The Trinity In Catholic thought

[Gregory Matthews]

The Trinity in Catholic Thought

 During the time that Gustave has been with us, I have appreciated his

participation much. A frequent theme of his has been The Trinity an important doctrine in Christianity. I thought it might be of value to us to go to an official Catholic publication on that doctrine to see what the Roman Catholic teaching actually is. My reference source is the Catechism published by the Catholic Church in Rome, English Edition. It is listed below.

* I have taken my postings from pages 66 to 70 of the following book.

* A 3-digit number written in Bold is the numbered teaching.

* Numbers printed in [brackets] are the numbers of related teachings.  They also may refer to other information.

* My postings are only a partial listing of Catholic teachings.

* A pdf version of this book may be accessed at:

https://www.spiralgalaxy.tech/biblestudygroup/supplementarymaterials/catechism.pdf

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

 253 [2789] The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one [2789] God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity."83  [Council of Constantinople II (553)  DS 421] The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God."84  [Council of Toledo XI (675) DS 30:26] In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85 [Lateran Council (1215) SA 804]

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86  [Fides Damasi"DS 71] "Father," "Son," "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87  [Council of Toledo XI (675) DS 530:25] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88    [Lateran council IV (1215) DS 804]The divine Unity is Triune.

 255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89  [Council of Toledo XI (675) DS 528] Indeed" everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90  [Council of Florence (1442) DS 1330] "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son." 91  [Council of Florence (1442) DS 1331]

IN BRIEF

261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and by the Son "from the Father" (Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. "With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified" (Nicene Creed).

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

265 By the grace of Baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG § 9).

266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

The reference book: Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Copyright 1997 & 2000, 904 pages.

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  i have a copy of the book listed above and often use it as a reference of official teachings.

[Gustave]

Impressive Pastor Matthews! 

#253, 254 & 255 in particular are the things I've primarily discussed in the Trinity threads I've been a part of. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I posted the above because I wanted to help clarify some aspects of the conversation.  IOW, I felt that some comments were not fully understood.

As I read and understand the above listing of Catholic teaching, I can agree with it.  I do not fully agree with some other aspects of what Gustave has said, as I understand them.

But, I think that my posting of Catholic teaching lays a good foundation for a common agreement.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  I have edited my posting from the Catechism to include references to additional material.  Those references were included n the book, I have changed their location in an effort to make my posting more understandable.

[Gustave]

My understanding is that God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) is indeed ONE God, as in ONE Single, simple spiritual Substance without Body or Parts. The Son could no more eternally cease to exist than could the Father or the Holy Spirit. It's impossible and 100% incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity to assert this possibility existed for God the Son. 

I understand Pastor Matthews understands / believes this. 

I'm looking to discuss this with Hobi who appears to have a different understanding. 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, SeventhSaturn said:

Palermo is a hard place to read a book sometimes. 

If that's where you are at you are no doubt distracted / drowning in breath taking history, art and some of the best food in the world - not to mention ancient buildings!. 

I'm glad Pastor Matthews provided the context on the Trinity Doctrine - it helps anchor the conversation and minimizes folks talking over each other when there isn't really a disagreement. 

I believe the situation as far as this issue goes is simply that when Ellen was younger she gave up the Trinity Doctrine and subsequently adopted the creature-Christ doctrine of James White. Ellen became a militant anti-Trinitarian. 

I believe that later on in her life Ellen did move toward a "more orthodox" position but it was still a long country mile away from Orthodoxy. Devout SDA's believe that Ellen White was a prophet and therefore what she said in her many books and Sabbath Herald article was infallible - unfortunately Ellen really put her shoulder and back into the creature-Christ doctrine that affirmed the Godhead was risked, put into jeopardy, etc. by Christ incarnating. The teaching goes that Jesus could have sinned and lost His salvation and had that happened after Christ died on the cross He would have putrefied / rotted in the tomb to "KNOW NOT NOTHING" until God woke Him up to throw Christ into the lake of fire where Christ would than be annihilated (become as if He never existed, eternally). 

In my time here I've become convinced that a very small minority of SDA's reject the above teaching - However, generally, within Adventism (as in ALL Adventist Denominations like the JW's, Christadelphians, etc.) this is a very, very common Doctrine. Adventist Denominations share a common Arian DNA which is why this concept is so strong within Adventist groups. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave said:

Quote

Devout SDA's believe that Ellen White was a prophet and therefore what she said in her many books and Sabbath Herald article was infallible -. . . .

Knight, George R. Reading Ellen White: How to understand and apply her writings.  Review & Herald, 1997 & 2015, 140 PAGES.

 The above book is of great value and is divided into three sections:

*  # 1 deals with basics, such as inspiration and the relationship of her writings to the Bible.  30 pages.

* # 2 deals with principles of interpretation.  70 pages.

* # 3 deals with principles of application.  9 pages.

The following are important statements made i n the above book, along with the page on which they are stated.

*  . . . she never ser forth her writings as an equal authority to the Bible or even as having any authority independent of Scripture.  Page 17

* . . . she was careful to state that people did not need her writings to understand the great concepts of salvation.  page 18.

*  Ellen white  repeatedly described her writings as being subordinate to the Bible. . . . page 20.

* . . . ?she did not claim that we should take her writings as the final word . . . page 26.

*  . . . Ellen white rejected the infallible commentator approach to the use of her writings. .  .  Page 26.

*  In short she rejected the approach of those who would use her as an infallible commentator.  Page 27.

*  Ellen White took the position that her comments were not to be used [as} if she were an infallible commentator to settle the meaning of the Bible.  Page 27.

This book contains much more of value.  I Recommend it to all.  I believe that Amazon is selling it for $11.  You can also purchase it     from Kindle, I think.

[Gustave]

Do you know if Knight, George R. had the same understanding of this subject as did/does Mr. Rodriguez who in the following statement claims Christ had the real possibility of sinning and eternally ceasing to exist.

Quote

From the Biblical Research Institute: Jesus and Sin: Could Jesus have sinned? My unambiguous answer: Yes! This is something the Bible supports

What if Jesus had sinned? | Biblical Research Institute

 

Are there any cases where the Biblical Research Institute comes to a different conclusion about religious teaching that differed from Ellen White? I don't know how this works here so it's an honest question. Has the Biblical Research Institute ever identified any theological point in opposition to what Ellen White taught - or, is the B.R.I. in lockstep with Ellen White?  

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, your questions are valid.  I really do not have an answer to them.  I may (?) attempt to see if I can find some answer to some of your questions.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

FYI:  George R. Knight is a PhD. Historian, who has written more than 18 books, often on SDA history and Ellen White.  Amazon is currently selling some of them.  you may find them listed, along with other people, at:  

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=books+by+george+knight&adgrpid=1338106886033223&hvadid=83631877540784&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=43742&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83632518664841%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=10022_13485482&mcid=3c5eba0c06493b16a51b530e3886f066&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_r66qkpao6_e

 

  

[Gregory Matthews]

A little ways back, Gustave cites a Biblical Research article on the possibility of Christ sinning. I do not mean to suggest that Gustave has improperly cited the article. But, I consider it to be important to read the entire article, not just what Gustave cited.  you can find it at:

https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/articles/what-if-jesus-had-sinned

The ending of that article is interesting:

 Here's where the speculation comes in the form of a theological argument. Let me put it as bluntly as I can: Had Jesus failed, the God we now know would not be our God. In other words, with respect to us, He would have ceased to exist. The failure of Jesus would have meant that God was unable to overcome the forces of evil and that Satan was powerful enough to overcome Him by derailing His plan of salvation, thus forcing God to abandon us.

As you can see, in my speculations the stakes are very high. The defeat of our biblical God at the moment of His greatest manifestation of power on the cross of Christ is something we can hardly begin to imagine, much less take seriously.

Since the biblical God is by definition unbeatable, our question remains almost unanswered. Had the human nature of the Son of God failed, God Himself would have failed. But He did not. Amen!

 

[Gustave]

I read that as well and it seemed to me like Mr. Rodriguez wanted to say NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT POSSIBLE but something else, possibly not in Sacred Scripture forced him to say YES, Jesus had a possibility of failing / falling into sin. 

Jesus clearly identified Isaiah 35,4 as being about Him (Matthew 11, 1-6)

In Mark 13, 31 Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away but His words never will. I take that to mean that when Jesus said thing like He does in Matthew 7, 22 / Matthew 19, 28 / Matthew 23, 39 / Mark 14, 49 / Luke 24, 25-27 and over 100 additional Scriptures that speak to the same effect. If Mr. Rodriguez was being serious that he believed the Bible teaches that there existed a hypothetical situation whereas Jesus' words "could have failed" where is he getting this? 

At the end of the day if as Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ had the capacity or capability to sin AND this was a real risk how does this comport with the Trinity Doctrine? Adventist groups believe that if Christ sinned and was subsequently annihilated (eternally ceasing to exist) the group concept of "God" would be changed would it not? Instead of having the 3 Persons united in mission and character there would be then only 2 left in the SDA case and only 1 in the JW case? 

 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

SeventhSaturn said: The thing is, that if God actually sinned, then whatever He did wouldn’t be a sin anymore.

That's incorrect, God CAN'T commit / violate moral law because to do so would be against God's Nature - to say it another way IF what you think to be God committed a moral sin what you believed to be God, WASN'T God - it was something else. You can take that one to the bank.