Question about the Most Holy Trinity

[Vico]

…
Yes, But it is not an answer to what I said. Please answer to what I said. Thanks.

You wrote: “Are the divine persons Just God or a combination of God and something else?”

Composition means combination. No combination.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It’s God’s essential and eternal self knowing, an act which originates in God and terminates in God. In this real procession of knowing, God relates to Himself as both generating and being generated by. It’s from this internal relation to God in this procession that both begins and ends in God that we have the opposed relationships of Paternity and Filiation, that is Father and Son.

If God self-knows himself again this is just identical to the first procession and does not indicate any new relations at all.

There is a problem:If The Father is not the Son, then it is not a self-knowing. It is clear that we can’t imagine God without his personality. When God self-know as God the father, then the other side of self-knowing relation would be God the father, not God the son.

False. God, his essence, is on both sides of the procession. How God relates to himself through this procession is where we find the subsisting relations in the essence, of how the essence relates to itself through an eternal and intrinsic activity.

 

[pohandes]

The distinction between the Father and the Son (and the distinction between both and the Holy Ghost) are the only actual distinctions in God

In God? do you mean inside God’s Essence? If yes, distinction can’t be inside God’s Essence, because God is simple and there is no distinction inside his Essence.

All the attributes that are discoverable by reason alone

??? I don’t understand

So, if a philosopher were to discover, through the natural powers of his intellect, that God has both Knower relation (God knowing) and Known relation (God as known by Himself), he would necessarily conclude that they’re not actually distinct due to Divine Simplicity. This I grant you.

But, since this same God had revealed, through supernatural means, that there’s an actual distinction between Him and His Knowledge of Himself, it’s no longer the case since then that we must necessarily conclude that these relations are actually one and the same.

Your words are inconsistent.

This distinction, though, is not discoverable by human reason alone; it had to be supernaturally revealed by God Himself. So you have God-as-knowing-Himself relation and God-as-known-by-Himself relation that would have been thought to be one and the same if it were not for His Divine Revelation.

They distinction you are talking about, is not real. When you self-know, you will not become 3 persons!

On the other hand, if it is self-knowing so the knower and the known is one person.

according to this same Revelation, it wouldn’t make sense for the Knower to exist without the existence of the Known

So knower needs known to exist! and therefor he is not the God.

God Himself supernaturally revealed that He Himself regards these two relations, the Knower and the Known, to be different, similarly as to how we regard these two exact relations to be different by definition.

No sir. Sorry, but it is over commentary about what he revealed.

To add to the giver-receiver analogy, these two relations can exist in one person (eg a man treats himself with snacks every Saturday, the giver being the man giving himself food and the receiver being the same man eating the food).

It is modalism.

Please ask questions so that I may revise or clarify what I have posted here.

I asked. Thank you very much.

 

[pohandes]

You wrote: “Are the divine persons Just God or a combination of God and something else?”

Composition means combination. No combination.

OK. Then:

The Father is God

The Son is God

God is one and simple

How is this possible to say: The father is not the son?

They have no thing out of God’s Essence, So they must be one.

 

[pohandes]

False. God , his essence, is on both sides of the procession. How God relates to himself through this procession is where we find the subsisting relations in the essence, of how the essence relates to itself through an eternal and intrinsic activity.

As I said before, In a Reflective Relation there is not both sides. I know my self and It does not make me two persons.

 

[Wesrock]

Vico:

You wrote: “Are the divine persons Just God or a combination of God and something else?”

Composition means combination. No combination.

OK. Then:

The Father is God

The Son is God

God is one and simple

How is this possible to say: The father is not the son?

They have no thing out of God’s Essence, So they must be one.

The Essence relates to itself by both paternity and filiation. Paternity and filiation are opposed relations, that is they do not collapse into each other. They are real relations, and not merely logical, because the procession from which the relations derive is real. It is Simplicity, actually, by which these relations are essential and by which we may call them persons. Nothing but what is Simple would self relate in such a way.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

False. God , his essence, is on both sides of the procession. How God relates to himself through this procession is where we find the subsisting relations in the essence, of how the essence relates to itself through an eternal and intrinsic activity.

As I said before, In a Reflective Relation there is not both sides. I know my self and It does not make me two persons.

That’s because you are not Simple and your knowledge of yourself isn’t yourself or generative of another naturally existing essence or your own essence.

 

[pohandes]

The Essence relates to itself by both paternity and filiation. Paternity and filiation are opposed relations, that is they do not collapse into each other. They are real relations, and not merely logical, because the procession from which the relations derive is real. It is Simplicity, actually, by which these relations are essential and by which we may call them persons. Nothing but what is Simple would self relate in such a way.

It seems that You imagine God without his personality, and this is not true. At first we imagine God the Father who has some relations with himself, but a self-relation does not make Paternity and filiation.

That’s because you are not Simple and your knowledge of yourself isn’t yourself or generative of another naturally existing essence or your own essence.

We are not simple and when we self-know there will be no new person. And God is simple and self-knowing makes new persons?? I don’t think so, sir.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The Essence relates to itself by both paternity and filiation. Paternity and filiation are opposed relations, that is they do not collapse into each other. They are real relations, and not merely logical, because the procession from which the relations derive is real. It is Simplicity, actually, by which these relations are essential and by which we may call them persons. Nothing but what is Simple would self relate in such a way.

It seems that You imagine God without his personality, and this is not true. At first we imagine God the Father who has some relations with himself, but a self-relation does not make Paternity and filiation.

No, we’re not speaking of God the Father having relations to himself. We are speaking of the divine nature/essence in which there are subsisting relations of how the nature relates to itself, the Father being one of these relations.

That’s because you are not Simple and your knowledge of yourself isn’t yourself or generative of another naturally existing essence or your own essence.

We are not simple and when we self-know there will be no new person. And God is simple and self-knowing makes new persons?? I don’t think so, sir.

That’s not an argument against, and you must be mindful that “person” (when speaking of a Divine Person) is not used in a univocal way with how we refer to human persons.

When I know a thing, even myself, I don’t know through my essence (it is not my essence doing the knowing but a part of me, or an activity that is not identical to me myself), nor is the object of my knowledge on the same ontological level as my essence.

As a Simple Substance, God does know through his essence (his knowledge/knowing is his essence), and his knowledge of himself (a generative activity) is on the same ontological level as his essence.

Reflecting on what is Simple in this way is not easy, but it’s not impossible, but we can already sketch out major differences between creaturely/composite self-knowledge and the activity of self-knowledge in a Simple Substance.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

You wrote: “Are the divine persons Just God or a combination of God and something else?”

Composition means combination. No combination.

OK. Then:

The Father is God

The Son is God

God is one and simple

How is this possible to say: The father is not the son?

They have no thing out of God’s Essence, So they must be one.

Also the Holy Spirit is God.

The relations are essential.

Modern Catholic Dictionary (Perichoresis)

The penetration and indwelling of the three divine persons reciprocally in one another. In the Greek conception of the Trinity there is an emphasis on the mutual penetration of the three persons, thus bringing out the unity of the divine essence. In the Latin idea called circumincession the stress is more on the internal processions of the three divine persons. In both traditions, however, the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God.

The Holy Trinity is a mystery and a dogma of faith. We accept it, even though multiple explanations have been attempted. The west and east have taken different approaches.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ( filioque ). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

 

[pohandes]

No, we’re not speaking of God the Father having relations to himself. We are speaking of the divine nature/essence in which there are subsisting relations of how the nature relates to itself, the Father being one of these relations.

As I said before, we can’t imagine God, without his personality.

That’s not an argument against, and you must be mindful that “person” (when speaking of a Divine Person) is not used in a univocal way with how we refer to human persons.

As a Simple Substance, God does know through his essence (his knowledge/knowing is his essence), and his knowledge of himself (a generative activity) is on the same ontological level as his essence.

Why you think his knowledge of himself is distinct from himself?

Reflecting on what is Simple in this way is not easy, but it’s not impossible, but we can already sketch out major differences between creaturely/composite self-knowledge and the activity of self-knowledge in a Simple Substance.

How do you prove this?

Also the Holy Spirit is God.

The relations are essential.

OK. But it is not a answer to what I said.

The Holy Trinity is a mystery and a dogma of faith. We accept it, even though multiple explanations have been attempted. The west and east have taken different approaches.

Let talk about this in another thread.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No, we’re not speaking of God the Father having relations to himself. We are speaking of the divine nature/essence in which there are subsisting relations of how the nature relates to itself, the Father being one of these relations.

As I said before, we can’t imagine God, without his personality.

I didn’t say God could be without his relations. They are essential. But Latin theology generally approaches the Godhead through the essence, and the relations subsist in the essence. The Father is a relation that subsists in the essence. So is the Word, so is the Holy Spirit.

As a Simple Substance, God does know through his essence (his knowledge/knowing is his essence), and his knowledge of himself (a generative activity) is on the same ontological level as his essence.

Why you think his knowledge of himself is distinct from himself?

It is distinct from yourself in you. It isn’t in him. That’s the point.

Reflecting on what is Simple in this way is not easy, but it’s not impossible, but we can already sketch out major differences between creaturely/composite self-knowledge and the activity of self-knowledge in a Simple Substance.

How do you prove this?

I already stated in a previous post the difference. You are not your knowledge. Your intellect is distinct from your essence. This is not the case in a Simple Substance, because if it were the case the Substance would not be Simple. It’s a simple reductio.

 

[Isearch]

In Catholic Theology, the definition of the word “Person”, when it refers to God, is different from our modern day usage of the same word. This is why the Greek original has the word “hypostasis” to refer to one of the Three Divine Persons (and the Greek word is never used for a human person). In other words, don’t use the modern English definition of it. And the English word stemmed from the Latin word “Persona”, which was already popularly used for the Trinity in the western part of the Roman Empire and was simply accommodated in the second ecumenical council so that western Christians wouldn’t be pissed.

 

[pohandes]

I didn’t say God could be without his relations. They are essential. But Latin theology generally approaches the Godhead through the essence, and the relations subsist in the essence.

I said we can’t imagine God, without his personality…

It is distinct from himself in you. It isn’t in him. That’s the point.

So in fact there is no distinction?

I already stated in a previous post the difference. You are not your knowledge. Your intellect is distinct from your essence. This is not the case in a Simple Substance, because if it were the case the Substance would not be Simple. It’s a simple reductio.

I don’t understand. God is simple and he is in 3 distinct persons? Do you mean this?

In Catholic Theology, the definition of the word “Person”, when it refers to God, is different from our modern day usage of the same word. This is why the Greek original has the word “hypostasis” to refer to one of the Three Divine Persons (and the Greek word is never used for a human person). In other words, don’t use the modern English definition of it. And the English word stemmed from the Latin word “Persona”, which was already popularly used for the Trinity, was simply accommodated in the second ecumenical council so that western Christians wouldn’t be pissed.

Thanks. But I think we are discussing about concept, not meaning.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I didn’t say God could be without his relations. They are essential. But Latin theology generally approaches the Godhead through the essence, and the relations subsist in the essence.

I said we can’t imagine God, without his personality…

Yes, and I responded to that by telling you that we’re not removing personhood from God. But when we are discussing God as Father in Trinitarianism and we are not referring to his relationship with us, but his interior relationship to himself. What you are suggesting would mean that God cannot be called a Father in this way. I am explaining that we are not starting by speaking of how the Father relates to the Word, but first how God relates to Himself as God by his real, internal activity. It’s in how he relates to Himself that we know that God is eternally Father and Word.

It is distinct from himself in you. It isn’t in him. That’s the point.

So in fact there is no distinction?

There is no essential distinction. There is real, relational distinction. The same Divine Essence is on both the principle and term of the procession, which means the Divine Essence is really both paternity and filiation in relation to itself.

In you your essence, your intellect, and your concept are all distinct parts. They are not essentially the same. They differ essentially, not just relationally (and those relations in you are accidental, not subsisting).

I already stated in a previous post the difference. You are not your knowledge. Your intellect is distinct from your essence. This is not the case in a Simple Substance, because if it were the case the Substance would not be Simple. It’s a simple reductio.

I don’t understand. God is simple and he is in 3 distinct persons? Do you mean this?

God has no parts. He is three persons.

 

[pohandes]

Yes, and I responded to that by telling you that we’re not removing personhood from God. But when we are discussing God as Father in Trinitarianism and we are not referring to his relationship with us, but his interior relationship to himself. What you are suggesting would mean that God cannot be called a Father in this way. I am explaining that we are not starting by speaking of how the Father relates to the Word, but first how God relates to Himself as God by his real, internal activity. It’s in how he relates to Himself that we know that God is eternally Father and Word.

If what you are saying is true, we must imagine condition that god exist and persons does not exist; then God makes the relations and Persons come to exist, but it is not in tome and so you think it is enough to be eternal, but a self-exist always exists and nothing has priority to him.

There is no essential distinction. There is real, relational distinction. The same Divine Essence is on both the principle and term of the procession, which means the Divine Essence is really both paternity and filiation in relation to itself.

There is no essential distinction, there is no essential trinity.

God has no parts. He is three persons.

And what are these three persons to his Essence?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Yes, and I responded to that by telling you that we’re not removing personhood from God. But when we are discussing God as Father in Trinitarianism and we are not referring to his relationship with us, but his interior relationship to himself. What you are suggesting would mean that God cannot be called a Father in this way. I am explaining that we are not starting by speaking of how the Father relates to the Word, but first how God relates to Himself as God by his real, internal activity. It’s in how he relates to Himself that we know that God is eternally Father and Word.

If what you are saying is true, we must imagine condition that god exist and persons does not exist; then God makes the relations and Persons come to exist, but it is not in tome and so you think it is enough to be eternal, but a self-exist always exists and nothing has priority to him.

We are not imagining a situation in which God exists and the persons don’t. Neither am I saying that God “makes” the relations come into existence. This is who God is eternally and essentially.

There is no essential distinction. There is real, relational distinction. The same Divine Essence is on both the principle and term of the procession, which means the Divine Essence is really both paternity and filiation in relation to itself.

There is no essential distinction, there is no essential trinity.

Do you imagine the Persons as parts of God, different beings? That is nonsense and contrary to the Catholic faith. The persons have no distinction through the essence. God is Trinity because these relations subsist in the Godhead.

God has no parts. He is three persons.

And what are these three persons to his Essence?

Relations of the Essence to itself by its real, intrinsic activity.

 

[Vico]

…

Vico:

Also the Holy Spirit is God.

The relations are essential.

OK. But it is not a answer to what I said.
…

Pointing out that it was not mentioned and we are speaking of the Holy Trinity, three persons, one in essence.

 

[pohandes]

We are not imagining a situation in which God exists and the persons don’t. Neither am I saying that God “makes” the relations come into existence. This is who God is eternally and essentially.

So there are persons and the persons have relations to each other? Relations make persons or persons make relation? It is Confusing.

Do you imagine the Persons as parts of God, different beings? That is nonsense and contrary to the Catholic faith. The persons have no distinction through the essence. God is Trinity because these relations subsist in the Godhead.

No. Persons are not parts of God.

Relations of the Essence to itself by its real, intrinsic activity.

And what about persons?

Pointing out that it was not mentioned and we are speaking of the Holy Trinity, three persons, one in essence.

What are the persons to essence?

 

[Vico]

…
What are the persons to essence?

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 29 The divine persons

Article 2. Whether “person” is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence?

Objection 3. Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that the Greek ousia, which means essence, signifies a being composed of matter and form. Now that which is composed of matter and form is the individual substance called “hypostasis” and “person.” Therefore all the aforesaid names seem to have the same meaning.

Reply to Objection 3. Strictly speaking, the essence is what is expressed by the definition. Now, the definition comprises the principles of the species, but not the individual principles. Hence in things composed of matter and form, the essence signifies not only the form, nor only the matter, but what is composed of matter and the common form, as the principles of the species. But what is composed of this matter and this form has the nature of hypostasis and person. For soul, flesh, and bone belong to the nature of man; whereas this soul, this flesh and this bone belong to the nature of this man. Therefore hypostasis and person add the individual principles to the idea of essence; nor are these identified with the essence in things composed of matter and form, as we said above when treating of divine simplicity (I:3:3 SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The simplicity of God (Prima Pars, Q. 3)).

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article2