Just because I can, let me put on my Catholic hat and give my best stab at explaining it, without Googling, from that perspective. See my other comment for the actual answer.
First off, don't try to understand the Trinity though analogies, period. The Trinity is conceptually unlike anything else that you can encounter, and trying to conceptualize it that way is likely to wind up being more like a heresy.
The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons, but they are all one God. Note that I did not say that they are parts of God. Each of them possesses the full essence of "Godness," but there is only one God. They don't break apart and form up again like Voltron, nor are they different aspects of God, nor are they different roles that God performs, each is a distinct person, while still possessing the full quality of Godness. They are not split personalities, just as you and I are not split personalities, but distinct people. What is it like? Again, it is like nothing, there is no comparison to it on Earth.
Each of these persons has existed since the beginning of time, none of them predate each other, none of them created - or perhaps I'd better stick with "made" - each other, and yet, the terms "Father" and "Son" are not merely symbolic or metaphorical, but literal. The Father "begat" the Son ("Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father"), while both of them have always existed. It's worth noting that God exists outside of time, so everything checks out. The Holy Spirit was there too.
They are all composed of the same substance, by the way - what that substance is, I have no idea - but in any case, they are consubstantial.
If you're lost at this point, it's worth looking at how this understanding was originally developed: Rome created the Church to co-opt Christianity and establish uniform beliefs supportive of the Emperor Rigorous debates between the smartest, most enlightened, and totally politically independent scholars that the fourth century had to offer, presided over by the Roman emperor Constantine, who had sincerely converted and was appointed by God to rule over an imperialist slave state.
Ahem. What I mean to say is, each of the seemingly arbitrary stipulations has a logical reason behind it. For example, if the Son were created by the Father, that would imply that the Son is lesser than the Father. If the Son was not literally begotten by the Father, that would imply that the Father only "symbolically" sent and sacrificed His only Son to save us, which would lessen the significance of it. If there was a time before the Son existed, that would imply that the Son is not eternal, that there could be a time when the Son will no longer exist, which is no good.
Likewise, with the various stipulations around the "Three Persons, One God" bit. To say that they are each fully divine, and distinct, so therefore there are three Gods, would contradict fundamental teachings from the Old Testament. To say that they are each parts that make up God would imply that Jesus was not fully divine, and that whenever He (or the Holy Spirit) split off to do something, the Father isn't wholly divine either. To say that they are merely aspects, personas, or split personalities, would imply that only that aspect was sent to suffer and die on the cross. If they were only distinct "roles" that God takes on, then when Jesus died, what, God just stopped playing that part? Or did the Father die at the same time?
The seemingly convoluted and contradictory teachings came about in a large part to establish and maintain the significance of Jesus's death. The implications of deviating from these teachings are not really apparent to lay people, but the Church scholars considered the implications of each word very carefully.
They definitely weren't using the same kind of reasoning behind "You can't end a sentence with a preposition because it'd be improper in Latin," only with hangups based around Greek philosophers like Plato. And they fought tooth and nail over this and burned everyone who disagreed, not because of any materialist or political reason, like, say, Rome only being willing to tolerate a single version of Christianity, which recognized the Emperor as being appointed by God. They were just, you know, really passionate, and anyway we all went a little crazy after 311, or something like that.
Anyway, it's not designed to make sense, or to be intuitive, and the reason people have trouble understanding it aside from it being full of contradictions isn't because "The Lord works in mysterious ways," but because the teachings were developed based around considerations of what scholars 1600 years ago thought that the Greek words implied. If you really want to understand the Catholic teachings on the Trinity, don't just rely on faith, or read the catechism, or even ask a priest - that's the route you should go if you don't actually care that much and just want some platitudes. Research the various heresies of the time, look up what positions and arguments were put forth by the Church scholars, study Plato too, and hell, maybe learn Greek while you're at it.
Better yet, spend your time doing, like, anything else.
and here I was thinking it was a way of getting around the 'omnipotent, omnicognizant, and all-loving' paradox. Mormonism really did itself a favor by breaking from this tradition.
The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons, but they are all one God. Note that I did not say that they are parts of God. Each of them possesses the full essence of “Godness,” but there is only one God. They don’t break apart and form up again like Voltron, nor are they different aspects of God, nor are they different roles that God performs, each is a distinct person, while still possessing the full quality of Godness. They are not split personalities, just as you and I are not split personalities, but distinct people. What is it like? Again, it is like nothing, there is no comparison to it on Earth.
"It doesn't make any sense because it's a unique concept unlike anything else in the universe" is a copout. It doesn't make sense because it's bullshit that doesn't logically follow. If each of the three parts are fully realized faces of God then they're all God and if there's only one God then they're all the same entity. If they are fully separate then there must be something which makes them different which means they can't all be fully God. You're allowed to just say "yeah this is bullshit that doesn't make any sense"
Oh, absolutely it's weak af. I mentioned at the start that my other comment is my actual answer, that it's all BS. This answer is a "steelman," for if you want a better understanding of the Catholic perspective.
...and also to show that I know wtf I'm talking about, since I had someone tell me that "Any kid in CCD could explain the Trinity" and referring to my experience learning about it as "remedial education." Since they then refused to explain it, I thought I'd do it for them.
Yes, but also, is a photon a wave or a particle? describing it as either doesn't fully describe a photon, nor does describing it as a "wave packet" or "wave-particle duality". It's a photon, the type of thing a photon is is a photon. There's no macro-scale equivalent, try not to think about it too hard if you're not doing physics at something.
Just because I can, let me put on my Catholic hat and give my best stab at explaining it, without Googling, from that perspective. See my other comment for the actual answer.
First off, don't try to understand the Trinity though analogies, period. The Trinity is conceptually unlike anything else that you can encounter, and trying to conceptualize it that way is likely to wind up being more like a heresy.
The Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinct persons, but they are all one God. Note that I did not say that they are parts of God. Each of them possesses the full essence of "Godness," but there is only one God. They don't break apart and form up again like Voltron, nor are they different aspects of God, nor are they different roles that God performs, each is a distinct person, while still possessing the full quality of Godness. They are not split personalities, just as you and I are not split personalities, but distinct people. What is it like? Again, it is like nothing, there is no comparison to it on Earth.
Each of these persons has existed since the beginning of time, none of them predate each other, none of them created - or perhaps I'd better stick with "made" - each other, and yet, the terms "Father" and "Son" are not merely symbolic or metaphorical, but literal. The Father "begat" the Son ("Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father"), while both of them have always existed. It's worth noting that God exists outside of time, so everything checks out. The Holy Spirit was there too.
They are all composed of the same substance, by the way - what that substance is, I have no idea - but in any case, they are consubstantial.
If you're lost at this point, it's worth looking at how this understanding was originally developed:
Rome created the Church to co-opt Christianity and establish uniform beliefs supportive of the EmperorRigorous debates between the smartest, most enlightened, and totally politically independent scholars that the fourth century had to offer, presided over by the Roman emperor Constantine, who had sincerely converted and was appointed by God to ruleover an imperialist slave state.Ahem. What I mean to say is, each of the seemingly arbitrary stipulations has a logical reason behind it. For example, if the Son were created by the Father, that would imply that the Son is lesser than the Father. If the Son was not literally begotten by the Father, that would imply that the Father only "symbolically" sent and sacrificed His only Son to save us, which would lessen the significance of it. If there was a time before the Son existed, that would imply that the Son is not eternal, that there could be a time when the Son will no longer exist, which is no good.
Likewise, with the various stipulations around the "Three Persons, One God" bit. To say that they are each fully divine, and distinct, so therefore there are three Gods, would contradict fundamental teachings from the Old Testament. To say that they are each parts that make up God would imply that Jesus was not fully divine, and that whenever He (or the Holy Spirit) split off to do something, the Father isn't wholly divine either. To say that they are merely aspects, personas, or split personalities, would imply that only that aspect was sent to suffer and die on the cross. If they were only distinct "roles" that God takes on, then when Jesus died, what, God just stopped playing that part? Or did the Father die at the same time?
The seemingly convoluted and contradictory teachings came about in a large part to establish and maintain the significance of Jesus's death. The implications of deviating from these teachings are not really apparent to lay people, but the Church scholars considered the implications of each word very carefully.
They definitely weren't using the same kind of reasoning behind "You can't end a sentence with a preposition because it'd be improper in Latin," only with hangups based around Greek philosophers like Plato. And they fought tooth and nail over this and burned everyone who disagreed, not because of any materialist or political reason, like, say, Rome only being willing to tolerate a single version of Christianity, which recognized the Emperor as being appointed by God. They were just, you know, really passionate, and anyway we all went a little crazy after 311, or something like that.
Anyway, it's not designed to make sense, or to be intuitive, and the reason people have trouble understanding it
aside from it being full of contradictionsisn't because "The Lord works in mysterious ways," but because the teachings were developed based around considerations of what scholars 1600 years ago thought that the Greek words implied. If you really want to understand the Catholic teachings on the Trinity, don't just rely on faith, or read the catechism, or even ask a priest - that's the route you should go if you don't actually care that much and just want some platitudes. Research the various heresies of the time, look up what positions and arguments were put forth by the Church scholars, study Plato too, and hell, maybe learn Greek while you're at it.Better yet, spend your time doing, like, anything else.
"Quantum mechanics is hard to understand and difficult to explain because it doesn't relate to anything in the observable scale of the world"
Catholics: Hold my communion wine.
Hold my literal not metaphorical or symbolic chalice of christs blood
Cannibal Cult except but the concerts are boring.
...
Oh wait shit I think I was thinking of Cannibal Corpse and then the joke doesn't work.
Pretty sure that's where their name comes from
and here I was thinking it was a way of getting around the 'omnipotent, omnicognizant, and all-loving' paradox. Mormonism really did itself a favor by breaking from this tradition.
"It doesn't make any sense because it's a unique concept unlike anything else in the universe" is a copout. It doesn't make sense because it's bullshit that doesn't logically follow. If each of the three parts are fully realized faces of God then they're all God and if there's only one God then they're all the same entity. If they are fully separate then there must be something which makes them different which means they can't all be fully God. You're allowed to just say "yeah this is bullshit that doesn't make any sense"
Oh, absolutely it's weak af. I mentioned at the start that my other comment is my actual answer, that it's all BS. This answer is a "steelman," for if you want a better understanding of the Catholic perspective.
...and also to show that I know wtf I'm talking about, since I had someone tell me that "Any kid in CCD could explain the Trinity" and referring to my experience learning about it as "remedial education." Since they then refused to explain it, I thought I'd do it for them.
Yes, but also, is a photon a wave or a particle? describing it as either doesn't fully describe a photon, nor does describing it as a "wave packet" or "wave-particle duality". It's a photon, the type of thing a photon is is a photon. There's no macro-scale equivalent, try not to think about it too hard if you're not doing physics at something.