Scraps

In order to work out this new elaboration, Gregory begins with a sort of common sense argument that originates from the names in Sacred Scripture. In order to develop, however, the implications of the Father-Son relationship, relation can no longer be considered as something outside of the divine substance; rather it must be inserted within the substance () itself. This move, according to Maspero, does not necessarily correspond [] to an abandonment of the substance, in so far as the relation is placed in the immanence (163); instead we have at hand an amplification of relations significance in so far as it is attributed with a value that supersedes that of a mere accident. It is, then, the insertion of relation in the immanence of the Divine substance that inaugurates the new, Trinitarian ontology.After providing an account of Eunomius doctrine (147154), Gregory launches his first critique, denouncing Eunomius use of philosophical terms instead of scriptural ones. Something which we see through Gregory is his determination to allow the reality to speak first, and for our categories to try to echo such reality, not the other way around. Enomius does the contrary. Thus we see that he refers to the Persons of the Trinity using titles such as the highest and most authentic being (151), instead of the Father, or one which exists because of that being and after that being [] (151), instead of the Son. Gregory responds:But I think the reason for this new invention of names is obvious to everybody: all men when they hear the titles father and son immediately recognize from the very names their intimate () and natural () relation to each other ( ) (159).In one sense, Gregorys argument is quite simple; it is based on the common understanding of the names father and son and what they tend to signify. Still the argument bears remarkable consequences. Eunomius interpretation of is compelling, yet not Christian; understanding the mutual relationship between the Persons as a link btween diverse and hierarchically order substances which is both fixed and necessary arises from Neo-Platonism, not Revelation. More than emphasize which embraces more faithful Revelation, however; the which I wish you accentuate is the fact that Eunomius brings to the table various conceptual suppositions that then imposes. Gregory, on the other hand, is more intent on listening to what the reality of Revelation, that is the words of Scripture, have to say and then try to develop faithful structure of thinking that is capable of transmitting, albeit limitedly, such reality.In posing the father-son relationship, Gregory offers an example of a relationship in which there is an identity of nature combined with difference in relation. Further along in the text, he says:Just as, in order to indicate his fleshly participation in the human, he used the title Son of Man for the visible, showing the natural affinity of his flesh with that from which it is taken, so he points out by the title Son his true and genuine relation ( ) to the God of the universe, using the word Son to point to the natural intimacy (298).This relation now reveals a difference, but a difference immersed in intimacy. Whats more, the relation which indicates a difference is now used as term which unifies more than separates. Whereas for Eunomius relation allow him to preserves the monolitic unity of the highest being, for Gregory relation also allows him to preserve the unity of the highest being, yet unity itself has been redefinied, it is not permeated with difference.It is helpful to keep in mind an interesting definition of love that Gregory explains in his De anima et resurrectione. There he compares love to an intimate relationship with something desired. One cant help but recall the association established by Clement: relation is to be understood in the light of free love (). Thus as Gregory explains

Substance

Eunomius reaches the knowledge of God through two paths. On one hand, he follows the path of the substances, a totally rational knowledge based upon the concepts fixed beforehand in the mind, which leads to the knowledge of God as being without origin, with all the consequences that derive from this. On the other hand, he mentions the path of operations, i.e. the ascent from creatures to their cause, God. This path is based upon the presupposition, admitted by Eunomius, that there is a certain similarity between the creature and the operation that produces it (Dictionary 318).

It is important to note, as Maspero insists, that novel category of relation in Gregory, as well as in the three Cappadocia Fathers, Thus, taking in hand the ancient, classic metaphysics Gregory develops a new ontology that recognizes in relation a value that supersedes that of mere accident.

Let us begin with one of Gregorys direct critiques of Eunomius use of relation.It is equally lunatic [] to listen uncrittically when someone says that things which are sundered from each other by unlikeness of nature are directed in their mutual relation by some bond. Either they are united in being, as we teach, and thus in their relation to each other ( ) preserve the bond invariable, or else they have parted from each other in alienation of nature as Eunomius supposes (412).

As seen, Gregory disassociates unlikeness from mutual relation. He does so but bringing to light the absuridty of speaking of a invariable bond between beings that are alienate from each other.

Given that strictly speaking simplicity does not allow concepts of more and less to apply to the Holy Trinity (232), a new elaboration of relation is called for in which there is no distinction of substantial dignity or ontological density.In order to do so, a change in cosmovision does not suffice; a new ontological conception of being is needed.

This means, according to Maspero, that relation, the relation of of Paternity for example, can no longer be understood as mere superiority of power, rather as total gift of oneself (147).

This calls for a new elaboration of the concept which

The twin antithesis of the created and the uncreated, the intelligible and the sensibleIt its through the category of relation that allows him to speak of the distinction between the Father and the Son without breaking the substance, thus affirming the unity without confusing the two Persons [p. 141]. Later on, we will take a look at the Nyssian thought from a different perspective,