E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Jesus prayed that we should be ‘One’ in the same way as he is ‘One’ with the Father. So how does that work?
- Status
V
Vouthon
Guest
He was not saying that we should be “ontologically” one as He is perfectly one with the Father in essence. That would amount to pantheism and the Advaita doctrine of Brahman, Thou-art-That. The creature/creator distinction is essential as to essence and can never be overcome ontologically, although it is (according to our approved mystics) transcended experientially through a most profound union.
Rather, Christ was referring to deification / theosis, whereby we are participants by grace (not by nature as Jesus is) in the divine nature: adoring the Father through the Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit, in heaven apprehending the Divine Essence (God as He is in Himself) directly, unmediated by any creature. On earth, we have a foretaste of this through baptism and the Eucharist whereby we are incorporated into the Body of Christ through the Holy Spirit and receive His full divinity - humanity in the Sacred Host. Our mystics, likewise, have often had a foretaste of the Beatific Vision in this life (union with God), which is more specifically a foretaste of our actual beatitude in heaven.
The idea is fundamental to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. In Catholicism, our liturgy evokes it during the Communion or Eucharistic part of the Mass, when the priest says over the cup: " By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity ." It was taught equally in the West as it was in the East. The doctrine is essential to the teaching of the Church Fathers, who held that " God became man, so that man might become God " [ St. Augustine, Sermo 13 de Tempore ].
But by grace on our part, not nature or ontology. God permits us by grace to share in His own Beatitude, His own happiness or felicity.
Theosis, in this life, is a foretaste of that glorious existence of the Blessed in heaven, whereby we participate in the divine nature (as much as is possible by God’s power in this life), through the sacraments and the gift of infused contemplative prayer, worshipping God the Father through God the Son whose Body we are baptised into in the Unity of God the Holy Spirit with every other of our fellow baptised. One Church on earth and heaven, the Body of Christ.
The church therefore refers to herself as the sacrament of unity for the entire human race, the Mystical Body of Christ on earth which every human person has an orientation to enter and participate in this “oneness”.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
Another great post, thank you.
Zizioulas’ conception is not heretical (from a Catholic perspective) to the same extent as the Protestant varieties of ST, which are recognised even by other leading theologians of those churches as problematic.
As I noted above, Zizioulas does not deny - though he sometimes can be read that way, given his elevated articulation of this “monarchy of the Father” idea - that in the Fathers, as he writes: “all the things that in [modern Cartesian] personalism constitute essential elements in the concept of the person are connected by the Fathers with the nature or essence of God, in other words, with what is common to the three Persons” rather than with what is severally individuated in the relations of the Persons by way of origin and generation (whereby they are distinct, that is Paternity, Filiation and Spiration).
In other words, although I’m sure he’d refuse to admit it so far as technical scholastic language is concerned, Zizioulas would not find himself in substantial disagreement with St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching in the Summa that the “the act of God’s intellect is His substance (essence)” and thus common to the Persons as one, rather than individuated severally in the Persons.
With that being said, I do still maintain that Zizioulas’ work on the “monarchy of the Father” - in the books that are available in English - has given unfortunate momentum to three seriously flawed theses that fuel Social Trinitarianism and have become “sacred cows” for that movement:
(1) an utterly ahistorical narrative from the 19th century, rejected by modern patristics scholars and intellectual historians, that St. Augustine taught a Trinitarianism substantially more “essentialist” than that of the Cappadocian Fathers, which in fact borders on modalism or unitarianism (2) that those same Cappadocian Fathers rooted the fundamental unity of the Godhead in the monarchy of the Father rather than in the unity of the one Divine Essence and (3) that the West should adopt a more “personalist” ontology accordingly, that is something closer to a Social Trinity (if not the abject tritheism of Plantinga and Swinbourne).
Zizioulas objects to “Western” reference to the “Triune God” for being essentialist rather than personalist and says that the language of ‘true God’ refers to the Father from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, always that is to a Person as ultimate unity rather than essence/substance.
(continued…)
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
On the Divine Monarchia, patristics scholars of the fourth century have demonstrated that St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius and others were in substantial synergy with the thought of St. Augustine - and with their great predecessor St. Athanasius himself - in identifying the Holy Trinity with the monarchy and not limiting this to the Person of the Father, which borders on subordinationism. (Much later on, St. Gregory Palamas post-schism even approvingly cites St. Augustine’s psychological analogy of Trinitarianism)
Yet in Anglophone Eastern Orthodox discourse, the modern “thesis” of Zizioulas and Lossky, relying on De Regnon’s discredited nineteenth century historiography (which posits radical discontinuity between Eastern and Western Trinitarianism with St. Augustine as the “big Bad” and the monarchy of the Father as hallmark of orthodoxy), has become rather endemic so far as I can tell, in a highly emotive and partisan “anti-Latin” narrative.
In contrast to this trend, the Baptist theologian and scholar Stephen Holmes has, in the last decade, come out on a limb to claim that St. Augustine was the greatest ever interpreter in the West of the theology of the Cappadocians in Greek, certainly a million light-years more so than the contemporary “social Trinitarians”.
Now, that’s not to say that there were not semantic differences and differences of emphasis between Greek East and Latin West. But it didn’t amount to a radically distinct conception of God’s nature expressed through two competing dogmas (the later filioque controversy over the procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son in the West is another matter, of course).
The entire “Social Trinitarian” turn in Euro-American theology in the 20th century honestly disturbs me, as its very vocal advocates (like Swinbourne, Plantinga, Moltmann and William Lane Craig) have almost become the “face” of popular Christianity in the public forum in the West, given the apologetical work of a number of them - Lane Craig most conspicuously on account of all that “kalam cosmological argument” stuff.
And that concerns me, given that their orthodoxy is seriously questionable. The idea that many non-Christian and Christian laypersons first introduction to theology in the Anglophone might be through these individuals is not an appealing prospect. I don’t like the idea of effective tritheists representing Christianity to the wider world, as our alleged leading “apologists” in the English language.
It would, in fact, be far preferable to my mind for leading Islamic and Jewish intellectuals to represent us to the secular world in the name of “monotheism” - given that we at least share faith in the one God of Abraham with them (the unity of the divine essence) and this is what can, according to Catholic doctrine, be known from nature using the light of reason (the knowledge of the Triune God coming from faith through revelation).
When I see the likes of Swinbourne or Lane Craig debating with a popular atheist rhetorician like Dawkins in the “name” of Christianity, well - let’s just say that Anglophone “apologetics” has reached its nadir in my humble opinion.
Yet in Anglophone Eastern Orthodox discourse, the modern “thesis” of Zizioulas and Lossky, relying on De Regnon’s discredited nineteenth century historiography (which posits radical discontinuity between Eastern and Western Trinitarianism with St. Augustine as the “big Bad” and the monarchy of the Father as hallmark of orthodoxy), has become rather endemic so far as I can tell, in a highly emotive and partisan “anti-Latin” narrative.
In contrast to this trend, the Baptist theologian and scholar Stephen Holmes has, in the last decade, come out on a limb to claim that St. Augustine was the greatest ever interpreter in the West of the theology of the Cappadocians in Greek, certainly a million light-years more so than the contemporary “social Trinitarians”.
Now, that’s not to say that there were not semantic differences and differences of emphasis between Greek East and Latin West. But it didn’t amount to a radically distinct conception of God’s nature expressed through two competing dogmas (the later filioque controversy over the procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son in the West is another matter, of course).
The entire “Social Trinitarian” turn in Euro-American theology in the 20th century honestly disturbs me, as its very vocal advocates (like Swinbourne, Plantinga, Moltmann and William Lane Craig) have almost become the “face” of popular Christianity in the public forum in the West, given the apologetical work of a number of them - Lane Craig most conspicuously on account of all that “kalam cosmological argument” stuff.
And that concerns me, given that their orthodoxy is seriously questionable. The idea that many non-Christian and Christian laypersons first introduction to theology in the Anglophone might be through these individuals is not an appealing prospect. I don’t like the idea of effective tritheists representing Christianity to the wider world, as our alleged leading “apologists” in the English language.
It would, in fact, be far preferable to my mind for leading Islamic and Jewish intellectuals to represent us to the secular world in the name of “monotheism” - given that we at least share faith in the one God of Abraham with them (the unity of the divine essence) and this is what can, according to Catholic doctrine, be known from nature using the light of reason (the knowledge of the Triune God coming from faith through revelation).
When I see the likes of Swinbourne or Lane Craig debating with a popular atheist rhetorician like Dawkins in the “name” of Christianity, well - let’s just say that Anglophone “apologetics” has reached its nadir in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
We are created in the image, likeness and nature of God. Jesus prayed that we should be ‘One’ in the same way as he is ‘One’ with the Father. Is this 'Oneness a mystery that we are not supposed to comprehend.
V
Vouthon
Guest
I’m not sure if I understand what you’re saying (or implying?) here, with all due respect.
According to the deposit of faith, we are created in the image and likeness of God but we are not of His nature and never will be by “nature”, only through participation by grace. So Jesus is not suggesting that we will literally be “one” in essence as He is with the Father.
The divine nature is divine with an uncreated, eternally self-existing divine essence (a necessary being). Human nature is created in time with a human essence (contingent beings). That ontic divide will never be surpassed. We will never cease being creature and God Creator (the duality of our distinct ontologies will always remain, in other words).
I explained the doctrine of theosis above (how we become “one” with God through divine grace and thus experience ourselves as being united “experientially but not ontologically” on earth through the sacramental life of the church and our constancy in faith and good works, and in heaven through direct unmediated apprehension of the Divine Essence) in my own words, with patristic references and so stand by it as already described.
Last edited:
A
aThomist
Guest
There’s a lot of danger in that kind of question
For first of all thinking of God’s “Intellect and will” in a way “how God’percieve reality” is somewhat dangerous since we acknowledge that God is something different on how we created being percieve reality.
This is one of the reasons that brings me to the interest of Theology but as i learn more, i learn how to leave such subjects that aren’t knowable by men and this is what Aquinas call the vritue of “studiosness”
But we can talk also about God’s Intellect and will in some more simple way as contrast to his “percieving reality”
Like for example we know trou speculative Theology that God knows one thing which is knowing Himself and in knowing himself he knows all things.
And God only will/love one thing which is himself and in willing himself he wills all things
For first of all thinking of God’s “Intellect and will” in a way “how God’percieve reality” is somewhat dangerous since we acknowledge that God is something different on how we created being percieve reality.
This is one of the reasons that brings me to the interest of Theology but as i learn more, i learn how to leave such subjects that aren’t knowable by men and this is what Aquinas call the vritue of “studiosness”
But we can talk also about God’s Intellect and will in some more simple way as contrast to his “percieving reality”
Like for example we know trou speculative Theology that God knows one thing which is knowing Himself and in knowing himself he knows all things.
And God only will/love one thing which is himself and in willing himself he wills all things
V
Vouthon
Guest
Your words of caution are true and well met by me, in view of the respect we must owe to the inexpressible mystery of the Trinity when engaging in such speculative theological enquiry (we cannot presume to comprehend God as He is in Himself, He is a wholly different order of being and perception, ineffable to us) but I would note that I’m asking the question only because the “social Trinitarians” have intensively probed this area over the past sixty years - situating it at the heart of theological discussion in their works - and come up with an exceedingly controversial interpretation that seems to strain Nicene monotheism to breaking point (in my opinion).
By postulating that God is three distinct centres of consciousness, they are inviting an answer and patristic scholars are saying, so far as I know, that this is a misreading of the patristic doctrine (which actually associated the “Divine Personality” of God as we would term it in modern post-Cartesian self-awareness terms with the one undivided essence which each Person is, and not severally individuated in person as with the distinct relations of origin between the Persons i.e. Paternity, Filiation and Spiration).
As such, given that this “Pandora’s box” has been opened so to speak by the ST crowd, I feel that the “social Trinitarianism” must be answered just as much as was the case for Arianism, Sabellian modalism and Subordinationism in the fourth century.
In a less polemical fashion, and in view of the importance of ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, I think it is also incumbent on us to engage, critically but respectfully, with the much less subversive but still challenging Trinitarian theology of an EO hierarch like John Zizioulas - and as I noted in the preceding, he has also “gone there” or ventured into that “dangerous” territory (i.e. asked those questions).
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Those are good resources. And in another Modern Catholic Dictionary describes the perichoresis:
N
Noose001
Guest
This statement seems to contradict a very common statement in the bible by the Father; “…thou at my son, today i have begotten you…”
You have to choose between ‘today’ and ‘eternally begotten’. The latter is not in the bible and doesn’t make much sense. I used to believe Trinity but nowadays i think it is just another human concept.
W
Wesrock
Guest
It’s a quotation and reference to a psalm.Vouthon:
This statement seems to contradict a very common statement in the bible by the Father; “…thou at my son, today i have begotten you…”
N
Noose001
Guest
Yes, but in reference to Jesus, if the Father says “thou at my son, today i’ve begotten you”, it would be contradictory to claim that the son is eternally begotten of the Father, and what does ‘eternally begotten’ mean anyway?
V
Vouthon
Guest
In context, the psalm is a royal psalm originally composed in reference to a Davidic King.
Early Christians, however, discerned a strong messianic / christological theology implicit within it and this comes through in the gospels - but it doesn’t alter the original context of the psalm.
With that being said, ‘eternity’ is an eternal ‘now’ that admits of no temporal ‘before or after’ - so I really don’t see the point your making.
This thread is NOT a debate about the actual dogma Trinity. In my OP, I am addressing self-confessed Trinitarian Christians who already presuppose the doctrine.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
@twf During my research today into the emergence of tritheistic heresies, I came across the first case of genuine ‘tritheistic’ heresy since Philoponus in the 6th century (condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople) and Joachim of Fiore’s theory that had been condemned as heresy at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 (where Peter Lombard was vindicated against him).
Basically, there was a very serious ‘Trinitarian’ doctrinal dispute in the Church of England (who, of course, share our same Trinitarian faith as a denomination) in the late seventeenth through to the early eighteenth century, between the orthodox Nicene Trinitarian officers of Oxford University who were championed by a theologian called Robert South (1634 – 1716) against both unitarian socianists and one William Sherlocke, who proclaimed a tritheistic heresy inspired by Descartes, that held to a “unity of shared consciousness between three infinite divine minds in the Trinity” making each person of the Trinity a locus of self-aware consciousness within a broader shared conciousness between the distinct minds (who ‘knew’ each others thoughts and thus ‘shared’ their consciousnesses).
The Oxford Anglican establishment issued the: “Decree of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford & and some Heads of Colleges & Halls, Concerning the Heresy of Three Distinct Infinite-Minds in the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity”.
Advocating their position, Robert South affirmed a traditional scholastic formula (from St. Thomas Aquinas) in the following words:
"God is not three consciousnesses but One Consciousness who subsists in a threefold relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (“Animadversions” against the tritheistic heresy of William Sherlocke).
Please see this academic study describing this particular crisis in 17th century Anglicanism:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I find it interesting that this ‘heresy’ has resurfaced again in modern day Protestant theology with the Social Trinitarian movement and ESS debate.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Interesting. It disturbs me that I was possibly an unwitting heretic for years. I’m still trying to wrap my head around how I can make sense of the prayers I’ve been saying for years in light of this discussion…
Yet in Scripture, Our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as “another counsellor” who will come in His place… it’s hard to wrap the mind around the divine persons as truly distinct persons without distinct centres of consciousness.
I also don’t think you replied to my earlier post regarding the distinct human consciousness of the post-resurrection Christ - which I think must be the case as His eternal role as High Priest implies he is still praying to the Father even now.
Yet in Scripture, Our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as “another counsellor” who will come in His place… it’s hard to wrap the mind around the divine persons as truly distinct persons without distinct centres of consciousness.
I also don’t think you replied to my earlier post regarding the distinct human consciousness of the post-resurrection Christ - which I think must be the case as His eternal role as High Priest implies he is still praying to the Father even now.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
Well, since each person of the Trinity is wholly the same God (the one essence, distinct only in relation of origin from the other persons) it’s still true to say that you were praying to the one God, even if the understanding was somewhat off, so I wouldn’t worry on that account!
In terms of Christ “praying” in eternity. Christ is, himself, the Victim and the Priest who offers the Victim, so I guess it is correct to understand this in the way you do. The Catechism says, “Our high priest who prays for us is also the one who prays in us and the God who hears our prayer”.
Him praying “for” us this testifies to His full humanity with which He was tempted in every way on earth yet without sin. Yet He is also the same God who hears our prayers and answers them.
Remember, however, that although Jesus had a human soul and brain, He is one person: the Son of God. The Eternal Word is not joined to him as if in two Nestorian personalities, there is the one person of God the Son now in two natures, fully divine and fully human:
He does have a human knowledge, due to having a human soul but this is inseparably one person and consciousness with the divine “subject” the Son of God, so…
Our understanding of a conscious person (now speaking in human terms, not divine) is defined by “subjectivity” (although this is not what we mean by the divine “persons”, as I note above). The Catechism notes that Christ’s humanity has no other “subject” than the divine person of the Son of God. This would mean the one centre of consciousness, then, (the divine Son) now expressed inseparably through two natures (fully divine and fully human) in one person with one subjectivity?
The Catechism likewise notes: “The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts”, so note that the one conscious subject (the Son) now has “human knowledge” and in his human knowledge showed the divine penetration He had into others thoughts. And that one conscious subject, the Son, is the Second Person of the Trinity and thus the essence of God in Himself.
When Jesus says, “I” there is a single self there - one conscious subject, the Son of God now expressing himself undivided in two natures. As such, I’m leery of saying “distinct human consciousness”…
In terms of Christ “praying” in eternity. Christ is, himself, the Victim and the Priest who offers the Victim, so I guess it is correct to understand this in the way you do. The Catechism says, “Our high priest who prays for us is also the one who prays in us and the God who hears our prayer”.
Him praying “for” us this testifies to His full humanity with which He was tempted in every way on earth yet without sin. Yet He is also the same God who hears our prayers and answers them.
Remember, however, that although Jesus had a human soul and brain, He is one person: the Son of God. The Eternal Word is not joined to him as if in two Nestorian personalities, there is the one person of God the Son now in two natures, fully divine and fully human:
Can we say of Christ that He had a “distinct human consciousness”? Hmm to me that seems Nestorian and to deny the one subject we are referring to in the hypostatic union, the Divine Word who assumed a human nature and became man. He is the Person of the Son of God, the one conscious “subject” as the Catechism says above who has now assumed a human brain and will.
He does have a human knowledge, due to having a human soul but this is inseparably one person and consciousness with the divine “subject” the Son of God, so…
Our understanding of a conscious person (now speaking in human terms, not divine) is defined by “subjectivity” (although this is not what we mean by the divine “persons”, as I note above). The Catechism notes that Christ’s humanity has no other “subject” than the divine person of the Son of God. This would mean the one centre of consciousness, then, (the divine Son) now expressed inseparably through two natures (fully divine and fully human) in one person with one subjectivity?
The Catechism likewise notes: “The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts”, so note that the one conscious subject (the Son) now has “human knowledge” and in his human knowledge showed the divine penetration He had into others thoughts. And that one conscious subject, the Son, is the Second Person of the Trinity and thus the essence of God in Himself.
When Jesus says, “I” there is a single self there - one conscious subject, the Son of God now expressing himself undivided in two natures. As such, I’m leery of saying “distinct human consciousness”…
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
Perhaps, though, it is right to say that in this context so long as one qualifies that there is a single self-conscious agent or centre of consciousness in the subject of the divine Son?
When I first read “distinct human consciousness” I thought you were saying two subjects of consciousness (Nestorianism) but if you were instead saying one subject of consciousness with dual awareness of Himself as being God and man (he did “grow in wisdom” as to his humanity, with real human experiences that He was aware of using his human brain), then that may be the right way of phrasing it. But his “I” - self, centre of consciousness - is the subject of the Eternal Word, a single individual now fully human (soul and will) and fully God.
God is one divine nature (single consciousness and subject of consciousness, His essence) yet Christ was fully God and man with the two distinct natures in one person, so the one individual of the Eternal Divine Son (the subject of consciousness) had dual and indivisible awareness of Himself as both.
This is an important consideration @twf you’ve raised.
When I first read “distinct human consciousness” I thought you were saying two subjects of consciousness (Nestorianism) but if you were instead saying one subject of consciousness with dual awareness of Himself as being God and man (he did “grow in wisdom” as to his humanity, with real human experiences that He was aware of using his human brain), then that may be the right way of phrasing it. But his “I” - self, centre of consciousness - is the subject of the Eternal Word, a single individual now fully human (soul and will) and fully God.
God is one divine nature (single consciousness and subject of consciousness, His essence) yet Christ was fully God and man with the two distinct natures in one person, so the one individual of the Eternal Divine Son (the subject of consciousness) had dual and indivisible awareness of Himself as both.
This is an important consideration @twf you’ve raised.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I’m not to familiar with the idea of ‘social Trinitarianism’. From a rather quick search on the internet, I found this at the following link:
https://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2012/06/part-3-problem-of-social-trinitarianism.html
“Social trinitarianism is the doctrine that Father, Son, and Spirit are three independent centers of consciousness with their own distinct intellects, wills, and energies of operation.”
If this is essentially what social Trinitarianism is about, than it is completely false. There is but one intellect and will in the Godhead as there is but one divine substance and nature. The three divine persons are in one divine substance or nature with one intellect and will which they all possess and the Father is the source of the Trinity. God’s consciousness so to speak arises from the acts of his intellect and will which is his life and there is but one eternal act of his one intellect and his one will. Accordingly, all three divine persons have one and the same consciousness of being God. At the same time, I think each person of the trinity has a ‘consciousness’ that is personal to him, namely, paternity (Father), filiation (Son), and spiration (Holy Spirit) which derives from the relations of origen.
https://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2012/06/part-3-problem-of-social-trinitarianism.html
“Social trinitarianism is the doctrine that Father, Son, and Spirit are three independent centers of consciousness with their own distinct intellects, wills, and energies of operation.”
If this is essentially what social Trinitarianism is about, than it is completely false. There is but one intellect and will in the Godhead as there is but one divine substance and nature. The three divine persons are in one divine substance or nature with one intellect and will which they all possess and the Father is the source of the Trinity. God’s consciousness so to speak arises from the acts of his intellect and will which is his life and there is but one eternal act of his one intellect and his one will. Accordingly, all three divine persons have one and the same consciousness of being God. At the same time, I think each person of the trinity has a ‘consciousness’ that is personal to him, namely, paternity (Father), filiation (Son), and spiration (Holy Spirit) which derives from the relations of origen.
V
Vouthon
Guest
I really like your description and agree with it substantially so far as critiquing the “Social Trinitarianism” goes. Nonetheless, the final part quoted above is perhaps the one bit where I have at least some degree of difficulty. It may be that I am wrong in feeling this way but here is how I presently see things:
I’m not sure if we should word it as each person having a “consciousness” that is personal to Him, when the Council of Florence tells us that "everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. ” (Council of Florence Session 11 ) i.e. the distinct relations of origin are the only way in which the Persons are truly differentiated and individuated. I prefer to explain the doctrine to myself, accordingly, as three distinct subsisting relations or objects of the one divine consciousness of God, as He is in relation to Himself.
To reference again the patristic scholar I cited earlier on, God is one object in himself (one simple being, essence and consciousness of being so thereof) and three objects to Himself (through His distinct subsisting manners of relation in Paternity, Filiation and Spiration as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
Each hypostasis can be described as a distinct presentation of that one divine essence by relation of origin.
So, their “God-consciousness” (if we wish to be more colloquial in speech) is one and the same even as it subsists (actually exist) as distinct “organs” of that one consciousness by “manners of subsisting relation”. Yet the actual contents of consciousness is identical in each case (the knowing, willing etc.) because the essence and divine life is one (each person being God).
There is, therefore, only one single divine knowing and willing (consciousness) expressed distinctly in three subsisting relations of His being - or in more modern and less technical language, “three distinct organs of the one God-consciousness”, as that particular Patristic scholar put it in modernizing language.
I’m more comfortable with that expression - from my own perspective - than I am with saying that each Person has simultaneously the one divine consciousness and a “personal consciousness” of themselves in relation. God is one consciousness in essence, which each Person in relation just “Is” by nature, though truly existing distinctly according to their relation of origin (the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds).
I like the definition I quoted earlier from the Anglican theologian Robert South in the late 17th century, when he refuted a tritheistic conception of the Persons (as constituting ‘three infinite divine minds’ that merely “share” a mutual consciousness because their thoughts are perfectly transparent to one another), with the statement: “God is not three consciousnesses but One Consciousness who subsists in a threefold relation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Animadversions).
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
I think the reason why I said that each divine person has a consciousness that is personal to him is that it seems to me that God the Son, for example, must himself know, is self aware or conscious which to me mean all the same thing, that he is not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit and likewise the other two persons. Am I wording this wrong? Possibly. Does it mean that there are three consciousnesses in God or is there just one? I don’t know presently and I’m not sure what would be doctrinally correct. In one sense, since there are three individual and distinct divine persons, it seems to me there could be three self consciousnesses, not substantially distinct but relatively distinct. In another sense, since the three persons are one God with one intellect and will, maybe there is one consciousness. Yet again, this one consciousness could possibly be said to be had in three distinct ways, namely, one as God the Father, another as God the Son, and the third as God the Holy Spirit.Richca:
I really like your description and agree with it substantially so far as critiquing the “Social Trinitarianism” goes. Nonetheless, the final part quoted above is perhaps the one bit where I have at least some degree of difficulty. It may be that I am wrong in feeling this way but here is how I presently see things:
I’m not sure if we should word it as each person having a “consciousness” that is personal to Him, when the Council of Florence tells us that "everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. ” (Council of Florence Session 11 ) i.e. the distinct relations of origin are the only way in which the Persons are truly differentiated and individuated.
You quoted Karl Barth above saying:
“Person’ as used in the Church doctrine of the Trinity bears no direct relation to personality. The meaning of the doctrine is not, then, that there are three personalities in God. That would be the worst and most extreme expression of tritheism…”
I’m not sure St Thomas Aquinas would agree with this. Aquinas does mention the personalities of God in a few places of his writings. For example, in the ST, Pt. 1, Q. 39, art. 3, reply to obj. 4, he writes:
The form signified by the word “person” is not essence or nature, but personality. So, as there are three personalities—that is, three personal properties in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost—it is predicated of the three, not in the singular, but in the plural.
In the same work, Pt. III, Q.3. art. 3, the article is titled “Whether the Nature Abstracted from the Personality Can Assume?”
In the body of the article, Aquinas writes “In the Godhead Personality signifies a personal property…”
He also writes about the Personalities of God in the work QUAESTIONES DISPUTATAE DE POTENTIA DEI, On the Power of God. In Question 8 or 9 I believe.
Last edited:
- Status