With this general summary outlined, let us consider again at the validity of White’s central “claim that the distinction of eternal processions and temporal missions is the key to a theology of the divine economy.”[1]
Reflecting upon this statement, I was reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s saying that “Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.”[2] At first, the Thomistic language of eternal processions and temporal missions feels technical, rigid, and overly philosophical at times – as if it is an “ancient wall” that prevents me from meeting the Trinity that is waiting on the other side. I can sympathize with modern theologians who look at the “ancient walls” of Aquinas’s Trinitarian theology, such as his de Deo ut uno treatise, and feel like the only way to meet the Triune God is to “tear down those walls!”
And yet, if you take the time to analyze why those “ancient walls” were there in the first place (i.e., read the first three parts of White’s book), slowly but surely, things change. Those ancient walls were built for a purpose and, if you look closely enough, you will discover how great men like John the Apostle, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, and Aquinas, labored with blood, sweat, and tears, to build those “ancient walls” of Trinitarian thought so that we safely play in the playground of Trinitarian life here on earth.
For White, those walls are not only “ever ancient” in faithfulness but they are also “ever new” in liveliness – especially in the context of theological debate today. I believe that White himself is a living witness today to the joys of playing within those ancient walls. Throughout the book, and especially in Part 4, White repeatedly states how Thomistic Trinitarian theology paradoxically fulfills the very desires that led modern theologians to abandon or try to tear down those ancient walls in the first place. And since St. Thomas Aquinas, for White, is the pre-eminent Trinitarian theologian who was able to build upon the patristic foundation and solidify those ancient walls with the “mortar” of his own insights for many years to come, we are right to once again to stay close to the Angelic Doctor in the dangerous “post-Hegelian”[3] times we live in today.
Apart from my high praise for the book, my only point of disagreement is with White’s conclusion to abandon the Rahnerian language of immanent Trinity and economic Trinity and replace it with eternal processions and temporal missions. Maybe it is too difficult to reconcile, but I would prefer to see those Rahnerian terms – which I think carry a linguistic power to them – to be welcomed back into the “ancient walls” through the narrow gate of de Deo ut uno and allowed to play once again within the proper boundaries of our scholastic and patristic heritage of Trinitarian thought. I think Aquinas would appreciate the effort, don’t you?
In conclusion, I highly recommend that you read Part 4 of White’s book on the Trinity. In fact, I hope that you read White’s entire labor of love (some 690 pages!). If you do, I am confident that you will not only more deeply appreciate the “ancient walls” of orthodox Trinitarian theology but, best of all, enjoy the playground of Trinitarian life through greater study and contemplation of the central mystery of our Faith.
[1] 684. For those who want to go further in understanding the distinction between eternal processions and their temporal missions, I highly recommend The Trinitarian Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Dominic Legge, OP.
[2] Orthodoxy, New York: John Lane Company, 1909, p. 269.
[3] 684.
Prodigal Catholic 