Le mystère de la Sainte
Trinité explique la vocation de l’humanité à former une seule famille
« Dieu n’est pas solitude
mais parfaite communion », explique le pape
JUIN 15, 2003 00:00REDACTIONÉGLISE
CATHOLIQUE
CITE DU VATICAN, dimanche
15 juin 2003 (ZENIT.org)
– En ce dimanche où l’Eglise fête la « Sainte Trinité », le pape a rappelé que
de ce grand mystère « dérive la vocation de l’humanité tout entière à former
une unique grande famille ». Le mystère de la Sainte Trinité nous rappelle en
effet que Dieu n’est pas « solitude mais parfaite communion ».
Dans son allocution avant
la prière de l’Angélus, aujourd’hui à midi, le pape a rappelé aux croyants que
« l’Unité et la Trinité de Dieu constitue le premier mystère de la foi
catholique ».
« Nous y parvenons, au
terme de tout le chemin de la révélation qui s’est accompli en Jésus : par son
Incarnation, Passion, Mort et Résurrection », a poursuivi le pape.
« Du sommet de la ‘sainte
montagne’ qui est le Christ, nous contemplons l’horizon premier et dernier de
l’univers et de l’histoire : l’Amour de Dieu, Père et Fils et Esprit Saint »,
a-t-il expliqué.
« Dieu n’est pas solitude
mais parfaite communion. Du fait que Dieu soit communion dérive la vocation de
l’humanité tout entière à former une unique grande famille, dans laquelle les
différentes races et cultures se rencontrent et s’enrichissent réciproquement
», a-t-il déclaré.
A la lumière de cette
vérité fondamentale de la foi, a conclu le pape, on comprend la gravité de
toutes les offenses contre l’être humain. Jean-Paul II a mentionné le drame des
personnes obligées de fuir leur pays et « la spirale sans fin de violence et de
représailles » en Terre Sainte.
JUIN 15, 2003 00:00ÉGLISE
CATHOLIQUE
Angélus: la solennité de
la Trinité invite à se laisser fasciner par la beauté de Dieu
En ce dimanche de la
solennité de la Sainte Trinité, le Pape François a proposé une méditation sur
ce «mystère de l’amour de Dieu pour le monde», dont nous parle saint Jean dans
l’Évangile. Un mystère inépuisable où nous rencontrons Dieu-Amour,
Dieu-Sauveur, dont nous sommes appelés à témoigner par la charité évangélique.
Adélaïde Patrignani –
Cité du Vatican
«Dieu a tellement aimé le
monde qu’il a donné son Fils unique» (Jn 3, 16): s’adressant depuis la
fenêtre du Palais apostolique aux pèlerins épars sur la Place Saint-Pierre, le
Pape François est parti de ce verset de saint Jean pour évoquer le mystère de
la Trinité mis à l’honneur ce dimanche.
«Ces paroles servent à
indiquer que l'action des trois Personnes divines – Père, Fils et Saint-Esprit
– est entièrement un unique dessein d'amour qui sauve l'humanité et le monde»,
a-t-il expliqué.
Pour le salut du monde
Même si le monde est
marqué par le mal et la corruption, même si l’humanité est pécheresse, Dieu n’a
pas choisi de «juger le monde» mais de l’aimer. «Il aime le
monde, malgré ses péchés; Dieu aime chacun de nous, même quand nous sommes dans
l'erreur et nous éloignons de Lui». Et cet amour ouvre la voie de la
rédemption. Dieu «donne ce qu’il a de plus précieux: son Fils unique»,
qui «donne sa vie pour les hommes, ressuscite, retourne au Père et, avec
Lui, envoie l'Esprit Saint». Ce mouvement est celui de la Trinité, laquelle
est «Amour, entièrement au service du monde, qu'elle veut sauver et
recréer», a indiqué le Saint-Père. «Aujourd'hui, en pensant au Père, au
Fils et au Saint Esprit, pensons à l'amour de Dieu», a-t-il demandé aux
pèlerins. Se savoir aimés de Dieu: «voilà le sentiment
d'aujourd'hui».
Ce grand mystère nous
invite également à nous laisser «fasciner par la beauté de Dieu; beauté,
bonté et vérité inépuisable», a poursuivi François. Mais il n’est pas pour
autant lointain, inaccessible. La Trinité révèle plutôt un Dieu «humble,
proche, qui s'est [fait] chair pour entrer dans notre vie, dans notre histoire,
[...] pour que chaque homme et femme puisse la rencontrer et avoir la vie
éternelle».
Dieu nous a aimés le
premier
La foi consiste alors
à «accueillir Dieu-Amour qui se donne dans le Christ, qui nous fait nous
mouvoir dans l'Esprit Saint». «Se laisser rencontrer par Lui et avoir confiance
en Lui», telle est la «vie chrétienne», où l'on doit toujours garder à
l'esprit que c'est «Lui qui nous rencontre en premier».
Le Saint-Père a conclu en
invoquant la Vierge Marie, «demeure de la Trinité», afin qu’elle nous aide
à accueillir Dieu, qui «nous remplit de joie et donne un sens à notre
chemin dans ce monde, en l'orientant toujours vers l'objectif qu'est le Ciel».
Icône
dite de la Trinité d'Andreï Roublev. Il s'agit des trois anges apparus à
Abraham au chêne de Mambré Gn 18 [archive] que Roublev, à la suite des Pères de l'Église, interprète comme une figure du
mystère de la Trinité indivisible.
BENOÎT XVI
ANGÉLUS
Solennité de la Très
Sainte Trinité
Place Saint Pierre
Dimanche 7 juin 2009
Chers frères et sœurs !
Après le temps pascal,
dont le point culminant a été la fête de la Pentecôte, la liturgie prévoit ces
trois solennités du Seigneur : aujourd'hui, la Très Sainte Trinité; jeudi
prochain, la fête du Corpus Domini, la Fête-Dieu qui, dans de nombreux
pays dont l'Italie, sera célébrée dimanche prochain ; et enfin, le vendredi
suivant, la fête du Sacré Cœur de Jésus. Chacune de ces fêtes liturgiques met en
évidence une perspective à partir de laquelle on peut embrasser l'ensemble du
mystère de la foi chrétienne : respectivement, la réalité de Dieu Un et Trine,
le Sacrement de l'Eucharistie et le centre divin-humain de la Personne du
Christ. Ce sont en vérité des aspects de l'unique mystère du salut qui, d'une
certaine manière, résument tout l'itinéraire de la révélation de Jésus, de
l'incarnation à la mort et à la résurrection, jusqu'à l'ascension et au don de
l'Esprit Saint.
Aujourd'hui, nous
contemplons la Très Sainte Trinité telle que Jésus nous l'a fait connaître. Il
nous a révélé que Dieu est amour "non dans l'unité d'une seule personne,
mais dans la Trinité d'une seule substance" (Préface) : il est
Créateur et Père miséricordieux; il est Fils Unique, Sagesse éternelle
incarnée, mort et ressuscité pour nous ; il est enfin Esprit Saint qui conduit
tout, l'univers et l'histoire, vers la pleine récapitulation finale. Trois
Personnes qui sont un seul Dieu parce que le Père est amour, le Fils
est amour, l'Esprit est amour. Dieu est tout et uniquement amour, amour très
pur, infini et éternel. Il ne vit pas dans une splendide solitude, mais il est
plutôt source intarissable de vie qui se donne et se transmet sans cesse. Nous
pouvons dans une certaine mesure le deviner en observant aussi bien le
macro-univers : notre terre, les planètes, les étoiles, les galaxies ; que le
micro-univers : les cellules, les atomes, les particules élémentaires. Sur tout
ce qui existe est en quelque sorte imprimé le "nom" de la Très Sainte
Trinité, car tout l'être, jusqu'à la dernière particule, est être en relation,
et ainsi transparaît le Dieu-relation, et en définitive l'Amour créateur. Tout
provient de l'amour, tend vers l'amour et avance poussé par l'amour,
naturellement avec des degrés divers de conscience et de liberté. "O
Seigneur, notre Seigneur, qu'il est puissant ton nom par toute la terre !"
(Ps 8, 2) s'exclame le psalmiste. En parlant du "nom", la Bible
indique Dieu lui-même, son identité la plus authentique ; une identité qui
resplendit sur toute la création, où chaque être, en vertu du fait même de s'y
trouver et du "tissu" dont il est fait, fait référence à un Principe
transcendant, à la Vie éternelle et infinie qui se donne, en un mot : à
l'Amour. "C'est en [lui] en effet que nous avons la vie - dit saint Paul
dans l'Aréopage d'Athènes -, le mouvement et l'être" (cf. Ac 17,
28). La preuve la plus éloquente que nous sommes faits à l'image de la Trinité
est la suivante : seul l'amour nous rend heureux, car nous vivons en relation,
et nous vivons pour aimer et être aimés. Reprenant une analogie suggérée par la
biologie, nous pourrions dire que l'être humain porte dans son propre
"génome" l'empreinte profonde de la Trinité, de Dieu-Amour.
À travers sa docile
humilité, la Vierge Marie s'est faite servante de l'Amour divin : elle a
accueilli la volonté du Père et a conçu le Fils par l'œuvre de l'Esprit Saint.
En Elle, le Tout-puissant s'est construit un temple digne de Lui, et il en a
fait le modèle et l'image de l'Église, mystère et maison de communion pour tous
les hommes. Que Marie, miroir de la Très Sainte Trinité, nous aide à grandir
dans la foi dans le mystère trinitaire.
À l'issue de l'Angélus
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. À 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.
Je souhaite à tous un bon
dimanche.
© Copyright 2009 -
Libreria Editrice Vaticana
SOURCE : http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/fr/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090607.html
Icône de la Trinité, dite La Paternité, icône de l'école de Novgorod, début du xve siècle, galerie Tretiakov, Moscou
Que se passe-t-il quand
la Trinité vient habiter en nous ?
Jean-Michel
Castaing | 06 juin 2020
Quand les trois personnes
de la Trinité viennent habiter en nous, selon la promesse de Jésus, chacune
d’elles apporte ce qui la différencie des deux autres. La vie intérieure du
chrétien se trouve considérablement enrichie de cette pluralité.
La Trinité n’est pas un
mystère quasi-incompréhensible à contempler à distance, comme on admire une
merveille architecturale qui défie l’imagination. Le mystère du Dieu unique en
trois personnes représente au contraire la réalité qui nous est la plus proche
et la plus intime. La vie courante d’un chrétien se déroule en effet en
présence de la Trinité. Plus : les trois personnes divines habitent en lui
depuis le baptême ! C’est ce que l’on appelle
l' »inhabitation ».
La Trinité habite en nous
depuis le baptême
Généralement, on nomme
l’Esprit Saint « l’hôte très doux de nos âmes ». Cette façon de parler pourrait
nous induire à penser que l’Esprit est une Personne indépendante. Or le
christianisme est un monothéisme qui ne confesse qu’un seul Dieu. Aussi, en
tant que personne divine, l’Esprit Saint n’est-il jamais séparable des deux
autres personnes, le Père et le Fils. La Trinité n’est pas un ménage à trois
intermittents. Aucune des personnes divines n’est jamais sans les deux autres.
Ce qui signifie que l’Esprit n’habite jamais en nous sans que le Père et le
Fils ne soient également présents. « Je suis dans le Père, et le Père est en
moi » (Jn
14, 10), déclare Jésus. À cette immanence mutuelle des deux premières
personnes divines (le fait qu’elles soient l’une dans l’autre), on doit
adjoindre l’Esprit. Le Père et le Fils ne sont jamais sans l’Esprit. « Dans la
plénitude du mystère trinitaire, le Père et le Fils sont Père et Fils dans
l’Esprit Saint » (Les traditions grecque et latine concernant la procession de
Saint-Esprit. Clarification du Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l’unité
des chrétiens, 1995).
« Quoiqu’égales en
divinité, les trois personnes de la Trinité sont différentes, et c’est dans
avec leurs différences propres qu’elles viennent habiter l’âme des
croyants. »
Cette immanence mutuelle
des personnes divines n’est pas semblable à une contenance matérielle (Dieu est
esprit !), mais ne se réduit pas non plus à un lien moral. C’est une unité
inscrite dans la nature du Dieu unique. Toutefois, cela ne signifie pas non
plus que les Personnes divines soient interchangeables. Le Fils est dans le
Père comme dans sa source, le Père dans son Fils comme dans son expression
parfaite, enfin l’Esprit est en eux deux comme celui qui procède d’eux et qui
scelle leur union sans être ni postérieur ni inférieur à eux. Quoiqu’égales en
divinité, les trois personnes de la Trinité sont différentes, et c’est dans
avec leurs différences propres qu’elles viennent habiter l’âme des
croyants.
C'est toute la Trinité
qui habite en nous
Le Dieu Trinité ne se
contente pas de nous donner la vie et le Salut. Il se donne à nous en venant
faire sa demeure dans notre maison intérieure, selon la parole de Jésus :
« Si quelqu’un m’aime, il gardera ma parole, et mon Père l’aimera et nous
viendrons vers lui et nous nous ferons une demeure chez lui » (Jn
14, 23). Nous sommes les temples de Dieu. À ce titre, nous hébergeons les
trois Personnes divines en vertu de leur inséparabilité — inséparabilité
découlant de l’unité divine. « L’Esprit se trouvant en nous, le Père et le Fils
viendront et feront leur demeure en nous : car la Trinité est indivise et sa
divinité est une, et il n’y a qu’un seul Dieu qui est au-dessus de tous et agit
en tous et est en tous » (Athanase d’Alexandrie, Lettres à Sérapion, III,
6). Toutes les actions de Dieu en faveur des hommes sont communes aux trois
Personnes. Elles sont réalisées de la part du Père par le Fils et dans
l’Esprit. L’inhabitation de Dieu en nos âmes ne fait pas exception. Elle aussi
est attribuée aux trois personnes de la Trinité. Jamais une personne divine ne
vient habiter en nous sans les deux autres.
La différence trinitaire,
source de richesse intérieure
Cependant, si les
personnes divines ne sont pas des clones, et qu’elles gardent leurs
caractéristiques propres, comment se traduit ces différences dans leur séjour
en nous ? En fait, chaque personne divine vient habiter dans le croyant avec ce
qu’elle a en propre dans sa relation aux deux autres personnes au sein de la
vie de la Trinité. Concrètement, cela implique que le Fils habite en nous en
tant qu’engendré dans l’Esprit par le Père. De son côté, ce dernier est en nous
comme étant Celui qui engendre le Fils et qui spire l’Esprit. Quant à l’Esprit,
il habite en nous comme celui qui procède du Père par le Fils. Ainsi chaque
personne divine entre-t-elle en relation avec le croyant en fonction de son
être relationnel au sein de la Trinité.
« Chaque personne
divine vient habiter dans le croyant avec ce qu’elle a en propre dans sa
relation aux deux autres personnes au sein de la vie de la Trinité. »
Ces différences dans
l’inhabitation sont source de richesses intérieures pour le croyant parce que
le rapport qu’il entretient avec chacune des personnes de la Trinité est
différent de ceux qu’il cultive avec les deux autres. Il entre en rapport avec
le Père comme son fils adoptif, avec le Fils comme son frère qui attend du
Verbe une parole de sagesse en se laissant engendrer par le Père, avec l’Esprit
comme le priant qui aspire à goûter l’amour divin qui circule entre les Trois
de la Trinité. Le croyant ne s’adresse pas à Jésus comme il s’adresse à son
Père quant à sa relation de filiation. C’est le Père qui nous adopte, non son
Fils !
Richesse de la prière à
la Trinité
Chaque personne divine
habite donc en nous d’une façon qui lui est propre. Cependant, ces différences
ne remettent pas en cause l’unité divine, car ce qui est propre à chacun des
Trois divins est précisément l’être relationnel qui est le sien dans la Trinité
éternelle : par exemple, le Fils est engendré du Père et souffle avec Lui
activement l’Esprit. Si bien que lorsque je prie une personne divine qui habite
en moi, je suis automatiquement mis en relation avec les deux autres ! Prier le
Père, c’est aussi prier le Fils qui m’apprend comment me comporter
charitablement en fils bien-aimé du Père céleste. Et c’est prier simultanément,
même inconsciemment, l’Esprit qui m’insuffle les sentiments de Jésus vis-à-vis
de son Père ! La pluralité de personnes divines que le croyant héberge en
lui représente ainsi une source ineffable d’enrichissement intérieur, sans que
jamais l’unité divine ne soit perdue de vue.
La sainte Trinité
expliquée aux enfants
Edifa |
04 juin 2020
Le dimanche qui suit la
Pentecôte est toujours consacré à la Sainte Trinité. À cette occasion, pourquoi
ne pas essayer avec ses enfants d’entrer un peu plus dans le Mystère
trinitaire.
La fête de la sainte
Trinité, ce dimanche 7 juin 2020, peut être une belle occasion pour expliquer
aux enfants ce grand Mystère. Tout d’abord, il faut leur parler du mot «
Trinité ». Pourquoi ne pas essayer de trouver avec eux des mots qui commence
par « tri », comme tricycle, par exemple. « Tri » implique donc qu’il existe
trois éléments. En Dieu, il y a trois Personnes. Quelles sont-elles ? Pour
aider les enfants à les trouver eux-mêmes, il faut leur proposer de faire le
signe de croix. Ils remarqueront vite qu’ils invoquent effectivement trois
Personnes : le Père, le Fils et le Saint-Esprit (à moins qu’ils n’en citent une
quatrième appelée… « Amen » ! Si c’est le cas, ce sera une bonne occasion de
leur redire le sens de cette formule ou aussi de celle « ainsi soit-il » à la
fin des prières).
Parler de chacune des
trois Personnes de la Trinité
Il y a trois Personnes
mais un seul Dieu. Ces trois Personnes ne sont pas trois dieux. Papa, Maman,
l’enfant, cela fait trois personnes mais aussi trois hommes. En Dieu, c’est
différent : trois Personnes mais un seul Dieu. Il est important de bien
insister sur cette vérité qui, en plus de la compréhension de notre
intelligence, requiert l’adhésion de notre foi. Quand nous parlons de Dieu,
quand nous disons croire en Dieu, quand nous Le prions, il s’agit bien des
trois Personnes : Père, Fils et Esprit saint. Ces trois Personnes reçoivent la
même adoration et la même gloire. Il n’y en a pas une qui est plus importante
ou plus divine que les autres.
C’est pourquoi il est important
de parler à l’enfant de chacune des trois. Certes, c’est toujours le même Dieu,
l’Unique, mais il est bon d’être familier avec les trois. Une petite fille, à
qui on avait surtout parlé du Père et du Fils, a été très étonnée de découvrir
que le Saint-Esprit était pleinement Dieu. Comme on lui en parlait peu, on Le
priait nommément moins souvent que le Père et le Fils. Il représentait pour
elle un personnage second, une sorte de serviteur de Dieu.
Employer les bons mots
Pour la même raison, il
faut être bien clair quand on parle aux enfants : certains termes, justes en
eux-mêmes, peuvent être ambigus pour des petits. Ainsi, il est juste de dire
que l’Esprit saint est l’Esprit de Jésus. Mais c’est ambigu : pour des enfants
cela peut vouloir dire que l’Esprit saint n’est pas une Personne distincte de
celle de Jésus. Cela peut représenter pour eux quelque chose comme la partie
spirituelle de Jésus et c’est tout.
Il est juste aussi de
dire que Jésus est le Fils de Dieu. Mais il faut bien préciser les choses afin
que l’enfant sache que Jésus, Fils de Dieu, est Dieu. Pas un autre Dieu que son
Père. Il est un seul Dieu avec son Père et le Saint-Esprit. En parlant avec des
enfants, on s’aperçoit que, trop souvent, ils se représentent un seul Dieu,
certes, mais en une seule Personne : le Père. Ce Dieu Père a un Fils, Jésus,
animé par un esprit, l’Esprit saint. Bien sûr, les enfants ne peuvent pas tout
comprendre du Mystère de la Sainte Trinité. Mais ce n’est pas une raison, bien
au contraire, pour édulcorer la vérité. Les adultes non plus ne comprennent pas
tout… et parfois ils comprennent même moins bien que les enfants parce que, si
leur intelligence est plus développée, leur foi est souvent plus frileuse et
plus engourdie.
Par la foi, il est
possible d'entrevoir la Trinité Sainte
D’ailleurs, face au
Mystère, Dieu ne nous dit pas : « Laisse ton intelligence de côté, ne cherche
pas à comprendre ». Au contraire : s’Il a donné aux hommes une intelligence,
c’est pour qu’ils s’en servent et qu’ils la développent dans tous les domaines.
Il faut donc se servir de son intelligence, en toute humilité, en reconnaissant
ses limites. Dieu dit : « Crois. Aie confiance ». Et cette Foi permet de
connaître des vérités que l’intelligence seule n permettrait pas d’atteindre.
Si, face au Mystère d’un
seul Dieu en trois Personnes, on se dit : « C’est impossible. Ça ne peut pas
exister. C’est ridicule de penser que c’est vrai », on reste avec sa petite
intelligence très limitée, avec une vision de la réalité au ras du sol. Si on
croit, si on accepte de reconnaître une réalité qui est supérieure, on peut
entrer dans le Mystère. Par la Foi, on peut entrevoir la Trinité Sainte, et
déjà La contempler en attendant le jour où on la verra face à face. En
regardant la Sainte Trinité, on voit que Dieu est amour : le Père aime le Fils
qui aime le Père, et de cet amour jaillit l’Esprit saint. Pour aider les
enfants à entrer dans le Mystère de la Sainte Trinité, il ne suffit pas de leur
dire que c’est un seul Dieu en trois Personnes. Il faut ajouter : trois
Personnes qui s’aiment. Le sens de la Sainte Trinité, c’est cet amour infini
qui ne cesse de circuler entre les trois Personnes.
Christine Ponsard
SOURCE : https://fr.aleteia.org/cp1/2020/06/04/la-sainte-trinite-expliquee-aux-enfants/
Doctrine de Dieu
Thèse 6 - Théologie
Trinitaire
Le Mystère de la
Trinité, Mystère central de la
Foi, source et lumière de tous les autres mystères, se
résume dans l’enseignement johannique : "Dieu est Amour". Par
essence, Dieu est Don de Soi, Autocommunication, Relation, éternel évènement
d’Amour. Ce Mystère est directement celui de notre insertion même dans le
mystère du Christ, et par Lui en Dieu. Le Mystère de la Trinité ouvre
intrinsèquement sur le mystère de notre Salut.
C’est le
Nouveau Testament qui révèle pleinement le dessein salvifique de Dieu le
Père, par Jésus son Fils, dans l’Esprit Saint. Le Père envoie son Fils qui,
glorifié, envoie l’Esprit afin de nous conférer l’adoption filiale que le Fils
nous a obtenu par l’obéissance jusqu’à la Croix. Le Fils ne se contente donc
pas de nous révéler la Paternité de Dieu : en Lui, il nous fait participer de
sa filialité. Pour accomplir sa mission, le Fils est oint par l’Esprit. Revêtue
de la Puissance de l’Esprit, il annonce le Règne des Cieux et en accomplit les
signes. Et cela, jusqu’au signe absolu de la Croix. Glorifié, Il souffle ce
même Esprit sur les apôtres et – communicant l’adoption filiale - fonde
l’Eglise. L’Esprit sanctificateur procède donc du Père et du Fils comme d’un
seul principe, principalement du Père, par le Fils. Au nom du Père, du Fils et
du SE, nous sommes baptisés et sauvés, selon la volonté de Jésus, le Christ
Sauveur.
L’enseignement
conciliaire puis théologique éclaire alors dès les premiers siècles la
formulation de sa foi en Un seul Dieu en Trois Personnes. Nous vénérons
ainsi un seul Dieu dans la Trinité et la Trinité dans l’unité, sans
confondre les personnes, sans diviser la substance. L’unité divine tient
du fait que les noms des 3 personnes ou hypostases expriment
des relations : l’opposition de relation en Dieu est le seul
principe de distinction trinitaire ; Si bien que cette Trinité qui est un
seul Dieu n’est pas hors du nombre, n’est pas non plus enfermée dans le
nombre. Ces 3 relations en Dieu sont substantielles. Les Personnes
enfin ne sont pas commutables, l’ordre (taxis) trinitaire étant donné par les
relations d’origine : procession du Fils par le Père, spiration de l’ES par le
Père et le Fils.
Cette
pénétration du Mystère de Dieu est rendu possible par le fait que Dieu est
en soi tel qu’Il s’est révélé à nous. La Trinité qui s’est manifestée
dans l’économie du Salut est la Trinité immanente. La Trinité
économique correspond à la Trinité immanente, qu’elle révèle donc.
La
réflexion théologique n’a dès lors de cesse de creuser le mystère des
relations entre les 3 Personnes qui sont un seul Dieu,
cherchant analogie dans le monde créé. Père, Fils et Esprit sont liés
comme la source, le fleuve et le lac (Tertullien) ; comme en notre esprit la
mémoire, l’intelligence et la volonté (Augustin) ; comme l’aimant, l’aimé et
le condilectus aimé ensemble (Richard de St Victor) ; comme les
conjoints et l’enfant (Balthasar). Ces analogies ne sont pas sans cacher
cependant au cœur de la ressemblance qu’elles offrent une majeure
dissemblance (Latran IV), et ne sauraient en rien être absolutisées. Le
coquillage de notre compréhension ne saurait contenir l’océan du Mystère de la
Trinité.
• Bibliographie essentielle :
- Symbole « Quicumque », dit d’Athanase (V°s)
- Concile de Tolède XI (672-676)
- bulle « Cantate Domino » du Concile de
Florence (1442)
• Bibliographie
annexe :
- « Théologie, Christologie,
Anthropologie » (Document de la C.T.I. , 1982)
- Redemptor Hominis (Jean Paul II, Encyclique,
1979)
- Dives in Misericordia (Jean Paul II,
Encyclique, 1980)
- Dominum et Vivificantem (Jean Paul II,
Encyclique, 1986)
- Deus Caritas Est (Benoit XVI, Encyclique,
2006)
SOURCE : http://www.theologie.fr/T6.htm
BENEDICT XVI
ANGELUS
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
SOURCE : http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090607.html
The Blessed Trinity
This article is divided
as follows:
Proof
of the doctrine from Scripture
Proof
of the doctrine from Tradition
The
doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology
The
doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology
The dogma of the Trinity
The Trinity is the term
employed to signify the central doctrine of
the Christian
religion — the truth that
in the unity of the Godhead there
are Three Persons,
the Father, the Son,
and the Holy
Spirit, these Three Persons being
truly distinct one from another.
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.
In Scripture there
is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are
denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is
a translation) is first found in Theophilus
of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the
Father], His Word and
His Wisdom (To
Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before
his time.
Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On
Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is
found in many passages of Origen ("In
Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in
which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory
Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis
tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
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
New Testament
The evidence from
the Gospels culminates
in the baptismal commission
of Matthew
28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only
made the great truth known to
the Twelve step
by step.
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.
Besides these passages
there are many others in the Gospels which
refer to one or other of the Three Persons in
particular and clearly express the separate personality and
Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it
will not be necessary to
give special citations: those which declare that Jesus
Christ is God
the Son, affirm thereby
also the separate personality of
the Father. The Divinity of Christ is
amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists.
As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS
CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more
important messages from the Synoptists,
in which Christ bears witness to
His Divine Nature.
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.
The doctrine as
to the Holy
Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully
recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers:
"As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting,
the Holy
Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and
Barnabas . . ." (Acts
13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles:
"They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them
not" (Acts
16:7; cf. Acts
5:3; 15:28; Romans
15:30). Divine
attributes are affirmed of Him.
He possesses omniscience
and reveals to
the Church mysteries known only
to God (1
Corinthians 2:10);
it is He who
distributes charismata (1
Corinthians 12:11);
He is the giver of supernatural
life (2
Corinthians 3:8);
He dwells in the Church and
in the souls of individual men,
as in His temple (Romans
8:9-11; 1
Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
The work of justification and
sanctification is attributed to Him (1
Corinthians 6:11; Romans
15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed
to Christ (1
Corinthians 1:2; Galatians
2:17).
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
The Church Fathers
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.
In the narrative of St.
Polycarp's martyrdom we
read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy
Spirit be glory now
and for the ages to come" (Martyrdom
of Polycarp 14; cf. 22).
Clement
of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father
and Son,
to the Son and
Father with the Holy
Spirit" (The
Pedagogue III.12).
St.
Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him
be glory and
power with the Father and the Holy
Spirit in Holy
Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen"
(Against
Noetus 18).
Denis
of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God
the Father and to His Son Jesus
Christ with the Holy
Spirit be honour and glory forever
and ever, Amen"
(in St.
Basil, On
the Holy Spirit 29.72).
St.
Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among Christians when
they lit the evening lamp to
give thanks to God with prayer: Ainoumen
Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and
the Son,
and the Holy
Spirit of God").
(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.
Amongst polemical writers
we may refer to Irenaeus (Against
Heresies I.22 and IV.20.1-6).
In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment
that the world was created by aeons who
had emanated from God,
but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of
the Word and
the Spirit by
Whom God created all
things.
Clement
of Alexandria professes the doctrine in The
Pedagogue I.6, and somewhat later Gregory
Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express
terms in his Creed.
(4) As contrasted with
heretical teachings
Yet further evidence
regarding the Church's doctrine is
furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.
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.
It is notorious that
the sect made
no appeal to tradition:
it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared — at Smyrna,
at Rome,
in Africa,
in Egypt.
On the other hand, St.
Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra
Noetum", claims Apostolic
tradition for the doctrine of
the Catholic Church:
"Let us believe,
beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of
the Apostles,
that God
the Word came down from heaven to
the holy
Virgin Mary to save man."
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.
The information we
possess regarding another heresy —
that of Montanus —
supplies us with further proof that
the doctrine of
the Trinity was the Church's teaching
in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms
in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he
still holds as a Montanist (Against
Praxeas 2); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of
the Three Persons,
their distinction, the eternity of God
the Son (Against
Praxeas 27). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of
the Montanists on
this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had
accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since
their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there
was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have
here again a clear proof that
Trinitarianism was an article
of faith at a time when
the Apostolic
tradition was far too recent for any error to
have arisen on a point so vital.
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.
(3) Expressions which
appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are
found in Clement
of Alexandria (Stromata V.14 and VI.7), Tatian (Address
to the Greeks 5), Tertullian (Against
Praxeas 6; Against
Hermogenes 18-20), Origen (Commentary
on John I.22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all
things" (protoktistos), and Tatian terms
the Word the
"first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) the Father."
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.
(4) Greater difficulty is
perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to
the Creation of
the world the Word was
not a distinct hypostasis from
the Father. These are found in Justin (Dialogue
with Trypho 61), Tatian (Address
to the Greeks 5), Athenagoras (A
Plea for the Christians 10), Theophilus (To
Autolycus II.10); Hippolytus (Against
Noetus 10); Tertullian (Against
Praxeas 5-7; Against
Hermogenes 18). Thus Theophilus writes (To
Autolycus II.22):
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).
Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc
The doctrine as
interpreted in Greek theology
Nature and personality
The Greek Fathers approached
the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in
a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days
of St.
Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology.
In Latin theology thought
fixed first on the Nature and
only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is
viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature:
the Nature is
regarded as logically prior
to the Personality.
Hence, because God's
Nature is one, He is known to
us as One God before
He can be known as
Three Persons.
And when theologians speak
of God without
special mention of a Person,
conceive Him under this aspect.
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.
In the following
exposition of the Latin doctrines,
we shall follow St.
Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is
now universally accepted by Catholic theologians.
It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the
psychological theory has been proposed. Thus Richard
of St. Victor, Alexander
of Hales, and St.
Bonaventure, while adhering in the main to Western tradition,
were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat
from that of St.
Thomas.
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.
SOURCE : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Giambattista
Tiepolo, Le pape Clément adorant la Trinité, 1739 Alte Pinakothek, Munich
BENEDETTO XVI
ANGELUS
Solennità della Santissima Trinità
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
SOURCE : http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090607.html
Santissima Trinità
7
giugno (celebrazione mobile)
Domenica dopo Pentecoste (celebrazione
mobile)
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
SOURCE : http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/20270
D.-J. Lallement. « Entretiens sur la Très Sainte Trinité, mystère de la joie chrétienne (II) », Laval théologique et philosophique, Volume 25, numéro 1, 1969 : https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ltp/1969-v25-n1-ltp0974/1020133ar.pdf
