I need help explaining the Trinity to my boyfriend

[stanczyk]

My friend, stanczyk,
Thank you very much for recognizing my sincerity and sharing your thoughts. Before any further discussion, please recognize that although I deeply enjoy pondering the Mystery, I think it is far more important to focus on Jesus’ words regarding and surrounding the Greatest Commandments, for it is the foundation of Wisdom. Also, please recognize that the intentions of discussing this Mystery with you is to help me grow closer to the Christian God of Catholicism, hopefully help others grow closer to God, and to subject my understandings to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, Reality, and proper use of grammar. With that said, I look forward to discussing with you.

Thank you very much, I am pleased to be having such a thought-provoking and-- more importantly-- polite conversation about these issues. You could not be more right, that while theological profundities are all well and good, the bottom line is living up to the example set by Christ.

I hope that I am approaching this issue with the necessary humility to admit that I am wrong to the extent that I am. My catechesis was many years ago, and I am very rusty. To the extent that I am wrong I hope to be corrected, and if nothing else this discussion has already helped me grow in my understanding of the Trinity. So, having not yet read your post yet or any of those following it, I am going to review them and respond as I go, and we will see.

I still think that this would align with God having a physical body.
Considering the updated understanding: If the person of the Son of God has a physical body while on earth and eternally after resurrection, and the Son of God is fully God, then either God must always have a physical body, or God changes and His exact image becomes His physical body.

I think this is where I am having my divergence from you. The sticking point for me is the nature of eternity. The physical body of Christ had a beginning in time, of that there is no doubt. Neither is the unchanging quality of God in contention. But I think there is a danger of conflating the temporal and eternal. A concept I have come across while researching this issue is that of the “sempiternal” persistent throughout all of time, as opposed to the eternal, existing outside of time, i.e. not subject to time.

Thus, in my view, the physical body of Christ is clearly not sempiternal since there was a point in time at which it did not exist. But nevertheless it is eternal since the person of the Son exists unchanging outside of time.

On this note, I would like to share a personal concept of the Mystery, which is intended to demonstrate a logical, reasonable, open to revision, understanding to the Mystery (which in discussion can be justified well within Catholicism) and to provide hope and inspiration in those who accept the challenge.
…]
The Challenge:
Recognize that you have a Free Will just like God.
Recognize that you are learning about Jesus and God, therefore you are somewhat proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Recognize that you could be the Holy Spirit we are waiting for, so go and use all your being to become One in God’s Nature as Jesus Did according to Catholicism!

Thoughts?

Fascinating, and well put. I’m with you on this. It reminds me of the Kantian concept of the holy will vs. the irrational will, almost and exact parallel, really. That human nature is “partially aligned” with God’s nature is the very essence of free will under Kantian theory.
The animal and the divine nature acts on humanity, prompting a choice between, essentially God and the material. Animals have no choice, they are subjects of the material. Likewise, Angels have no choice, they are subjects of God. But human beings have a choice between the two wills, the holy will and the material, instinctual will. The nature of the holy will is purely rational, and the nature of the animal will purely irrational. Only by acting on the holy will can man truly be free.

 

[stanczyk]

Greetings Stanczyk,

I found some definitions some of the terms and wanted to see what you thought. This are the definitions that I work with. These are not my own, much greater men and saints have already done the foot work for me and it is thanks to them [and of course God’s grace and the light of the Holy Spirit] that I can grow in more understanding and wisdom of the mysteries of God. I will not fully understand them but the more I learn the more I fall in love with God.

Well, I think it was Isaac Newton who said “I have only seen as far as I have because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”

Thanks for doing the legwork for me

I know a great deal may seem extemporeanus at first but it will tie in the end. [This is taken from the Summa Theolgica by St. Thomas Acquinas however it is taken from a book Tour of the Summa by Msgr. Paul J. Glen another reference that is great to have.] *

Relation [The Divine Relations] - A relation is the standing of a thing with reference to something other. A relation or relationship, exists between things that can be in some way referred to one another. In God there are real proceedings [let me know if I need to write out what this means as well], and in consequence there are real relations in God.
*

You’ll have to pardon my ignorance but I’m afraid you will need to clarify “proceeding” for me.
Anathama Sit;8569918:

A real relation in God cannot be an accidental, for there are no accidentals in God. As a thing, an entity, a real relation in God is one with the divine essence.

I see the logic in this, but again, I think I need to understand "“proceedings” for this to truly make sense to me.

The Divine Persons -

A Person is a complete substance of the rational order.

A person is a substance, not an accidental. A person is a complete and subsistent substance, not a mere member or part of a greater substance. A person is of the rational order, or has a rational nature, that is, a person has [at least fundamentally] understanding and free will.

Applied to God the name person means a divine relation as subsisting, that is, as perfectly existing in the order of infinite substance. What actually substis is, as we have said, the divine nature and essence itself. The undivided nature of God subsits perfectly in each of the three Persons, so that, while they are really distinct Persons, they are ona dn the same God.

Ok, so just to check if I am getting this right, I have a visual analogy. Have you ever seen one of those pictures that looks like a young woman, but when viewed upside down can be seen as an old woman? Each is comprised of the same substance, and each way of viewing it is a rational order of the substance, independent of the other. Is this something like what you are getting at? Or am I way off?

Persons and Essence in God

Because God is absolutely simple in His being, the divine relations, as things or entities, are identified with God’s essence. Essence in God is not really distinct from Person, and still the three Persons are really distinct from one another. They are real relations in God which involve relative opposition in their terminals [The Persons] but not at all in their essence.

Therefore the threee Persons in God, while really distinct from one another, are one and the same undivided and indivisible divine essence.

---

God in His Essence and in His Personhood is unchanging and eternal.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

My patience you have, but you might be giving me too much credit when it comes to understanding I am a little baffled by “terminals,” is that strictly interchangeable with “persons?”

I feel like I am almost there but not quite. Can I impose on your patience and have you explain it a little more?

 

[jochoa]

stanczyk, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to discuss these concepts with you, a person I view as very knowledgeable. I look forward to learning from your direction and guidance to help me become more aligned with Catholicism.

I think this is where I am having my divergence from you. The sticking point for me is the nature of eternity. The physical body of Christ had a beginning in time, of that there is no doubt. Neither is the unchanging quality of God in contention. But I think there is a danger of conflating the temporal and eternal. A concept I have come across while researching this issue is that of the “sempiternal” persistent throughout all of time, as opposed to the eternal, existing outside of time, i.e. not subject to time.

First, thank you for sharing the concept of “sempiternal.” This will really help in sharing my understandings. Next, I definitely agree with you that the physical body of Christ had a beginning in “time.” In efforts to justify how my understandings are aligned with Catholicism, I think the following are necessary: An acceptance of the proposed definitions of person, spirit, nature, and “time.”
What are your thoughts on the following:
A person can exist as either an immaterial being or both an immaterial being and material being. A person cannot exist as only a material being.
The spirit is the immaterial being of image and knowledge from which a will proceeds.
The body* is the material being of body and thoughts from which a will proceeds.
*Unfortunately, I have not come across the best word to describe material being. I use body, as in anyBody and everyBody.
Regarding nature, can you recognize one definition of nature as the “why and how a person does what s/he does?” In other words, “Why?” or What quality of peace, happiness, and energy does a person desire for the society and self? & “How?” or What quality of patience, kindness, and motivation does a person do with the body, spirit, thoughts, and will?
Please consider that the following is my first attempt at justifying a concept of time before and after the beginning and end of time. So please be a little gentler in your critiques. Also, please note that the following are only personal interpretations which help me grow closer to God, and I hope might help you grow closer.
In consideration of John 1:1-2 Douay-Rheims
“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
First, I am very curious as to why “IN” is all caps. I have seen this all-caps in two sources of the DRB: bible.cc/john/1-2.htm, and on the android Catholic One App.
Second, I think…there is room to interpret from verse 1, that God already existed, since it does not say, “IN the beginning was the Word, and was God, and the Word was with God,…” Which would lead one to ask, “Well how did God exist?,” which the answer follows, “well…in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the…” Although this seems like it lends itself to a never-ending loop, I believe there is a way to interpret it to a point of fitting with reality, the future, and the Holy Trinity. Unfortunately, I currently do not have the wisdom to simply explain the concept for it requires heavy use of substitutions of equal terms. I think the crux of the method lies in perspective. For in our beginning was Jesus, Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. And in Jesus’ human beginning, as we know it, was Love, and Love was with God, and Love was God. Looking past this, there was definitely a time in the beginning of the beginning. I also think…once one recognizes and accepts the Holy Trinity as God, there is no need to question past this second level of in the beginning, for the level of content wisdom is gained.
Last, we believe in living in ever-lasting Heaven. In order to live and interact, there must be some concept of time.

Thus, in my view, the physical body of Christ is clearly not sempiternal since there was a point in time at which it did not exist. But nevertheless it is eternal since the person of the Son exists unchanging outside of time.

Please consider this: I think there is a differentiation between trying to understand God, the very first thing, the immovable mover, the uncaused cause, the matterless source of all matter, what was in the beginning of the beginning of the Holy Trinity, & God, the person. For I think if you interpret that Jesus’ body was created in time, the interpretation lends itself to Jesus was not begotten, he was made, he was not one in Being with the Father, and in the beginning he only existed as some form of immaterial thought.

Fascinating, and well put. I’m with you on this. It reminds me of the Kantian concept of the holy will vs. the irrational will, almost and exact parallel, really. That human nature is “partially aligned” with God’s nature is the very essence of free will under Kantian theory.
The animal and the divine nature acts on humanity, prompting a choice between, essentially God and the material. Animals have no choice, they are subjects of the material. Likewise, Angels have no choice, they are subjects of God. But human beings have a choice between the two wills, the holy will and the material, instinctual will. The nature of the holy will is purely rational, and the nature of the animal will purely irrational. Only by acting on the holy will can man truly be free.

Thank you very much for sharing! It is very nice to learn other methods of gracefully stating these concepts!

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Excellent Discussion my friend!

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Jochoa,

I have been reading your responses to this thread recently and your discussion with Stanczyk. Watching both my discussion with him and yours has been quite good for me.

You are in my prayers both of you.

God Bless You Both for enriching my faith,
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Stanczyk,

Yesterday was crazy and I am just now getting to this thread. I am going to respond to it hopefully in the next couple of days.

This is the last week before Thanksgiving. I am having to get packed to come and visit friends and family in the United States of America. School work is insane, I am buried beneath mountains of it. Finals are looming in the near future. And then back to the United States of America for Christmas. So I thank you for your patience in my delay.

I will get the paragraph’s on proceeding for you in the next reponse. I am laying the groundwork for the eventual answer to the question.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[jochoa]

Greetings Jochoa,

I have been reading your responses to this thread recently and your discussion with Stanczyk. Watching both my discussion with him and yours has been quite good for me.

You are in my prayers both of you.

God Bless You Both for enriching my faith,
Anathama Sit

I have definitely been pondering your discussion with Stanczyk as well, and it has definitely helped me grow in perspective and consideration. I hope to share some updated understandings soon.

My prayers are also with you, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts soon!

 

[RobbyS]

stanczyk, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to discuss these concepts with you, a person I view as very knowledgeable. I look forward to learning from your direction and guidance to help me become more aligned with Catholicism.

First, thank you for sharing the concept of “sempiternal.” This will really help in sharing my understandings. Next, I definitely agree with you that the physical body of Christ had a beginning in “time.” In efforts to justify how my understandings are aligned with Catholicism, I think the following are necessary: An acceptance of the proposed definitions of person, spirit, nature, and “time.”
What are your thoughts on the following:
A person can exist as either an immaterial being or both an immaterial being and material being. A person cannot exist as only a material being.
The spirit is the immaterial being of image and knowledge from which a will proceeds.
The body* is the material being of body and thoughts from which a will proceeds.
*Unfortunately, I have not come across the best word to describe material being. I use body, as in anyBody and everyBody.
Regarding nature, can you recognize one definition of nature as the “why and how a person does what s/he does?” In other words, “Why?” or What quality of peace, happiness, and energy does a person desire for the society and self? & “How?” or What quality of patience, kindness, and motivation does a person do with the body, spirit, thoughts, and will?
Please consider that the following is my first attempt at justifying a concept of time before and after the beginning and end of time. So please be a little gentler in your critiques. Also, please note that the following are only personal interpretations which help me grow closer to God, and I hope might help you grow closer.
In consideration of John 1:1-2 Douay-Rheims
“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
First, I am very curious as to why “IN” is all caps. I have seen this all-caps in two sources of the DRB: bible.cc/john/1-2.htm, and on the android Catholic One App.
Second, I think…there is room to interpret from verse 1, that God already existed, since it does not say, “IN the beginning was the Word, and was God, and the Word was with God,…” Which would lead one to ask, “Well how did God exist?,” which the answer follows, “well…in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the…” Although this seems like it lends itself to a never-ending loop, I believe there is a way to interpret it to a point of fitting with reality, the future, and the Holy Trinity. Unfortunately, I currently do not have the wisdom to simply explain the concept for it requires heavy use of substitutions of equal terms. I think the crux of the method lies in perspective. For in our beginning was Jesus, Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. And in Jesus’ human beginning, as we know it, was Love, and Love was with God, and Love was God. Looking past this, there was definitely a time in the beginning of the beginning. I also think…once one recognizes and accepts the Holy Trinity as God, there is no need to question past this second level of in the beginning, for the level of content wisdom is gained.
Last, we believe in living in ever-lasting Heaven. In order to live and interact, there must be some concept of time.

Please consider this: I think there is a differentiation between trying to understand God, the very first thing, the immovable mover, the uncaused cause, the matterless source of all matter, what was in the beginning of the beginning of the Holy Trinity, & God, the person. For I think if you interpret that Jesus’ body was created in time, the interpretation lends itself to Jesus was not begotten, he was made, he was not one in Being with the Father, and in the beginning he only existed as some form of immaterial thought.

Thank you very much for sharing! It is very nice to learn other methods of gracefully stating these concepts!

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Excellent Discussion my friend!

Been following your discussion. It occurs to me that western thought is heavily laden with the idea of "matter " Of the human being as a “chunk” of something. But all material objects are --so we believe–constellations of energy in space-time.
Atomic theory once held that bodies are collections of tiny objects. Properly thought of, however, a particle such as an electron is not like a very small planet but a probability of an action which is known only when it has an effect we can measure. We see it only through its effects. Collectively, the effects of those things that make up our bodies are what we “see.” To get to the point, all our persons are images. The body, the person of Christ is therefore an image, a perfect one. Like the one that God intends us to be, if we conform our will with Christ’s.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hey everyone. My boyfriend believes in God but he doesn’t believe in the Trinity because he doesn’t understand the Trinity. He wants to understand it but he doesn’t know how. He doesn’t understand how there can be 3 persons in 1 God. He needs a logical explanation for this. Any help or links would be greatly appreciated.

You can explain it by just being you. You are the type of person who cares and loves for others. You do not need words to explain the mystery to him. You can be a help along the way to guiding him to the understanding of it.

How can a non believer say this? Easy.

There are theologians that have pondered this out.

The funny thing is, most of them are at some point “used” by the non Trinitarian for support of nearly anything.

You will find that many citations for the non trinitarian will really be based on the Authority of the Church.

I could be wrong, and am willing to hear another reason why the challenge is out there to this day.

In any case, I see no reason to not enjoy the disscussions with him, and taking him to Mass with you as often as you feel comfortable doing so.

It is one thing to talk about the Catholic Church without attending. It is a very very different thing to attend and try to learn more about her.

Especially with someone with a passion for their faith, one must consider the possibility that your living witness is a testament to your beliefs.

It sounds like pressure, but I think I could do it in time.

You can do this. In no time.

Just keep being you, and let the light into the darkness.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You can explain it by just being you. You are the type of person who cares and loves for others. You do not need words to explain the mystery to him. You can be a help along the way to guiding him to the understanding of it.

How can a non believer say this? Easy.

There are theologians that have pondered this out.

The funny thing is, most of them are at some point “used” by the non Trinitarian for support of nearly anything.

You will find that many citations for the non trinitarian will really be out of context based on one in a position of Authority in the Church.

I could be wrong, and am willing to hear another reason why the challenge is out there to this day.

In any case, I see no reason to not enjoy the disscussions with him, and taking him to Mass with you as often as you feel comfortable doing so.

It is one thing to talk about the Catholic Church without attending. It is a very very different thing to attend and try to learn more about her.

Especially with someone with a passion for their faith, one must consider the possibility that your living witness is a testament to your beliefs.

It sounds like pressure, but I think I could do it in time.

You can do this. In no time.

Just keep being you, and let the light into the darkness.

 

[jochoa]

Been following your discussion. It occurs to me that western thought is heavily laden with the idea of "matter " Of the human being as a “chunk” of something. But all material objects are --so we believe–constellations of energy in space-time.
Atomic theory once held that bodies are collections of tiny objects. Properly thought of, however, a particle such as an electron is not like a very small planet but a probability of an action which is known only when it has an effect we can measure. We see it only through its effects. Collectively, the effects of those things that make up our bodies are what we “see.” To get to the point, all our persons are images. The body, the person of Christ is therefore an image, a perfect one. Like the one that God intends us to be, if we conform our will with Christ’s.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and perspective. Please note, that I do not claim to be a representative of “western thought” for I am not familiar with the differences between “eastern” and “western” thought. Please consider the progression of developing these conceptualizations:
Considering the Scripture surrounding and defining the Greatest Commandments, it can be interpreted that the Foundation of all wisdom is found there.
Then recognizing that our person is inseparable from the nature, instead of trying to initially limit the concept to strict definitions, I simply considered: in reality, what makes up a person of the world? I have a body that feels and can tell my mind what it feels; I have a mind that thinks and can tell my body what it thinks my body should do; I have a will that requires strength and proceeds perfectly from the combination of the body and the mind; I am able to interact with other persons even when they are not physically there by recalling perfectly what they said, did, or looked liked, therefore I must have a spirit of an image, knowledge and will that other people can interact with when I am not physically present; I have the desiring of peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom as an individual and for society; the qualities of patience, kindness, motivation, and knowledge towards myself and society; the achievement of peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom in myself and my relationships.
Then throughout Mass and Prayer, continually hearing Jesus, who is Fully God, say “This is my Body.” And recognizing that this is the most celebrated, the most amazing prayer of Catholicism, I pieced together that Jesus’ body is the body of God. At that point, Wow! What a feeling to know that God fully and selflessly gave His Being up to share the Awesomeness of True Love! What an incredible level of sorrow I experienced to know that the only way for me to learn how to Truly Love others, was to have Him unjustly crucified.
Then the Nicene Creed and Scripture just began to fall into place! Jesus is Begotten. Jesus is one in Being (The Son is Fully the Body, The Father is the Fully the Mind). Through the Body of God, all things are made. If you have seen Jesus, you have seen God because they have the exact same image. The Holy Spirit is the Will of God, therefore God became man by using His Will. The Will of God proceeds from God’s Being and is not One in Being. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Through the Unity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, ALL Glory and Honor is God’s.
Then it dawned on me that the Holy Spirit is the most difficult challenge for and pinnacle of person. For not only will the body, mind, and will be known as perfectly patient/peaceful, kind/happy, motivated/energetic, but also the spirit, that which everyone interacts with the person being physically there will be known as being and spreading the means to being perfectly patient/peaceful, kind/happy, and motivated/energetic.

Please note: I recognize the necessity of God not having a body in the beginning, and in order to justify alignment, John 1:2 - “The same was in the beginning with God.” Which possibly allows for a speculation of what happened during “time” before creation.

Thoughts?

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I have definitely been pondering your discussion with Stanczyk as well, and it has definitely helped me grow in perspective and consideration. I hope to share some updated understandings soon.

My prayers are also with you, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts soon!

Greetings Jochoa,

This is forum experience to the max. Where people come together sincerely and present their beliefs and thoughts and all journey to a better understanding of the Mysteries of God. We will never be able to comprehend it all or even a majority of it perhaps, but what little we learn each day helps our lives deepen in a closer Union with the One Whom knows all things.

Hopefully things will get a little less busier at the end of this week.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[jochoa]

Greetings Jochoa,

This is forum experience to the max. Where people come together sincerely and present their beliefs and thoughts and all journey to a better understanding of the Mysteries of God. We will never be able to comprehend it all or even a majority of it perhaps, but what little we learn each day helps our lives deepen in a closer Union with the One Whom knows all things.

Hopefully things will get a little less busier at the end of this week.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

Yes it is, my friend! I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience of discussing and learning from like minded people.
Please know that my response to Robby S was going to be very similar to you.

Please consider I was going to introduce the concept as: Since we believe the person is inseparable from the nature, it can be said that the person is of the nature, the nature is of the person, and the nature is the person. Perhaps we can simply study a person of the world and identify his/her parts of being, without consideration for definitions, and then let’s discuss definitions.

Please share your thoughts on both posts.

 

[RobbyS]

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and perspective. Please note, that I do not claim to be a representative of “western thought” for I am not familiar with the differences between “eastern” and “western” thought. Please consider the progression of developing these conceptualizations:
Considering the Scripture surrounding and defining the Greatest Commandments, it can be interpreted that the Foundation of all wisdom is found there.
Then recognizing that our person is inseparable from the nature, instead of trying to initially limit the concept to strict definitions, I simply considered: in reality, what makes up a person of the world? I have a body that feels and can tell my mind what it feels; I have a mind that thinks and can tell my body what it thinks my body should do; I have a will that requires strength and proceeds perfectly from the combination of the body and the mind; I am able to interact with other persons even when they are not physically there by recalling perfectly what they said, did, or looked liked, therefore I must have a spirit of an image, knowledge and will that other people can interact with when I am not physically present; I have the desiring of peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom as an individual and for society; the qualities of patience, kindness, motivation, and knowledge towards myself and society; the achievement of peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom in myself and my relationships.
Then throughout Mass and Prayer, continually hearing Jesus, who is Fully God, say “This is my Body.” And recognizing that this is the most celebrated, the most amazing prayer of Catholicism, I pieced together that Jesus’ body is the body of God. At that point, Wow! What a feeling to know that God fully and selflessly gave His Being up to share the Awesomeness of True Love! What an incredible level of sorrow I experienced to know that the only way for me to learn how to Truly Love others, was to have Him unjustly crucified.
Then the Nicene Creed and Scripture just began to fall into place! Jesus is Begotten. Jesus is one in Being (The Son is Fully the Body, The Father is the Fully the Mind). Through the Body of God, all things are made. If you have seen Jesus, you have seen God because they have the exact same image. The Holy Spirit is the Will of God, therefore God became man by using His Will. The Will of God proceeds from God’s Being and is not One in Being. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Through the Unity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, ALL Glory and Honor is God’s.
Then it dawned on me that the Holy Spirit is the most difficult challenge for and pinnacle of person. For not only will the body, mind, and will be known as perfectly patient/peaceful, kind/happy, motivated/energetic, but also the spirit, that which everyone interacts with the person being physically there will be known as being and spreading the means to being perfectly patient/peaceful, kind/happy, and motivated/energetic.

Please note: I recognize the necessity of God not having a body in the beginning, and in order to justify alignment, John 1:2 - “The same was in the beginning with God.” Which possibly allows for a speculation of what happened during “time” before creation.

Thoughts?

A very spiritual view. The Enlightenment view, which amounted to a kind of deification of human reason, tried to reduce “spirit” to non-matter or “energy.” whether in the body or without, analogous to a magnetic or electric field, or gravitational one–if such exists. A kind of reinvention of the ancient worship of Apollo, as Lewis Mumford once pointed out. Mathematics became a kind of code
unlocking the secrets of Nature. The magical outcomes have convinced the world of the truth of this religion. Ironically, it seems to have reduced the human being to less than the person you describe, to a kind of organic machine. Further irony, the Enlightenment built its structure on Newtonian physics while at the same time failing to realize how Newton actually knew the world. That was very different from the Deist view of the world which saw the Universe as a kind of giant clock, and Newton’s psychology --he was a very strange man–was nothing like that proposed by his friend Dr.Locke, which is the basis of modern psychology.

 

[stanczyk]

stanczyk, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to discuss these concepts with you, a person I view as very knowledgeable. I look forward to learning from your direction and guidance to help me become more aligned with Catholicism.

Thank you, that’s very kind of you to say. Of course, in all humility I have to say that I am hardly an authority, and am learning just as much about my Catholic faith as anybody in this thread. My own perspective, I think, may be unique because of the way I come at this as a Catholic returning after a long period of lapse in practice, from a time when I was very skeptical of the Church. After a long time I finally came to realize the ultimate rationality of the Church, that the Church is really the only thing in life that truly makes sense, in a way that I couldn’t understand when I was younger and thought I had all the answers.

First, thank you for sharing the concept of “sempiternal.” This will really help in sharing my understandings. Next, I definitely agree with you that the physical body of Christ had a beginning in “time.” In efforts to justify how my understandings are aligned with Catholicism, I think the following are necessary: An acceptance of the proposed definitions of person, spirit, nature, and “time.”

It was a difficult concept for me to wrap my head around, and still is. The idea of eternity being outside of time was originally was explained to me by a priest who, if I recall correctly, was explaining the concept of free will in light of an all-knowing and prescient God.

What are your thoughts on the following:
A person can exist as either an immaterial being or both an immaterial being and material being. A person cannot exist as only a material being.
The spirit is the immaterial being of image and knowledge from which a will proceeds.
The body* is the material being of body and thoughts from which a will proceeds.
*Unfortunately, I have not come across the best word to describe material being. I use body, as in anyBody and everyBody.

This makes sense.

Regarding nature, can you recognize one definition of nature as the “why and how a person does what s/he does?” In other words, “Why?” or What quality of peace, happiness, and energy does a person desire for the society and self? & “How?” or What quality of patience, kindness, and motivation does a person do with the body, spirit, thoughts, and will?

I see what you mean, your definition of nature seems very reasonable.

Please consider that the following is my first attempt at justifying a concept of time before and after the beginning and end of time. So please be a little gentler in your critiques.

Of course, my deepest apologies for any harshness and arrogance on my part in my earlier critiques.

First, I am very curious as to why “IN” is all caps.

I would suggest that this is a convention of the translation. If I recall correctly, the Hebrew of the Bible did not have lower-case letters.

Although this seems like it lends itself to a never-ending loop, I believe there is a way to interpret it to a point of fitting with reality, the future, and the Holy Trinity. …]
Last, we believe in living in ever-lasting Heaven. In order to live and interact, there must be some concept of time.

These are great points. I confess that the nature of eternity, and what it feels like to exist outside of time is incomprehensible to me. What I have always thought of the eternal as, a sort of crystalline existence, where the dimension of time is perceived no differently that the three dimensions of space. Perhaps it is not so much a question of temporal versus non-temporal, but rather different perceptions of the temporal. In our mortal existence we are locked into a perception of the temporal as going one direction only, like a train. The eternal might very well be a more omnidirectional perception of temporal existence.

Please consider this: I think there is a differentiation between trying to understand God, the very first thing, the immovable mover, the uncaused cause, the matterless source of all matter, what was in the beginning of the beginning of the Holy Trinity, & God, the person. For I think if you interpret that Jesus’ body was created in time, the interpretation lends itself to Jesus was not begotten, he was made, he was not one in Being with the Father, and in the beginning he only existed as some form of immaterial thought.

Thank you very much for sharing! It is very nice to learn other methods of gracefully stating these concepts!

I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Excellent Discussion my friend!

I think I have been very loose with my own language early in this thread, and my own remarks that prompted this discussion were based on some misspoken premises. I was myself conflating temporal and eternal concepts to imply that Jesus has “always” had a physical body, because as this discussion is illuminating those concepts of “always” and “eternal” are very different. That said, my inclination is still that, even in the time before Christ it would not have been wrong to say that the eternal nature of the Son was both fully God and fully man, despite the fact that the temporal beginning of the hypostatic union of Christ has not yet occurred. Of course, these are just the thoughts of one very confused mortal man, and could quite well be wrong.

I am enjoying our discussion as well, looking forward to see how it progresses. God bless!

 

[jochoa]

A very spiritual view. The Enlightenment view, which amounted to a kind of deification of human reason, tried to reduce “spirit” to non-matter or “energy.” whether in the body or without, analogous to a magnetic or electric field, or gravitational one–if such exists. A kind of reinvention of the ancient worship of Apollo, as Lewis Mumford once pointed out. Mathematics became a kind of code
unlocking the secrets of Nature. The magical outcomes have convinced the world of the truth of this religion. Ironically, it seems to have reduced the human being to less than the person you describe, to a kind of organic machine. Further irony, the Enlightenment built its structure on Newtonian physics while at the same time failing to realize how Newton actually knew the world. That was very different from the Deist view of the world which saw the Universe as a kind of giant clock, and Newton’s psychology --he was a very strange man–was nothing like that proposed by his friend Dr.Locke, which is the basis of modern psychology.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts! I must say that you are far more knowledgeable than I, my friend, for I have read your statements dozens of times and still, I do not understand them. Please note that I have extremely little knowledge of the concepts you presented: the Enlightenment view, the reduction of spirit to “energy”/magnetic/electric/gravitational field, the ancient worship of Apollo, Lewis Mumford, the code of unlocking secrets, magic, Newtonian physics, the Deist view, the giant clock, Dr. Locke, and the basis of modern psychology. Therefore, it is difficult for me to recognize the connections. Will you please consider the following questions to help me understand what you are telling me?
-Are you drawing a complete parallel between my interpretations and the Enlightenment view of Protestant view?
-Are you drawing a complete parallel between my interpretations or the Enlightenment view with a reinvention of the worship of Apollo?
-What are the magical outcomes of? and…since I do not understand if you are stating the interpretations are in alignment with Protestantism or Catholicism, I do not understand which religion of truths, you are claiming, the world has been convinced. Would you please state more directly, what you mean?

Regarding Irony
Please note, all my life, I have struggled greatly understanding the concept of irony. Therefore, I completely fail to understand/recognize the irony in the second example.

Regarding the Irony of an Organic Machine
Instead of viewing this as irony, I like to look at it in two manners:

1. as glorifying the Omnipotence, Power, and Goodness of God.
2. recognition of the power of perspective in justifying paradoxes: Although we have genuine free will, at the fullness of time, God’s Will will be done our earth as it is in heaven and there is no other option, because in the beginning, He ensured His plan of bringing genuine free-willed beings to Truely Love one another, as He does, would work. Therefore, there is an understanding of how human nature is free to will as it pleases, however has no option but to fulfill according to God’s Word.

I would greatly appreciate your time and efforts to help me understand what you are telling me. I am sorry, I do not have the intelligence you do, to understand what you are telling me in simple terms.

Thoughts?

 

[RobbyS]

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts! I must say that you are far more knowledgeable than I, my friend, for I have read your statements dozens of times and still, I do not understand them. Please note that I have extremely little knowledge of the concepts you presented: the Enlightenment view, the reduction of spirit to “energy”/magnetic/electric/gravitational field, the ancient worship of Apollo, Lewis Mumford, the code of unlocking secrets, magic, Newtonian physics, the Deist view, the giant clock, Dr. Locke, and the basis of modern psychology. Therefore, it is difficult for me to recognize the connections. Will you please consider the following questions to help me understand what you are telling me?
-Are you drawing a complete parallel between my interpretations and the Enlightenment view of Protestant view?
-Are you drawing a complete parallel between my interpretations or the Enlightenment view with a reinvention of the worship of Apollo?
-What are the magical outcomes of? and…since I do not understand if you are stating the interpretations are in alignment with Protestantism or Catholicism, I do not understand which religion of truths, you are claiming, the world has been convinced. Would you please state more directly, what you mean?

Regarding Irony
Please note, all my life, I have struggled greatly understanding the concept of irony. Therefore, I completely fail to understand/recognize the irony in the second example.

Regarding the Irony of an Organic Machine
Instead of viewing this as irony, I like to look at it in two manners:

1. as glorifying the Omnipotence, Power, and Goodness of God.
2. recognition of the power of perspective in justifying paradoxes: Although we have genuine free will, at the fullness of time, God’s Will will be done our earth as it is in heaven and there is no other option, because in the beginning, He ensured His plan of bringing genuine free-willed beings to Truely Love one another, as He does, would work. Therefore, there is an understanding of how human nature is free to will as it pleases, however has no option but to fulfill according to God’s Word.

I would greatly appreciate your time and efforts to help me understand what you are telling me. I am sorry, I do not have the intelligence you do, to understand what you are telling me in simple terms.

Thoughts?

No, your views are the antithesis of the mechanical view adopted by the Enlightenment thinkers. They employed Newtonian physics as a way of excluding God from the world.They reject the idea of God as understood by Christians, and the concept of divine love, of providence disappears among them. As for the paradoxes of our faith.such as the God-man, they are dismissed as unintelligible. This because it does not submit to the “discipline” of the scientific method. As for the human will, it too, is treated as a kind of illusion.

 

[jochoa]

No, your views are the antithesis of the mechanical view adopted by the Enlightenment thinkers. They employed Newtonian physics as a way of excluding God from the world.They reject the idea of God as understood by Christians, and the concept of divine love, of providence disappears among them. As for the paradoxes of our faith.such as the God-man, they are dismissed as unintelligible. This because it does not submit to the “discipline” of the scientific method. As for the human will, it too, is treated as a kind of illusion.

Thank you very much, my friend, for helping me understand his words. You have helped me get back to a peace of mind, sooner than later. And I greatly appreciate you for taking the time to do so!

 

[domandcarols]

Well, Do what Saint. Patrick did.
When St. Patrick was preaching Christianity to the Irish pagans he, like you, had a difficult time explaining the Holy Trinity.
St. Patrick noticed a plant that infested Ireland. The Clover. The Clover had three seperate leafs, but was one plant.
This is what St. Patrick used to teach about the Holy Trinity.
Three separate leaves but one whole plant.
How about you give it a shot.

Good Luck and
God Bless

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Stanczyk,

Okay as promised here is the discussion of the definition of proceeding. I am typing this from the A Tour of the Summa by Msgr. Paul Glen.

Why I quote from this book a lot is that it takes the questions that St. Thomas answers in his Summa Theologica and break them down. It says them consisely. What he does in the Summa is pose a question, then says three objections, maybe throws in an observation, and then he answers the question by saying, “I answer that…” and then that is followed by three responses to the three objections he has just raised. What this other book does is take his “I answer that” phrases and says them in a way that can be quite understandable.

The Proceeding of the Divine Persons

1. Scripture indicates a proceeding in God. This cannot be a creatural movement, nor an operation [of which we will discuss soon.] involving change. It must be in God and of God. And it must be in the order of intellect and will [that is, the intellective order] for this is the most perfect type of proceeding.
2. There is in God an eternal proceeding, likened to our human knowing, in which God [the Father] eternally begets the Word. NOTE: This says NOTHING of the Incarnatiom. The Word is God the Son. This proceeding is generation.
3. There is in God an eteranl proceeding, likened to our willing or loving, in which Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. The Spirit is God the Holy Ghost. This proceeding is called procession.
4. The two proceedings cannot both be called generation, for one is in the order of knowing, and the other is in the order of willing or loving. Speaking in terms of our creatural human processes, the mind begets reality by knowing; the mind generates the mental word or concept. Hence the divine proceeding which is likened to knowing is rightly called generation. And since, when we know a lovable being that can reciprocate our love, love proceeds from lover and beloved, the second divine proceeding is rightly called procession.
5. Proceedings of the intellective order which are in and of the agent, are two only: only in the likeness of knowing; one in the likeness of willing. Hence in God there are not other proceedings than generation or procession. There are other relations, as we shall see but no other proceedings.

Tell me what you think on this.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Stanczyk,

I did not know how to respond to this. Quotes are what I orginally quoted that you responded to. Your responses are in red. My responses are in blue. Truly this has got to be the most colorful post that I have ever submitted here at Catholic Answers Forum.

Originally Posted by Anathama Sit
I know a great deal may seem extemporeanus at first but it will tie in the end. [This is taken from the Summa Theolgica by St. Thomas Acquinas however it is taken from a book Tour of the Summa by Msgr. Paul J. Glen another reference that is great to have.] *

Relation [The Divine Relations] - A relation is the standing of a thing with reference to something other. A relation or relationship, exists between things that can be in some way referred to one another. In God there are real proceedings [let me know if I need to write out what this means as well], and in consequence there are real relations in God.*

You’ll have to pardon my ignorance but I’m afraid you will need to clarify “proceeding” for me.

Does the above make sense in the light of what I wrote of proceeding earlier in this thread?

Originally Posted by Anathama Sit
A real relation in God cannot be an accidental, for there are no accidentals in God. As a thing, an entity, a real relation in God is one with the divine essence.

I see the logic in this, but again, I think I need to understand "“proceedings” for this to truly make sense to me.

Does this now make sense as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anathama Sit
The Divine Persons -

A Person is a complete substance of the rational order.

A person is a substance, not an accidental. A person is a complete and subsistent substance, not a mere member or part of a greater substance. A person is of the rational order, or has a rational nature, that is, a person has [at least fundamentally] understanding and free will.

Applied to God the name person means a divine relation as subsisting, that is, as perfectly existing in the order of infinite substance. What actually substis is, as we have said, the divine nature and essence itself. The undivided nature of God subsits perfectly in each of the three Persons, so that, while they are really distinct Persons, they are on and the same God.

Ok, so just to check if I am getting this right, I have a visual analogy. Have you ever seen one of those pictures that looks like a young woman, but when viewed upside down can be seen as an old woman? Each is comprised of the same substance, and each way of viewing it is a rational order of the substance, independent of the other. Is this something like what you are getting at? Or am I way off?

This is hard to explain. You see when you are looking at a picture you are seeing two different pictures in the same picture. There is an agent that enters in here that cannot be compared to that of the Trinity. And that agent is seeing the picture and being able to discern its different aspects.

Perhaps I should submit another post and talk of the simplicity and unity of God. Tell me what you think, would this be helpful? I realize that I should have gone in a more systematic way in discussing the Trinity.

Read what I quoted again when I post the simplicity and unity of God. You see there are no differences in His essence or nature. That is all the same. His essence and nature is of a Divine Nature and Essence. However the relations of God are discernible or different, but his Nature and Essence remain the same. [Now that is mind boggling. I am in awe just writing this sentence. Quis ut Deus? Nihilo. Who is like unto God? Nothing.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anathama Sit
Persons and Essence in God

Because God is absolutely simple in His being, the divine relations, as things or entities, are identified with God’s essence. Essence in God is not really distinct from Person, and still the three Persons are really distinct from one another. They are real relations in God which involve relative opposition in their terminals [The Persons] but not at all in their essence.

Therefore the threee Persons in God, while really distinct from one another, are one and the same undivided and indivisible divine essence.

---

God in His Essence and in His Personhood is unchanging and eternal.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

My patience you have, but you might be giving me too much credit when it comes to understanding I am a little baffled by “terminals,” is that strictly interchangeable with “persons?”

I feel like I am almost there but not quite. Can I impose on your patience and have you explain it a little more?

You have got patience as well, seeing that I am blundering a bit in these explanations.

Let me look up “terminals” in the context of what I as quoting.

Once we have a bit more of a grasp on God’s Nature and Essence [and a very tiny bit of a grasph here considering of Whom we are discussing.] then we can return to the other question.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit