Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian Theology: A Study in Theological Method

136 Pages·2002·6.99 MB·English

by  Timothy L. Smith

Timothy L. Smith
Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian Theology
A Study in Theological Method
The Catholic University of America Press
Washington, D.C.
I
For Diana
Why did you smile at me in the old lamplight,
And why and how did you recognize me,
Strange girl with archangelic eyelids,
With laughing, blue, sighing eyelids,
Ivy of summer night on the stony moon;
Copyright © 2003 And why and how, never having known
The Catholic University of America Press Either my face, or my mourning, or the misery
All rights reserved Of my days, did you suddenly come upon me
Languid, musical, misty, pale, dear to me,
Who dies in the vast night ofy our eyelids?
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
The day weeps for the emptiness of all things.
American National Standards for Information Science-Pennanence of Paper
for Printed Library materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
What words, what ancient melodies
Shiver terribly over me in your unreal presence,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Somber dove of long, languid, beautiful days,
What melodies echo in sleep?
Smith, Timothy L, (Timothy Lee)
Thomas Aquinas' trinitarian theology: a study in theological Under what foliage of aged solitude,
method I Timothy 1. Smith In what silence, what music, or in what
p. em. Voice of a sick child will I find you again, a beautiful,
Includes bibliographical references and index. o chaste, a melody heard in sleep?
1. Thomas. Aquinas, Saint.122S?-1274 2.Theology-Methodol~ The day weeps for the emptiness of all things.
ogy. I. Title.
ISBN 0-8132-1097-6 (alk. paper) -0. V de L. Milosz
B765. T54 $62 2002
231',044'092-dCll
2001042483
Contents
Preface, ix
Acknowledgments, xiii
Introduction 1
1. The Context of the Questions on the Trinity 12
1.1 The Structure of the Summa theologiae / 13
1.2 The Structure of the Prima pars I 21
1.3 Neoscholastic Readings I 23
1.4 Thomas' Methodology / 31
1·5 The Source of Modern Readings: Cajetan / 39
1.6 Conclusion I 47
2. Order and Theolo gical Method
2.1 Divine Essence and Divine Persons I 48
2.2 The Development of a Trinitarian Grammar I 61
2.3 Defining Trinitarian Terms I 91
204 Conclusion I 107
3. Coordinating Essential and Proper Terms 109
3.1 Defining the Problem I 109
3.2 Comparing Augustine and Aquinas I 117
3.3 Thomas' Trinitarian Grammar / 137
3.4 Conclusion I 158
4. Theological Language: A Question of 160
Context and Character
4.1 The Question of Context I 161
4.2 The Question of Character I 192
4.3 Conclusion I 202
viii Contents
5. Naming God: The Heart of the Matter 204
5.1 The Thirteenth-Century Context I 207
5.2 Interpreting Pseudo-Dionysius I 210
5.3 Thomas' Argument in ST I. q. 13, a. 2 I 224 Preface
5.4 Conclusion I 228
5.5 Epilogue I 229
Conclusion I 231
Bibliography I 237
Index of Names I 253
How do we talk about God? How can it be that God is one and yet
Index of Topics I 256
a Trinity? And how can this mystery be discussed without sounding
nonsensical? These questions press on the mind of anyone attempting
to discuss the mystery of the Trinity. Fundamental questions of
knowledge, language, and argumentation are inescapably present at
every turn. In fact, the very idea of trying to explain what is avowedly
a mystery seems to be an affront to the mystery itself. To be mysterious
does not mean to be irrational, secret, or random. "Mysterious" in the
theological sense means to be beyond human understanding, human
comprehension. That Christ is both God and man is a mystery, yet we
can talk about what that means. We talk about the fullness of Christ's
humanity and divinity. We affirm without question that he was born
of a woman, truly ate, drank, slept, and suffered death on a cross. We
confess every day his divinity from eternity and his work of salvation
for humankind. The fullness of this truth eludes our comprehension
and many questions about it will remain unanswered, but our speech
on this matter is not in short supply. Similarly, we confess one God in
three Persons. Our confession is undisturbed until we begin to ask
what the three are and how they are one. The work of the theologian is
not to dissolve such mysteries but to find more meaningful ways of
understanding them and to show the coherence among the truths of
the Christian faith. For example, Paul calls Christ the "power and wis
dom of God." Surely the Father is not powerless or ignorant. Christ
himself says that he and the Father "are one:' Is the wisdom of God
known only in Christ or especially in Christ? The theologian's task is
to explain what is meant by Christ being especially what is held in
ix
x Preface Xl
common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bringing to bear one fact, he himself understood very well the problem of reading "ancient"
truth on the understanding of another. The aim is to draw out the im texts. In commenting on the difficulty in reading Pseudo-Dionysius'
plications of revelation, to see and to understand in what way the Divine Names, he remarked that for the "modern" reader the style is
work of Christ, for example, is especially a work of wisdom. This is the ('unfamiliar" and his vocabulary is "arcane:' Thomas went on to ex
meaning of "faith seeking understanding:' the motto, as it were, of plain in clear terms that unfamiliar and arcane text and even made
medieval theology. Of course, in such cases, one will have to make a great use of it. His own method may be unfamiliar to the modern
decision regarding what is more fundamental and first in our explana reader, yet it is not something to be bypassed. We cannot understand
tions, the unity or the distinction of Persons? One quickly realizes that his meaning without understanding his method. The Summa contra
one's starting point greatly constrains one's method and outcome. If Gentiles and the Summa theologiae are neither uselessly repetitious
one begins by narrating the life of Christ in which we come to know nor the works of a schizophrenic theologian, but two different ap
the fact of three divine Persons, then it would appear that the divine proaches to the same faith: one treats first all that can be known by
Persons are merely functional and not eternal, simply modes in which natural reason and then proceeds to revealed truths-a presentation
God works and reveals Himself to us. It is not without reason then of the Christian faith as wisdom; the other begins in revealed truth,
that Augustine said that nowhere is a mistake more dangerous, or the sacred doctrine. And this is precisely the shoal upon which many
search more laborious, or the discovery more advantageous, than in modern interpreters have foundered. It is not customary today to con
seeking the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. sider in theology minute matters of order, the relation between topics.
Thomas understood very well the principle of order and its impli We rush too quickly to what is central and most interesting. We are
cations. One need not read far into Thomas' Summa theologiae before complacent in dealing with fundamental matters. Medieval theolo
noticing the careful attention given to the order of topics and argu gians understood very well that theology cannot be an encyclopedia of
ments. And this order is not for its own sake. The multiplication of disconnected answers-it is an organic whole. Every.aspect is related
summas in the thirteenth century was in part an attempt to overcome with every other. Further, the theologian is himself connected with his
the deficiencies of the textbook for systematic theology at that time, predecessors. The theologian does not proceed from nakedness but
Peter the Lombard's Sentences. Thomas was not alone in seeing in that must be clothed in the fullness of the tradition which is the Christian
text problems of order, repetition, and the ill-considered connection of faith ..
issues. One can find alternative approaches for systematic presenta As Thomas worked through the problems of naming God, of mak
tions of theology in the summas of William of Auxerre, Alexander of ing sense of our confessional language, he perceived patterns of under
Hales, Bonaventure, and Albert the Great. And there is much to com standing and signification in the mundane that could be applied to the
mend each of these works. On the issue of naming God, however, sacred. We find in Scripture both metaphorical and more proper lan
Thomas' Summa remains unsurpassed in clarity and insight. The way guage about God. God is a rock, a lion; God alone is "good"; yet God is
in which he deals with questions of what can and cannot be known, most properly Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a fact deserving of
what can and cannot be said, what is a useful and proper argument for much contemplation that God's revelation in both Testaments is of aC
a theologian, and what is in fact detrimental to the faith are all points tions and words. Through the prophets and in the person of Jesus
at which Thomas surpasses his contemporaries. His scholastic method Christ, we hear the words spoken by God to His people. Those words
of argumentation is no doubt difficult for the modern reader today, are indeed in human tongues, but we are not deceived in using them.
but his discussions remain stimulating and extremely insightful. In We accept such revelation for what it is: truthful. Moderns have unfor-
xii
tunately developed a great mistrust in words and their connection to
reality. For Thomas, as for most any medieval theologian, words make
sense only by virtue of their relation to reality extra animam. Without
a fundamental belief in the intelligibility of all things, communication
Acknowledgments
is impossible. Such affirmation is based not on a naIve epistemology, a
mechanical one-to-one correspondence between words and things,
but rather on a sophisticated psychology in which we can knowingly
contemplate and discuss concrete things in an abstract way and visa
versa. Moreover, the fact that our words signify things by means of our
conceptions does not demand that our conceptions are perfect. There
may be no end to our learning about the simple housefly, but our Words cannot capture the depth of my gratitude for all those who
speech about it is no less true in signifying. have made this work possible. It is not mine alone but is also the prod
So as we come to understand more about God, we come to under uct of all who have taught me and and supported me, especially when
stand the way our words do and do not signify the truth about God. the goal seemed unattainable. First and foremost I would like to thank
We learn not so much what God is but what God is not: not like us in my beautiful wife, Diana, whose love and patient counsel kept me go
emotions, in passivity, in change and development. The theologian ing and helped me to keep a seemingly unmanageable task in manage
formulates ways of signifying such differences even though "what God able perspective. She has sacrificed so much in order that I may suc
is" remains elusive. ceed. To her this work is dedicated.
I wish to thank the faculty of The University of Notre Dame's Me
Santa Paula, California dieval Institute for their guidance, especially Kent Emery, Jr., whose
January 2001 lectures and publications have proven to be a goldmine of insights
into the intellectual life of the later Middle Ages. To Marina Smyth,
the Medieval Institute Librarian, I am grateful for her conscientious
and expert guidance at many points in my tenure there, but even more
I appreciate her friendship. In particular I would like also to thank
Rev. David Burrell and John O'Cailaghan for reading drafts of several
chapters and offering many insightful comments. Special thanks are
also due to Mario Enrique Sacchi, editor of Sapientia, for his kind
consideration of my work and for publishing previous versions of my
first two chapters. Thanks are also due to The Thomist, which pub
lished an earlier version of my third chapter.
Permission for reprinting Kenneth Rexroth's translation of O. V. de
L. Milosz's poem from the volume Fourteen Poems, © Copper Canyon
Press, 1983, has been given by Copper Canyon Press: www.copper
canyonpress.org.
Most importantly, I wish to thank Ralph McInerny. His work has
been my constant guide in understanding St. Thomas.
xiii
Introduction
Modern theologians have almost en masse criticized Thomas' pre
sentation of Trinitarian doctrine in his Summa theologiae because it
appears to be a rational demonstration of the divine Persons.l For the
past century, this work, along with Augustine's De Trinitate, has been
read as representative of a Latin Trinitarian tradition that "begins with
the one God, the one divine essence as a whole, and only afterwards
does it see God as three in persons.'" Philosophical concerns rather
than the revelation of God in Christ are assumed to be the basis for
the discussion of this doctrine since all divine works ad extra are com
mon to the three Persons and accordingly give us no information
about the Persons' proper identities. According to many contempo
rary theologians, the immanent life of God in this tradition is thereby
separated from the rest of Christian faith and, consequently, has no
relevance for the believer.
Thus, the treatise on the Trinity occupies a rather isolated position in the total
dogmatic system. To put it crassly, and not without exaggeration, when the
treatise is concluded, its subject is never brought up again. Its function in the
whole dogmatic construction is not clearly perceived. It is as though this mys
tery has been revealed for its own sake, and that even after it has been made
1. The so-called "Trinitarian treatise" encompasses qq. 27-43 of the first part of
Thomas' Summa Theologiae. For Aquinas' own outline of the whole Summa and of the
first part in particular, refer to the prologue to question two.
2. Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. Joseph Doncee1 (New York: The Crossroad Pub
lishing Company, 1997; reprint of the 1970 edition), p. 19. Original German text ap
peared in Mysterium Salutis, Bd. II (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1967).
2 Introduction Introduction 3
known to us, it remains, as a reality, locked up within itself. We make state unreal patterns and connections among Thomas, his predecessors,
ments about it, but as a reality it has nothing to do with us at all,3 and his contemporaries.
To begin with, Thomas quite explicitly denounced such demon
Taking their cue from, among other things, the ordering of the
strations as Anselm attempted. By means of reason alone, one can
Summa theologiae, Part I, in which the discussion of God as one (qq.
know only what pertains to the oneness of God not to the Trinity of
1-26) precedes the discussion of God as three (qq. 27-43), Thomas'
Persons. Moreover,
modern critics contend that he derives the divine Persons from the
essence by means of psychological speculations. By introducing the he who attempts to prove the Trinity of Persons by natural reason derogates
processions of divine Persons as acts of knowledge and love, Thomas the faith in two ways: First, because it demeans the dignity of the faith that, as
appears to have pursued the same troublesome path paved by it pertains to invisible things, exceeds human reason .... Secondly, when
Anselm.' The attempt to derive the Persons from such acts in God in someone, for purposes of evangelization, offers proofs of the faith that are
not cogent, he risks being mocked for having believed on account of such rea
variably leads to a multitude of processions, since each (resulting)
sons.6
Person will have his own knowledge and love. Thus, after applying
such notions speculatively to the Trinity, Thomas "must admit that Describing the real distinction and real unity of the Father, Son, and
this application fails because he has clung to the 'essential' concept of Holy Spirit, however, cannot but involve analogies. While admitting
knowledge and love.'" Thomas work is, therefore, condemned as a that the mystery of the Trinity is beyond the range of philosophical
failure to appreciate the biblical, creedal, and liturgical priority of sal proof, he argues, "it is nevertheless right to try to explain it through
vation history in which the three Persons play specific roles in the things more plainly evident:" Hence, Thomas does not shy away from
work of restoration and are known by sum roles. attempts "to make the divine Persons known by way of similitudes
The purpose of this present study is to show the inaccuracy of this and dissimilitudes:" His presentation of the Trinity is neither a
interpretation and to reveal the value of Thomas Aquinas' theological demonstration nor a systematic construction, only a manner of un
method. His method is neither speculative in the modern pejorative derstanding what is beyond but not contrary to reason, an example of
sense nor void of attention to salvation history. On the contrary, a faith seeking understanding.
study of Thomas' theological work reveals a remarkable sensitivity to Further, it is not at all certain that there is such a Latin Trinitarian
the very purpose and method of theological endeavor as well as a deep tradition as some suppose. The conception of a Latin Trinitarian tra
understanding of the nature of theological language, both its power dition is not historical but heuristic. A French theologian, Theodore
and limitations. The real value of Thomas for contemporary theology
lies precisely in his understanding of theological method, the manner
6. "Qui autem probare nititur Trinitatem Personarum naturali ratione, fidei du
and order of pursuing one's investigations. Thomas' lasting contribu
pliciter derogat. Primo quidem, quantum ad dignitatem ipsius fidei, quae est ut sit de
tion to theology, however, is at present lost in the tangle of interpreta rebus invisibilibus, quae rationem hurnanam excedunt .... Secunqo, quantum ad util
itatem trahenru alios ad fidem. Cum enim aliquis ad probandam fidem inducit ra
tions and criticisms, most of which presume unproven and sometimes
tiones quae non sunt cogentes, cedit in irrisionem infidelium: credunt enim quod
huiusmodi rationibus innitamur, et propter eas credamus:' Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae (Leonine edition) I, q. 32, a. 1 c. He also explicitly addresses Anselm's mis
3. Ibid" '4. takes, at ST I, q. 34, a. 1 ad 2 & 3.
4· On the insoluable dilemma of multiplying divine Persons through psychologi 7. "[Clonvenit tamen ut per aliqua magis manifesta declaretur." ST I, q. 39. a. 7 c.
cal analogies, see Anselm, Monologion, chs. 61-63. 8. "[Sled ad manifestandum Personas per viam similitudinis vel dissimilitudinis."
5· Rahner, The Trinity. pp. 317-404. ST I, q. 39, a. 7 ad 1.
4 Introdlilction Introduction 5
de Regnon, proposed a Greek/Latin schema in the late nineteenth cen In the so-called "Greek" explanation of the Trinity, in accordance with Holy
tury to interpret perceived distinctions within the Trinitarian tradi Scripture, one discusses first the three Persons in their personal properties as
well as in their activity in salvation history. This tradition considers in the
tion' specifically between Aquinas and Bonaventure.' While admitting
second place the unity of [divine] essence and the equality of Persons. [On
that these traditions do not corresponding to strict linguistic or geo
the other hand], the so-called "western" tradition, whose main representative
graphical divisions, de Regnon delineates these "traditions" with the
is Augustine, first considers the unity of [divine] essence grounded in the
help of certain stylistic features. He notes that certain Greek-inspired
iO oneness of God and then considers the threeness of Persons.13
discussions of the Trinity begin with the three Persons explicitly and
Schmaus' shorthand for these lines of division is the manner of pro
focus more on salvation history to elucidate the mystery (eg., Pseudo
ceeding from Persons to essence (Greek) and from essence to Persons
Dionysius, Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and Bonaven
ture). Other presentations began with the unity of God and then pro (Latin).
ceeded to discuss the three divine Persons in terms of intellectual With the writings of Karl Rahner, the divisions themselves became
1
nature. This group, he identified as a "Latin" tradition (eg., Augustine, the grounds for criticizing the representatives of the Latin tradition. '
Anselm, Peter the Lombard, Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas). Rahner, first in an article appearing in 1967 and again in a monograph
Since de Regnon, such features including the starting point (the diver in 1970, denounces the Latin Trinitarian tradition because of what he
sity of Persons for the Greeks, and the unity of nature for the Latins) perceives to be the direct consequences of an unsatisfactory method.
and manner of argumentation (from the works of salvation history or According to Rahner, the Latins speak of the "necessary metaphysical
"missions" for the Greeks, and from psychological speculations for the properties of God, and not very explicitly of God as experienced in
Latins) have become the very bases for Trinitarian discussions, both salvation history."l' The Greeks, on the other hand, "would have us
historical and systematic. start from the one unoriginate God, who is already Father even when
Michael Schmaus was perhaps the key figure in bringing de nothing is known as yet about generation and spiration:'16 The Greeks
Regnon's schema into mainstream theological thoughtY According then proceed according to biblical revelation and salvation history in
to him, the focus of de Regnon's study is the way such differences establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, while the Latins "derive" the
between Bonaventure and Aquinas can be explained vis-a-vis Pseudo Persons from psychological speculations on the "One God" who is
Dionysius and Augustine. The result is the identification of "tradi known according to certain metaphysical properties. The most severe
tions," the boundaries of which can be used to determine the funda consequence of the Latin approach, says Rahner, is the complete sepa
mental orientation and sources of other theologians." ration of the doctrine of the Trinity from Christian faith and experi-
duction to Bonaventure's Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Z.
9. Theodore de Regnon, S.]., Etudes de theologie positive sur la sainte Trinite, vol. II Hayes CSt. Bonaventure. N.Y.: The Franciscan Institute. 1979). 13-29.
(Paris: Victor Retaux, 1892-98). 13. M. Schmaus. "Das Fortwirken der augustinischen Trinitatspsychologie bis zur
10. De Regnon focused primarily on scholastic texts and on their respective ori karolingischen Zeit," in Vitae et Veritati. Festgabe K. Adam (Dtisseldorf.19s6), 45.
gins in the Cappadocians and Augustin~. De Regnon. Etudes de theologie positive, vol. 14. M. R. Barnes would argue that the debate is more defined by de Regnon than
II, pp. '33-43, 447-5" by Rahner. He is right insofar as the major lines di~iding Greek from Latiri presenta
11. M. Schmaus. Der Liber Propugnatorius des Thomas Anglicus und die Lehrunter tions of Trinitarian doctrine were drawn by de Regnon. but it was only with Rahner
shiede zwischen Thomas von Aquin und Duns Scotus, vol. II. "Die Trinitarischen that the battle ensued over the value and implications of each side. See M. R. Barnes,
Lehrdifferenzen" (Miinster.1930). 574-66. "De Regnon Reconsidered:' Augustinian Studies 26 (1995): 51-79.
12. Schmaus. Der Liber. 650ff. For a recent survey of this discussion and the prob 15. Rahner, The Trinity. 18.
lems raised regarding the labeling of certain figures, see Zachary Hayes' excellent intro- 16. Ibid., 17.
Introduction
6 In.troduction 7
ing its accuracy. Instead, the representatives of each "side" are lined up
ence. One cannot thereby relate to or pray to the Persons separately
as examples of the failures or successes of each type of theological
but is limited to a relation of reason with the three. The systematic di
procedure. This unreflective grouping of rather distinctive theolo
vision of treatises on the One God who is Creator and on the Trinity
gians is due to a "penchant for polar categories" by which modern sys
implies, in Rahner's eyes, a discontinuity between God in Himself and
tematic theologians seek to make comprehensive statements about
God's self-revelation." In a system wherein a Trinity is speculatively
2l
our complex theological heritage. The paradigm, rather than textual
derived from the oneness of God, the reality of Persons "remains
analysis, is then the ground for the diagnosed problems. The resulting
locked up within itself ... [having] nothing to do with us at all." The
reconstructions of the history of Trinitarian theology are held captive
traditional Latin denial that the revelation of Christ actually tells us
to what are essentially modern interpretive categories that prevent a
anything about the individual Persons means that we can have only an
reading of the texts outside of de Regnon's paradigm.
appropriated relation with each divine Person and not a real one. The
Most of the treatments of Trinitarian doctrine in our time take as
upshot is that there is no reason for the revelation of the Trinity, since
their point of orientation Rahner's polemic. Congar, Jiingel, Kasper,
it remains an isolated mystery, and we know nothing about each Per
Moltmann, and Simonis are just a few of the many theologians who
son except that they are.
have embraced de Regnon's categories with Rahner's diagnosis and
Rahner's answer to these problems is his thesis that the Trinity we
consequently advocate a return of the "Greek" approach beginning
encounter in the economy of salvation is the Trinity in itself: "the eco
nomic trinity is the immanent trinity:'l' God in Himself is the God of W·I th th e "e conomy." 22 Tho se w h 0 oppose such reductive readings still
find themselves having to argue according to the established lines of
our salvation. The fact that it is the Second Person of the Trinity, the
debate. They are constrained to "kick against the goads" as it were by
Word, who becomes incarnate, tells us a great deal about that particu
taking account of Rahner's criticism and diffusing it, even though they
lar Person. Moreover, Rahner argues, it is important that we recognize
the Persons as distinct agents of our salvation with whom we have know full well that the Greek/Latin scheme is an invention of de
Regnon with limited heuristic value.23
real, distinct relations.20 Consequently, the western Latin Trinitarian
tradition needs to be seriously reexamined and rebuilt upon an ontol
ogy of the economy.
~l. M. R. Barnes, "Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology," Theological
In recent years, however, the awareness of this paradigm's history Stud,es 56 (1995): 239. Barnes notes, however, that some French scholars such as Lafont
has faded. De Regnon's simplistic dichotomy has become so well em and ~alet have debated the accuracy of De Regnon's paradigm. Thus, they have at least
kept m mind that it is a paradigm-one that may be wrong. Barnes, "De Regnon Re
bedded in modern systematic theology that it is now the unseen lens
considered," 55-56.
through which the tradition is read. Many theologians assume the
. 22. Y. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury, 1983) esp. III
truth of the paradigm without investigating its history or demonstrat- m~ro.; E. Jiingel" The Doctrine of the Trinity: God's Being Is in Becoming (Grand Rapids,
MIch.: Eerdmans, 1976); W. Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, trans. Matthew J. O'Con
nell (New York: Crossroad, 1984); J. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God,
17. K. Barth noted the identity of the economic and immanent Trinity almost tran~. M. Kohl (San ~ancisco: ~~r~er & Row, 1981); The Crucified God: The Cross of
thirty years before Rahner's famous statement. but he did so in a less dramatic and ChrlSt as the Foundatlon and CntlclSm of Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and
persuasive manner. Hence. Rahner is generally credited with the statement. Cf. K. John Bowden (New York: Harper and Row, 1974); W. Simonis, "Ober das 'Werden'
Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1963. reprint of 1936 edition), 1-1, Gottes. Gedanken zurn Begriff der okonomischen Trinitat;' Munchener Theologischen
382. Zeitschrift33 (1982): 133-39.
18. Rahner, The Trinity, 14. 19. Ibid" 22. 23· M. R. Barnes, ''Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology" 237-50' H.
20. Ibid .• 80--120. Jorissen, "2ur Struktur des Traktates De Deo in der Summa theologiae des Thomas ~on