How to Understand the Trinity?

[ThuriferAcolyte]

and it does make sense to look at the writings of Athanasius when he did come up with the Athanasian Creed (at least according to many), didn’t even think that far.

 

[JMJ_coder]

thanks, all of that looks great. Do you know if any modern Catholics have done treatises on the Trinity? All I’m finding so far, at least book-wise on Amazon, is from Protestant writers.

I know that Dr. Scott Hahn has a book on the Trinity – First Comes Love – but, I haven’t read it to comment (though, Dr. Hahn hasn’t disappointed yet). Pope John Paul II also gave a catechesis on the Trinity during some of his general audiences – it can be viewed here. Our current pontiff, when he was yet a lowly cardinal, wrote a series of meditations on the Trinity that can be bought here. I’m sure there are other reflections, meditations, commentaries (e.g., commentary on the trinitarian thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas), etc. out there.

 

[JMJ_coder]

and it does make sense to look at the writings of Athanasius when he did come up with the Athanasian Creed (at least according to many), didn’t even think that far.

On my Coptic icon of Saint Athanasius, his scroll reads in three different languages the part of the Nicene Creed: Begotten not made one in essence with the Father.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Thanks! What is the difference between what you describe and modalism?

Well now there, you have an interesting quandary.

I have to guess at what was really going on back then, but as far as I can tell, this was largely a political issue rather than an actual intellectual issue.

The only distinction that I can ascertain currently is that the Modalists (Sabellianists) felt that if you worshiped one of the understandings, of which they admitted that there were 3, you must not worship the other 2.

The Trinity rightfully proscribes that if you are worshiping any one of them, you are also really worshiping all of them, yet each might lead to a different behavior by those who kept only one perspective.

The problem with trying to decide what the real differences are lie in the fact that we have to guess at what the Modalists were really teaching. The norm for human behavior is that what something is named and what it actually is or teaches are different and often opposite.

It might be that by realizing that all 3 must be followed, people do not make the tempting mistakes that following any one alone might bring. This realization could have been what inspired the insistence that the Modalist was not to be followed.

I try not to make a practice of studying the errors of others as much as the Truth itself so as to not get too heavily involved in converting misunderstandings back into reality.

The preaching that the Trinity CANNOT be understood might be another of those, “believe this or you are likely to make serious errors” type of things.

But having an understanding of the very make of each of those 3 concepts, I can tell you that all 3 “persons” truly exist all of the time in every second and if you truly follow any one, you must also be following the others. But it is typical that the slightest misunderstanding will lead to “logical” (but not really) conclusions that in turn lead to serious misbehavior.

I can easily see this happening in the case of the Father followers versus the Son followers. In one, people will be inspired to try to Cause reality to be as they please. In the other, they accept that it is already under control and they need merely work with what they have.

Those different perspectives would have very seriously different reflections on society and the end effect on people and humanity.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The preaching that the Trinity CANNOT be understood might be another of those, “believe this or you are likely to make serious errors” type of things.

No, its one of those ‘God is incomprehensible and we only have a limited view based on His revelation to mankind’ type of things.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I know that Dr. Scott Hahn has a book on the Trinity – First Comes Love – but, I haven’t read it to comment (though, Dr. Hahn hasn’t disappointed yet). Pope John Paul II also gave a catechesis on the Trinity during some of his general audiences – it can be viewed here. Our current pontiff, when he was yet a lowly cardinal, wrote a series of meditations on the Trinity that can be bought here. I’m sure there are other reflections, meditations, commentaries (e.g., commentary on the trinitarian thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas), etc. out there.

Thanks for all of that. Scott Hahn may be just what I need (currently finishing up Swear to God).

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, its one of those ‘God is incomprehensible and we only have a limited view based on His revelation to mankind’ type of things.

The problem that I have with that is that I already “comprehend” each of the 3 personages.

The reality is still that I, nor any man, could ever perceive the full presence of God at any time. So this becomes an issue of whether we are talking about the fundamental concepts, or the actual present state.

I am direly lacking in the “present state” concern.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Well now there, you have an interesting quandary.

I have to guess at what was really going on back then, but as far as I can tell, this was largely a political issue rather than an actual intellectual issue.

The only distinction that I can ascertain currently is that the Modalists (Sabellianists) felt that if you worshiped one of the understandings, of which they admitted that there were 3, you must not worship the other 2.

The Trinity rightfully proscribes that if you are worshiping any one of them, you are also really worshiping all of them, yet each might lead to a different behavior by those who kept only one perspective.

The problem with trying to decide what the real differences are lie in the fact that we have to guess at what the Modalists were really teaching. The norm for human behavior is that what something is named and what it actually is or teaches are different and often opposite.

It might be that by realizing that all 3 must be followed, people do not make the tempting mistakes that following any one alone might bring. This realization could have been what inspired the insistence that the Modalist was not to be followed.

I try not to make a practice of studying the errors of others as much as the Truth itself so as to not get too heavily involved in converting misunderstandings back into reality.

The preaching that the Trinity CANNOT be understood might be another of those, “believe this or you are likely to make serious errors” type of things.

But having an understanding of the very make of each of those 3 concepts, I can tell you that all 3 “persons” truly exist all of the time in every second and if you truly follow any one, you must also be following the others. But it is typical that the slightest misunderstanding will lead to “logical” (but not really) conclusions that in turn lead to serious misbehavior.

I can easily see this happening in the case of the Father followers versus the Son followers. In one, people will be inspired to try to Cause reality to be as they please. In the other, they accept that it is already under control and they need merely work with what they have.

Those different perspectives would have very seriously different reflections on society and the end effect on people and humanity.

That’s a very interesting reflection on the Trinity. I think my main issue here is that from my understanding of Personhood, the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Yet, they are the same substance. So, can we really say that when you worship one, you are worshipping the others? I mean, they are one God, but how does Personhood affect that?

Also, what is the difference between saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one substance, that they are made up of one substance, and they have the one substance, if any?

 

[James_S_Saint]

The “Being” that is being discussed is “what is” or Reality itself. As God said to Moses, “I am that which is”. In English Bibles this is merely “I am that I am”, but in Hebrew both of those statements are written exactly the same way. The English merely emphasizes to not question and just accept, whereas the original reflect an understanding.

But in understanding “what is”/Reality (hence the same “substance”), you can look at how Reality is “put together” in different ways (more than 3 actually), but they are all images of the same thing.

But in some perspectives, for example, the Father (First Cause), you gain a sight as to what can cause from nothingness. In other perspectives you gain sight as to what currently is. And then (the third) gains you a sight into what will be.

“What is” must be of one substance. But the Father is not “made of” that substance, yet is present “above” that substance as an integral part of Reality.

Well, now we are getting too close to what the Catholic probably prefers to keep as sacred understanding without which any further explanation gets a bit tough and merely sounds like what has already been said over and over.

I’m sorry, I just do not know enough of what the Catholic allows (yet) and that is making any explanation difficult. It is trying to say without saying and I don’t do that well.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The problem that I have with that is that I already “comprehend” each of the 3 personages.

The reality is still that I, nor any man, could ever perceive the full presence of God at any time. So this becomes an issue of whether we are talking about the fundamental concepts, or the actual present state.

I am direly lacking in the “present state” concern.

And how can one God be three persons? It’s one thing to know the basic concept three persons, one God and an entirely different thing to comprehend that mystery fully, even in a factual (scire) way.

 

[James_S_Saint]

And how can one God be three persons? It’s one thing to know the basic concept three persons, one God and an entirely different thing to comprehend that mystery fully, even in a factual (scire) way.

I meant in that “factual way”.

The concept that there ARE 3, is pretty trivial. If permitted, I could tell you the exact make of each of those personages and how they relate and “play” into that “One Being”.

Each really IS the One and also different than the others, just as they keep telling you. They are right, don’t doubt that. But it is NOT something that cannot be understood (else they wouldn’t have been arguing over it for so long in such detail).

I very much agree that no man can EVER comprehend the current state of God although the more the merrier usually.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I had to stop reading right after I read the title; we will never be able to fully understand the Trinity. I’m sorry guys, it just can’t be done. But thank God He gives us enough!

“Who can understand everything about GOD except GOD Himself?” ~Fr. Corapi

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I had to stop reading right after I read the title; we will never be able to fully understand the Trinity. I’m sorry guys, it just can’t be done. But thank God He gives us enough!

“Who can understand everything about GOD except GOD Himself?” ~Fr. Corapi

Yes, we all agree that we cannot fully understand the Trinity. The point of this thread is understanding what we do know.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Yes, we all agree that we cannot fully understand the Trinity. The point of this thread is understanding what we do know.

You didn’t have to tell me that!

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

You didn’t have to tell me that!

Just making sure! So many people avoid talking about what we do know by saying “it’s all a mystery”.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The “Being” that is being discussed is “what is” or Reality itself. As God said to Moses, “I am that which is”. In English Bibles this is merely “I am that I am”, but in Hebrew both of those statements are written exactly the same way. The English merely emphasizes to not question and just accept, whereas the original reflect an understanding.

But in understanding “what is”/Reality (hence the same “substance”), you can look at how Reality is “put together” in different ways (more than 3 actually), but they are all images of the same thing.

But in some perspectives, for example, the Father (First Cause), you gain a sight as to what can cause from nothingness. In other perspectives you gain sight as to what currently is. And then (the third) gains you a sight into what will be.

“What is” must be of one substance. But the Father is not “made of” that substance, yet is present “above” that substance as an integral part of Reality.

Well, now we are getting too close to what the Catholic probably prefers to keep as sacred understanding without which any further explanation gets a bit tough and merely sounds like what has already been said over and over.

I’m sorry, I just do not know enough of what the Catholic allows (yet) and that is making any explanation difficult. It is trying to say without saying and I don’t do that well.

Thanks for explaining. I’m not sure if Catholics would agree on all of that, but again, I’m not sure (this is a new area for me!).

If the Father is present above that substance, how is He that substance? It seems that you’re saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE the substance (I am what I am), but then that Father is above it. I do know that there is somewhat of a primacy of the Father in the Trinity, where the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (at least that’s my interpretation of the filioque). It seems that this line of thought is more prevalent in Eastern Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy). I’m also not sure how this “primacy” of the Father squares with saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal (and with Jesus saying that the Father is greater than Him).

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Just making sure! So many people avoid talking about what we do know by saying “it’s all a mystery”.

So true! We should let our brains fill up with what we do know, and trust God for the rest!

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

So true! We should let our brains fill up with what we do know, and trust God for the rest!

completely agree!

 

[James_S_Saint]

If the Father is present above that substance, how is He that substance? It seems that you’re saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE the substance (I am what I am), but then that Father is above it. I do know that there is somewhat of a primacy of the Father in the Trinity, where the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (at least that’s my interpretation of the filioque). It seems that this line of thought is more prevalent in Eastern Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy). I’m also not sure how this “primacy” of the Father squares with saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal (and with Jesus saying that the Father is greater than Him).

Let me suggest that a principle is “above” the actual physical existence. That would make it “super-natural”. A principle, in a sense, is what brings about (fathers) the actual flow of events, the spirit.

But also a principle, although “about spirit” is not spirit itself. But as I stated earlier, many used the term “spirit” to refer to more than just energy and did not distinguish it from a principle. By so doing, they confounded the issue.

Plato argued considerably about whether principles were actually existent. This issue can be more easily resolved today.

 

[James_S_Saint]

So true! We should let our brains fill up with what we do know, and trust God for the rest!

But then if you do not respect your situation, you can’t expect it to respect you.

Ignore Reality and it doesn’t just ignore you, and it certainly doesn’t respect you.