Why Three Persons, not four?

[MindOverMatter]

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. Life Everlasting, TAN Books.
.

I have this book! But i haven’t read it. Is it good?

 

[Dan_Parker]

As has been shown, we can only love ourselves precisely because of the Other, which is God.

Further, God could not be love if he did not have someone to love. The meaning of the trinity is not that there are three different Gods. The meaning is that there is one God, but within that one God there are three different persons. So God could be love only in the trinity because he loved the son and they loved the Holy Spirit. So since God is love, He is a Trinity of Persons.

In one of his addresses, Pope John Paul II speaks of this Mystery as one revealing that God, while One, is never alone. God is a Community of Persons, and it is in this Divine Communion that man finds the fulfillment of his desire for communion with another. It is only because of the “First” Communion of the Divine Persons that our communion is possible with one another and with the Divine Persons. These Persons have no need for Communion with one creature, let alone millions, yet out of the fruitfulness of the impenetrating Love within the Godhead we have been created in order to participate in that Divine Communion (primary) and communion with each other (secondary). “God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, which is love,” John Paul II. “A great mystery, a mystery of love, an ineffable mystery, before which words must give way to the silence of wonder and worship. A divine mystery that challenges and involves us, because a share in the Trinitarian life was given to us through grace, through the redemptive Incarnation of the Word and the gift of the Holy Spirit: ‘Anyone who loves me will be true to my word, and my Father will love him; we will come to him and make our dwelling-place with him’ (Jn 14: 23),” John Paul II.

Dan, consider that from His Infinity what is there for God to love but Himself? There is nothing existing but God, and since “God is Love”, God must be loving Himself in order that God doesn’t change. If God is infinitude, then God must infinitely love Himself, since there is nothing to love but Himself. But this poses a problem. The love as described here is a narcissistic, arrogant, self-indulging, masturbationary love - “I love me, only me, and infinitely me.” If God were a single Person and we echo Scripture and say, “God is Love,” this is the kind of loving we’d get: egotism, narcissism, pride, self-indulgence, arrogance, the ultimate self-loves - something that actually resembles the attributes of another creature: The Devil.

To describe God as Love without the Trinitarian knowledge of Him, you get a very ugly, misrepresenting picture of God. Now, we as Christians say that God the Father, loves God the Son, and the Son loves the Father. God the Father, loves a Person Eternally, without beginning or end, in the simplicity of the Godhead. Both Father and Son are within the same Nature (God), and the “utterance of love by the Father and the Son fills the whole of their nature, producing another Person,” i.e., the Holy Spirit. (Theology for Beginners, Frank Sheed). It is this Person of the Son that God the Father has always loved (and in Their Mutual and Creative loving spirate the Holy Spirit), and eternally generates (begets) Him. It is in creation, especially in the human form (that which is the image of God, the Logos) that we see God. We are but images of the Logos himself.

In Heaven the Blessed see clearly this Truth that we now can only see “through a glass darkly”. . . .we are called to see God, . …

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. Life Everlasting, TAN Books.

Such is the Vision to which we are called by the God Who is Love in His Communion of Divine Persons. To dispute this and thus aim for far less is a great diminution of (and a denial of) our spiritual heritage in Christ Jesus. In all charity I pray for you this wider and deeper Vision, Dan.

That’s very interesting. I was not aware that Catholics taught that the Father and Son produced the holy spirit. Do all Catholics teach this and is it common knowledge?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

Luke beat me to the punch with Thomas Aquinas. I’ll just add this bit to what Luke has posted:

newadvent.org/summa/3025.htm

What you do not see, Dan, is that true love of oneself flows from love of God, since love of oneself is aimed at finding our greatest good - which is God. Thus two (ONE and one) to love oneself.

I appreciate getting the references. It advances my understanding of Catholic doctrine. I do find the argument on love convoluted. I recently posted how bible writers establish the concept of monotheism. They do so directly and succinctly by modifying the word God with the adjectives one or only and at the same identifying the Father as the one God of Jewish and/or Christian Monotheism.

Dan

 

[FCEGM]

I have this book! But i haven’t read it. Is it good?

Anything by him is superb!

 

[FCEGM]

That’s very interesting. I was not aware that Catholics taught that the Father and Son produced the holy spirit. Do all Catholics teach this and is it common knowledge?

This is the teaching of the Church, Dan. It’s common knowledge among Catholics who’ve been paying attention.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church’s faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c3a8.htm

I’d post more in this regard, but my search engine suddenly isn’t working well.

 

[Dan_Parker]

This is the teaching of the Church, Dan. It’s common knowledge among Catholics who’ve been paying attention.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c3a8.htm

I’d post more in this regard, but my search engine suddenly isn’t working well.

I was already aware of a distinction between the East and West as to whether the holy spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and Son. I was not aware that Catholics would use the term “produce” for the production of the holy spirit. Something produced is something that was made. I realize that another distinction would be added that this happened outside of time, but even so, I would be surprised to find that Catholics in general would not object if I told them Catholics believe the holy spirit was produced by God and Jesus.

Dan

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I was already aware of a distinction between the East and West as to whether the holy spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and Son. I was not aware that Catholics would use the term “produce” for the production of the holy spirit. Something produced is something that was made. I realize that another distinction would be added that this happened outside of time, but even so, I would be surprised to find that Catholics in general would not object if I told them Catholics believe the holy spirit was produced by God and Jesus.

Dan

The books that were quoted are non-Theological, simple explanation style books. The Catholic Church does NOT teach theologically, that the Holy Spirit is “produced.” It teaches that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, through the Son, or more simply, From the Father and the Son. The Eastern and Western Church both agree on the Trinity, however, their terminologies continues to give rise to some friction. (note: some friction, not major difference.)

 

[FCEGM]

I was already aware of a distinction between the East and West as to whether the holy spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and Son. I was not aware that Catholics would use the term “produce” for the production of the holy spirit. Something produced is something that was made. I realize that another distinction would be added that this happened outside of time, but even so, I would be surprised to find that Catholics in general would not object if I told them Catholics believe the holy spirit was produced by God and Jesus.

Dan

The word “produced” re the Holy Spirit is meant as an eternal “production” in the bosom of the Godhead, not that the Holy Spirit is created at some point either inside or outside of God and is thus a lesser Being. Also, the book I quoted, as AmbroseSJ has already noted, is an introductory one on the subject of basic Catholic theology and quickly goes on to introduce the reader to the more technical language of “proceeds”, quoting the Latin, the theological language of the Church: “‘quis ex patre filioque procedit’ - who proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The books that were quoted are non-Theological, simple explanation style books. The Catholic Church does NOT teach theologically, that the Holy Spirit is “produced.” It teaches that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, through the Son, or more simply, From the Father and the Son. The Eastern and Western Church both agree on the Trinity, however, their terminologies continues to give rise to some friction. (note: some friction, not major difference.)

Thanks for the explanation. They should be more careful

Along those same lines, what about the Cathlolic New Jerusalem Bible at Proverbs 8:22?

NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh **created **me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.

Don’t most of the Early Church Fathers consider this to be the Word/Jesus?

Dan

 

[FCEGM]

Along those same lines, what about the Cathlolic New Jerusalem Bible at Proverbs 8:22?

Quote:
NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works.

Yes, Dan, but not in the sense you might like to take it. This is in reference to Christ’s Incarnation, not His Being as God the Son. This from St. Athanasius’ “Statement of Faith”
explains the usage:

1. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Proverbs 8:25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ Colossians 1:15). But by calling Him First-born, He shows that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable. However, the body which He wore for our sakes is a creature: concerning which Jeremiah says, according to the edition of the seventy translators (Jeremiah 31:22): ‘The Lord created for us for a planting a new salvation, in which salvation men shall go about:’ but according to Aquila the same text runs: ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman.’ Now the salvation created for us for a planting, which is new, not old, and for us, not before us, is Jesus, Who in respect of the Saviour was made man, and whose name is translated in one place Salvation, in another Saviour. But salvation proceeds from the Saviour, just as illumination does from the light. The salvation, then, which was from the Saviour, being created new, did, as Jeremiah says, ‘create for us a new salvation,’ and as Aquila renders: ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman,’ that is in Mary. For nothing new was
   created in woman, save the Lord’s body, born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse, as also it says in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus: ‘The Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for His works’ (Proverbs ). Now He does not say, ‘created me before His works,’ lest any should take the text of the deity of the Word.

1. Each text then which refers to the creature is written with reference to Jesus in a bodily sense. For the Lord’s Humanity was created as ‘a beginning of ways,’ and He manifested it to us for our salvation. For by it we have our access to the Father.

newadvent.org/fathers/2821.htm

And From St. Basil the Great, “Against Eunomius”:

10. He explains the phrase The Lord created Me, and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius’ reasoning, and the passage which says, My glory will I not give to another, examining them from different points of view.

But of course they bring forward the passage in the book of Proverbs which says, The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways, for His works. Now it would require a lengthy discussion to explain fully the real meaning of the passage: still it would be possible even in a few words to convey to well-disposed readers the thought intended. Some of those who are accurately versed in theology do say this, that the Hebrew text does not read created, and we have ourselves read in more ancient copies possessed instead of created. Now assuredly possession in the allegorical language of the Proverbs marks that slave Who for our sakes took upon Him the form of a slave Philippians 2:7 . But if any one should allege in this passage the reading which prevails in the Churches, we do not reject even the expression created. For this also in allegorical language is intended to connote the slave, since, as the Apostle tells us, all creation is in bondage (Romans 8:20-1 . Thus we say that this expression, as well as the other, admits of an orthodox interpretation. For He Who for our sakes became like as we are, was in the last days truly created—He Who in the beginning being Word and God afterwards became Flesh and Man. For the nature of flesh is created: and by partaking in it in all points like as we do, yet without sin, He was created when He became man: and He was created after God (Ephesians 4:24), not after man, as the Apostle says, in a new manner and not according to human wont. For we are taught that this new man was created— albeit of the Holy Ghost and of the power of the Highest— whom Paul, the hierophant of unspeakable mysteries, bids us to put on, using two phrases to express the garment that is to be put on, saying in one place, Put on the new man which after God is created Ephesians 4:24, and in another, Put on the Lord Jesus Christ Romans 13:14 . For thus it is that He, Who said I am the Way , becomes to us who have put Him on the beginning of the ways of salvation, that He may make us the work of His own hands, new modelling us from the evil mould of sin once more to His own image. He is at once our foundation before the world to come, according to the words of Paul, who says, Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid 1 Corinthians 3:11, and it is true that before the springs of the waters came forth, before the mountains were settled, before He made the depths, and before all hills, He begets Me. For it is possible, according to the usage of the Book of Proverbs, for each of these phrases, taken in a tropical sense, to be applied to the Word.

newadvent.org/fathers/290102.htm

 

[Dan_Parker]

Yes, Dan, but not in the sense you might like to take it. This is in reference to Christ’s Incarnation, not His Being as God the Son. This from St. Athanasius’ “Statement of Faith” explains the usage:newadvent.org/fathers/2821.htm
And From St. Basil the Great, “Against Eunomius”:newadvent.org/fathers/290102.htm

Dan:
I don’t think Athanasius thought this all the way through. Or perhaps because it was a very old tradition in the Church that this referred to Jesus he had to accept it.

NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. 23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. 24 The deep was not, when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; 26 before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world. 27 When he fixed the heavens firm, I was there, when he drew a circle on the surface of the deep, 28 when he thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell, 29 when he assigned the sea its boundaries – and the waters will not encroach on the shore – when he traced the foundations of the earth, 30 I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,

Now, how can this be a reference to his becoming flesh when the creating of him happened before the earth was created? Just does not make sense.

Dan

 

[Convert66]

Hello again, Dan,

Honestly I am not stalking you. It just seems that way because I’ve been hanging around Sacred Scripture for the past week or so.

I don’t think that you’ve thought it through, considering the language of the Proverbs text you cited.

1. Who is this text about, since it is not about the Father? Please be specific.
2. What does the phrase “created me before the oldest of His works” mean? When did this “occur” if it was “from evelasting”?

All my best . . .

 

[Benadam]

If love requires twoness then how can the New American Bible say “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39) If you love yourself are you two persons?

Dan

Matter and spirit. Heaven and earth. Body and soul. Isn’t love what binds these?

 

[Ignatius]

Why do we believe that God relates to human beings thru a trinity as opposed to four people ( fourth person we haven’t yet met.)

Because God revealed Himself to us in Holy Scripture as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Matter and spirit. Heaven and earth. Body and soul. Isn’t love what binds these?

This forum is for the purpose of discussing Sacred Scripture, not Philosophy. Can you support your view with Scripture?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

Hello again, Dan,

Honestly I am not stalking you. It just seems that way because I’ve been hanging around Sacred Scripture for the past week or so.

I don’t think that you’ve thought it through, considering the language of the Proverbs text you cited.

1. Who is this text about, since it is not about the Father? Please be specific.
2. What does the phrase “created me before the oldest of His works” mean? When did this “occur” if it was “from everlasting”?

All my best . . .

Dan:
One must not press the Hebrew më`ôläm too hard, for even the NAB renders this as:
NAB Proverbs 8:22 (1 )"The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago; 23 From **of old **I was poured forth, at the first, before the earth.

This agrees with the Halot Hebrew Lexicon where for this verse it gives the gloss:
past, ancient times, prehistoric times, age (THAT 2:587-589): pl. cs. ôlämi Pr 823.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon says of the word in this verse:
Pr 8:23 from the beginnings of the earth;

In answer to your question I believe this to be a reference to God’s Son and so I agree with Catholics on that point.

Dan

 

[Benadam]

Can you support your view with Scripture?

Given that a law is sacred in as much as it is an expression of a sacred covenant. I think this supports the idea that love is the binding force of creation.
Jeremias 33

25 Thus saith the Lord: If I have not set my covenantbetween day and night, and laws to heaven and earth:

 

[Mike_Dye]

I came upon this claim but couldn’t articulate theologically why it is ludicrous. Why do we believe that God relates to human beings thru a trinity as opposed to four people ( fourth person we haven’t yet met.)

Well Jesus taught us about the Trinity. That is the only answer I need.
If there were a forth person that remarkably has been completely silent and shown no evidence at all of his existence how about a fifth or a sixth or a seventh. The next thing you know we are Hindus with thousands of gods. Can they all be equal?
I need not go further I have Jesus’ words and that’s enough for me:thumbsup:

 

[Dan_Parker]

Well Jesus taught us about the Trinity. That is the only answer I need.
If there were a forth person that remarkably has been completely silent and shown no evidence at all of his existence how about a fifth or a sixth or a seventh. The next thing you know we are Hindus with thousands of gods. Can they all be equal?
I need not go further I have Jesus’ words and that’s enough for me:thumbsup:

Where did Jesus teach the Trinity and how do you define the Trinity?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

Given that a law is sacred in as much as it is an expression of a sacred covenant. I think this supports the idea that love is the binding force of creation.
Jeremias 33

25 Thus saith the Lord: If I have not set my covenantbetween day and night, and laws to heaven and earth:

I do believe that Augustine said at one point that the holy spirit was the love between the Father and the Son.

According to Kelly [1], page 275

"Augustine was always puzzled [E.g. de trin 9,17;15,45.] to explain what the procession of the Spirit is, or wherein it differs from the Son’s generation. He was certain,[Ib. 15,27: cf.ib. 5,12 (ineffabilis quaedam patris filiique communio).], however, that the Spirit is the mutual love of Father and Son (communem qua invicem se diligunt pater et filius caritem), the consubstantial bond which unites Them.

We know love is not a person. I wonder what Augustine was thinking. Do you think at this point he did not consider the holy spirit to be a person?

---

[1] J.N.D Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines” by J.N.D. Kelly, Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford second edition (1960) Harper and Row Publishers.

Dan