Persons of trinity

[Vico]

Dear Vico

Please Please Please, don’t repeat old discussions. Problem is not on Divine Essence. Problem is distinction between persons. Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.

You wrote: “Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.” and before that you wrote “How we can imagine a simple Essence that is three distinct persons?”

This is not the first time we have gone over this topic, so you are actually repeating an old discussion.

Aquinas Q30 A1 S.T:
Reply to Objection 3. The supreme unity and simplicity of God exclude every kind of plurality of absolute things, but not plurality of relations. Because relations are predicated relatively, and thus the relations do not import composition in that of which they are predicated, as Boethius teaches in the same book.

 

[javid]

We’ve already established wherein your error lies; in your opening post you stated that “God does not have two parts,” but theologians have always differentiated between the person and nature of God. Distinctions exist among the persons of God, but these distinctions do not carry over to His essence. Why not concede this point instead of perpetuating your fallacy?

You didn’t it carefully. I’m not asking any question about Divine Essence. I think it is better to you to let others answer me. And this Thread is not about me, it is about Trinity. As Christians, we must respect others.

I think you are angry, because I didn’t answer you:

Right; their personhood gives rise to distinction, but there is no distinction in their essence.

Well, I must say it again and again: My problem is not the place of distinction! So I did not must answer you.

 

[javid]

You wrote: “Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.” and before that you wrote “How we can imagine a simple Essence that is three distinct persons?”

This is not the first time we have gone over this topic, so you are actually repeating an old discussion.

Aquinas Q30 A1 S.T:
Reply to Objection 3. The supreme unity and simplicity of God exclude every kind of plurality of absolute things, but not plurality of relations. Because relations are predicated relatively, and thus the relations do not import composition in that of which they are predicated, as Boethius teaches in the same book.

Dear Vico

I said “How we can imagine a simple Essence that is three distinct persons?” and after that I wrote: “Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.” And This means that My problem is distinction, not on Divine Essence.

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

I said “How we can imagine a simple Essence that is three distinct persons?” and after that I wrote: “Persons are real and Distinct from each other and My problem is on it.” And This means that My problem is distinction, not on Divine Essence.

I answered your question on distinction with Aquinas Q30 A1 S.T. Apparently that is not what you question is. So you want to know how persons are distinct**?

**

 

[javid]

I answered your question on distinction with Aquinas Q30 A1 S.T. Apparently that is not what you question is. So you want to know how persons are distinct**?

**

Dear Vico

Saint Thomas Aquinas, on that section, Does not answer my Question. His answer is about the divine Essence and all of my problem in this thread is about Persons, as I said in my first post and It is not solved yet. You change your answer, some times you answer about relations, some times you discuss on essence and some times on paternity, but you change your point after a while!

If you want help me, I think it is better to understand what is my Questioan and where is the problem, and make your point on it, and let’s try to solve it. But If you don’t give me any good solution, I can’t say it is solved.

Best Regards

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

Saint Thomas Aquinas, on that section, Does not answer my Question. His answer is about the divine Essence and all of my problem in this thread is about Persons, as I said in my first post and It is not solved yet. You change your answer, some times you answer about relations, some times you discuss on essence and some times on paternity, but you change your point after a while!

If you want help me, I think it is better to understand what is my Questioan and where is the problem, and make your point on it, and let’s try to solve it. But If you don’t give me any good solution, I can’t say it is solved.

Best Regards

We had been discussing this for four months and you have posted many questions in that time. I understand that it is about in general, but you keep posting questions in different forms, I am not able to know what the current question is. Now you are saying it is the first post. Please post the question again as a question, and not with “it’s about”, so I don’t have to guess.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I answered your question on distinction with Aquinas Q30 A1 S.T. Apparently that is not what you question is. So you want to know how persons are distinct**?

**

Distinction is revealed in procession and presence not Essence. I tried to explain from a few posts of what appeared to be the difficult view from relationship ( Paternity, begotten, Sending) of persons.

God is simple = One God, God makes known His divine presence in space and time threefold in Trinity.

How God has made known God’s divine revelation to humanity and creation, deals with Procession and the Presence of God when God’s Essence does not come down to us.

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

Saint Thomas Aquinas, on that section, Does not answer my Question. His answer is about the divine Essence and all of my problem in this thread is about Persons, as I said in my first post and It is not solved yet. You change your answer, some times you answer about relations, some times you discuss on essence and some times on paternity, but you change your point after a while!

If you want help me, I think it is better to understand what is my Questioan and where is the problem, and make your point on it, and let’s try to solve it. But If you don’t give me any good solution, I can’t say it is solved.

Best Regards

What I posted in #13 was the original answer I gave:

The supreme unity and simplicity of God does not exclude plurality of relations because they are founded relatively, which means they do not import composition.

 

[davidv]

Dear Gabriel

Thank you for your explanation. I think I must explain my problem:

Let me know : Is paternity a Real being or Abstract being?

It is neither. Paternity is not a being. It is a state of being, a description of a relationship to another.

If it is a Abstract being, so it can’t be a distinction, But if it is a Real being, is it in Essence or out of it? if it is in Essence so each person has it and it can’t be a distinction, if it is out of essence, then God the father has two parts: Essence and paternity.

Since these are conclusions based on a false dicotomy they are not likely true.

 

[Vico]

Distinction is revealed in procession and presence not Essence. I tried to explain from a few posts of what appeared to be the difficult view from relationship ( Paternity, begotten, Sending) of persons.

God is simple = One God, God makes known His divine presence in space and time threefold in Trinity.

How God has made known God’s divine revelation to humanity and creation, deals with Procession and the Presence of God when God’s Essence does not come down to us.

So your are focusing on the economic procession and diefication (theosis) vs the internal processions?

It is difficult to explain ontologically because there is a tendency to not be logical and to apply logic only applicable for created to the uncreated. Aquinas showed that the passive not the active is better. (Four real relations are discussed by him: paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession.)

Aquinas S.T. Q40. A2.It is therefore better to say that the persons or hypostases are distinguished rather by relations than by origin. For, although in both ways they are distinguished, nevertheless in our mode of understanding they are distinguished chiefly and firstly by relations; whence this name “Father” signifies not only a property, but also the hypostasis; whereas this term “Begetter” or “Begetting” signifies property only; forasmuch as this name “Father” signifies the relation which is distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis; and this term “Begetter” or “Begotten” signifies the origin which is not distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis.

 

[catholictiger]

The Mystery uncomprehended leads to use of analogy. Aquinas S.T. Q39 A2: “I answer that, As above explained (13, 1,2), divine things are named by our intellect, not as they really are in themselves, for in that way it knows them not; but in a way that belongs to things created.”

I heard today one of Augustines Stories (we preached on the trinity in my homiletics class today )

but the story goes.

Augustine was walking along the sea shore, and he saw a little boy with a cup going to the sea and taking some water and putting it in a hole he dug. Augustine went up to him and asked “what are you doing?” the little boy responded “I’m trying to contain the whole ocean in my hole here” Augustine said “that is impossible you can’t possibly contain all of the ocean in this hole.” The boy stopped, looked straight into the eyes of St. Augustine and replied: “it is no more impossible than what you are trying to do, comprehend the immensity of the mystery of the Holy Trinity with your small intelligence.

I’ve paraphrased much of this but I think you see the point.

I’ve enjoyed this thread even though I’ve missed many parts of it, it is fun to discuss this, but we must remember we will always fall short.

 

[Vico]

I heard today one of Augustines Stories (we preached on the trinity in my homiletics class today )

but the story goes.

Augustine was walking along the sea shore, and he saw a little boy with a cup going to the sea and taking some water and putting it in a hole he dug. Augustine went up to him and asked “what are you doing?” the little boy responded “I’m trying to contain the whole ocean in my hole here” Augustine said “that is impossible you can’t possibly contain all of the ocean in this hole.” The boy stopped, looked straight into the eyes of St. Augustine and replied: “it is no more impossible than what you are trying to do, comprehend the immensity of the mystery of the Holy Trinity with your small intelligence.

I’ve paraphrased much of this but I think you see the point.

I’ve enjoyed this thread even though I’ve missed many parts of it, it is fun to discuss this, but we must remember we will always fall short.

Yes. *The Mystery *of the Most Holy Trinity. I prefer the apophatic approach, yet try to help when others study the cataphatic.Vatican I (Dei Filius) Chap. 4. Faith and reason

By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object:INDENT in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith;

(2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known.
Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God was known to the Gentiles “by the things that are made” *Rom * 1:20], nevertheless, when discoursing about grace and truth which “was made through Jesus Christ” [cf. *Jn 1:17] proclaims: “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world know. …] But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God” *1Cor * 2:7,8,10].
And the Only-begotten Himself “confesses to the Father, because He hath hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hath revealed them to little ones” [cf. *Mt 11:25]
[/INDENT]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Vico;12434274]So your are focusing on the economic procession and diefication (theosis) vs the internal processions?

It is difficult to explain ontologically because there is a tendency to not be logical and to apply logic only applicable for created to the uncreated. Aquinas showed that the passive not the active is better. (Four real relations are discussed by him: paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession.)

Actually my focus is touching on both without trying to apply rigidity of terms to either one as Aquinas introduces here; “in both ways they are distinguished,”.

I believe Aquinas does a great job by keeping in harmony with the Church and many of the early Church Fathers, when he also touches on both without applying rigidity as the CCC explains and St. Hilary teaches from antiquity, to what our Catholic faith already professes from the creed in the Trinity. Especially when Aquinas eloquently explains his definition of God’s Essence to be unreachable in any terms of a human definition.

If one is trying to grasp at the mystery of the Trinity, truly one does so with the mind of Christ in the Spirit God gives us understanding of spiritual realities described in spiritual terms.

That grasping begins with faith apart from carnal knowledge and understanding of human words. For who dares read Aquinas without possessing the same spirit who reveals and reminds us of the divine revelation.

Procession, begins and ends with the divine revelation of God to our humanity with God’s presence. In both cases God never ceases to be God. To place the divine economy as different or apart from the Hypostasis runs a danger of applying rigid terms that infects the One God in Trinity.

Trinity gives name to the presence of God in procession, while never disturbing God’s Essence. The divine economy produces faith and leaves carnal minds and understanding perplexed in self knowledge.

Peace be with you

 

[jochoa]

And He said: “in God the persons are multiplied” I do not understand what is this, but if He means that 1=1x1x1 I must say you that, if it be true we do not must believe in trinity:

1=1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1…

Using the idea, “In God the persons are multiplied,” where “1=1x1x1,” it is true that in simplicity, God is the Trinity.

Meaning:
If one recognizes that God=the Father, then, God must simply be(=) the Father of(x) the child of(x) holiness.

Do you believe God is the Father?

 

[javid]

Using the idea, “In God the persons are multiplied,” where “1=1x1x1,” it is true that in simplicity, God is the Trinity.

Meaning:
If one recognizes that God=the Father, then, God must simply be(=) the Father of(x) the child of(x) holiness.

Do you believe God is the Father?

Dear Jochoa

As a believer, I do believe in all you believe. Here I’m asking my question.

Thanks, but this explanation does not solve my problem.

 

[javid]

We had been discussing this for four months and you have posted many questions in that time. I understand that it is about in general, but you keep posting questions in different forms, I am not able to know what the current question is. Now you are saying it is the first post. Please post the question again as a question, and not with “it’s about”, so I don’t have to guess.

Dear Vico

I am so sorry if borders you, but we all are here seeking answer to our questions. My problem did not been solved yet, so I ask again. First post of this thread is my problem andI know that you gave some answer to it, but my problem is not solved yet.

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

I am so sorry if borders you, but we all are here seeking answer to our questions. My problem did not been solved yet, so I ask again. First post of this thread is my problem and know that you gave some answer to it, but my problem is not solved yet.

So do you want to start over from scratch again?The supreme unity and simplicity of God does not exclude plurality of relations because they are founded relatively, which means they do not import composition.
For uncreated God, Essence = Existence = Person.

There is no conflict to simplicity of God due to the persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because persons are founded relatively (See: Aristotle Categories) the is no composition in God. The four* real relations* are paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession.

Aquinas wrote, S.T., Q28, A4:I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every relation is based either on quantity, as double and half; or on action and passion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son, the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quantity in God, for He is great without quantity, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1) it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on action. Such relations are not based on the actions of God according to any extrinsic procession, forasmuch as the relations of God to creatures are not real in Him (13, 7).
Hence, it follows that real relations in God can be understood only in regard to those actions according to which there are internal, and not external, processions in God. These processions are two only, as above explained (27, 5), one derived from the action of the intellect, the procession of the Word; and the other from the action of the will, the procession of love.
Aquinas wrote, S.T., Q40, A2:In a divine person there is nothing to presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations.

… the relations or the properties distinguish or constitute the hypostases or persons, inasmuch as they are themselves the subsisting persons; as paternity is the Father, and filiation is the Son, because in God the abstract and the concrete do not differ.

The persons are the subsisting relations themselves. Hence it is not against the simplicity of the divine persons for them to be distinguished by the relations.

 

[Aquinas21]

It was a quiet Friday evening in my time zone, so I surveyed all 17 pages of this thread. I especially enjoyed the sense of humor by Seraphim73 and Vico on page 15, posts 214 and 215 . More seriously, though, I think that several advanced posters have provided many good answers and other comments for javid’s question (or questions).

Perhaps javid’s primary language is something other than English. Nothing wrong with that of course but, in view of that possibility, here are three Wikipedia references (as relevant background information) in English that have some coordinated articles in other languages at the left margin of the pages: Trinity and Triple Deity and Trimurti .

 

[jochoa]

I agree that distinctions exist inside persons (plural), however distinctions does not exist inside person (singular).

This can’t be true! If distinction is not inside person, how can it be inside persons? So where is it? As I said each pesron has what is shared between persons(Essence) and what is it’s difference from other persons(Distinction) and both must be in the person.

Distinction cannot exist inside person (singular) because distinction is found in relation. Without consideration of another person, there is nothing relative to consider.

For example:
Consider “X”
Upon solely considering “X” there are no distinctions because there is no relation to compare the attributes of “X” to.
Now, consider “X X”
Upon plural consideration of “X X” there are distinctions because there are relations to compare the attributes of each “X” to. One X is distinctly left of the other. One X is distinctly right of the other.

With Holy Trinity:
The Father is God, without distinction.
The Son is God, without distinction.
The Holy Spirit is God, without distinction.
Upon plural consideration of the persons, there are distinction because there are relations to compare. The Son is eternally generated, and the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding.

 

[javid]

So do you want to start over from scratch again?The supreme unity and simplicity of God does not exclude plurality of relations because they are founded relatively, which means they do not import composition.
For uncreated God, Essence = Existence = Person.

There is no conflict to simplicity of God due to the persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because persons are founded relatively (See: Aristotle Categories) the is no composition in God. The four* real relations* are paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession.

Aquinas wrote, S.T., Q28, A4:I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every relation is based either on quantity, as double and half; or on action and passion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son, the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quantity in God, for He is great without quantity, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1) it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on action. Such relations are not based on the actions of God according to any extrinsic procession, forasmuch as the relations of God to creatures are not real in Him (13, 7).
Hence, it follows that real relations in God can be understood only in regard to those actions according to which there are internal, and not external, processions in God. These processions are two only, as above explained (27, 5), one derived from the action of the intellect, the procession of the Word; and the other from the action of the will, the procession of love.
Aquinas wrote, S.T., Q40, A2:In a divine person there is nothing to presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations.

… the relations or the properties distinguish or constitute the hypostases or persons, inasmuch as they are themselves the subsisting persons; as paternity is the Father, and filiation is the Son, because in God the abstract and the concrete do not differ.

The persons are the subsisting relations themselves. Hence it is not against the simplicity of the divine persons for them to be distinguished by the relations.

Dear Vico

I am seeking some good answers. If you think you just answered me, that’s O.K. God Bless you.

It was a quiet Friday evening in my time zone, so I surveyed all 17 pages of this thread. I especially enjoyed the sense of humor by Seraphim73 and Vico on page 15, posts 214 and 215 . More seriously, though, I think that several advanced posters have provided many good answers and other comments for javid’s question (or questions).

Perhaps javid’s primary language is something other than English. Nothing wrong with that of course but, in view of that possibility, here are three Wikipedia references (as relevant background information) in English that have some coordinated articles in other languages at the left margin of the pages: Trinity and Triple Deity and Trimurti .

Yes Sir. My language is not english and my English is not good!

Distinction cannot exist inside person (singular) because distinction is found in relation. Without consideration of another person, there is nothing relative to consider.

For example:
Consider “X”
Upon solely considering “X” there are no distinctions because there is no relation to compare the attributes of “X” to.
Now, consider “X X”
Upon plural consideration of “X X” there are distinctions because there are relations to compare the attributes of each “X” to. One X is distinctly left of the other. One X is distinctly right of the other.

With Holy Trinity:
The Father is God, without distinction.
The Son is God, without distinction.
The Holy Spirit is God, without distinction.
Upon plural consideration of the persons, there are distinction because there are relations to compare. The Son is eternally generated, and the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding.

Dear Jochoa,

if distinction is not inside the persons, then it is a creatyre, because it is not in God, and so it is not eternal, and so Trinity can’t be eternal, because distinction between persons is the origin of the Trinity. Trinity is eternal, that can’t be true.