Divine Eros

[levinas12]

The following terms have been used to describe the inner life of the Trinity:

(1) “perichoresis” (Greek) - “dancing around each other”

(2) “circuminsession” (Latin) - “moving into and around each other”

This dynamic movement takes place between the 3 Persons of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) apart from their involvement with Creation. That is, it describes what is going on within the immanent Trinity as distinct from the activities of the economic Trinity (creating, redeeming and sanctifying the world).

What powers this dynamic is the Love that exists within the immanent Trinity, as the 3 persons are taken up into the perichoresis (the dancing around each other) and the circuminsession (ecstatic movement into and around each other).

I would suggest that these terms point to a Divine Eros that is not driven by lack, by absence (contra ancient Greek philosophy).

It is this Eros that is the central focus of JP II’s theology of the body and Benedict’s encyclical letter, “Deus Caritas Est”.

Any comments?

 

[4love2God]

levinas12 proposes : "The following terms have been used to describe the inner life of the Trinity : (1) “perichoresis” (Greek) - “dancing around each other” [and] (2) “circuminsession” (Latin) - “moving into and around each other” …
This dynamic movement takes place between the 3 Persons of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) apart from their involvement with Creation.
I would suggest that these terms point to a Divine Eros that is not driven by lack, by absence (contra ancient Greek philosophy)."

OK, some philosopher has coined 2 terms, and claims that he KNOWS what is going on in Heaven.
Not only THAT, but what goes on within God’s own mind.

Well, that doesn’t seem like much REAL evidence to support your Theory.
I have read a lot of Garbage out there, that is fanciful and used to Convert God into a Pagan entity.

I would change ONE word of your theory, to show my opinion of it:
"I would suggest that these terms [DON’T]** point to a Divine Eros"**

Then, as to your Conclusion** : “It is this Eros that is the central focus of JP II’s theology of the body and Benedict’s encyclical letter, “Deus Caritas Est”.**” … I say NO, I doubt it.

 

[Petaro]

I have not read such presumptuous pseudo-theology in some considerable time. It is almost insulting to attempt to understand the interior nature of the Trinity. I assume you mean to posit the argument in good faith, so if I am a bit harsh it is just my intellectual humility talking. But really!

 

[Counterpoint]

The following terms have been used to describe the inner life of the Trinity:

(1) “perichoresis” (Greek) - “dancing around each other”

(2) “circuminsession” (Latin) - “moving into and around each other”

This dynamic movement takes place between the 3 Persons of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) apart from their involvement with Creation. That is, it describes what is going on within the immanent Trinity as distinct from the activities of the economic Trinity (creating, redeeming and sanctifying the world).

What powers this dynamic is the Love that exists within the immanent Trinity, as the 3 persons are taken up into the perichoresis (the dancing around each other) and the circuminsession (ecstatic movement into and around each other).

I would suggest that these terms point to a Divine Eros that is not driven by lack, by absence (contra ancient Greek philosophy).

It is this Eros that is the central focus of JP II’s theology of the body and Benedict’s encyclical letter, “Deus Caritas Est”.

Any comments?

I have several comments/questions.

If God is “pure act” (actus purus), then aren’t the activities of the immanent Trinity and the economical Trinity actually one act?

Taking into account the doctrine of eternal generation and procession, would you say this reciprocal love relationship is symmetrical or asymmetrical?

What is the relationship between the “perichoresis” and the Church (“community of believers”)?

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” - John 17: 20-23

 

[4love2God]

Petaro responded to SOMEONE’s Post** : “I have not read such presumptuous pseudo-theology in some considerable time. It is almost insulting to attempt to understand the interior nature of the Trinity. I assume you mean to posit the argument in good faith, so if I am a bit harsh it is just my intellectual humility talking. But really!”**

Are you talking to the OP . . . . . or, are you referring to me?
Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Petaro]

Petaro responded to SOMEONE’s Post** : “I have not read such presumptuous pseudo-theology in some considerable time. It is almost insulting to attempt to understand the interior nature of the Trinity. I assume you mean to posit the argument in good faith, so if I am a bit harsh it is just my intellectual humility talking. But really!”**

Are you talking to the OP . . . . . or, are you referring to me?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Sorry, I meant the original OP. I know we are allowed to inquire but there comes a limit to our knowledge of the Trinity and in my opinion it stops with the scriptures. There are indeed great minds within the church looking for greater insights into Philosophy and Theology, but I find the foundation stones for greater human intellectual insight into the Trinity lacking.
It is a mystery and poking at the possible is not theology. As I get older I get more cranky, sorry.

 

[levinas12]

Then, as to your Conclusion** : “It is this Eros that is the central focus of JP II’s theology of the body and Benedict’s encyclical letter, “Deus Caritas Est”.**” … I say NO, I doubt it.

For “Deus Caritas Est” or “God is Love”, see Part I, The Unity of Love in Creation and in Salvation History. Benedict argues here that the old rigid separation of agape and eros cannot be maintained, that in God there is both eros and agape but understood now as a unity.

The major theme of JPII’s “Theology of the Body” (TOB) is the “spousal meaning of the body”. This phrase integrates eros and agape. What makes TOB remarkable is its clear statement that the conjugal union (as intended by God in the beginning) is an icon of the inner life of the Trinity (see, for example, #9, the general audience of November 14, 1979, on pp. 161-165 in Waldstein’s translation of the Theology of the Body).

Of course, we need to unpack what all this means.

 

[levinas12]

I have not read such presumptuous pseudo-theology in some considerable time. It is almost insulting to attempt to understand the interior nature of the Trinity. I assume you mean to posit the argument in good faith, so if I am a bit harsh it is just my intellectual humility talking. But really!

Please see my posting #7. I am simply presenting themes from JPII’s Theology of the Body and Benedict’s “Deus Caritas Est”. I don’t think most of us would characterize their work as “presumptuous pseudo-theology”.

 

[levinas12]

I have several comments/questions.

If God is “pure act” (actus purus), then aren’t the activities of the immanent Trinity and the economical Trinity actually one act?

Taking into account the doctrine of eternal generation and procession, would you say this reciprocal love relationship is symmetrical or asymmetrical?

What is the relationship between the “perichoresis” and the Church (“community of believers”)?

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” - John 17: 20-23

Good questions. I may not have time in this posting to address them all. Let’s start with your first question.

The “actus purus” has an involved history as a theological term with lots of philosophical (name removed by moderator)lications. We can get into this history but first I would like to clarify what I understand to be the “act” of the Trinity. It is a mutual self-giving of persons in an “act” of love. But “person” here is a pure relation (sometimes referred to as subsistent relation). What does this mean? Simply that the Persons of the Trinity don’t exist apart from their relating to each other, i.e., they are the relations and nothing else. We are here departing from Aristotelian metaphysics with its emphasis on substance - we are, in a sense, elevating relationality to a superior status.

How does this bear on the distinction of the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity? This distinction is caught up in another distinction - that between God and the world. God is not a part of the world and would still be God without the world. The immanent Trinity refers to this “transcendence” - God’s inner life is independent of the world. The world, in other words, does not have to be, is radically contingent. Ancient Greek philosophy would not have been able to understand this - it assumed that God and the world are necessarily joined together (with the underlying assumption that the world, the hen kai pan, the one and all, the cosmos, is the necessary context for everything).

From this fundamental change in thinking flows the distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. Yet there is a connection between these two aspects of God. The immanent Trinity makes understandable the economic Trinity. The 3 Persons decided to create, not from necessity, but from a free loving decision. Such a decision would have been impossible if the immanent Trinity were not itself an activity of Love.

As you may surmise, I’m moving away from the “actus purus” as understood in traditional Thomistic circles. God is not “the pure act of esse” but a communion of Persons who, as pure relations, transcend Aristotelian substance. If we have to use “substance” with respect to God, it now has to be understood as the dynamic perichoresis of the Persons giving themselves to each other, not something static or monadic.

I’ll have to address your other comments tomorrow.

 

[levinas12]

… Taking into account the doctrine of eternal generation and procession, would you say this reciprocal love relationship is symmetrical or asymmetrical?

What is the relationship between the “perichoresis” and the Church (“community of believers”)?

Before addressing these comments, with respect to the 3 Persons being pure relations, there is a very nice essay by Ratzinger that provides a complete analysis - please see his book, Dogma and Preaching, chapter 14, On the Understanding of “Person” in Theology, pp. 181-196. This essay provides a detailed background for our contemporary philosophical understanding of “person” whether divine or human. This is an example where theology (the discussions of the Trinity) opened up a new philosophical notion (that of person).

Now to tackle your comments. You ask about symmetry in the love relationship between the Persons of the Trinity. I would say there is no symmetry. The position of the Father cannot be exchanged with the position of the Son, and vice versa; this also applies to the Holy Spirit. The Father begins the “process of perichoresis” by pouring Himself out completely into the Son (this is the “begetting” and why the Father is called the “first” Person); the Son receives completely what the Father gives; and the Holy Spirit, as the Love between Father and Son, proceeds from both of them. The relating of the Father is not the relating of the Son, and the relating of the Spirit is not the relatings of the Father or the Son. There is a unique “particularity” that attaches to each relating. This “particularity” continues, by the way, to be seen in human and angelic persons. Each person is unique and incommunicable in a way that transcends Aristotelian categories, species, form/matter. There is, for example, no species or Aristotelian form for a particular person, e.g., John Doe - there is no specific form for John Doe qua John Doe - there is a form for John Doe qua human being, but not for the person of John Doe. The particularity of John Doe cannot, most emphatically, be attributed to the matter of Joe Doe - the person is a deeper, more profound reality than the subtance or the matter (for more on this, see Robert Spaemann).

The goal or teleology pertaining to the community of believers is to enter into the perichoresis of the 3 Persons of the Trinity, into the Divine Dance. This is what it means to enter inside the Trinity, to partake of the Divine Nature - we move, as sons and daughters, into the Son’s position as the receiver of what the Father gives (of course, we cannot receive all that the Father gives; only Jesus as the Second Person can do that) - we do not ontologically become identical with the Son - we retain our own persons and do not become the Second Person but we occupy His Position as it were. All of this was made possible by the Incarnation. When the Second Person assumed human nature, he brought “it” inside the Trinity; by doing this, Jesus made it possible for the rest of us to enter the house. This is a unique privilege. I should note that there is no angelic nature inside the Trinity; only human nature. Does this mean that angels cannot enter inside the Trinity, at least in the way humans can?

Aristotelian metaphysics is an inadequate tool here. God’s “substance” is not a primary substance in the Aristotelian sense. Another way of saying this is that the perichoresis cannot be substantialized.

This is true of human persons as well. Aristotle never comprehended the notion of “person”; neither did Boethius. “Person” is a pure relating that is irreducible to the category of substance, to species, to form and matter, in short, outside metaphysics as traditionally understood.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Levinas

I for one have really appreciated and enjoyed reading your exposition of Trinitarian theology.

May I suggest that what you are saying is substantially similar to Blessed John of Ruysbroeck (1293-1381)?

Jordan Aummann describes his mystical theology in his book, “Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition”:

Ruysbroeck’s spiritual doctrine involves three elements: exemplarism, introversion and union. The basis of exemplarism is the Trinity. The intimate life of the Trinity is an ebb and flow, a going out and a return, originating in the unity of the Godhead, from which proceed the three divine Persons, who as Trinity return to the unity of infinite perfection. Man can share somehow in this divine life and movement because of the exemplary ideas existing in the divine intellect: the human soul comes forth from God the Creator and possesses the three spiritual faculties of intellect, memory and will.

But the human soul must regain its unity and it does this by means of introversion, returning to its interior by three stages: the active life, the interior life and the contemplative life. The active life is the life of the virtues; the interior life is the life of grace and imitation of Christ; the contemplative life is the tasting and experiencing of God.

To make progress in the spiritual life, one must despoil himself of all egoism and attachment to created things. Then he can receive the life of the Father as communicated by the Son and the Holy Spirit. This constitutes the life of union with God, which is so intimate that it transcends all purely human experience, and yet the soul always recognizes this life as something distinct from its own.

Here is a section from his, “Book of Supreme Truth”:

There the Father and the Son and all the beloved are enfolded and embraced in the bonds of love; that is, in the unity of the Holy Ghost. And this is that same unity which is fruitful in the outgoing activity of the Persons, and forms in Their return an eternal bond of love which shall never be untied: and all who know themselves to be bound up in it shall be blessed throughout eternity, and they are rich in virtue, and clear in contemplation, and simple in fruitive rest. For in their introversion, the Love of God is revealed to them, pouring forth with all good, and drawing back again into the Unity, and above all being and beyond all conditions abiding in eternal rest. And so they are all united with God, through means, and without means, and also without distinction.

CHAPTER XI - HOW GOOD MEN IN THEIR CONTEMPLATION HAVE THE LOVE OF GOD BEFORE THEM, AND HOW THEY ARE LIFTED UP INTO GOD

They have the Love of God before them in their inward seeing, as a common good pouring forth through heaven and earth; and they feel the Holy Trinity inclined towards them, and within them, with fulness of grace. And therefore they are adorned without and within with all the virtues, with holy practices and with good works. And thus they are united with God through Divine grace and their own holy lives. And because they have abandoned themselves to God in doing, in leaving undone, and in suffering, they have steadfast peace and inward joy, consolation and savour, of which the world cannot partake; neither any dissembler, nor the man who seeks and means himself more than the glory of God. Moreover, those same inward and enlightened men have before them in their inward seeing whenever they will, the Love of God as something drawing or urging them into the Unity; for they see and feel that the Father with the Son through the Holy Ghost, embrace Each Other and all the chosen, and draw themselves back with eternal love into the unity of Their Nature. Thus the Unity is ever drawing to itself and inviting to itself everything that has been born of It, either by nature or by grace. And therefore, too, such enlightened men are, with a free spirit, lifted up above reason into a bare and imageless vision, wherein lives the eternal indrawing summons of the Divine Unity; and, with an imageless and bare understanding, they pass through all works, and all exercises, and all things, until they reach the summit of their spirits. There, their bare understanding is drenched through by the Eternal Brightness, even as the air is drenched through by the sunshine. And the bare, uplifted will is transformed and drenched through by abysmal love, even as iron is by fire. And the bare, uplifted memory feels itself enwrapped and established in an abysmal Absence of Image. And thereby the created image is united above reason in a threefold way with its Eternal Image, which is the origin of its being and its life; and this origin is preserved and possessed, essentially and eternally, through a simple seeing in an imageless void: and so a man is lifted up above reason in a threefold manner into the Unity, and in a onefold manner into the Trinity. Yet the creature does not become God, for the union takes place in God through grace and our homeward-turning love: and therefore the creature in its inward contemplation feels a distinction and an otherness between itself and God. And though the union is without means, yet the manifold works which God works in heaven and on earth are nevertheless hidden from the spirit. For though God gives Himself as He is, with clear discernment, He gives Himself in the essence of the soul, where the powers of the soul are simplified above reason, and where, in simplicity, they suffer the transformation of God. There all is full and overflowing, for the spirit feels itself to be one truth and one richness and one unity with God. Yet even here there is an essential tending forward, and therein is an essential distinction between the being of the soul and the Being of God; and this is the highest and finest distinction which we are able to feel.

 

[Vouthon]

The goal or teleology pertaining to the community of believers is to enter into the perichoresis of the 3 Persons of the Trinity, into the Divine Dance. This is what it means to enter inside the Trinity, to partake of the Divine Nature - we move, as sons and daughters, into the Son’s position as the receiver of what the Father gives (of course, we cannot receive all that the Father gives; only Jesus as the Second Person can do that) - we do not ontologically become identical with the Son - we retain our own persons and do not become the Second Person but we occupy His Position as it were. All of this was made possible by the Incarnation. When the Second Person assumed human nature, he brought “it” inside the Trinity; by doing this, Jesus made it possible for the rest of us to enter the house.

Levinas, this is precisely what Ruysbroeck argued as well back in the 14th century!

In his shorter work, “The Sparkling Stone” he wrote:

saints.sqpn.com/the-sparkling-stone-by-blessed-jan-van-ruysbroek/

12 – Of The Transfiguration Of Christ On Mount Thabor

And so, that the Name of Christ may be exalted and glorified in us, we should follow Him up the mountain of our bare intelligence, even as Peter, James and John followed Him on to mount Thabor. Thabor means in our tongue an increase of light. So soon as we are like Peter in knowledge of truth, and like James in the overcoming of the world, and like John in fulness of grace possessing the virtues in righteousness; then Jesus brings us up on to the mountain of our bare intelligence to a hidden solitude, and reveals Himself to us in glory and in Divine brightness. And, in His name, His Father in heaven opens to us the living book of His Eternal Wisdom. And the Wisdom of God enfolds our bare vision and the simplicity of our spirit in a wayless, simple fruition of all good without distinction; and here there are indeed seeing and knowing, tasting and feeling, essence and life, having and being: and all this is one in our transcendence in God. And before this transcendence we are all set, each in his own particular way; and our heavenly Father, of His wisdom and goodness, endows each one in particular according to the nobility of his life and his practice. And therefore, if we ever remained with Jesus on mount Thabor, that is, upon the mountain of our bare thought, we should continually experience a growth of new light and new truth; for we should ever hear the voice of the Father, Who touches us, pouring forth with grace, and drawing us inward into the unity. The voice of the Father is heard by all who follow our Lord Jesus Christ, for He says of them all: “These are My chosen sons, in whom I am well pleased.” And, through this good pleasure, each one receives grace, according to the measure and the way in which God is well-pleasing unto him. And therefrom, between our pleasure in God, and God’s pleasure in us, there arises the practice of true love. And so each one tastes of his name and his office and the fruit of his exercise. And here all good men abide, hidden from those who live in the world; for these are dead before God and have no name, and therefore they can neither feel nor taste that which belongs to those who live indeed.

The outpouring touch of God quickens us with life in the spirit, and fulfills us with grace, and enlightens our reason, and teaches us to know truth and to discern the virtues, and keeps us stable in the Presence of God, with such a great strength that we are able to endure all the tasting, all the feeling, and all the outpouring gifts of God without our spirits failing us. But the indrawing-touch of God demands of us, that we should be one with God, and go forth from ourselves, and die into blessedness, that is, into the Eternal Love Which embraces the Father and the Son in one fruition. And **therefore when we have climbed with Jesus on to the mountain of our bare thought, where images cease; and if, then, we follow Him with a single and simple gaze, a onefold vision, with inward pleasure, and with fruitive inclination, we feel the fierce heat of the Holy Spirit, burning and melting us into the Unity of God. For when we are one with the Son, and lovingly return towards our Beginning, then we hear the voice of the Father, touching us and drawing us inward; for He says to all His chosen in His Eternal Word: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. For you should know that the Father with the Son, and the Son with the Father, have conceived an eternal satisfaction in regard to this: that the Son should take upon Himself our manhood, and die, and bring back all the chosen to their Beginning.

And so soon as we are uplifted through the Son into our Origin, we hear the voice of the Father, which draws us inward, and enlightens us with eternal truth. And truth shows to us the wide-opened good-pleasure of God, in which all good-pleasure begins and ends. There all our powers fail us, and we fall from ourselves into our wide-opened contemplation, and become all One and one All, in the loving embrace of the Threefold Unity. Whenever we feel this union, we are one being and one life and one blessedness with God.** And there all things are fulfilled and all things are made new; for when we are baptized into the wide embrace of the Love of God, the joy of each one of us becomes so great and so special that he can neither think of nor care for the joy of anyone else; for then each one is himself a Fruition of Love, and he cannot and dare not seek for anything beyond his own.

 

[Counterpoint]

The “actus purus” has an involved history as a theological term with lots of philosophical (name removed by moderator)lications. We can get into this history but first I would like to clarify what I understand to be the “act” of the Trinity. It is a mutual self-giving of persons in an “act” of love. But “person” here is a pure relation (sometimes referred to as subsistent relation). What does this mean? Simply that the Persons of the Trinity don’t exist apart from their relating to each other, i.e., they are the relations and nothing else. We are here departing from Aristotelian metaphysics with its emphasis on substance - we are, in a sense, elevating relationality to a superior status.

I don’t know if you are implying this or not, but the three persons of the Trinity (as traditionally conceived in Catholicism) are not three substances or beings.

How does this bear on the distinction of the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity? This distinction is caught up in another distinction - that between God and the world. God is not a part of the world and would still be God without the world. The immanent Trinity refers to this “transcendence” - God’s inner life is independent of the world.

Just a comment. It seems somewhat ironic that, in regards to the God-world relationship, the immanent Trinity refers to divine transcendence while the economic Trinity refers to divine immanence.

The world, in other words, does not have to be, is radically contingent. Ancient Greek philosophy would not have been able to understand this - it assumed that God and the world are necessarily joined together (with the underlying assumption that the world, the hen kai pan, the one and all, the cosmos, is the necessary context for everything).
From this fundamental change in thinking flows the distinction between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. Yet there is a connection between these two aspects of God. The immanent Trinity makes understandable the economic Trinity. The 3 Persons decided to create, not from necessity, but from a free loving decision. Such a decision would have been impossible if the immanent Trinity were not itself an activity of Love.

I find this to be problematic. As I see it, God either has compatiblist free will or libertarian free will, because those are the only logical possibilities. Compatiblism is compatible determinism; libertarianism is not. If God has compatibilist free will, then God’s decision to create could not have been otherwise. If God has libertarian free will, then God’s decision to create could have only been otherwise due to some element of pure chance.

As you may surmise, I’m moving away from the “actus purus” as understood in traditional Thomistic circles. God is not “the pure act of esse” but a communion of Persons who, as pure relations, transcend Aristotelian substance. If we have to use “substance” with respect to God, it now has to be understood as the dynamic perichoresis of the Persons giving themselves to each other, not something static or monadic.

I basically consider the terms “substance” and “being” to be interchangeable. That being said, I understand the Trinity (as traditionally explained in Catholicism) to be three divine persons, one divine being. Also, I understand “being” to be a dynamic unity, not a static monad.

You ask about symmetry in the love relationship between the Persons of the Trinity. I would say there is no symmetry. The position of the Father cannot be exchanged with the position of the Son, and vice versa; this also applies to the Holy Spirit. The Father begins the “process of perichoresis” by pouring Himself out completely into the Son (this is the “begetting” and why the Father is called the “first” Person); the Son receives completely what the Father gives; and the Holy Spirit, as the Love between Father and Son, proceeds from both of them.

I am assuming that the perichoretic process is a logical process, not a temporal one. Right?

The goal or teleology pertaining to the community of believers is to enter into the perichoresis of the 3 Persons of the Trinity, into the Divine Dance. This is what it means to enter inside the Trinity, to partake of the Divine Nature

Okay.

This is a unique privilege. I should note that there is no angelic nature inside the Trinity; only human nature. Does this mean that angels cannot enter inside the Trinity, at least in the way humans can?

Good question. What do you think?

Aristotelian metaphysics is an inadequate tool here. God’s “substance” is not a primary substance in the Aristotelian sense. Another way of saying this is that the perichoresis cannot be substantialized.

Whiteheadian metaphysics (a.k.a. “process philosophy”) might be adequate. It is based a processual or relational ontology, not a substantial one.

I believe what you have described here is known in contemporary theology as the “Social Trinity.” Process thought meshes well with this theological interpretation of the Trinity because it views everything in relational terms.

 

[levinas12]

Levinas, this is precisely what Ruysbroeck argued as well back in the 14th century!

In his shorter work, “The Sparkling Stone” he wrote:

saints.sqpn.com/the-sparkling-stone-by-blessed-jan-van-ruysbroek/

All of the passages you cite are amazing. They constitute what one might call a phenomenology of the experience of the Trinity.

I need to look further into Ruysbroeck. Thank you for pointing me in his direction.

The Trinity is the great mystery. A Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, popularize the notion of the “I-Thou” relationship. For Buber, this relationship applied to our relationship with other human beings and with God. But now we know that the “I-Thou” relationship exists in the heart of God Himself; and not only the “I-Thou” relationship, but also a “we”, with a third Person, the Holy Spirit, as the “we” proceeding from the “I-Thou” relationship between the Father and Son.

Ruysbroeck illuminates for us the mutual self-giving Love. the perichoresis and the circuminsession, that is the Truth which Jesus came to reveal to us and to lead us into.

 

[levinas12]

I don’t know if you are implying this or not, but the three persons of the Trinity (as traditionally conceived in Catholicism) are not three substances or beings.

Just a comment. It seems somewhat ironic that, in regards to the God-world relationship, the immanent Trinity refers to divine transcendence while the economic Trinity refers to divine immanence.

I find this to be problematic. As I see it, God either has compatiblist free will or libertarian free will, because those are the only logical possibilities. Compatiblism is compatible determinism; libertarianism is not. If God has compatibilist free will, then God’s decision to create could not have been otherwise. If God has libertarian free will, then God’s decision to create could have only been otherwise due to some element of pure chance.

I basically consider the terms “substance” and “being” to be interchangeable. That being said, I understand the Trinity (as traditionally explained in Catholicism) to be three divine persons, one divine being. Also, I understand “being” to be a dynamic unity, not a static monad.

I am assuming that the perichoretic process is a logical process, not a temporal one. Right?

Whiteheadian metaphysics (a.k.a. “process philosophy”) might be adequate. It is based a processual or relational ontology, not a substantial one.

I believe what you have described here is known in contemporary theology as the “Social Trinity.” Process thought meshes well with this theological interpretation of the Trinity because it views everything in relational terms.

You raise many good points. I’ll start working backwards.

Process philosophy is helpful with its emphasis on relation. But its God is still a part of the world (in this respect, it hasn’t broken loose from Aristotle despite all of its differences with Aristotelian metaphysics). It does not recognize, in other words, the Christian distinction: that God + world is no greater than God without world, that God does not need the world to be God. One might say that process philosophy does not acknowledge an immanent Trinity. For more on this, see Robert Sokolowski’s discussion of Anselm’s argument in his book, The God of Faith and Reason.

The perichoresis

 

[levinas12]

You raise many good points. I’ll start working backwards.

Process philosophy is helpful with its emphasis on relation. But its God is still a part of the world (in this respect, it hasn’t broken loose from Aristotle despite all of its differences with Aristotelian metaphysics). It does not recognize, in other words, the Christian distinction: that God + world is no greater than God without world, that God does not need the world to be God. One might say that process philosophy does not acknowledge an immanent Trinity. For more on this, see Robert Sokolowski’s discussion of Anselm’s argument in his book, The God of Faith and Reason.

The perichoresis

I got logged out by the 20 minute limit! Let me try again.

 

[levinas12]

You raise many good points. I’ll start working backwards.

Process philosophy is helpful with its emphasis on relation. But its God is still a part of the world (in this respect, it hasn’t broken loose from Aristotle despite all of its differences with Aristotelian metaphysics). It does not recognize, in other words, the Christian distinction: that God + world is no greater than God without world, that God does not need the world to be God. One might say that process philosophy does not acknowledge an immanent Trinity. For more on this, see Robert Sokolowski’s discussion of Anselm’s argument in his book, The God of Faith and Reason.

The perichoresis

I got logged out by the system! So I lost my responses to the rest of your comments. I’ll try to reconstitute them.

I’ll start with where I left off.

The perichoresis is not a logical process, and, in particular, not a Hegelian dialectic. Because there is no necessity in the perichoresis; on the contrary, it is an activity of freely given Love.

 

[levinas12]

I don’t know if you are implying this or not, but the three persons of the Trinity (as traditionally conceived in Catholicism) are not three substances or beings.

Just a comment. It seems somewhat ironic that, in regards to the God-world relationship, the immanent Trinity refers to divine transcendence while the economic Trinity refers to divine immanence.

I find this to be problematic. As I see it, God either has compatiblist free will or libertarian free will, because those are the only logical possibilities. Compatiblism is compatible determinism; libertarianism is not. If God has compatibilist free will, then God’s decision to create could not have been otherwise. If God has libertarian free will, then God’s decision to create could have only been otherwise due to some element of pure chance.

I basically consider the terms “substance” and “being” to be interchangeable. That being said, I understand the Trinity (as traditionally explained in Catholicism) to be three divine persons, one divine being. Also, I understand “being” to be a dynamic unity, not a static monad.

I am assuming that the perichoretic process is a logical process, not a temporal one. Right?

Whiteheadian metaphysics (a.k.a. “process philosophy”) might be adequate. It is based a processual or relational ontology, not a substantial one.

I believe what you have described here is known in contemporary theology as the “Social Trinity.” Process thought meshes well with this theological interpretation of the Trinity because it views everything in relational terms.

I’ll work backwards, beginning with your last comment.

Process philosophy is helpful up to a point, with its emphasis on relationality. But its God is still part of the universe, is still a function within the world (to this extent, it is still back with Aristotle, despite all its differences with Aristotelian metaphysics). So it does not accommodate the radical transcendence of God (that God can be God without the world at all).

The perichoresis is not a logical process because it is not driven by necessity. That’s why it also is not a neoplatonic system of emanations, or a Hegelian dialectic. There is no necessity because it is an anctivity of freely given lover. And because the perichoresis is outside the world, the universe, it is not a temporal process.

There is no symmetry in the perichoresis. The Father is entirely the “relating” to the Son, and the Son is the “relating” to the Father, and the Spirit is a “relating” to both the Father and Son. These “positions” are not interchangeable; the Father comes first, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Son cannot “be” in the position of Father; and the Father cannot be in the position of the Son; and, again, the Holy Spirit occupies its own unique position. This “ordering” is neither logical, nor metaphysical, nor temporal.

“Substance” and “a being or an entity” are interchangeable. But if “being” is understand as the act of esse, “substance” is not interchangeable. The problem with applying the notion of substance to God is that He is not simply one of many different kinds of beings. God is not a “kind” at all but, in Thomistic metaphysics, the pure act of esse - God has no essence apart from this. But even here, the perichoresis is not captured - the pure esse alone does not account for the perichoresis - and it is the perichoresis that illuminates the 3 persons. It’s very difficult to force 3 persons onto an Aristotelian primary substance.

God did not have to create the world. God could have continued to be God without the world - God plus the world is no greater than God without the world. So there was no necessity. Only a free decision of love. So the world does not have to be. Aristotle didn’t know this. But this does not mean that the world’s existence is due to chance.

The economic Trinity does not refer to divine immanence if the latter implies some sort of necessary relationship between God and the world. God does not have to be in the world. But the world’s existence necessarily depends upon God’s free creative act. So it’s a one way street. But there is a divine immanence in the Incarnation. God did come into the world. But this is a very unusual situation. God could “blend” with the world without interfering with human nature. Jesus is not a hybrid; the divine nature and the human nature did not mix to produce a third thing. This is because the divine nature is not really a “kind” like a lion or a horse or something else. Only thus could the “blend” work.

 

[levinas12]

(cont.)

Lastly, the 3 Divine Persons are not 3 primary substances, not 3 gods. The traditional Thomistic position is that God is one primary substance and 3 Persons. And this is where I depart from Thomas’ Aristotelianism. I don’t think the perichoresis that is God can be substantialized. Even with analogy. Substance cannot account for “person” either human or divine. A substance is the union of form and matter; but a person is neither a form or matter, but a reality that is deeper than substance. A person is incommunicable, not shareable, not a member of a class or kind, but totally unique. This is why the Father is not the Son, and the Son not the Father, and Holy Spirit not the Father or the Son.

And that is why John Doe is not Sally Doe. Their difference as persons is not simply due to their different matter.

A final point. I see that you want to understand “being” as dynamic. We should discuss this further. Does “dynamic” mean that everything is caught up in a network of internal relations (by this I mean relations like North and South - North can’t exist apart South - North is only North in relation to South)? The problem with this is that it overlooks the “autonomy” of entities. This is why Aristotle’s primary substance cannot be discarded. Things are not simply a system of internal relations. This is why Saussurean linguistics with its differential theory of meaning can be misleading.

 

[levinas12]

… an anctivity of freely given lover

correction to post #17 – an activity of freely given love