I'm leaving Catholicism

[TheDefaultMan]

am not sure about that actually. After all, we are held to believe God is one. Distinctions we made in Trinity is very much logical (or so is my perception of it). Same way we are “required” to make logical distinction between humanity and Divinity of the Son, but is it “real” distinction of composition? No.

I see. Take a look at this passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

[254] The divine persons are really distinct from one another* . "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

I understand. I am not trying to use Bible to convince you, but to further elaborate and explain what belief is. I wouldn’t try to use Bible to convince someone who is thinking about leaving Christianity, as I wouldn’t try to use Church documents to convince Protestant.

I understand, and that’s okay. I should let you know that I’ve been a Catholic for quite a long time and I’ve been interested in philosophy for a long time as well, so you don’t have to do that. I’m more or less familiar with Catholic teaching.

 

[TULIPed]

I’m leaving Catholicism, and Christianity more broadly, because I cannot reconcile the God of Classical Theism, who is absolutely simple, with a Trinity.

Fair enough. The Trinity is challenging for me too.

Who do you think Jesus is/was?

 

[VonDerTann]

Our God is a God for all: The brilliant; the simple; and anyone and everyone in between.

I say this with as much charity and respect as I can muster: You’re way, waaaaay overthinking this.

What I see is someone throwing out Christianity for reasons like this:

“[t]o say that his personhood differs from his Divine Essence is to deny simplicity and to turn God into a composite being, thus requiring that something be metaphysically prior to him, which would deny that he’s the First Cause.”

–Huh?

Catholicism isn’t a philosophy textbook; we don’t need an IQ of 150 to understand it. It is a religion of love for all, by all who follow it. The rest is just details.

What I respectfully believe you’re doing is what many atheists have done: Finding all sorts of deep, esoteric arguments for why something doesn’t make sense to you (even though most people have no idea what you’re talking about), then leaping to the conclusion that “because this doesn’t make sense to me, personally, I’m throwing it out.” I can only respond thus:

1. I too echo the sentiments that you’re forcing God into the little logical boxes you’re making for him, then basically saying “I can’t make him fit, so I’m tossing his religion out!”
2. I am fortunate/blessed enough to have really studied some of the real heavyweights of philosophy, and I encourage you to read all of Thomas Aquinas (all of him) then decide if Catholicism makes no sense intellectually. If it did for Thomas (with his IQ of like 5000!) it does for me.
3. Most philosophers admit that at heart many of their beliefs came down to faith.That IMHO is why Christianity is a religion for all: You don’t need to parcel out each and every one of these esoteric arguments to understand what it is.

I edit to add: There is zero other religion in the entire world with the rich intellectual traditional of Catholicism. People like Aquinas; Albertus Magnus; Augustine, etc., are really, really philosophical titans, bar none, and, again, the fact that they believed Catholicism passed intellectual muster is enough for a simpleton like me.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

To be frank, I’m not sure. I haven’t thought much about how to explain the historical events of Jesus of Nazareth. What I do know with relative certainty is that Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the vast vast majority of Protestantism cannot be true given the contradictions.

 

[Annie]

I think the main problem is that we have only human language with which to explain something beyond human experience.

It would be like explaining a sunset to someone born blind. His experience does not include color, so one can only explain by analogy: a sunset is like a certain piece of music, or like the way some fabric feels…

So to me, our expressions of the way God is are inaccurate simply because we lack the experience/language with which to explain Him. God is so much huger, so much more multi-dimensional, that we simply lack the words with which to really accurately portray Him.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

To be frank, I’m not sure. I haven’t thought much about how to explain the historical events of Jesus of Nazareth. What I do know with relative certainty is that Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the vast vast majority of Protestantism cannot be true given the contradictions.

They cannot all be wholly true given that they differ on crucial issues. However, that does not preclude the possibility that one of them is wholly true, and the other two are mistaken in those issues on which they disagree.

I also offer this up on the Trinity:
Fulton Sheen - The Blessed Trinity

However, as others have said, the question of leaving or staying rests on the question of who you say that Jesus is. Do you believe that Jesus is God?

 

[Maximian]

To deny the PNC (Principle of Non-Contradiction) would lead to absurdity.

Absolutely. I wish more Catholics would take this on board!

However, it is not true that you “might as well say” that God exists and does not exist. That would be an absolute contradiction, whereas we are speaking of a contradiction only according to the laws of created physics (a three egg omelette cannot simultaneously be each of the three eggs in its entirety). We are saying that God is not (and indeed by definition cannot be) bound by the laws of His own creation. That is why He can perform miracles.

 

[TULIPed]

I’d start with who Jesus is, and what he talked about and how he lived. After all, Christianity is all about…well - Christ. He’s an interesting fellow. For one thing - almost nobody has anything bad to say about him. Gandhi, Muhammad - pick a religious person or group (those two guys represent pretty large ones) - they all say Jesus, via his teachings and the way he lived, was a great teacher and man. Pretty solid CV this guy, no?

If you really read and think about him, and still come away empty handed, so be it. My guess is though, that if you spend a little time really studying him, you’ll be better for it.

 

[Wesrock]

To say that his personhood differs from his Divine Essence is to deny simplicity and to turn God into a composite being, thus requiring that something be metaphysically prior to him, which would deny that he’s the First Cause.

I’ve packed away all my books, including the ones on Catholic theology, but I’ll try to address this one entirely from my own knowledge.

There is no difference between the persons and the Divine Essence, and there is no essential difference between each of the persons. The differences are only between the persons and those differences are only relational. The Divine Essence is Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, and Paternity is the Essence, Filiation is the Essence, and Spiration is the Essence. However, relationally Paternity and Filiation are mutually opposed and not reducible to each other. And Paternity/Filiation are both opposed to Spiration. The processions that begin in God and term in God have opposing relations that in themselves are identical to the essence. There is no difference in “what” (meaning the nature or essence) is being proceeded from and “what” is being proceeded to.

So that which generates is no different than that which is generated in essence–in the “what” or dare I say “object” (so to speak in both cases)–but relationally generating and being generated are opposed and not reducible to each other. The Father and Word are not different things, and both are identical to the essence. The only difference between them is the relation.

 

[Dudd]

I also left Christianity because of the Trinity. I have never been able to accept it for many reasons. In fact, I consider it the most divisive doctrine ever to enter the Church and history proves that it was. Trinity has no bearing on ones salvation, and people should not condemn others whether one believes or doesn’t believe in a Trinity. The very words of Jesus show God the Father is greater and that’s what I believe. To say Jesus is co-equal to the Father is very contradictory.

Regardless, I still go to a Catholic Church.

 

[ontheway1]

As Tolle Lege wrote: reasoning…is not the only way to approach or understand God

 

[Vico]

…

Saint Thomas Aquinas describes the Holy Trinity (and it is different than that of Saint Augustine). For the Holy Trinity, the relations are identical in their being to one essence yet not identical to one another since they are not identical to the essence absolutely, rather involve a respect toward another. Relations of origin are not accidents added to God’s essence but are the divine essence. The term persona includes the divine essence.

An eastern expression is perichoresis: mutual interpenetration.

 

[SeekSalvation]

I’m leaving Catholicism, and Christianity more broadly, because I cannot reconcile the God of Classical Theism, who is absolutely simple, with a Trinity.

To say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same Divine Essence implies that they are themselves the same, which contradicts Church teaching.

To say that they differ as persons but not in essence doesn’t make sense given Divine Simplicity (because God’s Personhood must be synonymous with his Existence and all of his other attributes).

To say that his personhood differs from his Divine Essence is to deny simplicity and to turn God into a composite being, thus requiring that something be metaphysically prior to him, which would deny that he’s the First Cause.

To appeal to God being a “mystery” is only to beg the question. I do not doubt for a second that God (Pure Actuality, Ipsum Esse) is a mystery in the sense that we will never be able to truly grasp
his essence, but this doesn’t apply to concepts that are logically contradictory.

Don’t get me wrong. I still respect the Catholic Church, and I’m open to listening to your guys’ objections and I’m more than willing to engage, I just cannot be Catholic if it means accepting logically contradictory doctrines.

The question you should have been asking yourself all along is, “Do you believe God is Truth”?

I think your post has an implied answer.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The very words of Jesus show God the Father is greater and that’s what I believe. To say Jesus is co-equal to the Father is very contradictory.

“Father and I are one” is also what Jesus said. It is therefore contradictory as well- which is why Trinity is important. Trinity shows us how God relates to himself and hence helps us understand how we ought to relate to ourselves. It has bearing on salvation. Greatness of Father in relation to Son is in Monarchy of the Father, not the essence of the Father nor polytheistic interpretation- as both those would contradict unity of God and fact each Person of Trinity is in perfect unity with others, to the point of being one God.

There is logical distinction between Son and the Father, yet Son says “he who has seen me has seen the Father” and “Father’s Will is my own”. The Father also says “This is my Son” about Son, yet Son says “Father and I are one”. Son says “I will be with you forever” yet he says “I will leave and give you Holy Spirit to stay with you”.

I think “Father is greater than I” is also a great quote for this.

 

[fide]

I am amazed (please forgive the use of a much-overused word these days - I mean it seriously and literally) by the way the Trinity resolves what I see as the main objection to other “gods” that are “one” in a more expected way. A god who is the only god, and is of one person only, cannot accomplish the two defining characteristics of the Christian God: that He is Truth, and He is Love.

It seems that these two are necessary and essential to God. Otherwise love could not be necessary of creatures made to come into communion with Him. God cannot command, enable, and come into union with creatures in any way that I at least can imagine, except by and in love. Hence love must be eternally true, and love must be in God essentially, and so must Truth. There can be no love that is true, except that which is in God Himself.

However, for God to eternally love, there must exist at least two Persons who are God - for how could He love in complete truth - love With complete love - except with a Person of His own nature. If He were to be a single Person, yet under necessary obligation to create a perfectly lovable Person to have love-communion with, He would have a defect in His own essence, that would oblige Him to do something - He would be in servitude in His own divine essence. This seems a contradiction.

This, btw, eliminates Allah as a possible true God. Who would He have been loving, before He created human persons? Condescending mercy can be made credible of such a God, but not self-giving love. Complete lack of mercy, it seems to me, can also be credible for such a God. But love? I see no place or possibility in such a single-person God.

This also places an intrinsic tension within Judaism - a necessary (whether conscious and explicit or not) need for a Messiah, and more, a divine Messiah! Unless the Messiah IS not only “a son of God” in the sense of a very holy but created man, but The Eternal and Begotten God the Son. The truth of “Only Begotten” can be probed and essential - but “left to the reader”.

So Judaism is possible - it seems to me - only as a wise and prudent step toward Trinity. Then, the required truth of simplicity in Truth and Love is resolved by a Trinity of Persons in the One God.

 

[fhansen]

One of the biggest obstacles for me-to leave Christianity altogether- is that I met God via that faith. I mean the God that Jesus revealed, the God of sheer goodness, mercy, and love, the God who makes love absolutely foundational to this universe, the God who would humble Himself to suffer and die in human flesh on a cross at the hands of His own creation, is the God of Christianity. And that God, that most priceless and worthy God, is only to be found here as I’ve observed-at least only in that full revelation.

 

[BlueMaxx]

I’m leaving Catholicism, and Christianity more broadly, because I cannot reconcile the God of Classical Theism, who is absolutely simple, with a Trinity.

To say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same Divine Essence implies that they are themselves the same, which contradicts Church teaching.

To say that they differ as persons but not in essence doesn’t make sense given Divine Simplicity (because God’s Personhood must be synonymous with his Existence and all of his other attributes).

To say that his personhood differs from his Divine Essence is to deny simplicity and to turn God into a composite being, thus requiring that something be metaphysically prior to him, which would deny that he’s the First Cause.

To appeal to God being a “mystery” is only to beg the question. I do not doubt for a second that God (Pure Actuality, Ipsum Esse) is a mystery in the sense that we will never be able to truly grasp
his essence, but this doesn’t apply to concepts that are logically contradictory.

Don’t get me wrong. I still respect the Catholic Church, and I’m open to listening to your guys’ objections and I’m more than willing to engage, I just cannot be Catholic if it means accepting logically contradictory doctrines.

This sounds like a great opportunity for you to find a Priest, a good souled one who you get along with and start having these discussions with him as a spiritual advisor.

I know you say you are “leaving”…but perhaps this is just a painful growth spurt?

I only know this from experience…

Either way, God be with you on your journey for answers…

M

 

[VeryBlessed]

I wish I had time to read through this entire interchange… But to the OP I want to say, you might want to consider doubting yourself more than doubting this apparent paradox. Is it possible that with your very fine (but still limited) mind, you’re having a hard time wrapping your mind around a God who is infinite? On some levels God will never completely make sense to us, because of our limited minds.

And let me ask you this, do you really want a God so small that your mind could fully comprehend him? I don’t. I’d be an atheist if He were so small that I could completely understand him. I delight in the crazy bigness of God.

Consider Peter’s amazing response in John 6 at the end of the bread of life discourse. Peter said, in a sense, Jesus, I don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about, but I’ll never leave you just because I don’t fully get you. His response is a huge contrast to those who walked away from him. Neither understood what he was saying, but Peter stuck with him despite not getting it.

I’m so glad you’re probing the things of God so deeply. Don’t give up. He is eternally fascinating. For the rest of eternity, we will be delighted over and over again with discovering more wonderful things about him.

 

[TULIPed]

I have never been able to accept it for many reasons.

Fair enough. How did you feel about the whole “rising from the dead” thing?

I say this not to be flippant. I’m sincerely curious about those who can swallow the resurrection (not to mention walking on water, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, claiming to be God, etc. etc.), but pick the Trinity to say “enough is enough!”

As for me, I fell in love with Jesus - the shepherd, the leader, the friend, the healer, the King, the crucified for me. Once I decided he was for real - that he is who is claims he is - the rest was pretty easy.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

There is no difference between the persons and the Divine Essence, and there is no essential difference between each of the persons. The differences are only between the persons and those differences are only relational. The Divine Essence is Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, and Paternity is the Essence, Filiation is the Essence, and Spiration is the Essence. However, relationally Paternity and Filiation

I do understand that within God there is something like a Trinity, but my problem is that there cannot be a real distinction between them. Sure, we can make a logical distinction between the Paternity, Filiation, and Spiration, but to say that they are really distinct would lead to absurd conclusions.

To say that the Father has the Divine Essence is just to say that the Father is God, since the essence of a thing is what it is. Therefore, we can say that the Father = God. But once we say that for the Son and the Holy Spirit, the conclusion that logically follows is that the Father is equal to the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So I can understand the rationale behind the Trinity, but the conclusion that follows is that the distinction between God as Father, God as Son and God as Holy Spirit is the same as the distinction between God’s Existence, His Omnipotence, His Omnipresence, etc. Only logical (or possibly virtual) but not real.