Observaciones de los Pacientes

In Catholic thought the seminal argum ent in favour o f a return to the “eco­ nom y o f salvation” as the privileged mode o f access for trinitarian theology is that o f Karl Rahner,365 whose Grundaxiom states that ‘“ economic T rinity’ is the ‘im ­ manent Trinity’ and the ‘immanent Trinity’ is the ‘economic Trinity.’”366 Rahner’s axiom continues to enjoy prominence in the theological landscape. M uch o f this

363 Ormerod uses the term “new” of Coffey’s approach to the Trinity, referring both to the discov­ ery o f “new and different patterns in the Scriptures taken as data” and in his proposal of a “new” trinitarian model with which to understand this “new” data. See Ormerod, “The Goal o f Systematic Theology,” 47.

364 Coffey is not, o f course, alone in this tendency to return to the “economy of salvation” as start­ ing point. Indeed, the general strategy of appealing to the “economy o f salvation” as starting point has come to be almost the norm in contemporary theology. The point o f this presentation is not to point out that his project begins with the “economy o f salvation” but to explain precisely what this means for him and how exactly he goes about presenting and justifying this attempt.

3i5 Rahner was not the first theologian, of course, to consider the relationship between what we

might say about God in the economy o f salvation and God in se. Nancy Dallavalle cites Rahner as

him self acknowledging doubt as to the exact origin o f the Grundaxiom: “We are starting out from the proposition that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa. I do not know ex­ actly when and by whom this theological axiom was formulated for the first time.” See Nancy

Dallavalle, “Revisiting Rahner: On the Theological Status o f Trinitarian Theology,” Irish

Theological Quarterly 63, (1998): 133-150.

366 See Rahner, The Trinity, 22.

prominence is due to the promise it offers to free trinitarian theology from what many understood, agreeing with Rahner’s diagnosis, to be its long “neo-scholastic exile.”

The genesis o f Rahner’s Grundaxiom is to be sought in his theology o f grace and the consequences he draws from this for the doctrine o f revelation, but also in his christology. In relation to the former, R ahner’s theology o f grace, it is especially his recovery o f the scholastic category o f uncreated grace,367 and his defence o f an account o f grace in terms o f quasi-formal causality, that establishes his confidence in an account o f revelation as the self-communication o f God.368 Rahner reasons that w hen God acts in the economy, we must hold that such action is the reliable self-revelation o f God. Thus, we come to know the tripersonal God directly through the econom y o f salvation, without need for recourse to complicated strategies like that o f appropriation. God, Rahner holds, has given G odself so fully in his absolute self-com m unication to the creature that the ‘im m anent’ Trinity becomes the Trinity o f the ‘econom y o f salvation.’ In the epistemological order, we can conclude in turn that “the Trinity o f salvation that we experience is the immanent Trinity.” God re­ veals G odself fully and reliably: “as trinity o f persons.”369 W hen Rahner insists, against Thomas and others, that only the Logos could have become incarnate, his

367 Karl Rahner, “Some Implications of the Scholastic Concept o f Created Grace,” in Volume 1:

God, Christ, Mary and Grace, Theological Investigations (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961).

368 This Rahnerian perspective remains decisive in Coffey’s framing o f the methodology of trinit­

arian theology. Philip Cary provides a fascinating critique o f what he sees as the particularly modem assumptions and concerns that underlie Rahner’s attempt. This critique would, if accepted, apply equally well to Coffey. See Cary, “On Behalf o f Classical Trinitarianism: A Critique of Rahner on the Trinity”. I do not accept Cary’s arguments, but do recommend that the reader consult C ary’s article.

369 This and the previous quotation are found in Karl Rahner, “The Concept o f Mystery in Catholic

Theology,” in Volume 4: More Recent Writings, Theological Investigations (London: Darton,

Longman & Todd, 1966), 69. Note that in the first part o f this statement there is the assumption that the immanent Trinity pre-exists the economic Trinity, and is expressed in it. Here, at least, the dis­ tinction is supposed to be ontological.

reasoning is related to the reliability o f G od’s self-communication. For Rahner, questions about whether any o f the divine persons might have becom e incarnate im­ ply that G od’s revelation is somehow deficient as a self-communication.370

Although Rahner’s theology argues for the identity o f the economic and the im m anent Trinity, it does not thereby deny the value o f the immanent Trinity in guaranteeing the transcendence o f God over the econom y.371 Rahner wishes to see a strong link between the mission o f the Logos and the inner-trinitarian existence o f the Son, which he even goes so far as to express in terms o f necessity.372 The onto­ logy o f the Symbol underpins the entire effort.373

R ahner’s Grundaxiom was welcomed as a breakthrough by much o f the theo­ logical community. The debate it provoked proved a m ajor factor in moving the doctrine o f the Trinity back into focus for Catholic theology, much as Karl B arth’s theology had done for Protestant theology. M ore precise evaluation o f its signific­ ance, however, depends greatly on how exactly the terms o f the axiom are inter­ preted. R ahner’s exposition o f the axiom, alas, left significant areas o f ambiguity.

For current purposes, two areas o f ambiguity in R ahner’s formulation might be highlighted. These serve by way of introduction to C offey’s reform ulation o f the axiom. They relate to the basic elements o f the axiom itself: (1) what should we un­ derstand by the term “economic Trinity”? (2) w hat should we understand by the term “im m anent Trinity”? A brief word on each o f these.

370 As noted above, Rahner has mistaken Thomas’ argument here. See above note 358 on p. 145.

371 The need for such protections around the idea o f divine transcendence is reflected, for instance,

in the qualification “quasi” that Rahner appends to the idea o f “quasi-formal” causality. It is further reflected in Rahner’s approach to “pure nature” where the ongoing value o f this idea is understood in terms o f its theoretical value as a “remainder concept” (Restbegriff) guaranteeing the gratuity of God’s self-gift.

372, This linking o f the immanent being of God to the economy o f salvation appears to threaten the

doctrine o f God’s immutability. Rahner deals with this objection by means of a distinction between

changing in God’s divine being, and changing in another. God creates human nature, and the Logos

assumes this. The changes that take place in the economy, however, are in the creature, and not in God’s self.

373 Karl Rahner, “The Theology o f the Symbol,” in Volume 4: More Recent Writings, Theological

Investigations (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966).

(1) If the “economic Trinity” is to function as starting point, it would be good to know exactly what this starting point is. Is it, for Rahner, the Trinity as we find it in the Bible? If it is, then what are we to make o f the concerns o f biblical scholars about there being a doctrine o f the Trinity in the bible in the first place? W hat o f the lack o f consensus over how to interpret the biblical symbols o f Logos and Spirit. Should talk o f the “economic Trinity” be confined to the bible at all? Why not in­ clude the activity o f the Son and Spirit as experienced in the church through the ages or today?374 The question I highlight here is the difficulty o f the “economic Trinity” serving as “starting point” given the obscurity o f its meaning.

(2) Rahner does not intend with his Grundaxiom to abolish the distinction o f the “im m anent Trinity” and the “economic Trinity.” His axiom does not itself, how­ ever, tell us how or why the “immanent Trinity” should be distinguished from the “economic Trinity.” What, for instance, does it m ean to say that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and vice versa? If all that is m eant by the axiom is that there is only one Trinity, in recognition o f the fact that the theological distinc­ tion between economic and immanent Trinity m ight appear to some to refer to two separate trinities, then surely none would wish to differ.375 The direct implication,

374 In this way the door can be opened to the broader theological meanings o f Tradition. Following Möhler, Tradition comes to be seen not just as the outer, but also as the inner life of the Church. This inner life is that o f the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost and animating the church. When Tradition is seen in this way, “all texts, Scripture included, have the character o f witness, though in this cat­ egory Scripture is, o f course, uniquely privileged.” See Coffey, “Congar’s Tradition and Traditions: Thirty Years on,” 53. If the Holy Spirit truly animates the church, then on what basis is the life o f the church to be excluded from the term “economic Trinity”?

Coffey thinks that he goes beyond Congar’s position in stating that “[wjhat is handed on in the Church from one generation to the next from the time o f the Apostles to the fmal consummation is not just a body o f doctrine, nor just, as Congar thinks, “the Christian life,” but the Christian mystery in its entirety. In what does this mystery consist? Essentially it is the risen Christ himself, who is never found on his own but always in union with the Church.” Ibid., 55. I f this is so, then - to repeat the question - on what basis is the life of the church to be excluded from the term “economic Trinity”?

375 Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom o f God: The Doctrine o f God, 151; Cary, “On Behalf

o f Classical Trinitarianism: A Critique o f Rahner on the Trinity,” 367; Coffey, Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God, 14.

Nevertheless, G. Gallagher Brown still fmds the view that the economic and the immanent Trinity are “logically and really accounts o f the same one God” worth recording as one o f the notable ac­ quisitions o f recent theology. Quoted in Elizabeth T. Groppe, “Catherine Mowry Lacugna’s

Contribution to Trinitarian to Theology,” Theological Studies 63, (2002), 734.

then, m ust be to insist that the “economic” and the “immanent” Trinity are more closely linked than was commonly supposed at the time o f the axiom ’s formulation. W hat then is the nature o f the distinction between the two: is it ontological or merely epistemological?376 What in brief, is the “immanent Trinity” and what is its function? It appears that as Rahner formulates it, the Grundaxiom leaves the m ean­ ing o f both its term s unclear.377