The Trinity as Rocket Science

[Ahanu]

To say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is mysterious. Nobody knows what Catholics are saying . . . not even those dashingly good-looking Catholics know. End of story. We can all go home now. Do I really need to continue? However, Catholics want to prove it’s not nonsense. According to Aquinas, the Trinity is not contradictory.

It might help to glance at the Incarnation. Aquinas, when discussing the Incarnation, believes for Jesus to be divine and human does not involve a contradiction, as would for something to be both a square and circle. Don’t look surprised! Physicists should know: wave/particle duality comes with the field. At the moment two languages are used. Perhaps in the future a single language will express this, but, for now, that is the way it is. In this sense Aquinas is in the same boat as physicists. He believes that, in the future, a theoretical development will allow us to see how God can be both one and three. Just because we cannot see how both can be true should not faze us.

Now we can say two things about God: God is one and there are three who are God.

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and all three are the same God, yet all three are not identical. Aquinas speaks of God’s activity within himself. Consider your own selves: carving, writing, and teaching, for example, are actions upon something else, but growing and understanding, for example, happens within yourself. So what about God’s act of understanding within himself? We'll return to this question shortly. For Aquinas, understanding has something to do with not being material. To understand a nature is to possess the nature immaterially. To possess the nature of a dog materially is to be a dog, but to possess the nature of a dog immaterially is to understand a dog. For Aquinas we can understand because humans are just about able to transcend our materiality. Though understanding is an act involving bodily activity which cannot take place without the body working, it is not itself an act of the body. Therefore, since God cannot be material, he cannot be non-intellectual, so he must possess understanding. We do not know what it means for God to understand, but we know God does not lack the capacity to understand. God can understand himself or form a concept of himself. When we understand a nature—for example, a dog or apple—we form a concept of it in our minds. The concept, the meaning of the word, was called the word of the mind (verbum mentis) by medievals. Back to God’s understanding. When God forms a concept of himself, it must be God. This act of God’s self-understanding involves the bringing forth of a concept (verbum mentis), bringing about a relationship between God and the concept. The language of generation, of Son and Father, now step in.

For Catholics the Father and Son do not differ. The Father generates the Son, and the Son is generated by the Father, so the only distinction is in relationship.

As a side note, in biblical biology women did not contribute to the generative process. So, since during those ancient times Christian theologians did not know of modern biology, it would make more since to talk about God the Parents rather than God the Father.


The post above come from my notes on an essay in Silence and the Word.

 

[radarmark]

I'll muddy the waters... that is the Catholic tradition, let us go back to the unified tradition which includes Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Here we have a well-spring of non-trinitarian teachings. Okay, some of them (Pseudo-Dionysus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Damascene) can give one the impression of a trinitarian approach. But they are really Apophatic or Negative Theologians. If one cannot make any positive statement about the Divine, the ineffability of G!d forbids one from "understanding with the mind". Thus the efforts of speech or mind are for nought... the Trinity is a word, a concept. It is the experience that must we should be addressing. And the experience is transcendent of "Three-ness or G!d-ness".

Pax et amore omnia vincunt

 

[Thomas]

OK. Let me paddle a bit ...

Let's first be sure about what we mean by 'mystery'. It's from the Greek mysterion (pl. mysteria) "a secret" (rite or doctrine) from mystes "an initiate" from myein "to close, shut", either the lips (in secrecy) or the eyes (only initiates were allowed to see the sacred rites). In every case in the New Testament, 'mysterion' designates a revealed secret. Furthermore, scriptural mysteries are those which are incomprehensible, revealed in comprehensible terms. The Christian Mysteries then, are not incomprehensible — quite the reverse — they are entirely comprehensible, but they do also signify a dimension that transcends the human way of 'knowing' ... but this leads into the understanding of 'gnosis' in the CT.

Thus when Ahanu says "To say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is mysterious. Nobody knows what Catholics are saying... " is to assume the contemporary and quite erroneous understanding of the term.

Aquinas, when discussing the Incarnation, believes for Jesus to be divine and human does not involve a contradiction, as would for something to be both a square and circle.

Ah, here there is a misunderstanding, and here the doctrine is quite specific since the 5th century. It's not a case of a nature being both divine and human simultaneously (square and circle), it's a divine nature united to a human nature. The doctrine of hypostatic union was known in Greek philosophy before the Chrstological disputes brought it to the fore in theology.

Consider your own selves...

No, don't. Or at least, be very careful ... God is not like a creature, and cannot be determined according to creaturely understandings.

Though understanding is an act involving bodily activity which cannot take place without the body working, it is not itself an act of the body.

Yes. This is actually from Aristotle. "Nothing is in the mind that was not first in the senses."

When God forms a concept of himself, it must be God. This act of God’s self-understanding involves the bringing forth of a concept (verbum mentis), bringing about a relationship between God and the concept. The language of generation, of Son and Father, now step in.

Exactly. God's self knowledge is no different from His self-being. There is no subject/object duality in God, as there is in man. Our aelf-knowledge is deficient according to our being.

... it would make more since to talk about God the Parents rather than God the Father.

No, as the doctrine is quite clear that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ, He took His human body and His humanity from her.

+++

let us go back to the unified tradition which includes Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

I wish we would ... that schism is the biggest piece of nonsense ever to afflict us.

Here we have a well-spring of non-trinitarian teachings.

Hmm ... you'll have to evidence that.

Okay, some of them (Pseudo-Dionysus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Damascene) can give one the impression of a trinitarian approach.

Not an impression, they preached the Trinity absolutely.

"And It is called the Trinity because Its supernatural fecundity is revealed in a Threefold Personality, wherefrom all Fatherhood in heaven and on earth exists and draws Its name."
St Denys‚ The Divine Names ...

"Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom"
St Denys, Mysticl Theology.

But they are really Apophatic or Negative Theologians. If one cannot make any positive statement about the Divine, the ineffability of G!d forbids one from "understanding with the mind".

Not quite. Again, this refers to the Christian understanding of gnosis.

They may well have been Apophatic, but not to the denial of the Cataphatic — it's not a case of either/or, but of and/and. So whilst their writings might well be apophatic, they are saturated with a Trinitarian understanding.

Take The Liturgy of Saint Dionysius, Bishop of the Athenians.
It's the Liturgy attributed to the 5th century Syrian monk, the pseudoAreopagite, not the 1st century bishop of Athens converted on the Areopagus by Paul (as recorded in Acts). We're not even sure if the latter St Denys actually wrote this, but it is agreed that it conforms to his theology. St Maximus the Confessor wrote his Mystagogia as a commentary on this liturgy, informed by the Corpus Dionysiacum.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

I'll muddy the waters...

Already? I'm focusing on Aquinas right now.

some of them (Pseudo-Dionysus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Damascene) can give one the impression of a trinitarian approach. But they are really Apophatic or Negative Theologians.

As Thomas wrote, I'd like to see the evidence.

 

[radarmark]

From Psudo-Dionysysius
"they say concerning the Divine Unity, or Super-Essence, that the undivided Trinity holds in a common Unity without distinction Its Subsistence beyond Being, Its Godhead beyond Deity, Its Goodness beyond Excellence; the Identity, surpassing all things, of Its transcendently Individual Nature; Its Oneness above Unity; Its Namelessness and Multiplicity of Names; Its Unknowableness and perfect Intelligibility; Its universal Affirmation and universal Negation in a state above all Affirmation and Negation, and that It possesses the mutual Abiding and Indwelling (as it were) of Its indivisibly supreme Persons in an utterly Undifferentiated and Transcendent Unity, and yet without any confusion even as the lights of lamps (to use visible and homely similes) being in one house and wholly interpenetrating one another, severally possess a clear and absolute distinction each from each, and are by their distinctions united into one, and in their unity are kept distinct. Even so do we see, when there are many lamps in a house, how that the lights of them all are unified into one undifferentiated light, so that there shineth forth from them one indivisible brightness; and no one, methinks, could separate the light of one particular lamp from the others, in isolation from the air which embraces them all, nor could he see one light without another, inasmuch as, without confusion, they yet are wholly
commingled."

He then goes on to give (what some consider a token) summation of what the scripturial and orthodox view.

Remember, I did not say "nontrinitatiran", I said "impression of nontrinitarian.

Do you need similar quotes for the others?

I believe that if your objection is that, taken en toto, these thinkers are "mainstream", they can be interpreted that way but so can Eckhart. But at the time he was not. I am merely saying that there are sections in Pseudo-Dionysus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Damascene that can be interpreted (and this is in clear parallel to the Catholic treatment of Eckhart) as Apophatic and transendental.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[mojobadshah]

I think that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity trickled down from the Zoroastrians who have their Father Ahura Mazda, their son Zoroaster the Ashavan, and their Holy Spirit [World] or Spenta Mainyu (the intermediary in which man is able to conceive of Ahura Mazda) where Ahura Mazda and Spenta Mainyu are both distinct and the same, and the Ashavan is the tano-mathro or logos. All men were considered sons of God and all men possessed the potential to attain Asha "the best good" and the potential to achieve the status of Ashavan "Asha bearer" according to Zoroastrian tenent in the same right that the initial belief among Christians was that all men possessed the capability to be "Godlike" as Jesus was. And the idea that Jesus was the only son of God came from the idea that Zoroaster was the only son of God who was chosen to reveal God's revealation to man.

 

[Ahanu]

This thread is not for our thoughts on the origins of the Trinity, but for what highly influential Christian thinkers thought about the Trinity.

Augustine, for example.

 

[Thomas]

Remember, I did not say "nontrinitatiran", I said "impression of nontrinitarian.

OK, then I will moderate my response ... the impression is an inaccurate one.

these thinkers are "mainstream", they can be interpreted that way but so can Eckhart.

I think that's the point, these thinkers are mainstream, or rather shaped the mainstream. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, is one of the 'deepest' apophatic thinkers, but also one of the shapers of Trinitarian theology. When speaking apophatically, when they say 'God' they mean 'Trinity' ... the nature of the Trinity does not stop at the apophatic horizon, it transcends it.

This is why so many confuse the theology so often, they assume Trinity is a cataphatic concept that can be abandoned, or that it must conform to other triune models which, as I endlessly point out, come nowhere near the Christian idea — the most common error being the idea that there must be a feminine somewhere ... in short, people presume to 'correct' the Christian idea when they don't even understand the idea to begin with.

Remember also that many of those apophatic thinkers were bishops responsible for large congregations. Many of their pastoral homilies are considered 'deeply theological' today, which shows just how dreadful contemporary homiletics is. The homilies of an St Augustine or a St Cyril can blow your socks off.

St. Gregory Nazianzus really did not want to go to one of the Ecumenical Councils, because of all the nonsense and politics ... St John Damascene is considered the only church father in which no trace of error can be found ... (not so sure of that myself) ... and Eckhart himself was an inspector of religious institutions to ensure they were thoroughly orthodox.

The history of condemnation of the like of Eriugena, Eckhart etc., is down to bishops who's pastoral skills probably surpassed their theological insight ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Yep, the problem is the "interpretation" and the fact that theology is a metaphysical (philosophical, requiring intense reason) activity and most just do not have the horsepower to go there (Catholic or Orthodox or Protoestant).

And they all lack the hoiletics of even a third rate Father of the Curch (IMHO). You and I will have to talk about the Damascene some time. Again, some of his work (unfortunately which I can read only in translation) seems to be "interpretable" as is Cyril or Gregory (or the whole Revelation problem).


Pax et amore omniavincunt.

 

[Thomas]

You and I will have to talk about the Damascene some time. Again, some of his work (unfortunately which I can read only in translation) seems to be "interpretable" as is Cyril or Gregory (or the whole Revelation problem).

Good grief, what ... you mean a proper theological discussion?

Do they have those here?

Look forward to it.

I once spoke to one of my tutors re learning Latin or Greek — Latin for the Scholars, Greek for the Fathers.

He pointed out that Aquinas, for example, writes really simple and accessible Latin (I have since heard that he's also buried some quite profound Catholic esoterica in the Summa) ... whereas Greek is more problematic. He once spent an hour and a half on one line from St Maximus, not only because you have to know the Greek theological lexicon, but you have to know how and when he deploys those common terms, and what he means by them, which means knowing everything else he's written, too.

Not at all easy. Latin won the day, if only because I've been offered access to texts St Isaac of Stella (c1100-1169) which haven't seen the light of day for a thousand years!

I should make a start ... soon ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Wow dude you must be goooood! Not a researcher (like me) but a real scholar!

How did you get that gig?

Dod you see my quick retort to theosis, perichoreisis & circumincession? (G!d I hope I spelled them right).

 

[Amergin]

OK. Let me paddle a bit ...

Let's first be sure about what we mean by 'mystery'. It's from the Greek mysterion (pl. mysteria) "a secret" (rite or doctrine) from mystes "an initiate"

Mystery is also another way of saying "We do not know."

Thus when Ahanu says "To say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is mysterious. Nobody knows what Catholics are saying... " is to assume the contemporary and quite erroneous understanding of the term.

The contemporary meaning of mystery is lack of a solution or explanation. A Murder Mystery is about finding our the unknown answer to "Who killed Cock Robin."

No, as the doctrine is quite clear that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ, He took His human body and His humanity from her.

As Gerald Massey, the famous biblical scholar said, there is Jesus and there is Christ. Jesus is the historical man, and Christ is the deified imaginary new god. His book was Historical Jesus and Fictional Christ.

"And It is called the Trinity because Its supernatural fecundity is revealed in a Threefold Personality, wherefrom all Fatherhood in heaven and on earth exists and draws Its name."
St Denys‚ The Divine Names ...

"Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom"
St Denys, Mysticl Theology.

It is a lot of double talk or Mumbo-Jumbo for what psychiatrists used to call, "Multiple Personality Disorder."

May the Goddess or Reason bless you,

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

To say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God is mysterious. Nobody knows what Catholics are saying . . . not even those dashingly good-looking Catholics know. End of story. We can all go home now. Do I really need to continue? However, Catholics want to prove it’s not nonsense. According to Aquinas, the Trinity is not contradictory.

It might help to glance at the Incarnation. Aquinas, when discussing the Incarnation, believes for Jesus to be divine and human does not involve a contradiction, as would for something to be both a square and circle. Don’t look surprised! Physicists should know: wave/particle duality comes with the field. At the moment two languages are used. Perhaps in the future a single language will express this, but, for now, that is the way it is. In this sense Aquinas is in the same boat as physicists. He believes that, in the future, a theoretical development will allow us to see how God can be both one and three. Just because we cannot see how both can be true should not faze us.

Now we can say two things about God: God is one and there are three who are God.

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and all three are the same God, yet all three are not identical. Aquinas speaks of God’s activity within himself. Consider your own selves: carving, writing, and teaching, for example, are actions upon something else, but growing and understanding, for example, happens within yourself. So what about God’s act of understanding within himself? We'll return to this question shortly. For Aquinas, understanding has something to do with not being material. To understand a nature is to possess the nature immaterially. To possess the nature of a dog materially is to be a dog, but to possess the nature of a dog immaterially is to understand a dog. For Aquinas we can understand because humans are just about able to transcend our materiality. Though understanding is an act involving bodily activity which cannot take place without the body working, it is not itself an act of the body. Therefore, since God cannot be material, he cannot be non-intellectual, so he must possess understanding. We do not know what it means for God to understand, but we know God does not lack the capacity to understand. God can understand himself or form a concept of himself. When we understand a nature—for example, a dog or apple—we form a concept of it in our minds. The concept, the meaning of the word, was called the word of the mind (verbum mentis) by medievals. Back to God’s understanding. When God forms a concept of himself, it must be God. This act of God’s self-understanding involves the bringing forth of a concept (verbum mentis), bringing about a relationship between God and the concept. The language of generation, of Son and Father, now step in.

For Catholics the Father and Son do not differ. The Father generates the Son, and the Son is generated by the Father, so the only distinction is in relationship.

As a side note, in biblical biology women did not contribute to the generative process. So, since during those ancient times Christian theologians did not know of modern biology, it would make more since to talk about God the Parents rather than God the Father.


The post above come from my notes on an essay in Silence and the Word.

For those that understand, no explanation is needed. For those that do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Kind of rude isn't it?

v/r

Q

 

[Thomas]

Mystery is also another way of saying "We do not know."

In modern secular parlance, yes ... but in its context in Greek theurgy and in Scripture, the word means quite the opposite: "Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:11) or "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1).

The 'mysteries' refers to what we know, made known through Revelation.

As Gerald Massey, the famous biblical scholar said, there is Jesus and there is Christ. Jesus is the historical man, and Christ is the deified imaginary new god. His book was Historical Jesus and Fictional Christ.

And as many have shown, 'the quest for the historical Jesus' is invariably a waste of time and a cloak to advance some personal agenda. It began Reimarus, who tried to undo Christ in pursuit of his rationalist goals.

It was touched on by Schweitzer, who saw its fundamental fallacy, and it has been critiqued by many notable scholars from all walks, my favourite being the Catholic John Redford (my old tutor) and the Anglican N.T. Wright ... but the list of scholars to repudiate this nonsensical quest is quite extensive.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

In modern secular parlance, yes ... but in its context in Greek theurgy and in Scripture, the word means quite the opposite: "Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:11) or "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1).

The 'mysteries' refers to what we know, made known through Revelation.

That does not make semantic sense to me. What you are saying, I agree with. Mysteries refers to what we believe through Revelation. As a religion evolves, it deals with many irrational concepts. The only way to defend irrational ideas is to say "Only the chosen can understand." One chap had a unique response to me. He said that God and so-called supernatural events are not in or beyond our three dimensional and time vector universe. Being in an extra dimension or 11 dimensions is a good excuse to being unable to explain. I am not saying that this is impossible. It may be true. But those of us not meme induced have no way to evaluate that but through standard human reasoning.

And as many have shown, 'the quest for the historical Jesus' is invariably a waste of time and a cloak to advance some personal agenda. It began Reimarus, who tried to undo Christ in pursuit of his rationalist goals.

I disagree. Why is it a waste of time to study the human Jesus of Nazareth? It is no more a waste of time than studying Buddha, Zoroaster, Aristotle, or Aristochus. I think that Jesus existed because so many carried his message. The story was likely embellished to the extreme of apotheosis. But Jesus like Buddha taught brilliant wisdom and morality. Deification of Jesus is contrary to his message of criticism of the rich, healing the sick, aiding the poor, and helping the down trodden and oppressed.

It was touched on by Schweitzer, who saw its fundamental fallacy, and it has been critiqued by many notable scholars from all walks, my favourite being the Catholic John Redford (my old tutor) and the Anglican N.T. Wright ... but the list of scholars to repudiate this nonsensical quest is quite extensive.

The farther back in history, the more diverse the details of events. I can't prove that Jesus actually lived, but I think that he was real and his words in the Gospels are worth knowing. I dismiss the deification as a distraction from his message and even allows Evangelicals to violate his teachings but claiming to be saved simply by worshipping Jesus as the Christ.

May Athena the Goddess of Reason and Wisdom
Bless you,

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

That does not make semantic sense to me.

Perhaps because you're trying top make it fit an alien hermeneutic.

As a religion evolves, it deals with many irrational concepts.

That's your presupposition, the concepts are not irrational in themselves, rather you insist they must be, else your whole argument collapses.

I find your conflation of history and fiction irrational, but it all seems rational to you, as you make the same points over and over again, regardless of the fact that they've been demonstrated to be false.

Your view of Mithraism is largely founded on arguments that were always intended to undermine Christianity, some flying in the face of the evidence, to the point of inventing Mithraic doctrines of grafting Christian ideas on Mithraic symbols and then saying Mithraism was there first — that seems irrational to me.

Same with your posts on the Trinity — you create triunes that have no existence in reality — that seems irrational to me.

I disagree. Why is it a waste of time to study the human Jesus of Nazareth?

That's not what I said. The irrationality of the quest for the historical Jesus is that the Jesus of Scripture is the only one we have, and people then try and fabricate an imaginary non-religious person as the 'reality' upon which a myth has been constructed ... that is in itself myth-making.

It is no more a waste of time than studying Buddha, Zoroaster, Aristotle, or Aristochus.

It would be if you try and create a Buddha who was never enlightened, or an Aristotle who never let a thought enter his head, so as to undermine Buddhism or philosophy.

I think that Jesus existed because so many carried his message. The story was likely embellished to the extreme of apotheosis.

OK, but then you have nothing.

But Jesus like Buddha taught brilliant wisdom and morality.

You mean you believe the bits you like, but the bits you don't like can't be true ... this is the problem of the Jesus Seminar ... what you're left with is a Jesus or a Buddha who is the image of your own incredulity.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

It might help to glance at the Incarnation. Aquinas, when discussing the Incarnation, believes for Jesus to be divine and human does not involve a contradiction, as would for something to be both a square and circle.

I'm contemplating what a square would look like if it were drawn on a balloon which was then blown up....

Or what Jesus meant by everything he had done we would do and more...

Or what he meant by who is his family, who are his brothers and sisters...

Or I and the Father are one....at some times, and then Father take this cup from me, at others...and why have you forsaken me....and I can do nothing without the Father....it goes on and on and on.

I say yes to the squared circle, yes to the divine being born human and realizing and explaining his realization....the only begotten being continually begotten....

Paul asked us to put the mind of Christ in our mind...

I believe it is upto us to realize it always has been, we are simply closed to the realization.

If it was so big to comprehend that Jesus confused his oneness at the end of his life....how is it so hard to understand that we have the same comprehension issues with our divinity?

 

[Ahanu]

I say yes to the squared circle, yes to the divine being born human and realizing and explaining his realization....the only begotten being continually begotten....

Of course you would; you're a panentheist. God is a distinct being and the universe is a part of God, so we could say, "Wil is God" and "Ahanu is God" and "Thomas is God" and "Jesus is God." But I don't think that we are in God no more than we are in a mirror when brushing our teeth in front of it during an early morning.

 

[Ahanu]

Who could talk about Thomas Aquinas and the Trinity without mentioning the relational account for explanation?

"Before we examine Aquinas’s doctrine of the Father, it is first necessary to provide biblical evidence that the Father’s “fatherhood” is really proper to his person. Restated: we will establish that the relationship of the Father to the Son is not merely a creational relationship, something which is true only after the Incarnation of Jesus. In Matthew, Jesus says: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”(Matt 11:27, NIV). These terms Father and Son, in this passage, seem greater than simply assumed roles. Rather, they appear to reflect proper relations. Another passage of interest is John 16:28: “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” Here the terms “Father” and “Son” appear to describe a proper relationship of Jesus to the Father, a relationship true even prior to the Incarnation. Though we allow the possibility that the title “Son of God” might not always imply a proper relationship, as in Romans 1:3, wherein Jesus is declared the Son of God at the resurrection, we think it is best to acknowledge that in many passages, Father and Son refer to relationships which are more than titular, belonging essentially to the persons.

Aquinas’s treatment of the Father occurs, amongst other places, in his Summa Theologiae. Aquinas believes that the Father is the “principle” of the Deity, meaning that the Son and the Holy Spirit have their deity from the Father. He writes that the term principle “signifies only that whence another proceeds.” In this way, Aquinas is in concord with some Greek Orthodox theologians who view the Father to be the principle of the Son and Spirit.

Although calling the Father “principle” is a shared affirmation with the Greek Orthodox, Aquinas next posits an idea that has been rejected by most Greek theologians. Aquinas uses a phrase called “relative opposition,” a big phrase which simply means that Fatherhood is only understood in terms of its opposite, namely Sonship, and that the procession of the Spirit is only understood with reference to its opposite, namely the spiration of the Spirit (the principle by which the Spirit proceeds). Aquinas’s big move is to say that these relations (these relations of “relative opposition”) are actually God himself. Restated: God is his inter Trinitarian relations.


To say God is his relations does not negate the personhood (hypostases) of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but it does imply that the persons are relations. That, of course, is impossible for us to grasp, as for human beings relations and persons are distinct, though certainly interconnected. But not so with God, at least according to Aquinas. God the Father is his paternity (his begetting of the Son).

Aquinas writes: “the Father is Father by paternity. Therefore He is the same as paternity.” And “if paternity be removed, the hypostasis (person) of the Father does not remain in God, as distinguished from the other persons.” Aquinas’s point, if we might restate his proposal, is that God the Father is not the Son because he is paternity, meaning that the Father is distinguished from the Son in that it is impossible to be both Father and Son in the same way, as these terms are opposed to each other. The Father is the same as the Son in every way, only what the Son has by way of Sonship (filiation), the Father has by way of Fatherhood (paternity). Likewise the Father has the identical deity as the Spirit, only the Father has it by way of Spiration (by breathing out the Spirit) and the Spirit has it by way of procession (by proceeding from the Father). Although Aquinas has a unique view of the Spirit’s relationship to the Son and the Father together, we have no time to discuss that. Yet it is sufficient to end on this note: the Father has the identical deity of the Son and Spirit, only the Father has this deity as the unique principle."


Thomas Aquinas on the Father

 

[IowaGuy]

God is a distinct being and the universe is a part of God...But I don't think that we are in God no more than we are in a mirror when brushing our teeth in front of it during an early morning.

You say that the universe is a part of God. But you don't think we are IN God. Therefore, according to your logic, we are not in the universe.

Conversely, if you would agree that we are in the universe, and the universe is a part of God (this is per your belief); then we are in God.