Peter Wood wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
Lateran IV states that the divine substance “alone” is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found.
But many Catholic authorities (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Paul II) state that the Father is the “principle without principle”.
- How are these two apparently divergent views reconciled?
Answers which refer to an equivocal use of the term “principle” or to the creation as opposed to "the Trinity" are insufficient.
Many thanks for any clarification,
Peter Wood
|
| { How are these two apparently divergent Catholic views on the Trinity reconciled? } |
Eric replied:
|
Peter,
Let's look at the declaration from Denzinger:
| 432 [DS 804] We, however, with the approval of the sacred Council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a most excellent reality, incomprehensible indeed and ineffable, which truly is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, at the same time three Persons, and anyone of the same individually; and so in God there is Trinity only, not a quaternity; because any one of the three Persons is that reality, namely, substance, essence or divine nature, which alone is the beginning of all things, beyond which nothing else can be found, and that reality is not generating, nor generated, nor proceeding, but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is generated, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds, so that distinctions are in Persons and unity in nature.
Denzinger, Henry, and Karl Rahner, eds., The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. by Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1954), p. 171 |
You said:
"Answers which refer to an equivocal use of the term 'principle' or to the creation as opposed to the Trinity are insufficient."
- Can you please elaborate on why you consider these insufficient?
Eric
|
Peter replied:
|
Thank you for replying.
- The word 'principle' is used in essentially the same theological context (i.e. divine ontology) and would appear to be used with essentially the same meaning at least (whether or not referring to a different object) and without any indication of a restricted reference of application.) Augustine states, in the context of the Father as principle, that "we believe that all things are from one principle”, using the same phrase that Lateran IV uses re the divine essence as "the principle of all things".
- Recreation, to which the Lateran IV phrase "the principle of all things" might perhaps be thought to refer, as the sentence continues by immediately referring to the divine ontology ("and this reality neither begets...") and no 'other' reference to add extra matters is referred to in this section, one would assume the same context would apply to both parts of the sentence. In any case, I thought creation was from the will of the Father rather than the divine essence.
Personally, it seems to me that the resolution would be that the divine essence is (in an unspecified manner) the principle of the Father who is then the principle of the Trinity and of all things.
Many thanks for any clarification,
Peter Wood
|
Eric replied:
|
Peter,
I am including our whole team since someone else may have more insight than I have on this.
Eric
|
Paul replied:
|
Peter,
First, a sacred Council on matters of faith and morals holds more weight than a theologian. Even if the theologian is a bishop, saint and doctor of the Church. If the council defines such a matter, we can consider it irreformable. So, if there's a discrepancy, it seems safe to go with the Council.
Perhaps they were using 'principle' in slightly different ways:
- The council may have been saying God is the principle cause of all things, and
- Augustine have been more particular.
It's very possible both are correct. God as Trinity is the principle of all things, and God the Father, being the principle of the Trinity as unbegotten Source of God, is principle of the Trinity - Who is principle of all things.
Paul |
Eric replied:
|
Peter,
My take on it is to consider the context. Context is very important when reading Councils, especially when they are condemning heretics. You must look at what the heretic is asserting and consider that the sacred council is refuting it. Therefore, one's interpretation should not wander beyond the confines of that context.
Let's look at the paragraph immediately prior to the one I cited earlier:
431 [DS 803] We condemn, therefore, and we disapprove of the treatise or tract which Abbot Joachim published against Master Peter Lombard on the unity or essence of the Trinity, calling him heretical and senseless because in his Sentences he said: “Since it is a most excellent reality—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and it is not generating, nor generated, nor proceeding.” Thus he (Joachim) declares that Peter Lombard implies not so much a Trinity as a quaternity in God, namely the three Persons and that common essence as a fourth, openly protesting that there is no matter which is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; neither is there essence, nor substance, nor nature, although he concedes that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one essence, one substance, and one nature. But he says that unity of this kind is not true and proper, but is something collective and similar, as many men are called one people, and many faithful, one Church, according to the following:
Moreover, to add to this opinion of his he brings the following most powerful expression, that Christ spoke in the Gospel about the faithful:
“I will, Father, that they are one in us as we are one, so that they may be perfected in unity” (John 17:22f).
For not, (as he says), are the faithful of Christ one, that is, a certain one matter which is common to all, but in this way are they one, that is, one Church because of the unity of the Catholic faith; and finally one kingdom, because of the union of indissoluble love, as in the canonical letter of John the Apostle we read:
- “For there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” (1 John 5:7), and immediately is added:
- “And there are three who give testimony on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one” (1 John 5:8), as is found in certain texts.
Denzinger, Henry, and Karl Rahner, eds., The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. by Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1954), pp. 170–71 |
You can see this being referenced in the paragraph you are citing, namely,
| "and so in God there is Trinity only, not a quaternity; because any one of the three Persons is that reality, namely, substance, essence or divine nature, which alone is the beginning of all things". |
The "quaternity" citation is a reference to Abbot Joachim's position. I don't know exactly what Joachim was asserting, beyond what's cited in the Council proceedings, but my suspicion is that your answer lies in interpreting the statement in the narrow context of this dispute between Peter Lombard and Joachim.
Eric |
|
|
