When Panikkar writes, “neither the name Father nor the name God is the proper name of the Absolute. They are simply the names by which we designate him . . . . independently of us, in himself and for himself, what is He? Ultimately such a question does not even make sense . . . . God’s re-flection is no longer the Father” – he has taken leave of any recognizable Christian Trinitarianism.
But the argument has the virtue of clarifying the fact that we are faced with two choices: Either a God who is related and re-flected in Himself, a God who is eternally God of , or we a god of whom we can know or say nothing. Trinity is the only alternative to nihil.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Revival of Patristics
On May 25, 1990, the renowned patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser, S.J., delivered a lecture at the annual…
The Enduring Legacy of the Spanish Mystics
Last autumn, I spent a few days at my family’s coastal country house in northwestern Spain. The…
The trouble with blogging …
The trouble with blogging, RJN, is narrative structure. Or maybe voice. Or maybe diction. Or maybe syntax.…
