of God.