God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes: A Dogmatic Treatise

Description

German original: Lehrbuch der Dogmatik

ref:2.69:

Max Müller refers to the discovery of the etymological equation (Sanskrit) Diaus-Pitar = (Greek) Ζεὺς-πατήρ = (Latin) Jupiter = (old Nordic) Tŷr, as “the most important discovery of the nineteenth century,” inasmuch as it proves not only that our own ancestors and the ancestors of Homer and Cicero spoke the same tongue as the nations of India, but also that they all at one time had the same faith and for a while adored the same deity under exactly the same name—“Father of Heaven.”

The Book of Wisdom devotes several chapters76 to the refutation and condemnation of Polytheism and Idolatry. In fact, Holy Scripture never tires of denouncing Idolatry as foolish and impious, and the pagan deities as “not gods,”77 “lies and vanity,”78 “wind and vanity,”79 airy nothings.80

76. Wisd. 12-15.

77. 2 Kings 19:18; Jer. 2:11.

78. Jer. 16:19.

79. Is. 41:24; Dan. 5:23.

80. Ps. 95:5; not אֶלוֹהים, but אֱלִילִים, i. e., nihila.

Apropos the feast of Holy Name, Pohle quotes

Wisdom 14:21: “ Incommunicabile nomen [i. e. , יהוה] lapidibus et lignis imposuerunt —Men … gave the incommunicable name to stones and wood.”

יַהְוֶה (YaHWeH), to reiterate, is not “incommunicable,” which is why heretic Samaritans (cf. John 4) took the pain of coming up with their own vowel pronunciation (inserting to do so a pataḥ , a tsere , and a segol under the first three consonants). The revealed , indeed communicated proper Name of God (Ex 3:13-15) is יהוה/Y-H -W-H , without any vocalized marks. It is His relational Name, hieroglyphically expressing the Catholic doctrine of the four real divine relations, namely:

Y ≡ R1 ≡ Paternity (a relation of origination)

W ≡ R2 ≡ Filiation (a relation of generative procession)

H ≡ R0 ≡ Active Spiration (a relation of origination equivalent to R1 & R2)

H ≡ R3 ≡ Passive Spiration (a relation of spirated procession)

Nothing, in itself, could be more communicable than this essential relationality of the divine life! It follows that the revealed Thrice Holy Name (a consonantical tetragrammaton) given to man must (analogically) reflect this internal reality of the One true God; and it most certainly does do so by being hallowed in man—outwardly, to start with, 1) by being spoken (thereby communicated); and 2) by being signed on to his body, by way of the Sign of the Cross (which we in fact make every day by simultaneously speaking the fourfold dynamics of the Trinitarian relations, albeit too often quite thoughtlessly: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti).

The concession to Jewish custom made in Wisdom 14:21, using the expression “incommunicable” (ἀκοινώνητον ὄνομα, incommunicabile nomen), in no way whatever invalidates the essential communicability of the Trinitarian Name God has purposely given/revealed/communicated to man for his sanctification and illumination. God’s Thrice Holy Name is only properly “incommunicable” whenever one intends to misapply it (akin to the mortal sin of taking it in vain), as when one ascribes it unto “stones and wood.” In and of itself, His proper Name given to man is not only communicable, but also communicates sanctity when rightly hallowed.

“… sed solum secundum similitudinem.”

Names themselves are necessarily communicable, as opposed to what they actually signify. And they themselves inevitably are similitudines (which confirms their inescapable communicability). For, a relatione analogiae is expressed by every name signifying a forma simplices per se subsistentes by virtue of precisely “comparing” it to what it is not. Hence the analogical nature of naming, which is communicating by signifying. Names are indeed signs, and thus intrinsically communicable to the intellect, under its mode of understanding per comparet /με συμβολ-ισμό (cf. Luke 2:19: “… συμβαλ-λουσα εν τη καρδια αυτης.”). But they do not directly communicate what they properly signify secundum similitudinem.

As for the Thrice Holy Name (Is 6:3) specifically, it is in fact so communicable that, in revealing it, God tells Moise that it is to be like a “pre-Holy Communion,” indeed literally (in Ex 3:15) “a memorial” (זִכָּרוֹן). The Hebrew word זִכָּרוֹן in Exodus 3:15 is the very word Our Blessed Lord uses when He institutes the substantial communication of His most Body, Blood, soul, and divinity in Holy Communion:

“In mei memoriam /זִכָּרוֹן facietis.”

And He is substantially communicable to us in Holy Communion.

Truly, because Holy Communion would not be what it is rightly termed to be (Holy Communion) were it not for the substantial communicability of the whole divinity and whole humanity of the divine substantial relation giving Himself as cibum et potum vera (cf. John 6:56).

Vidimus [per intellectum] stellam ejus [signum] et venimus adorare Dominum.

The capital letters A, B, and C do refer to the three distinct divine relations (R1, R2, R3). Their order, in fact, is not interchangeable, to the degree that it distinguishes these real subsistent relations, constituting Θ as a dynamic unity. But the distribution of active and passive esse ad induces a dissymmetry in Θ—the ternarily structured unity Scripture calls אֵל (El , a singular marking the indivisible divine substance) wherein the permutation of the binary terms in each of the dynamic sets of three pairs obtains to logically fit with the mutually contained doctrines of One Godhead, three Persons, four internal relations, and two processions.

Such a dissymmetry, which entails no lessening of the co-equality of the three divine Persons (but rather provides a logical analogy to the doctrine of the relational hierarchy within the Blessed Trinity), is governed by the presence of the relation of origination R0 (which is not the same as would an impossible R4 wholly distinct from R1, R2, R3) guaranteeing that אֵל’s Trinitarian inner life is logically expressed as six esse ad founding the three esse in (as opposed to consisting of three organized divine things extrinsically/accidentally relating to each other, like the “three gods” Mahomedans mistakenly accuse Christians to worship). Thus, if two esse ad have the same capital letter (A, B, or C) or subsistent relation (R1, R2, or R3) as their terminus ad quem , one is active and the other passive.

Θ specifically stands for the Godhead (Θεότης), the indivisible divine substance mutually communicated through the dynamic consubstantiality of A, B, and C. The subsistent relations of the triune Godhead are thus uncommunicable (mutually opposed), but actively and passively communicate Θ. Were it not the case, Θ itself would have to be conceived as a divine relation, as opposed to being relationally communicated.

Soli Deo tribus in unum laudamus.

I wrote:

I mean that in the law

• A = C
• B = C
• ∴ A = B,

A, B can mean any of (1) the relations R₁, R₂, R₃ or Persons P₁, P₂, P₃ (∵ relation = person), and C can signify (2) any of those or (3) Θ.

• (1)+(3) is covered where John of St. Thomas writes: "tres Personæ sunt idem uni tertio, scilicet substantiæ divinæ [Θ], in ratione absoluti "
• (1)+(2) when he writes: "inter se etiam[tres Personæ]sunt unum in eadem ratione absoluta et substantiali [Θ], non tamen sunt inter se unum relative, qua nec in illo tertio [(2) or Θ?]sunt unum relative, sed solum absolute."

Response:

Transitively, the relations of A, B, and C do fit in to the format of the argument yielding the identity conclusion A = B.

However, sunt idem uni tertio is ambiguous because, while substantiæ divinæ is transitively a uni tertio , it is not in fact a third, or a second, or a first “thing,” for it is not relative to anything other than itself (truly a divine prerogative).

In other words, when we read

tres Personæ sunt idem uni tertio,

which is in fact tantamount to

A, B, C ≡ R₁, R₂, R₃ = Θ,

John of St. Thomas is completely correct.

Yet, even if the relations are Θ communicated and are thus truly substantial and co-equal, transitivity does not provide any means for the expression of the incommunicability of the mutually opposed relations. In saying that C = Θ, which is the case as passive spiration, the co-implied identity of A and B with Θ simultaneously highlights a lack of differentiation between A, B, and C (as far as the specific properties of their irreducible mutual opposition).

Beyond the identity of transitively related terms, what then can we logically say about the ternary structure of the four internal divine relations, R₁, R₂, R₁ & R₂, R₃, which we can here simplify using A, B, and C? The transitive relation of syllogistic logic applied to A, B, and C says nothing about their internal dynamic consubstantiality. The limit of the transitive rendering of consubstantiality is that it reduces relationality to “static” identity. What it simply says is that A, B, and C are Θ, the One Godhead, “the substance of the divine” (which certainly is a true statement).

However, within the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity, A, B, and C are understood as internal relations communicating Θ as permutable active and passive Termini a quo and Termini ad quem. The ternary logic the doctrine of the Triune God can be more extensively expressed in is therefore able to distinguish three types of relations taking on three types of internal permutations consubstantial to absolute Θ—i.e. three types of relations which can be arranged into the permutations of two of the three terms:

Ø 1st type: {Terminus a quo , Terminus a quo}

Ø 2nd type: {Terminus ad quem , Terminus ad quem}

Ø 3rd type: {Terminus a quo , Terminus ad quem}

Thus, the permutation of R₁, R₂, and R₃ as six orders of mutually opposed pairs or binary terms of the above three types are able to give a coherent analogical expression, by way of logic, of the Trinitarian circumincessio.

Nothing could be more relational and absolute than the self-subsistent Triune Godhead!

In circumincessio Trina Deitas.

"The modern theory of an n th dimension is merely a metaphysico-mathematical gewgaw." ☺

Billuart…replied [De Deo, diss. 8, art. 4, § 2, ad 6 [DjVu p. 353]] to the question [of the Thomist-Molinist controversy]: How are we to conceive the harmony between præmotio and free-will? by saying: “ Respondeo, mysterium esse.”

☺

how shall we prove that God’s immutability does not imply necessary existence on the part of His creatures? This is truly, in the phrase of Billuart, the most intricate knot of all theology (“nodus totius theologiæ intricatissimus”), a veritable sacred puzzle (“ ænigma sacrum ”). [De Deo Uno diss. 7, art. 4 [DjVu p. 269-74]]

Pohle is too favorable of Molinism, claiming St. Francis de Sales was a Molinist and neglecting to mention quietism, a bad fruit of Molinism.

re: whether "God loves the merely possible good with the love of simple complacence":

S, Theol. , 1a, qu. 5, art. 3 ad 4:

mathematica non subsistunt separata secundum esse, quia si subsisterent, esset in eis bonum, scilicet ipsum esse ipsorum. Sunt autem mathematica separata secundum rationem tantum, prout abstrahuntur a motu et a materia, et sic abstrahuntur a ratione finis, qui habet rationem moventis. Non est autem inconveniens quod in aliquo ente secundum rationem non sit bonum vel ratio boni, cum ratio entis sit prior quam ratio boni, sicut supra dictum est.

De Verit. , qu. 21, art. 2 ad 4:

ea de quibus mathematicus considerat, secundum esse quod habent in rebus, bona sunt. Ipsum enim esse lineae vel numeri bonum est, sed a mathematico non considerantur secundum suum esse, sed solum secundum rationem speciei; considerat enim ea abstracte: non sunt autem abstracta secundum esse, sed solum secundum rationem. Dictum est autem supra, quod bonum non consequitur rationem speciei nisi secundum esse quod habet in re aliqua; et ideo ratio boni non competit lineae vel numero secundum hoc quod cadunt in consideratione mathematici, quamvis linea et numerus bona sint.

Some have misconstrued these quotes to imply St. Thomas didn't think mathematics is good, but St. Thomas wrote in my places on the certitude and conaturality of mathematics to the human mind.

Just to clarify: correct: יהוה, heretical: יַחְוֶח? What about: יהָוֹה?

This is correct. All diacritics supplied to the four consonants of the revealed Thrice Holy Name יהוה (to vocalize it a certain way) are either heretical additions associated with first-century Samaritan sects, or posterior additions associated with the development of post-70 A.D. Rabbinic Judaism.

When I read and studied the Aramaic Targumim (תרגומים), which are older than is usually recognized in mainstream scholarship, I found that the Targumist would simply spell the four consonants, instead of vocalizing them—vocalizing allows for various combinations and interpretations (which people are still discussing today, rather than understanding the Trinitarian doctrine revealed hieroglyphically in Y-H-W-H/יהוה). The Targumist had in mind not to corrupt the original use of strictly consonantic Mosaic Hebrew, which did not allow for various combinations and interpretations about this most sacred revelation given from the burning bush.

תודה ליהוה, האב, הבן, ורוח הקודש

ref:3.141 ff. is on God's beauty, aesthetics.

ref:3.147 says that Tradition proves God is beautiful, but this truth has not been defined dogma yet.

cites Krug's De pulchritudine divina