HELP! Confused about the Trinity

[Upgrade25]

Following a string of articles from strangenotions.com, it said that God’s nature cannot divide itself, and as such can’t be complemented, yet, how do you explain the Trinity?

This is the starter of the series- strangenotions.com/why-must-there-be-at-least-one-unconditioned-reality/

 

[pianistclare]

Following a string of articles from strangenotions.com, it said that God’s nature cannot divide itself, and as such can’t be complemented, yet, how do you explain the Trinity?

This is the starter of the series- strangenotions.com/why-must-there-be-at-least-one-unconditioned-reality/

The real question is:
How do they define God?
God can do anything He wants.
Trying to explain (away) the Trinity is pointless and impossible. No wonder so many people like to try it. It will confound all who attempt. They feel like this alone bolsters their argument.

God is loving Father.
Christ is our Brother.
The Holy Spirit is pure love and wisdom.

I believe God can have innumerable attributes.
Hope you are having a Holy Christmas. The bottom line is, the Christ Child came to earth to redeem us. It’s a fact.
Focus on that today, and be blessed.
Peace.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

If I as mortal and flawed human being can be fulltime mother, fulltime wife, fulltime professional, part-time student and part-time parish volunteer amongst other things, why is it so difficult to believe God is not one-dimensional?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Following a string of articles from strangenotions.com, it said that God’s nature cannot divide itself, and as such can’t be complemented, yet, how do you explain the Trinity?

This is the starter of the series- strangenotions.com/why-must-there-be-at-least-one-unconditioned-reality/

They’re correct, unless I’m misunderstanding - God’s nature is indivisible. This is the principle of divine simplicity - the transcendent divine essence, whatever it is, must be without parts.

But the dogma of the Holy Trinity doesn’t contradict this. Indeed, it asserts that God’s essence is singular, indivisible, simple. It’s just that it mutually indwells three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son whom the Father eternally begets, and the Spirit who proceeds eternally from the Father (and, in western theology, from the Son, but I’m not touching that).

I know it’s complicated - and we certainly all understand it far less than we think we do. But the indivisibility/simplicity/distinction-less quality of God’s nature applies, as it says, to God’s nature. The Persons who share that eternal nature are distinct.

 

[Vico]

Following a string of articles from strangenotions.com, it said that God’s nature cannot divide itself, and as such can’t be complemented, yet, how do you explain the Trinity?

This is the starter of the series- strangenotions.com/why-must-there-be-at-least-one-unconditioned-reality/

It is a mystery of the Christian faith. There is one God, one substance, absolute simplicity, and only one divine will. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods and are never apart. There is no real difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, referred to the essence. Only by our thinking referred to opposite relation, there is a real difference.

St, Thomas Aquinas elaborated on the mystery in Summa Theologica,

Q 30, A 1.Whether there are several persons in God?
Objection 3:
Further, Boethius says of God (De Trin. i), that “this is truly one which has no number.” But plurality implies number. Therefore there are not several persons in God.
Reply to Objection 3:
The supreme unity and simplicity of God exclude every kind of plurality of absolute things, but not plurality of relations. Because relations are predicated relatively, and thus the relations do not import composition in that of which they are predicated, as Boethius teaches in the same book.
Q 39, A1:
Article 1. Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?
I answer that,
The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Question 3, Article 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as “suppositum,” which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person.

But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), “relation multiplies the Trinity of persons,” some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be “adjacent”; considering only in the relations the idea of “reference to another,” and not the relations as realities.

But as it was shown above (Question 28, Article 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature.

But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.

To understand St. Thomas Aquinas comments on how relation does not import composition, one should understand something of Aristotle Metaphysics of Categories. Also that “there are only two ways of predicating in the divine, namely according to substance and according to relation.”

Aquinas Sent. I Q4 A3:
If, however, we consider the special nature of any class of, then any one of the other categories, in addition to anything, it implies an imperfection; has a proper reason in relation to the quantity of a subject; for quantity is the measure of substance, and quality is the disposition of substance, and thus in the case of all other things. Are removed the same way, from the divine preaching according to the logical intentions of genus, as they were removed, by the reason of the accident. If, however, let us consider the appearance of one of them, then some completive convey something of perfection according to the differences, for example, science, power, and the like. Hence these things are predicated of God according to the proper nature of the species and not according to their genus. Relation, for instance, even according to the logical intentions of genus, does not imply any dependence on the subject; in fact, is referred to something extra: in the divine character of the genus, and therefore they are to be found. For this reason, only two modes of predicating remain in God, that is, according to the goods, and also according to relation; for it is not in the genus of the species is due to a certain kind of content to preach, but to all mankind.
corpusthomisticum.org/snp1008.html

There are ten categories:

• Substance - the fundamental entities are substances
• Quality
• Quantity
• Relation - two fundamental relations: “said of” and “present in”
• Where
• When
• Position
• Having
• Action
• Passion

 

[Lily_Bernans]

They’re correct, unless I’m misunderstanding - God’s nature is indivisible. This is the principle of divine simplicity - the transcendent divine essence, whatever it is, must be without parts.

But the dogma of the Holy Trinity doesn’t contradict this. Indeed, it asserts that God’s essence is singular, indivisible, simple. It’s just that it mutually indwells three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son whom the Father eternally begets, and the Spirit who proceeds eternally from the Father (and, in western theology, from the Son, but I’m not touching that).

I know it’s complicated - and we certainly all understand it far less than we think we do. But the indivisibility/simplicity/distinction-less quality of God’s nature applies, as it says, to God’s nature. The Persons who share that eternal nature are distinct.

 

[noorez]

The substance of the god head is one and indivisible. This substance is completely and utterly transcendent of anything and everything that we can comprehend. It is “being-beyond”.

But it is the relations within the god-head that we can see distinction…the relation between the originator (father) and the originated (son)…

Another way to see it is this: the father is “Pure Being”, the Son is “being as consciousness” and the Spirit is “being as will”… The Son is the consciousness of the father…

 

[Vico]

The substance of the god head is one and indivisible. This substance is completely and utterly transcendent of anything and everything that we can comprehend. It is “being-beyond”.

But it is the relations within the god-head that we can see distinction…the relation between the originator (father) and the originated (son)…

Another way to see it is this: the father is “Pure Being”, the Son is “being as consciousness” and the Spirit is “being as will”… The Son is the consciousness of the father…

The is really different than the Christian Trinity, where there is one will and one consciousness identical with the essence. Per the teaching of the Catholic Church, these are not differentiated to persons; that would be three gods, and these are not modes of one divine, that would be Sabellianism (Modalism).

 

[noorez]

The is really different than the Christian Trinity, where there is one will and one consciousness identical with the essence. Per the teaching of the Catholic Church, these are not differentiated to persons; that would be three gods, and these are not modes of one divine, that would be Sabellianism (Modalism).

I suppose I was a tad unclear?.. This is the teaching from Mesiter Ekhart, a doctor of the church. (pardon if I messed something up though). I am not denying orthodoxy of the fact there is one god in three eternal hypostasis according to the church. I was just trying to show how the relations occur within the god head itself.

The person of the Son has been understood to be generated as an act of intellection by the father. The person of the Holy Spirit arises as an act of love between the Father and the Son…

Have I missed something?

When I wrote down the parts of 'being (pure being and such), I was just trying to show in what manner these persons have being in the god head since there is a distinction between them. I never said that one god is simply presenting three modes (modalism)…I do understand that there are three real hypostasis…

The father’s position in the godhead is primary (he is there by the ipseity of the godhead itself). Meister Ekhart understood this as ‘Pure Being’. Since the person of the son is shown to be ‘Intellect from the father’, the ‘mode of being’ (mode for a lack of better word) is ‘Being as Consciousness (consciousness of the father?)’. And since the Holy Spirit is generated by an act of will, the ‘mode of being’ is ‘Being as Will’.

 

[noorez]

I also didn’t imply that there are three separate consciousness and three different wills. There is still only one consciousness and one will…

 

[Vico]

I suppose I was a tad unclear?.. This is the teaching from Mesiter Ekhart, a doctor of the church. (pardon if I messed something up though). I am not denying orthodoxy of the fact there is one god in three eternal hypostasis according to the church. I was just trying to show how the relations occur within the god head itself.

The person of the Son has been understood to be generated as an act of intellection by the father. The person of the Holy Spirit arises as an act of love between the Father and the Son…

Have I missed something?

When I wrote down the parts of 'being (pure being and such), I was just trying to show in what manner these persons have being in the god head since there is a distinction between them. I never said that one god is simply presenting three modes (modalism)…I do understand that there are three real hypostasis…

The father’s position in the godhead is primary (he is there by the ipseity of the godhead itself). Meister Ekhart understood this as ‘Pure Being’. Since the person of the son is shown to be ‘Intellect from the father’, the ‘mode of being’ (mode for a lack of better word) is ‘Being as Consciousness (consciousness of the father?)’. And since the Holy Spirit is generated by an act of will, the ‘mode of being’ is ‘Being as Will’.

Re: “Another way to see it is this: the father is “Pure Being”, the Son is “being as consciousness” and the Spirit is “being as will”… The Son is the consciousness of the father…”

St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica describes the two internal processions of the Son and Holy Spirit, that you refer to. (Question 27. The procession of the divine persons)

1. “The procession of the Word in God is called generation.” “… The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation.” and
2. “The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love.”

The use of preposition “as” appears to be modal since it means “in the role, function, capacity, or sense of”. Also the internal relations are the persons: paternity, filiation, and passive spiration.

 

[noorez]

Re: “Another way to see it is this: the father is “Pure Being”, the Son is “being as consciousness” and the Spirit is “being as will”… The Son is the consciousness of the father…”

St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica describes the two internal processions of the Son and Holy Spirit, that you refer to. (Question 27. The procession of the divine persons)

1. “The procession of the Word in God is called generation.” “… The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation.” and
2. “The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love.”

The use of preposition “as” appears to be modal since it means “in the role, function, capacity, or sense of”. Also the internal relations are the persons: paternity, filiation, and passive spiration.

I’m not quite sure I completely agree with your objection. By using ‘mode’ to describe the beings of the god-head I am not using it in the sense the modalists do…that the personal distinctions are not real (god only has masks/modes of operating…) but we only view it (Trinity) as such with our eyes.

What I wantes to illustrate is how the father, son and spirit have their being in the one substance of the god-head.

I think another discription that has been used is this: (Pure Being, Active Being and Passive Being)

Pure Being: Father has come into being simply by the ipseity of the god-head…no ‘action’ brought him into being.

Active Being: Son is brought into being by the Father through a particular (eternal action). He comes into being by intellectual procession or begetting.

Passive Being: …as stated before, a passive spiratating…

Actually now I wish I had a different word other than ‘mode’ or ‘as’ to try and explain…

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I’m not quite sure I completely agree with your objection. By using ‘mode’ to describe the beings of the god-head I am not using it in the sense the modalists do…that the personal distinctions are not real (god only has masks/modes of operating…) but we only view it (Trinity) as such with our eyes.

What I wantes to illustrate is how the father, son and spirit have their being in the one substance of the god-head.

I think another discription that has been used is this: (Pure Being, Active Being and Passive Being)

Pure Being: Father has come into being simply by the ipseity of the god-head…no ‘action’ brought him into being.

Active Being: Son is brought into being by the Father through a particular (eternal action). He comes into being by intellectual procession or begetting.

Passive Being: …as stated before, a passive spiratating…

Actually now I wish I had a different word other than ‘mode’ or ‘as’ to try and explain…

Interesting.

 

[Vico]

I’m not quite sure I completely agree with your objection. By using ‘mode’ to describe the beings of the god-head I am not using it in the sense the modalists do…that the personal distinctions are not real (god only has masks/modes of operating…) but we only view it (Trinity) as such with our eyes.

What I wantes to illustrate is how the father, son and spirit have their being in the one substance of the god-head.

I think another discription that has been used is this: (Pure Being, Active Being and Passive Being)

Pure Being: Father has come into being simply by the ipseity of the god-head…no ‘action’ brought him into being.

Active Being: Son is brought into being by the Father through a particular (eternal action). He comes into being by intellectual procession or begetting.

Passive Being: …as stated before, a passive spiratating…

Actually now I wish I had a different word other than ‘mode’ or ‘as’ to try and explain…

It is very subtle. For God, essence and existence are the same. Also, relation which is in God is in its very being the same as the divine essence. There are two predicaments only in God: substance and relation of identity. What is called “come into being” in these posts must be taken to really be procession in God and “procession in God is nothing but a communication of the divine nature”.

Summa Theologica Q27 A3

“Objection 2: For every nature, there is just one way of communicating that nature, and this is because operations are the same or different according to their termini. But a procession in God is nothing but a communication of the divine nature. Therefore, since, as was shown above (q. 11, a. 3), there is just a single divine nature, it follows that there is just a single procession in God.”

“Reply to objection 2: As was shown above (q. 3, a. 3 and 4), whatever exists in God is God - something that is not true of other things. And so the divine nature, and no other nature, is communicated through any procession that is not directed toward something external.”

Considering these things written, would you still like to use those terms of pure, active, and passive being?

 

[noorez]

It is very subtle. For God, essence and existence are the same. Also, relation which is in God is in its very being the same as the divine essence. There are two predicaments only in God: substance and relation of identity. What is called “come into being” in these posts must be taken to really be procession in God and “procession in God is nothing but a communication of the divine nature”.

Summa Theologica Q27 A3

“Objection 2: For every nature, there is just one way of communicating that nature, and this is because operations are the same or different according to their termini. But a procession in God is nothing but a communication of the divine nature. Therefore, since, as was shown above (q. 11, a. 3), there is just a single divine nature, it follows that there is just a single procession in God.”

“Reply to objection 2: As was shown above (q. 3, a. 3 and 4), whatever exists in God is God - something that is not true of other things. And so the divine nature, and no other nature, is communicated through any procession that is not directed toward something external.”

Considering these things written, would you still like to use those terms of pure, active, and passive being?

I still don’t think I entirely objected to those terms…

From Eckhart:

St. John says:‘In the beginning was the Word.’ This beginning or origin is the Father, as St. Augustine says. The question is, has the Father a beginning? The answer is: yes, his beginning is primary not proceeding, as I will show. Theologists teach that we must distinguish in the Godhead between essence and being (i.e. nature). Being in the Godhead is Deity itself and is the first thing we apprehend about God. Deity is the whole basis of divine perfection. The Godhead in itself is motionless unity and balanced stillness and is the source of all emanations. Hence I assume a passive welling-up. We call this first utterance being, for the most intrinsic utterance, the first formal assumption in the Godhead is Being: Being as essential Word. God is being, but being is not God. Now the origin of the Father is necessarily involved in this assumption of a passive welling-up. In other words, the Deity being in Itself intelligence, therefore the divine nature steps forth into relation of otherness: other but not another, for this distinction is rational not real. Thus the first Person arises in the Godhead passively, not from any active beginning. Hence its beginning is without property…The question is, what is the Person of the Father? I answer that it is Being in the Godhead, not according to essence but according to paternity which is the formal notion specifically determining the Father. The Father is the beginning of the Godhead.

The person of the Father is identified as Being… being the first in the Godhead, he is ‘Pure Being’.

‘Pure Being’ in the sense that it is first formal assumption of ‘Being-Beyond’ that I mentioned before… I’ll try to explain from what I remember reading. We say that the Godhead is ‘Being-Beyond’ because it is something utterly and completely transcendent. Beyond being and non-being, relation and non-relation, existence and non-existence…beyond (well i think i got the point across). I don’t mean to say that god doesn’t exist…just trying to exalt him above every notion we have of him…

The Godhead is logically (or rationally) prior to the Persons (just as the Father has logical but not real priority over the Son…). The distinction between the Godhead and the Father is rational (but not real). Ekhart says that we should make a distinction between essence and being…

And I do agree that “come into being” is a procession (within in Godhead) which is a communication of divine nature… The father is communicating his nature to himelf and his Son…

 

[noorez]

Actually I might still have preferred (while still making sure to avoid the modalism error):

Father: Pure Being

Son: Being as Consciousness, Being as Wisdom

Spirit: Being as Will or Love, Being as Radiation, Being as Bliss and Beatitude

 

[Vico]

I still don’t think I entirely objected to those terms…

From Eckhart:

St. John says:‘In the beginning was the Word.’ This beginning or origin is the Father, as St. Augustine says. The question is, has the Father a beginning? The answer is: yes, his beginning is primary not proceeding, as I will show. Theologists teach that we must distinguish in the Godhead between essence and being (i.e. nature). Being in the Godhead is Deity itself and is the first thing we apprehend about God. Deity is the whole basis of divine perfection. The Godhead in itself is motionless unity and balanced stillness and is the source of all emanations. Hence I assume a passive welling-up. We call this first utterance being, for the most intrinsic utterance, the first formal assumption in the Godhead is Being: Being as essential Word. God is being, but being is not God. Now the origin of the Father is necessarily involved in this assumption of a passive welling-up. In other words, the Deity being in Itself intelligence, therefore the divine nature steps forth into relation of otherness: other but not another, for this distinction is rational not real. Thus the first Person arises in the Godhead passively, not from any active beginning. Hence its beginning is without property…The question is, what is the Person of the Father? I answer that it is Being in the Godhead, not according to essence but according to paternity which is the formal notion specifically determining the Father. The Father is the beginning of the Godhead.

The person of the Father is identified as Being… being the first in the Godhead, he is ‘Pure Being’.

‘Pure Being’ in the sense that it is first formal assumption of ‘Being-Beyond’ that I mentioned before… I’ll try to explain from what I remember reading. We say that the Godhead is ‘Being-Beyond’ because it is something utterly and completely transcendent. Beyond being and non-being, relation and non-relation, existence and non-existence…beyond (well i think i got the point across). I don’t mean to say that god doesn’t exist…just trying to exalt him above every notion we have of him…

The Godhead is logically (or rationally) prior to the Persons (just as the Father has logical but not real priority over the Son…). The distinction between the Godhead and the Father is rational (but not real). Ekhart says that we should make a distinction between essence and being…

And I do agree that “come into being” is a procession (within in Godhead) which is a communication of divine nature… The father is communicating his nature to himelf and his Son…

An intelligence has its existence from the First Being, the First Cause, God, which is existence alone. Gods existence is essence. This essence is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so if there were kinds of being, such as Pure Being, Active Being, and Passive Being, all these kinds would have to be true for each divine Person.

 

[noorez]

Umm…I’m not sure if I follow completely but I’ll try…

Yes, the essence is common to the Father, Son, Spirit… but that doesn’t mean that they share all properties correct?

The Father is not born but gives birth, the Son is born but does not give birth…the spirit is not born but proceeds from the Father (and the Son…)

The persons being in the god head mean that they share all the essential qualities of such (which is deity).

The labels are meant to describe the differences in the relations to each other but not their essential natures of being God. From what Ekhart said above, There is a difference between essence and being…their essence is the same but differentiated in their ‘being’…

Umm…I hope I wrote it clearly…

 

[Vico]

Umm…I’m not sure if I follow completely but I’ll try…

Yes, the essence is common to the Father, Son, Spirit… but that doesn’t mean that they share all properties correct?

The Father is not born but gives birth, the Son is born but does not give birth…the spirit is not born but proceeds from the Father (and the Son…)

The persons being in the god head mean that they share all the essential qualities of such (which is deity).

The labels are meant to describe the differences in the relations to each other but not their essential natures of being God. From what Ekhart said above, There is a difference between essence and being…their essence is the same but differentiated in their ‘being’…

Umm…I hope I wrote it clearly…

There are no accidents in God. The persons are the relations of opposition. So the relational notions that are unique to the persons, and which are uncommunicable, are

1. paternity
2. filiation
3. spiration.

There are five properties attributed to the divine persons: innascibility, paternity, failation, spiration, and procession. There are called notions of the presons and innascibility is not a real relation. Paternity and filiation are relations of opposition, so are distinct persons. Procession has a relation of opposition to common spiration, so is a distinct person.

There are two senses of being, which can be comprehended with 1) real beings and 2) beings of reason (mental conceptions of real beings). Real beings have essences but beings of reason have nominal definitions. As a result, between entities, there can be real distinctions and distinctions of reason.

For God, essence and existence are the same. There is no potentiality in God but only pure act.

Eckhart works are not systematic and contain contradictions. He agrees with Aquinas the God is pure act (that is, there is no potential), yet uses potential and actual in an example to illustrate God the Father.

 

[thinkandmull]

Where has the CHurch taught that the processions of the Son and Holy Ghost are necessary and not contingent on the Father’s decision??