Readings:
• Ex 34:4B-6, 8-9
• Dn 3:52, 53, 54, 55, 56
• 2 Cor 13:11-13
• Jn 3:16-18
“The divine nature,” wrote St. Thomas Aquinas, “is really and entirely identical with each of the three persons, all of whom can therefore be called one: ‘I and the Father are one’.” The quote he references is from John 10:30, one of dozens of references made in the Fourth Gospel by the Son, Jesus Christ, to the Father.
The Gospel of John is, in so many ways, the Gospel of the Trinity; it is bursting with startling verses and wondrous passages about the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This is also, not surprisingly, the case with St. John’s epistles. The great French philosopher Rémi Brague, in his book, On The God of the Christians (St. Augustine’s Press, 2013), states that the basis for the Christian confession of the Trinity “is contained in a single phrase of the New Testament: ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16).”
Brague further states that “the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing else than the stubborn effort to get to the bottom of this sentence of St. John.” That may seem, at first glance, an overstatement; yet there is great profundity in the observation. Benedict XVI, in his first encyclical (“God is Love”), quoted the whole of 1 John 4:16, and then wrote, “These words … express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny.
In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: ‘We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us’.”
This Sunday’s Gospel reading is perhaps the best-known verse about the love of God, and it is from the Gospel of John: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life…”
God is perfect and complete in and of himself, yet his perfection is not the static, cold perfection of a mathematical algorithm, nor is his completeness located merely in his power and knowledge. His perfection and completion are most deeply revealed in relationship, in the giving of himself in ways we can only begin to comprehend.
God so loved that he gave.
This essential theme is set at the start of John’s Gospel: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God…” (Jn 1:12). The Triune God desires that we share in his divine life and be true children of God: “Beloved, we are God’s children now” (cf 1 Jn. 3:1-3). How does that come about? Through a new birth, carried out by the power of the Third Person of the Trinity in the sacrament of baptism: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5).
Sacraments are not mere symbols, of course, but “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). By baptism—in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—“we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light” (CCC 265).
The Trinity, then, is not an abstract concept, meant to overwhelm our finite intellect. Nor should the Trinity ever be the subject of dry academic exercises. Again, God is not static or even stoic. In the words of the French poet Paul Claudel, “we worship a living God who acts, who breathes, who exhales his very Self.”
As Moses learned, God is merciful and gracious, “slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity.” He gave, and he gives, so that we can know him and love—so that, as Jesus prayed, “they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11).
(This “Opening the Word” column originally appeared in the June 15, 2014, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
My sermon for tomorrow is focused on God’s love. Although love seems the topic of most sermons there’s a significant difference in meaning and realization with the Trinity. It’s a mystery. Like all other divine mysteries the only rationale we can give is with your quote from John “God is love.” Aquinas like his mystical contemporary Bonaventure relates the efficient causality of God to final causality (Commentary Meta 775). The difficulty when we speak of causality is nothing can cause God to act. The question arises regarding the creation of Man. It was not caused and entirely free. Aquinas adds in the same Commentary If it were possible to attribute a cause to God in creating Man it would be love. Unlike Cardinal Kasper’s rationale it was not necessity but a pure act of Love. I would add if God is perfect in himself and complete in his happiness the rationale for creating us was that we might share his joy. To be one with Him by the presence in us of father and Son thru the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That our joy be complete. Like a loving Father if we can attribute a cause for joy in God it would be our eternal happiness.
Fr. Morello writes: “Unlike Cardinal Kasper’s rationale it was NOT necessity but A PURE ACT OF LOVE.” Balthasar remarks on this free act:
“The responses of the Old Testament and a fortiori of Islam (which remains essentially in the enclosure of the religion of Israel) are incapable of giving a satisfactory answer to the question of why Yahweh, why Allah, created a world of which he did not have need in order to be God. Only the fact [creation] is affirmed in the two religions, NOT THE WHY. The Christian response is contained in these two fundamental dogmas: that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation” (My Work in Retrospect, Ignatius Press, 1993).
So, we encounter the Triune Oneness whose internal nature is relational and self-donating RATHER THAN any more distant and monolithic monotheism. Enabling our openness to this self-disclosed divine nature is the human and sometimes PREDISPOSITION to wonder truly at the otherness AND the closeness of God, both.
Unlike Islam which is predisposed from the start to reject such distinctions or dualities (not dualisms) as “dichotomies” and therefore pagan and “blasphemous”. While still held to be in “the image and likeness of God,” man’s likeness is NOT free either. To be free implies a second “autonomy” other than the supreme autonomy of Allah. The accurate comparison is not between the two scriptures, but between the Son of God “eternal” and incarnate, versus the Qur’an “uncreated” and delivered in Arabic. And blasphemy, versus the fatalism (like Kasper’s “necessity”?) of Shari’a Law with its tribal “executors” on earth. Mosque and state are one.
Encroaching again on the unique Christian oasis in human history—-an oasis protected by the “two fundamental dogmas” (of Trinity and the Incarnation)—-is the DESERTIFICATION offered by a gratuitous middle-ground “pluralism” of religions. Why is this theological “climate change” so fashionable today—-are Kasper and his legion closet Muslims in red hats rather than turbans?
Peter quotes Balthasar above: “The responses of the Old Testament and a fortiori of Islam are incapable of giving a satisfactory answer to the question of why Yahweh, why Allah, created a world of which he did not have need in order to be God.”
Merely stating that Gospel of trinity (Christianity) can be explained because of “two fundamental dogmas: trinity and reincarnation” seem to me to be a circular argument. Peter’s further explanation do not automatically flow just because he says so. Why do we need a “second autonomy” if God is a personal God and is Love–as Islam teaches?
It would be appreciated if Peter could provide references–preferably just & unbiased ones–to what he means since there may not be much space here for detailed explanations. Without clear writing or referencing those who have done it, it’s very hard to follow him and others here.
Balthasar didn’t know this but Muslims believe the ultimate reason for creation is because of God’s love of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Why would that be:
First, God gives His reason of creation: “nothing except to worship Me” (Quran 51:56)
This mean the purpose of creation is not fulfilled except through the existence of worshipers: mankind. And the best of worshipers is Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] because he represents the epitome of worship and monotheism. He is the dearest and the most important of all creation; therefore, the ultimate purpose of creation.
“Balthasar didn’t know this but Muslims believe the ultimate reason for creation is because of God’s love of Prophet Muhammad”
Balthasar didn’t know that, and neither does God.
“This mean the purpose of creation is not fulfilled except through the existence of worshipers: mankind. And the best of worshipers is Prophet Muhammad”
I will be as polite as I can: Bilge.
“because he represents the epitome of worship and monotheism. He is the dearest and the most important of all creation; therefore, the ultimate purpose of creation.”
I consider it an insult to God to say that Muhammed was the best He could do.
It is interesting how many of the man-made (or demonically inspired) religions boil down to the founding man saying something along the lines of, “Cool! I get to sleep with as many women as I want! Or with 9-year-old girls if I feel like it!”
In simplistic terms can God’s love be defined with employing the attributes of His love for a fallen world, a world gone wrong (the problem of sin, pain & suffering? My feeble attempt to define the intent and purpose of God’s Love is His sincere desire for each, all to spend eternity with Him. If so, I should be joined at the hip with God to love each & all with my desire that each, all spend eternity with Him. Only God can be all things to all people for all time hence my love is bounded by the Order of Love, IAW the priorities of the Greatest Commandment to the point that I love those whom I defend more than I love those whom would threaten them (IAW Natural Laws of the Created Order).
Brague contends that the whole working out of the doctrine of the Trinity was an attempt to explain how God is love. Well, it’s possible, but I doubt it.
It seems to me that the connection of Trinitarian doctrine with divine love is a product of later theological development, making the idea that Trinitarian doctrine arose to explain how God is love unhistorical. It arose I think, to explain how Jesus could be fully divine and a proper object of worship without violating the principle of monotheism. That is, it arose in opposition to arianist tendencies (tendencies that existed even before Arius) that would have made out Jesus to be a kind of lesser god in a new pantheon. That’s why the early apologists for the Trinity spend a lot of time trying to prove that the Persons are made of the same stuff, and are equal, and not much time talking about how loving the Persons are, which is the focus of later theology.
As a catechist, I kept noticing that my different presentation topics repeatedly found their basis in the concept of the Trinity: Love.
I think this observation is noteworthy for both catechesis and evangelization.
A word on the Trinity and Love. What binds it as one God. Aquinas in an earliest of works wrote Essence and Existence. Briefly put we don’t find the cause of our human existence in what we are. God on the other hand is not the cause of his existence since he can’t be caused. He simply is. Simple pure Being.
Consequently what he is, his Essence is identical with his Existence. The doctrine can be traced to the Prologue of the Apostle John’s Gospel. John the Gospel theologian extraordinaire also teaches God is Love. What God is, is consistent in his presence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each Person is the same God who is Love.
That well may be excellent theology. But it is not, as a matter of historical fact, how we got the doctrine of the Trinity. I just read Frank Sheed’s very good article on the Trinity. I couldn’t help noticing what he DIDN’T spend a lot of time talking about.
All good theology finds its sources in sacred scripture. We find that in John as well as in Matthew 28:19, Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius of Alexandria followed by Cyril of Alexandria taught a Christology that affirmed a divine as well as complete human nature that resulted in the Nicene creed 325 amended at Constantinople 381 with the Filioque Clause. Christ who possesses a complete human nature must also possess a complete divine nature capable of conferring the Holy Spirit. If that is denied as it still is in the East we diminish that human nature to a receptacle of the divinity. That was cause for Cyril issuing his 11th Anathema contra Nestorius who denied communion of the Divine Presence in the flesh and blood of Jesus taken from the Blessed Virgin Mary. Our faith in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is interrelated within a Trinitarian theological faith, even if not fully explicit going back to the Lord’s Supper.
Father Morello, The Filioque was not introduced at Constantinople in 381. It was first introduced at a council in Toledo in the sixth century. This is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online (I avoid community platforms lie the left wing wikipedia):
Filioque, (Latin: “and the Son”), phrase added to the text of the Christian creed by the Western church in the Middle Ages and considered one of the major causes of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches. The Filioque clause, inserted after the words “the Holy Spirit,…who proceeds from the Father,” was gradually introduced as part of the creed in the Western church, beginning in the 6th century. It was probably finally accepted by the papacy in the 11th century. It has been retained by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Protestant churches, with certain translation in English sometimes rendering the phrase “and from the Son” and “and through the Son.” The Eastern churches have always rejected it because they consider it a theological error and an unauthorized addition to a venerable document. See Nicene Creed and East-West Schism.
And almost always missing from discussion is the fact that we should be returning that same total love in as full a measure as which we are capable of doing, always putting the beloved first in our lives. Without that returned love, we miss the mark and the point of being beloved, the same as any unfaithful spouse misses the point of marriage and loses the benefits of that union. To presuppose salvation/union with that divine love without that returned love is quite presumptuous.
http://www.mysticprayer.blogspot.com
Jesus said: “…if you see me you see the Father!” God is love. God is life and love. Jesus said “The Father is greater than I” Three persons love and immortality. We will not understand the mystery unless we love like Him, and it is a commandment.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful theology, Author/Editor Olsen.
A persistent theological question have I for you, Author Olsen/present scholars of this stream.: I am confused by portraits of the Holy Trinity which depict God as The Elderly Aged Father alongside youthful Jesus (and the white dove). Conversely, I’ve seen a portrait of Majestic King, The Lord Jesus, singularly seated upon His Heavenly throne, alongside His Queen Holy Mother Mary. (I don’t recall whether The Holy Ghost is depicted within that image as the white dove. But if the dove were present I wouldn’t think His presence as contradictory to Jesus’ Gospel statement ”The Father and I are One”. I think of The Holy Spirit as Love and Power between Father and Son, and less as a Person image.)
My confusion lies within Jesus’ testimony “He who sees Me sees The Father “. However, I know that the Church teaches The Holy Trinity is a Mystery. Wondering whether any human depiction could ever be exact, hmm?