Scutum Fidei: One Definition Of 'Is' Or Two?

[Subcontrary]

This thread is sort of a sequel to this one. Sorry if the subject matter overlaps too much. Just for reference this is the Scutum Fidei:

http://imageshack.us/a/img812/4732/524a.png

This question might be sort of arcane, but in the graphic, are there two usages of the word “is?” I’ve read some speculation (of which I am rather incredulous) that in the relations between God and the persons, the word “is” means, “is of the same essence as,” and in the relations between the persons, the “is not” means “is not indistinguishable from.” I also have qualms about any interpretation of ‘is’ that means ‘is of the same essence,’ but I thought I’d ask.

Does this sound correct, or is the proper reading of the Scutum Fidei one where “is” has a single meaning throughout, and the only difference between the God-person relations and the person-person relations is that the former is affirmative and the latter is negative?

If the “two definitions of ‘is’” theory is correct, and assuming the three persons are of the same essence as each other, then a Scutum Fidei with only affirmative relations should not necessarily depict anything false. This one would mean, “The persons are of the same essence as God and as each other:”

http://s14.postimg.org/r0ku7q4zl/11111111.jpg

If the theory is correct, assuming the three persons are not indistinguishable from God, then a Scutum Fidei with only negative relations should not necessarily depict anything false, either. This one would mean, “The persons are not indistinguishable from each other or from God:”

http://s24.postimg.org/jkg3naa1x/222222.jpg

If the theory is correct, a Scutum Fidei whose affirmative and negative relations are switched should not necessarily be false. This one would mean, “The persons are of the same essence as each other and are not indistinguishable from God:”

http://s14.postimg.org/mc9fqa56p/3333333.jpg

I am highly skeptical of this theory and I thought I would bring it up! If, as I suspect, the Scutum Fidei does use “is” in only one single sense, what is that sense?

 

[thenobes]

This thread is sort of a sequel to this one. Sorry if the subject matter overlaps too much. Just for reference this is the Scutum Fidei:

http://imageshack.us/a/img812/4732/524a.png

This question might be sort of arcane, but in the graphic, are there two usages of the word “is?” I’ve read some speculation (of which I am rather incredulous) that in the relations between God and the persons, the word “is” means, “is of the same essence as,” and in the relations between the persons, the “is not” means “is not indistinguishable from.” I also have qualms about any interpretation of ‘is’ that means ‘is of the same essence,’ but I thought I’d ask.

Does this sound correct, or is the proper reading of the Scutum Fidei one where “is” has a single meaning throughout, and the only difference between the God-person relations and the person-person relations is that the former is affirmative and the latter is negative?

If the “two definitions of ‘is’” theory is correct, and assuming the three persons are of the same essence as each other, then a Scutum Fidei with only affirmative relations should not necessarily depict anything false. This one would mean, “The persons are of the same essence as God and as each other:”

http://s14.postimg.org/r0ku7q4zl/11111111.jpg

If the theory is correct, assuming the three persons are not indistinguishable from God, then a Scutum Fidei with only negative relations should not necessarily depict anything false, either. This one would mean, “The persons are not indistinguishable from each other or from God:”

http://s24.postimg.org/jkg3naa1x/222222.jpg

If the theory is correct, a Scutum Fidei whose affirmative and negative relations are switched should not necessarily be false. This one would mean, “The persons are of the same essence as each other and are not indistinguishable from God:”

http://s14.postimg.org/mc9fqa56p/3333333.jpg

I am highly skeptical of this theory and I thought I would bring it up! If, as I suspect, the Scutum Fidei does use “is” in only one single sense, what is that sense?

Would it help understand the scutum if we interpreted “is” as meaning (in all cases): “is of the essence of”?

So, The Father is of the essence of God.
The Son is of the essence of God
and the Holy Spirit is of the essence of God.

But the Father is not of the essence of the Son, the Son of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Father, and vice versa.

Whatcha think?

peace
steve

 

[Subcontrary]

Would it help understand the scutum if we interpreted “is” as meaning (in all cases): “is of the essence of”?

So, The Father is of the essence of God.
The Son is of the essence of God
and the Holy Spirit is of the essence of God.

But the Father is not of the essence of the Son, the Son of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit of the Father, and vice versa.

Whatcha think?

peace
steve

To be clear, are you favoring the traditional scutum with the “is nots” on the outside and the “is’s” on the inside over the three new combinations I came up with?

You are saying, on the inside of the graphic, “The Son is God” means “The Son is of the essence of God?” (and vice versa) and on the outside, “The Son is not the Father” means “The Son is not of the essence of the Father” (and vice versa)?

That is to say, you answer “one” to my question, “one definition of ‘is’ or two?” right?

I’m not totally certain about that usage of ‘is,’ but if there’s one thing I know, it’s that ‘is’ can mean a lot. But couldn’t you, with this usage of ‘is,’ mean, “Aristotle is of the essence of Winston Churchill,” and say honestly, and literally, “Aristotle is Winston Churchill?” Maybe I’m misunderstanding the idea of essence, but don’t all humans have the same essence? Otherwise your interpretation seems orthodox, from what little I know about such things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This thread is sort of a sequel to this one. Sorry if the subject matter overlaps too much. Just for reference this is the Scutum Fidei:

http://imageshack.us/a/img812/4732/524a.png

This question might be sort of arcane, but in the graphic, are there two usages of the word “is?” I’ve read some speculation (of which I am rather incredulous) that in the relations between God and the persons, the word “is” means, “is of the same essence as,” and in the relations between the persons, the “is not” means “is not indistinguishable from.” I also have qualms about any interpretation of ‘is’ that means ‘is of the same essence,’ but I thought I’d ask.

Does this sound correct, or is the proper reading of the Scutum Fidei one where “is” has a single meaning throughout, and the only difference between the God-person relations and the person-person relations is that the former is affirmative and the latter is negative?

If the “two definitions of ‘is’” theory is correct, and assuming the three persons are of the same essence as each other, then a Scutum Fidei with only affirmative relations should not necessarily depict anything false. This one would mean, “The persons are of the same essence as God and as each other:”

http://s14.postimg.org/r0ku7q4zl/11111111.jpg

If the theory is correct, assuming the three persons are not indistinguishable from God, then a Scutum Fidei with only negative relations should not necessarily depict anything false, either. This one would mean, “The persons are not indistinguishable from each other or from God:”

http://s24.postimg.org/jkg3naa1x/222222.jpg

If the theory is correct, a Scutum Fidei whose affirmative and negative relations are switched should not necessarily be false. This one would mean, “The persons are of the same essence as each other and are not indistinguishable from God:”

http://s14.postimg.org/mc9fqa56p/3333333.jpg

I am highly skeptical of this theory and I thought I would bring it up! If, as I suspect, the Scutum Fidei does use “is” in only one single sense, what is that sense?

Don’t get hung up on " theories, " go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There you will begin with the Creed, that, in itself, should be enough. But the Catechism goes on to explain the the Nature of God pretty throughly and most of it is Defined Dogma. The basic truth is that all three persons are God and have the same Essence. They differ in their Persons. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. So the three Persons are not identified with one another, yet each is fully God. But God is identified as the Father according to the Nicene Creed, which reads " I believe in God, Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and in His only Son, eternally begotton…"

Just stick to the creed and stay away from " theories " and diagrams.

Linus2nd

 

[Subcontrary]

Don’t get hung up on " theories, " go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There you will begin with the Creed, that, in itself, should be enough. But the Catechism goes on to explain the the Nature of God pretty throughly and most of it is Defined Dogma. The basic truth is that all three persons are God and have the same Essence. They differ in their Persons. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. So the three Persons are not identified with one another, yet each is fully God. But God is identified as the Father according to the Nicene Creed, which reads " I believe in God, Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and in His only Son, eternally begotton…"

Just stick to the creed and stay away from " theories " and diagrams.

Linus2nd

I think it’s pretty clear from the Catechism and from the Nicene and Apostles creeds that the three persons are not identical to one another, and it seems as though the creeds together indicate that each person bears an identity relation with God (who I assume bears an identity relation with the Lord/our Lord):

From the Nicene Creed:
“We believe in one God, the Father…”
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ…”
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord…”

From the Apostles Creed:
“I believe in Jesus Christ, [the Father’s] only Son, our Lord…”
“I believe in God, the Father almighty…”

If these actually are communicating identity, as they seem to me to be, then the only mystery I guess is how each person can be identical to God even though God is comprised of three persons, but each person is not comprised of three persons.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think it’s pretty clear from the Catechism and from the Nicene and Apostles creeds that the three persons are not identical to one another, and it seems as though the creeds together indicate that each person bears an identity relation with God (who I assume bears an identity relation with the Lord/our Lord):

From the Nicene Creed:
“We believe in one God, the Father…”
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ…”
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord…”

From the Apostles Creed:
“I believe in Jesus Christ, [the Father’s] only Son, our Lord…”
“I believe in God, the Father almighty…”

If these actually are communicating identity, as they seem to me to be, then the only mystery I guess is how each person can be identical to God even though God is comprised of three persons, but each person is not comprised of three persons.

We can never understand that, it is a mystery reserved to God alone and I am fairly certain that we will not understand it in Heaven either, I’m not even sure that we would be able to understand that even if God chose to reveal it at that time.

Linus2nd

 

[Alindawyl]

If these actually are communicating identity, as they seem to me to be, then the only mystery I guess is how each person can be identical to God even though God is comprised of three persons, but each person is not comprised of three persons.

The “is” and “is not” aren’t referring to the same thing. They are referring to two different concepts.

God is a single substance. That substance exists as three divine persons. Substance and person are not the same concept, so there is no contradiction. As I like to phrase it in my admittedly non-philosophical language, God is simultaneously one from the standpoint of “what” and three from the standpoint of “who”.

If you then ask me to explain how three persons can all be the same exact substance, I must shrug my shoulders and give the answer that all too often infuriates or frustrates those without faith:

It is a mystery.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

That God is Jesus only means that the concept of God applies to God. The “is” doesn’t mean “=” but predication i.e., the logical affirmation of something about another (Merriam-Webster). That a flower is red doesn’t mean that that flower = red for the former is an object while the latter is a concept.

Jesus is Son of God & Son of Man. The Son of God is the concept of God for, after all, what does “concept” mean? The Son of God is eternally begotten of the introspection of God. The Son of God, the Logos is the self-knowledge of God. That self-knowledge though eternal is by not means = the God. God isn’t = [the] God. I mean turn your eyes or rather ears inward & perceive that you are speaking about the concept of God & that you have no other means to understand Him. Unto [the] God that self-knowledge applies. Those who are perishing believe not that the concept of God, the Son applies to God, is the temple of the tabernacle but that God = Jesus

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4.3)

 

[Subcontrary]

The “is” and “is not” aren’t referring to the same thing. They are referring to two different concepts.

God is a single substance. That substance exists as three divine persons. Substance and person are not the same concept, so there is no contradiction. As I like to phrase it in my admittedly non-philosophical language, God is simultaneously one from the standpoint of “what” and three from the standpoint of “who”.

If you then ask me to explain how three persons can all be the same exact substance, I must shrug my shoulders and give the answer that all too often infuriates or frustrates those without faith:

It is a mystery.

So can I put you on the “two definitions of ‘is’” team, then? What are the definitions?

What exactly is the usage of “is” in the Scutum’s “The Father is God?”

Something like “The Father is identical to God?”
Or “The Father is of the same substance as God?”

What is the usage of “is not” in the Scutum’s “The Father is not the Son?”

Would you consider the following three sentences true, yet mysteriously so, as Linusthe2nd does, or would you disagree that they constitute a mystery, or even that they are all true?

God is comprised of three persons.
The Father is not comprised of three persons.
The Father is identical to God.

 

[Alindawyl]

So can I put you on the “two definitions of ‘is’” team, then? What are the definitions?

What exactly is the usage of “is” in the Scutum’s “The Father is God?”

Something like “The Father is identical to God?”
Or “The Father is of the same substance as God?”

What is the usage of “is not” in the Scutum’s “The Father is not the Son?”

Would you consider the following three sentences true, yet mysteriously so, as Linusthe2nd does, or would you disagree that they constitute a mystery, or even that they are all true?

God is comprised of three persons.
The Father is not comprised of three persons.
The Father is identical to God.

I’m on the “I believe what the Catholic Church teaches” team. When it comes to the Blessed Trinity, this is best expressed in the following three paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

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.” Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” “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.”

 

[Subcontrary]

I’m on the “I believe what the Catholic Church teaches” team. When it comes to the Blessed Trinity, this is best expressed in the following three paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

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.” Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” “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.”

In paragraph 253, where “The Father is that which the Son is” appears, what is the usage of the two “is’s,” assuming here that they are both being used in the same sense?

Is it something like, “The Father is identical to that which the Son is identical to?”
Or, “The Father is of the same substance as that which the Son is of the same substance as?”
A third option, perhaps?

In paragraph 254, where “He is not the Father who is the Son” appears, what is the usage of the “is” and “is not,” assuming here that they are both being used in the same sense?

Is it something like “He is not identical to the Father who is identical to the Son?”
Or “He is not of the same substance as the Father who is of the same substance as the Son?”
A third option perhaps?

What are the two definitions of “is” that the Catechism uses between the person-person relations and the person-God relations? Or does it only use one definition of ‘is’ after all? If you prefer, does the Church use one definition of ‘is’ to describe both the person-person relations and the person-God relations, or does it use two separate definitions, one to describe person-person relations, and a different one to describe person-God relations? In either case, what definition or definitions does the Church use?

What does the Church teach are the truth values of the three sentences below? Are they all true? Is one or more of them not true? If they are all true, is it a mystery as to how this can be, or can we grasp it here and now? If they are not all true, which one or ones are not true?

1. God is comprised of three persons.
2. The Father is not comprised of three persons.
3. The Father is identical to God.

 

[Alindawyl]

In paragraph 253, where “The Father is that which the Son is” appears, what is the usage of the two “is’s,” assuming here that they are both being used in the same sense?

Is it something like, “The Father is identical to that which the Son is identical to?”
Or, “The Father is of the same substance as that which the Son is of the same substance as?”
A third option, perhaps?

In paragraph 254, where “He is not the Father who is the Son” appears, what is the usage of the “is” and “is not,” assuming here that they are both being used in the same sense?

Is it something like “He is not identical to the Father who is identical to the Son?”
Or “He is not of the same substance as the Father who is of the same substance as the Son?”
A third option perhaps?

What are the two definitions of “is” that the Catechism uses between the person-person relations and the person-God relations? Or does it only use one definition of ‘is’ after all? If you prefer, does the Church use one definition of ‘is’ to describe both the person-person relations and the person-God relations, or does it use two separate definitions, one to describe person-person relations, and a different one to describe person-God relations? In either case, what definition or definitions does the Church use?

What does the Church teach are the truth values of the three sentences below? Are they all true? Is one or more of them not true? If they are all true, is it a mystery as to how this can be, or can we grasp it here and now? If they are not all true, which one or ones are not true?

1. God is comprised of three persons.
2. The Father is not comprised of three persons.
3. The Father is identical to God.

There is only one usage for the verb “is”, and that’s to link the subject and predicate of a sentence. I think you mean to say, what is being linked?

When the Catechism says “The Father is that which the Son is”, what is being linked positively is the substance of God. Both the Father and the Son are of the same substance.

When the Catechism says “He is not the Father who is the Son”, what is being linked negatively is their personhood. Both the Father and the Son are not the same person.

What is God? One being. Who is God? Three persons. How can this be? It is a mystery. We only know it is so because God has revealed to us that he is one in being but three in person.

The problem we have in describing God is that we are trying to describe an infinite being using finite concepts. We are only familiar with and can only comprehend things that exist within time, that have a beginning, that are limited. All the terms we use to describe God are finite terms. So we must use them in an analogous sense. An analogy means that something is like something else, but at the same time not like something else. When we say God is everywhere, we could look around us and say, “I see things that are not God. He can’t be everywhere, because that tree is not him and that car is not him and that rock is not him… Other things occupy that space.” We have to realize that we mean everywhere analogously. God is everywhere in the sense that it is impossible to be somewhere that God is not. But God is not everywhere in the sense that things other than God exist and take up space.

So when talking about the substance of God, we must remember that it is infinite. And when talking about the three divine persons, we must remember that they are also infinite. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as infinite persons, are everywhere in the sense that it is impossible to be somewhere that they are not. But those three persons are not everywhere in the sense that the Father is not the Son. It’s an analogy.

I say again, it is a mystery. We will never be able to fully understand God, because we will never be infinite like God. At some point we have to stop and say, “It is a mystery,” because we can go no farther.

 

[Subcontrary]

There is only one usage for the verb “is”, and that’s to link the subject and predicate of a sentence. I think you mean to say, what is being linked?

When the Catechism says “The Father is that which the Son is”, what is being linked positively is the substance of God. Both the Father and the Son are of the same substance.

When the Catechism says “He is not the Father who is the Son”, what is being linked negatively is their personhood. Both the Father and the Son are not the same person.

You said that there is only one usage of ‘is,’ but you’re describing two definitions by my count:

‘Is’ in the first, positive, person-God relation, means “is of the same substance as.”

‘Is’ in the second, person-person relation, means “is the same person as,” or, because its quality is negative, “is not the same person as.”

That is what I mean by “two definitions,” the subject and predicate are being linked in two different ways. If there is only one definition of ‘is’ in the Scutum, then person-person and person-God relations share the same sort of link, and the only difference is that the person-person relation is negative, and the person-God relation is positive.

The following is what I mean by “one definition of ‘is:’”

“The Father is of the same substance as God.”
“The Father is not of the same substance as the Son.”

In the original post, I asked if the three scuta fidei with mixed up positive and negative relations could possibly accurately describe the Trinity. Do they? For example, in the one with only positive relations, could the relations be:

“The Father is of the same substance as God”
“The Son is of the same substance as God”
“The Holy Spirit is of the same substance as God”
etc. etc.

“The Father is of the same substance as the Son”
“The Son is of the same substance as the Father”
etc. etc.

If so, then the Scutum with only “is’s” and no “is nots” shouldn’t be false, if we mean this definition of ‘is’ (“is of the same substance as”).

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but does the Catechism offer any insight as to the truth or falsehood of the following three sentences? If so, is sentence one true or false? Is sentence two true or false? Is sentence three true or false?

1. God is comprised of three persons.
2. The Father is not comprised of three persons.
3. The Father is identical to God.

 

[Alindawyl]

You are massively overanalyzing this by adding in a bunch of irrelevant stuff.

First forget any additional pictures that you think might be the scutum fidei. Just look at the original, since it’s correct. There is no need to create more and muddy the waters. All you need to do is to understand what the first one is saying.

Second, the word “is” has a single definition. It links a subject with a predicate in either a positive or negative manner. Nothing more, nothing less. “The Father is God” links the two together in a positive manner. “The Father is not the Son” links the two together in a negative manner. Why the statements are positive or negative is because of what the subject and predicate are in each statement.

“The Father is God” links the Father and God in the same manner as “Alindawyl is human” or “Subcontrary is human”. All three statements positively link a person with a substance. The Father is positively linked with the divine substance of God. Alindawyl is positively linked with the substance of human. Subcontrary is positively linked with the substance of human.

“The Father is not the Son” links the Father and the Son in the same manner as “Alindawyl is not Subcontrary”. Both statements negatively link a person with a person, the Father with the Son and Alindawyl with Subcontrary.

So based on this, looking at the three statements at the end of your post you can see that all are true if you understand the context of what is being compared:

1. God is comprised of three persons is a true statement because God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. The Father is not comprised of three persons is a true statement because the Father is a single person.
3. The Father is identical to God is a true statement because both of them are comprised of the same substance.

You may then ask, but if the Father is identical to God, and God is three persons, why is the Father not also three persons? The answer is that the statement “The Father is identical to God” is talking about the substance of God, not the personhood of God. Person and substance are different concepts.

I will say it again. When talking about God you must remember that we are talking about an infinite substance and infinite persons. The human substance is finite. The human person is finite. The divine substance and divine persons are infinite. There is a qualitative difference between God and the entire created order that cannot be ignored. What seems to be illogical in our minds is only illogical because we are attempting to force an infinite being to fit into finite definitions. We can keep worrying at it until our heads explode, we can throw up our hands and say “It’s got to be false because it doesn’t fit into this logical model I’ve created”, or we can accept that there are some things we simply do not understand because our frame of reference does not enable us to understand them.

The latter is where “It is a mystery” comes from.

God IS three persons. Each of those three persons IS God. Each of those three persons IS NOT the other two persons. How can this be? It is a mystery.