Thần học về Đức Chúa Cha trong truyền thống Tây phương: Augustine, Bonaventure & Thần học Hiện đại

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA God the Father in the Western Tradition Bringing Augustine and Bonaventure into Conversation with Modern Theology A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By James Paul Krueger Washington, D. 2014 God the Father in the Western Tradition: Bringing Augustine and Bonaventure into Conversation with Modern Theology James Paul Krueger, Ph. One of the widespread contemporary approaches to the Trinity repudiates “mere monotheism” and emphasizes the community of the Persons as three separate centers of action. Within some versions of this “social Trinitarianism,” the unique role of the God the Father as source of the godhead is marginalized or obscured.

The views of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg on God the Father bring this problem into focus, as they diminish the “monarchy” of the Father as unfitting because as traditionally understood it lacks reciprocity. Instead, they envision alternative modes of explaining the unity, stressing the original threeness and describing divine unity as an eschatological achievement. After linking the Father’s diminished place in these approaches with the problem of divine unity, this study examines the theology of God the Father in Augustine and Bonaventure to clarify how the concept of the Father as unique source can provide a solution to this pressing problem in contemporary systematic theology. The Western tradition has often been accused of starting with the divine essence and tending toward modalism, so there is need for a fresh understanding of the persons and God the Father’s role in particular.

This study closely interprets primary works from Augustine and Bonaventure to distill how they express the Father’s role and what this means for their concept of the Trinity. Neither author uses the term “monarchy,” but Augustine employs and Bonaventure develops further the notion that the Father is sole principle of the godhead. Augustine’s mature works make reference to this notion at a several key junctures, even as his Trinitarian logic steadfastly holds to the equality of the persons. He steers a middle course in the face of Homoian subordinationism; he insists that the Father indeed is the sole source, but that the greatness of his fatherhood is enhanced and not diminished by the Son’s equality.

Bonaventure articulates a Trinitarian theology with the Father as First Principle (primum principium) in such a way that he shares being principle with the Son and Holy Spirit. The Father’s innascibility constitutes for him a positive characteristic, as it conveys the pure pouring out of being. The eternal emanations of the Son and Holy Spirit from the Father are matched by their eternal return (reductio) to him. This dynamic concept of God binds the Trinity in highest unity, and also serves as a model for the economies of creation and salvation.

The conclusion of the study points to how this strong sense of God the Father as source as articulated by Augustine and Bonaventure actually protects the equality of the Persons while also indicating unity and order in the godhead. This dissertation by James Paul Krueger fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Systematic Theology approved by Regis Armstrong, O., as Director, and by Tarmo Toom, Ph., and Joshua Benson, Ph., Director ______________________________________ Tarmo Toom, Ph., Reader ______________________________________ Joshua Benson, Ph., Reader ii CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 Part I: Two Modern Theologians on God the Father 15 Chapter 1. Jürgen Moltmann on the Father 19 Rejection of God’s Universal Fatherhood 21 The Father and the Cross 28 Rejection of the Monarchy of the Father 40 Conclusion 58 Chapter 2. Wolfhart Pannenberg on the Father 61 God the Father and the Economy 68 The Future as Determinative 84 The Father’s Monarchy Redefined 93 Conclusion 101 Pressing Questions for the Historical Inquiry 103 Part II: God the Father in Augustine 105 The Father in Three Early Works 114 Chapter 3.

The Confessions 127 God the Father as Addressee 128 Some Noteworthy Trinitarian Passages 137 Specific Dimensions of Paterology in Confessions 146 iii Chapter 4. De Trinitate 156 “God” in De Trinitate 160 Augustine’s Order and Procedure 167 God the Father as Sender: De Trinitate 4 173 The Eternal Giver: De Trinitate 15 185 Conclusion 194 Chapter 5. Late Anti-Homoian Works 196 Answer to the Arian Sermon 198 Debate with Maximinus the Arian 208 Answer to Maximinus the Arian 213 Conclusion 222 Conclusion to Part II 224 Part III: God the Father in Bonaventure 228 Chapter 6. Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard 241 Bonaventure’s Adherence to Augustine on the Father 242 Overview of Paterology Offered: The Prologues to the Volumes 251 A Few Key Questions Regarding the Father 258 1.

Distinction 27, Part 1, Sole Article, Question 2 264 3. Responses to the Reception of Bonaventure’s Position 273 4. Distinction 28, Sole Article, Questions 1-3, Dubium 1 277 iv 5. Distinction 29, Article 1, Questions 1 & 2, and Dubium 1 283 Conclusion 288 Chapter 7.

Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity 289 Question 1: Whether God and the Trinity are Believable 292 Question 2: Whether God Exists with a Unity of Nature 297 Question 3: Whether the Trinity Exists with Highest Simplicity 303 Question 4: Whether the Trinity Exists with Highest Infinity 306 Question 5: Whether the Trinity Exists with Highest Eternity 309 Question 6: Whether the Trinity Exists with Highest Immutability 311 Question 7: Whether the Trinity Exists with Highest Necessity 316 Question 8: Whether the Trinity Exists with Highest Primity 319 Conclusion 333 Chapter 8. Two Works from Bonaventure’s Tenure as Minister General 335 Breviloquium 336 1. The Father as Principle 338 2. Part 1: How to Speak of the Father 343 3.

Intimations and Reflections of the Father in Parts 2-7 353 Itinerarium Mentis in Deum 363 1. The Father as Alpha and Omega 365 2. The Goodness of the Father 374 Conclusion 384 v Conclusion to Part III 387 Part IV: Comparison and Conclusion 390 Augustine and Bonaventure Compared 397 A Response to Moltmann and Pannenberg 403 Bibliography 422 Ancient and Medieval Works 422 Modern Works 424 vi Acknowledgements It has been a tremendously humbling experience to research and write on the Trinity during these last several years. With regard to this mystery, Augustine attests that “nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous, or the search more laborious, or discovery more advantageous.” I owe an incalculable debt, then, to the many people who have helped me to avoid mistakes, who have sustained me in my labors, and who have enabled me to catch whatever glimpses of the splendor of truth that I have.

First, I would like to thank Father Regis Armstrong. Fittingly enough for this project on God the Father, Father Armstrong “adopted” me after I had begun the dissertation. I could not have continued without his support and encouragement. His expert guidance helped me to streamline my diffuse thoughts and maintain focus at several points.

Additionally, he did so much to facilitate this project’s completion on the logistic side of things. I will never forget his generosity in directing me. I would also like to thank my readers, Dr. Tarmo Toom and Dr.

Joshua Benson, for their helpful suggestions toward understanding Augustine and Bonaventure aright. While the faults of the project remain my own, these scholars aided me in avoid several errors and in clarifying my own interpretation. I express my warm gratitude to Dr. Thomas Schärtl for all of the sessions we spent together discussing Trinitarian theology and conceiving this particular project.

I offer thanks as well to Dr. Charles Jones and all of the staff in the School of Theology and Religious Studies office for all of their administrative efforts on my behalf, and to the library staff of Mullen Library at CUA and the Woodstock Theological Library at Georgetown University. vii Augustine also writes that he was a young man when he began De Trinitate and an old man as he published it. Comparing great things to small, my own project has spanned considerably more time than initially envisioned.

Additionally, it seems that the subject matter itself enables one to mature—so in some ways I feel a similar sentiment as I submit this dissertation. On a more personal level, then, I would like to thank my family and friends, who have provided much needed prayers, encouragement, and assistance throughout this process. Without each of these contributions I could not have finished it. My colleagues at Trinity School, led by Headmaster Andrew Zwerneman, have been nothing but helpful and have covered for many classes and responsibilities so that I could meet with professors and write.

My fellow teachers and my students in that splendid community of learners have inspired me on so many occasions, fueling my thirst for greater knowledge and insight into the divine mystery. I thank the many close friends of ours who have provided babysitting and have supported my wife and I as things got exceedingly busy. I thank my parents-in-law for spending several weeks with my wife and children during multiple summers to facilitate my studies. Above all, I am so incredibly grateful to my parents, Vern and Jan Krueger, to my wife Kathryn, and to my children, Elizabeth, Joseph, Claire, and Monica.

This dissertation is but straw in comparison to the outpouring of love that I see in you. Words fall short, but the most important words are these: I love you. The unity that we share in some small but real way provides a glimpse of that eternal exchange. While I have written all of the words, this dissertation truly comes from this family as a whole, and so it is dedicated to all of you.

viii Introduction “I believe in God the Father Almighty.” Both major creeds begin in this way. Similarly, the words “Our Father” begin the most widely spoken prayer of Christians, and for good reason, because Jesus taught his disciples to pray in this way. In the Catholic Church, the Eucharistic prayer finishes with a doxology culminating with praise of God the Father: “all glory is yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever.” Given these constant reminders of God’s fatherhood, it seems strange to say that God the Father is forgotten. It is truly remarkable, however, how the commonplace can lose its impact and over time become a marginalized or even forgotten relic of the past.

For various reasons, the situation is not what one might expect: the theology of God the Father has been somewhat neglected. There are indications that the situation is getting better, but there is much work to be done to revitalize this aspect of Trinitarian thought.1 The relative absence of consideration of God the Father is particularly striking because theologians have inquired extensively into the Trinity in the last century. Indeed, many would say that the field has experienced a renaissance led by such authors as Karl Barth and Karl 1 Not much has been written on God the Father in English, but there are some notable exceptions; more has been written in French. Jean Galot’s Découvrir le Père (1985) has been translated as Abba, Father—We Long to See Your Face: Theological Insights into the First Person of the Trinity (trans.

M Angeline Bouchard, New York [Alba House, 1992]). This work takes a systematic approach that takes biblical theology and the liturgy into consideration and represents an important if underappreciated resource. Two important dissertations have developed into books: Margaret Turek’s Toward a Theology of God the Father: Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Theodramatic Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), and Peter Widdicombe’s The Fatherhood of God from Athanasius to Origen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). The first work, focused as it is on Hans Urs von Balthasar, makes little reference to the development of the theological tradition, except through Balthasar’s perspective, and does not engage the interlocutors of the current dissertation.