Jesus "born", Holy Spirit "proceeds"

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_101

Guest
I’m curious how to view the Trinity without using the language of cause-effect which uses time. My original view was that God existed before “in the beginning” but I’ve recently started thinking about how we claim the H.S. “proceeds” from the Father and the Son. How can I better think about the Trinity without a “First step, second step” mentality but still hold the Catholic position of Jesus being “born of the Father” and the H.S. “proceeds from the Father and the Son”?
 
There is no “first-step” “second step” in the Trinity. Jesus and the HS have existed forever, just like the Father. There was never a time when the Father was without the Son and Spirit. I’d recommend reading Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity which deals with the whole God and time question nicely. Here’s a sample,

What then is time?.. Time… is the duration of that which changes; time… is the measurement of the changes of the universe… Where nothing changes, there is nothing for time to measure. Where nothing changes, time has no possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together. God is infinite and therefore changeless… The universe He created is a changing universe. And because change belongs to it and not to God, time belongs to it and not to God… time is the ticking of the universe.
Thus the phrase “before the universe was created” has no meaning at all. Before is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe. To say “before the universe” means when there wasn’t any “when”; which is to say that it doesn’t mean anything at all. …
Apply all this to the consideration of one further absurdity that tends to shadow the back of our minds, even when in the front of our minds we are by way of knowing better. It is the vague feeling we have that eternity had been going on for some time before God decided to create the universe. In light of what we have said, this is seen to be sheerly meaningless, for it brings time into eternity. We must not think of God creating the universe after a certain amount of eternity had rolled by, because there are no parts in eternity, and it does not roll by. This mental monstrosity is perhaps related to the picture of God as an old man. But God is not only not an old man, He is not even an old God. He is not old at all. For “old” simply means that one has lived through a long time; and there is no time to God. (pp. 66-68)
 
I don’t know if this will be a direct help or not, but typically I hear these tenets stated as:
The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
and
The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Since they are eternal phenomena they are outside of time, and you can’t think of them as cause-effect, or one-two-three order or anything.

tee
 
I think the “first step” to understand is that the Father has always existed without any deficiency. This would also include his knowledge and the knowledge of Himself and his love. The Father never had to grow up, mature, etc. He simply IS.

In the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed, he describes it this way.

The Father is the thinker, and the Son is the thought or the Word. The thought is generated by the thinker, but the thought is separate from the thinker. There was never a time that the Father was not generating the Son, because there was never a time that the Father did not know himself, or that his thought was not a reality.

In like manner, knowing Himself to be love, there was never a time that the Father or the Son did not love, which is the Holy Spirit.

It’s not something that happens in time, rather it is simultaneous with God who exists in infinity without time. Just by his existence God can’t help but know and love. It’s not something that he has to “grow into” with time.

You could say the Father generates (not creates) the Son by knowledge, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son by way of Love. Edit As Tee_eff_em said above, this is eternal without beginning or end.

I’m doing a terrible job describing this so you might want to get the book to get a more comprehensive explanation, but I hope this helps in some way.
 
spiderweb said:
I think the “first step” to understand is that the Father has always existed without any deficiency. This would also include his knowledge and the knowledge of Himself and his love. The Father never had to grow up, mature, etc. He simply IS.

In the book “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed, he describes it this way.

The Father is the thinker, and the Son is the thought or the Word. The thought is generated by the thinker, but the thought is separate from the thinker. There was never a time that the Father was not generating the Son, because there was never a time that the Father did not know himself, or that his thought was not a reality.

In like manner, knowing Himself to be love, there was never a time that the Father or the Son did not love, which is the Holy Spirit.

It’s not something that happens in time, rather it is simultaneous with God who exists in infinity without time. Just by his existence God can’t help but know and love. It’s not something that he has to “grow into” with time.

You could say the Father generates (not creates) the Son by knowledge, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son by way of Love.

I’m doing a terrible job describing this so you might want to get the book to get a more comprehensive explanation, but I hope this helps in some way.
Click to expand...
Right. To piggy-back off that, the Son is the Word (aka logos or wisdom) of the Father. If the Father existed without His Wisdom at some point, what was He? A dummy?
 
Thank you all for your thoughts. The citation from “PietroPaolo” was especially helpful because that’s similar to how I think. It doesn’t all make sense yet but I think I’m a step closer to the Truth.

In reflecting on my question, I realized that a Theology of the Body video I saw really piqued my interest in this topic. (From memory) The speaker said that the H.S. is the product/result of the love between Father and Son (as “spiderweb” said too). As God calls us to be fruitful and multiply, he models for us this fruitful love with Himself.

Again, my trouble is understanding this eternally. There was never a moment before the H.S. existed, but the H.S. was generated (struggling to see how that’s different than created). My only experience with creating and generating is within time so I think/define it in terms of time. How can I better understand these terms through an eternal lens?
 
John_101 said:
I’m curious how to view the Trinity without using the language of cause-effect which uses time. My original view was that God existed before “in the beginning” but I’ve recently started thinking about how we claim the H.S. “proceeds” from the Father and the Son. How can I better think about the Trinity without a “First step, second step” mentality but still hold the Catholic position of Jesus being “born of the Father” and the H.S. “proceeds from the Father and the Son”?
Click to expand...
Although it is true that there are no “steps” in the eternal processions of the Father and the Son, I don’t think we can entirely avoid thinking as if there were. That is just the way our discursive minds work.

The key thing is to recognize that whatever we affirm about God is always somewhat improper. For example, we say that God is “good,” but He is not good in exactly the same way that men are good. In fact, He is best described as the source of all goodness, or even better as Goodness Itself.

With the Trinitarian processions, our reasoning is similar: if God’s immanent acts of knowledge and love were like ours, they would occur in two steps (first the knowing, then the loving). However, we know that God is utterly one and simple, and so everything occurs simultaneously and eternally. God is, has always been, and always will be Triune.
 
Try thinking of the “steps” (first, second, third) in terms of “priority” rather than time.

The Father is unbegotten eternally, but he “has known himself” eternally, therefore “has begotten the Son, spoken the Word” eternally. The “first step” priority-wise.

The Son “is begotten, is the Son” eternally, The Word exists as Spoken, eternally. The “second step”, priority-wise.

The Spirit, Love of Father for Son and Son for Father, uniting them in their Will to be One with each other, is breathed out from them to one another eternally. The “third step”, priority-wise.
 
John_Martin said:
Try thinking of the “steps” (first, second, third) in terms of “priority” rather than time.

The Father is unbegotten eternally, but he “has known himself” eternally, therefore “has begotten the Son, spoken the Word” eternally. The “first step” priority-wise.

The Son “is begotten, is the Son” eternally, The Word exists as Spoken, eternally. The “second step”, priority-wise.

The Spirit, Love of Father for Son and Son for Father, uniting them in their Will to be One with each other, is breathed out from them to one another eternally. The “third step”, priority-wise.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that works, so long as we keep in mind that it is priority of origin, not of dignity. (I know you didn’t mean that, but I mention it, because it is a common error: that is how Arius got in trouble :).)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top