HELP! Confused about the Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Upgrade25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lugwig Ott’s book says it’s de fide that “The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions .” Yet the Church teaches “The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.” (Ott). So how can the Father’s reason be prior to the Son, since “Fatherhood’s reason” begets him? This is what let me to consider that the will is prior to the divine goodness, as well being a mystery. Thus Jesus says that men are not good but only God
 
thinkandmull said:
Lugwig Ott’s book says it’s de fide that “The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions .” Yet the Church teaches “The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.” (Ott). So how can the Father’s reason be prior to the Son, since “Fatherhood’s reason” begets him? This is what let me to consider that the will is prior to the divine goodness, as well being a mystery. Thus Jesus says that men are not good but only God
Click to expand...
It is due to absolute simplicity of God. The real difference in persons is not one of composition, and is by our thinking.

That *de fide *dogma is from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215):
“(The Divine Substance) does not generate nor is it generated nor does it proceed; It is the Father who generatest the Son who is generated and the Holy Ghost who proceeds.”

The second de fide dogma you mention is from Council of Florence:
“In God everything is one except there be an opposition of relation”.

The Catechism includes this and the dogma of the circumincession:
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott) also includes that “Between the Divine Relations and the Divine Nature however, no relative opposition exists”.

So, with that background, see what St. Thomas Aquinas states in Summa Theologica Q39 A1, that essence is not really distinct from 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.

Reply to Objection 2. As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

In Summa Theologica, Q41 A5 the other part is explained:

Objection 2: Further, in God, the power to act [posse] and ‘to act’ are not distinct. But in God, begetting signifies relation. Therefore, the same applies to the power of begetting.

Reply to Objection 2: As in God, the power of begetting is the same as the act of begetting, so the divine essence is the same in reality as the act of begetting or paternity; although there is a distinction of reason.
 
Since there is no true prior or before in the ontological sense within God then, I asked “Is God Good in nature by Will?”

Secondly,

Ludwig Ott says that the Following is Sent. certa., infallible but De Fide:

-The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation.
-The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son.

People confound two concepts. De fide is sometimes meant to mean that which is directly from Revelation, instead of implicitly only. Or people say it’s teachings that are more formally taught. But how are the faithful to now when something is directly from revelation, and when it has been taught more formally? So I am not sure about these two teachings yet
 
thinkandmull said:
Since there is no true prior or before in the ontological sense within God then, I asked “Is God Good in nature by Will?”

Secondly,

Ludwig Ott says that the Following is Sent. certa., infallible but De Fide:

-The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation.
-The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son.

People confound two concepts. De fide is sometimes meant to mean that which is directly from Revelation, instead of implicitly only. Or people say it’s teachings that are more formally taught. But how are the faithful to now when something is directly from revelation, and when it has been taught more formally? So I am not sure about these two teachings yet
Click to expand...
Vatican I: All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching.

Sent. certa is number four below. Another example: With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty
The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediateiy revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”
Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sale authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation. but which baa not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
 
I don’t know of an example where the Church has said “this is explicitly in Revelation”. So in solemn judgments such as Trent, where a clear Bible quote is not given, is it still formally infallible? Ordinary and universal authoritative teaching is such as when the Church is spread throughout the world. For unanimous and definite decision to be known, it would have to be expressed to the faithful. The only time I know when this has been done is when John Paul II verified the doctrine on female priests. Are OUM teachings that are stated to be immediately in Revelation than formal? There is no consistent practice in these matters, as explained in theological manuals. I think and distinction only has value in regard to legal penalties, however the teaching and legal system of the Church needs to be brought together so teachings of the past can have their appropriate legal force
 
Anyway, that issue is not important.

Sententia fidei proxima though is something that theologians came up with. It makes them a sub-magisterium. Anyway anyone who is bright can become a theologian. Aquinas disregarded the widespread opinion against Aristotle
 
Holy Office documents talk about theologian agreements, but there’s been periods of time when theologians had less then good opinions. What about priests? Does a theologian have greater say than a priest?? Then the standard would have to be general consenses of all priests and theologians, which could not be verified to the public body. Congregations of Rome don’t have Magisterial authority with papal approval of their actions. They are to be taken into serious account, but they can’t write things in stone.
 
There is no one language on these issues. Many argue that Vatican I defined about more than solemnly defined doctrine, citing debates during the sessions. That link says that “‘ex cathedra’ Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.”
 
In that very article Father John Trigilio sites another article of his that says “Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church on faith and morals which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra”
 
thinkandmull said:
In that very article Father John Trigilio sites another article of his that says “Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church on faith and morals which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra”
Click to expand...
The entire item 6 gives a better understanding that it is not just ex cathedra, but also by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.
  1. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”.14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
 
I wish terminology was clear though. Ad tuendam fidem mentions “the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)”. Individual canonizations are not dogma.
 
thinkandmull said:
I wish terminology was clear though. Ad tuendam fidem mentions “the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)”. Individual canonizations are not dogma.
Click to expand...
That is a category for saints that have been dogmatically canonized. Why do you conclude that a single canonization at a time cannot be dogmatically declared?
 
The Church hasn’t made the doctrine dogma that the Church can say someone is certainly in heaven, so how can an individual be dogmatically defined. It’s a misapplication of words
 
thinkandmull said:
The Church hasn’t made the doctrine dogma that the Church can say someone is certainly in heaven, so how can an individual be dogmatically defined. It’s a misapplication of words
Click to expand...
The Blessed Virgin Mary, for one, dogmatically declared. Jesus declared the good thief to be in heaven. It is certain that angels and faithful are there. It is a dogma that saints should be venerated. However when the Pope mandates veneration (as is done in canonization) and the faithful are obliged.

The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent from the Council of Trent, the Bull of Pius IV, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565:

I steadfastly hold that a purgatory exists, and that the souls there detained are aided by the prayers of the faithful; likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ should be venerated and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics should be venerated. I firmly assert that the images of Christ and of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and also of the other saints should be kept and retained, and that due honor and veneration should be paid to them; I also affirm that the power of indulgences has been left in the Church by Christ, and that the use of them is especially salutary for the Christian people. - Denzinger 998
 
It said that not only doctrines but the canonization of saints are dogmatic facts. This is a misuse of language, that simple
 
thinkandmull said:
It said that not only doctrines but the canonization of saints are dogmatic facts. This is a misuse of language, that simple
Click to expand...
The phrase is Latin* facta dogmatica*, dogmatic facts.

From Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, pp. 8-9:
§ 6. Catholic Truths
…
These are proposed for belief in virtue of the infallibility of the Church in teaching doctrines of faith or morals (fides ecclesiastia).
To these Catholic truths belong :
  1. Theological Conclusions (conclusiones theologicae) properly so-called. By these are understood religious truths. which are derived from two premisses, …
  2. Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica). By these are understood historic facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically conn¢cted with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is also, in a narrower sense, a dogmatic fact." In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgment on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text (D 1350: sensum quem verba prae se ferunt).
 
There is no agreement among theologians and apologists that canonizations are infallibly guaranteed. It might be in Tradition, but there is no dogmatic statement. I read a previous Pope’s decree against a certain writer who doubted canonizations and it was labelled “impious”, not heretical. I don’t have it to verify this for you, but I have a good memory on these things. “The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is also, in a narrower sense, a dogmatic fact.” The cause of Rosmini shows this is now false.What the Church teaches might be clear, but that is no sure reason that the author was properly understood. Images of “the other saints should be kept and retained” doesn’t assure us that the decisions on saints is infallible. Canonizations are more than Mary in heaven, or the general group of the faithful, or Jesus’s prophecy of the good their. It is an individual decision made very frequently by some Popes. As with whether Ordinary Universal Magisterium on explicit Revelation material is formally dogma, terminology needs to be more clearly expressed.
 
thinkandmull said:
There is no agreement among theologians and apologists that canonizations are infallibly guaranteed. It might be in Tradition, but there is no dogmatic statement. I read a previous Pope’s decree against a certain writer who doubted canonizations and it was labelled “impious”, not heretical. I don’t have it to verify this for you, but I have a good memory on these things. “The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is also, in a narrower sense, a dogmatic fact.” The cause of Rosmini shows this is now false.What the Church teaches might be clear, but that is no sure reason that the author was properly understood. Images of “the other saints should be kept and retained” doesn’t assure us that the decisions on saints is infallible. Canonizations are more than Mary in heaven, or the general group of the faithful, or Jesus’s prophecy of the good their. It is an individual decision made very frequently by some Popes. As with whether Ordinary Universal Magisterium on explicit Revelation material is formally dogma, terminology needs to be more clearly expressed.
Click to expand...
There is no assertion in my posts that canonizations are infallibly guaranteed. Not sure why you are continuing on with it.

We do have a specific dogma for the sainthood of the Virgin Mary.
 
Why are “the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter”, which are so essentially as to be called dogmatic facts, on the same level with something that hasn’t been defined. It’s a pertinent question since traditionalist who don’t like some of the Pope’s choices for sainthood have brought up the issue and it needs to be settled. Dogmatic fact means the Church can’t function as in institution that defines dogma without it. That 's all I was trying to point out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top