BENEDICT XVI
ANGELUS
Solemnity of the Most Holy
Trinity
Saint Peter's Square
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
After the Easter Season which culminated in the
Feast of Pentecost, the liturgy provides for these three Solemnities of the
Lord: today, Trinity Sunday; next Thursday, Corpus Christi which
in many countries, including Italy, will be celebrated next Sunday; and
finally, on the following Friday, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Each
one of these liturgical events highlights a perspective by which the whole
mystery of the Christian faith is embraced: and that is, respectively the
reality of the Triune God, the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the divine and
human centre of the Person of Christ. These are truly aspects of the one
mystery of salvation which, in a certain sense, sum up the whole itinerary of the
revelation of Jesus, from his Incarnation to his death and Resurrection and,
finally, to his Ascension and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Today we contemplate the Most Holy Trinity as Jesus
introduced us to it. He revealed to us that God is love "not in the
oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance" (Preface).
He is the Creator and merciful Father; he is the Only-Begotten Son, eternal
Wisdom incarnate, who died and rose for us; he is the Holy Spirit who moves all
things, cosmos and history, toward their final, full recapitulation. Three
Persons who are one God because the Father is love, the Son is
love, the Spirit is love. God is wholly and only love, the purest, infinite and
eternal love. He does not live in splendid solitude but rather is an
inexhaustible source of life that is ceaselessly given and communicated. To a
certain extent we can perceive this by observing both the macro-universe: our
earth, the planets, the stars, the galaxies; and the micro-universe: cells,
atoms, elementary particles. The "name" of the Blessed Trinity is, in
a certain sense, imprinted upon all things because all that exists, down to the
last particle, is in relation; in this way we catch a glimpse of God as
relationship and ultimately, Creator Love. All things derive from love, aspire
to love and move impelled by love, though naturally with varying degrees of
awareness and freedom. "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all
the earth!" (Ps 8: 1) the Psalmist exclaims. In speaking of the
"name", the Bible refers to God himself, his truest identity. It is
an identity that shines upon the whole of Creation, in which all beings for the
very fact that they exist and because of the "fabric" of which they
are made point to a transcendent Principle, to eternal and infinite Life which
is given, in a word, to Love. "In him we live and move and have our
being", St Paul said at the Areopagus of Athens (Acts 17: 28). The
strongest proof that we are made in the image of the Trinity is this: love
alone makes us happy because we live in a relationship, and we live to love and
to be loved. Borrowing an analogy from biology, we could say that imprinted
upon his "genome", the human being bears a profound mark of the
Trinity, of God as Love.
The Virgin Mary, in her docile humility, became the
handmaid of divine Love: she accepted the Father's will and conceived the Son
by the power of the Holy Spirit. In her the Almighty built a temple worthy of
him and made her the model and image of the Church, mystery and house of communion
for all human beings. May Mary, mirror of the Blessed Trinity, help us to grow
in faith in the Trinitarian mystery.
To the English-speaking faithful:
I extend cordial greetings to all the
English-speaking pilgrims here today on this feast of the Most Holy Trinity,
especially the members of the Holy Trinity Prayer Group from Texas. May the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit be with you all, and with your families and loved ones at home. And may
your stay in Rome strengthen your faith, fill you with hope in God’s promises
and inflame your hearts with his love. God bless all of you!
© Copyright 2009 - Libreria
Editrice Vaticana
The Blessed Trinity
This article is divided as follows:
The dogma of the Trinity
Thus, in the words of the
Athanasian Creed: "the Father is
God, the
Son is
God, and the
Holy Spirit is
God, and yet there are not three
Gods but one
God." In this Trinity of
Persons the
Son is begotten of the Father by an
eternal generation, and the
Holy Spirit proceeds by an
eternal procession from the Father and the
Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to
origin, the
Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike
are uncreated and
omnipotent. This, the
Church teaches, is the
revelation regarding
God's nature which
Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world:
and which she proposes to
man as the foundation of her whole
dogmatic system.
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity:
nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed,
but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and
unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
It is manifest that a
dogma so
mysterious presupposes a
Divine revelation. When the fact of
revelation, understood in its full sense as the
speech of
God to
man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the
doctrine follows as a
necessary consequence. For this reason it has
no place in the
Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this
school contend that the
doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the
Church, is not contained in the
New Testament, but that it was first formulated in
the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result
of the
Arian and
Macedonian controversies. In view of this
assertion it is
necessary to consider in some detail the
evidence afforded by
Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to
apply the more extreme theories of comparative
religion to the
doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it
by an imaginary law of nature compelling
men to group the objects of their worship in
threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant
views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of
foundation.
Proof of doctrine from Scripture
First He taught them to recognize in Himself the
Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to
a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine
Person, the
Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His
resurrection, He revealed the
doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them
"go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the
Son, and of the
Holy Ghost" (
Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is
decisive. That "the Father" and
"the Son" are distinct
Persons follows from the terms themselves,
which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the
Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being
connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is
evidence that we have here a Third
Person co-ordinate with the Father and the
Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that
the
Apostles understood the
Holy Spirit not as a distinct
Person, but as
God viewed in His action on creatures.
The phrase "in the name" (
eis to onoma)
affirms alike the
Godhead of the
Persons and their unity of
nature. Among the
Jews and in the
Apostolic Church the Divine name was
representative of
God. He who had a
right to use it was invested with vast
authority: for he wielded the
supernatural powers of Him whose name he
employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be
here employed, were not all the
Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the
use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these
Three
Persons are that
One Omnipotent God in whom the
Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of
God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the
Hebrew and of the
Christian religion, and is affirmed in such
countless passages of the
Old and
New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent
with this
doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.
The
supernatural appearance at the
baptism of
Christ is often cited as an explicit
revelation of Trinitarian
doctrine, given at the very commencement of the
Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The
Evangelists, it is
true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine
Persons. Yet, apart from
Christ's subsequent teaching, the
dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have
been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none
but
Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see
the
Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine
sonship of the
Messias.
- He declares
that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world
was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
- In the parable of the wicked husbandmen,
He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented
as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
- He is the
Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
- He approves
the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken
by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
- Finally,
before Caiphas He not merely declares
Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and
distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by
the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not
have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than
that of the
Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very
purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of
Jesus Christ (
John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with
the
Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all
eternity exists with
God, Who is
God (
John 1:1-18). The
immanence of the
Son in the Father and of the Father in the
Son is declared in
Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not
believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in
Me?" (
14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (
14:7;
16:15;
17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action
is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the
Son also does in like manner" (
5:19, cf.
10:38); and to the
Son no less than to the Father belongs the
Divine attribute of conferring
life on whom He will (
5:21). In
10:29,
Christ expressly teaches His
unity of essence with the Father: "That
which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are
one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can,
having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name,
possessed in its fullness by the
Son as by the Father.
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the
text: "The Father is greater than I" (
14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish
that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in
this sense certain texts in which the
Son declares His dependence on the Father (
5:19;
8:28). In point of fact the
doctrine of the
Incarnation involves that, in regard of His
Human
Nature, the
Son should be less than the Father. No argument
against
Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from
this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the
Son upon the Father do but express what is
essential to Trinitarian
dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source
from Whom the
Divine Nature and perfections flow to the
Son. (On the essential difference between
St. John's doctrine as to the
Person of
Christ and the
Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which
many
Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see
LOGOS.)
In regard to the
Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages
which can be cited from the
Synoptists as attesting His distinct
personality are few. The words of
Gabriel (
Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term,
"the Spirit," in the
Old Testament, to signify
God as operative in His creatures, can hardly
be said to contain a definite
revelation of the
doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether
Christ's warning to the
Pharisees as regards
blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit (
Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as
proof. But in
Luke 12:12, "The
Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour
what you must say" (
Matthew 10:20, and
Luke 24:49), His
personality is clearly implied. These passages,
taken in connection with
Matthew 28:19, postulate the
existence of such teaching as we find in the
discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (
14,
15,
16). We have in these chapters the
necessary preparation for the
baptismal commission. In them the
Apostles are instructed not only as the
personality of the
Spirit, but as to His office towards the
Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall
hear (
16:13) to bring back their
minds the teaching of
Christ (
14:26), to convince the world of
sin (
16:8). It is evident that, were the
Spirit not a
Person,
Christ could not have spoken of His presence
with the
Apostles as comparable to His own presence with
them (
14:16). Again, were He not a Divine
Person it could not have been expedient for the
Apostles that
Christ should leave them, and the
Paraclete take His place (
16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of
the word (
pneuma), the pronoun used in
His regard is the masculine
ekeinos. The distinction of
the
Holy Spirit from the Father and from the
Son is involved in the express statements that
He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the
Son (
15:26; cf.
14:16,
14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His
presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the
Son (
14:17-18), while the presence of the
Son is the presence of the Father (
14:23).
In the remaining
New Testament writings numerous passages attest
how clear and definite was the
belief of the
Apostolic Church in the three Divine
Persons. In certain texts the coordination of
Father,
Son, and
Spirit leaves no possible
doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in
2 Corinthians 13:13,
St. Paul writes: "The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of
God, and the communication of the
Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the
construction shows that the
Apostle is speaking of three distinct
Persons. Moreover, since the names
God and
Holy Ghost are
alike Divine names, it follows that
Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine
Person. So also, in
1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of
graces, but the same
Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but
the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same
God, who worketh all [of them] in all [
persons]." (Cf. also
Ephesians 4:4-6;
1 Peter 1:2-3)
But apart from passages such as these, where there is
express mention of the Three
Persons, the teaching of the
New Testament regarding
Christ and the
Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In
regard to
Christ, the
Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men
brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified
belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is
the use of the
Doxology in reference to Him. The
Doxology, "To Him be
glory for ever and ever" (cf.
1 Chronicles 16:38;
29:11;
Psalm 103:31;
28:2), is an expression of praise offered to
God alone. In the
New Testament we find it addressed not alone to
God the Father, but to
Jesus Christ (
2 Timothy 4:18;
2 Peter 3:18;
Revelation 1:6;
Hebrews 13:20-21), and to
God the Father and
Christ in conjunction (
Revelations 5:13,
7:10).
Not less convincing is the use of the title
Lord (
Kyrios).
This term represents the
Hebrew Adonai, just as
God (
Theos)
represents
Elohim. The two are equally
Divine names (cf.
1 Corinthians 8:4). In the
Apostolic writings
Theos may
almost be said to be treated as a proper name of
God the Father, and
Kyrios of
the
Son (see, for example,
1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we
find
Kyrios used of the
Father (
1 Corinthians 3:5;
7:17) or
Theos of
Christ. The
Apostles from time to time apply to
Christ passages of the
Old Testament in which
Kyrios is
used, for example,
1 Corinthians 10:9 (
Numbers 21:7),
Hebrews 1:10-12 (
Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as
"the fear of the Lord" (
Acts 9:31;
2 Corinthians 5:11;
Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the
Lord," indifferently of
God the Father and of
Christ (
Acts 2:21;
9:14;
Romans 10:13). The profession that "
Jesus is the Lord" (
Kyrion
Iesoun,
Romans 10:9;
Kyrios Iesous,
1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of
Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which
St. Paul affirms that in
Christ dwells the plenitude of the
Godhead (
Colossians 2:9), that before His
Incarnation He possessed the
essential nature of God (
Philippians 2:6), that He "is over all things,
God blessed for ever" (
Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in
many other passages of his
Epistles.
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian
doctrine are all expressly taught in the
New Testament. The Divinity of the Three
Persons is asserted or implied in passages too
numerous to count. The unity of
essence is not merely postulated by the strict
monotheism of men nurtured in the
religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate
deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved
in the
baptismal commission of
Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the
Son, expressly asserted in
John 10:38. That the
Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere
corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the
doctrine of the first procession is contained
in the very terms
Father and
Son:
the procession of the
Holy Spirit from the Father
and Son is taught in the discourse of the
Lord reported by St. John (
14-17) (see
HOLY GHOST).
Old Testament
The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of
the
doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the
Old Testament and they found such indications
in not a few passages. Many of them not merely
believed that the
Prophets had testified of it, they held that it
had been made
known even to the
Patriarchs. They regarded it as
certain that the Divine messenger of
Genesis 16:7,
16:18,
21:17,
31:11;
Exodus 3:2, was
God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III.
B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus
manifested Himself (cf.
Justin,
Dialogue with Trypho 60;
Irenaeus,
Against Heresies IV.20.7-11;
Tertullian,
Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus,
To Autolycus II.22;
Novatian,
On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the
inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of
the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one
or two (
Irenaeus,
Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus,
To Autolycus II.15;
Hippolytus,
Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the
Sapiential books, not, with
St. Paul, of the
Son (
Hebrews 1:3; cf.
Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the
Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found
what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the
doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf.
Gregory Nazianzen,
Fifth Theological
Oration 31;
Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil,
Against Eunomius II.22;
Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)
Some of these, however, admitted that a
knowledge of the
mystery was granted to the
Prophets and
saints of the
Old Dispensation (Epiphanius,
"Haer.", viii, 5;
Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I).
It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the
revelation in some of the
prophecies. The names
Emmanuel (
Isaiah 7:14) and
God the Mighty (
Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the
Messias make mention of the
Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems
that the Gospel
revelation was needed to render the full
meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the
Jews to recognize that the
Saviour to come was to be none other than
God Himself. The
Septuagint translators do not even venture to
render the words
God the Mighty literally,
but give us, in their place, "the
angel of great counsel."
A still higher stage of preparation is found in the
doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the
Divine Wisdom. In
Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a
manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor,
but had before his
mind a real
person (cf.
verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in
Ecclesiasticus 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is
declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the
presence of the
angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be
conceived as
person. The
nature of the
personality is left obscure; but we are told
that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the
works of
God, but that
Israel is in a special manner her portion and
her inheritance (
Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13).
In the
Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still
further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from
Jehovah: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation
of the
glory of the
almighty God. . .the brightness of
eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of
God's majesty, and the image of his
goodness" (
Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf.
Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as
"the worker of all things" (
panton technitis,
7:21), an expression indicating that the
creation is in some manner attributable to her.
Yet in later
Judaism this exalted
doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have
passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though
it manifests some
knowledge of a second
personality in the
Godhead, constitutes a
revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the
Old Testament do we find any clear indication
of a Third
Person. Mention is often made of the
Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show
that the
Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh
Himself. The term is always employed to signify
God considered in His working, whether in the
universe or in the
soul of
man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by
Epiphanius, when he says: "The One
Godhead is above all declared by
Moses, and the twofold
personality (of Father and
Son) is strenuously asserted by the
Prophets. The Trinity is made
known by the Gospel" ("Haer.",
lxxiv).
Proof of the doctrine from tradition
In this section we shall show that the
doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the
earliest times been taught by the
Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none
deny this for any period subsequent to the
Arian and
Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient
if we here consider the
faith of the first four centuries only. An
argument of very great weight is provided in the
liturgical forms of the
Church. The highest
probative force must necessarily attach to
these, since they express not the private opinion of a single
individual, but the public
belief of the whole body of the
faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of
Christians on the subject were vague and
confused, and that their
liturgical forms reflect this frame of
mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any
Christian might be called on to seal with his
blood his
belief that there is but
One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250)
to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I
offer no sacrifice save to the
One True God," is typical of many such replies
in the
Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to
suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this
fundamental
truth were in point of fact in so great
confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their
creed was
monotheistic, ditheistic, or
tritheistic. Moreover, we
know that their instruction regarding the
doctrines of their religion was solid. The
writers of that age bear
witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly
familiar with the
truths of
faith (cf.
Justin,
First Apology 60;
Irenaeus,
Against Heresies III.4.2).
(1) Baptismal formulas
We may notice first the
baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be
primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by
Christ (
Matthew 28:19) clearly express the
Godhead of the Three
Persons as well as their distinction, but
another consideration may here be added.
Baptism, with its formal renunciation of
Satan and his works, was understood to be the
rejection of the
idolatry of
paganism and the
solemn consecration of the
baptised to the
one true God (
Tertullian,
De Spectaculis 4;
Justin,
First Apology 4). The act of
consecration was the invocation over them of
the Father,
Son, and
Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the
Second and Third
Persons as
created beings, and were in fact consecrating
themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd.
St. Hippolytus has expressed the
faith of the
Church in the clearest terms: "He who
descends into this laver of
regeneration with
faith forsakes the
Evil One and engages himself to
Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that
Christ is
God . . . he returns from the font a
son of God and a coheir of
Christ. To Whom with the all
holy, the
good and lifegiving
Spirit be
glory now and always, forever and ever.
Amen" (
Sermon on Theophany 10).
(2) The doxologies
The
witness of the
doxologies is no less striking. The form now
universal, "
Glory be to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the
Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the
Trinitarian
dogma that the
Arians found it
necessary to deny that it had been in use
previous to the
time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius,
"Hist. eccl.", III, xiii).
It is
true that up to the period of the
Arian controversy another form, "
Glory to the Father, through the
Son, in the
Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf.
Clement's Epistle to
the Corinthians 58-59;
Justin,
First Apology 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly
consistent with Trinitarian
belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of
the Three
Persons, but their operation in regard to
man. We live in the
Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in
Christ (
Galatians 5:25;
Romans 8:9); and it is through
Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer
praise to
God (
Hebrews 13:15).
But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers
which show that the form, "
Glory be to the Father and to the
Son, and to [with] the
Holy Spirit," was also in use.
(3) Other patristic writings
The
doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in
every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the
apologists we may note
Justin,
First Apology 6;
Athenagoras,
A Plea for the
Christians 12. The
latter tells us that
Christians "are conducted to the future
life by this one thing alone, that they
know God and His
Logos, what is the oneness of the
Son with the Father, what the communion of the
Father with the
Son, what is the
Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the
Spirit, the
Son, and the Father, and their distinction in
unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure
that an
apologist, writing for
pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt
with this
doctrine.
(4) As contrasted with heretical
teachings
The controversy with the Sabellians in the third
century
proves conclusively that she would tolerate no
deviation from Trinitarian
doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the
error, was condemned by a local
synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the
same
heresy at
Rome c. A.D. 220, was
excommunicated by
St. Callistus.
Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260)
Denis of Alexandria found that the
error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis,
and he addressed a
dogmatic letter against it to two
bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order
to emphasize the distinction between the
Persons, he termed the
Son poiema tou Theou and
used other expressions capable of suggesting that the
Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was
accused of
heterodoxy to
St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and
addressed to him a letter dealing with the
true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The
Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of
his
orthodoxy entitled
"Elegxhos
kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had been
erroneous. He expressly professes his
belief in the consubstantiality of the
Son, using the very term,
homoousios,
which afterwards became the touchstone of
orthodoxy at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story
of the controversy is conclusive as to the
doctrinal standard of the
Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting
on the one hand any confusion of the
Persons and on the other hand any denial of
their consubstantiality.
Later controversy
Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just
summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the
seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian
doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The
Socinian writers of the seventeenth century
(e.g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668)
asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works
shows that they agreed not with
Athanasius, but with
Arius.
Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his
great
theological work, was convinced by their
arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into
grave
errors. On the other hand, their
orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the
Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio
Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by
Bossuet,
Thomassinus, and other
Catholic theologians. Those who take the less favourable view
assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene
belief of the
Church:
- That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and not equal to
the Father;
- that the Son alone appeared in the
theophanies of the Old Testament, inasmuchas the Father is
essentially invisible, the Son, however, not so;
- that the Son is a created being;
- that the
generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time.
We
shall examine these four points in order.
(1) In
proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers
deny the equality of the
Son with the Father, passages are cited from
Justin (
First Apology 13, 32),
Irenaeus (
Against Heresies III.8.3),
Clement of Alexandria (
Stromata VII.2),
Hippolytus (
Against Noetus 14),
Origen (
Against Celsus VIII.15). Thus
Irenaeus (
Against Heresies III.8.3) says: "He commanded, and they
were
created . . . Whom did He command? His
Word, by whom, says the
Scripture, the heavens were established. And
Origen (
Against Celsus VIII.15) says: "We declare that the
Son is not mightier than the Father, but
inferior to Him. And this
belief we ground on the saying of
Jesus Himself: "The Father who sent me is
greater than I."
Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in
mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three
Persons insofar as they are equally possessed
of the Divine
Nature or we may consider the
Son and the
Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the
sole source of
Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have
and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the
Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent
previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole
source of all, may be termed greater than the
Son. Thus
Athanasius, Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen,
Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the
Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all
treat our
Lord's words, teaches "The Father is
greater than I" as having reference to His
Godhead (cf.
Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11).
From this point of view it may be said that in the
creation of the world the Father commanded, the
Son obeyed. The expression is not one which would have
been employed by
Latin writers who insist that
creation and all
God's works proceed from Him as One and not
from the
Persons as distinct from each other. But this
truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers.
(2)
Justin (
Dialogue with Trypho 60)
Irenaeus (
Against Heresies IV.20.7-11),
Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27;
Against Praxeas 15-16),
Novatian (
On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus (
To Autolycus II.22), are accused of teaching that the theophanies
were incompatible with the
essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with
that of the
Son. In this case also the difficulty is largely
removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine
operations as proceeding from the Three
Persons as such, and not from the
Godhead viewed as one. Now
Revelation teaches us that in the work of the
creation and
redemption of the world the Father effects His
purpose through the
Son. Through Him He
made the world; through Him He
redeemed it; through Him He will judge it.
Hence it was
believed by these writers that, having regard
to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been
the work of the
Son. Moreover, in
Colossians 1:15, the
Son is expressly termed "the image of the
invisible
God" (
eikon tou Theou rou
aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict
literalness. The function of an
eikon is
to manifest what is itself hidden (cf.
St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n.
17). Hence they held that the work of
revealing the Father belongs by
nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and
concluded that the theophanies were His work.
Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In
Colossians 1:16,
St. Paul says that all things were
created in the
Son. This was understood to signify that
creation took place according to exemplar
ideas predetermined by
God and existing in the
Word. In view of this, it might be said that the
Father
created the
Word, this term being used in place of the more
accurate
generated, inasmuch as the
exemplar
ideas of
creation were communicated by the Father to the
Son. Or, again, the actual
Creation of the world might be termed the
creation of the
Word, since it takes place according to the
ideas which exist in the
Word. The context invariably shows that the passage
is to be understood in one or another of these senses.
The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it
certainly would never have been employed but for the verse,
Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in the
Septuagint and the old
Latin versions, "The
Lord created (
ektise) me,
who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having
reference to the
Son, it gave rise to the question how it could be
said that Wisdom was
created (
Origen,
De Principiis I.2.3). It is further to be remembered that
accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three
Persons was the fruit of the controversies
which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were
not concerned with
Arianism, and employed expressions which in the
light of subsequent
errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate,
but dangerous.
What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word of God Who is also His Son? . . . For before anything came into being, He
had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought [i.e. as the logos
endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to make all that He had determined
on, then did He beget Him as the uttered Word [logos prophorikos],
the firstborn of all creation, not, however, Himself being left without Reason (logos),
but having begotten Reason, and ever holding converse with Reason.
Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the
influence of the
Stoic philosophy: the
logos endiathetos and
logos
prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is
evident that these
apologists were seeking to explain the
Christian Faith to their
pagan readers in terms with which the latter
were familiar. Some
Catholic writers have indeed thought that the
influence of their previous training did lead some of them into
Subordinationism, although the
Church herself was never involved in the
error (see
LOGOS). Yet it does not seem
necessary to adopt this conclusion. If the
point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they
are, will be seen not to be incompatible with
orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded
Proverbs 8:22, and
Colossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there
is a sense in which the
Word, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be
said to have been begotten also in
time. This
temporal generation they conceived to be none
other than the act of
creation. They viewed this as the complement of the
eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the
external manifestation of those creative
ideas which from all
eternity the Father has communicated to the
Eternal Word. Since, in the very same works which
contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching
explicitly the
eternity of the
Son, it appears most natural to interpret them in
this sense.
It should further be
remembered that throughout this period
theologians, when treating of the relation of the
Divine
Persons to each other, invariably regard them
in connection with the
cosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they
learn to prescind from the question of
creation and deal with the threefold
Personality exclusively from the point of view
of the Divine life of the
Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions
such as these became impossible.
The trinity as a mystery
The
Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be
attributed to the term
mystery in
theology. It lays down that a
mystery is a
truth which we are not merely incapable of
discovering apart from
Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed,
remains "hidden by the veil of
faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of
darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words,
our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as
part of the
Divine message. Through
analogies and types we can form a
representative concept expressive of what is
revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller
knowledge which supposes that the various
elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility
manifest. As regards the vindication of a
mystery, the office of the natural
reason is solely to show that it contains no
intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on
Reason. "Expressions such as these are
undoubtedly the score that it violates the
laws of thought is invalid. More than this it
cannot do.
The
Vatican Council further
defined that the
Christian Faith contains
mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All
theologians admit that the
doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of
these. Indeed, of all
revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to
reason. Hence, to declare this to be no
mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon
in question. Moreover, our
Lord's words,
Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the
Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly
that the plurality of
Persons in the
Godhead is a
truth entirely beyond the scope of any
created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which
the incomprehensibility of the Divine
Nature is affirmed.
St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase:
"The
true profession of the
mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not
comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio
scientiae — "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the
Eunomians, who declared that the Divine
Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely
simple notion of "the Innascible" (
agennetos),
and that this was fully comprehensible by the
human mind, led many of the
Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of
the Divine
Nature, more especially in regard to the internal
processions.
St. Basil,
Against Eunomius I.14;
St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catechetical Lectures VI;
St. John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith I.2, etc.).
At a later
date, however, some famous names are to be found
defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64),
Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."),
Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III,
xi), and
Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.",
III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why
God should be both One and Three. In
explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of
philosophy to
revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only
after the
Aristotelean system had obtained recognition
from
theologians was this question thoroughly
treated. In the
intellectual ferment of the
time Abelard initiated a
Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim
a
knowledge of the Trinity for the
pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian
doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's
error was due not to
Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the
Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas".
Hugh and
Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly
influenced by
Abelard's teaching.
Raymond Lully's (1235-1315)
errors in this regard were even more extreme.
They were expressly condemned by
Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century
the influence of the prevailing
Rationalism manifested itself in several
Catholic writers. Frohschammer and
Günther both asserted that the
dogma of the Trinity was capable of
proof.
Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than
one occasion (
Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was
to guard against this tendency that the
Vatican Council issued the
decrees to which reference has been made. A
somewhat similar, though less aggravated,
error on the part of
Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887
(Denz., 1915).
The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology
This is entirely different from the Greek point of
view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct
Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and
origin of all, the name of
God (
Theos) more
especially belongs; the
Son, proceeding from the Father by an
eternal generation, and therefore rightly
termed
God also; and the
Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through
the
Son. The
Personality is treated as
logically prior to the
Nature. Just as
human nature is something which the
individual men possesses, and which can only be
conceived as belonging to and dependent on the
individual, so the Divine
Nature is something which belongs to the
Persons and cannot be conceived independently
of Them.
The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the
question of
creation. All
Western theologians teach that
creation, like all
God's external works, proceeds from Him as One:
the separate
Personalities do not enter into consideration.
The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each
Person exercises a separate office.
Irenaeus replies to the
Gnostics, who held that the world was
created by a
demiurge other than the
supreme God, by affirming that
God is the one Creator, and that He made all
things by His
Word and His Wisdom, the
Son and the
Spirit (
Against Heresies I.22,
II.4.4-5,
II.30.9 and
IV.20.1). A formula often found among the
Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father
and are effected by the
Son in the
Spirit (
Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil,
On the Holy Spirit 38;
Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.",
VI). Thus, too,
Hippolytus (
Against Noetus 10) says that
God has fashioned all things by His
Word and His Wisdom creating them by His
Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (
gar
ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon).
The
Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point
of view. In it we still profess our
belief "in one
God the Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth . . . and in one
Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were
made . . . and in the
Holy Ghost."
The divine unity
The
Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the
doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly
their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the
West. The
consubstantiality of the
Persons is asserted by
St. Irenæus when he tells us that
God created the world by His
Son and His
Spirit, "His two hands" (
Against Heresies IV.20.1). The purport of the phrase is
evidently to indicate that the Second and Third
Persons are not substantially distinct from the
First. A more
philosophical description is the
doctrine of the Recapitulation (
sygkephalaiosis).
This seems to be first found in the correspondence between
St. Denis of Alexandria and
St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We
thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the
Monad [the First
Person] to the Trinity, without causing any
division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the
Monad without causing diminution" (
outo
men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada
palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha — P.G., XXV,
504). Here the
consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground
that the
Son and
Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless
not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be
regarded as contained within Him.
This
doctrine supposes a point of view very
different from that with which we are now familiar. The
Greek Fathers regarded the
Son as the Wisdom and power of the Father (
1 Corinthians 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like
manner, the
Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from the
Son the Father would be without His Wisdom;
apart from the
Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus
the
Son and the
Spirit are termed "Powers" (
Dynameis)
of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and
faculties are mere
accidental perfections, in the
Godhead they are subsistent hypostases.
Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and
Third
Persons as the Father's "Powers",
speaks of the First
Person as being "extended" to them,
and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from
Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of
Deity alone, we find in Him undiminished all
that is contained in them.
The
Arian controversy led to insistence on the
Homoüsia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting
point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective
analysis. The sonship of the
Second Person implies that He has received the
Divine
Nature in its fullness, for all generation
implies the origination of one who is like in
nature to the originating principle. But here,
mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine
Essence is not capable of numerical
multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same
nature which both possess. A similar line of
argument establishes that the Divine
Nature as communicated to the
Holy Spirit is not specifically, but
numerically, one with that of the Father and the
Son. Unity of
nature was understood by the
Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of
action (
energeia). This they declared the Three
Persons to possess (
Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13;
Basil,
Epistle 189, no. 7;
Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom., "
John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith III.14). Here we see an important advance in
the
theology of the
Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers
invariably conceive the Three
Persons as each exercising a distinct and
separate function.
Finally we have the
doctrine of Circuminsession (
perichoresis).
By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three
Persons. The term
perichoresis is
first used by
St. John Damascene. Yet the
doctrine is found much earlier. Thus
St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the
Son is called the
Word and Wisdom of the Father "because of
the reciprocal inherence of these and the
mind" (
dia ten eis allela . .
. ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen).
St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for
this inexistence of the
Persons. In some passages he explains it by the
doctrine already mentioned, that the
Son and the
Spirit are
dynameis of
the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the
Circuminsession is a corollary of the
doctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands
it as signifying the identity of
essence, will, and action in the
Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to the
individual, as is the case in all creatures, there,
he tells us, we have separate
existence (
kechorismenos einai).
In the
Godhead the
essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have
not separate
existence, but Circuminsession (
perichoresis)
(
Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its
basis in the
Homoüsia.
It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well
adapted to meet the cavils of the
Arian and
Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developed
by
St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the
fourth century brought some of the
Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of
Latin theology. We have seen that they were led to affirm
the action of the Three
Persons to be but one.
Didymus even employs expressions which seem to
show that he, like the
Latins, conceived the
Nature as
logically antecedent to the
Persons. He understands the term
God as
signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father
alone: "When we
pray, whether we say
'Kyrie eleison', or 'O
God aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we
include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one
Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix).
Mediate and immediate procession
The
doctrine that the
Spirit is the image of the
Son, as the
Son is the image of the Father, is
characteristic of Greek
theology. It is asserted by
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his
Creed. It is assumed by
St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in
his controversy with the
Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II,
i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I,
xix) and by
St. Gregory Nazianzen (
Orations 31.31-32), of the Three Divine
Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to
the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in
St. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus
assert.", 33),
St. John Damascene (
Of the Orthodox Faith I.13), etc. This supposes that the procession
of the
Son from the Father is immediate; that of the
Spirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds
from the Father through the
Son.
Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who
used these expressions conceived the Divine
Procession as taking place, so to speak, along
a straight line (P.G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in
Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity
has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three
Persons one to another being precisely similar.
The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads
inevitably to very different expressions of the same
dogmatic truth. It is plain that these Fathers would have
rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later
Photian heresy that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
(For this question the reader is referred to
HOLY GHOST.)
The Son
The Greek
theology of the Divine Generation differs in
certain particulars from the
Latin. Most
Western theologians base their theory on the
name,
Logos, given by St. John to
the Second
Person. This they understand in the sense of
"concept" (
verbum mentale), and hold
that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the
created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek
writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine
Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We
know by
revelation that
God has a
Son; and various other terms besides
Son employed
regarding Him in
Scripture, such as
Word, Brightness of His
glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as
free from any relation. More we
know not (cf.
Gregory Nazianzen,
Oration 29.8,
Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catechetical Lectures XI.19;
John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). One explanation only can be given,
namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in
God the Absolutely Perfect (
St. John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Indeed it would seem that the great
majority of the
Greek Fathers understood
logos not
of the
mental thought; but of the uttered word (
Athanasius,
Dionysius of
Alexandria, ibid.;
Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They
did not see in the term a
revelation that the
Son is begotten by way of
intellectual procession, but viewed it as a
metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of
human sonship (
Gregory of Nyssa,
Against Eunomius IV;
Gregory Nazianzen,
Oration 30; Basil, "Hom. xvi";
Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.",
vi).
We have already adverted to the view that the
Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in
the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the
time of
Origen to that of
St. John Damascene (
Origen apud Athanasius,
De decr. Nic.;
Athanasius,
Against the Arians I;
Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus";
John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith I.12). It is based on the
Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School.
This differs in a fundamental point from the
Aristoteleanism of the
Scholastic theologians. In
Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived
statically. No action, transient or
immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that
agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in
the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection
must be sought in dynamic activity.
God, as the supreme perfection, is from all
eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself
with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not
accidents, but subsistent realities. To these
thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that
God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result
of His own
immanent action, powerful with the Power which
proceeds from Him. The arguments of the
Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this
philosophy as their basis; and unless it be
clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to
us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting
Arianism that, if there were a
time when the
Son was not, it follows that
God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of
Power — a conclusion from which even
Arians would shrink.
The Holy Spirit
A point which in
Western theology gives occasion for some discussion is
the question as to why the
Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed
the
Holy Spirit.
St. Augustine suggests that it is because He
proceeds from both the Father and the
Son, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable
to both (
On the Trinity XV.37). To the
Greek Fathers, who developed the
theology of the
Spirit in the light of the
philosophical principles which we have just
noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held,
reveals to us His distinctive
character as the Third
Person, just as the names
Father and
Son manifest
the distinctive characters of the First and Second
Persons (cf.
Gregory Thaumaturgus,
Declaration of Faith;
Basil,
Epistle 214.4;
Gregory Nazianzen,
Oration 25.16). He is
autoagiotes,
the hypostatic
holiness of
God, the
holiness by which
God is
holy. Just as the
Son is the Wisdom and Power by which
God is wise and powerful, so the
Spirit is the Holiness by which He is
holy. Had there ever been a
time, as the
Macedonians dared to say, when the
Holy Spirit was not, then at that
time God would have not been
holy (
St. Gregory Nazianzen,
Oration 31.4).
On the other hand,
pneuma was
often understood in the light of
John 10:22 where
Christ, appearing to the
Apostles, breathed on them and conferred on them the
Holy Spirit. He is the breath of
Christ (
John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith I.8), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in
us as the breath of
life by which we enjoy the
supernatural life of
God's children (
Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf.
Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the
Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the
supernatural order is, however, conceived in a
manner somewhat different from that of
Western theologians. According to
Western doctrine,
God bestows on
man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that
gift the Three
Persons come to his
soul.
In Greek
theology the order is reversed: the
Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have
received
sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we
receive the
gift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the
Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be
present to secure the continued
existence of the impression. Apart from Him it
is not found (
Origen,
Commentary on John II.6;
Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11;
Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii).
This Union with the
Holy Spirit constitutes our deification (
theopoiesis).
Inasmuch as He is the image of
Christ, He imprints the likeness of
Christ upon us; since
Christ is the image of the Father, we too
receive the
true character of
God's children (
Athanasius, loc. cit.;
Gregory Nazianzen,
Oration 31.4). It is in reference to this work in
our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the
Holy Spirit is termed the Giver of
life (
zoopoios).
In the
West we more naturally speak of grace as the
life of the
soul. But to the Greeks it was the
Spirit through whose personal presence we live.
Just as
God gave natural
life to
Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the
breath of
life, so did
Christ give spiritual
life to us when He bestowed on us the
gift of the
Holy Ghost.
The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology
The transition to the
Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of
St. Augustine.
Western theologians have never departed from the main
lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of
Scholasticism his system was developed, its
details completed, and its terminology perfected.
It received its final and classical form from
St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is
necessary first to indicate in what consisted
the transition effected by
St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three
points:
- He views the
Divine Nature as prior to the
Personalities. Deus is for him not God the Father, but the Trinity. This
was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity
of God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek
system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and
it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it
the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of Augustine's genius.
- He insists
that every external operation of God is due to the whole Trinity,
and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we have seen, been
led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three Persons was one, and one alone. But
the doctrine of appropriation was unknown to them,
and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the distinct
activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- By indicating
the analogy between the two processions
within the Godhead and the internal acts of
thought and will in the human mind (On the
Trinity IX.3.3 and X.11.17), he became the founder of the
psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions,
was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer.
The Son
Among the terms employed in
Scripture to designate the Second
Person of the Blessed Trinity is the
Word (
John 1:1). This is understood by
St. Thomas of the
Verbum
mentale, or
intellectual concept. As applied to the
Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds
from the Father as the term of an
intellectual procession, in a manner analogous
to that in which a concept is generated by the
human mind in all acts of natural
knowledge. It is, indeed, of
faith that the
Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable
generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before
all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine
Person as the term of the act by which
God knows His own
nature is rightly called
generation.
This may be readily shown. As an act of
intellectual conception, it necessarily
produces the likeness of the object
known. And further, being Divine action, it is not
an
accidental act resulting in a term, itself a
mere
accident, but the act is the very
substance of the Divinity, and the term is
likewise
substantial. A process tending necessarily to the
production of a
substantial term like in
nature to the
Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of
generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the
Son, a difficulty was felt by
St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it
would seem to involve that each of the Three
Persons must needs generate a subsistent
Word. Since all the Powers possess the same
mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each
case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty
St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to
his
psychology the formation of a concept is not
essential to thought as such, though absolutely
requisite to all natural
human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in
reason, apart from
revelation, for holding that the Divine
intellect produces a
Verbum
mentale. It is the testimony of
Scripture alone which tells us that the Father
has from all
eternity begotten His
consubstantial Word. But neither
reason nor
revelation suggests it in the case of the
Second and Third Persons (
I:34:1, ad 3).
Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is
sufficient consensus among the Fathers and
Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the
names
Word and
Wisdom (
Proverbs 8), applied to the
Son, for us to regard the
intellectual procession of the
Second Person as at least theologically
certain, if not a
revealed truth (cf.
Francisco Suárez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4;
Petavius, VI, i, 7;
Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This,
however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the
Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret
logos of
the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any
teaching as to
intellectual procession, but in the fact that
it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as
to the interpretation of
Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these
facts the opinion of those
theologians seems the sounder who regard this
explanation of the procession simply as a
theological opinion of great probability and
harmonizing well with
revealed truth.
The Holy Spirit
Just as the
Son proceeds as the term of the
immanent act of the
intellect, so does the
Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act of
the Divine will. In
human love, as
St. Thomas teaches (
I:27:3), even though the object be external to us,
yet the
immanent act of
love arouses in the
soul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an
impression of the thing
loved. In virtue of this the object of
love is present to our affections, much as, by
means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our
intellect. This experience is the term of the
internal act. The
Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the
Father and the
Son as the term of the
love by which
God loves Himself. He is not the
love of
God in the sense of being Himself formally the
love by which
God loves; but in
loving Himself
God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is
Hypostatic
Love. Here, however, it is
necessary to safeguard a point of revealed
doctrine. It is of
faith that the procession of the
Holy Spirit is not generation. The
Son is "the only begotten of the
Father" (
John 1:14). And the
Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that
the
Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the
Son, neither made, nor
created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
If the
immanent act of the
intellect is rightly termed
generation,
on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers
given in reply to this difficulty by
St. Thomas,
Richard of St. Victor, and
Alexander of Hales are very different. It will
be sufficient here to note
St. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession,
he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the
thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the
primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his
love. This difference in the acts explains why the
name
generation is applicable
only to the act of the
intellect. Generation is essentially the production
of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can
claim the name.
The
doctrine of the procession of the
Holy Spirit by means of the act of the Divine
will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who
simply declare the procession of the
Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is
it found in the
Latins before his
time. He mentions the opinion with favour in the
"De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and
in the
"De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it
at length. His teaching was accepted by the
West. The
Scholastics seek for
Scriptural support for it in the name
Holy
Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names
Father and
Son,
a name expressive of a relation within the
Godhead proper to the
Person who bears it. Now the attribute
holy,
as applied to
person or thing, signifies that the being of
which it is affirmed is devoted to
God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a
Divine
Person as designating the relation uniting Him
to the other
Persons, it must signify that the procession
determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to
God. But that by which any
person is devoted to
God is
love. The argument is ingenious, but hardly
convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning
regarding the name
Spirit (
I:36:1). The
Latin theory is a noble effort of the
human reason to penetrate the verities which
revelation has left veiled in
mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all
the
truths of
faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a
fuller comprehension of the fundamental
doctrine of the
Christian religion. But more than this must not be
claimed. It does not possess the sanction of
revelation.
The divine relations
The existence of relations in the
Godhead may be immediately inferred from the
doctrine of processions, and as such is a
truth of
Revelation. Where there is a real procession the
principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the
Son and the procession of the
Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real
and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian
doctrine was familiar to the
Greek Fathers. In answer to the
Eunomian objection, that
consubstantiality rendered any distinction
between the
Persons impossible,
Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold
that the
nature [in the Three
Persons] is not different, we do not deny the
difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the
source [
ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in
this alone do we admit that one
Person differs from another" ("Quod
non sunt tres dii"; cf.
Gregory Nazianzen,
Fifth Theological
Oration 9;
John Damascene,
Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Augustine insists that of the ten
Aristotelean categories two, stance and
relation, are found in
God (
On the Trinity V.5). But it was at the hands the
Scholastic theologians that the question received its full
development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part
of the
dogma, were found to throw great light upon the
mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections
urged against it.
From the fact that there are two processions in
Godhead, each involving both a principle and term,
it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (
paternitas and
spiratio)
and two of procession (
filiatio and
processio).
These relations are what constitute the distinction between the
Persons. They cannot be distinguished by any
absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the
infinite Divine
Nature and this is common to the Three
Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be in
the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely
certain by all
theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of
St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by
St. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii)
and received
ecclesiastical sanction in the "Decretum pro
Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat
relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four
relations suppose but Three
Persons. For there is no relative opposition between
spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence
the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in
virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and
the same Divine
Nature, so they possess the same
virtus
spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of
the
Holy Spirit.
Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct
realities in the
Godhead, it follows that the Divine
Persons are none other than these relations.
The Father is the Divine Paternity, the
Son the Divine Filiation, the
Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must
be borne in mind that the relations are not mere
accidental determinations as these abstract
terms might suggest. Whatever is in
God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme
Substance, transcending the divisions of the
Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is
both
substance and relation. (How it is that there
should be in
God real relations, though it is altogether
impossible that
quantity or
quality should be found in Him, is a question
involving a discussion regarding the
metaphysics of relations, which would be out of
place in an article such as the present.)
It will be seen that the
doctrine of the Divine relations provides an
answer to the objection that the
dogma of the Trinity involves the
falsity of the axiom that things which are
identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the
axiom is perfectly
true in regard to absolute entities, to which
alone it refers. But in the
dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the
Father and
Son are alike identical with the Divine
Essence, we are affirming that the Supreme
Infinite Substance is identical not with two absolute
entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their
nature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed
the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there
are Three
Persons in the
Godhead none can be
infinite, for each must lack something which the
others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like
quantity or
quality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm
again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other
than itself. The whole perfection of the
Godhead is contained in the one
infinite Divine
Essence. The Father is that
Essence as it
eternally regards the
Son and the
Spirit; the
Son is that
Essence as it
eternally regards the Father and the
Spirit; the
Holy Spirit is that
Essence as it
eternally regards the Father and the
Son. But the
eternal regard by which each of the Three
Persons is constituted is not an addition to
the
infinite perfection of the
Godhead.
The theory of relations also indicates the solution to
the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged
that since there are Three
Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses:
but the Divine
mind ex hypothesi is
one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the
dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction.
This whole objection rests on a
petitio principii:
for it takes for granted the identification of
person and of
mind with self-consciousness. This
identification is rejected by
Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither
person nor
mind is self-consciousness; though a
person must needs possess self-consciousness,
and
consciousness attests the
existence of
mind (see
PERSONALITY). Granted that in the
infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there
are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from
another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the
same
mind will have a three-fold
consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in
accordance with its three modes of
existence. It is impossible to establish that, in
regard of the
infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.
The question was raised by the
Scholastics: In what sense are we to understand the
Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and
filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the
Son; the relations of spiration and procession, to
an act by which Father and
Son breathe forth the
Holy Spirit.
St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical
with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on
our part is different (
I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the
forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world
in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the
effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change
action,
and its reception
passion. Thus, action and
passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in
the
Godhead origination is
eternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the
term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely
the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is
unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent
this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are
hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express
verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that
the
Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms
seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We
know, indeed, that in the Divine
Persons there can be no composition: they are
absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one
Personality, not withstanding its simplicity, is
related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this
save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (
I:32:2).
Divine mission
It has been seen that every action of
God in regard of the
created world proceeds from the Three
Persons indifferently. In what sense, then, are
we to understand such texts as "
God sent . . . his
Son into the world" (
John 3:17), and "the
Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the
Father" (
John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of the
Son and of the
Holy Spirit? To this it is answered that mission
supposes two
conditions:
- That the person sent should in some way
proceed from the sender and
- that the person sent should come to be at
the place indicated.
The
procession, however, may take place in various ways — by command, or counsel,
or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree
sends forth buds. The second condition, too, is satisfied either if the person sent comes to be somewhere where
previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be
there in a new manner. Though God the Son was already present in the
world by reason of His Godhead, His Incarnation made Him present there in a
new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father,
He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the
mission of the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the
Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as the
object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the object of
experimental love. By reason of this new mode of presence
common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third Persons, inasmuch
as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a procession, may be said to be sent into the soul. (See also HOLY GHOST; LOGOS; MONOTHEISTS; UNITARIANS.)
Sources
Among the numerous patristic works on this
subject, the following call for special mention: ST. ATHANASIUS, Orationes
quatuor contra Arianos; IDEM, Liber de Trinitate et
Spiritu Sancto; ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orationes
V de theologia; DIDYMUS ALEX., Libri III de Trinitate;
IDEM, Liber de Spir. Sancto; ST.
HILARY OF POITIERS, Libri XII de Trinitate; ST.
AUGUSTINE, Libri XV de Trinitate; ST.
JOHN DAMASCENE, Liber de Trinitate;
IDEM, De fide orthodoxa, I.
Among the medieval theologians: ST. ANSELM, Lib. I. de fide
Trinitatis; RICHARD OF ST. VICTOR, Libri VI de Trinitate;
ST.THOMAS, Summa, I, xxvii-xliii;
BESSARION, Liber de Spiritu Saneto contra Marcum
Ephesinum.
Among more recent writers: PETAVIUS, De Trinitate;
NEWMAN. Causes of the Rise and Success of
Arianism in Theol. Tracts. (London, 1864).
Joyce, George. "The
Blessed Trinity." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 7 Jun. 2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm>.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil
Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Copyright © 2020 by Kevin Knight.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
BENEDETTO XVI
ANGELUS
Solennità della Santissima
Trinità
Piazza San Pietro
Domenica, 7 giugno 2009
Cari fratelli e sorelle!
Dopo il tempo pasquale, culminato nella festa di
Pentecoste, la liturgia prevede queste tre solennità del Signore: oggi, la
Santissima Trinità; giovedì prossimo, quella del Corpus Domini,
che, in molti Paesi tra cui l’Italia, verrà celebrata domenica prossima; e
infine, il venerdì successivo, la festa del Sacro Cuore di Gesù. Ciascuna di
queste ricorrenze liturgiche evidenzia una prospettiva dalla quale si abbraccia
l’intero mistero della fede cristiana: e cioè rispettivamente la realtà di Dio
Uno e Trino, il Sacramento dell’Eucaristia e il centro divino-umano della
Persona di Cristo. Sono in verità aspetti dell’unico mistero della salvezza,
che in un certo senso riassumono tutto l’itinerario della rivelazione di Gesù,
dall’incarnazione alla morte e risurrezione fino all’ascensione e al dono dello
Spirito Santo.
Quest’oggi contempliamo la Santissima Trinità così
come ce l’ha fatta conoscere Gesù. Egli ci ha rivelato che Dio è amore “non
nell’unità di una sola persona, ma nella Trinità di una sola sostanza” (Prefazio):
è Creatore e Padre misericordioso; è Figlio Unigenito, eterna Sapienza
incarnata, morto e risorto per noi; è finalmente Spirito Santo che tutto muove,
cosmo e storia, verso la piena ricapitolazione finale. Tre Persone che
sono un solo Dio perché il Padre è amore, il Figlio è amore,
lo Spirito è amore. Dio è tutto e solo amore, amore purissimo, infinito ed
eterno. Non vive in una splendida solitudine, ma è piuttosto fonte inesauribile
di vita che incessantemente si dona e si comunica. Lo possiamo in qualche
misura intuire osservando sia il macro-universo: la nostra terra, i pianeti, le
stelle, le galassie; sia il micro-universo: le cellule, gli atomi, le
particelle elementari. In tutto ciò che esiste è in un certo senso impresso il
“nome” della Santissima Trinità, perché tutto l’essere, fino alle ultime
particelle, è essere in relazione, e così traspare il Dio-relazione, traspare
ultimamente l’Amore creatore. Tutto proviene dall’amore, tende all’amore, e si
muove spinto dall’amore, naturalmente con gradi diversi di consapevolezza e di
libertà. “O Signore, Signore nostro, / quanto è mirabile il tuo nome su tutta
la terra!” (Sal 8,2) – esclama il salmista. Parlando del “nome” la
Bibbia indica Dio stesso, la sua identità più vera; identità che risplende su
tutto il creato, dove ogni essere, per il fatto stesso di esserci e per il
“tessuto” di cui è fatto, fa riferimento ad un Principio trascendente, alla
Vita eterna ed infinita che si dona, in una parola: all’Amore. “In lui – disse
san Paolo nell’Areòpago di Atene – viviamo, ci muoviamo ed esistiamo” (At 17,28).
La prova più forte che siamo fatti ad immagine della Trinità è questa: solo
l’amore ci rende felici, perché viviamo in relazione per amare e viviamo per
essere amati. Usando un’analogia suggerita dalla biologia, diremmo che l’essere
umano porta nel proprio “genoma” la traccia profonda della Trinità, di
Dio-Amore.
La Vergine Maria, nella sua docile umiltà, si è
fatta ancella dell’Amore divino: ha accolto la volontà del Padre e ha concepito
il Figlio per opera dello Spirito Santo. In Lei l’Onnipotente si è costruito un
tempio degno di Lui, e ne ha fatto il modello e l’immagine della Chiesa,
mistero e casa di comunione per tutti gli uomini. Ci aiuti Maria, specchio
della Trinità Santissima, a crescere nella fede nel mistero trinitario.
Dopo l'Angelus:
Rassemblés pour la prière de l’Angélus, en
ce dimanche de la Sainte Trinité, je suis particulièrement heureux de vous
saluer, chers pèlerins francophones. Aujourd’hui encore, l’Église nous demande
de contempler Dieu dans son mystère d’Amour. Il est Père, Fils et Esprit. A la
suite de Marie, je vous convie à vivre cet amour trinitaire afin d’en être ses
témoins dans notre monde qui en a tant besoin. En ce mois de juin, je vous
invite également à prier pour ceux qui vont être ordonnés prêtres ou diacres,
ainsi que pour les séminaristes et pour leurs formateurs. Avec ma Bénédiction
apostolique.
I extend cordial greetings to all the
English-speaking pilgrims here today on this feast of the Most Holy Trinity,
especially the members of the Holy Trinity Prayer Group from Texas. May the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit be with you all, and with your families and loved ones at home. And may
your stay in Rome strengthen your faith, fill you with hope in God’s promises
and inflame your hearts with his love. God bless all of you!
Gerne grüße ich die Pilger und Besucher deutscher
Sprache, die heute am Dreifaltigkeitssonntag zum Angelusgebet gekommen sind.
Mit dem Kreuzzeichen bekennen wir unseren Glauben an den Dreifaltigen Gott: Der
Vater hat im Sohn seine Liebe zu uns Menschen offenbart und schenkt uns im
Heiligen Geist das neue Leben als Kinder Gottes. Mit ganzem Herzen wollen wir
Gott lieben und so das Geheimnis seiner Liebe den Menschen verkünden. Der
Dreifaltige Gott erhalte uns alle in seiner Gnade.
Saludo con afecto a los peregrinos de lengua
española presentes en esta oración mariana y a todos los que se unen a ella a
través de la radio y la televisión. En esta solemnidad de la Santísima
Trinidad, os invito a proclamar nuestra fe en Dios Padre, que ha enviado al
mundo a su Hijo, Camino, Verdad y Vida, y al Espíritu de la santificación, para
revelar a los hombres su inmenso amor y rescatarlos del pecado y de la muerte.
Feliz domingo.
Serdeczne pozdrowienie kieruję do Polaków. Dziś, w
niedzielę Najświętszej Trójcy, w sposób szczególny wielbimy Boga Ojca,
Stworzyciela nieba i ziemi, który zesłał na świat swojego Syna Odkupiciela, i
Ducha Uświęciciela. Wyznajemy Trójcę Osób, ich jedność w istocie i równość w
majestacie. Niech ta wiara prowadzi nas do pełnego udziału w miłości Ojca i
Syna, i Ducha Świętego.
[Un cordiale saluto rivolgo ai polacchi. Oggi,
domenica della Santissima Trinità, in modo particolare adoriamo Dio Padre,
Creatore del cielo e della terra, che ha mandato nel mondo il suo Figlio,
Redentore, e lo Spirito Santificatore. Proclamiamo la Trinità delle Persone,
l’unità della natura e l’uguaglianza nella maestà. Questa fede ci porti alla
piena partecipazione all’amore del Padre e del Figlio e dello Spirito Santo.]
Rivolgo infine un cordiale saluto ai pellegrini di
lingua italiana, in particolare ai fedeli provenienti da Treviso, da Cagliari e
dalla parrocchia di Santa Maria Regina Pacis in Roma. Saluto
inoltre l’Associazione “Giacomo Cusmano” di Palermo. A tutti auguro una buona
domenica.
© Copyright 2009 - Libreria
Editrice Vaticana
Santissima Trinità
La solennità della Santissima Trinità ricorre ogni anno la domenica dopo
Pentecoste, quindi come festa del Signore. Si colloca pertanto come riflessione
su tutto il mistero che negli altri tempi è celebrato nei suoi diversi momenti
e aspetti. Fu introdotta soltanto nel 1334 da papa Giovanni XXII, mentre
l'antica liturgia romana non la conosceva.
Propone uno sguardo riconoscente al compimento del mistero della salvezza
realizzato dal Padre, per mezzo del Figlio, nello Spirito Santo. La messa
inizia con l'esaltazione del Dio Trinità "perché grande è il suo amore per
noi".
Martirologio Romano: Solennità della santissima e indivisa Trinità, in
cui professiamo e veneriamo Dio uno e trino e la Trinità nell’unità.
Un Mistero non contro la ragione
Il mistero della Santissima Trinità è un mistero e come tale non può essere
compreso. Ma non per questo è qualcosa d’irragionevole. Nella dottrina
cattolica ciò che è mistero è sì indimostrabile con la ragione, ma non è
irrazionale, cioè non è in contraddizione con la ragione.
La ragione conduce all’unicità di Dio: Dio è assoluto e logicamente non possono
esistere più assoluti. Ebbene, la ragionevolezza del mistero della Trinità sta
nel fatto che esso non afferma l’esistenza di tre dei, bensì di un solo Dio che
però è in tre Persone uguali e distinte. Nel Credo si afferma: «Credo in un
solo Dio in tre Persone uguali e distinte, Padre, Figlio e Spirito
Santo». Quale è il Padre, tale è il Figlio e tale è lo Spirito Santo.
Increato è il Padre, increato è il Figlio, increato è lo Spirito Santo.
Onnipotente è il Padre, onnipotente è il Figlio, onnipotente è lo Spirito
Santo. Tuttavia non vi sono tre increati, tre assoluti, tre onnipotenti, ma un
increato, un assoluto e un onnipotente. Dio e Signore è il Padre, Dio e Signore
è il Figlio, Dio e Signore è lo Spirito Santo; tuttavia non vi sono tre dei e
signori, ma un solo Dio, un solo Signore (Simbolo atanasiano).
Una possibile analogia
Per capire qualcosa della Trinità, ma senza la possibilità di esaurirne il
mistero, si può utilizzare questa analogia. La Sacra Scrittura dice che quando
Dio creò l’uomo, lo creò a sua “immagine” (Genesi 1,27). Dunque, nell’uomo si
trova una lontana ma comunque presente immagine della Santissima Trinità.
L’uomo possiede la mente e la mente genera il pensiero. Il pensiero,
contemplato dalla mente, è amato, e così dal pensiero e dalla mente procede
l’amore. Ora mente, pensiero, amore, sono tre cose ben distinte fra loro, ma
assolutamente inseparabili l’una dall’altra, tanto che si può dire che siano
nell’uomo una cosa sola.
Nella Trinità il Padre è mente, che da tutta l’eternità genera il suo Pensiero
perfettissimo (il Logos). Il Pensiero, generato eternamente dal Padre,
sussiste, come persona distinta, ed è lo Spirito Santo.
Ma come la mente, il pensiero e l’amore sono nell’uomo tre cose distinte, ma
assolutamente inseparabili, così il Padre, il Figlio e lo Spirito Santo,
sebbene sussistano come persone distinte, sono però un Dio solo.
Un grande insegnamento sull’amore vero
Fin qui cose che solitamente si conoscono. Invece ciò di cui solitamente non si
parla è il fatto che il mistero della Trinità esprime chiaramente quanto
l’amore debba essere giudicato dalla verità. Vediamo in che senso.
Come abbiamo già avuto modo di dire, la Trinità è costituita dal Padre, dal
Figlio e dallo Spirito Santo. Non si dice: dallo Spirito Santo, dal Figlio e
dal Padre o dal Figlio, dal Padre e dallo Spirito Santo, ma: dal Padre, dal
Figlio e dallo Spirito Santo. Il tutto in una successione logica ma non
cronologica. Ciò vuol dire che senza il Figlio non ci sarebbe lo Spirito Santo
e senza il Padre non ci sarebbe il Figlio. Ma – e anche questo lo abbiamo detto
– non è che il Padre abbia creato il Figlio e il Figlio abbia creato lo Spirito
Santo. Perché, se così fosse, il Figlio e lo Spirito Santo sarebbero delle
creature e ciò non è.
Dunque una successione logica ma non nel tempo (cronologica). Il Cristianesimo
ortodosso (quello dei Russi, dei Serbi, dei Greci, per intenderci) è lontano
dal Cattolicesimo non solo perché non riconosce il Primato del Vescovo di Roma
(il Papa), ma anche perché, a proposito della Trinità, non riconosce la
dottrina cosiddetta del Filioque, cioè che lo Spirito Santo procede dal Padre e
dal Figlio. Lo Spirito Santo – secondo gli ortodossi – procederebbe solo dal
Padre.
Questione di lana caprina, direbbe qualcuno. Inutili pignolerie, direbbero
altri. E invece no, la questione è importante, per non dire importantissima.
Didatticamente si attribuisce al Padre l’azione della creazione, al Figlio
quella della redenzione, allo Spirito Santo quella della santificazione. Questo
non vuol dire che nel momento della creazione il Padre agiva e il Figlio e lo
Spirito Santo non partecipavano, oppure nella redenzione il Figlio agiva e il
Padre e lo Spirito Santo erano assenti... Nella creazione ha agito tanto il
Padre, quanto il Figlio, quanto lo Spirito Santo e così nella redenzione... ma
metodologicamente si dice così: il Padre crea, il Figlio redime, lo Spirito
Santo santifica.
Il Figlio è chiamato anche Verbo (Parola) per indicare il fatto che è il Dio
che si manifesta, che si comunica. Il Figlio è anche il Logos, la Verità,
mentre lo Spirito Santo è l’Amore. Ed ecco il punto nodale. Già in Dio è
pienamente rispettata la processione logica verità-amore. L’amore deve essere
sempre giudicato dalla verità, altrimenti può diventare anche la cosa più
terribile.
Facciamo un esempio. Un padre di figli lascia la famiglia perché “s’innamora”
di un’altra donna: fa bene? Oggi molti risponderebbero di sì e direbbero: se lo
ha fatto per amore... Due uomini o due donne s’innamorano e decidono di vivere
insieme: fanno bene? Se lo fanno per amore… Ma questo è il punto. L’amore se
non è giudicato dalla verità diventa il contrario di sé. Facciamo un altro
esempio. Perché Hitler e i suoi decisero di perseguitare gli Ebrei? La risposta
può sembrare paradossale ma non lo è: per troppo “amore” nei confronti della
razza ariana. Perché Stalin decise di sterminare milioni e milioni di piccoli
proprietari? Per troppo “amore” nei confronti dello Stato socialista. Perché
Robespierre decise di tagliare teste su teste? Per troppo “amore” nei confronti
della Rivoluzione che sentiva minacciata. Ecco cos’è l’amore sganciato
dalla verità. E, se si riflette bene, questo è uno degli errori più tipici dei
nostri tempi. C’è chi si lamenta che oggi c’è poco amore. Verrebbe da dire: no,
non è così, oggi ciò che manca non è l’amore, ma la consapevolezza della
Verità, che è un’altra cosa! Oggi ciò che manca è la convinzione che l’amore –
perché sia vero – deve essere giudicato dalla verità.
Bisognerebbe ritornare a meditare sulla natura di Dio per capire come già nella
Sua intima natura è presente questa verità, e cioè che l’amore è vero se è
conforme al Vero. Solo così si potrà anche capire perché mai la Chiesa
Cattolica ha tenuto fermo sul punto del Filioque.
Autore: Corrado Gnerr
Si afferma, con facilità, che tutti i popoli -
anche i non cristiani - sanno che Dio esiste e che anche i 'pagani' credono in
Dio. Questa verità condivisa – pur con alcune differenze, riserve e la
necessità di purificare immagini e rapporti - è la base che rende possibile il
dialogo fra le religioni, e in particolare il dialogo fra i cristiani e i
seguaci di altre religioni. Sulla base di un Dio unico comune a tutti, è
possibile tessere un'intesa fra i popoli in vista di azioni concertate a favore
della pace, in difesa di diritti umani, per la realizzazione di progetti di
sviluppo e crescita umana e sociale. Su questo fronte abbiamo visto gesti
coraggiosi e positivi di intesa e collaborazione, promossi anche da grandi
Papi, come Giovanni XXIII, Paolo VI, Giovanni Paolo II; ma sempre nella chiara
consapevolezza che tutto questo è soltanto una parte dell'azione
evangelizzatrice della Chiesa nel mondo.
Per un cattolico l'orizzonte di relazioni fondate sull'esistenza di un Dio
unico non è sufficiente, e tanto meno lo è per un missionario cosciente della
straordinaria rivelazione ricevuta per mezzo di Gesù Cristo, rivelazione che
abbraccia tutto il mistero di Dio, nella sua unità e trinità. Il Vangelo che il
missionario porta al mondo, oltre a rafforzare e perfezionare la comprensione
del monoteismo, apre all'immenso, sorprendente mistero del Dio-comunione di
Persone. La parola 'mistero' è da intendersi più per ciò che rivela che per
quello che nasconde. In questa materia è meglio lasciare la parola ai mistici. Per
S. Giovanni della Croce "c'è ancora molto da approfondire in Cristo.
Questi infatti è come una miniera ricca di immense vene di tesori, dei quali,
per quanto si vada a fondo, non si trova la fine; anzi in ciascuna cavità si
scoprono nuovi filoni di ricchezze". Rivolgendosi alla Trinità, S.
Caterina da Siena esclama: "Tu, Trinità eterna, sei come un mare profondo,
in cui più cerco e più trovo, e quanto più trovo, più cresce la sete di
cercarti. Tu sei insaziabile; e l'anima, saziandosi nel tuo abisso, non si
sazia, perché permane nella fame di te, sempre più te brama, o Trinità
eterna".
La rivelazione cristiana del Dio trino offre parametri nuovi sul mistero di
Dio. Sia in se stesso, sia nei suoi rapporti con l'uomo e il creato, come pure
per le relazioni fra le persone umane. Un anonimo ha trasmesso il seguente
dialogo, scarno ma essenziale, tra un musulmano e un cristiano.
- Diceva un musulmano: "Dio, per noi, è uno; come potrebbe avere un
figlio?"
- Rispose un cristiano: "Dio, per noi, è amore; come potrebbe essere
solo?"
Si tratta di una forma stilizzata di 'dialogo interreligioso', che manifesta
una verità fondamentale del Dio cristiano, capace di arricchire anche il
monoteismo ebraico, musulmano e delle altre religioni. Infatti, il Dio rivelato
da Gesù (Vangelo) è soprattutto Dio-amore (cf. Gv 3,16; 1Gv 4,8). È un Dio
unico, in una piena comunione di Persone. Egli si rivela a noi soprattutto come
un "Dio misericordioso e pietoso" (I lettura); "Dio ricco di
misericordia" (Ef 2,4).
È questo il vero volto di Dio che tutti i popoli hanno il diritto e il bisogno
di conoscere * dai missionari della Chiesa. Per questo, afferma il Concilio,
"la Chiesa pellegrinante è missionaria per sua natura, in quanto essa trae
origine dalla missione del Figlio e dalla missione dello Spirito Santo, secondo
il progetto di Dio Padre" (Ad Gentes 2). Nei primi numeri dello stesso
Decreto il Concilio spiega l'origine e il fondamento trinitario della missione
universale della Chiesa, offrendo, tra l'altro, una delle più alte sintesi
teologiche di tutto il Concilio.
Autore: Padre Romeo Ballan