Three-in-One = Trinity?

[Vincent]

But I think I’m still unable to put it in my own words.

I find it difficult to articulate, myself.

RC and LDS both teach that even though the three persons have the same divine nature,

I wonder about that.

When the Catholic Church says “same divine nature”, what is meant is “*numerically *the same divine nature” or “*identically *the same divine nature” or “*the exact *same divine nature”.

In this narrow sense, I don’t have “the same” human nature as you do. We are both fully and equally human, but you have your own “human equipment” and I have my own “human equipment”: You have your own intellect, and I have my own intellect. You have your own will, and I have my own will.

 

[Montalban]

I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Ontological? Is that like sillymadeupwordological?

ROFL
Seldom do you see someone who wants to advertise their lack of knowledge on an issue.

try this site (for future reference)

www.dictionary.com

 

[rmcmullan]

Interesting. I guess I vacillate between the Trinity being easy to understand and the Trinity being difficult to understand. Looks like I’m back to difficult.

Let’s say both RC and LDS agree on points 1 through 4 and disagree on point 5. Then what we’re left with is the great mystery which appears to be a contradiction.

Points one through four say there are three separate divine persons who share the same divine nature and each are God. Point 5 is the contradiction. Points one through four hold together without any mystery. Is that not so?

I’m not claiming that it’s can’t be so, there’s this “limitation of human understanding” thing which just might be interfering and point 5 stands in a way beyond me. I just want to be sure I’m, uh, ontologically correct!

 

[Vincent]

Points one through four say there are three separate divine persons who share the same divine nature and each are God.

Actually, the points make it quite clear that the persons are not to be understood as “separate” but “distinct”.

The two are often interchanged, but the former term is not theologically accurate when describing the Trinity because the three persons are not three beings the way, you, Bob and I are “three human beings”. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct because one person is not the other, but they are the same divine being. This is where the difference between person and essence/nature/being is very important.

Likewise, the points emphasize that no “sharing” of the divine nature is involved. The divine nature is “one and indivisible” (Post 16), which can be possessed only in its entirety. The three persons don’t parcel out 1/3 of the divine nature the way three men would share a pie, for example, by splitting the one pie into thirds. In this sense, the three persons of the Trinity can’t be said to “share” the divine nature.

See also point 1 of Post 15.

Point 5 is the contradiction.

I’m not sure where the contradiction would be in Point 5. Could you clarify? I wonder if it’s the difficulty in trying to make the notional distinction between person and nature.

It could be said that a person is on the right track when he goes from “I get it!” to “Huh?” to “Whoa!” in a spiral fashion. Theologians have the most “difficulties” with the Trinity in that there’s an inexhaustible richness there that stretches the best of minds.

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay, the point about sharing the divine nature I get. They share it without using it up so to speak. They each hold a full measure of it.

This is the ???:

The two are often interchanged, but the former term is not theologically accurate when describing the Trinity because the three persons are not three beings the way, you, Bob and I are “three human beings”. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct because one person is not the other, but they are the same divine being. This is where the difference between person and essence/nature/being is very important.

 

[rmcmullan]

I’ve been trying to relate this description of the Trinity to something tangible and I’ve come up with an example. Tell me what you think:

What is America?

1. There is one American spirit.
2. There are 300 million American persons.
3. Each American is a separate person.
4. Each of the 300 million people is American and posses the American spirit.
5. Uh, here is where I get stuck.

In general, the problem with the definition is the divine nature and the Godhood are separate but not well defined. Can you clear it up for me?

 

[dessert]

I’ve been trying to relate this description of the Trinity to something tangible and I’ve come up with an example. Tell me what you think:

What is America?

1. There is one American spirit.
2. There are 300 million American persons.
3. Each American is a separate person.
4. Each of the 300 million people is American and posses the American spirit.
5. Uh, here is where I get stuck.

In general, the problem with the definition is the divine nature and the Godhood are separate but not well defined. Can you clear it up for me?

I kind of like analogies but;
I really don’t think I should put it in terms of humans or other things although I have so I appoligize.
One God; in America
3 distict persons (God the Father , God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) but NOT seperate as like human beings but like share a like same number of chromosomes but also compare to 3 distinct races of born in america, americans take your pic of the three ie; there are many
Sharing in the divine nature of God ( Spirit, Divine Essence )
Sharing in the one divine Nature ie; citizenship
Therefore we have a creed ; We believe in One God maker;etc.
So we can become a citizen of heaven. Dessert

 

[exoflare]

I kind of like analogies but;
I really don’t think I should put it in terms of humans or other things although I have so I appoligize.
One God; in America
3 distict persons (God the Father , God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) but NOT seperate as like human beings but like share a like same number of chromosomes but also compare to 3 distinct races of born in america, americans take your pic of the three ie; there are many
Sharing in the divine nature of God ( Spirit, Divine Essence )
Sharing in the one divine Nature ie; citizenship
Therefore we have a creed ; We believe in One God maker;etc.
So we can become a citizen of heaven. Dessert

Some analogies can come close to the reality, to an extent, but there is no way to come up with an analogy that perfectly describes it. This is because as we all know, we can never FULLY understand the Trinity. Plus the fact that in general most analogies have some error when you pick them apart enough.

With the Trinity, I still think it’s better to stick to what it IS rather than what we may think it’s LIKE. When we use analogies as a crutch we are letting our imaginations dominate our logical capacity.

 

[JimG]

Also, when we use analogies of something tangible, the analogy will always be flawed, because God is pure spirit, and spirit is not tangible.

 

[rmcmullan]

I like to think it’s really pretty simple and straight forward because point #5 (They are one God) is just wrong. It blatantly conradicts point #4 (The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God).

The only way to remove the contradiction is to change point #5 from “There are not three Gods but only one God” to “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in purpose and form a Godhead”. Then it all makes sense and anyone can understand it. Otherwise in what way can they each individually be God himself but only one God even though they’re all separate beings?

Never mind, I’m pretty sure I’ll never understand the Trinity so long as it’s loaded with contradiction. Looks like I can’t be either a Catholic or a Protestant, I must stay Mormon where I can understand what I worship.

 

[JimG]

Otherwise in what way can they each individually be God himself but only one God even though they’re all separate beings?

But that’s really the main point: The three persons are NOT separte beings! They are distinct persons, but not separate beings.

God is spirit and cannot be divided into parts.

 

[Vincent]

I like to think it’s really pretty simple and straight forward because point #5 (They are one God) is just wrong. It blatantly conradicts point #4 (The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God).

The only way to remove the contradiction is to change point #5 from “There are not three Gods but only one God” to “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in purpose and form a Godhead”

That appears to summarize the LDS position: a functional oneness (c.f. Fr. Ladaria’s quote in post 197).

They are one in purpose, and so, in what we could call, the “functional model”, this community of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is denoted with the term “God” (or “Godhead”), in the singular. However, in substance/nature/being they are three, the exact same way three human beings can be one in purpose, yet in essence remain three separate entities.

The implication with the functional model, therefore, is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are essentially three Gods– each person is fully divine because each possesses his own separate divine “equipment”, so to speak.

To summarize, there would be one God functionally and three Gods essentially.

As is quite apparent at this juncture, the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Godhead is very different from the Catholic understanding of the Trinity in regards to point 5 (Cf. post 14). For Catholics, the Trinity is essentially one, and thus, “functionally” one (Cf. divine appropriations <here> and <here>).

I would also note that this discussion is leading me to believe that one of the reasons why the Catholic Church explicitly excludes the term “share” (i.e. “the divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves. . .” Post 15, point 1) is because the term suggests that the three persons are separate in essence: three beings-- thus, three Gods.

Trinitarian theology holds, as we have said, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct, but not separate.

 

[Vincent]

Otherwise in what way can they each individually be God himself but only one God even though they’re all separate beings?

Since the three are not separate, and “**ecause 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” (Cf Catechism 255)

I cannot overemphasize just how important *relation *is when it comes to exploring Trinitarian theology.

The notion of relationality, I think, resolves the apparent contradiction. Simply put, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). And love entails relation.

As Jim pointed out, God is spirit (i.e non-material), and thus the divine essence/nature/being is indivisibly one. It follows that there is no difference between what God is and what he has. Therefore, if God is love and love implies relation, then God doesn’t just have relation, God is Relation.

But relationality is unintelligible unless there is a distinction between “This” and “That”, between “One” and an “Other”, between an “I” and a “Thou”.

In summary, God is one in essence, the divine essence is relational, and relation entails an “I” and a “Thou”.

It may be a bit clearer now as to how the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods but only one God:

1. 
   *]The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God because the divine essence is relational, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are those relations.
   
   *]The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three Gods because their distinction is found only in their relationships to one another. They not only don’t have their own separate divine essences, but the divine essence itself is indivisibly one.The Father is distinctly who He is only in relation to the Son, to whom the Father relates. The Son is distinctly who He is only in relation to the Father, to whom the Son relates. The Holy Spirit is distinctly who He is only in relation to the Father and the Son, to whom the Holy Spirit relates.
   *]Finally, there is only one God because there is only one divine essence. This essence is relational, and so the relation of opposites “Father to Son”, “Son to Father”, and “Holy Spirit to Father and Son” *coinhere *in the divine essence itself, which is, has been and always will be one.
   This is getting really long, and perhaps even more confusing, but the last word I italicized (coinherence) opens up an even greater richness:
   
   “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” (Post 15, number 3).
   
   The oneness of the divine essence is even more profound because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each in the other through the mutual and total gift of self.
   
   In other words:
   
   Love.
   
   And God is love.

 

[dessert]

The Dogma of the Holy Trinity

1. 
   
   *]The Trinity is One.
   
   We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.[1]
   
   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.[2]
   
   In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”[3]
   
   *]The divine persons are really distinct from one another.
   
   “God is one but not solitary.”[4]
   
   “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.[5]
   
   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.”[6]
   
   The divine Unity is Triune.
   
   *]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.[7]
   
   Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.”[8]
   
   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.[9]
   
   Notes:
   
   1 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 421.
   2 Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 530:26.
   3 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 804.
   4 Fides Damasi: DS 71.
   5 Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 530:25.
   6 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 804.
   7 Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 528.
   8 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1330.
   9 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
   
   Catechism of the Catholic Church

1. 
   Then this is the Catechism of the Catholic Church
   Dessert

 

[rmcmullan]

Vincent, what you say about the relationality does make sense. And it further illuminates the previous discussions regarding the Father begetting the Son etc.