Why the Trinity?

[Gabriel_of_12]

A note to my fellow Catholics and to the OP here for clarification;

The suggestion I posted of God being all and in all, never suggests that God’s Essence is manifested in the all, but that His presence is made known through all of creation, made known by the presence of persons in the procession of the Trinity.

Peace be with you

 

[thomas_yo]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

I haven’t reviewed this thread yet, but I would like to comment on what I think is an obvious problem. Regarding the statement “my trinitarianism is based on reason”, I find this highly ambiguous, and an impossibility.

No one arrives at the concept of the Trinity by means of reason. That is, the inner nature of God as being a trinity of Persons, is something beyond what man can learn about God by the use of his reason.

We only know about the Trinity because God revealed it to man. God revealed something about Himself that is above man’s ability to discover by reason.

We can use metaphysical reasoning to show that the concept of the Trinity in not contrary to right reason, but no one believes in the Trinity based on metaphysical reasoning, we believe that God is a Trinity solely on Faith and Revelation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Course’s metaphysical teaching is that evil is only an illusion and that experience is something other, since their is no opposite to love. Clear contradiction to scripture which Counterpoint has a clear issue with the Bibles inerrancy. Clearly a “Course in Miracles” is about as far from infallible as you could possibly venture.

The book denies the Divinity of Christ repetitively in the first chapter and the cross is suggested to not be taken literally. Yet the language is cloaked in Christian dialogue which is Biblical such as “There is nothing to fear” in denial of Gods divinity, raising the ego to the individual godhead and telling you blindly you have nothing to fear, while suggesting the fear is an illusion and evil is manifested by the ego.

The double standards are so plentiful that the conversation at this point is nothing more than a attack on anything Christian. Its not about dialogue, and apparently not about making sense. What in fact this book is doing is called “Biblical exorcism” proposed by those who raised their own intellect above everyone else’s and as I see for not a good reason. In fact if Helens demise is an indication of the books self-help success out side the realm of the newly exorcised, I say its a self evident failure.

The conversation proceeds as “I know more than you” and the proof is a “Course in Miracles” and bad science.

That’s opposed to Scripture, faith and reason “along” with sound science. BTW just for the record, this is “exactly” why you should seek help from those with Judeo Christian values being you are Christian as it clear to see how a clinical setting may indeed not be conducive to your own faith and reason.

I agree with Helen, “She should have never wrote the book”.

 

[mukesi23]

we have to know that God is one being that we humans can not fully understand. Understanding the mystery of God calls for great divine intervention and faith. we are presented by the golden rule of baptism “Baptize them in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit.” Three persons in one God, "God who was, [God the father], God who is, (God the Son) and God who is to come, (God the Holy Spirit.)
The Trinity is a central being of our Christian faith that comes with the strong sign of our faith, “the sign of the cross” by which we embrace the trinitarian glory of the one true God who in his distinct being has called us to himself.
the Trinity is one strong sign of our faith that is the conviction of our Christian living and the hope of our salvation.
what may seem impossible for man, it is possible for God.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

The reason for believing the Trinity is Jesus Christ. Trying to prove it with philosophical arguments as if we could know it without divine revelation is impossible; revealed religion isn’t something that has its origin in human thought.

Why the Trinity?

Jesus Christ. I suppose you could argue that it is a more fitting way of looking at God than merely being an isolated pure Actuality.

Why should we believe that God is triune?

Jesus.

What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

What it means to be a “person”. That unity and plurality aren’t mere opposites, where the plural is less like the divine than the one, but they complementary, because both have a place in God.

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

Alright, but keep in mind no Catholic will try to argue from reason alone that God is triune. A Catholic response would make the case that it isn’t contrary to reason to believe in the Trinity, and that reason alone can perceive the external signs that come from his Revelation, but that we can’t know God is triune from pure philosophical reflection.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

Recently, a number of theologians have suggested that the Trinity may provide the key to an inclusive theology of religions, and a new understanding of religious diversity. The doctrine of the Trinity can function as a metaphysical “architectonic principle” to unlock the providential purpose and meaning of religious variety, in the portrayal of the multi-dimensional nature of God. A deeper understanding of the Trinity might include a synthesis of all that God has revealed of himself, as contained in the wisdom of all the world’s major religions. Thus, an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a scaffold of pluralistic theology.

In answer to the question: “Why Trinity?” Raimundo Panikkar (1918-2010), the founder of religious pluralism in the Trinity, pointed out that “the meeting of religions cannot take place on neutral territory or in a ‘no man’s land’ because it is scarcely possible to speak of these subjects from outside one or another tradition, for it is these very traditions that have the determining terminology.” Trinity Absolute provides the most readily-available all-inclusive language for speculating on systematic unity in metaphysical matters of religion. This abstract understanding is of the utmost urgency, for a truly democratic settlement of this world into a universal civilization, constructed on the highest ideas or concepts of all our basic religions and cultures – our common world heritage.

These “divine ideas” are individualized, personalized and conserved in the concept of the three fundamental personae of One God, reflected in the world’s three basic underlying religious attitudes to the Absolute. Taken in their over-lapping teachings, they articulate the members of the Trinity in an absolutely elegant and truly beautiful portrait.

In a rational pluralistic worldview, major religions may be said to reflect the psychology of One God in three basic personalities, unified in spirit and universal in mind – analogous to the orthodox definition of the Trinity. In fact, there is much evidence that the psychologies of world religions reflect the unity of One God in an absolute Trinity.

We don’t have to invent anything, because it is readily acknowledged that Allah, Abba or Father (as Jesus called Him), and Brahma are religious representations of the Creator. But the Creator is the first Absolute person of the Trinity of the thrice-personal One God. So, in at least one respect, we can say that a large portion of humankind apparently worship the same God – the Deity Absolute Creator – reflected in three world religions, i.e.: Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. This pluralistic worldview becomes inclusive if you consider that Buddhism, Confucian-Taoism, Shinto, and some other major religions seem to be variations on the third Absolute, while certain others, e.g. Sikh and Baha’i, suggest combinations.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Aloysium]

Recently, a number of theologians have suggested that the Trinity may provide the key to an inclusive theology of religions, and a new understanding of religious diversity. The doctrine of the Trinity can function as a metaphysical “architectonic principle” to unlock the providential purpose and meaning of religious variety . . .

My understanding of what you describe above includes the view that the Catholic Church is intended to bring together all humanity to God. Its overarching theology and philosophy make sense of the multitude of revelations found in various cultures.

For example, your perspective on religions such as Buddhism as “variations on the Third Absolute”, has a ring of truth for me. A realization of the Word made flesh in the absence of the traditions and revelations contained in scripture, would leave the person with a sense that “God is with us” and that the ultimate Truth of our being is the union as one body, of mankind in Christ - It would give, out of context, the impression of a panentheistic Divinity.

In order to properly evangelize, I would think it important to understand the culture to which one is bringing the good news. There’s room in our Church for everyone who wants to know and love God.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

A realization of the Word made flesh in the absence of the traditions and revelations contained in the scripture, would leave the person with a sense that “God is with us” and that the ultimate Truth of our being is the union as one body, of mankind in Christ - It would give, out of context, the impression of a panentheistic Divinity.

In “On the Trinity,” St. Augustine explains that the Son’s mission was “to manifest God’s love… and unify us as His Mystical Body.” I know some theologians interpret that as referring to the Christian Church, but I would argue that “Mystical” is the tip-off that it refers to the world-soul, or what I have called the Universe Absolute Supreme Allsoul – the “body of Christ,” in the second coming. I touch on this in my website (Preview page 8), but I have a whole chapter on it in my book. You might appreciate the following quote from page 52, i.e.:

"Philo, St. Paul, St. John, Plotinus, and St. Augustine all saw a vital connection between the Old Testament figure of Adam and the New Testament Logos (Christ or World-Soul).

 “For Augustine (354-430), Adam is more than the first human; he is the source of all souls... the entire human race was in Adam, the Christianized World Soul, before he sinned; this is why we share his guilt... As we were all one in Adam, and ‘fell’ in Adam, so we are also all one in Christ (the second Adam), and in a sense Christ is ‘all of us’... It does appear that Augustine affirms that through Christ, the soul will rise above its original station... ascending to the higher part of the **World Soul**.” Farabi’s Virtuous City and the Plotinian World Soul – G. M. Bonelli, P.114/8 & 125.

In the Bible, St. Paul tells us that as, “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (the Supreme Being)… The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven… And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” 1 Cor. 15:45-49.

According to St. Paul, union with Christ is union with God. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22. So at the second coming we are no longer “in Adam,” but then we are “in Christ,” and renewed creations linked with the life of Christ. The most important truth in Christianity is that we are made alive in Christ, signifying human souls becoming at one with God, without loss of individual self.

It is said that in his epistles, St. Paul uses the expression “in Christ” and its various equivalents 165 times. Paul uses “in Christ” to characterize an all-inclusive personality, in whom believers find themselves incorporated in a communal union with Christ. It is a real connection, but not an absorption or obliteration. Being “in Christ” individually and communally is objective rather than subjective. It is not merely a metaphor or figure of speech, but a simple reality. Prayer, meditation, cosmic consciousness, samadhi, mukti, kensho, nirvana, etc., are all reputed to be channels of communication between the individual and the Almighty Allsoul.

If God is “all in all” 1 Cor. 15:28, then all are one with God, or all are in God, but not necessarily all are God. This teaching has been called Panentheism. Like classical theism, panentheism resists the identification of God with the world. Rather, by saying that the world is “in” God, panentheism holds that God is more than the world.

Panentheism agrees with pantheism in denying the idea – taught by classical theism – that the world is purely a contingent creation of a deity who could have existed apart from this or any other world. By saying, instead, that it belongs to the very nature of God to be in relation to a world, panentheism implies that, although our particular world is contingent (created), its most fundamental principles are necessary.

The essential unity of all souls with the Supersoul (Allsoul) is a fundamental postulate of the Hindu religion, which has long had a tradition that Lord Vishnu is the existential Supreme Being (God) and sustainer (preserver) of the universe, while Krishna is the 8th experiential incarnation of Vishnu. Thus, Krishna is the World-Soul or the Self of all men: “O Lord of Death, I (Krishna) am the Self seated in the heart of all beings. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings.” Bhagavad Gita 10.20.”

What do you think?

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[CrossofChrist]

What do you think?

Panentheism is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

There are no philosophical arguments for the Trinity. Therefore you cannot believe that there is such a thing . Only those of us who have Faith can hold that the Trinity exists .

I will add that if your religion is based only on philosophy then it won’t be much of a religion. For one thing all the Sacraments will be ommitted, no morality, no grace, no means of justification, no Christ, etc. It will be a religion such as Aristotle might establish, a naturalistic religion. It will have God, but not a personal God, no Revelation, no means of salvation. On this basis, all your posts for the past months are hot air.

Linus2nd

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

Panentheism is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism.

The idea that the second person of the Trinity is the Supreme Being or Allsoul of all human souls has long been a Hindu belief, and used to be a major tenet of Roman stoicism and early Christian faith. Never entirely eclipsed, this emphasis on God as immanent (as well as transcendent) has more recently been called Process Theology or Panentheism (all in God).

The idea that God is strictly transcendent to the world ignores his immanence in the world in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and denies the fundamental dynamics of the Trinity as existential Father, experiential Son, and associative Holy Ghost (neither the spirit of the Father, nor the spirit of the Son, but the Glorified Spirit “proceeding” from both).

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

There are explicit statements of belief in a world-soul or allsoul in the writings of Origen, Chrysippus, Justin Martyr, Erigena, Nicholas de Cusa, and Auguste Comte, among others.

Christ said, “I am the vine, ye are the branches… apart from me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5). And as that metaphor suggests, you cannot tell where the branch ends and the vine starts because they are one plant, sharing one life together. God raises us up together and we become part of one person “in Christ,” the supreme person or representation of Deity.

What is potential and existential in the Father is actualized and realized in the Son. Our common unity “in Christ” means ontological union and operational union, i.e. union of being and union of doing - “all in all” (Col. 3:11).

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[oldburkes]

There are no philosophical arguments for the Trinity. Therefore you cannot believe that there is such a thing . Only those of us who have Faith can hold that the Trinity exists .

I will add that if your religion is based only on philosophy then it won’t be much of a religion. For one thing all the Sacraments will be ommitted, no morality, no grace, no means of justification, no Christ, etc. It will be a religion such as Aristotle might establish, a naturalistic religion. It will have God, but not a personal God, no Revelation, no means of salvation. On this basis, all your posts for the past months are hot air.

Linus2nd

:tiphat: :clapping:

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple. Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

In his Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the fundamentals of metaphysics, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) gave an abstract definition of the Trinity which should have attracted much more attention than it has. Kant argued that all transcendental ideas arrange themselves in three classes or absolutes: the first of which contains the absolute unity of the thinking subject – the I am or Primal Being; the second, the absolute unity of the series of an appearance – the manifold object or Supreme Being; the third, the absolute unity of all objects of thought in general – the unconditioned synthesis of the one subject and the manifold object of all appearances, i.e. all that is or the Being of All Beings.

Immanuel Kant seems to have been the first to articulate the concept of the Three Absolutes of Unity (Potentiality or Creation), and the first to define the Being of all Beings as “All That Is.” Taken altogether in consistently abstract terms, Kant’s description of the three classes of transcendental ideas may be summarized as the relationship of three metaphysical absolutes of unity – the essence of the Trinity Absolute, i.e.:

Whereas some philosophers emphasized duality as the foundation of metaphysics, Georg Hegel saw through the dialectic of duality to the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as the necessary fundamental creative equation. Thus, in terms of the Absolute, the philosopher arrives at the metaphysical inevitability of the Trinity of the three Absolutes of Creation, i.e. thesis: the transcendent Deity Absolute; antithesis: the immanent Universe or “Universal” Absolute; and synthesis: the ultimate Unconditioned Absolute.

In theological terms, Trinity is conceived as the transcendent Deity Divine, his immanent Supreme Being, and their absonite Associative Spirit. In absolute terms, Trinity is the Absolute expressed in the three Absolutes of Creation. In personal terms, Trinity is One God manifest in three phases or expressions, united in spirit and mind, but especially integrated in multi-dimensional personality.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In his Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the fundamentals of metaphysics, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) gave an abstract definition of the Trinity which should have attracted much more attention than it has. Kant argued that all transcendental ideas arrange themselves in three classes or absolutes: the first of which contains the absolute unity of the thinking subject – the I am or Primal Being; the second, the absolute unity of the series of an appearance – the manifold object or Supreme Being; the third, the absolute unity of all objects of thought in general – the unconditioned synthesis of the one subject and the manifold object of all appearances, i.e. all that is or the Being of All Beings.

Immanuel Kant seems to have been the first to articulate the concept of the Three Absolutes of Unity (Potentiality or Creation), and the first to define the Being of all Beings as “All That Is.” Taken altogether in consistently abstract terms, Kant’s description of the three classes of transcendental ideas may be summarized as the relationship of three metaphysical absolutes of unity – the essence of the Trinity Absolute, i.e.:

Whereas some philosophers emphasized duality as the foundation of metaphysics, Georg Hegel saw through the dialectic of duality to the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as the necessary fundamental creative equation. Thus, in terms of the Absolute, the philosopher arrives at the metaphysical inevitability of the Trinity of the three Absolutes of Creation, i.e. thesis: the transcendent Deity Absolute; antithesis: the immanent Universe or “Universal” Absolute; and synthesis: the ultimate Unconditioned Absolute.

In theological terms, Trinity is conceived as the transcendent Deity Divine, his immanent Supreme Being, and their absonite Associative Spirit. In absolute terms, Trinity is the Absolute expressed in the three Absolutes of Creation. In personal terms, Trinity is One God manifest in three phases or expressions, united in spirit and mind, but especially integrated in multi-dimensional personality.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

There is no Trinity without Divine Revelation and its Dogmatic Definition by the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd

 

[CrossofChrist]

The idea that the second person of the Trinity is the Supreme Being or Allsoul of all human souls has long been a Hindu belief, and used to be a major tenet of Roman stoicism and early Christian faith. Never entirely eclipsed, this emphasis on God as immanent (as well as transcendent) has more recently been called Process Theology or Panentheism (all in God).

What Church Fathers endorsed this belief? Where did they say that “all is in God”, not in the sense that God “upholds” all things, but in the sense that we are “part” of God?

The idea that God is strictly transcendent to the world ignores his immanence in the world in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and denies the fundamental dynamics of the Trinity as existential Father, experiential Son, and associative Holy Ghost (neither the spirit of the Father, nor the spirit of the Son, but the Glorified Spirit “proceeding” from both).

Yes, but the idea that a nonpanentheistic view of God entails seeing God as strictly transcendent is false.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

What Church Fathers endorsed this belief? Where did they say that “all is in God”, not in the sense that God “upholds” all things, but in the sense that we are “part” of God?

CrossofChrist… Thanks for your patience. Please see my postings #245 and #249 above. In chronological order the list of exponents of the idea that Christ represents the Supreme Being or Allsoul is quite long, but mainly: St. Paul, St. John, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Diognetus, Clemens, Origen, Dionysius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, St. Gregory, Erigena, Nicholas de Cusa, etc. Perhaps only some of these may be called “Church Fathers,” but all are highly respected theologian/philosophers.

According to St. Paul, union with Christ is union with God. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). So at the second coming we are no longer “in Adam,” but then we are “in Christ,” and renewed creations linked with the life of Christ.

It is said that in his epistles, St. Paul uses the expression “in Christ” and its various equivalents 165 times. Paul uses “in Christ” to characterize an all-inclusive personality, in whom believers find themselves incorporated in a communal union with Christ. It is a real connection, but not an absorption or obliteration. Being “in Christ” individually and communally is objective rather than subjective.

If God is “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), then all are one with God, or all are in God, but not necessarily all are God. This teaching has been called Panentheism. Like classical theism, panentheism resists the identification of God with the world. Rather, by saying that the world is “in” God, panentheism holds that God is more than the world.

So yes, God is both transcendent and immanent.

Samuel Stuart Maynes

 

[CrossofChrist]

CrossofChrist… Thanks for your patience. Please see my postings #245 and #249 above. In chronological order the list of exponents of the idea that Christ represents the Supreme Being or Allsoul is quite long, but mainly: St. Paul, St. John, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Diognetus, Clemens, Origen, Dionysius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, St. Gregory, Erigena, Nicholas de Cusa, etc. Perhaps only some of these may be called “Church Fathers,” but all are highly respected theologian/philosophers.

I’m not familiar with the term “Allsoul”. But for both the early and later Christians, Christ doesn’t just represent the Supreme Being (God), but is the Supreme Being, the Logos.

It is said that in his epistles, St. Paul uses the expression “in Christ” and its various equivalents 165 times. Paul uses “in Christ” to characterize an all-inclusive personality, in whom believers find themselves incorporated in a communal union with Christ. It is a real connection, but not an absorption or obliteration. Being “in Christ” individually and communally is objective rather than subjective.

If God is “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), then all are one with God, or all are in God, but not necessarily all are God. This teaching has been called Panentheism. Like classical theism, panentheism resists the identification of God with the world. Rather, by saying that the world is “in” God, panentheism holds that God is more than the world.

So yes, God is both transcendent and immanent.

Samuel Stuart Maynes

This seems to be acceptable, but you’d have to explain more about panentheism as you understand it. AFAIK, panentheism views God as more than the world, yet the world is “in” God by being part of him. OTOH, Christianity claims that God being “all in all” means that if God wasn’t upholding the world (as if from above–Ratzinger explains the imagery much better in his Introduction to Christianity), the world wouldn’t have it’s being, yet the world is simultaneously distinct from God. As for the Trinitarian aspect, your understanding as described in previous posts seems to imply something very similar to Modalism, which is much different from the Catholic faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The idea that the second person of the Trinity is the Supreme Being or Allsoul of all human souls has long been a Hindu belief, and used to be a major tenet of Roman stoicism and early Christian faith. Never entirely eclipsed, this emphasis on God as immanent (as well as transcendent) has more recently been called Process Theology or Panentheism (all in God).

Catholic Doctrine has nothing to do with Hindu belief, it is unique to Divine Revelation as taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. God is absolutely transcendent to the universe. Not even Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is " immanent " to the universe. He is not a part of the " massive " thing we call the universe. Which would be the Hindu interpretation. He is a single Person living and acting in the world. That is a huge distinctiion.

At the same time there are aspects of the action of God ( all three Persons ) in the universe which have erroneously been interpreted as God’s " immenant " presence. So, though God’s Being is Present whever his power acts, this does not mean he is a part of the being or essence in which he acts. For instance, he is present in the planets, sustaining them in existence, guiding and moving them through the laws of their natures, etc. But he is not an actual part of any one planet or all put together.

The idea that God is strictly transcendent to the world ignores his immanence in the world in the incarnation of Jesus Christ,

No, as I have just explained.

… and denies the fundamental dynamics of the Trinity as existential Father, experiential Son, and associative Holy Ghost (neither the spirit of the Father, nor the spirit of the Son, but the Glorified Spirit “proceeding” from both).

How so? And I would rather you stick to Catholic Theology when describing the relationship of the three Divine Persons. The Catholic Church does not describe their relationship in the terms you have just used. As a matter of fact, whatever one of the Persons does, all three do together. When Christ was present on the earth, He was still united with the Father and the Holy Spirit through their common Essence or Nature. So describing the Father as the " existential Father " and the Son as the " experiential Son " is entirely foreign to Catholic Theology and would not be used by the Magisterium as a proper description.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Recently, a number of theologians have suggested that the Trinity may provide the key to an inclusive theology of religions, and a new understanding of religious diversity. The doctrine of the Trinity can function as a metaphysical “architectonic principle” to unlock the providential purpose and meaning of religious variety, in the portrayal of the multi-dimensional nature of God. A deeper understanding of the Trinity might include a synthesis of all that God has revealed of himself, as contained in the wisdom of all the world’s major religions. Thus, an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a scaffold of pluralistic theology.

In answer to the question: “Why Trinity?” Raimundo Panikkar (1918-2010), the founder of religious pluralism in the Trinity, pointed out that “the meeting of religions cannot take place on neutral territory or in a ‘no man’s land’ because it is scarcely possible to speak of these subjects from outside one or another tradition, for it is these very traditions that have the determining terminology.” Trinity Absolute provides the most readily-available all-inclusive language for speculating on systematic unity in metaphysical matters of religion. This abstract understanding is of the utmost urgency, for a truly democratic settlement of this world into a universal civilization, constructed on the highest ideas or concepts of all our basic religions and cultures – our common world heritage.

These “divine ideas” are individualized, personalized and conserved in the concept of the three fundamental personae of One God, reflected in the world’s three basic underlying religious attitudes to the Absolute. Taken in their over-lapping teachings, they articulate the members of the Trinity in an absolutely elegant and truly beautiful portrait.

In a rational pluralistic worldview, major religions may be said to reflect the psychology of One God in three basic personalities, unified in spirit and universal in mind – analogous to the orthodox definition of the Trinity. In fact, there is much evidence that the psychologies of world religions reflect the unity of One God in an absolute Trinity.

We don’t have to invent anything, because it is readily acknowledged that Allah, Abba or Father (as Jesus called Him), and Brahma are religious representations of the Creator. But the Creator is the first Absolute person of the Trinity of the thrice-personal One God. So, in at least one respect, we can say that a large portion of humankind apparently worship the same God – the Deity Absolute Creator – reflected in three world religions, i.e.: Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. This pluralistic worldview becomes inclusive if you consider that Buddhism, Confucian-Taoism, Shinto, and some other major religions seem to be variations on the third Absolute, while certain others, e.g. Sikh and Baha’i, suggest combinations.

A very noble interprize. However, the place to start is for each to give an absolutely clear understanding of what he understands by the Divine Reality he calls God. And, I will be honest, I have never heard a Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim give a clear understanding of what exactly they do mean.

I would be happy, if each would just recognize the other has a human beings with the same basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and free to pursue these without undue discrimination, prejudice, or Jehad against the other others. First we treat eachother like genuine brothers and sisters, living in trust and without fear.

Linsu2nd

Linsu2nd