Posted: Jan 08, 2018 4:35 pm
by SkyMutt
Tracer Tong wrote:
SkyMutt wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:With regards to the Catholic god, the idea isn't 3-persons-yet-1-person, though it's probably true to say it amounts to that unless one is prepared to make some fairly convenient metaphysical commitments.


Perhaps you could explain those "metaphysical commitments" that give a clearer representation of the Catholic god, because "3 persons yet 1 person" is in plain language exactly what the Catholic catechism teaches.
...
In my opinion, "metaphysical" in this and most other instances is a glorified term for hand-waving, but by all means show me the error in my understanding.


I couldn’t, because I made no such claim.

And that is not exactly what the catechism you quoted teaches “in plain language”; indeed, it seems to deploy just the sort of convenient metaphysical assumptions I alluded to in order to avoid such a position, your quotation helpfully illustrating my point. You may not be persuaded by such metaphysical high jinks, and I’m really not either.


Three persons yet one person, in plain language given by CatholicAnswers:

Yet, in both God and man these three relationally distinct realities subsist in one being.

... [I]n God each person [of the "Trinity"] possesses the one infinite and immutable divine nature, and is therefore, one being.


That source doesn't contradict the plain language. You haven't said why the plain language is incorrect, you've merely asserted that the Catholic conception of a single god who is at the same time three gods cannot be accurately described as "3 persons yet 1 person." If you understand this, it shouldn't be difficult for you to show why "3 persons yet 1 person" is incorrect.