^{page 191 note 1} Most current journals now carry at least one article per publishing year on a trinitarian theme, in contrast to the silence of the last several decades. There are also numerous recent books on the topic of trinity.

^{page 191 note 2} Rahner, K. is especially insistent on this, cf. The Trinity, tr. Donceel, J. (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970) 82–99Google Scholar and passim. The same approach is taken by Jüngel, E., God as the Mystery of the World, tr. Guder, D. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983)Google Scholar; Kasper, W., The God of Jesus Christ, tr. O'Connell, M. J. (New York: Crossroad, 1985)Google Scholar: Moltmann, J., The Trinity and the Kingdom, tr. Kohl, M. (New York: Harper & Row, 1981)Google Scholar; Mackey, J., The Christian Experience of God as Trinity (London: SCM, 1983)Google Scholar; Jenson, R., The Triune Identity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982)Google Scholar; Congar, Y., I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3 vols., tr. Smith, D. (New York: Seabury, 1983)Google Scholar, and numerous other theologians.

^{page 192 note 3} Ritschl, D., ‘Historical Development and Implications of the Filioque Controversy’, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Faith and Order Paper No. 103, London: SPCK and Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981, p. 64Google Scholar. This portion of-Ritschl's article was incorporated (on p. 10) into the joint memorandum of Eastern and Western theologians in 1979, entitled ‘The Filioque Clause In Ecumenical Perspective’.

^{page 192 note 4} Breuning, W., ‘Pneumatologie’, Bilan de la Theologie du XX sikle, ed. VanderGucht, R. and Vorgrimler, H. (Tournai-Paris,: Casterman, 1970), Vol. II. p. 350.Google Scholar

^{page 192 note 5} K. Rahner, The Trinity 22. See LaCugna, C. M., ‘Re-conceiving the Trinity as the Mystery of Salvation’, Scottish Journal of Theology 38 (1985), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 193 note 6} See the very fine recent book of Hardy, D. W. and Ford, D. F., Praising and Knowing God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985)Google Scholar. We enthusiastically endorse their view that praise has its own logic, which is that of overflow, of freedom, of generosity (6–7) and that the Trinity ‘gives the logic of Christian praise’ (56). Standard discussions of doxology include Schlink, E., ‘The Structure of Dogmatic Statements as an Ecumenical Problem’, The Coming Christ and the Coming Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 16–84Google Scholar; Pannenberg, W., ‘Analogy and Doxology’, in Basic Questions in Theology vol. I, tr. Kehm, G. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 211–238.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 7} Hardy, D. and Ford, D. call this a ‘new ecology’ of praise (Praising and Knowing God 45).Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 8} See Trible, P., God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 72–143.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 9} See Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 10:26; Sources chrétiennes 17:336, 338.

^{page 196 note 10} The law of worship establishes the law of belief. Sometimes this axiom is written lex orandi lex credendi. Scholars disagree as to the original form of the axiom; see Kavanagh, A., On Liturgical Theology (Pueblo, 1984)Google Scholar; Wainwright, G., Doxology. ThePraise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life (Oxford University Press, 1980), 218–283Google Scholar; Griese, E., ‘Perspektiven einer liturgischen Theologie’, Una Sancta 24 (1969), 102–113Google Scholar; de Clerck, P., ‘“Lex orandi, lex credendi”. Sens original et avatares historiques d'un adage équivoque’, Questions liturgiques 59 (1978)Google Scholar; Federer, K., Liturgie und Glaube. ‘Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.’ Eine theologiegeschkhtliche Untersuchung, Paradosis IV, Freiburg-Schweiz: Paulus, 1950Google Scholar; Pelikan, J., ‘Voices of the Church’, Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 33 (1978) 4–6.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 11} Cf. Kavanagh, A., Liturgical Theology, 74–80.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 12} See Milbank, J., ‘The Second Difference: for a Trinitarianism Without Reserve’, Modern Theology 2 (1986), 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 197 note 13} Kavanagh, , Liturgical Theology 78.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 14} See Panikulam, G., Koinonia in the New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979)Google Scholar; Brown, S., ‘Koinonia as the Basis of New Testament Ecclesiology?’ One in Christ 12 (1976), 157–167Google Scholar; Kress, R., ‘The Church as Communio: Trinity and Incarnation as the Foundation of Ecclesiology’, The Jurist 36 (1976), 127–158Google Scholar; Campbell, J. Y., ‘Koinonia and its Cognates in the New Testament’, Jourrnal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932), 252–280.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 15} Eucharistic Prayer IV reads in part: Father, we acknowledge your greatness; all your actions show your wisdom and love. You formed us in your own likeness and set us over the whole world to serve you our Creator and to rule over all creatures. Even when we disobeyed you and lost your friendship you did not abandon us to the power of death, but helped all to seek and find you. Again and again you offered a covenant to us and through the prophets taught us to hope for salvation. Father, you so loved the world that in the fullness of time you sent your only Son to be our saviour. ….

^{page 198 note 16} Hardy, D. and Ford, D., Praising and Knowing God, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 17} The citation is from the memorandum ‘The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective’ 10; see n. 3 above.

^{page 199 note 18} Terrien, S., The Elusive Presence (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 170, 234Google Scholar. Although Terrien is writing about the nearness of God in the Israelite context, we are adapting his image to the experience of God's nearness in Christ.

^{page 199 note 19} Terrien, Elusive Presence, 147, referring to Exod. 34.

^{page 199 note 20} See Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary, 1976), 7–43Google Scholar; Evdokimov, P., L'Esprit Sainte dans la tradition Orthodoxe (Paris: du Cerf, 1969), 23–26Google Scholar; idem., La connaissance de Dieu selon la tradition orientate (Lyon: Xavier Mappus, 1967)Google Scholar; on the apophatic dimensions of analogy see Burrell, D., Aquinas: God and Action (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979), 55–67Google Scholar; White, V., God the Unknown (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), 16–34Google Scholar; Louth, A., The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981).Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 21} ‘Personal’ here is not used in the sense that God is ‘a person’ or ‘three persons’.

^{page 201 note 22} This is implied in Rahner's suggestion that theology must begin with the divine ‘missions’ (sending of the Son and Spirit) rather than with intra-divine ‘processions’ (being begotten and being spirated) (The Trinity 40).

^{page 201 note 23} Summa Theologiae 2–2, q. 9, art. 3, ad 1. See also I, q. 1, art. 7, ad 1: ‘Dicendum quod licet de Deo non possimus scire quid est, utimur tamen eius effectu, in hac doctrina, vel naturae vel gratiae, loco definitionis, ad ea quae de Deo in hac doctrina considerantur: sicut et in aliquibus scientiis philosophicis demonstratur aliquid de causa per effectum, accipiendo effectum loco definitions causae.’ Note that Thomas is speaking of effects of nature or grace. Thomas is quoting pseudo-Dionysius when he poses the objection: ‘Ille qui melius unitur Deo in hac vita unitur ei sicut omnino ignoto’ (STI, q. 12, art. 13, ad 1).

^{page 201 note 24} Rahner reminds us that ‘“Triune God” and “Trinity” are legitimate but secondary concepts which, after the events, synthesize the concrete experience of salvation and revelation in a “short formula”’ (The Trinity 59).

^{page 202 note 25} See the introduction by Daniélou, Jean to Chrysostom's, JohnOn the Incomprehensibility of God, Sources chretiennes 28: 15–29Google Scholar for a general patristic orientation on the apophatic tradition. See also Adns, Pierre, ‘Gloire de Dieu’, Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 6 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1967) 437–442Google Scholar. The apophatic tradition was continued in Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (c. 500) and The Cloud of Unknowing (14th c). But there was also a counter-tradition which granted that God could be known. Hadewijch, a thirteenth-century Beguine, said, in effect, that God can be known because she herself knew God. See Hadewijch: The Complete Works, ‘Letter 28’ (New York: Paulist, 1980), 109–113Google Scholar. In this same counter-stream is Walter Hilton; see his The Scale of Perfection (St Meinrad: Abbey Press, 1975) 109–112.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 26} Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, Theoris 164; Sources chritiennes 1: 82.

^{page 203 note 27} See Shoonenberg, P., ‘Trinity-the Consummated Covenant: Theses on the Doctrine of the Trinitarian God’, trans. Ware, R. C., Sciences Religieuses/Studies in Religion 5 (1975–1976) 111–116Google Scholar; Congar, Y. (I Believe, vol. III: 15Google Scholar) is of the opinion that the axiom cannot simply be reversed because there is a fundamental asymmetry between God's oeternal being, and God's being in history. W. Kasper (God of Jesus Christ 275) raises questions similar to Congar's.

^{page 204 note 28} This is what classical trinitarian analogies, like Augustine's psychological analogy, are.

^{page 204 note 29} Gregory of Nazianzus complained about those (such as the Eunomians) who ‘make only technology in place of theology’, in Orat. 29, 21 (Sources chretiennes 250: 224).

^{page 204 note 30} The same point is made by Congar, Y., I Believe, vol. 111: 15Google Scholar; Kasper, W., God of Jesus Christ 275Google Scholar; P. Schoonenberg, ‘Consummated Covenant’, theses 25–26.

^{page 205 note 31} See St Ephrem (c. 306–373): If someone concentrates attention solely on the metaphors used of God's majesty, such a person abuses and misrepresents that majesty by means of those metaphors with which God has clothed Godself for our benefit, and such a one is ungrateful to that Grace which bent down its stature to the level of humanity's childishness: although God had nothing in common with it, God clothed Godself in the likeness of [a] man in order to bring humanity to the likeness of God.

^{page 206 note 32} In the view of Lossky, Vladimir, ‘the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic ground for the separation of the East and the West. All the other divergences which, historically, accompanied or followed the first dogmatic controversy about the filioque, in the measure in which they too had some dogmatic importance, are more or less dependent upon that original issue.’ In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary, 1985) 71Google Scholar. Many would see this as an exaggeration.

^{page 206 note 33} The body of literature on the filioque is enormous. An excellent starting point for Western theologians who in general are less familiar with the issues involved is found in Vischer, L., ed., Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Faith and Order Report No. 103 (London: SPCK and Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981)Google Scholar. The text includes the memorandum drawn up by Eastern and Western theologians in 1979, as well as several excellent essays by theologians from Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions.

^{page 206 note 34} D. Ritschl (‘Historical Development and Implications’ 64) notes the lack of theological creativity in recent discussions on the filioque. What is needed ‘is a new way of approaching the much belaboured relation between the economic and the immanent Trinity, i.e., a new way of trinitarian articulation. The old ways can altogether be intellectually analysed, all intricacies can be understood, provided one invests sufficient time and patience, but these analyses as such do not produce what is needed today.’

^{page 206 note 35} See Aldenhove, H., ‘The Question of the Procession of the Holy Spirit and its Connection With the Life of the Church’, in Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 121–132.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 36} Ritchsl, D., ‘Historical Development and Implications’ 65.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 37} J. Milbank (‘The Second Difference’ 216) rightly observes, ‘The relationship of the Son to the Father can only be imaged, it does not occur historically. And if the eternal procession (of the Holy Spirit) through the Son also “occurs” in history, then it does so only as a complex metaphorical transaction.’

^{page 207 note 38} See de Halleux, A., ‘Towards an Ecumenical Agreement on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Addition of the Filioque to the Creed’, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 80.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 39} Moltmann, J., ‘Theological Proposals Towards the Resolution of the Filioque Controversy’, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 172.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 40} Brown, R. E. notes that the author of the fourth gospel ‘is not speculating about the interior life of God; (the author) is concerned with the disciples in the world’ (The Gospel According to John XIII–XX (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 689)Google Scholar. The text therefore applies to the works which the Spirit, sent by the Father, has to do in the world.

^{page 208 note 41} Cf. de Halleux, , ‘Towards an Ecumenical Agreement’ 79.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 42} Y. Congar has suggested that as a gesture of humility the West should strike from its creed the clause which it unilaterally inserted (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. III, 204–7). The Faith and Order Commission which studied this question recommended that the Creed be restored to its ancient form (without the filioque clause) so that East and West may confess their common faith. A. de Halleux thinks it is possible for the West to take this step without signifying a repudiation of its own tradition (‘Towards an Ecumenical Agreement’, 70, 83). If for some reason it is not feasible for the Western church to make this change, it should at least provide the celebrant with alternative texts avoiding the filioque clause.

^{page 209 note 43} Stylianopoulos, Theodore, ‘The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error?’ a paper presented at a national Faith and Order meeting, Boston, 24–25 October 1985Google Scholar. Stylianopoulos calls the filioque ‘a doctrinal error’ (30) and notes ‘that an unintended error in the interpretation of dogma should not itself be given dogmatic status is a truth so evident as to need no defense’ (31; see also 75). The great recent defender of the Eastern position, who took a consistently hard line with regard to the filioque, was Lossky, Vladimir, ‘The Economy of the Spirit’, Mystical Theology, 156–173Google Scholar; ‘The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine’, Image and Likeness, 71–96. The conclusion of the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Old Catholics at Chambésy in 1975 was that the filioque could no longer be considered a viable theologoumenon, but was to be looked upon as erroneous doctrine. The same two partners in the Bonn dialogue a century ago had conceded that the filioque was a legitimate theologoumenon. See de Halleux, A., ‘Towards an Ecumenical Agreement’, 70Google Scholar. Kallistos Ware gives a summary of the ‘liberal’ and ‘rigorist’ positions among Orthodox theologians; see ‘Constantinople and Rome (858–1439)’, A History of Christian Doctrine, ed. Cunliffe-Jones, H. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 208–212.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 44} ‘The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective’, p. 16 of the final memorandum of the Faith and Order Commission; see n. 3 above.

^{page 210 note 45} Breuning, W., ‘La Trinité’, Bilan de la Theologie du XX Siècle, eds. VanderGucht, Robert and Vorgrimler, Herbert (Tournai-Paris: Casterman, 1970), vol. 2: 258.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 46} It is not coincidental that B. Lonergan's Method in Theology developed in part out of his own study and teaching on the Trinity. See Lonergan, , The Way to Nicaea (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), ix–x.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 47} ‘The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective’, p. 7 of the final memorandum of the Faith and Order Commission; see n. 3 above.

^{page 211 note 48} The work of Schierse, J., in ‘Die neutestamentliche TrinitatsofFenbarung’, in Mysterium Salutis vol. II, ed. by Feiner, J. and Löhrer, M. (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1967), 85–131Google Scholar, shows that there is more in Scripture which is ‘trinitarian’ (i.e., concerned with the divine-human relationship and not necessarily with patterns of threefoldness) than the neo-scholastic manuals betray. Schierse also demonstrates how one can present trinitarian teaching as salvation history. Unfortunately this essay has never been translated into English but it is available in the German, French, Spanish and Italian editions of Mysterium Salutis

^{page 211 note 49} It is noteworthy that the large systematic treatment of Christian theology, Mysterium Salutis, incorporates a trinitarian perspective as part of its basic methodology.

^{page 212 note 50} Thomas Aquinas' statement on the limits of human knowledge of God are classic. See Summa Theologiae la, qq. 2–13.

^{page 213 note 51} We note the development in P. Schoonenberg's thought on this matter. In the conclusion to The Christ (New York: Seabury, 1971, 186–188Google Scholar) he wrote, ‘In our christological study we have limited ourself solely to christology and have not discussed the Spirit. Indeed, in all our theology to date we have discussed it rather little. We have, in fact, not yet got as far as the Spirit, and consider it an advantage not to have complicated the theology of the unio hypostatica by reflections on the Spirit.’ In his more recent work, ‘Trinity — The consummated covenant: Theses on the doctrine of the trinitarian God’ (see note 25 above) and ‘Spirit Christology and Logos Christology’, Bijdragen 38 (1977), 350–375Google Scholar, especially 365ff., he has more fully integrated the pneumatological dimension of Christology. Kasper, Likewise W., Jesus the Christ, tr. Green, V. (New York: Paulist, 1976)Google Scholar whose Christological reflections lead him to a ‘pneumatologically orientated Christology’. Specifically in regard to the Logos he writes, ‘The sanctification of Jesus by the Spirit and his gifts is, therefore, in the second place, not merely an adventitious consequence of the sanctification by the Logos through the hypostatic union but its presupposition’ (251). Congar, Also Y., ‘Pour une Christologie pneumatologique’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 63 (1979), 435–442.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 52} This point is made virtually as a matter of course in contemporary writings on the trinity.

^{page 213 note 53} We appreciate the creative way in which David Coffey has been rethinking pneumatology in an aggressively trinitarian mode, using his considerable analytical skills. We would take exception however to his supposition to be able to speak directly (in recto) about the in se life of God. Commenting on the axiom ‘In Deo omnia sunt ununt ubi non obviat relaiionis oppositio’ (in God all is one except where there is opposition of relation) Coffey concludes: ‘Without laboring the point further, we can draw the conclusion that the only ground for distinguishing the divine persons is strictly innertrinitarian.’ In Coffey, , ‘A Proper Mission of the Holy Spirit’, Theological Studies 47 (1986), 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 214 note 54} Lash, Nicholas writes that ‘the Fathers and the Schoolmen … often confused grammar with empirical description and, in the measure that they did so, drifted off into unprofitable speculation concerning what God is like (but then, even modern theologians have been known to waste their time)’, in ‘Considering the Trinity’, Modern Theology 2 (1986), 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 214 note 55} Zizioulas, J., Being as Communion (Crestwood: St Vladimir's, 1985), 123–132Google Scholar. See also Brown, R. E., ‘Diverse Views of the Spirit in the New Testatment in a Preliminary Contribution of Exegesis to Doctrinal Reflection’ (New York: Paulist, 1985), 101–113Google Scholar. The Thomistic doctrine, for instance, understood that the principle of union in the Incarnation is the person of the Son, who is sent by the Father. The Son assumes the human nature and then, in a posteriority not of time but of nature and thought, the human nature receives the principle of habitual grace, the Holy Spirit, which is given with charity. See Summa Theologiae 3, q. 7, a. 13c. The Spirit is not conceived here as that which establishes the identity of Jesus. Pneumatology, in Thomas, is dependent on Christology. The Spirit ‘adorns’ the humanity of Christ. When Pope Pius XII took over this teaching in his encyclical Mystici corporis (1943) he used the language of ‘adornment’:‘… primo incarnaiionis momento, Aeterni Patris Filius humanam naturam sibi substanlialiter unitam Sancti Spiritus plenitudine ornavit, ut aptum divinitatis instrumentum esset in cruento Redemptionis opere…’ AAS 35 (1943), 206–7. We are indebted for these references to Coffey, David, ‘The “Incarnation” of the Holy Spirit in Christ’, Theological Studies 45 (1984), 469–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In Pius' formulation the Spirit is not constitutive of the identity of Jesus, but makes him an effective instrument. Pneumatology is dependent on Christology. Such a formulation makes it more difficult to give Christology its proper pneumatological content. In the biblical narratives the Spirit precedes Jesus in the covenant history, and is operative in his conception, public life, and resurrection, before the Risen Christ sends the Spirit. Christology is dependent on pneumatology. See also Zizioulas, John, ‘Implications ecclésiologiques de deux types de pneumatologie’, Communio Sanctorum, Mélanges offerts á Jean-Jacques von Allmen (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1982), 141–154.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 56} Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 123–26 indicates that in the area of pneumatology the Orthodox have their own problems making the connection between pneumatology and Christology.

^{page 215 note 57} Cf. the efforts of Mühlen, H., Una mystica persona. Eine Person in vielen Personen (München: Schöningh, 1967), 216–286Google Scholar and Der Heilige Geist als Person (Milnster: Aschendorff, 1963) 170–240Google Scholar. See also McDonnell, K., ‘A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit’, Theological Studies 46 (1985), 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 215 note 58} We wish to affirm the appropriateness of ontological analysis in theology and recognize the decisive importance it played in the Christological controversies. To deprive theology of all speculative content would be a major impoverishment. At the same time, ontology undisciplined and unchecked by the specifics of redemptive history leads to the alienation of trinitarian doctrine from the whole of Christian theology and life. There is merit to the view taken by some contemporary theologians (especially, it seems, in Great Britain) that trinitarian doctrine is best viewed as serving a grammatical rather than descriptive function. The notion of ‘person’, for example, does not tell us what or who God is, but secures the idea that God is ‘someone’ rather than ‘something’. See also Lindbeck, G., The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 92–96.Google Scholar