I'm leaving Catholicism

[rdj69]

Alright, I give up.

You are far too confident in your own knowledge, and it’s blinding you. You cannot learn what you think you already know.

I really suggest that instead of abandoning your faith for such a prideful reason, you instead pray to God to humiliate you.

Best wishes.

 

[Mountie]

I’m not going to pretend that the Trinity is deducible by human reason alone. Even the great philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas noted that. But I will supply a brief Aristotelian account that may be of some help to clarify how a Triune God is fully compatible with classical Greek metaphysics.

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.

This analysis is a misunderstanding. Each Divine Person having the same essence means that they are all the same God, which is Catholic teaching. What this deduction leads us to is solely that They are not 3 gods but One God. The Father is the Same One God as the Son and the Holy Ghost, but They are distinct persons. And the concept of Three Persons does not contradict divine simplicity. They are not three parts of God but fully God themselves. The Father is fully God. The Son is fully God. The Holy Ghost is fully God. I think that your articulation of the Trinity and divine simplicity results as a misunderstanding of the community of the Trinity and divine simplicity (explained below).

Will we ever be able to grasp this concept? No. It also seems rash to reject it because it is not comprehensible. Additionally, because God is ineffable, our words and definitions are not accurate descriptions of God. Even though we may apply words like simple to God, we have to realize that God is further from that definition than closer to it. Our descriptions are incredibly limited ways of grasping a higher metaphysical being than us.

As a final explanation, Aristotle defined God as thought contemplating thought. If we are being genuine, Aristotle’s God is not a personal God. By acknowledging a God that cares about you, you are already admitting that the classical theistic position has some limitations. By even ascribing personhood to God, you are branching away from that metaphysical framework first concretely outlined in Aristotle. Personhood is an additive to God that came after the classical theistic position. This does not mean that it is a contradiction, but it isn’t explicitly tied to God’s simplicity.

I can think of the Trinity in this way. It may be heretical (not intentionally) like most explanations of the Trinity, but I think that it is an explanation of God that can help us make sense of Him while admitting that it is inherently flawed. The Father is the Creator. God creates. God, being pure act, thus creates through God, which is the Logos (the Son). Because God is pure act, the Logos is fully God despite being begotten by the Creator. Because the Logos is God, the Logos also shares in all of the divine attributes, making the Logos also thought. Thus, the Logos thinks about His own divinity and loves it (since It is good). That act of love is the Holy Ghost, also fully God on account of divine actuality. While it is definitely imperfect, it is a “classical theistic” way of approaching the Trinity. And of course, since we are sensible beings, God would relate to us in a sensible way. That’s why He gave us revelation, most notably in the Incarnation, to have a stronger sense of who God is.

 

[TULIPed]

You are far too confident in your own knowledge, and it’s blinding you. You cannot learn what you think you already know.

Well said.

I loves me some “I’m too smart for faith” threads.

#smartestguysintheroom

 

[TheDefaultMan]

This analysis is a misunderstanding. Each Divine Person having the same essence means that they are all the same God, which is Catholic teaching. What this deduction leads us to is solely that They are not 3 gods but One God. The Father is the Same One God as the Son and the Holy Ghost, but They are distinct persons

I don’t disagree with any of this. The problem lies in how we are to define the distinction between God the Father, God the Son, and The Holy Spirit. What seems to follow from Divine Simplicity is that the distinction is merely logical (only exists in the mind) and not real (exists extra-mentally).

The problem is that the Catholic Church explicitly condemned the position I’m arguing for.

As a final explanation, Aristotle defined God as thought contemplating thought. If we are being genuine, Aristotle’s God is not a personal God. By acknowledging a God that cares about you, you are already admitting that the classical theistic position has some limitations. By even ascribing personhood to God, you are branching away from that metaphysical framework first concretely outlined in Aristotle. Personhood is an additive to God that came after the classical theistic position. This does not mean that it is a contradiction, but it isn’t explicitly tied to God’s simplicity.

The way “personhood” is defined by Thomas Aquinas is a rational nature, which Aristotle’s God seems to have (given that it, like you said, is a thought contemplating thought) So I don’t really see much of a problem with believing both in Classical Theism and in God being personal. Plus, Ed Feser’s arguments (which are the arguments that convinced me) arrive at a God which has something analagous to an Intellect and a Will, meaning that it has a rational nature, making it personal.

I can think of the Trinity in this way. It may be heretical (not intentionally) like most explanations of the Trinity, but I think that it is an explanation of God that can help us make sense of Him while admitting that it is inherently flawed. The Father is the Creator. God creates. God, being pure act, thus creates through God, which is the Logos (the Son). Because God is pure act, the Logos is fully God despite being begotten by the Creator. Because the Logos is God, the Logos also shares in all of the divine attributes, making the Logos also thought. Thus, the Logos thinks about His own divinity and loves it (since It is good). That act of love is the Holy Ghost, also fully God on account of divine actuality. While it is definitely imperfect, it is a “classical theistic” way of approaching the Trinity.

Again, I don’t disagree with this. The problem lies in how they are distinct from one another.

 

[Mountie]

I think that you raise a fair point. I personally arrived to Catholicism after first making a connection with Aristotelian metaphysics, although I think my spirituality is more Platonic

After studying Aristotelian metaphysics, I thought the Jewish conception of God best fill the bill so to speak. I find it fascinating how the Jewish conception of God “evolves” throughout the Old Testament. It’s utterly brilliant in my opinion. After studying Jesus, I came to the conclusion that He is the Messiah awaited in the Pharisaic tradition.

That’s my perspective anyways, irrelevant or helpful. I may not understand specifically your perspective and position and where it’s officially condemned in Catholicism. Would you mind explicitly stating (perhaps again) what you believe and where it has been officially condemned? That may be a beneficial starting point, for me anyways.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Would you mind explicitly stating (perhaps again) what you believe and where it has been officially condemned? That may be a beneficial starting point, for me anyways.

Sure. What I believe is that there is no real distinction between God the Father, God the Son and The Holy Spirit. The same way that God’s omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. are not really distinct in God. They are only logically distinct.

Real distinctions are distinctions that exist outside of the mind, or outside of ways of thinking. Logical distinctions are only distinctions in ways to think about the same thing. For example, the distinction between an unmarried man and a bachelor is not a real distinction, because all unmarried men are bachelors and vice versa. There is, however, a *logical distinction, in that the term “unmarried man” emphasizes certain things that couldn’t otherwise be emphasized by the term “bachelor.”

This is how God’s attributes are viewed. When we speak of God’s omnipresence as opposed to his Existence, we are emphasizing certain things about him, or analyzing him through a specific lense, even though in reality there is no distinction between God’s omnipresence and his Existence.

My reasoning is that if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really distinct, it would mean that there is a distinction in God that doesn’t only exist in the mind. It would be some kind of metaphysical/ontological distinction that exists in God. This can only be possible if God is a composite of act/potency (since distinctions are due to differences in potency). But this obviously can’t be since God is Pure Act and thus has no potency whatsoever.

This view (the view that I’m arguing for) is condemned by the Church. The Catechism says
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.

 

[rdj69]

Real distinctions are distinctions that exist outside of the mind

Outside of who’s mind? Nothing exists outside of God’s mind, so expecting some reality about God to exist outside of the divine mind is nonsensical - all that exists is a product of the divine mind.

 

[Mountie]

That’s a helpful clarification. Thank you!

My reasoning is that if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really distinct, it would mean that there is a distinction in God that doesn’t only exist in the mind.

If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really distinct, why would it necessarily follow that there is a distinction in God? I emphasized the word “in” because it inherently implies a composite structure, at least from my perspective. There is no distinction in God, insofar as a distinction implies division. God is not divided. Each Person is fully God and shares the same essence as the other Persons. God is the essence.

By distinction, I mean a relational distinction in the community of the Trinity that subsists within the inner life of God. There are two processions, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son, and there are four relationships. The Father actively generates the Son. The Son is passively generated by the Father. The Father and Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son. This relational distinction is what I am referring to when I talk about the real distinctions of the Trinity.

I hope that this clarifies my position and perhaps you can comment with any concerns or additions that you would like to share.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Outside of who’s mind? Nothing exists outside of God’s mind, so expecting some reality about God to exist outside of the divine mind is nonsensical - all that exists is a product of the divine mind.

Our minds.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really distinct, why would it necessarily follow that there is a distinction in God?

There are actually a few ways to explain why this doesn’t work. For starters, as I’ve already mentioned, a real relational distinction has to imply an ontological distinction, otherwise it wouldn’t be real in the sense of being outside of our minds. An ontological distinction in the inner life of God implies multiplicity by nature of it being an ontological distinction. It obviously can’t have an ontological multiplicity as it is Purely Simple.

Another way to show how this doesn’t work is to take into account the meaning of Person. If a person is that which has a rational nature, then it doesn’t seem to make sense as to how there can be 3 persons in God, because a rational nature is having an intellect and will, but the intellect and will are, in God, synonymous with his other attributes. So his personhood has to be identical to the Divine Essence.

 

[rdj69]

Our minds.

But you just said “the mind” originally; are you changing your definition of “real distinction”?

“Real distinctions are distinctions that exist outside the mind” was your original definition.

All that exists, exists within the divine mind, so by your first definition no real distinctions can exist.

But if you want to change the definition to “distinctions that exist outside the human mind” you need to give support for why this is necessarily the case. What is the human mind? It’s not actually one singular thing, each of us has our own. So then a real distinction can exist outside of my mind, so long as it exists in another mind.

But not God’s mind? Why? Why could something exist in our minds but not in God’s? Does that even make sense, considering even our minds exist within God’s mind?

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

I am no theologian. Nor am I a physicist. But I do understand your complaint, just as I understand how some might doubt physics because quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot be reconciled.

We do accept that science is not hokum just because we don’t understand it, but choke on theology because we don’t understand it.

I’m not saying this to be unkind, but a lot of things come down to faith, including much in theology and much in physics. And it might not be the wisest course to reject either one.

 

[OneSheep]

Sure. What I believe is that there is no real distinction between God the Father, God the Son and The Holy Spirit. The same way that God’s omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. are not really distinct in God. They are only logically distinct.

If I might add my own voice here, I find your beliefs compatible with Catholicism.

There are many different ways of looking at God, many images. I think yours makes sense, and it would make even more sense if I knew your experiences and valued voices in the world, voices that to you express God’s voice.

For example, one distinction between Father and Son is that Jesus is considered God incarnate. The Gnostics had a big problem with this, but I think that based on what we now know, those differences could be resolved today without all the persecution and vitriol that occurred at the time.

Does that sound wishy-washy, or does it instead express an open-mindedness? How do you feel about a more relaxed, inclusive Communion? Are you still eating with us?

 

[Mountie]

An ontological distinction in the inner life of God implies multiplicity by nature of it being an ontological distinction.

That claim is true only insofar as a distinction implies division. Something can possess distinctions but remain one. Even material creatures. Take for example someone’s mother, who let’s say is a schoolteacher. She is both a mother and a schoolteacher. Yet, she is still one person. These are real distinctions and not merely logical ways of understanding the same thing.

because a rational nature is having an intellect and will

I think that you are adding to what Aquinas means by “rational nature.” Reason is the ability to possess the conscious reflexibility on your own state of being, to put it in a rather weak sense. Recall how Plato and Aristotle divided up the person (roughly speaking). You have the rational aspect. You have the appetite aspect. You have the vegetative aspect. Your desires belong to the appetite part. There is only one will among the Three Persons. They share a divine will.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

But you just said “the mind” originally; are you changing your definition of “real distinction”?

No, I’m not changing the definition of real distinction. I didn’t just make up this concept out of nowhere. It’s a terminological distinction in NeoScholastic philosophy.

And when most people say “the mind,” they usually refer to the human’s mind unless stated otherwise.

But if you want to change the definition to “distinctions that exist outside the human mind” you need to give support for why this is necessarily the case. What is the human mind? It’s not actually one singular thing, each of us has our own. So then a real distinction can exist outside of my mind, so long as it exists in another mind.

Again, I didn’t change the definition, but sure I’ll answer your question. All human beings have a human mind, and given that human minds are imperfect, it can only fully understand things in light of creation. All knowledge comes through the senses and is abstracted by the intellect, thus, what we can completely understand is restricted to created reality. So, logical distinctions are distinctions that can only be made in the human mind. Not my humand mind only, but all human minds given the nature of human minds.

Which is why when talking about God, we have to make analogical predications using concepts we know from created reality (like power, goodness, intellect, will, etc.). It is imperfect because to talk about God’s intellect and our intellects is to use “intellect” in a way that doesn’t apply the exact same way, so it’s not univocal. It’s not equivocal either because, abstracting from what we know God isn’t, we can come to certain conclusions about him which can be resembled imperfectly using concepts in extra-mental reality.

So, to us they are distinct because given the imperfection of the human mind, which is bound by created reality, but in God they aren’t really distinct.

This topic specifically is quite hard so I hope I did a good job explaining it.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

That claim is true only insofar as a distinction implies division. Something can possess distinctions but remain one. Even material creatures. Take for example someone’s mother, who let’s say is a schoolteacher. She is both a mother and a schoolteacher. Yet, she is still one person. These are real distinctions and not merely logical ways of understanding the same thing.

The thing is, your example does actually imply division. There is a distinction between someone’s property of being a mother and someone’s property of being a school teacher. These properties and the substance (the person) wherein the properties adhere in are not one being per se.

Now the divisions in your example aren’t problematic because we recognize that the person isn’t Pure Act and Absolutely Simple, so, she can plausibly be a composite of substance and accidents/properties, while a Non-composite being cannot.

 

[rdj69]

So, to us they are distinct because given the imperfection of the human mind, which is bound by created reality, but in God they aren’t really distinct.

What are you referring to with “they” here?

 

[TheDefaultMan]

What are you referring to with “they” here?

The Divine Attributes

 

[Mountie]

I think that that is a fair point. However, I would say that while my example is certainly flawed, especially using a composite example to discuss a higher being, it certainly has some merit. There is a distinction when we call God “Creator” and “Sustainer” yet we do not imply division. Those both entail different metaphysical truths. Yet we don’t accept a division there because God obviously cannot be divided. I guess I still don’t follow how a distinction between the Three Divine Persons implies a division in God.

 

[rdj69]

The Divine Attributes

So, you’re saying that the human mind makes a distinction between the divine attributes (love, justice, goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) but that this distinction is not “real” - meaning it doesn’t align with reality. So then what is the reality? That love and justice and goodness and omnipotence and omniscience are all the same? What does that mean? How can these unique, distinct, individual concepts be said to actually be the same? In what sense are they the same?