Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
Why is it that there can only be two processions in God? Only the Word and Love? And which of these three is truth? Since God was unbegotten did “he” simply achieve on his own some state of self realization? Fully knowing himself?

Bill
 
Why is it that there can only be two processions in God? Only the Word and Love? And which of these three is truth? Since God was unbegotten did “he” simply achieve on his own some state of self realization? Fully knowing himself?

Bill
It is not that it can be only two, but that’s how God is. Both are truth, since the three Persons are God. And yes, you could say he is in a perpetual - better: eternal - state of self realization, because from all eternity he knows He is everything which really IS, knows Himself perfectly (the Son), and loves (Holy Spirit) what has to be loved (God). It sounds pretty vain, but it is love, and love created the universe. If that is egoistic, well…😃

But it is not to say he achieved anything, because it would mean there was a time when God wasn’t the same as He is after the achievement. That is not true for 2 reasons.
The analogies of begotting and loving the begotten do not mean they (the Persons “resulting” of the processions) aren’t eternal. The are eternal as the Father is eternal. That is one reason why we know they are God.
Second, which is related to eternity of the Persons: there is no time. the sequence the Father is, the Son knows and is knowledge of the father, and both love each other in the Spirit are ways to understand it in our condition, because we are in time.
 
Actually, there can only be two.
Because God is in his nature, his essence, rational. He is intellect and will, knowing and willing.
Intellect: One procession comes from his knowing himself (the Word, the Son, who is just like the knower yet known by the knower in the knower, known by the Father and in and with the Father [consubstantial]).

Will: One procession comes from both Father and Son (who are alike in intellect and will, knowing each other, yet the Son cannot generate the Father who already is when the Son knows the Father.) But both, in knowing each other as Good (Good to be One With) tend to unite with each other (which is Will), and “breathe out” their Selves into each other as Love (the Holy Spirit, who is both Father Uniting to Son and is Son Uniting to Father, thus his name is Love).

And since both Father and Son know things that are “not God”, not Eternal, in their knowing (which is us), we also come from their intellect (created by the Word) and are created for union with God to enjoy his Goodness. And our Union is also effected by the Holy Spirit breathed out to us, once we are created.

Only Two Processions:
One of Generation (Son/Word). There is One knowing himself and the “object” he knows is the One known, the One he “speaks” from his intellect.
Second: Union of Knower and Known, where they exhale their very being into each other.
 
Well yes, since God is how He was revealed, there are only two and there can be only two. But what I was saying is that it is not that God is limited in three Persons, it is just how God is. So there are two, but God cannot think oh I really wanted to be more and I can’t. He cannot think illogically, and He is perfect.
 
Why is it that there can only be two processions in God? Only the Word and Love? And which of these three is truth? Since God was unbegotten did “he” simply achieve on his own some state of self realization? Fully knowing himself?

Bill
The basic reason is that, since God is utterly one (he has no division and no composition whatsoever), it follows that the only kind of distinctions there can be in Him are distinctions of mutual relations. As Aquinas explains, the only kind of relation that can be admitted in God are those of action and undergoing.

(For example, human fatherhood and human sonship are examples of that kind of relation: the father begets his son; the son is begotten by his father. “Father” and “son” make a pair of relationships that have the begetting and “being begotten” as their foundation.)

However, the actions done and undergone clearly take place entirely within the Godhead, because there occur prior to any act of creation. The only actions remotely like that in our experience are the acts of the intellect (knowledge) and the will (love). Although they can have transitive effects (e.g., when I decide to get out of bed, my body actually moves and the bedclothes become displaced and so on), the acts of the intellect and will fundamentally remain in our spiritual organism.

It turns out that there are only two such acts: knowing and loving.

The Father knows His Essence perfectly, because He is perfectly identical with His Essence. However, there is a real relation is established (from all eternity, obviously) between the Knower (the Father) and the Known (who is the Word or the Son). To put it a different way, the knowledge that the Father has of Himself is so perfect, that He communicates His entire Essence into it. Hence that knowledge is a Person.

As regards love, it is, I think, obvious that we are unable to love something unless we first know it. The Father, as I said, knows Himself so perfectly that the Knowledge (the Word) is itself a Person. That Person is so perfect and good that He is, so to speak, an infinite source of longing and delight for the Father. Therefore, the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, so perfectly, that the love is in fact a Person, the Holy Spirit. (The Eastern Fathers even describe the procession of the Holy Spirit as the “sighing,” or “spiration” between the Father and the Son.)

Looked at in this way, since God knows Himself perfectly and the Persons love one another perfectly, and have their happiness and delight in each other, there is no need for there to be any other processions.

We can also look at it this way: a procession is basically a communication of the Divine Essence. The Son proceeds (i.e., receives the Divine Essence) from the Father alone, obviously. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (or, more precisely, from the Father through the Son).

The Father, therefore, is entirely active. He communicates the Divine Essence and does not receive it. The Son both receives the Essence and communicates it. The Spirit is entirely passive: He receives the Essence and does not communicate it.

I think it is clear that there is no room for any other combination here.
 
Why is it that there can only be two processions in God? Only the Word and Love? And which of these three is truth? Since God was unbegotten did “he” simply achieve on his own some state of self realization? Fully knowing himself?

Bill
As far as has been revealed to us so far. The son is a generation of the Father. There has been a change. But outside of time. So God has never been different than he is now. There has never been a time when there wasn’t the holy spirit. Yet the holy spirit came from unity of father and son. So if God did achieve self knowing by himself. It would been before time came into being.

Bill
 
And this progression was inward. I guess for some reason it can’t be and wasn’t outward. As some taught. Was that Sebellieus ?

Bill
 
Well yes, since God is how He was revealed, there are only two and there can be only two. But what I was saying is that it is not that God is limited in three Persons, it is just how God is. So there are two, but God cannot think oh I really wanted to be more and I can’t. He cannot think illogically, and He is perfect.
The son is an image of the father. You can’t have an image of an image. Why that is I am not clear on.

Bill
 
The son is an image of the father. You can’t have an image of an image. Why that is I am not clear on.

Bill
Why can’t you have an image of an image? Just think of the mass-produced products. this would be an inelegant still useful analogy. And I should say once again: beware, this will be full of analogies.

The Son is an image of the Father in the sense that it is because the Father knows Himfself so perfectly that since He thinks of Himself, He understands Himself so good to see Himself. it would be for you and me like closing our eyes, think of ourselves and get a perfect, real image of ourselves because our knowledge of ourselves is perfect.
That you already know for sure. BUT why is the Holy spirit not an image of the Father, too? It is not exact to think that since the Holy Spirit didn’t incarnate, he isn’t an image of the Father. Image meaning portrait, “copy” and representation, it is right to say that the Holy Spirit is an image of the Father. beware again, I am not saying there are too Fathers, I am keeping the Nature in mind here, not supressing the distinction between the Persons.

Who is the Spirit? We say it is the Love between the father and the Son. They are God, all of them fully. Genesis show the Father and the Spirit, the Gospel of John, chapter 1 shows the Father and the Son. Well, if they are God, they are God in the same way. if one Person is less divine than the Father, He is actually not divine, period :D.
So my point is since they are God, they have the same nature, also the same attributes of the 2 other Persons in God. If we strictly talk about God’s Nature or Essence, the Son is an image of the Father, but the Father is also an image of the Son, letting aside the logic of eternal generation, but saying they are divine. In the same way, the Spirit is an image of the Father, and/or the Son. The Father is also an image of the Spirit…

Sure, logically it would be in that order: Father > Son > Holy Spirit, but because they are eternal, logic isn’t a temporal problem of cause and effect.
But why dare I say they are images of each other, if there is an “order”? Because God is Love, and we say the Spirit is Love. Then we also say the Father loved the World, and the Son died for the Love of us. In this the Persons are Love as God is Love. If they love the Way god loves, their essence of Love is an image, copy of the others, because it is in fact on Essence.
As I said, distinction, but no separation. The rest has been said by other members.
 
As far as has been revealed to us so far. The son is a generation of the Father. There has been a change. But outside of time. So God has never been different than he is now. There has never been a time when there wasn’t the holy spirit. Yet the holy spirit came from unity of father and son. So if God did achieve self knowing by himself. It would been before time came into being.

Bill
So far,but Revelation can’t change. If we were to receive another bit of Revelation, it wouldn’t contradict what we already know.
We say the Son is a generation of the Father to say God from God, not BIG GOD to little god. There wasn’t a change, because the generation isn’t temporal. Change implies time. And you said there is no time. therefore, generation is eternal. there wasn’t a moment where the Son didn’t exist. The same for the Spirit.

There has never been a time when there wasn’t the holy spirit. [This is truth]
Yet the holy spirit came from unity of father and son. [This is to explain the truth].

was there a timewhere the Persons weren’t united? No.
We shouldn’t think of change outside of time, and we shouldn’t even use temporal verb that implies change when talking about God, like achieving. But we just can’t, because we are in time. we can say analogically “he achieved”, knowing that he never achieved anything since He is perfect. He has all possible perfection. If He had to achieve anything, He wouldn’t be perfect, therfore He wouldn’t be God. But there we get to a point where we just have to accept things, since we have no words for this eternal generation, unless we use temporal analogies.
 
So far,but Revelation can’t change. If we were to receive another bit of Revelation, it wouldn’t contradict what we already know.
Are you sure? That’s a judgment on your part. We must not judge. If you already know then you need no more. How can God deal with you? We are give what we need to know for a time. What we need to know is not always absolute truths. It’s what we need to know. Remember it is written “To be revealed it must have first been concealed.”

Bill
 
Are you sure? That’s a judgment on your part. We must not judge. If you already know then you need no more. How can God deal with you? We are give what we need to know for a time. What we need to know is not always absolute truths. It’s what we need to know. Remember it is written “To be revealed it must have first been concealed.”

Bill
What we know cannot change. That doesn’t mean we know everything.
We must not judge means we musn’t condemn. That’s the sense in scripture. But judge we can and should, that why we are able to distinguish what’s good from what’s evil.

“If you already know then you need no more.” If you need to know somthing about A to be saved, you need not more ABOUT A than what you know. Still, you might be needing B, too. It is more, but more of something else.

“What we need to know is not always absolute truths” That is true. But what we know to be absolute remains absolute. The rest is pastoral, and it seems to me that you take the one for the other.
What we need to know is dogma, which is an absolute truth. That we know things for a time, ok, but it won’t change with time. It willl at best develop. And it seems once again that you take the verb “develop” for “change”.

"Remember it is written “To be revealed it must have first been concealed.” Sure, why is this of interest in our discussion?

I don’t understand why you ask “why there can be only two?”, and then you say anyway it could be that it wasn’t yet revealed. Yes it has been revealed. There are two. This is dogma. This can’t change. It has been revealed by the Son and confirmed b the Church.

Remember it is written “Who listens to you listens to me. Who rejects you rejects me.” As a Catholic, you won’t reject the definitive teachings of the Church will you?
 
What we know cannot change. That doesn’t mean we know everything.
We must not judge means we musn’t condemn. That’s the sense in scripture. But judge we can and should, that why we are able to distinguish what’s good from what’s evil.

“If you already know then you need no more.” If you need to know somthing about A to be saved, you need not more ABOUT A than what you know. Still, you might be needing B, too. It is more, but more of something else.

“What we need to know is not always absolute truths” That is true. But what we know to be absolute remains absolute. The rest is pastoral, and it seems to me that you take the one for the other.
What we need to know is dogma, which is an absolute truth. That we know things for a time, ok, but it won’t change with time. It willl at best develop. And it seems once again that you take the verb “develop” for “change”.

"Remember it is written “To be revealed it must have first been concealed.” Sure, why is this of interest in our discussion?

I don’t understand why you ask “why there can be only two?”, and then you say anyway it could be that it wasn’t yet revealed. Yes it has been revealed. There are two. This is dogma. This can’t change. It has been revealed by the Son and confirmed b the Church.

Remember it is written “Who listens to you listens to me. Who rejects you rejects me.” As a Catholic, you won’t reject the definitive teachings of the Church will you?
No. But Jesus took his disciples aside and “expounded to them.” Things the church today would condemn. Was Jesus wrong? “All that has been called evil, has only been called evil to conceal it’s holiness”. So then is there “really evil?”. Jesus would say to his right hand no. The church would say"Yes". “Let not your left hand know what your right hand does…” There are things the Church of God isn’t to know. I would see you are not going from his left to his right hand. But you are indeed with God’s church and a brother. Now about your question and going back to trinity about image, hear from Thomas…

newadvent.org/summa/1035.htm

Bill

As I understand. The image is in the persons. The image of the father. And the persons are in all. No you can’t have more than one image. 🙂
 
No. But Jesus took his disciples aside and “expounded to them.” Things the church today would condemn. Was Jesus wrong? “All that has been called evil, has only been called evil to conceal it’s holiness”. So then is there “really evil?”. Jesus would say to his right hand no. The church would say"Yes". “Let not your left hand know what your right hand does…” There are things the Church of God isn’t to know. I would see you are not going from his left to his right hand. But you are indeed with God’s church and a brother. Now about your question and going back to trinity about image, hear from Thomas…

newadvent.org/summa/1035.htm

Bill

As I understand. The image is in the persons. The image of the father. And the persons are in all. No you can’t have more than one image. 🙂
Because the Church doesn’t know some heavenly things doesn’t mean that what the Church knows can go against God, or vice versa.
But give us an example of what you mean, and I am sure many will be able to respond.
You cite Aquinas. The same saint Thomas has an explanation on why there are 2 (no more and not less) processions. Why don’t you take Aquinas completely? The answer is there.

Cited from your link:

I answer that, Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign.

Article 2. Whether the name of Image is proper to the Son?

Objection 1. It would seem that the name of Image is not proper to the Son; because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18), “The Holy Ghost is the Image of the Son.” Therefore Image does not belong to the Son alone.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): “The Son alone is the Image of the Father.”

…]
Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of the Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to be “born”; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father, He is not called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds …]
Reply to Objection 2. Although the Holy Ghost is like to the Father and the Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image, as above explained.

Reply to Objection 3. The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king’s image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but “to the image,” whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is “to the image,” because He is the perfect Image of the Father.

[Note that this was my point: image is meant is some different sense every time. Once I talked about Incarnation, which is an Image, once I told about the Essence, which is an image as for “copy” perfect identity with the Father. That llast, the Holy Spirit has it].
 
Because the Church doesn’t know some heavenly things doesn’t mean that what the Church knows can go against God, or vice versa.
But give us an example of what you mean, and I am sure many will be able to respond.
You cite Aquinas. The same saint Thomas has an explanation on why there are 2 (no more and not less) processions. Why don’t you take Aquinas completely? The answer is there.

Cited from your link:

I answer that, Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign.

Article 2. Whether the name of Image is proper to the Son?

Objection 1. It would seem that the name of Image is not proper to the Son; because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18), “The Holy Ghost is the Image of the Son.” Therefore Image does not belong to the Son alone.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): “The Son alone is the Image of the Father.”

…]
Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of the Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to be “born”; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father, He is not called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds …]
Reply to Objection 2. Although the Holy Ghost is like to the Father and the Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image, as above explained.

Reply to Objection 3. The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king’s image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but “to the image,” whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is “to the image,” because He is the perfect Image of the Father.

[Note that this was my point: image is meant is some different sense every time. Once I talked about Incarnation, which is an Image, once I told about the Essence, which is an image as for “copy” perfect identity with the Father. That llast, the Holy Spirit has it].
I see your point and species is also mentioned. Unfortunately I am not well versed enough in Aristotle’s terminology to understand all those terms either myself. I would have to differ to someone more versed than me. But I do remember somewhere reading Thomas said specifically “You can’t have an image of an image”. He might mean the holy spirit being it’s own image of the father. I will search some more.

Bill
 
I see your point and species is also mentioned. Unfortunately I am not well versed enough in Aristotle’s terminology to understand all those terms either myself. I would have to differ to someone more versed than me. But I do remember somewhere reading Thomas said specifically “You can’t have an image of an image”. He might mean the holy spirit being it’s own image of the father. I will search some more.

Bill
Yes it is afterthe section I copied.

Hence others say that the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Image of the Son, because there cannot be an image of an image; nor of the Father, because again the image must be immediately related to that which it is the image; and the Holy Ghost is related to the Father through the Son; nor again is He the Image of the Father and the Son, because then there would be one image of two; which is impossible. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost is in no way an Image. But this is no proof: for the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we shall explain further on (36, 4). Hence there is nothing to prevent there being one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one; since even man is one image of the whole Trinity.

Hence others say shows that Thomas is reporting what other say , not stating that there can’t be an image of an image. 😉
What I underlined hopefully helps to see that once it is the difference between the Persons which is put forward, but on the other hand, as you can read, because of the One Essence, " one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one.
 
Yes it is afterthe section I copied.

Hence others say that the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Image of the Son, because there cannot be an image of an image; nor of the Father, because again the image must be immediately related to that which it is the image; and the Holy Ghost is related to the Father through the Son; nor again is He the Image of the Father and the Son, because then there would be one image of two; which is impossible. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost is in no way an Image. But this is no proof: for the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we shall explain further on (36, 4). Hence there is nothing to prevent there being one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one; since even man is one image of the whole Trinity.

Hence others say shows that Thomas is reporting what other say , not stating that there can’t be an image of an image. 😉
What I underlined hopefully helps to see that once it is the difference between the Persons which is put forward, but on the other hand, as you can read, because of the One Essence, " one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one.
Ok. It has been a while since I have read this. I will as I say study some more. I have asked my Pastor about this and I guess he must not be to much into Thomism. What do they teach in seminary these days. 😃 Any way if anyone else would like to speak they can if they might happen to know more.

Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top