Hi Rebecca,
I’ve been reading up on the “mystery” of the Trinity, and it occurred to me that I should make a clarification. As I understand it, Catholics recognize that the ideas that a) God is simple, and b) God is Three Persons are an APPARENT contradiction. But the contradiction is only apparent, rather than actual, because we are operating from a limited, human perspective, and we can’t really grasp the Being of God. I’ve cut and pasted below part of the article on “The Blessed Trinity” from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think it supports what I’m saying.
The trinity as a mystery
The
Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term
mystery in
theology. It lays down that a
mystery is a
truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains “hidden by the veil of
faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness” (Constitution, “De fide. cath.”, iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the
Divine message. Through
analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is
revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller
knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a
mystery, the office of the natural
reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on
Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the
laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.
The
Vatican Council further
defined that the
Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All
theologians admit that the
doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all
revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to
reason. Hence, to declare this to be no
mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our
Lord’s words,
Matthew 11:27, “No one knoweth the
Son, but the Father,” seem to declare expressly that the plurality of
Persons in the
Godhead is a
truth entirely beyond the scope of any
created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine
Nature is affirmed.
St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: “The
true profession of the
mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it” (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae – “Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai.”). The controversy with the
Eunomians, who declared that the Divine
Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of “the Innascible” (
agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the
human mind, led many of the
Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine
Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil,
I.14Against Eunomius;
St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
VICatechetical Lectures;
St. John Damascene,
I.2Of the Orthodox Faith, etc.).
At a later
date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm (“Monol.”, 64),
Abelard (“ln Ep. ad Rom.”),
Hugo of St. Victor (“De sacram.” III, xi), and
Richard of St. Victor (“De Trin.”, III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why
God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of
philosophy to
revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the
Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from
theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the
intellectual ferment of the
time Abelard initiated a
Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a
knowledge of the Trinity for the
pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian
doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm’s
error was due not to
Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle “Crede ut intelligas”.
Hugh and
Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by
Abelard’s teaching.
Raymond Lully’s (1235-1315)
errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by
Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing
Rationalism manifested itself in several
Catholic writers. Frohschammer and
Günther both asserted that the
dogma of the Trinity was capable of
proof.
Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (
Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the
Vatican Council issued the
decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated,
error on the part of
Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).
Glad to see that you understand a little better now.
Check out this article for the Isaiah quotes: