Is the entire Trinity omnipresent?

[Goya]

Think of it like this, we have a soul, spirit and a body. All 3 parts make up 1 person, who we are. Our spirit has a purpose, our soul has a purpose and our body has a purpose. God has 3 parts, all 3 are 1, but all 3 are distinct persons. That’s how we are made in His image. Another way to think of it is, that you can be an aunt, a mother and a sister to someone. All three titles make up one person but all three titles have a different function. You’re a different person to your niece or nephew than you are to your children or your brother or sister. It’s kind of like that, but all 3 persons of the Trinity are distinct persons but still one at the same time. Maybe that helps.

I’ve heard all of these analogies–and they work for the purposes I mentioned above–enough to keep one’s faith functional, and to move on…

But it’s still an over simplification. Your examples amount to ONE PERSON.

ONE PERSON as aunt, sister, mother, is still ONE PERSON. A person comprised of a soul, body and mind (or spirit), is still ONE PERSON.

God is three distinct PERSONS–(or ‘hypostases,’ but for our purposes here, we’ll stick with ‘persons’). Stated differently (paraphrasing one of the early Church Councils–perhaps Chalcedon, but I don’t really remember):

*"The Father is not the son;

The Son is not the Holy Spirit; and

The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Yet they are one God. Three distinct persons, bound by a common will."*

The Son was begotten of the Father before all ages. The Son became man; not the Father. The Son became Incarnate by the Holy Spirit (not by the Father). The Son prayed to the Father. The Father was well pleased with the Son. The Son ascended into Heaven, and returned to be with the Father. The Son is “…seated at the right hand of the Father.” The Son will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. The Son prophesized that the Father would send forth ‘the Paraclete’, or the Holy Spirit (or ‘Spirit of Truth’), until He was to come back again. The Holy Spirit was begotten of the Father and of the Son (unless you’re Eastern Catholic, and dispute the ‘filoque’ clause–in which case, you believe the Holy Spirit was begotten only of the Father)…

Distinct PERSONS. Not distinct roles, characteristiscs, or parts of the same person. DISTINCT PERSONS.

…and again, your analgies–while functional–do not address the concerns I brought up. to-wit:

*What is the significance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, in light of omnipresence, applied to the entire Trinity?

What was point/purpose/need of the Paraclete, in light of same? (seems a bit redundant to my humble intellect).

…and what was Christ talking about being present, when 2 or more are gathered together in His name, if He is ‘omnipresent’ along with the remaining persons of the Trinity? *

That’s my point. You can try to simplify it all you want–but all you’re really doing, is ‘punting’. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. IMO, it is incomprehensible, inexplicable, and irreconcilable with our notions of logic and rationality. Better to ‘punt’, than to spend decades of your life wrestling with it, to arrive at the same conclusion–it’s beyond our ability to comprehend. It’s quite simply not ours to know.

IOW: a divine mystery.

But please don’t take my word for it; read St. Augustine’s On the Trinity–he already did the dirty work, and wrestled with it for probably about a decade, and didn’t, imo, succeed in wrapping his mind–and certainly not the reader’s mind–around it. But he does make you feel like your in good company–he’s a pretty smart guy.

 

[Theophorus]

You seem to enjoy wrestling with trinitarian matters; pesonally, it gives me fits. (I trudged through most of St. Augustine’s On the Trinity, and all but found myself even more confused…). So, rather than attempting to rebut your assertions, or the like–perhaps I could tap that fertile intellect of yours, for some light–as you seem to enjoy this stuff …so:

1. What does ‘omnipresence’ mean, that I apparently got it wrong?
2. What is the significance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, in light of omnipresence, applied to the entire Trinity?
3. What was point/purpose/need of the Paraclete, in light of same? (seems a bit redundant to my humble intellect).
4. …and what was Christ talking about being present, when 2 or more are gathered together, if He is ‘omnipresent’ along with the remaining persons of the Trinity? (Again…beyond my pay-grade…over my head…).

Any light you can shed on these issues (just the ones I addressed in my post ot which you replied)–would be greatly appreciated–and I mean that sincerely–I usually just punt on matters of the Trinity, as it’s very frustrating (though also, admittedly, enticing).

Thank you. I will try my best to answer your questions, but it is far easier to say what God is not than to say what He is(i.e. God Can’t be mortal, or have potential therefore He is Immortal and all powerful etc.)

1. I don’t think that you got Omnipresence wrong exactly, it does mean that God is present to all realities. Maybe you are thinking of omnipresence in a material way(which is understandable) which would exclude the persons acting independently and with distinction if they share the same omnipresent essence?

But Omnipresence is said in many ways.

On the level of existence and being, God is in all things(Omnipresent) in two ways:

a) As the cause of their existence, our created being is the proper effect of Gods being
in this way we participate in Gods being (not in us by essence which would be pantheism but as their cause) and by giving being in this way to all that exists God fills all of reality in an immaterial way.

b)As the object of the actions(operations is a better word as it covers more) of the acting subject, This IMO deals with your fourth point, 2-3 gathered in His name. To believe in God is to participate in Divine Knowledge, to strive to know God and to act for this end (in this case by gathering in His name) does not alter Gods general Omnipresence. For example when someone commits a heinous act like cold blooded murder, God is in the place itself, and He is even present as the cause of their being, but He is not present in the actions(operations) of the murderer as they have rejected God in this act.

I will stick with these two if that is ok. We can also speak of God’s presence as it relates to Grace, Hope, and Charity which are different to Omnipresence on the level of existence they lie more in the supernatural order and in Revelation and I don’t know too much about the interrelations here.

On point two and three, building on general omnipresence. The divine essence is fully present wherever any one person of the trinity is present. Christ as God, in the Eucharist is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but in a way that is much more concrete than omnipresent as cause of all being(not that cause of all being is unimportant!), or even as object of human operations. In the Eucharist we can(and this is entirely miraculous as far as I know) point to the Divine essence under the species of Bread and Wine and Say God is really truly present here in a way that is impossible in general omnipresence. However I know there is more to say on this than I can. Likewise The Holy Spirit as Person is the entire Divine essence of God acting in a much more focused way than general omnipresence however this is defiantly on the level of Grace and I am still learning this bit.

Just as an aside, as much as I love St. Augustine, Some of his writing on God, though brilliant, is tortured and overly complicated. He admitted himself that he had great problems in conceptualising an Immaterial God and this was the root of a lot of his problems here.

If you would like better information I would suggest “The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God” by Fr. Gilles Emery OP. I found it clear and accessible and it gives a good, broad, overview without too much technical jargon. He also has some more technical works focusing specifically on the Trinitarian theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is also excellent.

My own interest is in Thomistic-Aristotelian examinations of these things and,since you managed to get through St. Augustine, if you ever have the time and inclination there is also the first part of the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas Questions 1-46-ish if you were interested.

I hope this is of some help.

 

[thenobes]

You seem to enjoy wrestling with trinitarian matters; pesonally, it gives me fits. (I trudged through most of St. Augustine’s On the Trinity, and all but found myself even more confused…). So, rather than attempting to rebut your assertions, or the like–perhaps I could tap that fertile intellect of yours, for some light–as you seem to enjoy this stuff …so:

1. What does ‘omnipresence’ mean, that I apparently got it wrong?
2. What is the significance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, in light of omnipresence, applied to the entire Trinity?
3. What was point/purpose/need of the Paraclete, in light of same? (seems a bit redundant to my humble intellect).
4. …and what was Christ talking about being present, when 2 or more are gathered together, if He is ‘omnipresent’ along with the remaining persons of the Trinity? (Again…beyond my pay-grade…over my head…).

Any light you can shed on these issues (just the ones I addressed in my post ot which you replied)–would be greatly appreciated–and I mean that sincerely–I usually just punt on matters of the Trinity, as it’s very frustrating (though also, admittedly, enticing).

I’m wondering. Could it be that God will communicate with us in only one Person at a time? Thus while Christ is here, the Holy Spirit, though here with Him also, is prevented from communicating to us?

Not modalism, because the other two Persons may be relating to each other as we relate to the third Person.

I don’t know, but it seems to clean up some loose ends that the Bible leaves strewn about.

peace
steve