trinitarian drama of redemption

« Back to search results for “divination

The trinitarian drama of redemption (as distinct from the intellectual conception of it) burst upon the world scene at the beginning of a new era, amid complete unconsciousness of its resuscitation from the past:

(a)

Leaving aside the so-called prefigurations in the Old Testament, there is not a single passage in the New Testament where the Trinity is formulated in an intellectually comprehensible manner. Generally speaking, it is more a question of formulae for triple benediction, such as the end of the second epistle to the Corinthians

CW11 ¶ 207
(b)

Now the important point is not that the New Testament contains no trinitarian formulae, but that we find in it three figures who are reciprocally related to one another: the Father, the Son, begotten through the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost. Since olden times, formulae for benediction, all solemn agreements, occasions, attributes, etc. have had a magical, threefold character (e.g., the Trishagion)

CW11 ¶ 209

ACTIVE ARCHETYPE OPERATING

BENEATH THE SURFACE

(c)

Although they [the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost] are no evidence for the Trinity in the New Testament, they nevertheless occur and, like the three divine Persons, are clear indications of an active archetype operating beneath the surface and throwing up triadic formations. This proves that the trinitarian archetype is already at work in the New Testament, for what comes after is largely the result of what has gone before, a proposition which is especially apposite when, as in the case of the Trinity, we are confronted with the effects of an unconscious content or archetype

CW11 ¶ 209
(d)

From the creeds to be discussed later, we shall see that at the synods of the Fathers the New Testament allusions to the divine trio were developed in a thoroughly consistent manner until the homoousia was restored, which again happened unconsciously, since the Fathers knew nothing of the ancient Egyptian model that had already reached the homoousian level. The after-effects on posterity were inevitable consequences of the trinitarian anticipations that were abroad in the early days of Christianity, and are nothing but amplifications of the constellated archetype. These amplifications, so far as they were naïve and unprejudiced, are direct proof that what the New Testament is alluding to is in fact the Trinity, as the Church also believes

CW11 ¶ 209

THE GRADUAL UNFOLDING OF

ARCHETYPE IN MAN'S CONSCIOUSNESS

(e)

Since people did not actually know what it was that had so suddenly revealed itself in the “Son of Man,” but only believed the current interpretations, the effects it had over the centuries signify nothing less than the gradual unfolding of the archetype in man's consciousness, or rather, its absorption into the pattern of ideas transmitted by the cultures of antiquity. From this historical echo it is possible to recognize what had revealed itself in a sudden flash of illumination and seized upon men's minds, even though the event, when it happened, was so far beyond their comprehension that they were unable to put it into a clear formula

CW11 ¶ 210

DOGMATA SUMMED UP IN

THE `SYMBOLUM' OR CREED

(f)

Before “revealed” contents can be sorted out and properly formulated, time and distance are needed. The results of this intellectual activity were deposited in a series of tenets, the dogmata, which were then summed up in the “symbolum” or creed. This breviary of belief well deserves the name “symbolum,” for, from a psychological point of view, it gives symbolical expression to, and paints an anthropomorphic picture of, a transcendent fact that cannot be demonstrated or explained rationally, the word “transcendent” being used here in a strictly psychological sense

CW11 ¶ 210

THE APOSTLES' CREED (4th CENTURY)

(g)

The first of these summaries was attempted fairly early, if tradition may be relied on. St. Ambrose, for instance, reports that the confession used at baptism in the church of Milan originated with the twelve apostles. This creed of the old Church is therefore known as the Apostles' Creed. As established in the fourth century, it ran:

CW11 ¶ 211
(g-1)

I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, and on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh

CREED STILL REMAINS ON

THE LEVEL OF THE GOSPELS

(h)

This creed is still entirely on the level of the gospels and epistles: there are three divine figures and they do not in any way contradict the one God. Here the Trinity is not explicit, but exists latently, just as Clement's second letter says of the pre-existent Church: “It was spiritually there.” Even in the very early days of Christianity it was accepted that Christ as Logos was God himself ( John 1 : 1 ). For Paul he is pre-existent in God's form, as is clear from the famous “kenosis” passage in Philippians 2 : 6 (AV) : “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”There are also passages in the letters where the author confuses Christ with the Holy Ghost, or where the three are seen as one, as in II Corinthians 3 : 17 (DV) : “Now the Lord is the spirit.”When the next verse speaks of the “glory of the Lord,”“Lord” seems to refer to Christ. But if you read the whole passage, from verses 7 to 18, it is evident that the “glory” refers equally to God, thus proving the promiscuity of the three figures and their latent Trinity

CW11 ¶ 212

THE NICENE CREED (325 A.D.)

(i)

Trinitarian speculation had long passed its peak when the Council of Nicaea, in 325, created a new creed, known as the “Nicene.” It runs:

CW11 ¶ 215
(i-1)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, being of the substanceof the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantialwith the Father, through whom all things have been made which are in heaven and on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation descended and was made flesh, became man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say, “There was a time when He was not,” or “Before He was begotten He was not,” or “He was made from that which was not, or from another subsistence [upostasis] or substance,” or “The Son of God is created, changeable, or subject to change,” these the Catholic Church anathematizes

THE CONCEPT OF THE HOMOOUSIA

(j)

It was, apparently, a Spanish bishop, Hosius of Cordoba, who proposed to the emperor the crucial wordhomoousia. It did not occur then for the first time, for it can be found in Tertullian, as the “unitas substantiae.” The concept of homoousia can also be found in Gnostic usage, as for instance in Irenaeus' references to the Valentinians (140circa 200), where the Aeons are said to be of one substance with their creator, Bythos. The Nicene Creed concentrates on the father-son relationship, while the Holy Ghost receives scant mention

CW11 ¶ 216

NICENE-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED (381 A.D.)

(k)

The next formulation in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 brings an important advance. It runs:

CW11 ¶ 217
(k-1)

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was made flesh by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, and on the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, whence he shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and whose kingdom shall have no end. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake through the prophets. And [we believe] in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen

THE HOLY GHOST PROCEEDS

FROM THE FATHER ONLY

(l)

Here the Holy Ghost is given due consideration: he is called “Lord” and is worshipped together with Father and Son. But he proceeds from the Father only. It was this point that caused the tremendous controversy over the “filioque” question, as to whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only, or from the Son as well. In order to make the Trinity a complete unity, the filioque was just as essential as the homoousia. The (falsely so-called) Athanasian Creed insisted in the strongest possible terms on the equality of all three Persons. Its peculiarities have given much offence to rationalistic and liberal-minded theologians

CW11 ¶ 218

THE LATERAN CREED (1215 A.D.)

(m)

The Trinity is a fully developed conceptual schema in which everything balances, the homoousia binding all three Persons equally. The Creed of the Lateran Council, 1215, brings a further differentiation. I shall quote only the beginning:

CW11 ¶ 219
(m-1)

We firmly believe and wholeheartedly confess that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite, and unchanging; incomprehensible, almighty, and ineffable; Father and Son and Holy Ghost; three Persons, but one essence; entirely simple in substance and nature. The Father is of none, the Son is of the Father alone, and the Holy Ghost is of both equally; for ever without beginning and without end; the Father begetting, the Son being born, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal and coalmighty and coeternal [ From the Decrees of the Lateran Council, ch. 1.Trans. ]

(n)

The “filioque” is expressly taken up into this creed, thus assigning the Holy Ghost a special activity and significance

CW11 ¶ 220

SEQUENCE OF CREEDS SHOWS

THE EVOLUTION OF THE TRINITY

(o)

The sequence of creeds illustrates the evolution of the Trinity idea through the centuries. In the course of its development it either consistently avoided, or successfully combated, all rationalistic deviations, such as, for instance, the so-plausible-looking Arian heresy. The creeds superimposed on the trinitarian allusions in the Holy Scriptures a structure of ideas that is a perpetual stumbling-block to the liberal-minded rationalist. Religious statements are, however, never rational in the ordinary sense of the word, for they always take into consideration that other world, the world of the archetype, of which reason in the ordinary sense is unconscious, being occupied only with externals. Thus the development of the Christian idea of the Trinity unconsciously reproduced the archetype of the homoousia of Father, Son, and Ka-mutef which first appeared in Egyptian theology. Not that the Egyptian model could be considered the archetype of the Christian idea

CW11 ¶ 222

CONCEPTIONS OF GOD ORGANIZED

INTO TRIADS AND TRINITIES

(p)

The archetype an sich, as I have explained elsewhere, is an “irrepresentable” factor, a “disposition” which starts functioning at a given moment in the development of the human mind and arranges the material of consciousness into definite patterns. That is to say, man's conceptions of God are organized into triads and trinities, and a whole host of ritualistic and magical practices take on a triple or trichotomous character, as in the case of thrice-repeated apotropaic spells, formulae for blessing, cursing, praising, giving thanks, etc.

CW11 ¶ 222

ARCHETYPES RECOGNIZED BY

THE EFFECTS THEY PRODUCE

(p-1)

I have often been asked where the archetype comes from and whether it is acquired or not. This question cannot be answered directly: Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce. They exist preconsciously, and presumably they form the structural dominants of the psyche in general. They may be compared to the invisible presence of the crystal lattice in a saturated solution. As a priori conditioning factors they represent a special, psychological instance of the biological “pattern of behaviour,” which gives all living organisms their specific qualities. Just as the manifestations of this biological ground plan may change in the course of development, so also can those of the archetype. Empirically considered, however, the archetype did not ever come into existence as a phenomenon of organic life, but entered into the picture with life itself

CW11 ¶ 222

TRINITY'S PREHISTORY DATES BACK

SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS

(q)

Wherever we find it, the archetype has a compelling force which it derives from the unconscious, and whenever its effect becomes conscious it has a distinctly numinous quality. There is never any conscious invention or cogitation, though speculations about the Trinity have often been accused of this.But collective and, above all, manifestly archetypal ideas can never be derived from the personal sphere. If Communism, for instance, refers to Engels, Marx, Lenin, and so on as the “fathers” of the movement, it does not know that it is reviving an archetypal order of society that existed even in primitive times, thereby explaining, incidentally, the “religious” and “numinous” (i.e., fanatical) character of Communism. Neither did the Church Fathers know that their Trinity had a prehistory dating back several thousand years

CW11 ¶ 222

TRINITY AS A GRADUAL

CRYSTALLIZATION OF AN ARCHETYPE

(r)

Thus the history of the Trinity presents itself as the gradual crystallization of an archetype that moulds the anthropomorphic conceptions of father and son, of life, and of different persons into an archetypal and numinous figure, the “Most Holy Three-in-One.” The contemporary witnesses of these events apprehended it as something that modern psychology would call a psychic presence outside consciousness. If there is a consensus of opinion in respect of an idea, as there is here and always has been, then we are entitled to speak of a collective presence. Similar “presences” today are the Fascist and Communist ideologies, the one emphasizing the power of the chief, and the other communal ownership of goods in a primitive society

CW11 ¶ 224
« Back to search results for “divination