The Trinity - One in Act, Three in Potency?

[MindOverMatter]

Or maybe it’s more correct to say that there is only one instance of the divine essence in that there is only one divine essence; but that there are several hypostases/persons in the divine essence.

The trinity is a natural consequence of the divine essence, but its not caused in the same sense as saying that the Trinity potentially exist in time in respect of the divine essence. Thats Platos theory of emanation. It is rather the case that, where the divine essence is, the 3 persons of the trinity exist necessarily. They are not created by the divine essence, they are in fact the divine essence and our one in respect of that absolute essence we call God. One might say that the trinity is an intrinsic part of what it means to be one united divine essence, in so far as the Christian conception of God being the objective and absolute eternal love is concerned. Also, to my understanding, Jesus is eternally begotten in respect of the incarnation, not in respect of Jesus’ ontological being. The Body of Christ is eternally begotten. But the son has always existed with father. The word (logos) has always been with the father, and in the same respect the father would not exist without the logos or the holy spirit. They all equally constitute that which is God.

 

[Katholish]

In fact, I think I came to grips with an important question here.

That question is:

Are the persons objects within the Divine Essence, or are they objects that possess/are of the Divine Essence?

cringe
We need to get rid of the term “objects” for starters.

The proper answer is that they are immanent real relations within the Divine Essence.

 

[Katholish]

The trinity is a natural consequence of the divine essence, but its not caused in the same sense as saying that the Trinity potentially exist in time in respect of the divine essence. Thats Platos theory of emanation. It is rather the case that, where the divine essence is, the 3 persons of the trinity exist necessarily. They are not created by the divine essence, they are in fact the divine essence and our one in respect of that absolute essence we call God. One might say that the trinity is an intrinsic part of what it means to be one united divine essence, in so far as the Christian conception of God being the objective and absolute eternal love. Also, to my understanding, Jesus is eternally begotten in respect of the incarnation, not in respect of Jesus’ ontological being. The Body of Christ is eternally begotten. But the son has always existed with father. The word (logos) has always been with the father, and in the same respect the father would not exist without the logos or the holy spirit. They all equally constitute that which is God.

Whoa!

Eternally begotten is in referrence to the Second Person, most certainly not to the incarnation.

I am still unclear as to whether or not the Trinity of Persons is a necessary consequense of the Divine Nature. If it is though, it is something not known through philosophy, but through theology. It is most certainly the case that the Trinity cannot be proven through reason alone. This means that the steps necessary to prove the Trinity is a necessary reality given the Divine Nature is something beyond which we can know unless it is revealed (which I am not sure that it is). Again, I am unclear, but I would be hesitent to affirm it.

The relations within the Trinity are causal relations. The Father begets the Son, and the Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit. Four real relations, three Persons.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Whoa!

Eternally begotten is in referrence to the Second Person, most certainly not to the incarnation.

I do not know the basis for your rejection as you have not provided a relevant reason that i can verify and which shows that you understand. The Second Person has always existed in God timelessly as the Logos. When the Catholic Church speaks about the Son being eternally begotten, they are speaking explicitly about the incarnation. Jesus is not eternally “created”, he is begotten. There is a fundamental difference. It is better to say that Jesus is “sent” by the Father.

I am still unclear as to whether or not the Trinity of Persons is a necessary consequense of the Divine Nature.

If we are to speak of a trinity at all, then it must be true, regardless of any knowledge we can acquire through philosophy. The trinity is a revealed truth. However we can understand the legitimacy of there being more then one person in God once we understand the relationship between the nature that is love and Gods being, in relation to creation. A perfect eternal relationship seems to me to follow from the nature of love, for God must be perfectly fulfilled in himself before God can be perfect in Being, and also in respect of creating other persons and loving them perfectly.

If it is though, it is something not known through philosophy, but through theology. It is most certainly the case that the Trinity cannot be proven through reason alone. This means that the steps necessary to prove the Trinity is a necessary reality given the Divine Nature is something beyond which we can know unless it is revealed (which I am not sure that it is). Again, I am unclear, but I would be hesitent to affirm it.

The relations within the Trinity are causal relations.

I do not know what you mean by the use of the word “cause”. If you mean that the Farther precedes the son in respect of Gods ontological being, then this is false. The Farther precedes the Son only in respect of “station”, not being. Ultimately this is a theological issue regarding how best to interpret the relationships that are revealed through revelation. However; I can assure you that none of the persons in the trinity are created or caused in the sense of one being proceeding from another being.

 

[TheLearner]

The proper answer is that they are immanent real relations within the Divine Essence.

But I ask why start with the Divine Essence, instead of starting with the Divine Persons?

It is rather the case that, where the divine essence is, the 3 persons of the trinity exist necessarily. They are not created by the divine essence, they are in fact the divine essence and our one in respect of that absolute essence we call God.

(…)

and in the same respect the father would not exist without the logos or the holy spirit. They all equally constitute that which is God.

So in fact, we may as well start with the Divine Persons and proceed to the Divine Essence?

The Farther precedes the Son only in respect of “station”, not being.

Could you clarify what “station” means exactly?

 

[Katholish]

Mind,

I do not know the basis for you rejection as you have not provided a relevant reason that i can verify and which shows that you understand. The second person has always existed in God timelessly as the logos. When the catholic church speak about the son being eternally begotten, they are speaking explicitly about the incarnation. Jesus is not eternally “created”, he is begotten. There is a fundamental difference. It is better to say that Jesus is “sent” by the Father.

The human nature of the Son was created. There is no such thing as an eternal human nature, but human nature -by nature- necessarily exists in time because it is material. If the human nature existed for all time, then Mary could not be the Mother of God, nor could she be His real biological mother.

You speak of the second person and Jesus as if they were different Persons. During the Incarnation the Son, the Second Person assumed a human nature in addition to His Divine Nature. This is the hypostatic Union as defined by the Council of Calcedon in 451 AD. The Divine name “Jesus” usually only has referrence to the Second Person after He took on flesh.

The act of incarnation was performed by all three Persons though it is often appropriated to the Holy Spirit. If eternally begotten referred to the Incarnation, one would expect to hear eternally begotten of the Holy Spirit.

Are you denying that the Son proceeds from the Father and that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son? The procession of the Son from the Father is called generation. The One Who is generated is called Son and “Begotten”. The One who generates is called Father and unbegotten.

Even the Nicene Creed has referrence to “eternally begotten” in referrence to the Son before the Incarnation.

If we are to speak of a trinity at all, then it must be true, regardless of any knowledge we can acquire through philosopher. The trinity is a revealed truth. However we can understand the legitimacy of there being more then one person in God once we understand the relationship between the nature that is love and Gods being, in relation to creation.

There is a difference between knowing that the Trinity is true and knowing that given the Nature of God it necessarily follows that God must be a Trinity of Persons. It is the latter you affirmed but I am unclear about.

I do not know what you mean by the use of the word “cause”. If you mean that the Farther precedes the son in respect of Gods ontological being, then this is false. The Farther precedes the Son only in respect of “station”, not being. Ultimately this is a theological issue regarding how best to interpret the relationships that are revealed through revelation. However; I can assure you that none of the persons in the trinity are created or caused in the sense of one being proceeding from another being.

They are not “created” but there is a relation of origin insofar as one Person proceeds from another as in the Son proceeding from the Father. Not one being proceeding from a another being (because they are the same being) but one Person from another (because their personhood is only a result of their relation of opposition which is by way of procession.)

If this is unclear, I suggest reading the Summa Prima Pars Question 27 - the beginning of St. Thomas’s Treatise on the Trinity.

 

[Katholish]

TheLearner,

But I ask why start with the Divine Essence, instead of starting with the Divine Persons?

The notion of Persons is dependent upon there being a nature. The Persons are also tied together with the operations of the Nature, Intellect (Son) and Will (Holy Spirit). You have to know what you are before you can determine who you are. In fact, the definition of person contains the terms substance and nature: “individual substance of a rational nature”. [note: individual and substance are not meant to be combined into one term, but are two seperate requirements]

Could you clarify what “station” means exactly?

I forgot to ask MindOverMatter the same question. It has me slightly concerned.

 

[TheLearner]

TheLearner,

But I ask why start with the Divine Essence, instead of starting with the Divine Persons?

The notion of Persons is dependent upon there being a nature. The Persons are also tied together with the operations of the Nature, Intellect (Son) and Will (Holy Spirit). You have to know what you are before you can determine who you are. In fact, the definition of person contains the terms substance and nature: “individual substance of a rational nature”. [note: individual and substance are not meant to be combined into one term, but are two seperate requirements]

Which operation is the Father, then?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Mind,
The human nature of the Son was created. There is no such thing as an eternal human nature, but human nature -by nature- necessarily exists in time because it is material. If the human nature existed for all time, then Mary could not be the Mother of God, nor could she be His real biological mother.

I know of nothing that i have written that would warrant this response.

You speak of the second person and Jesus as if they were different Persons.

No i did not, as is evident by what i have written.

During the Incarnation the Son, the Second Person assumed a human nature in addition to His Divine Nature.

I haven’t said anything that would imply otherwise.

This is the hypostatic Union as defined by the Council of Calcedon in 451 AD. The Divine name “Jesus” usually only has referrence to the Second Person after He took on flesh.

But the name can be referred in a general sense to the second person. We must understand that, before Jesus took on flesh, he existed in God.

The act of incarnation was performed by all three Persons though it is often appropriated to the Holy Spirit. If eternally begotten referred to the Incarnation, one would expect to hear eternally begotten of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps thats why we see Jesus speaking to the Father and speaking of the Holy spirit as distinct individual persons. The fact is, Jesus is the second person of the trinity, not the father or the holy spirit, although Jesus certainly proceeds from the father.

Are you denying that the Son proceeds from the Father and that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son?

If you read my post, you will know that i do not deny the “stations” that is evident in revealed truth concerning the father, but rather that i deny that the second person was caused in to existence.

Even the Nicene Creed has referrence to “eternally begotten” in referrence to the Son before the Incarnation.

Have you seen anywhere in my post where i reject this notion?

There is a difference between knowing that the Trinity is true

I made it very clear in my post that philosophy does not reveal divine revelation.

and knowing that given the Nature of God it necessarily follows that God must be a Trinity of Persons. It is the latter you affirmed but I am unclear about.

Why is it not clear to you?

They are not “created”

Precisely what i said.

but there is a relation of origin insofar as one Person proceeds from another as in the Son proceeding from the Father. Not one being proceeding from a another being (because they are the same being) but one Person from another (because their personhood is only a result of their relation of opposition which is by way of procession.)

I accept procession in insofar as one is speaking of the second person naturally being second to the first in respect of “station” as in the father and the son, but they are equal in their divine nature.

If this is unclear, I suggest reading the Summa Prima Pars Question 27 - the beginning of St. Thomas’s Treatise on the Trinity.

The only think that is unclear to me is how you interpreted my post as meaning anything other then what you have generally affirmed in your post that i am quoting now?

 

[Katholish]

Mind,

I know of nothing that i have written that would warrant this response.

It was this:

Also, to my understanding, Jesus is eternally begotten in respect of the incarnation, not in respect of Jesus’ ontological being. The Body of Christ is eternally begotten. But the son has always existed with father.

You said that the material body of Christ is eternally begotten. You seemed to be arguing that “begotten” referred only to the human nature and not specifically to the Divine Person. Perhaps you said something that you didn’t mean, but the sentence “The Body of Christ is eternally begotten” is not possible to interpret in an orthodox sense and deserved my comments.

I accept procession in insofar as one is speaking of the second person naturally being second to the first in respect of “station” as in the father and the son, but they are equal in their divine nature.

Equal in nature, yes. I don’t know what you mean by “station” but I would incline to saying that they are equal in station as well. Procession refers to a relation of origin. As long as you are ok saying the Son is generated by and proceeds from the Father, we have no problem.

TheLearner,

Which operation is the Father, then?

He isn’t. The operations are tied to the mode of procession, as it were. I didn’t mean to imply that the Son is the Divine Intellect but the Spirit is not, I only meant that the procession by which the Father begets the Son related to the operation of the Divine intellect, so Intellect accounts for both. Since Father and Son both equally participate in Spiration, the procession associated with the Divine Will, this procession introduces the Holy Spirit, but not a Fourth Person because Father and Son have this in common, where as for a real relation to constitute a person, it must not be a shared relation. Thomas talks about this at length in the Summa. It is sort of difficult for me to reproduce in this setting.

 

[MindOverMatter]

You said that the material body of Christ is eternally begotten. You seemed to be arguing that “begotten” referred only to the human nature and not specifically to the Divine Person. Perhaps you said something that you didn’t mean, but the sentence “The Body of Christ is eternally begotten” is not possible to interpret in an orthodox sense and deserved my comments.

Okay perhaps i am mistaken, which is unfortunate as i hate being wrong, but perhaps i should have looked up the necessary information before launching in to a situation with an erroneous point of view and a less then authoritative understanding of Catholic Theology. Its my fault. I have no desire to deceive or confuse anybody. But I thought that the idea of the eternally begotten son was referring specifically to the incarnation; the eternal logos taking on flesh. I understood it as the Farther “sending” the Son, and i thought that the second person of the trinity was only called the “son” in relation to the “incarnation”. I was not aware that there was a generation of persons in the God head. Even if i am mistaken, this still sounds allot to me like creation. Also i use the term stations, as showing degrees of authority within the God-head rather then procession.

Of coarse i have no intention of being unorthodox, and so i humbly accept you as my teacher, but please, as you have been doing, can you please quote the necessary authority to back up your interpretation, as i am not totally convinced and neither do i entirely understand what it means for the son to proceed from the father with out rendering the son as potentially existing. Don’t get me wrong i have a feeling that you are right, but i just need to know for sure. Thanks.

 

[Axman]

All very interesting, and beyond my present understanding. But a simple question might provide some comic relief: Why do we insist on saying that the Trinity consists of three persons?? Why not three people ???:

 

[PJM]

“Potency” is to be understood in the Aristotelian framework of the Actus et Potentia distinction.

You can read here: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Actus_et_Potentia

So the answer to the OOPQ is yes?

Thanks!

 

[TheLearner]

All very interesting, and beyond my present understanding. But a simple question might provide some comic relief: Why do we insist on saying that the Trinity consists of three persons?? Why not three people ???:

Because God is not a man. Speaking of “people” implies corporeality in God, and is thus a radical anthropomorphism - as if God was by nature of flesh. God is God; wholly Other and immaterial.

 

[JimG]

But I thought that the idea of the eternally begotten son was referring specifically to the incarnation; the eternal logos taking on flesh. I understood it as the Farther “sending” the Son, and i thought that the second person of the trinity was only called the “son” in relation to the “incarnation”. I was not aware that there was a generation of persons in the God head. Even if i am mistaken, this still sounds allot to me like creation. Also i use the term stations, as showing degrees of authority within the God-head rather then procession. In the traditional teaching on the Trinity, the generation of Persons within the Godhead does not specifically have to do with the Incarnation.

Rather, the Father eternally begets the Son–the divine Word–through the operation of the divine intellect. Father and Son eternally beget the Holy Spirit through the mutual love expressed by the divine will.

It is not creation because there is no before or after, no beginning material and ending material, no beginning form and ending form.

God from all eternity, knows himself, and in knowing himself, generates the Word.
Father and Son (the Word) love each other and the love is perfectly expressed in the spiration of the Person of the Holy Spirit.

The Incarnation is a distinct phenomenon, wherein the Divine Word, a divine Person wholly possessing the one divine nature, enters into history by taking on a human nature, being conceived in the womb of Mary.

 

[Katholish]

But I thought that the idea of the eternally begotten son was referring specifically to the incarnation; the eternal logos taking on flesh. I understood it as the Farther “sending” the Son, and i thought that the second person of the trinity was only called the “son” in relation to the “incarnation”. I was not aware that there was a generation of persons in the God head. Even if i am mistaken, this still sounds allot to me like creation. Also i use the term stations, as showing degrees of authority within the God-head rather then procession.

Of coarse i have no intention of being unorthodox, and so i humbly accept you as my teacher, but please, as you have been doing, can you please quote the necessary authority to back up your interpretation, as i am not totally convinced and neither do i entirely understand what it means for the son to proceed from the father with out rendering the son as potentially existing. Don’t get me wrong i have a feeling that you are right, but i just need to know for sure. Thanks.

As for sources on the generation of the Logos (Son) they are more than abundant. St. Augustine’s De Trinitate would be a good start, but I have always considered Thomas’s treatment of the Trinity to be the very heart of the Summa. I basically took an entire course on St. Thomas and the Trinity, and I hope that everything I have said is an accurate summation of things that he has stated in the Summa. I am not really clever enough to come up with this stuff on my own. Thomas does explicitly say that “The procession of the Word in God is called generation.” If that helps.

Thomas first tries to explain what it means for there to be procession in God, taking it as a dogmatic fact that there is since the Scripture mentions the Son proceeding from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding as well. The Arians took this talk of procession to mean that the Son and Spirit are not equal with the Father and hence not really God in the same sense. Thomas, and the Council Fathers of Nicea point out that there can be prcession which is not creation. Thomas explains the difference between an immanent procession and a transitive procession. Immanent stays within the source, whereas a transitive leaves the source and becomes something truly individual. The Arians thought that Divine Procession was tranisitive, that the Son and Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father to become truly individual and unique things. Thomas explains (but Augustine before him) that the procession was instead immanent, in a similar way that men think of an idea, but that idea remains within their own mind. The idea does not exist independently of the thinker, but remains a part of him. Nevertheless, the “creation” of a thought is still a real procession. In God, a divine thought is not really distinct from the Divine essence where as in a human thinker, even though the thought remains in the person, it is still distinct from him, so “creation” wouldn’t be a proper concept when it comes to immanent processions within God.

Is now starting to realize that to try to explain Thomas seems silly when he can just be read himself While perhaps interesting to me to try to represent Thomas, you would probably get more value from it coming from the horse’s mouth as it were.

newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm#article2

 

[Axman]

Because God is not a man. Speaking of “people” implies corporeality in God, and is thus a radical anthropomorphism - as if God was by nature of flesh. God is God; wholly Other and immaterial.

A noble effort but hardly cogent.  To say that "people"  has anthropomorphic  properties etc.., implies that "person" does not.  But any reputable dictionary will list  both terms  primarily  as human designations and that  ” people “ is merely the plural of  “person “. The seemingly innocuous original question masks my desire to remind us all of the original 3rd  century Trinitarian controversies, where that word “person” had to be really “hammered-out “ before it could be used in defining  belief.  Sometimes we take words for granted.
As for  “people”, I suspect that term needs a linguistic,, historical explanation of a later time. In any case , the original  question  in itself  has no relevant theological  significance….  .

 

[Axman]

Because God is not a man. Speaking of “people” implies corporeality in God, and is thus a radical anthropomorphism - as if God was by nature of flesh. God is God; wholly Other and immaterial.

A noble effort but hardly cogent.  To say that "people"  has anthropomorphic  properties etc.., implies that "person" does not.  But any reputable dictionary will list  both terms  primarily  as human designations and that  ” people “ is merely the plural of  “person “. The seemingly innocuous original question masks my desire to remind us all of the original 3rd  century Trinitarian controversies, where that word “person” had to be really “hammered-out “ before it could be used in defining  belief.  Sometimes we take words for granted.
As for  “people”, I suspect that term needs a linguistic,, historical explanation of a later time. In any case , the original  question  in itself  has no relevant theological  significance….  .

 

[TheLearner]

A noble effort but hardly cogent. To say that “people” has anthropomorphic properties etc…, implies that “person” does not. But any reputable dictionary will list both terms primarily as human designations and that ” people “ is merely the plural of “person “

I believe people signifies something more definitely corporeal than person. Because personality refers just as much to the individual substance (attitudes, ways of behaving, etc) of the human, in a more abstract sense, whereas “people” only refers to a plural number of human beings. Aquinas (per Boethius) defines “person” as an individual substance of a rational nature. What we mean by “people” is obviously not the plural of that; we mean something more definitely corporeal.

The seemingly innocuous original question masks my desire to remind us all of the original 3rd century Trinitarian controversies, where that word “person” had to be really “hammered-out “ before it could be used in defining belief. Sometimes we take words for granted.

Actually, “person” wasn’t at all used back then. Hypostasis was, of which person is only the Latin equivalent.