I'm not so sure, or rather I see it as an attempt to explain someone that is, in essence, inexplicable.
Some here would argue that Scripture – when it comes to Christ's self-disclosures – are fraught with contradictions. On the other hand, perhaps not, perhaps they are clues ... and the Church has grappled with those clues, and continues to do so today.
"At the heart of Christianity stand two mysteries: the Trinity and the Incarnation" wrote Timothy A Mahoney, at the start of an essay: Christian Metaphysics: Trinity, Incarnation and Creation
Those two mysteries, even today, are not fully resolved, nor will they ever adequately be, because the human is a being with a view of the infinite horizon, no matter how far one proceeds, the horizon is always in the distance.
The Catholic theologian Jean Borella quotes the philosopher of phenomenology Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who said that to see an object is "to be able to make a tour of it." (The Phenomenology of Perception).
The same rule applies here, I think, in that the essential mysteries of being will always lie beyond the human gaze, human knowing (and here, too, is the essential mystery of faith).
Back down to earth, and ask the Catholic-in-the-pew to talk about the Trinity and probably within 30 seconds you'll be into one heresy or another. (I know, we tried it on my degree course
). But then what the world really needs is saints, not theologians, and the former are not necessarily the latter.