By Field Guide to the “Christs” & “Spirits,” obviously I am

referring to the plurality of semantical – not ontological &

personal – references.
Especially in vernacular theology, but rather extensively
even in academic theology (including historical, liturgical,
Scriptural, ecclesiological, sacramental, mystical &
systematic), both our Christ-references & Spirit-references
can entail different meanings.
Most prominently, those references can variously refer
subjectively, participatorily (ontologically) & quidditatively
(whatnesses) to individual persons, as well as
intersubjectively, perichoretically (relationally) &
expressively (hownesses) to corporate agencies.
Even in different contexts (see all the categories, below), the
constitutive identities of all persons, divine & human, will
always entail both of the above inter/subjective super-
categories.
Because, historically, so many vernacular references to
persons don’t capture the different nuances that are entailed
in all of our different meanings & contexts, they can often
generate much confusion for the uninitiated, even as they
can deepen meanings for the sufficiently catechized.
For example, while Reformed & Catholic theologians are
even now discovering new theological resonances grounded
in their mutual esteem for St. Augustine & even Aquinas
(e.g. especially in dialogue with Báñezian Thomism),
nothing has led to more (unnecessary) misunderstandings,
perhaps, than Augustine’s Totus Christus (as cribbed really
from St Paul’s Body of Christ). The unsavory theo-
implications that Reformers drew from St Augustine’s Totus
Christus dissolve, however, once one realizes that our
references to “Christ” can have qualitatively different
meanings. Such differences in meanings can become more
evident as we become more attentive to how we variously
refer to Christ, the acting person, as He variously relates to
both other divine persons (Trinitologically) & other natures
(Hypostatic Union).
Those references, above, are further distinct from how we
refer to Christ as He variously relates, intersubjectively, to
created persons, who can act, progressively, more & more as
altera persona Christi. Created persons are, quidditatively, Christ-
images, who are becoming, accidentally, Christ-likenesses. That’s
to recognize that, theotically, we as divine images become
synergistically (hence ever-freely) divinized into divine likenesses
(hence never-quidditatively).
To further confuse matters, references to perichoresis have
also been historically employed with qualitatively different
(analogical) meanings. There are different types of perichoresis
as we move from Trinitology (different persons – same
nature) to Christology (same person – different natures) to
Cosmology (differently natured divine shadows, vestiges,
images & likenesses – same divine omnipresencing) to
Ecclesiology (differently natured persons – same Love or
divine indwelling).
I have barely commenced this project as outlined below but
I do bring to it my own rhetorical preferences. I’m
interested in the divine relations (& processions) & in/visible
missions and how they might inform our formative
spiritualities vis a vis conversions, i.e. our levels of consciousness
& hierarchies of value. In that context, maybe because of my
charismatic sensibilities, I like the Two Hands of the Father
imagery, which includes references to Word & Spirit.

Cosmologically, where many (especially Teilhardians?)

refer to the Cosmic and/or Universal Christ I tend to
appropriate the Cosmic Spirit, Whose temporal mission
began with the gratuity of creation & continues with the gratuity
of grace, as normed by the Universal Christ with all His
creedal appropriations as resurrected, ascended, seated &
coming again! The way I use the terms, both Cosmic Spirit &
Universal Christ refer strictly to the divine persons and the
individual presences that they contribute within our
panentheistic divine matrix of intersubjectivity (corporate
agency), where I like to use the term Totus Christus.
Protologically, I like Logos, personally & substantially,
and logoi in divine volitional terms.

Historically, I like Jesus Christ, Whose temporal mission

is radically unitive in so many ways. It refers substantially &
personally.

Eschatologically, as the ecclesiological dimension of our

fulfilled unity, I like Totus Christus. This refers to divine
and human persons together as – not some supraindividual
unitary being, but – in an interpersonal unitive doing,
theophanically, corporately & perichoretically.

Eucharistically & sacramentally, including the proleptic

ecclesiological dimension, I like Corpus Christi.
Ecclesiologically, it refers relationally, corporately,
intersubjectively & theophanically. Sacramentally, it refers
personally & substantially, i.e. trans-substantially.

Anthropologically, vis a vis our theotic divinization, I like to

refer to us, theophanically, as Christ-images & Christ-
likenesses.
The challenge is having a glossary where all can make
successful references using agreed upon – not idiosyncratic
– usages. I’m sure I’ll revise a lot of my vocabulary
preferences after I better grasp usages that reflect a
consensus that’s --- not merely broad & popular, but ---
truly meaningful.

John Sobert Sylvest - 2023

A Field Guide to the Christs
This is a draft outline of my next project: A Field Guide to
the Christs
The distinctions I will offer, below, are variously in play vis a
vis References to Christ in Patristics, Liturgy, Eucharist,
Scripture, Systematics and, of course, less rigorously & more inchoately
so, in Vernacular Theology.

Such references will include, for example, Christ as Logos,

Jesus, Christus, Totus Christus, Total Christ, Cosmic Christ,
Universal Christ, Christogenesis & Christus Cosmicus, as
found in such diverse authors as St Paul, St John, St.
Augustine , A. Bruggeman, Teilhard de Chardin, Ilia Delio,
Richard Rohr & Jordan Daniel Wood.

Constitutive vs Expressive References to Christ per the:

absolute primacy
protological vs historical vs eschatological
gratuities of creation vs grace
uncreated vs created grace
forma transformans vs forma transformata
omnipresence vs indwelling
ontological (physical) vs personal (relational)
shadows & vestiges vs images & likenesses
participatory vs perichoretic (perichoreseS)
ontologically constitutive vs theophanically expressive
plurality of (or multiple) incarnations
macrocosmic – microcosmic

cf. Scotus, Alexander of Hales & John of La Rochelle,

Bonaventure, Maximus
As will become clear, herein below, I define the constitutive in
terms of both acts & relations, subjectivity &
intersubjectivity, quiddity & expressivity.

Systematic References to Christ in:

Paterology
Christology
Pneumatology
Trinitology
Missiology
Cosmology
Anthropology
Ecclesiology
Sacramentology
Soteriology
Sophiology
References to Christ in the context of the Divine
Relations

paternity
active spiration
passive spiration
filiation

cf. Kujan, Doran, Lonergan

References to Christ in the context of Created

Supernatural Realities

human existence of Jesus

sanctifying grace
habit of charity
light of glory

cf. Kujan, Doran, Lonergan

References to Christ per the Scale of Values & Levels

of Consciousness
Vital – Experience
Social – Understanding
Cultural – Judgment
Moral (Personal) – Deliberation
Religious – Charity (e.g. constituted by the participation in
active and passive spiration in the Trinity manifested
through sanctifying grace and charity)

cf. Kujan, Doran, Lonergan

References to Christ with Implications for Comparative

Theology & Interreligious Dialogue

in progress but, hopefully, self-evident by now!

References to Christ with Implications for Formative

Spirituality & the Life of Prayer

in progress but, hopefully, self-evident by now!

Christ is the communion of divine personal love expressed in every
created form of reality—every star, leaf, bird, fish, tree, rabbit and
every human person. Everything is christified because everything
expresses divine love incarnate. ~ Ilia Delio

Teilhard’s God-world relationship could be described as

“cosmotheandric,” that is, cosmic, human and divine all at
once. ~ Ilia Delio
cosmogenesis as Christogenesis ~ Chiu Bit-Shing, Abraham
ofm

Lonergan’s 4 point hypothesis “identifies four created supernatural

realities through which human beings participate in the four relations
among the three divine persons. These four created supernatural
realities are the human existence of Jesus (i.e. , the esse
secundarium), sanctifying grace, the habit of charity, and the light of
glory (i.e., the lumen gloriae) whereby the saints in heaven see God.
Through these four, people participate, respectively, in the four divine
relations of paternity, active spiration, passive spiration, and
filiation. Paternity, filiation, and passive spiration constitute the three
divine persons, respectively, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Active
spiration is really identical to paternity and filiation considered
together.
~ Michael Kujan

Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of
us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to
hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in
this paschal mystery in a manner known to God” (GS 22, emphasis
added). The council is affirming a doctrine—“the Holy Spirit offers
everyone the possibility of sharing in this paschal mystery”—but in the
words “in a manner known to God” it is suggesting a systematic-
theological question: How can this be? ~ Robert M. Doran

sanctifying grace & the habit of charity

the grace that makes one pleasing and so to sanctifying grace, the grace
of justification. That these latter are to be acknowledged as “sanctifying
graces” is explicitly affirmed by Lonergan. There are other texts in
Aquinas that make the same point, including the texts that Jacques
Maritain relies on to argue that in the first moral act of every
individual justification and elevation to a share in divine life are at
stake. But I am selecting this text because Lonergan emphasizes its
importance in Thomas’s development. Thomas is on his way toward a
theology of actual grace, and it is a theology that would acknowledge
that at least some instances of actual grace are also sanctifying graces in
the strict sense of the term, in that they include the infusion of
supernatural charity. Lonergan interprets Thomas’s text precisely in
this way. Supernatural habits, and especially of course charity, may not
only be infused with baptism but also given as one assents to at least
some of the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit by which a person is
joined to God in the concrete circumstances of his or her own life; and
they may be developed due to fidelity to such promptings. ~ Robert
M. Doran

Lonergan describes a scale of values that he considers hierarchical. He

sets forth five distinct kinds of values in an ascending order of
importance including vital values, social values, cultural values, moral
values and religious values. Heposits that different levels of
consciousness ground the distinction between the five different kinds of
values. For Lonergan, the goal is to determine the good to
be realized at each level. He divides values according to the level at
which they are intended. He talks about vital values at the level of
experience, social values at the level of understanding, cultural values at
the level of judgment, personal values at the level of deliberation and
religious values at a fifth level.
Bernard Lonergan and John Finnis on the Question of
Values ~ Michael Ambrosio

If there is a mereological whole exceeding the sum of its

parts, it’s – neither a supraindividual nor
other substantial entity, but – an interpersonal reality, a
concrete social Absolute, constituted by – not a static &
divisible unitary being, but – a dynamical & multiplicative
unitive process, where synergistic hownesses remain
uncountable because “ever on the move.” (eternal epectasis?)

The many tropoi then journey toward the One concrete

social Absolute, of – not a supraindividual unitary being, but
– an interpersonal unitive doing.

Worthwhile References:

A. Bruggeman

The Cosmic _Christ : Some Recent Interpretations

Robert M. Doran

Actual Grace and the Elevation of the Secular

Invisible Missions: The Grace that Heals Disjunctions

Michael Kujan

Participation in the Triune God: Engaging Karl Rahner’s

Trinitarian Theology with Bernard Lonergan’s Four-Point
Hypothesis, as Developed by Robert Doran

Ilia Delio on the Cosmic Christ

https://christogenesis.org/reply-to-richard-rohr-cosmic-
christ/

https://christogenesis.org/the-cosmic-christ-and-
revolution/

https://christogenesis.org/understanding-the-christic-in-an-
open-universe/
https://christogenesis.org/rediscovering-the-universal-
christ/

https://christogenesis.org/the-cosmic-christ/

https://christogenesis.org/love-coming-to-fullness/

A Field Guide to the Spirits

Further Pneumatological Grounding for the Spirit’s
Presences in the World per Franciscan Justification,
Sanctification & Glorification

Justification & Sanctification

Concerning concepts like justification & sanctification, the

early OFMs worked on an ontological account or the
quiddity of grace.
Beyond introducing the forma transformans/forma
transformata distinction, they were also inquiring as to
whether created grace was: a substance or an accident; a
virtue, gift, fruit or beatitude; belonged to esse primum or
secundum; as power of esse secundum, whether always in
act or as a habit not always in act, etc

But way more than engaging just ir/resistable grace

motivations, in their various accounts, the OFMs were
blocking ontological inferences like monism & monergism
as well as preserving anthropological realities like liberum
arbitrium contra necessitating grace.

They were especially blocking any inference that the ends of

human divinization could ever be an hypostatic union.

In the end, the early OFMs concluded that grace belonged

to esse secundum, was an accident, always in act so not a habit or
virtue.
Once specifying all that, still left open would be the chicken
& egg question regarding whether it was an infused
disposition towards one’s reception of uncreated grace or
the result of one’s reception of the Holy Spirit.

So, this initial OFM formulation could still have let in the
twin spectres of a super/nature & a reification of created
grace as a “thing.” Those inferences were blocked, however
by threading an onto-needle, where extrinsic grace, as the
Source, gifts effects that are dispositions, which are intrinsic to
the soul.

Later OFMs, like Scotus, insisted that divine grace precedes a

disposition & isn’t posterior to or contingent upon same.

Additionally, some OFMs invoked additional distinctions

like prevenient grace & dispositions toward justification
merited de congruo.
Same Source, though, different manifestations.

Once Scotus established that dispositions are effects not

prerequisites, all that early OFM work re the ontology of
grace, while it was important for other inference blocks,
logically got backburnered re any disputes pertaining to
justification (w/Luther).

To delve more deeply into the Franciscan influences on

competing speculative accounts regarding nature, grace &
freedom, two excellent resources are Iustitia Dei: A History
of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Alister
McGrath [1] and especially the chapter entitled The
Ontology of Grace of Alexander of Hales and John of La
Rochelle by Vincent L. Strand, SJ from the volume The
Summa Halensis, Doctrines and Debates edited by Lydia
Schumacher [2].
Addendum: The most thorough treatment of the
un/created grace distinction as developed by the early
Franciscans may be H. Daniel Monsour’s dissertation – The
relation between uncreated and created grace in the
Halesian Summa, a Lonergan reading

Glorification
In considering any putative dis/continuities (Bavinck
emphasized continuities [3]) of ante-mortem versus post-
mortem contemplation,

believing that to some extent the former anticipates the

latter & that eternal life can begin in us now as our
portion here even via mystical epistemic goods and

further stipulating to the beatific vision as the ultimate

human telos,

what types of changes, ante- vs post- mortem, would

account for any discontinuities?

Since the telos of the beatific vision is constitutively

inherent to being human (as consistent with Scotus’ absolute
primacy of Christ sans felix culpa [4] & as inhering in terms of our
acts & potencies, cf. Hjort), we’re already epistemically
equipped for the beatific vision by our primary nature.

Any post-mortem changes would pertain, therefore, to our

secondary nature, where grace operates & where divine
presences,

because they are to the intellect as form is to matter (e.g.

consistent with Bonaventure’s illuminationist epistemology
[5]),
will gift us new epistemic – not equipment for processing (e.g.
as in Marcel’s epistemology of mysticism, which is excellent
[6]), but – goods to be processed (e.g. as in Stump’s ontology of
divine presence, which is also good [7]).

While divine presencings can vary, both ante- & post-

mortem, by kinds & per intensities, and while they are
ordinarily divinely calibrated in terms of both manners &
degrees of presencings, as will be commensurate with our
levels of intrasubjective authenticity via conversion &
intersubjective unity via theosis, at the same time, we
mustn’t a priori rule out extraordinary presencings that might
be gifted independent of our levels of soul maturation!

There simply are no character-based, disposition-based or

indwelling-based beatific contingencies. This is not to deny
a role for any otherwise indispensable purgative processes, as
called for.

Furthermore, consistent with my belief in a radical

theoanthropological continuity between our protological,
historical & eschatological experiences of divine presencings,
we mustn’t a priori rule out transitory ante-mortem beatific
visions in addition to perpetual post-mortem beatific
visions. For that matter, transitory beatific visions could
very well play various roles in post-mortem purgative
realities, too. (I have a logical defense vis a vis the problem of
evil that justifies these gratuitous extraordinary presencings,
but it’s beyond the scope of this musing).

We might conceive the beatific vision in terms of both a

unitive harmony & enjoyment of the perpetually novel
expressions of the divine energies (e.g. Nyssen [8]) as well as
a noetic identity & enjoyment of the perpetually novel
illuminations of the divine incomprehensibility (e.g. Aquinas
[8]).

With both Cajetan & de Lubac we might agree that, finally,

“‘this end is hidden from us because it is the supernatural end of our
soul.”

With de Lubac, we must insist that “but for us, unlike

Cajetan, it is not the absence of any desire that is the
reason for ignorance: rather it is the depth of our
desire.” [9]

Hence, we’ll enjoy, in eternal epectasy, the perpetually novel

expressions of the divine energies as well as the perpetually novel
illuminations of the divine incomprehensibility. It’s already begun!

1 – Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of

Justification by Alister McGrath pdf link

2- The Summa Halensis, Doctrines and Debates, Edited by

Lydia Schumacher
3 – Revisiting Bavinck and the Beatific Vision by Cory C.
Brock pdf link

4 – Writings of the Subtle Doctor on the absolute primacy

of Jesus Christ by Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean, Hermit

God freely creates all rational creatures to share in His glory and to be
glorified in Him in varying degrees

5 – Bonaventure’s Critique of Thomas Aquinas by Brendan

Case

6 – Toward an epistemology of mysticism: Knowing God as

mystery by Theresa Tobin pdf link

7 – Omnipresence, Indwelling, and the Second-Personal by

E. Stump pdf link

8 – Face to face, the beatific vision according to Gregory of

Nyssa and Thomas Aquinas by Victor Hjort pdf link

there is an inherent telos for all humanity pointing to its fulfillment in

the beatific vision

9 – Henri de Lubac on Nature and Grace by NJ Healy pdf

link
Supplement

To delve more deeply into various Franciscan contributions

to the competing speculative accounts regarding nature,
grace & freedom, among the best resources I’ve been able
to access are

1) Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of

Justification by Alister McGrath

2) The Summa Halensis, Doctrines and Debates edited by

Lydia Schumacher, especially Vincent L. Strand, SJ’s
contributuon entitled The Ontology of Grace of Alexander
of Hales and John of La Rochelle

3) H. Daniel Monsour’s dissertation – The relation between

uncreated and created grace in the Halesian Summa, a
Lonergan reading

To more quickly focus on the points most salient to

our universal divine presence concerns, I would direct
those interested in Monsour’s dissertation (re uncreated and
created grace in the Halesian Summa) to his repeated use
(13 times) of the phrase “already wholly present God.”
He invokes it as a reference to “the just” in the context of
how uncreated grace, the Holy Spirit, precedes transformata,
i.e. the habitus of Godlikeness, and isn’t, rather, posterior to
or contingent upon same.
While Monsour’s Halesian account of sanctification is
integral to my own pneumatological account, a question
yet begs regarding how anyone comes to a state of
justification, e.g. by cooperation with baptismal grace.

So, we must inquire further to ask to whom are the

channels of grace open & how might they variously
access its assistance to finally attain their inherent human
teloi, including both the penultimate purgative
restoration & ultimate unitive beatific vision?

Often, the best strategy for cutting to the chase in matters

of great theoanthropological moment is to put forward such
questions in limit cases, which can more quickly & most
sharply expose the theological tensions that are in play,
e.g. How many angels can …?

One limit case that well suits the needs of my

pneumatological approach in this particular Franciscan
context is the one discussed by the International
Theological Commission in its publication – The Hope of
Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.

To more quickly turn our focus to the points most salient to

our immediate concerns, I’ll repeat the strategy that I
employed for Monsour’s dissertation, wherein I pointed to
repeated occurrences of the phrase “already wholly present
God.” [Use your browser’s in-page “search” feature.]

In the ITC’s document regarding “The Hope of Salvation,”

I would direct all to those 13 paragraphs therein which cite
“GS 22,” which is a reference to Vatican II’s Pastoral
Constitution On the Church in the Modern World,
Gaudium et Spes.

Below is a sampling of those paragraphs in the ITC

document. They speak for themselves (not that they aren’t
susceptible to weasel wording sophistries). They are too
important to my central concerns – to whom are the
channels of grace open & how might they variously access
its assistance vis a vis our already wholly present God – to
leave the work of looking them up with the reader. And, to
those who’d invoke a distinction of a mere divine
omnipresencing over against an indwelling, still, whatever
distinctions are in play vis a vis divine presencings, there’s
no coherently defensible way to invoke them to support
a concrete natura pura.

Excerpts that cite Gaudium et Spes from the

International Theological Commission in its
publication regarding infants who die without being
baptized

It is important to recognise a “double gratuity” which calls us into

being and simultaneously calls us to eternal life. Though a purely
natural order is conceivable, no human life is actually lived in such an
order. The actual order is supernatural; channels of grace are open from
the very beginning of each human life. All are born with that humanity
which was assumed by Christ himself and all live in some kind of
relation to him, with different degrees of explicitness (cf. LG 16) and
acceptance, at every moment.

Because, by his Incarnation, the Son of God “in a certain way united
himself” with every human being, and because Christ died for all and
all are in fact “called to one and the same destiny, which is divine”, the
Church believes that “the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of
being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery.

The Second Vatican Council teaches that God does not deny “the
assistance necessary for salvation” to those who, without any fault of
their own, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but
who, with the help of grace, “strive to lead a good life”. God enlightens
all people “that they may at length have life” (cf. LG 16). Again it
teaches that grace is “active invisibly” in the hearts of all people of good
will.

The following words, in particular, seem truly universal in their scope.

“For since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one
and the same destiny, which is divine [cumque vocatio hominis ultima
revera una sit, scilicet divina], we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers
to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God,
in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). This profound sentence of Vatican
II takes us into the heart of the loving purpose of the blessed Trinity
and stresses that God’s purpose exceeds our understanding.

His Resurrection is the source of humanity’s hope (cf.1 Cor 15:20); in

him alone is there life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10); and the Holy
Spirit offers to all a participation in his paschal mystery.

There is a fundamental unity and solidarity between Christ and the

whole human race. By his Incarnation, the Son of God has united
himself, in some way (“quodammodo”), with every human being (GS
22).[119] There is, therefore, no one who is untouched by the mystery
of the Word made flesh. Humanity, and indeed all creation, has been
objectively changed by the very fact of the Incarnation and objectively
saved by the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ.[120]
However, that objective salvation must be subjectively appropriated (cf.
Acts 2:37-38; 3:19), ordinarily by the personal exercise of free will in
favour of grace …

The teaching of St Paul would urge us to redress the balance and to

centre humanity on Christ the saviour, to whom all, in some way, are
united.[124] “He who is the ‘image of the invisible God’[125] is
himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that
likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin.
Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in
him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare” (GS 22).
We wish to stress that humanity’s solidarity with Christ (or, more
properly, Christ’s solidarity with all of humanity) must have priority
over the solidarity of human beings with Adam …
Because all people live in some kind of relation to Christ (cf. GS 22),
and the Church is the body of Christ, all people live also in some kind
of relation to the Church at every moment. The Church has a profound
solidarity or communion with the whole of humanity …

Questions about nature, grace & freedom were raised,

but not explicitly answered, in Vatican II’s Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et
Spes) and its Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-
Christian Religions (Nostra aetate), as well as in the
International Theological Commission’s publication, The
Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.
The same questions would pertain to the presence of
Christ’s grace outside the formal bounds of the church as
asserted by Pope John Paul II.

To grapple with these unanswered questions,

anthropologically & metaphysically, I have mostly turned to
the personalist, existential & critical realist neo-Thomisms of
Clarke, Maritain & Lonergan, respectively.

Other theologians who’ve most inspired me – but whom I

approach using more of contemplative & phenomenological
heuristic, such as in the context of the Ignatian Spiritual
Exercises – include those from the nouvelle &
certain transcendental Thomists, whose accounts don’t seem
rigorously metaphysical to me, e.g. nouvelle – Maréchal &
de Lubac and transcendental – Rahner.
For his part, Lonergan, anthropologically, observed
our cognitional structures. His cognitional theory grounded his
metaphysics and pneumatology. It dovetails quite well with
my Charismatic sensibilities & Gelpi’s theoanthropology
of conversions. Gelpi’s social relational metaphysic of
experience also fits well with Bracken’s metaphysic of
intersubjectivity (both Peircean influenced).

For his part, Rahner’s epistemology was vague, his

cognitional account grounded in his metaphysics. What I
most appreciate about his take is that, theologically, he
offered a divine self-communication account, where
created graces are constitutively related to uncreated grace
via quasi-formal causality. That account squares quite well
with Lonergan’s theology of the divine missions.

A caveat, though, from Burrell:

So we can see that what is needed is a theoretical grasp of these matters

which does not purport to be an explanation, in the sense of attempting
to show “how it works.” For there is no mechanism at work — the
act of creation is not itself a motion, so we must move beyond recourse
to imaging the forces at work. The name I like to give such a strategy is
“grammatical,” without thereby conceding that “it is all a matter of
language,” but rather insisting that one needs to be guided by the
entailments (positive and negative) of the assertions one can make, and
that is all. In short, one needs to know where questioning here comes to
an end, and the proper sort of knowing in such matters will involve an
“unknowing” which acknowledges that one simply cannot go on. While
both Maritain and Lonergan display a keen awareness of this feature
of theological inquiry, one cannot help but recognize that Lonergan has
translated that constraint into the grammar of his own treatment better
than Maritain was able to do. I have already offered my hypothesis to
locate the source of this difference: in Maritain’s continued dependence
on a commentary tradition which failed to understand such matters,
while his mentor and Lonergan’s understood them exquisitely.

Jacques Maritain and Bernard Lonergan on Divine and

Human Freedom by David B. Burrell, C.S.C.

Regarding Rahner’s divine self-communication account,

where created graces are constitutively related to uncreated
grace via quasi-formal causality, as married to Lonergan’s
theology of the divine missions, taken together,
those Trinitarian theologies of Being in love can serve as the
basis for our formulations of psychological analogies, which can
help us better understand the Trinity.

Per Kujan, Lonergan’s 4 point hypothesis “identifies four

created supernatural realities through which human beings participate
in the four relations among the three divine persons. These four created
supernatural realities are the human existence of Jesus (i.e., the esse
secundarium), sanctifying grace, the habit of charity, and the light of
glory (i.e., the lumen gloriae) whereby the saints in heaven see God.
Through
these four, people participate, respectively, in the four divine relations of
paternity, active
spiration, passive spiration, and filiation. Paternity, filiation, and
passive spiration constitute the three divine persons, respectively, as
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Active spiration is really identical to
paternity and filiation considered together.

Participation in the Triune God: Engaging Karl Rahner’s

Trinitarian Theology with Bernard Lonergan’s Four-Point
Hypothesis, as Developed by Robert Doran by Michael
Kujan, Ph.D.

Regarding those questions about nature, grace & freedom

that were raised in Vatican II and in its wake, I commend
Robert M. Doran’s Actual Grace and the Elevation of the
Secular and also Doran’s Invisible Missions: The Grace that
Heals Disjunctions.

All Persons are Constituted by Both Acts & Relations,

Subjectively & Intersubjectively, Quidditatively &
Expressively
All persons are constituted both subjectively & intersubjectively,
which is to say, by both their entitative acts & their
interpersonal relations.
Metaphysically, these subjective acts & intersubjective
relations are, constitutively, equiprimordial.
Entitative acts are variously self-determinative.
Per the primacy of persons, paterologically, the Father self-
determines, ur-kenotically, both the divine essence & divine
relations (Otherings or Thounesses).
Christologically, the Son self-determines, kenotically, both
His secondary essence – His ex Deo human nature – & His
cosmotheandric relations (otherings or thounesses).
Anthropologically, we co-self-determine – not our primary
nature, as Christ-images, but – our secondary natures,
as Christ-likenesses, by how we kenotically & synergistically
manifest, expressively, what we are, constitutively.
The kenotic self-transcendent dynamic that constitutively orders
all subjects, “what“ever their primary natures, to intersubjective
relations, situates all persons on transcendental horizons, which is
to say, open to the emergent intersubjective novelties that will
emerge from “how” each person co-self-determines to
express their love.
These horizons & novelties represent analogous ad intra &
ad extra divine perichoreses, which per an emergentist logic
are not quidditatively reducible in constitutive terms of
“what“nesses. Their intelligibility derives, rather, from the
distinct “how“nesses by which each person uniquely
manifests “what” they are and so reveals “who” they are in
the context of their intersubjective relationality.
In emergentist accounts of determinate being, both the
existential acts that reduce essential potencies
of whatness (primary natures) and efficient – formal acts
(volitional or will – intellect) that reduce im/material & final
potencies of howness (secondary natures) are dynamical. This
is to say that, phylogenetically, essences can evolve and that,
ontogenetically, individuals can evolve in how they manifest
their received (static) primary natures in intersubjective
contexts. This is to recognize that, while “what” one is,
quidditatively, has been determined, “how” one is,
expressively, remains decidedly probabilistic. This is to say
that, modally, noncontradiction holds but excluded middle folds,
which means that our range of theophanic final potencies has
been divinely determined, while our specific efficient –
formal or volitional acts have not. This very much brings to
mind how I understand Tom Belt’s Open account.
By properly prescinding from pure necessity to probability for
determinate being, we can avoid the pseudo-tensions that
arise from the false dichotomy of essentialism & nominalism,
which represents the obverse sides of the same bankrupt
epistemic – ontic coinage. It’s precisely such a pseudo-
tension in play between Báñezian & Molinist accounts of
nature, grace & freedom, all realities which present in terms
of – not all or nothing & either – or, but – degrees &
intensities, ranges & scopes and types & extents.
While any given person, subjectively & entitatively, has a
determined primary nature as gifted per the gratuity of creation,
grace operates per one’s expressive secondary nature, which
is synergistically co-self-determined probabilistically.
In an emergentist metaphysic of intersubjectivity, entitative
subjective whatnesses are determined within discrete but
integrally related hierarchical levels, i.e. per similar horizontal
causes (existential acts reducing essential potencies) and unique
personal hownesses are expressed relationally in all manner of
discrete intersubjective novelties. Because those personal
hownesses are volitional, they are synergistically co-self-
determined per distinct, but simultaneous, vertical causes (formal
acts reducing final potencies). Persons thus become
increasingly open to further influences (e.g. obediential
potencies) by higher hierarchical levels (e.g. uncreated
prevenient graces).
The analogous perichoreses – Trinitological, Christological,
Cosmotheandric & Theotic – all also have analogous horizontal
(natural) & vertical (volitional) causation dynamics, which vary
per nondeterminate, self-determinate &
variously in/determinate beings. It’s precisely per
the simultaneity of these analogous vertical causes (per their
respective horizontal hierarchies) that our emergentist
accounts of emanation & generation, ur-kenosis & kenosis,
can block such inferences as proto-Father,
Paterologically, Logos asarkos, Christologically, and natura
pura, cosmotheandrically.
This is all to point out that Jordan Daniel Woods’ defense
of Bonaventure’s emanation account and his Maximian
Christological Cosmology, Lonergan’s conception of vertical
finality (levels of consciousness, scale of values & divine
relations analogies), Yong’s Cosmic Spirit (pneumatological
theology of religions) and Bracken & Gelpi’s metaphysics of
intersubjectivity (Divine Matrix, theology of conversion &
narrative Maximian Christology) are in many ways, variously
explicitly & implicitly, consistent with Peirce’s
phenomenological modal ontology & pragmatic semiotic
realism. I recommend it as a very felicitous idiom for any
systematics.
Questions for Further Reflection

RE: the twin contexts of Christ's uniqueness & the Creator -

creature relationships, the first which touches upon the
hypostatic union vis a vis different natures & the latter,
which addresses the relationships between differently
natured entities & persons

Things that may be of interest to those who want to dig

deeper:

1) orthodox vs theologoumena vs heterodox vs heresy

2) that creature called time

3) Immaculate Conception logic

4) Spirit in OT dis/continuities with after Pentecost

5) beatific vision as a theo-anthropo limit case or thought
experiment

6) trinitarian relations & missions as psychological analogies

& models for conversion, prayer & kenotic service

7) divinization & humanization - their natural ontological

asymmetries & personal noetic - unitive identities

I tie this stuff together in terms of perichoresis, a term which

is theo-

shorthand for: by virtue of the Creed, Cult, Codes,

Councils, Church & Community, I believe THAT these
DIFFERENT natures and DIFFERENT persons
meaningfully interact toward the end of love, even though I
can't fully explain HOW using any available metaphysical
idiom.
I approach each type of perichoresis as a setting of
theological contours, which, unavoidably, will also require
some degree of metaphysical bracketing. The theo-contours
will often be set, apophatically, using creedal inference
blockers (e.g. not made), which will then otherwise license
theologoumenal kataphatic speculations.

My analogous perichoreses are in some sense more so

exploratory heuristics, much less so explanatory
metaphysics.

The practical upshot is - not that God is utterly

incomprehensible, although He'll remain that even in our
visions beatific, but - that God is supremely intelligible,
hence not disproportionate to human nature in that noetic
sense, as we are intrinsically receptive to being gifted that
novel disposition of noetic identity, which will be adequate
to a beatific vision.
In a trinitological perichoresis, different persons – same
nature, a tension is playing out between "not modalism" and
"not tritheism."

In a Christological perichoresis, same person – different

natures, a tension is playing out between "not made" and
"not accidental" and "not commingled" and "not two
persons" and "not added" (divine to human person) and
"not phantasmic."

In an ecclesiological & theotic perichoresis, differently

natured persons (images, likenesses & exemplifications -
same love), a tension is playing out between "not peccable"
and "not relative" (perfections) and "not finite" (persons)
versus the "not impeccable" and "not absolute" and "not
infinite."

In a cosmological perichoresis, differently natured shadows,

vestiges & exemplifications - same universal omnipresence,
tension is playing out between "not relative" (perfections)
and "not finite" (entities) versus the "not absolute" and "not
infinite."

In a cosmotheandric perichoresis, which leans into what

some refer to as "deep incarnation," we recognize a deep
continuity between the ecclesiological & cosmological
dimensions of creation in relation to the Creator, employing
a panentheism, where a tension can be playing out between
"not deism" and "not pantheism," which, differently put,
would be between an apathetically underinvolved &
pathetically overinvolved deity.

The Maximian Cosmology & Christology debates precisely

focus in on questions related to whether & when Maximus
was employing a logic of natures versus a logic of persons
or both. It paradigmatically teases out many of the nuances
under consideration here:
https://syndicate.network/symposia/theology/maximus-
the-confessor/

As with those Maximian debates, other important issues can

be raised that address rhetorical strategies, especially
regarding which terms are the most in/felicitous, i.e.
disambiguate & convey the most meaning to this or that
audience vs obfuscate or confuse. Or, often enough, are just
aspiring to be congenially provocative (or mischievously
prophetic?).

Ordinarily, we'll variously defend our interpretations &

terms in contradistinction to competing accounts - if not
pressing claims of heterodoxy or even heresy, then - within
the bounds of orthodoxy, advocating our own speculative
theological opinions (theologoumena) by placing more vs
less emphasis toward one side or another (however many
sides, not always binaries). This includes, of course, the
various tensions as inventoried above (using our creedal
apophatic inference blockers ) as well as those which might
variously emphasize divine sovereignty vs human freedom,
compatibilism vs libertarianism, nature vs grace, will vs
intellect, essence vs intention, necessary vs fitting,
non/determinate vs in/determinate, etc Many of these
tensions are polar realities which can present within a
suitable range of degrees of emphases, within which valid
theo-opinions can defensibly & moderately situate
themselves.

One of the most intriguing Creator - creature distinctions is

that creature we call time. For example, Stump has
discussed eternal - temporal simultaneity, which Leftow has
modified. I'm somewhat open to them all. Long before
them, Scotus ingeniously solved the theo-puzzle of the
Immaculate Conception. How might we employ Scotus'
insight --- that ad extra economic events need not be strictly
confined to their phenomenological temporal seriality — to
better conceive the relationship between protological,
historical & eschatological realities?

How could the Eucharist have been instituted on Maundy

Thursday at the Last Supper? As with the Immaculate
Conception, were the efficacies of Christ's passion, death,
Resurrection, Ascension & Pentecost similarly foreseen &
anticipated? What about the Holy Spirit's presences &
activities in the Old Testament? What economic
dis/continuities might be in play prior to & after Pentecost
in the eternal gratuity of - not just creation, but - even
grace?

https://macrinamagazine.com/issue-4-general-
submissions/guest/2020/08/08/the-former-things-are-
passed-a-rejoinder-to-brendan-case/

In terms of divine presencing, how might we best express

our belief that all three divine persons operate ad extra via
the uncreated divine nature, when the means of grace are
dispensed by the Holy Spirit, when the person of Christ
becomes present in the People gathered, Word proclaimed
& Sacred Species taken, as various activities are ascribed in
special ways to the Holy Spirit or the Son?

When, through our appropriation procedures, we take a

feature belonging to the nature of God, common to all
three persons, and specially ascribe it to one of the divine
persons, aligning the persons' properties with their essential
attributes, what are the practical upshots from such
appropriations for our spiritual lives of conversion, prayer
& service? What theoanthropological insights might we
gain, e.g. psychological analogies to the Trinity, the shared
interpersonal love, divine relations & missions, human
dignity, ecological imperatives, etc?

Further, regarding that creature time, what about the Logos

& Christ? How might protological, historical &
eschatological realities inform those distinctions or not per
an eternal – temporal simultaneity? What else may have
been foreseen & anticipated or even proto-eschatologically
"already" realized?

Might it at least be theologoumenal to reject any Logos

asarkos conception - not abstractly, but - concretely? Some
indeed thus see Creation as Incarnation. Some conceptions
might truly refer to the ontological reality of persons as
distinct from, let’s say, those persons’ various temporal
manifestations. Why couldn’t this apply, for example, to an
eternal hypostatic union as distinct from Jesus’ historical
epiphany? What's of essence is that, eternal or not, the
creation remains gratuitous, that Christ didn't need to be
Emmanuel but wished to be with us (sans any felix culpa).
See https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268203474/the-whole-
mystery-of-christ/
On one hand, consider Brother Andre’ Marie: At the
Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity was made the
Incarnate Word (λόγος ἔνσαρκος, Logos Ensarkos). But
before there was the Man-God Jesus Christ, there was the
Word (λόγος ἄσαρκος, Logos Asarkos, the “un-enfleshed
Word”), that is, the not-yet-incarnate Second Person of the
Holy Trinity. https://catholicism.org/the-way-to-the-
father.html

On the other hand, consider Paul Griffiths: The logos

asarkos, the fleshless Word, is a metronomic thought
experi­ment without purchase on the trinitarian economy.
There may be reasons for using the locution, but there are
none that require Christians to think that it labels anything.
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/08/09/the-logos-
asarkos-the-fleshless-word-is-a-metronomic-thought-
experiment-without-purchase-on-the-trinitarian-economy/
Still, with Maritain, whatever the case may be, we
distinguish to unite.

While some of our conceptual distinctions can certainly be

intelligible, abstractly, and even help to convey deeper
meanings, for example, natura pura, they certainly needn’t
always translate concretely?

I deny a concrete natura pura, anyway, for without denying

realizable natural beatitudes, we can still recognize, at the
same time, that they’re merely penultimate?

Regarding "deep" and "multiple" incarnations, I turn to

Scotus & Bonaventure when folks start equivocating about
signs. While we can conceive of a symbol as a sign that
effects precisely what it brings to mind, e.g. Sacrament,
some signs are "exemplifications" (Scotus) of immanent
universals (Absolute perfections), while others are
"significations" of instantiable teloi (ontologically
participable relative perfections), hence, finite shadows,
vestiges, images & likenesses (Bonaventure). So, per the
logic of natures, there's a "natural" asymmetry between the
humanization of the divine & the divinization of the human,
as Jesus (both macrocosm & microcosm, Logos & logoi)
will exemplify both natures & we (microcosms) will only
ever signify the divine nature. Due to soul-maturation
processes, arguably, we only eventually exemplify, even, our
human nature (until realizing a degree of authenticity).

We can still privilege the historical incarnation without

diminishing the radical character of Christ’s other
embodiments. However, more felicitous than "multiple
incarnations" terminology, I prefer what Natalie Carnes
suggests regarding the Logos: multiple presences, different
embodiments or diverse enfleshments. But those must
further be distinguished in terms of personal vs
interpersonal references as well as in terms of
exemplification vs signification.

What's the speculative upshot of the inter/personal

distinction? Well, if someone is discussing the Totus
Christus, Cosmic Christ or Universal Christ, they are by
definition making an interpersonal reference that's, in
principle, not ontological. It's in the key of theophany,
which doesn't address whatnesses, in terms of quiddity, but
instead refers to hownesses of interpersonal activities,
expressively. If one misses that key, one's score will fall flat,
and they'll misinterpret what are categorically panentheistic
references to wrongly draw pantheistic inferences. Simply,
they'll neglect the implicit (hopefully presupposed) analogia
entis (sometimes because it wasn't sufficiently adverted to,
explicitly).

However, if it's per our participatory logic of natures,

ontologically & analogically, that we properly locate divine -
human difference, it's indeed per our perichoretic logic of
persons, intersubjectively, that we'll locate our divine -
human identity as mutually constituted "I-Thou"s.

Per our primary natures, albeit analogous, "the created

human intellect is not by nature disproportionate to God
who is pure intellect. Human beings were created for
beatitude." (Tracy Wietecha). Thing is though, per our
secondary natures, we have no habitus or accidental
disposition toward the enjoyment of our primary
beatitude. That beatific disposition ordinarily will be gifted
in a way that's uniquely tailored to each person's level of
consciousness (via soul-maturation in terms of secular
conversions) & degree of theotic growth (via soul-crafting
in terms of hierarchical value-realizations, especially
religious conversion). In other words, it's an infused
disposition or created grace that must be gifted by the
uncreated grace of an immediate divine presencing. That
interpersonal identity, as conveyed through adoption, will
outfit us to enjoy, albeit ever-finitely, both the divine
energeia (via unitive intersubjective harmony) & divine
essence (via subjective noetic identity). That's to say that we
might conceive the beatific vision in terms of both

1) a unitive harmony & enjoyment of the perpetually novel

expressions of the divine energies (e.g. Nyssen) as well as

2) a noetic identity & enjoyment of the perpetually novel

illuminations of the divine incomprehensibility (e.g.
Aquinas). This is in no way to suggest that, extraordinarily, a
vision beatific couldn't be gifted to whomsoever, as pleasing
to God & ordered toward the communal good,
even without any apparent divine-tailoring as would
normally be commensurate with levels of soul-maturation &
degrees of soul-crafting! He indeed seems to favor the
lowly? How dare He!

Ordinarily, though, as per Maximus, the different gifts &

charisms are initiated and dispensed by the Spirit in
proportion to a creature’s capacity to receive them. Lacking
such a beatific vision, while I profess a belief in the
intelligibility of it, abstractly, concretely it still remains of an
order that to me is more so unthinkable! (I'm good with my
ice cream. What the heck is sex, anyway?).

I'm not entirely convinced that Carne's logic of natures and

rhetorical preferences for presences, embodiments or
enfleshments need be conceived as over against the logic of
persons in Jordan Daniel Wood's account of hypostatic
identity --- that "mysterious and ineffable identity between
Creator and creation." Why can't that identity be finally
fulfilled as referenced by Aquinas, noetically, and Nyssen,
per energeia? I can only begin to conceive it in Bracken &
Gelpi's different metaphysics of intersubjectivity.
So many theo-contretemps set up like this:

Those who champion perichoretic & personal logics must

better recognize that divine presencing doesn't only entail
Who is more or less present per quantitative terms of
intensity but very much requires discernment regarding how
divine presences are communicated differently per the
qualitative terms of modes of embodiments. When one's
only theoanthropological tool is a perichoretic theophanic
hammer, every participatory ontological problem's going to
look like a theotic divinizing nail. It's like missing every
family gathering & celebration because one was absolutely
certain, for some reason (usually radically inclusivistic), that
one was already in attendance even though they hadn't yet
set out on the journey home! It's just to say that we must be
attentive & recognize that discussions, which predominantly
refer to quidditative ontological whatnesses should not be
dismissed by those who may be inclined to otherwise
overemphasize expressive theophanic hownesses.
At the same time, when one's only theoanthropological tool
is a participatory ontological hammer, every perichoretic
theophanic problem's going to look like an analogical
metaphysical nail. It's like entering every family gathering &
celebration and feeling like it's absolutely necessary, for
some reason (usually radically exclusivistic), to remind all in
attendance who's adopted & who's not. It's just to say that
we must be attentive & recognize that discussions, which
predominantly refer to expressive theophanic hownesses,
should not be misinterpreted in terms of quidditative
ontological whatnesses.

John Sobert Sylvest

St Ignatius 2023