I'm leaving Catholicism

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.

And: On Scotus’s view, A is the same
being as (or really identical to) B just in case A and B are the same being, or A and
B are (distinct or identical) formalities within a single being, or one is a being and
the other is a formality of that being. Identity is transitive when it is identity in the
strictest sense, that is, when things are formally identical, when they are the same
intelligible formality (or set of formalities). Identity in being is not necessarily
transitive, for it is not identity in the strictest sense.

Please, read the article and truly engage it. It answers your “refutations”.

Haha, who ever said you could “touch” God? God is immaterial, as Mercy and Goodness are immaterial. But in God being immaterial, that doesn’t necessitate that God isn’t real. One cannot touch a soul, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. But, again, you have wrong view of simplicity, and you don’t understand formal distinctions and so forth. READ THE PAPER I LINKED ABOVE.

Lastly, you don’t think that thousands of years of philosophers and theologians haven’t considered the things your positing? Of course they have! And they have answered them completely. More research is needed to be done on your part. Many prayers your way to find the glory of God in the face of Christ. Only He can illumine you to the truth for He is the Truth.

Could you elaborate on that? I am not.

Nope not arguing with Catholic theologians since they believe in Divine Simplicity. Again you merely assert but give no evidence. The paper I posted answers your issue with attributes but obviously you didn’t read it.

I’m am answering your issues. The OP has been answered by multiple posters and Scotus answers him with Formal Distinctions. Do you know what a formal distinction is?
But it all boils down to one question with you: If God is not simple, how did his parts get put together? But knowing you, you’ll go on a ramble about something other than this trying to make your point that you can’t understand it. Please don’t ramble just answer the question

For sake of argument we could assume my imagined universe is creationist. In reality I think that first being to sin would be Satan and as such he brought evil to the world. Man brought it onto himself and us by transition.

In that case, it could be explained that Satan is cause of the storm but God used it to also make crops grow. Basically “make best out of this bad thing” scenario.

1 Like

Dont leave jt

Hello. I’ve thought about these questions, too. St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas write extensively on these topics. Have you read their works?

How do we quote in the forum?

I’ve thought about these questions, too.

Hang In There
Wow believe me I completely understand the way you! I too was in a situation where I serious considering Judaism for literally the same reason. I don’t know how hard you may have dug into this question and I won’t be surprised at all if you are more knowledgeable than me but I must say we that it would be prudent to really take your time with this sort of thing because after all it is more than just an intellectual issue but a spiritual one. Do not worry I am not ignoring the importance of the intellect and honest peruse of truth but we have to be extra careful not to commit apostasy because of our issues so we must be extra through. That’s all I’m saying. I think you clearly are taking this serious and proceeding with prudence as you came here and probably else where seeking to see if someone else resolved this issue. Lets stick around and hash this out because I am confident that we can shift through this issue. Normally I like to type responses but there is a great video online that explains this question. I will paste the links below and we can discuss the entire thing!

Forgive me because it is long but on grave matters such as leaving the faith, I think it will be worth you time to give the Christ and His Church the time. Sort of like how we give an our for mass. I am not saying this is like the mass but this may be the means that you return to the mass once again to celebrate with the Lord!

As St Augustine says: “Since God is the highest good, he would not allow any evil to exist in his works unless his omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”

1 Like

Isn’t the Trinity a mystery?

I have a few technical question regarding the process of leaving Catholicism. The first has to do with the time frame. How long does it take to “leave”? Is there a target date and so forth. The next question has to do with awareness. How do you know when you have completed the task? When I leave my house, for example, I generally walk out the door and then I am out. Is there a symbolic “door” you go through on your way out. The finally question has to do with letting the world know. If you leave quietly, no one other than yourself will know. (God would too, but you are no longer acknowleging Him) So, do you send a message on trwitter, facebook? How do you do it?
And finally, how final is your departure? Can you envision a situation when you would want to get back in?

You’re making Simplicity into something it’s not. Divine Simplicity only means that God is not composed of parts.


As you can see above, when I answered the question and then questioned with: If God is not simple, then what composed his parts, there was not response. Those who deny simplicity, usually aren’t actually addressing the simple (pun intended) truth that all simplicity is is that God is not composed of parts, metaphysically or physically.

How specifically does a God with multiple persons not constitute having parts?

Response to the OP:

Divine Simplicity, like God’s existence and attributes, is one of the things about God that are provable by reason alone (I’m sure that we agree on this). But even you notice that there’s something about God that’s not known to us creatures unless He Himself revealed this aspect to us in a supernatural manner. The Trinity is one such aspect.

Possible Objection: The analogies used to reconcile Divine Simplicity and the Trinity are untenable. The “Knower” relation and the “Known” relation are merely logical distinctions that are actually one and the same thing in God because of Divine Simplicity.

Reply to Objection: It is true that the “Knower” relation and the “Known” relation are merely logical distinct or distinct in the human mind in so far as these relations are discoverable in God through human reason alone. But, God Himself tells us, through supernatural means, that He Himself regards these relations to be actually distinct: an extra-mental distinction. So, in some manner unknown to us, these relations are actually distinct. And Christ gives us the names “Father” for the Knower relation and the “Son” for the Known relation.

P. S. I’m not going to debate if God’s existence is provable by reason alone. I’m simply saying what our (The OP and I) common ground is.


Because each Person is not a part of God, but fully God.

Because each Person is not a part of God, but fully God.

Now that makes absolutely no sense.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.