Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds?

[RyanBlack]

Let me try to distinguish two areas of concern: (1) language that is permissible for Catholics today to use when speaking about the Most Holy Trinity and (2) academic inquiry into the teachings of the Church Fathers.

My concern in this thread is solely (1).

(2) becomes relevant when people attempt to use it to justify how they speak in (1). That is what I am objecting to. We should not be using (2) to affect how we speak in (1), if it leads us to speak in a manner that could be seen as contrary to the consistent dogmatic teaching of the Church.

Your concerns is legitimate, which is why nuance and precision in articulating theology are so important. The context in which we use it is also important. For example, if I were teaching the doctrine of the Trinity in a catechethical setting, I wouldn’t even bring up St. Gregory’s teachings concerning this unless someone specifically asked, since to do so could simply create confusion about Church teaching.

 

[Lucretius]

It’s not silly. This is the most important dogma of the faith. We need to get it exactly correct. And the only correct teaching is that of the Church. And no one has demonstrated in this thread that the Church has ever taught that the Father is in any sense greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit, other than with respect to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

From the Council of Florence:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 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; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

This is what we mean by “greater,” that the cause is greater ontologically and logically than the effect, so similarly the Father is “greater” than the Son, and the Spirit in the same way, because the Father is the “cause” or source of both, while the Father himself is unsourced. We are saying that giving is greater than receiving, and Christ is receiving. Such wording is considered licit to both St. Gregory and St. John, and definitely more Fathers.

Not only does understanding Christ’s words that the Father is greater than he in this sense we’ve explained been used by later Fathers as well as earlier ones, but it also illuminates many of the Apostles’ expressions of the doctine of the Trinity, some of the early Church’s expressions of it, as well the Apostles’ Creed. After all, in the early Church and Scripture, the Father can be referred to as God in contrast to Christ, who is called Lord, and not called God in this instance. The Apostles’ Creed does a similar thing. We can take these passages as saying that Christ is not God, or, we can take these passages as saying that the Father is the “source or beginning of deity,” as the Council puts it, not contradicting that the Son is essentially Divine, just not the source of his Divine nature.

Christi pax.

 

[meltzerboy]

From the Council of Florence:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 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; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

This is what we mean by “greater,” that the cause is greater ontologically and logically than the effect, so similarly the Father is “greater” than the Son (and the Spirit in the same way). We are saying that giving is greater than receiving, and Christ is receiving. Such wording is considered licit to both St. Gregory and St. John, and definitely more Fathers.

Not only does understanding Christ’s words that the Father is greater than he in this sense we’ve explained been used by later Fathers as well as earlier ones, but it also illuminates many of the Apostles’ expressions of the doctine of the Trinity, some of the early Church’s expressions of it, as well the Apostles’ Creed. After all, in the early Church and Scripture, the Father can be referred to as God in contrast to Christ, who is called Lord, and not called God in this instance. The Apostles’ Creed does a similar thing. We can take these passages as saying that Christ is not God, or, we can take these passages as saying that the Father is the “source or beginning of deity,” as the Council puts it, not contradicting that the Son is essentially Divine, just not the source of his Divine nature.

Christi pax.

What does it mean for one Person to be the “source” of another Person’s divine nature? Wouldn’t the nature of the Persons have to be forever the same outside of time, that is, co-eternal?

 

[PluniaZ]

This is what we mean by “greater,” that the cause is greater ontologically and logically than the effect, so similarly the Father is “greater” than the Son (and the Spirit in the same way). We are saying that giving is greater than receiving, and Christ is receiving. Such wording is considered licit to both St. Gregory and St. John, and definitely more Fathers.

Not only does understanding Christ’s words that the Father is greater than he in this sense we’ve explained been used by later Fathers as well as earlier ones, but it also illuminates many of the Apostles’ expressions of the doctine of the Trinity, some of the early Church’s expressions of it, as well the Apostles’ Creed. After all, in the early Church and Scripture, the Father can be referred to as God in contrast to Christ, who is called Lord, and not called God in this instance. The Apostles’ Creed does a similar thing. We can take these passages as saying that Christ is not God, or, we can take these passages as saying that the Father is the “source or beginning of deity,” as the Council puts it, not contradicting that the Son is essentially Divine, just not the source of his Divine nature.

Christi pax.

You are conflating two different points:

(1) the relations of origin, and

(2) the “greatness”, “inferiority” or “equality” of each relation.

Everyone here agrees on (1), so we can limit our discussion to (2).

With respect to (2), you claim:

the cause is greater ontologically and logically than the effect, so similarly the Father is “greater” than the Son (and the Spirit in the same way). We are saying that giving is greater than receiving, and Christ is receiving.

Your support for this is a handful of quotes from a select number of Greek Fathers.

And yet the Church has never officially adopted your claim with respect to (2). The Council of Florence addressed the very issue of (1), without saying whether the relation of Fatherhood is “greater than” the relation of Sonship. But the Council of Florence does quote the Athanasian Creed, affirming that each Person is equal:

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal.

And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.

Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Now Thomas Aquinas, who was endowed by God with the gift of teaching, a gift which we do not possess, considered the issue of (2), and explicitly concluded that the relations are equal:

In God, however, it means only procession of origin, which is according to equality, as explained above (I:42:6).

newadvent.org/summa/1043.htm#article1

You have not cited any Doctor of the Church or Church Council or Pope who has contradicted Thomas Aquinas. Pope Leo XIII has explicitly endorsed the teachings of Thomas Aquinas as a sure ground to defend the Church against the assault of modernism in this day and age. w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html

It would be the height of folly for a lay person to contradict Thomas Aquinas, based on their own reading of a few Greek Fathers.

 

[friardchips]

Does each person of the Trinity have their own mind or do they share one mind? Do they each have different consciousnesses and different experiences and think different things? Or do they experience the same consciousness and thoughts?

The Father: Will
The Son: Word
The Holy Spirit: Breath

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

*'266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.’*

 

[Lucretius]

What does it mean for one Person to be the “source” of another Person’s divine nature?

In a way similar to how my parents are the source of my human nature. The offspring of a cat is a cat. The son of a man is a man. And so, the Son of God is God (this is what Christ means by “Son of Man” and “Son of God”).

We could say that the son of God is a god, but we already know from other Revelation that there is only one instance of the Divine nature (monotheism), there is only one Divine substance/reality. This is where we are coming from when we say that the Trinity are the same substance, or consubstantial.

Wouldn’t the nature of the Persons have to be forever the same outside of time, that is, co-eternal?

God is forever and outside time, and all of the Persons are eternal. The terms “source,” “principle,” and “origin” should be understood without temporality. The Father doesn’t beget the Son and then stop, rather it is better to say that the Father is always begetting the Son, and the Son is always being begotten by the Father (it is nice to be an English speaker here, because Latin and Greek doesn’t have a grammatical progressive tense/aspect). This is why it is sometimes said that the Son is “eternally begotten” which portrays this same idea.

Maybe a better way to say this is that Divinity arises from the Father and is communicated to the Son by eternal begetting, like Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange does:

Furthermore, sanctifying grace is a participation in Deity as it is in itself and not merely as it is known to us. For it is produced in our soul by an immediate infusion altogether independently of our knowledge of the Deity; and just as Deity as such is communicated to the Son by eternal generation, so Deity as such is partaken of by the just, especially by the blessed, through divine adoption.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace3.htm

Does that make more sense, does that answer your question?

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

You are conflating two different points:

(1) the relations of origin, and

(2) the “greatness”, “inferiority” or “equality” of each relation.

Everyone here agrees on (1), so we can limit our discussion to (2).

And yet the Church has never officially adopted your claim with respect to (2). The Council of Florence addressed the very issue of (1), without saying whether the relation of Fatherhood is “greater than” the relation of Sonship. But the Council of Florence does quote the Athanasian Creed, affirming that each Person is equal:

The Church clearly teaches that the Father is the source or principle of Divinity, while the Son and Spirit are not. This is just what is meant when we say that the Father is greater than the Son, that the cause is greater than the effect, as St. John of Damascus points out. You can say that you don’t like to word it that way, but you can’t deny that the Father is the origin of the Son and not the other way around, right?

At this point it is clear that, by equality, St. Athanasius and the like are talking about each Person having the same Divine essence and substance, not that the Son has Paternity or the Father Filiation, which of course is explicitly expressed in the Athanasian Creed:

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

What we are saying is that it is this very order in the Divine processions that causes the Father to be greater than the Son and Spirit, since it is intuitive that the source is greater than the effect in an ontological sense. But, they are equal in honor and Glory and goodness and etc.

The Athanasian Creed is sort of a red herring, since we aren’t denying the equality of the the three persons in terms of lacking Divinity. Our sense of inequality is rooted in the very order of the relations themselves.

Christi pax.

 

[PluniaZ]

And yet the Church has never officially adopted your claim with respect to (2). The Council of Florence addressed the very issue of (1), without saying whether the relation of Fatherhood is “greater than” the relation of Sonship. But the Council of Florence does quote the Athanasian Creed, affirming that each Person is equal:

The Church clearly teaches that the Father is the source or principle of Divinity, while the Son and Spirit are not. This is just what is meant when we say that the Father is greater than the Son, that the cause is greater than the effect, as St. John of Damascus points out. You can say that you don’t like to word it that way, but you can’t deny that the Father is the origin of the Son and not the other way around, right?

At this point it is clear that, by equality, St. Athanasius and the like are talking about each Person having the same Divine essence and substance, not that the Son has Paternity or the Father Filiation, which of course is explicitly expressed in the Athanasian Creed:

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

What we are saying is that it is this very order in the Divine processions that causes the Father to be greater than the Son and Spirit, since it is intuitive that the source is greater than the effect in an ontological sense. But, they are equal in honor and Glory and goodness and etc.

The Athanasian Creed is sort of a red herring, since we aren’t denying the equality of the the three persons in terms of lacking Divinity. Our sense of inequality is rooted in the very order of the relations themselves.

Christi pax.

Again, there is a distinction between:

(1) the relations of origin, and
(2) the “greatness”, “inferiority” and “equality” of each relation.

You are asserting, based solely on your own understanding of a few quotes from the Greek Fathers, that:

this very order in the Divine processions that causes the Father to be greater than the Son and Spirit, since it is intuitive that the source is greater than the effect in an ontological sense.

Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, specifically endorsed by Pope Leo XIII as a sure guide for these uncertain times, explicitly rejects your statement in the citations I provided above.

The Athanasian Creed, which was adopted by the Council of Florence, says, “And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.”

Consider that statement: “In this Trinity, nothing is greater or less.” You are attempting to introduce something (a relation) that is greater or less.

Finally, consider this statement by the Council of Florence:

"It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity."

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

 

[Wesrock]

PluniaZ, I think everyone is in agreement that the persons are equal in the Trinity, both ontologically and economically. And it is perfectly true that multiple great Church Father’s have permitted it to be said that the Father may be called greater in reference to being the origin (or “cause” in some terminologies) only, as being first in an order, not first in authority over another that is subordinated. I don’t think you’d call them heretics, and I sympathize in how the use of the term greater can be misleading to some, but for the level of discussion we’re at in this topic, I think there are no theological differences being presented, and that this is just an argument over semantics and emphasis.

 

[Wesrock]

Question: In (John 14:16), Why does Jesus say after he’s going to the Father that he’ll pray to the Father for the sending of the Paraclete if all the Father has is his and equal in person? Why would the Son at the Right hand of the Father pray to do so rather than simply act upon his own authority as co-equal? This isn’t in reference to his earthly life but rather is implied to take place once he’s with the Father in Heaven.

Thanks for any clarification and the previous responses.

I would point out that the human nature was not lost after the Ascension, and that Christ’s human body and soul still persists in hypostatic union with God, such that the statement can still be applied to his human nature.

 

[Wesrock]

Like I said, I think you understandably dislike how “greater” can be interpreted to mean that the Son is not the same essence nor substance as the Father. We don’t agree in concept, but in what way is best to express that idea in our circumstances

Christi pax.

I feel like PluniaZ’s point is being missed, even if I disagree with the extent of his zeal over the term “greater.” It’s not only a matter of equality in nature, but equality in the interior life of God. Not just that the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit, but that in being God and in God’s will, they are also co-equal. The Father does not order and the Son only obey. They are equal in the economy of the inner life.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

I feel like PluniaZ’s point is being missed, even if I disagree with the extent ot hos zeal over the term “greater.” It’s not only a matter of equality in nature, but equality in the interior life of God. Not just that the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit, but that in being God and in God’s will, they are also co-equal. The Father does not order and the Son only obey. They are equal in the economy of the inner life.

The Son is perfectly obedient to his heavenly Father. That’s a crucial part of the Trinity

 

[Wesrock]

To continue, PluniaZ is concerned with a type of (heretical) theology that proposes the eternal economic subordination of the Son. A proponent of that theology might say:

*"This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.

This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”*

And I would stress that the term subordination in a relationship goes beyond the unbegotten and begotten distinction.

 

[Wesrock]

The Son is perfectly obedient to his heavenly Father. That’s a crucial part of the Trinity

It’s a crucial part of Christology.

 

[levinas12]

But even such an “internal” relation must be denied by divine simplicity. The only reason we have a north/south is because there is a bit of the earth (the north pole) that is different than some other part of the earth (the south pole.) If the earth did not have any bits that were actually different there could be no such north/south relation, and we could not have *any *internal relations.

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.

But this correlativity is really a love relationship, a radical mutual self-giving, a communio personarum (St John Paul II). The Father pours Himself out totally into the Son, and the Son pours Himself totally into the Father.

It is this Love, this Mutual-Self-Giving, this Interpenetration, this “Circumincession” and “Perichoresis” that preclude subordination and hierarchy.

A contrast to this is found in the subordination and hierarchy in Plotinus where the One does not love the first emanation … the One is not even aware of the first emanation (like Aristotle’s god who is unaware of the cosmos). The Father does not beget the Son like the Plotinian One “begets” the first emanation … because the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. There is no such “mutual” or “spousal” Love in Plotinus.

 

[Assyrian412]

PluniaZ, I think everyone is in agreement that the persons are equal in the Trinity, both ontologically and economically. And it is perfectly true that multiple great Church Father’s have permitted it to be said that the Father may be called greater in reference to being the origin (or “cause” in some terminologies) only, as being first in an order, not first in authority over another that is subordinated. I don’t think you’d call them heretics, and I sympathize in how the use of the term greater can be misleading to some, but for the level of discussion we’re at in this topic, I think there are no theological differences being presented, and that this is just an argument over semantics and emphasis.

This is what I have been saying for awhile; the disagreement here is very superficial. Seems like arguing for the sake of arguing. There is no disagreement on any Church dogma. I was simply trying to get a better understanding of the OP’s opinion and try to help him understand the Church’s teachings when I originally brought this up as he was being accused of arianism… I did not expect to spend so much time discussing it.

The clergymen; priests and deacons I have discussed these topics with were perfectly fine with this expression of the Church’s teachings.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

It’s a crucial part of Christology.

No, the son does not disobey the Father. If he has, please tell me one time. He is perfectly obedient.

 

[pianistclare]

No, the son does not disobey the Father. If he has, please tell me one time. He is perfectly obedient.

You misunderstand his post.
Christology is a totally different topic.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

You misunderstand his post.
Christology is a totally different topic.

I thought Christology was the mormon doctrine

 

[Wesrock]

I thought Christology was the mormon doctrine

No. It simply means the study of who Christ is, his being, his divinity and his humanity.