Wrong. Mere assertion as you are prone to say. Give me example of one Catholic scholar who is vehemently against the doctrine of simplicity. It is a Catholic dogma, which means it must be believed in to be a Catholic.
This is wrong language. God does not consist of the Persons of the Trinity, as if they are each one part of God. Each Person is fully God, but have a formal distinction from the other Person, per Scotus. And while it may be possible that a unitarian God may better “resolve” under Simplicity, that is not what we as Christians have to work with. God is Trinity in Unity according to Divine revelation. So, while I can never fully understand the Trinity or Simplicity, for I am not triune or simple, I still must believe it since it Scriptural and Dogmatic of the Church.
You keep saying “Catholic Scholars”, but I don’t think you know what that means…
Obviously you didn’t read the article that I linked. IF you did, you would never have stated such ridiculous things. Here is a quick answer: The attributes and persons are “formally distinct” from
the divine nature, and the attributes are formally distinct from one another. On
this view, there are “things” (formalities or intelligible contents) that, while really
identical or identical in being (i.e., not distinct beings, actualities, or potentialities)
are not identical in the strictest sense. We distinguish, for example, rationality and
animality in the one human form or actuality (the real principle in virtue of which
a human is a member of a kind) because they explain different effects of human
beings. But these are not two actualities, since then the human person would not
be actually unified. Nor is this a mere conceptual distinction. Rather, this distinction between rationality and animality is rooted in the intelligible structure of the
form, prior to our understanding, though these formalities are not independent parts
or principles out of which the form is composed.