My problem with the idea of the trinity

[AveOTheotokos]

Continued…

180 AD Irenaeus
“Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: “Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.” For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.” (Irenaeus, Book 3, ch 6)

200 AD Tertullian

"That is a still grander statement [of Christ’s deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There was One “who was,” and there was another “with whom” He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.” And Isaiah says this: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ’s deity] we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas)

250 AD Ignatius

“For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, “The Lord thy God is one Lord,” and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord [Jesus] when he said, “The Lord [Jesus] rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.” And again [he confessed a second time our Lord Jesus by saying], “And God said, Let Us make man after our image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him.”” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapter II.)

253 AD Cyprian

“In the Gospel according to John: “The Father judgeth nothing, but hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent Him.” Also in the seventy-first Psalm: “O God, give the king Thy judgment, and Thy righteousness to the king’s son, to judge Thy people in righteousness.” Also in Genesis: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur, and fire from heaven from the Lord.”” (The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. Third Book., Testimonies., 33.)

Novatian:
"For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, "Let us make man in our image and our likeness; " and that after this it was related, "And God made man, in the image of God made He him? "Or when he holds in his hands: "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? " (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI.)

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Novatian “Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God was the guest of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this the Son of God, “The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire.” And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself.” (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XVIII.)

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles:

“To Him did Moses bear witness, and said: “The Lord received fire from the Lord, and rained it down.” Him did Jacob see as a man, and said: “I have seen God face to face, and my soul is preserved.” Him did Abraham entertain, and acknowledge to be the Judge, and his Lord.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V. XX.)

Also, in Matthew 28:19, we have Jesus giving us the trinitarian baptismal format:

Matthew 28:19

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus is God… Matthew 1:23 “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
****and they shall name him Emmanuel,”
which means, **“God is with us.” **

Yes .

That is true and not the problem.

As I noted above the other ideas that were mentioned up above are mistaken ideas and are actually part of old *heresies. *

 

[James248]

Maybe a Pentecostal said that but I didn’t. Rather the Father was with Jesus when He died so knew what Jesus felt, just as God the Father knows us when we suffer.

God is of one nature not one being.

 

[Wesrock]

Fulgence of Ruspe

“See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he says: ‘The Father and I, we are one’ (John 10:30). He teaches us that one refers to their nature, and we are to their Persons. In like manner it is said: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one’ (1 John 5:7). **Let Sabellius hear we are, let him hear three; and let him believe that there are three Persons. Let him not blaspheme in his sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in himself as the Son is the same in himself and as the Holy Sprit is the same in himself, as if in some way he could beget himself, or in some way proceed from himself. **Even in created natures it is never able to be found that something is able to beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot be said of that, the nature of which is different” (The Trinity 4:1–2 [c. A.D. 515]).

 

[Wesrock]

God is of one nature not one being.

God is one being. He is not one person.

 

[Karen107]

I do not like the word heresy used on me. That’s damning and unbecoming of one Catholic to another… I would never say that to anyone in here … Rather I read the catechism and know God the Father is not separated from God the Son ever and this is the mystery of the Trinity… I’ll take it up to prayer…

CCC 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship**."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91**

 

[Bookcat]

I do not like the word heresy used on me. That’s damning… Rather I read the catechism and know God the Father is not separated from God the Son ever… I’ll take it up to prayer…

Yes - but that truth does not mean that the Father suffered and died on the cross.

I am not using the word heresy on you. Certainly not

I am referring to the mistaken ideas or way of seeking to put things.

In fact I presume* you* are *not *intending to embrace heresy!

Rather in seeking to answer the OP’s questions you have materially (meaning not intending) found some mistaken expressions.

Tis easy for some mistaken ideas to enter (materially) into these very deep mysteries. As the old joke went - Priests should be careful not to preach too long on the Trinity for they can easily fall into material heresy by mistake…

Here this can further help

catholic.com/tract/god-in-three-persons

 

[Kliska]

I do not like the word heresy used on me. That’s damning and unbecoming of one Catholic to another… I would never say that to anyone in here … Rather I read the catechism and know God the Father is not separated from God the Son ever… I’ll take it up to prayer…

CCC 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship**."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91**

But being wholly in something does not make those the same Persons. Us in Christ and He in us doesn’t make us Him as a Person.

 

[Karen107]

Yes - but that truth does not mean that the Father suffered and died on the cross.

I am not using the word heresy on you. Certainly not

I am referring to the mistaken ideas or way of seeking to put things.

In fact I presume* you* are *not *intending to embrace heresy!

Rather in seeking to answer the OP’s questions you have materially (meaning not intending) found some mistaken expressions.

Tis easy for some mistaken ideas to enter (materially) into these very deep mysteries. Be it in what I say or even at times a Priest in a homily! As the old joke went - Priests should be careful not to preach too long on the Trinity for they can easily fall into material heresy by mistake…

Here this can further help

catholic.com/tract/god-in-three-persons

Maybe the problems stems from ‘terminology’ I learned in the past… The three manifestations of God instead of the three persons of God… It was easier to explain the trinity that way back in the day but I happen to know that it is 3 persons of God and I do happen to know that God the Father and the Son are One. That’s not negotiable. I know that the Son of Man was crucified but that didn’t mean that God was not crucified…Heaven forbid… That would be wrong to say… We crucified God in the Flesh… That’s what I believe and why I cry over it…Heavenly Father they know not what they do!!! God walked the earth and was crucified!!!

 

[Karen107]

But being wholly in something does not make those the same Persons. Us in Christ and He in us doesn’t make us Him as a Person.

I never said that, but God is not separate beings, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ONE!

 

[porthos11]

I do not like the word heresy used on me. That’s damning and unbecoming of one Catholic to another… I would never say that to anyone in here … Rather I read the catechism and know God the Father is not separated from God the Son ever… I’ll take it up to prayer…

CCC 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship**."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91**

First of all, no one is calling you a heretic, so don’t take offense.

What people are saying is that what you are expressing is a heresy, and it is and is solely a criticism of the idea, not of you. By saying that there are three manifestations, and the use of the “water” analogy, that is actually a heresy called Modalism. In short, the Modalist heresy states that the three Persons are simply three forms (“modes”) of God. Your previous statement that the Father was crucified is a variant of Modalism called Patripassianism (i.e. “the Father suffered”).

Using analogies to understand the Trinity results in some kind of heresy (the “water” analogy results in Modalism; the “shamrock” analogy in some kind of partialism, the “sun” analogy in Arianism). In truth, using analogies to explain the Trinity is a BAD idea.

That God is of one substance, one being is a core dogma. So is the inseparability of the Persons (because God is simple; he has no parts). But so is the distinction of persons. In other words, the orthodox belief of the Trinity can be summed up in this “shield”)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Also, your citation of the Catechism expresses the orthodox teaching, not the erroneous one you cited. It concerns the relationship between the Persons, pointing to their distinctiveness (The Father Uncreated, the Son Begotten, the Spirit Proceeding).

The use of the word “heresy” is an essential part of any discussion of the Trinity, because like many incomprehensible Mysteries, much is learned of the Trinity by first understanding what it is not. Pointing out the heresies is a solid educational tool and is not meant as an attack against any particular person (except for the heretics themselves, like Arius and Sabellius).

 

[Kliska]

There is only One God. There are 3 Persons. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, nor the Spirit. The Son is neither the Father, nor the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Son, nor the Father.

I never said that, but God is not separate beings, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ONE!

Right, He’s One, just as I said above. The reason I talked of being “in” someone is because of the bolded part of your CCC quote; Yes, they are “in” each other, but that doesn’t wipe out their personhood. The Father being united and present wholly in His Son, doesn’t make Him the Son, nor does it make the Son the Father. When crucified, the Father wasn’t crucified, the Son was.

 

[Karen107]

Right, He’s One, just as I said above. The reason I talked of being “in” someone is because of the bolded part of your CCC quote; Yes, they are “in” each other, but that doesn’t wipe out their personhood. The Father being united and present wholly in His Son, doesn’t make Him the Son, nor does it make the Son the Father. When crucified, the Father wasn’t crucified, the Son was.

Okay lets get to the spirit of this. If God the Father was ‘in’ the Son, how could God the Father not be crucified on the cross with His Son? Doesn’t God the Father have emotions that would be part of loving someone? We can love someone and when they die we can feel it in our very soul. Doesn’t God feel loss? Like the loss He felt when Adam sinned? Or the hurt He feels with the suffering, dying or alone? If God is love, why would He not be there when we suffer? I believe God the Father knows because God is with us always…

Sure Jesus looked up and spoke to His Father, but that was Jesus as a man speaking to HIs Father, but His Father never went away, even when Jesus died…God the Father was always with and in Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit…

 

[Bookcat]

Maybe the problems stems from ‘terminology’ I learned in the past… The three manifestations of God instead of the three persons of God… It was easier to explain the trinity that way back in the day

Yes the word “manifestations” is part of the idea of the heresy of modalism (and other names). So we want to avoid that.

but I happen to know that it is 3 persons of God and I do happen to know that God the Father and the Son are One. That’s not negotiable.

Yes as you note there are is One *God *…Three Persons.

I know that the Son of Man was crucified but that didn’t mean that God was not crucified…Heaven forbid… That would be wrong to say… We crucified God in the Flesh…

Yes - God was crucified and died - that is God the Son who yes is one of the Trinity.

Right.

That’s what I believe and why I cry over it…Heavenly Father they know not what they do!!! God walked the earth and was crucified!!!

Yes Jesus Christ is God the Son and yes he was crucified and rose!

Indeed.

 

[Bookcat]

how could God the Father not be crucified on the cross with His Son? .

No that would be part of the heresy of “*Patripassianism *after its implication that the person of the Father (Pater-) suffered (-passion)” (see Catholic Answers link above)…

 

[porthos11]

Okay lets get to the spirit of this. If God the Father was ‘in’ the Son, how could God the Father not be crucified on the cross with His Son? Doesn’t God the Father have emotions that would be part of loving someone? We can love someone and when they die we can feel it in our very soul. Doesn’t God feel loss? Like the loss He felt when Adam sinned? Or the hurt He feels with the suffering, dying or alone? If God is love, why would He not be there when we suffer? I believe God the Father knows because God is with us always…

Because as explained earlier, while the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) share the same substance, they are not the same Person. That’s how Jesus can pray to the Father.

And no, God does not have emotions either. God is Love, but this love is his very being, his very essence. It is not a “part” of him, it is he himself (the dogma is: “God is absolutely simple”). It is not something he feels. Emotions are a movement, which is a measure of change, and there is absolutely no change in God (the dogma states: “God is immutable” and “God’s immutability is absolute”). He feels no pain, he feels no hurt (the dogma is “God is impassable”).

Yes, God does care (“Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful” Ps. 116:15). But it is not the same as saying “The Father Suffered” or “The Father was Crucified.”

Sure Jesus looked up and spoke to His Father, but that was Jesus as a man speaking to HIs Father, but His Father never went away, even when Jesus died…God the Father was always with and in Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit…

That’s right. Again, understood correctly, it must be held that the three Persons could not be separated. It does not mean, however, that we confuse the three Persons as merely three “forms” of God.

 

[James248]

God is one being. He is not one person.

In the context of my statement “being = person.”

 

[Kliska]

Okay lets get to the spirit of this. If God the Father was ‘in’ the Son, how could God the Father not be crucified on the cross with His Son? Doesn’t God the Father have emotions that would be part of loving someone? We can love someone and when they die we can feel it in our very soul. Doesn’t God feel loss? Like the loss He felt when Adam sinned? Or the hurt He feels with the suffering, dying or alone? If God is love, why would He not be there when we suffer? I believe God the Father knows because God is with us always…

Sure Jesus looked up and spoke to His Father, but that was Jesus as a man speaking to HIs Father, but His Father never went away, even when Jesus died…God the Father was always with and in Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit…

But you can’t conflate their Persons. What I mean is; Jesus Christ was literally crucified. He is God the Son. They did not crucify God the Father. God the Father doesn’t have a body. The Father and Son aren’t interchangeable; they are united, yes. I’m in Christ and He is in me, but I’m not Christ in a literal sense. The Father does experience “emotion.” But, that doesn’t mean He was crucified. Yes, He is omnipresent. He was with the Son when Jesus was crucified, but the Father wasn’t the Son. There’s an important distinction there.

I think the questions you are asking go “deeper.” It seems like you feel we are saying that God didn’t suffer, or can’t understand it somehow if God the Father wasn’t crucified. God did indeed suffer. Jesus is God. We are also agreeing that God is love. What most here are cautioning against is making the Father and Son somehow just modes, or making their unique roles and Persons superfluous.

 

[Karen107]

Because as explained earlier, while the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) share the same substance, they are not the same Person. That’s how Jesus can pray to the Father.

And no, God does not have emotions either. God is Love, but this love is his very being, his very essence. It is not a “part” of him, it is he himself (the dogma is: “God is absolutely simple”). It is not something he feels. Emotions are a movement, which is a measure of change, and there is absolutely no change in God (the dogma states: “God is immutable” and “God’s immutability is absolute”). He feels no pain, he feels no hurt (the dogma is “God is impassable”).

Yes, God does care (“Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful” Ps. 116:15). But it is not the same as saying “The Father Suffered” or “The Father was Crucified.”

That’s right. Again, understood correctly, it must be held that the three Persons could not be separated. It does not mean, however, that we confuse the three Persons as merely three “forms” of God.

I think this came up in another thread and was explained differently moreso that God the Father experienced pain and suffering through Christ Jesus. Yes I know that God the Father is Spirit, but when He was with Jesus He walked with Jesus through it because Jesus and the Father are ONE. R_C in the second post explains it well and how I see it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=808280