A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[LittleLes]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 6 2005, 11:51 PM']You have no proof of you being hear tomorrow Littleless, that is something that requires faith.
Why dont you place Faith in the Evidence of the existance of the condictional Holy Blessed Trinity?
[right][snapback]714040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Because the existence of Trinity involves several contradictions which have been demonstrated.

At some point, everyone will not be here tomorrow. That is a certitude based on experience, not a theory.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 6 2005, 04:41 PM']
Not sure if I follow that... But no Teaching has ever changed.  If it did, then God's a liar.

God bless.
[right][snapback]713562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If a teaching of the Church has changed, that doesn't prove that God is a liar. It proves that what the Church teaches is not always what God teaches. Church teachings sometimes change, especially if they are later found to be in error.

An old example:

In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

". It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. " (Instruction, Holy Office, 1866)

But now,

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity ...
[ Catechism of the Catholic Church #2414]

And slavery is now taught to be contrary to the natural law:

Veritatas splendor, section 80, Pope John Paul II
Gaudium et Spes , section 27, Vatican II

And formerly a woman with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy had to be allowed to die:

Catholic Encyclopedia - Abortion

"The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother."

"...in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot."

But this teaching changed after the theory of double effect was developed.

Did God originally "lie" in these cases of changed teachings or was the Church simply in error in its original teachings?

[Apotheoun]

Actually from a Byzantine perspective the divine essence cannot be known at all, nor can it be categorized at all in any kind of conceptual or intellectual manner, for to do that would be to make God simply one being among many. Instead, God is beyond anything existing, for He is beyond existence itself, and as a consequence the divine essence is utterly transcendent and incommunicable. As Fr. Romanides has pointed out:

[quote]In both the Cappadocian and Alexandrian traditions the [i]ousia[/i] of God is beyond all categories of thought in a radical manner and therefore not only beyond definition of any kind, but also beyond the predication of any name whatsoever, to such an extent that God is [i]hyper-onymos[/i], [i]hyper-ousios[/i], and even [i]hyper-theos[/i].  Within this Biblical tradition the [i]ousia[/i] of man also remains a mystery.  Only the energies and powers of both God and man can be known.  In this sense the term [i]ousia[/i] is used not in the Greek philosophical sense of the definable and knowable immutable inner reality of a thing, but as a concrete unknowable reality known only in its acts.  In contrast to Antiochene and Latin tradition (the Augustinian one), the term [i]ousia[/i] as applied to the Holy Trinity by the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers is neither a Platonic superstratal genus, nor an Aristotelian substratal material in which the [i]hypostases[/i] or persons of the Holy Trinity participate. [Fr. Romanides, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 10, no. 2, winter 1964-1965; page 103][/quote]
There can be no comprehension – not even partial – of the divine essence, because there is no analogy of being between created and uncreated reality. Thus, God in His essence remains in unapproachable light, utterly transcendent and beyond the created cosmic order.

In other words, the world will always be [i]heteroousios[/i] in relation to God, while simultaneously existing within the divine energy, which is the mode of God's being as He exists outside of His incommunicable and incomprehensible essence. But from this it follows that there can be no essential knowledge of God, nor can there be a blending of the divine essence with the world of created essences, for God enters into the world only in the power of divine energy, and not by His essence.

All of the various definitions of faith issued by the Church's Magisterium are apophatic in nature, even the term used at Nicaea, "homoousios," is not saying what God is; rather, it is saying what the eternal Logos is not, i.e., created. If one fails to recognize the apophatic nature of theology, it inevitably follows that he will misunderstand the whole content of the Church's doctrinal patrimony, and will even misunderstand divine revelation itself, reducing both to mere rational concepts and categories of thought. Such a reduction is a form of idolatry, because it reduces God to mental concepts and definitions by equating the incomprehensible divine essence with created essences.

[Paladin D]

At this point of time, it's as useless as explaining to a 1-month old baby why you really don't disappear while doing the peek-a-boo.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:07 AM']Actually from a Byzantine perspective the divine essence cannot be known at all, nor can it be categorized at all in any kind of conceptual or intellectual manner, for to do that would be to make God simply one being among many.  [/quote]

RESPONSE:

They they are in error and are appealing, in the final analysis, to ignorance.

I take it that they must reject Aquinas and Scholastic philosophy with its description of God's essense and attributes.

So you may want to stopcopying and pasting their tracts or at least summarize them and spare us the redundancy.

Littleles

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:07 AM']
All of the various definitions of faith issued by the Church's Magisterium are apophatic in nature, even the term used at Nicaea, "homoousios," is not saying what God is; rather, it is saying what the eternal Logos is not, i.e., created.  [/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. "Homoousios" is not a negative term. Translated it would be "of the same substance" or " of one being."

Clearly it isn't "apophatic in nature."

And your constant use of the "apophatic" claim to avoid the fact of contradictions and flawed arguments regarding the existence and nature or the Trinity is not establishing any proof.

Perhaps you would want to find another apolgetics tract.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 7 2005, 08:30 AM']At this point of time, it's as useless as explaining to a 1-month old baby why you really don't disappear while doing the peek-a-boo.
[right][snapback]714230[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

It is if one is dealing with the intellect of a 1-month old baby. Some of us have made a little progress since then. But, of course, others have not.

[LittleLes]

A major flaw in the rationale for the existence of the Trinity is the leap from the conceptual order (what could be) to the real order (what exists).

This basic flaw is apparent in the claim that since "existence" is one of God's perfections, so his self-conception, the Son, must also exist. And since God is one, there can only be one self-conception and hence one Son.

But the "perfect love" between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both. This love, too, must have the perfection of a real existence.

But here's where this explanation begins to break down. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, and the perfect love of the Father for the Son produces one person, the Holy Spirit; then the perfect love of the Son (a distinct person himself) for the Father would also produce a another person, God the Daughter?

And if the argument were true, we would soon have an endless number of divine persons in existence.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:41 AM']RESPONSE:

No. "Homoousios" is not a negative term. Translated it would be "of the same substance" or " of one being."

Clearly it isn't "apophatic in nature."

And your constant use of the "apophatic" claim to avoid the fact of contradictions and flawed arguments regarding the existence and nature or the Trinity is not establishing any proof.

Perhaps you would want to find another apolgetics tract.
[right][snapback]714287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Perhaps [i]homoousios[/i] is not an apophatic term for you, but it is for the Byzantine Church, and as a Byzantine Catholic I hold to that position.

The Trinity is beyond "proofs," because it is a revealed dogma and not a conclusion derived from rational investigation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 7 2005, 07:53 AM']A major flaw in the rationale for the existence of the Trinity is the leap from the conceptual order (what could be) to the real order (what exists).

This basic flaw is apparent in the claim that since "existence" is one of God's perfections, so his self-conception, the Son, must also exist. And since God is one, there can only be one self-conception and hence one Son.

But the "perfect love" between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both. This love, too, must have the perfection of a real existence.

But here's where this explanation begins to break down. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, and the perfect love of the Father for the Son produces one person, the Holy Spirit; then the perfect love of the Son (a distinct person himself)  for the Father would also produce a another person, God the Daughter?

And if the argument were true, we would soon have an endless number of divine persons in existence.
[right][snapback]714300[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is only a flaw for you, because you have reduced God to the conceptual order; in other words, for you God is merely a mental abstraction.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2005, 11:34 AM']It is only a flaw for you, because you have reduced God to the conceptual order; in other words, for you God is merely a mental abstraction.
[right][snapback]714408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. I think one should form a concept of God. Of course, some belief systems don't allow you to do that or to think too much about their dogma. Just take everything on "faith" and believe everything they tell you.

And many do. Scary, isn't it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:10 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes. I think one should form a concept of God. Of course, some belief systems don't allow you to do that or to think too much about  their dogma.  Just take everything on "faith" and believe everything they tell you. 

And many do. Scary, isn't it.
[right][snapback]714439[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying your position. In the Byzantine tradition you would be called an idolater.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Sep 7 2005, 12:20 PM']Thank you for clarifying your position.  In the Byzantine tradition you would be called an idolater.
[right][snapback]714443[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

An "idolater" is someone who worships idols. Maybe the Byzantine tradition is a little confused on this point.

Not so the Roman tradition. If you don't absolutely fully accept what they tell you, you're a "heretic." But that's getting old, so "modernist" is the popular label.

[LittleLes]

I think that after about 133 posts we've pretty well explored the doctrine of the Trinity.

Actually, I became interested in it because I am engaged in a similar ongoing discussion on another debate board regarding the creation of dogma in general, which traced the history and development of a number of Catholic teachings.

But I think we've pretty well exhausted discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity at this point.

Anyone want to start a different thread and explore the development of the doctrine of Original Sin?

Actually, I never could understand why Adam got the rap for this. After all, Eve ate that apple and sinned first! :

[Jake Huether]

[quote]However, according to the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son." But then there must be perfect love between the Father and the Holy Spirit which too must share the perfection of real existence. Hence the need to invent a fourth person of the Trinity. And so forth.[/quote]

Again...

The Love of the Holy Spirit for the Father and the Son is simply WHAT God is... God... Infinite perfection.

The Love between the Father and the Son - proceeding from both, is WHO the Holy Spirit is.

I don't think you are reading what we are saying. You are simply re-stating your own thoughts without learning a thing.

At this point, I must shake the dust from my sandals.

God bless and good luck in your search for Truth.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:25 PM']Again...

The Love of the Holy Spirit for the Father and the Son is simply WHAT God is... God... Infinite perfection.

The Love between the Father and the Son - proceeding from both, is WHO the Holy Spirit is.

I don't think you are reading what we are saying.  You are simply re-stating your own thoughts without learning a thing.

At this point, I must shake the dust from my sandals.

God bless and good luck in your search for Truth.
[right][snapback]714498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I fully agree. I'm reading what you are saying but find the arguments to be without consistency or substance. So lets move on.

[son_of_angels]

A quick reply from a non-theologian,

It is a position of faith, though a position not reliant on itself but on reality, that God exists, and reason shows him plainly to exist, for he has shown himself "in sundry ways and divers manners" together with the verse "the heavens show forth the glory of God."

I then can, without the faculty of revelation, conceive positively that God must be the source of all, and that all exists to serve and adore him.

However, the mystery of the Trinity is explained rationally only in the person of Christ, and therefore cannot be explained without divine intervention and grace. Any attempt to do otherwise is an overextention of intellect into will, and therefore an occasion to sin.

Edited September 7, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Sep 6 2005, 10:01 PM']RESPONSE:

The flaw in your argument is the "exact terms which would FULLY
express the nature of God."  But one doesn't have to fully express the nature of God to  understand any number of aspects of his existence or to have evidence of contradictions in some claims made about him.
For example, it is argued that the Son is the Father's perfect conception of his own self. Since existence is among the Father's perfections, his self-conception must also exist. Thus the Son is "begotten" by intellectual generation.

And the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the perfect love that exists between the Father and the Son. But this love too must share the perfection of real existence.

However, according to the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from BOTH the Father and the Son." But then there must be perfect love between the Father and the Holy Spirit which too must share the perfection of real existence. Hence the need to invent a fourth person of the Trinity. And so forth.
[right][snapback]713933[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Again, you either don't understand the argument, or refuse to acknowledge it and instead attack a straw-man.

Also, since you supposedly place so much stock in historical accuracy, it would probably be good to know that the Nicene Creed does not contain the filioque, but rather, the filioque was added to the Nicene Creed in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

Now, back to the actual issue:

We can say, for example, that God exists. However, by virtue of the fact that He is God, His Existence is something fundamentally transcendent and, as such, cannot be fully expressed via human language. The most we can say is that "He Exists" though this really doesn't fully express His Existence as such.

Precisely the fact that we are attempting to express a divine truth via human language means that whatever expression is used, it will ultimately be inadequate.

Similarly, if we say that "God is Three Persons" our human language fails to convey all of the actual reality of who God is. Then again, when we say "God is One" here again our human language is ultimately inadequate. There is not an actual contradiction in God, but only a semantical contradiction that arises because our language is flawed.

Lets use an example:

Imagine, just for the sake of argument, a wholly and totally unnamed color, somewhere between blue and red. There is no word for this color. We gather and look at it, and, because we have no word for it, we see the red in it, and say "it is red." Then, later, we return to look at it, see the blue in it, and say "it is blue."

Now this second time, we explicitly say that we are not contradiction the previous assertion that "it is red" and at the same time, that first statement does not preclude the second statement, that "it is blue."

These two statements would seem to be in contradiction to someone who did not understand that both statements are failing to convey ALL of the nature of the color in question. But when we understand that no word exists for the color, we see that both assertions are correct and right to use, because it is understood by those asserting that the words do not convey the entirety of the color, but only aspects of it.

With God, human language always fails, and therefore there will always appear to be contradictions to those who refuse to see the inadequacies of human language.

In Christ,

Jeff

[Paladin D]

Littleles, reason [b]alone[/b] does not make one a Catholic, it also requires faith too. Faith and reason work together, and aid each other in understanding.

[White Knight]

Paladin is right, through Logic we can only explain the basics of the Trinity, to understand the fullness of the Holy Blessed Trinity is something else intireally and has no contradiction, just condiction.