Persons of trinity

[jochoa]

Dear Jochoa

distinctions is some thing that exist inside persons, if else distinction is not real. For example you say some thing in your self, there is a relation out side of you, so you don’t have two persons.

I agree that distinctions exist inside persons (plural), however distinctions does not exist inside person (singular). Also, I don’t quite understand your example. Would you please give a more specific example or explain it in greater detail?

Do you think that God made his own essence or his essence is self-exist? Divine Simplicity is Essential. So you can’t say chooses to be so! God is simple, didn’t choose to be simple. If else, you must imagine a condition that God is not simple and after that he chooses to be simple!

1. God is Love. Love is a choice. If one believes God has to love him/her, one will have an incomplete understanding of God which perceives that God owes one something.
2. God is All-powerful. All-powerful is free to choose what to do. If one believes God has no choice in what he does, one will have an incomplete understanding of God which limits the power of God.

Also, one can imagine that God is not simple and after that he chooses to be simple, and if one settles at this resolve, one will have an incomplete understanding of God.

Thanks for further discussion!

 

[javid]

I agree that distinctions exist inside persons (plural), however distinctions does not exist inside person (singular). Also, I don’t quite understand your example. Would you please give a more specific example or explain it in greater detail?

Dear Jochoa

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.

1. God is Love. Love is a choice. If one believes God has to love him/her, one will have an incomplete understanding of God which perceives that God owes one something.
2. God is All-powerful. All-powerful is free to choose what to do. If one believes God has no choice in what he does, one will have an incomplete understanding of God which limits the power of God.

Also, one can imagine that God is not simple and after that he chooses to be simple, and if one settles at this resolve, one will have an incomplete understanding of God.

I don’t think that this solves my problem.

Thank you, too.

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

I think my explanation was clear. Do you want me to write that again? If distinction is relation, then relation can’t be the essence or some thing inside it. I explained. Please answer that.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not caused so there is no composition.

Relation does not really differ from essence. The persons are founded in essence.

Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. Distinction does not have to differ from what is common. It arises from relation which is a real difference:When something proceeds from a principle of the same nature then both the one proceeding and the source of procession agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other…these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
– Summa Theologica, I, q.28, a.1

 

[javid]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not caused so there is no composition.

Relation does not really differ from essence. The persons are founded in essence.

Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. Distinction does not have to differ from what is common. It arises from relation which is a real difference:When something proceeds from a principle of the same nature then both the one proceeding and the source of procession agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other…these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
– Summa Theologica, I, q.28, a.1

Dear Vico

Unfortunately You do not read my texts carefully.

If you really want help me, you must read my question carefully and then answer it. On this thread my Question is simplicity of Persons, not on simplicity of Divine Essence.

And about difference between Essence and relation, I answered you before, I’ll be really pleased if you reply to my answer.

 

[mirzajee]

day just cutting out all that and just English small port is being super strict orders I’ll most likely you’re not going to be able to stick to that that a problem I’ve had in the past ironweed just drive myself crazy for anew months and then snack engine been Ender’s Game Night althea way to I work so hard to lose don’t completely deprive yourself and allot of people say everything in moderation and that’s T-Rex Muscle absolutely true however my next trip issue get if he shall because if you’re anything like me I have really hard time with moderation I edit eating way too much food have a horrible I for measuring and mean we’ll tally how much is a cop something and I just always and going overboard with my 4shared for getting a full scale has seriously been a lifesaver for me and I really recommend it this one that I have I goat Bed Bath.

t-rexmusclehelp.com/

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

Unfortunately You do not read my texts carefully.

If you really want help me, you must read my question carefully and then answer it. On this thread my Question is simplicity of Persons, not on simplicity of Divine Essence.

And about difference between Essence and relation, I answered you before, I’ll be really pleased if you reply to my answer.

Yes, I read it carefully. I answered the original question and you posed another one. Since the persons are founded in the essence the question cannot be answered without reference to essence.

 

[javid]

Yes, I read it carefully. I answered the original question and you posed another one. Since the persons are founded in the essence the question cannot be answered without reference to essence.

In such condition, God’s Essence must have three parts! Common parts(between persons) and two relation(which made distinction between persons). If relations are real and they are in God’s Essence, God can’t be simple.

 

[Vico]

In such condition, God’s Essence must have three parts! Common parts(between persons) and two relation(which made distinction between persons). If relations are real and they are in God’s Essence, God can’t be simple.

That is not correct. There is a real distinction without parts. As given before from Aristotle Categories. Persons are not parts. Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. Distinction does not have to differ from what is common. It arises from relation which is a real difference:When something proceeds from a principle of the same nature then both the one proceeding and the source of procession agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other…these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
– Summa Theologica, I, q.28, a.1
Relation does not really differ from essence. The persons are founded in essence.

• Relation does not really differ from essence.
• Relation has a real distinction by virtue of opposition.
• Thus there are one essence and three persons.

 

[javid]

That is not correct. There is a real distinction without parts. As given before from Aristotle Categories. Persons are not parts. Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. Distinction does not have to differ from what is common. It arises from relation which is a real difference:When something proceeds from a principle of the same nature then both the one proceeding and the source of procession agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other…these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
– Summa Theologica, I, q.28, a.1
Relation does not really differ from essence. The persons are founded in essence.

• Relation does not really differ from essence.
• Relation has a real distinction by virtue of opposition.
• Thus there are one essence and three persons.

Dear Vico

You just repeat your words, and do not mention to my words. What is common can’t be the distinction, so if both distinction and what is common are in the essence, so Essence has to distinct parts. Please answer this, instead of repeating.

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

You just repeat your words, and do not mention to my words. What is common can’t be the distinction, so if both distinction and what is common are in the essence, so Essence has to distinct parts. Please answer this, instead of repeating.

I answered that exactly before. What is common can be the distinction when it is relation.

July 6, post #86
St. Thomas Aquinas answers that relation referred to an opposite relation has a real distinction, even though relation referred to the essence does not really differ.

 

[javid]

I answered that exactly before. What is common can be the distinction when it is relation.

July 6, post #86
St. Thomas Aquinas answers that relation referred to an opposite relation has a real distinction, even though relation referred to the essence does not really differ.

I don’t think so sir! Distinction is what one person has and other persons do not have; And What is common is what all persons Do have. I see no differ if it is be relation or not. I said it before and I hope you give some answer to it.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think so sir! Distinction is what one person has and other persons do not have; And What is common is what all persons Do have. I see no differ if it is be relation or not. I said it before and I hope you give some answer to it.

I gave the answer of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is based upon the established metaphysics of Aristotle.

See post #142.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=882469
See post #150.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=882469

You do not explain if you understand the teaching of St. Thomas of Aquinas or the metaphysics of Aristotle.

 

[javid]

I gave the answer of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is based upon the established metaphysics of Aristotle.

See post #142.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=882469
See post #150.
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=882469

You do not explain if you understand the teaching of St. Thomas of Aquinas or the metaphysics of Aristotle.

Dear Vico

Please anser the the probleminstead of quoting:

Distinction is what one person has and other persons do not have; And What is common is what all persons Do have.

 

[Seraphim73]

Dear Vico

Please anser the the probleminstead of quoting:

Distinction is what one person has and other persons do not have; And What is common is what all persons Do have.

Your question has been answered multiple times. You’re not going to get any other answers other than what you’ve already received.

 

[Vico]

“the[y] must have a common part and a distinction, and common part can’t be the distinction”

The statement from post 1 “So each person has two parts, essence and distinction, because essence is not their distinction” is incorrect. The error is in the idea that distinction is a part. God is simple, there are no parts.

There are relations in God. Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. St. Thomas Aquinas uses Aristotle’s idea of relation, see Categories). “Relation” means that which makes something of, than, or to some other thing.

Aristotle, Categories: Part 4 - Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’, ‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in a the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’, under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’, state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, affection.

No one of these terms, in and by itself, involves an affirmation; it is by the combination of such terms that positive or negative statements arise. For every assertion must, as is admitted, be either true or false, whereas expressions which are not in any way composite such as ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’, ‘wins’, cannot be either true or false.
classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.2.2.html

Dear Vico

Please anser the the probleminstead of quoting:

Distinction is what one person has and other persons do not have; And What is common is what all persons Do have.

Not has. Relation does not belong to one or another, but is between. In God everything is one and the same where there is no opposition of relation.

 

[javid]

Not has. Relation does not belong to one or another, but is between. In God everything is one and the same where there is no opposition of relation.

Dear Vico

Relations Make the distinction, and is not the distinction. A person is first side of relation and another person is second side of relation. It is so.

So, If distinction is real, being a side of such relation, must be a existing thing.(If it is Abstract being, then distinction is not real.) So each person has two units: Divine Essence as what is common between persons and location in relation. So I must ask again how can the person be simple?

 

[javid]

Your question has been answered multiple times. You’re not going to get any other answers other than what you’ve already received.

You are true, seraphim

But let me try. If I don’t find a good answer, I’ll accept trinity by my faith in Church.

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

Relations Make the distinction, and is not the distinction. A person is first side of relation and another person is second side of relation. It is so.

So, If distinction is real, being a side of such relation, must be a existing thing.(If it is Abstract being, then distinction is not real.) So each person has two units: Divine Essence as what is common between persons and location in relation. So I must ask again how can the person be simple?

It it were true, then there would be three individual persons and three Gods.

This name “person” is not given to signify the individual on the part of the nature, but the subsistent reality* in that nature*. (Subsists means founded.)

Each of the divine persons subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature.

Therefore this name “person” is common in idea to the three divine persons.

 

[javid]

It it were true, then there would be three individual persons and three Gods.

This name “person” is not given to signify the individual on the part of the nature, but the subsistent reality* in that nature*. (Subsists means founded.)

Each of the divine persons subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature.

Therefore this name “person” is common in idea to the three divine persons.

Dear Vico

OK Each of the divine persons subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature. So what? My problem is not on what divine persons do. Any way, my problem is on what is common and distinction, and as I said distincton can’t be what is common. You said distinction is the relation, and as said it can’t solve the problem. If relation is the Essence, So distinction is equal to what is common, and it is Contradiction. Why? because what is common, is what is shared between persons, but distinction is one person has and other person does not have.

Best Regards

 

[Vico]

Dear Vico

OK Each of the divine persons subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature. So what? My problem is not on what divine persons do. Any way, my problem is on what is common and distinction, and as I said distincton can’t be what is common. You said distinction is the relation, and as said it can’t solve the problem. If relation is the Essence, So distinction is equal to what is common, and it is Contradiction. Why? because what is common, is what is shared between persons, but distinction is one person has and other person does not have.

Best Regards

Relation is intrinsic not action.

Relation is common.

Person signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. Relation as referred to the essence%between% does not really differ. Relation referred to an opposite relation has a real distinction.