newadvent wrote:Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.”
As a Catholic ("fallen" though I may be), I have heard a lot about the trinity since I was very young, and it has never made sense. Not because it is theologically complex, but because it is nonsensical. Obviously Thomas Aquinas spent a lot of time coming up with the concept in order to provide some logical consistency to a set of beliefs that are not always very coherent. Since "God" is arguably a manmade concept, not grounded in science or anything that can be studied objectively, there is very little agreement on the particulars by Christians and Jews and Muslims. One of our Young Earth Creationist forum members some years ago stated his belief that Catholics aren't really Christians. Some religions espouse that baptism is necessary for salvation, others say not. Anabaptists say that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized. Other faiths practice infant baptism. From a nonbeliever's perspective, these theological differences are easy to explain. It's all made up.
Consider the following passage from the Catholic article that Landroid posted:
. . . We should take note of the distinction between the "generative" procession that consititutes the Son, and the "spirative" procession that constitutes the Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and Scripture reveals, the Son is uniquely "begotten" of the Father (cf. John 3:16; 1:18). He is also said to proceed from the Father as "the Word" in John 1:1. This "generative" procession is one of "begetting," but not in the same way a dog "begets" a dog, or a human being "begets" a human being. This is an intellectual "begetting," and fittingly so, as a "word" proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son occurs within the inner life of God. There are not "two beings" involved; rather, two persons relationally distinct, while ever-remaining one in being. . . .
Sorry, this is Deepak Chopra level of nonsense. Even believers can't agree on any of the particulars. And only a true believer, through sheer motivation to rationalize irrational beliefs, can read the preceding passage and nod his head, pretending to understand the so-called "doctrine of the trinity." Then again, I'm no "theologian."
