Embroidering the Fabric of Family Fove

with the Trinitarian Mystery

Daniel Madigem
University ofNotre Dame, Australia

Abstract: The Holy Family is an ideal source ofinspiration regarding

implications of the mystery of the Trinity’for everyday family life. To
begin, this paper explores the theological grounds for the assertion
that, as Theotokos, Maty enjoys a unique relationship with each of
the divine Persons. The ways in which other members of the Holy
Family cooperated with Maty in the graces granted her, as both
All-pure daughter andEver-vitgin spouse, are then considered. It is
hoped that the insights gained mightprovide inspiration to Christians
regarding ways in which they can love members of their own family,
whether as children, spouses or parents.

he revelation of the Trinitarian Mystery was made possible with

T the Incarnation of the Son of God the Father by the Holy Spirit,
whereby the divine Word was inserted into the human family
as Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This paper will contemplate the
saintly Jewish Family of Mary, so as to discern implications regarding
our creation in the image of the Trinitarian God for our everyday family
lives. The paper will begin with a briefjustification for discerning ethical
implications from our imperfect knowledge of God, followed by a
comparison between the sociological and psychological analogies to the
Trinity. These preliminary observations provide the background for an
exploration of the question as to whether there are grounds to assert that
Mary enjoys a unique relationship not only with Jesus, God the Son, but
also with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Within that context,
a consideration of two important graces granted to Mary as Theotokos,
namely that she is Ever-virgin and All-pure, will then be undertaken, so
as to discern ways in which her husband, St Joseph, and her parents, Sts
Joachim and Anna, cooperated with Mary in her irreplaceable role in

PHRONEMA, VOL. 33(1), 2018, 21-48

21
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

the saving mission of her divine Son, Jesus.1 Finally, it is hoped that this
loving cooperation of the members of the Holy Family with each other
and with God can suggest ways in which all Christians can love members
of their families according to the Will of the Triune God, whether as
children, as spouses or as parents.2

First it is worthwhile considering whether there is any justification

for drawing implications for love within the family from the Trinitarian
Mystery. St Paul writes that every family or lineage (πάτριά) derives
its name from God the Father (Eph 3:15). St Athanasius insisted on an
apophatic exegesis of this and similar passages: the divine Father is
perfect, unlike human fathers.3 Hmnan parenthood only participates in
its divine Archetype in an indirect, limited way. In dialogue with Karl
Barth and drawing on the teaching of Church Fathers such as St Irenaeus,
Erich Przywara and Hans Urs von Balthasar developed an approach
to theological analogy which stresses the ethical dimension implied

1 It might be objected that these names of the parents of Mary are drawn from
apocryphal literature. However, it does not necessarily follow that this Jewish
couple is irrelevant to Christians simply because they are not mentioned in Holy
Scripture. The fact that Fathers of the Church unhesitatingly pass on a devotion
to the parents of the Theotokos as saints should not be taken lightly. The place of
this couple in the Christian Tradition is further underlined by the consideration
that these Church Fathers encouraged this devotion officially as bishops in their
homilies and therefore as an ordinary exercise of their teaching office. These
bishops are in turn venerated as saints and the segments of their homilies in
which they praise this couple have been included in the liturgical texts of the
Eastern, Oriental and Western Christian traditions alike.
2 Evidently there are other relationships within the family, however these other
relationships can be seen as derived from the three most fundamental bonds. For
example, siblings are children of the same parents, grandparents are parents of
parents, aunts and uncles are children of grandparents, etc. This is true for certain
relationships in "blended‘ families as well, where step-parents or step-siblings
are integrated into the family through a new spousal relationship.
3 St Athanasius, Against the Arians 1.7.23 in St Athanasius, ed. Archibald
Robinson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series IV (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976) 320: “For God does not make man
His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly, Father
of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him "is every
fatherhood in heaven and earth named.'”

22
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

‘catalogically’ by the apophatic approach to analogy of Athanasius.4 For

von Balthasar, the revelation of the perfect and unknown God through
imperfect, earthly realities creates a reciprocal tension which heightens
the urgency of the heavenly imperative best expressed by Christ: “Be
perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

It is informative to interrogate the argumentation of Immanuel

Kant on the relationship between ethics and the doctrine of the Trinity,
given the ongoing influence of his thought on Western moral theology:

The doctrine of the Trinity, taken literally, has no practical

relevance at all, even if we think we understand it; and it is
even more clearly irrelevant if we realize that it transcends all
our concepts. Whether we are to worship three or ten persons in
the Divinity makes no difference: the pupil will implicitly accept
one as readily as the other because he has no concept at all of a
number of persons in one God (hypostases), and still more so
because this distinction can make no difference in his rules of
conduct. On the other hand, if we read a moral meaning into this
article of faith (as I have tried to do in Religion within the Limits
etc.), it would no longer contain an inconsequential belief but an
intelligible one that refers to our moral vocation.5

Kant seems to slung his shoulders in the face of the ultimate

incomprehensibility of the Trinity. He opts instead for the pragmatic
approach of inserting into this doctrine a justification for our preferred

4 Cf. Aidan Nichols, The Word has been Abroad: A Guide through Balthasar 's
Aesthetics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998) xiii-xiv: “Przywara and Balthasar
share an attitude towards the analogía ends doctrine which makes that teaching
not (as is often the case) a commonplace of metaphysics, but a specifically
religious doctrine of enormous spiritual power. [...] That there is an analogy
between our being and God's should not make us seek to domesticate God but,
on the contrary, lead us to recognise an invitation - inscribed in the very nature
of our being - to enter his mystery. The more man is permitted to live his life
from out of this divinely impelled movement, the more he will realise that God
is the ever-greater Lord. The more intimately he shares the divine life, the tinner
his grasp of the divine transcendence as infinitely above him.”
5 Immanuel Kant, The Conflict ofthe Faculties, trans. Mary J. Gregor (New York:
Abaris Books, 1979) 65-67 (emphasis added).

23
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

“rules of conduct” so as to give meaning (he seems to mean usefulness)

to what he asserts is an otherwise meaningless (useless) doctrine.

Admittedly this reading of Kant hinges on his phrase “if we read

a moral meaning into this article of faith.”6 If instead Kant had written
something like “if we read a moral meaning from this article of faith,”
or even “if one discerns a moral meaning implicit within this article
of faith,” then Ms statement would take on a tone far more in keeping
with the approach of Church Fathers. The distinction is perhaps subtle,
and there may be indications that Kant intended to speak of tliis moral
dimension as already contained witliin the belief in the Trinity, however
Ms insistence that the belief is meaningless without tliis moral dimension
remains problematic.

Mark Husbands is correct to warn of the tendency of some fonns

of social Trinitarianismto blur the distinction between God and humanity
at the risk of an essentially pantheistic idolatry of humanity: God
“becomes little more than our experiences of love and communion.”7
Husbands finds fault in the approach of Miraslav Volf, claiming that
Volf extrapolates from the teacliing of Dumitru Stämloae, that “the holy
Trinity is the model of supreme love and interpersonal communion,”
to assert that the Trinity “is our social program.”8 However, Husbands
does not sufficiently differentiate between those who, like Kant, do not
carefully avoid reading a moral meaning into the Trinitarian Mystery and
those who like Staniloae, following the Church Fathers, are attentive to a
moral meaning implied in the revelation of the Mystery.

Sociological or Psychological Analogy?

I also wish to clarity that I do not envisage the approach in tliis paper

6 Ibid. The original text reads: “wenn man in Glaubensfaßen einen moralischen
Sinn hineinträgt.”
7 Mark Husbands, "The Trinity is NOT our Social Program' in Trinitarian
Theology’ for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship, ed. Daniel J. Treier
and David Lauber (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009) 120-41, 121.
8 Ibid. 122.

24
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

to be sociological Trinitarianism in the usual sense, and it will become

clear that it is certainly not a conventional psychological Trinitarianism.
It is well known that St Augustine claimed to have found an “image of
that Highest Trinity” in the spiritual acts of an individual person.9 It is
perhaps less well known that he judged that this psychological analogy
was inadequate to understand the plurality of Persons in God: “three
tilings belonging to one person cannot suit those Three Persons.”10 This
paper does not seek to abandon the psychological analogy, but rather to
find ways that it might be complemented by a sociological analogy, so
that the strengths of each analogy help compensate for the limitations
of the other. Although this paper is focussed more on a theological
sociology of the family than on a sociological theology of the Trinity,
it is nevertheless worthwhile exploring the strengths and weaknesses of
these two ways of conceptualising the mystery of the Trinity so as to
appreciate their complementarity.

Von Balthasar is perhaps the theologian in the Western tradition

who takes up Augustine’s warning about a limitation in the psychological
analogy with the most creative speculation.11 He cites St Thomas
Aquinas regarding a key reasoning on which the analogy is based: “that
something can be loved only when it is known and that, in consequence,
it is necessary to maintain an order of the processions (Thomas Aquinas,
S. Th. I, 27, 3 ad 3).”12 However, given that Aquinas also acknowledged
that “knowledge and love are not really distinct in God,” this basis for
understanding the distinction between the processions could be seen as

9 St Augustine, On the Trinity 15.25.45 in St Augustin, trans. Arthur West Haddan,

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers First Series III (Grand Rapids, MI: Win. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956) 223.
10 Ibid.
11 Cf. for example Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Logic: Theological Logical
Theoty: Vol. II Truth of God, trans. Adrian J. Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2004) 157-70; Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Logic: Theological Logical
Theoty: Vol. Ill The Spirit cf Truth, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2005) 157-218; Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama:
Theological Dramatic Theoty: Vol. Ill The Dramatis Personae: The Person in
Christ, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992) 515-29.
12 Von Balthasar, Theo-Logic II: Truth ofGod 164.

25
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

“merely read off of the created imago ,” amounting to what Karl Ralmer
described as “a methodological circle.”13 Ralmer points out a further
difficulty which compounds this limitation, namely that even in created
spirits, knowledge is never fully antecedent to love nor are the two ever
completely separate: “for every metaphysics of the spirit even knowledge
as such possesses already a moment of volition, hence of love.”14

Von Balthasar sees the greatest drawback of the psychological

analogy to be that its focus on the individual “closes the created spirit
in on itself,” and therefore the analogy does not draw upon interpersonal
love as the most fitting aspect of human love under which we might
understand God.15 Ralmer refers to this problematic as a “strangely
isolated individualism.”16 Nevertheless, von Balthasar is equally aware
of the limitations of sociological analogies of the Trinity based on
interpersonal love, summarising the difficulties of the two perspectives
as follows: “The interpersonal model cannot attain the substantial unity
of God, whereas the intrapersonal model cannot give an adequate picture
of the real and abiding face-to-face encounter of the hypostases.”17
While Ralmer limits himself to pointing out methodological difficulties
in the psychological analogy, von Balthasar suggests that because of
these difficulties, the logic of the psychological analogy “calls for a
complementary counterimage” to balance it.18 He advocates allowing the
two models to enrich each other while remaining aware of the limitations
of both perspectives:

It is inappropriate, therefore, on the basis of the strictness of the

[intrapersonal analogy], where similarity to God lies primarily
in the unity of the Spirit, to ban all use of the [interpersonal

13 Ibid. 162-164, (citing Karl Rahner, "Der dreifältige Gott'in Mysterium Salutis IL
394-95).
14 Karl Rahner, The Trinity‫׳‬, trans. Joseph Donceel (London: Bums and Oats, 1970)
117 note 41. Rahner outlines various theoretical and methodological difficulties
in the psychological analogy on pages 116-119.
15 Von Balthasar, Theo-Drama III: The Person in Christ 526-27.
16 Rahner, The Trinity’ 119.
17 Von Balthasar, Theo-Logic 11: Truth ofGod 38.
18 Ibid. 40.

26
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

analogy], that is, to declare it impossible for the Persons within

the Godhead to say “Thou”. Conversely it is mistaken to take
a naïve construction of the divine mystery after the pattem of
human relationships (as Richard of St. Victor attempted by way
of a counterblast to Augustine) and make it absolute; for it fails
to take into account the crude anthropomorphism involved in a
plurality of beings. The creaturely image must be content to look
in the direction of the mystery of God from its two starting points
at the same time; the lines of perspective meet at an invisible
point, in eternity.19

In a footnote von Balthasar indicates that his critique of this denial

of a divine, interpersonal “Thou” is directed at Rahner’s position.20 It is
perhaps this denial of communication between the divine Persons which
is most indicative of the tendency to modalism risked by those who
follow Augustine and Aquinas in drawing an analogy to the Trinity based
on the rationality of the human person yet neglect to balance this with
the relational aspect of personhood which both Augustine and Aquinas
also affirmed. In the prayers of Christ to our Heavenly Father, the divine
Word addresses the divine Father with an interpersonal ‘Thou.’

Hence in any discussion contrasting psychological and

sociological analogies it is important not to oversimplify the positions
of Augustine or Aquinas as if they were opposed to any reference to
interpersonal relationality in conceptualising the Trinitarian Mystery.

19 Von Balthasar, Theo-DramaIII: Persons in Christ 526-27.

20 Ibid. The footnote cites opposing views of Rahner and Scheffczyk as follows:
K. Rahner, in “Der dreifältige Gott” in Mysterium Sahitis II, 366,
note 29, says: “Thus, "within the Trinity' also, there is no reciprocal
'Thou'. The Son is the Father's self-utterance: he must not be
imagined as 'uttering'; similarly, the Spirit is the gift: he must not
be imagined as "giving'.” Against this, Scheffczyk, in “Trinität, das
Specificum christianum”, 167, says uninhibitedly: “It is one of the
substantial insights of modern personalist philosophy that, for its own
self-being, a spiritual "Γ needs to be "with' a "thou'.” Accordingly, if
we are to understand that God is “love”, and that he does not first
become a lover through contact with the creature, we must assume
that he has a “Thou” within his Godhead.

27
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

In De Trinitate, Augustine balances his psychological analogy, which is

centred on our intrapersonal rationality rather than our relationality, by
also describing the Trinity as “mutually interrelated” persons.21 Augustine
clearly realises the importance of this interpersonal dimension, which is
more characteristic of a sociological conceptualisation.

It is no mere coincidence that Aquinas sought to describe the

divine Hypostases using the Aristotelean category of ‘relation,’ despite
otherwise preferring to focus on an intrapersonal analogy of the Trinity
along similar lines to Augustine. In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas
asserts that the divine Hypostases are distinct only in tenus of real
relations of origin (S. Th. I, 28, 2-3).22 He recalls that the word person
was chosen in describing the Trinity precisely because, unlike hypostasis,
‘person’ has the advantage of implying intenelatedness “by force of its
own proper signification” (S. Th. I, 29, 4).

Tliis relational aspect of the word person was important in

fighting essentialist heresies which reduced the understanding of ‘person’
to indicate only the rationality essential to personliood (S. Th. I, 29, 4).
For example, the error of Sabellius can arise if the category of relation is
understood only in the sense in which it applies to related logical tenus
found within the individual mind (S. Th. I, 28, 1). This demonstrates a
concern that a psychological analogy which emphasises an understanding
of the divine Hypostases in comparison with the internal spiritual acts
of a person, understood in merely essentialist tenus as an individual of
a rational nature, risks a modalist conceptualisation of the Trinitarian

21 St Augustine, On the Trinity’ 9.1.1 (NPNF 125). St Augustine expresses the

balance between the psychological and sociological perspectives as follows:
“a trinity of persons mutually interrelated, and a unity of an equal essence.”
Alternately, “trinitatem relatarum ad inuicem personarum” might be rendered
“a trinity of persons related to each other.” Note that Augustine mentions the
Persons before the Essence, contrary to the common critique that his approach
emphasises the divine Essence over the Persons.
22 St Thomas Aquinas treats the issues related to the Trinitarian processions,
relations and Persons in Summa Theologiae Volume 6: The Trinity‫ ׳‬ed. Ceslaus
Velecky (London: Blackfriars, 1965) 2-63 (la q.27-29 and 40).

28
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

Mystery if it neglects the relational aspect of the divine Hypostases

highlighted by the proper meaning of the word person. Therefore,
the positions of Augustine and Aquinas are not as straightforward as
the common oversimplification which John Meyendorff caricatures:
the approach of the West after Augustine commonly characterised
as essentialist and inviting the suspicion of Sabellianism in the East,
compared to that of the East as personalist and being suspected in turn of
tritheism in the West.23

Revelation itself ensures a balance between these two approaches,

each of which in isolation might be open to misinterpretation. The name
‘Word’ lends itself to an understanding of the divine Hypostases as being
distinct in tenus of relations of origin analogous to those which exist
between the intellect and its ‘word’ within the psychological unity of the
rational individual (S. Th. I, 28, 1 ad 4). On the other hand, the names
Father and Son balance this intrapersonal connotation with the clearly
interpersonal connotation of the relations of origin (paternity and filiation)
that exist between parents and their children within the sociological unity
of the family. If divine Paternity and Filiation are not real relations, then
these divine Persons are not really distinct: “divine paternity is God the
Father, who is a divine person” (cf. S. Th. I, 28, 1 and I, 29, 4). Joseph
Ratzinger writes that for “Augustine and late patristic theology, the three
persons that exist in God are in their nature relations. [... ] In God, person
means relation. [...] the person exists only as relation.” 24 This paper
will take up this insight, that each divine Person is its ‘relation,’ as a
starting point from which to develop an analogy around the ‘relations’
within the family as an alternative to Trinitarian analogies based on one
or three persons. It is hoped that such an alternative analogy, when fully
developed, might in turn indicate implications for an adequate theological
sociology of the family.

23 John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palomas, trans. George Lawrence

(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1998) 228-29.
24 Cf. Joseph Ratzinger, "Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology' Communio
17:3 (1990)439-54. 444.

29
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

A Unique Relationship between Mary and each of the Persons of the

Trinity

Returning now to the issue of implications of the Trinitarian Mystery

for everyday life: if the Trinity is revealed not only as an intellectual
truth, but also as an ethical invitation, how was this revealed? As noted
at the beginning of the paper, the revelation of the mystery of the Trinity
was made possible when the divine Son of the Father became incarnate
as the human Son of Mary. Mary and Joseph each received separate
revelations that she was to become a mother “by the Holy Spirit” (Mt
1:18, 24). These revelations are crucial to our knowledge of the divinity
of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it was to Mary and Joseph that the
youthful Christ first began to reveal his Divinity and that of his Father,
challenging his earthly parents: “Did you not know that I must be in
my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49). What better place to start, then, than the
lives of the Holy Family in discerning implications of the revelation of
the Trinitarian Mystery for our everyday life?

Leo Scheffczyk asserted that a deepened understanding of the

relationship between Mary and each of the divine Persons would
help “make the mystery of the Trinity more fruitful in the life of the
faithful.”25 Scheffczyk made this assertion in an article written in
the wake of Marialis Cultus, an Apostolic Exhortation with which
Blessed Pope Paul VI wished to stimulate a renewal of Marian
devotion in the light of theological reflection. One devotion to Mary,
which has grown up around her relation to the Trinitarian Mystery,
invites particular attention. With this devotion, the special place of
Mary in salvation history is contemplated under a three-fold title:
Mother of God the Son, daughter of God the Father and spouse of
God the Holy Spirit.

25 Leo ScheffczyL 'Der Trinitarische Bezug des Mariengeheimnisses' Catholica

(Münster) 29 (1975) 120-31, 129. (My translation of: “Dem Tieferblickenden
kann aber bald klar werden, daß es hier um nichts Geringeres geht, als um
die vertiefte Erkenntnis und damit auch um die Fruchtbarmachung des
Trinitätsgeheimnisses für das Leben des Glaubens.”)

30
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

Several popes have made use of this devotion. For example Pope
Pius XII publically praised the Theotokos as follows:

mysteriously related to the whole Blessed Trinity, in the context

of the Hypostatic Union, [... ] as first-bom daughter of the Father,
most exulted Mother of the Word and beloved spouse of the Holy
Spirit.26

Various Roman Catholic saints have promoted this devotion using

similar words, perhaps most famously Louis de Montfort and Alphonsus
Ligouri, but more recently Maximilian Kolbe and Josemaria Escrivá.
According to Stefano De Fiores, St Louis de Montford was following St
John Eudes in promoting this devotion, giving it a substantial tradition
in the West.27

Among theologians who have sought to provide a sound

theological framework in which to understand Mary’s unique
relationship with the Persons of the Trinity, the efforts of Matthias
Scheeben are of particular note. He cautiously explored what he called
the bridal-motherhood of Mary as an “analogate” for the procession of
the Holy Spirit.28 However, his tentative proposal was not taken up by
other theologians of his era and no clear theological consensus has been
reached regarding this or similar proposals. In order to advance then,
tliis paper cannot avoid tackling this highly speculative question: Are
there solid theological grounds for a devotion to Mary as associated

26 Pope Pius XII, "Bendito seia o Senhor' (radio broadcast) in Acta Apostolícete
Seáis 38 (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1946) 266. (My translation of:
“misteriosamente emparentada na ordern da Uniäo hipostática com toda a
Trindade beatissima, com Aquele que só é por essência a Majestade infinita,
Rei dos reis e Senhor dos senhor es, quai Filha primogénita do Padre e Mâe
estremosa do Verbo e Esposa predilecta do Espirito Santo.”)
27 Cf. Stefano De Fiores, La Santísima Trinidad misterio de vida: Experiencia
Trinitaria en conmilitón con María (Salamanca: Secretariado Trinitario, 2002)
104.
28 Matthias J. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, trans. Cyril O. Vollert
(London: B. Herder, 1958) 181-89. For a critique of the approach of Scheeben,
see Johannes Stöhr, "Maria und die Trinität bei F. Suarez und M. J. Scheeben'
Sedes Sapientiae. Mariologisches Jahrbuch 4:2 (2000) 5-47, 35-36.

31
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

in a unique way with each of the Persons of the Trinity, whether as

Mother, as daughter or as spouse?

Clearly ‘Mother of God the Son’ is the most solidly substantiated

of the three titles, theologically speaking. The title ‘daughter of God
the Father’ does not seem problematic either, given the belief coimnon
to various Christian traditions, that Mary occupies a unique place in
humanity as the most perfect created person among all the children of
God. It is no surprise then that Mary is referred to as both “Mother of
the Son of God” and “beloved daughter of the Father” in documents
of the Second Vatican Council, for example in Lumen Gentium 53.29
However, while the title ‘spouse of the Holy Spirit’ was also suggested
in discussions at the Council, it does not appear in its final documents.30
Clearly this more controversial implication of a ‘bridaF relationship with
the Holy Spirit requires further reflection if the devotion is to be given
solid theological foundations.

Schelfczyk reviewed the substantial literature which addresses

the Trinitarian dimensions of the special role which Mary has played
in the history of salvation, paying close attention to the history of this
theological problem relating to veneration of Mary as spouse or bride
of the Holy Spirit. He noted that, overtime, Mary has also been referred
to as ‘bride’ in relation to both God the Father and to Christ.31 St John
of Damascus wrote one of the earliest known references to Mary as
bride of the Father and St Ephrem of Syria was perhaps first to refer
to Mary as bride of Christ, while Prudentius is usually credited as the
first to describe Mary as bride of the Spirit.32 Schelfczyk highlights

29 Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 53, trans. Austin

Flannery (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1975) 414.
30 Cf. Manfred Flauke, "Die trinitarischen Beziehungen Mariens als Urbild der
Kirche auf dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil' Sedes Sapientiae. Monologisches
Jahrbuch 4:2 (2000) 78-114. 87.
31 Schelfczyk, "Der Trinitarische Bezug' 120-21. For a more recent discussion
focused on this Marian title, see Stefan Finkl, Maria, Braut Des Heiligen
Geistes: Wissenschaftliche Arbeit (Regensburg: Universität Regensburg, 2011).
32 See also Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the

32
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

the lack of clarity resulting from this seemingly random attribution of

a spousal relationship between Mary and all of the divine Persons.33
He describes the associated theological difficulties as “seemingly
insurmountable.”34

Of these three possible bridal relationships, the assertion that

Mary can be considered spouse of the Holy Spirit would seem to be that
favoured by various popes in recent times. In addition to the use of the
three-fold Trinitarian title for Mary by Pope Pius XII mentioned earlier,
there is the more indirect reference of Blessed Pope Paul VI in Marialis
Cultus, who pointed out that some Fathers of the Church had seen “in
the mysterious relationship between the Spirit and Mary an aspect
redolent of marriage, poetically portrayed by Prudentius: ‘The unwed
Virgin espoused the Spirit.’ ”35 More recently, St John Paul II wrote in
Redemptoris Mater that with the Incarnation Mary became the “faithful
spouse” of the Holy Spirit.36

The basis for assigning this spouse-like relationship is the

scriptural and creedal teaching that Mary conceived Jesus by the
Holy Spirit. However, the difficulties associated with this assertion of
a spouse-like relationship should not be lightly dismissed. First, there
is the imperative to avoid any suggestion of a sexual dimension to the
relationship between God and humanity. Such references are coimnon in
pagan mythologies, but are strenuously condemned in all monotheistic
traditions. Moreover, Mary had a human husband, Joseph, and the reality
of their saintly spousal love is not to be ignored in any Marian devotion

Blessed JtrginMary (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1982)333-34.

33 Scheffczyk, "Der Trinitarische Bezug' 125-26: “der Problematik der
Austauschbarkeit und der damit scheinbar gegebenen Unschärfe der personalen
militärischen Beziehungen Mariens.”
34 Ibid. 124: “Bei der Bestimmung dieser Beziehungen Mariens zu den anderen
göttlichen Personen ergibt sich jedoch für das theologische Denken eine
scheinbar unüberwindliche Schwierigkeit.”
35 Bl. Pope Paul VI, Marialis Caltas 26 (Sydney: St Paul Publications, 1980) 41.
36 St Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater 26 (Homebush, NSW: St Paul
Publications, 1987) 55.

33
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

which claims solid foundations. Nevertheless, perhaps their spousal yet

virginal love points to a solution to the problem.

The Gospel of St Matthew reports Mary’s consent to becoming

mother “by the Holy Spirit” immediately after the account of her
consecration to Joseph as his bride. This sequence of events is often
understood in tenus of ensuring a foster-father for Jesus and for the
safeguarding of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Yet the question still presents
itself, as to whether this ‘coincidence’ also indicates God’s Will that a
loving spousal union between husband and wife was the fitting context
for the miraculous partnership (i.e. consortium) between the Holy Spirit
and the Ever-virgin.

Etymologically, the word 'consort' signifies a moral union of

persons directed toward a shared goal or mutual purpose. Fernando
Ocáriz articulated the Trinitarian dimensions of the graces granted to
Mary in tenus of her special union with the Holy Spirit as follows:

In the mystery of the “fullness of grace” of Mary, [...] that is,

the fullness of her being daughter of the Father in the Son by the
Holy Spirit, manifests itself to us as her being so “introduced” by
the Trinity into its intimate Life, that her union with subsisting
divine Love, with the Holy Spirit, confers on her soul such a full
identification with the Son, that, in the Son, she is daughter of the
Father as fully as is possible for a created person.37

37 Fernando Ocáriz, 'María y la Trinidad' Scripta Teológica 20:2-3 (1988) 771-97,

781 (My translation of the following, with emphasis altered):
En el misterio de la «plenitud de gracia» de María, podemos
considerar una doble dimensión: su contenido sobrenatural y la
plenitud de ese contenido. Ya hemos tratado en general de la primera
de estas dimensiones, que podemos ahora resumir, y aplicarla a
la Virgen, diciendo que la plenitud de gracia de María, es decir la
plenitud de su ser Hija del Padre en el Hijo por el Espíritu Santo, se
nos manifiesta como su ser de tal modo «introducida» por la Trinidad
en su Vida íntima, que su unión con el Amor divino subsistente, con
el Espíritu Santo, confiere a su alma una identificación tan plena con
el Hijo, que, en el Hijo, es hija del Padre con toda la plenitud posible
a una persona creada.

34
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

If Mary can be referred to as ‘Consort’ of the Holy Spirit in this

metaphorical sense of being mysteriously yet really (morally) partnered
with that divine Person for the specific purpose of bearing a Son, then
it would seem that there are solid theological grounds to hold that the
devotion to Mary as daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son,
and spouse of God the Holy Spirit is not merely pious hyperbole.38

In this devotion, a distinct title is allocated to the relationship

between Mary and each of the divine Persons, avoiding the lack of
clarity due to the seemingly random assigmnent of titles identified by
Schelfczyk mentioned earlier. Furthermore, he argued that theological
development in an understanding of the relationships between Mary and
each of the divine Persons would require a “harmonious coordination
[or aligmnent] with one another.”39 This harmony is achieved in this
three-fold devotion in that the titles of Mary align with the three-fold
dimensions of parental, filial and spousal love which weave family life
into a unity, embroidering these titles into an explanatory framework
consistent with the scriptural framework used to reveal the mystery
of Trinitarian Love itself, through imperfect tenus of family relations
such as ‘father’ and ‘son.’

These considerations bring into view a further possible conelation

which invites analysis. Christians from a wide variety of traditions believe
that Mary was granted two unique additional graces in view of her role
in salvation history as Mother of God: that she is also uniquely All-pure
daughter among all the children of Adam and that she remained a virgin
throughout her life as the bride of St Joseph. These three uniquely graced

38 For comparison, it can be noted that the metaphorically bridal relationship of

the Church with Christ can also be understood as essentially a moral union for a
mutual purpose: to “bear fruit that will last” (Jn 15:16).
39 Schelfczyk, "Der Trinitarische Bezug' 125-26: “daß sich im Laufe der
Theologiegeschichte doch so etwas wie eine Präzisierung dieser Titel durchsetzte
und eine harmonische Abstimmung aufeinander, die den wechselweisen
Austausch einschränkte und die sich u. a. schon in dem Temar des Rupert von
Deutz (f 1135) kristallisierte: Maria ist "Braut des Vaters, Braut ;(«¿/Mutter des
Sohnes, Tempel des Fleiligen Geistes.'”

35
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

privileges again align with the three-fold loving ‘relations’ between

persons which unite family life -parenthood, filiation and spousality.

Clearly Mary’s extraordinary title as Mother of God the Son

is theologically warranted, given her bond with Jesus as his human
mother. Her unique position among the children of God the Father is
only possible given her conception by Joachim and Anna as their All-
pure daughter. However, it would also seem that her unique virginal
partnership with God the Holy Spirit required the cooperation of Joseph
as husband of Mary, his Ever-virgin bride. These three unique privileges
indicate that the Incarnation of the Son of God the Father by the Holy
Spirit did not only involve the cooperation of his Mother, but also that of
her husband and of her parents with the divine Will for their family life. A
closer examination of their cooperation is warranted, in order to discern
the extent to which the example of these saintly relatives might act as a
model for how Christians can allow God to embroider their family life
with the mystery of Trinitarian Love.

The Cooperation of Sts Joachim, Anna and Joseph in the Graces

granted to Mary

Devotion to Mary as All-pure has been linked by various Church Fathers

to devotion to Sts Joachim and Anna as her holy parents. The Mother of
God is instead contemplated as daughter of Adam. Joachim and Anna
are praised in the Latin liturgy using the words of their divine Grandson:
“by their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:16-20).40 This line of thought
is particularly rich in the Eastern theological traditions. St John of
Damascus connects God’s choice of this Jewish couple specifically to
the pure way in which they lived their procreative love in accordance
with the special place of marital love in the divine Will of God the Father
for humanity:

Joachim and Anna! Having kept the law of nature, chastity, you
were deemed worthy of tilings that surpass nature; you have given

40 Gospel reading for the Latin Rite liturgical feast of Saints Joachim and Anna.

36
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

birth for the world to the Mother of God who knows no husband.
[... ] to a daughter who surpasses angels [... ] O daughter ofAdam
and Mother of God! Blessed are the loins and the womb from
which you spouted forth!41

In continuity with this insight, St Gregory Palamas is more

specific, indicating that the pure lives of Joachim and Anna as parents
are a fitting context for Mary’s unique privilege specifically as All-pure
child of God:

So [...] might be bom [...] the All-pure of those who

were exceptionally chaste, and that chastity, conceiving
through the power of prayer and asceticism, might as a
consequence become the mother of virginity, virginity
which would bring forth without corruption the divinity
begotten of the virgin Father before all ages.42

Gregory does not hesitate to link the fruitful purity of these saintly
‘progenitors,’ through the virginal purity of their daughter, to its
Archetype in the Person of the divine ‘Progenitor.’ I do not wish to
imply that St Gregory necessarily understood Mary as immaculate from
the moment of her conception in the precise way fonnulated in Roman
Catholic dogma. Rather I wish to affirm the value of the teaching of St
Gregory, which so clearly articulates a link between God’s election of
tliis couple as parents of the All-pure Theotokos and their living a chaste
procreative love for each other. This teaching of St Gregory acts as a
healthy counter-balance to a line of thought that considers the ‘contagion’
of original sin as inseparably associated with any bodily or pleasurable
aspect of spousal love.43

41 St John of Damascus, An Oration on the Nativity’ of the Holy Theotokos Maty

6 in Wider than Heaven: Eiglith-Century Homilies on the Mother of God,
trans. Mary B. Cunningham, Popular Patristics Series 35 (Crestwood, NY: St
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2008) 60-61.
42 St Gregory Palamas, Homily on the Nativity’ of the Mother of God in Saint
Gregoiy Palamas, The Homilies, ed. trans. Christopher Veniamin (Dalton, PA:
Mount Thabor Publishing, 2013) 336.
43 For a discussion of this balance, see Stylianos Harkianakis, "A Fundamental and

37
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

In Roman Catholic theology, a focus on resolving a highly

technical intellectual doubt, as to whether or not Mary was immaculate
from the first moment of her conception, (often in view of this suspicion
that the generative act is inseparable from concupiscence), has at times
overshadowed a contemplation of the significance of the indispensable
role of Mary’s parents in that first moment. Unfortunately, it is not
uncoimnon to read modem treatises or to hear homilies expounding the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in which the role of Anna and
Joachim is not even mentioned. The Apostolic Constitution with which
Pope Pius IX solemnly defined that teaching, Ineffabilis Deus, mentions
the saintly Grandmother of Christ briefly by name, but St Joachim is
not acknowledged.44 In Eastern traditions, the names of associated
feasts, for example the Conception of St Anna or the Holy Ancestors
of Christ, provide a wholesome balance by shining a light precisely
on Mary’s parents. This emphasis radically complements belief in the
virginal married life of Mary with Joseph by affirming the fruitfulness
of the marital love between her father and mother in such a way that it
becomes an archetypical model for Christian spouses, of the positive role
that chaste sexual love between spouses can play in salvation history.

Sts Joachim and Anna exemplify this positive role precisely as

the saintly parents of the maiden whom the Jewish people were awaiting,
who would in turn conceive and bear the Child to be called Emmanuel,
“God with us,” (Is 7:14). With the “help of the Lord” (Gn4:l), they were
part of something that our First Parents were not: the ‘active generation’
of a child of God in whom God’s image was to be without stain.45 With
tliis thought, we return to the question of a unique relationship between

Dangerous Misunderstanding of Marriage' Voice of Orthodoxy’ 103 (1988) 79.

See also Constantine Varipatis,Marriage and the Freedom ofthe Human P erson
(Brisbane: Australia and New Zealand Society for Theological Studies, 1995)
164-72.
44 Bl. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (Milwaukee, IL: Bruce Publishing House,
1954)21.
45 For a discussion of this point and of Mary considered as work of the Holy Spirit,
see German Rovira "Der dreifältige Gott und Maria im Geheimnis Erlösung' in
Mariologisches Jahrbuch. Sedes Sapientiae 4:2 (2000) 133-38.

38
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

Mary and God the Father. Perhaps a response can best be framed as
follows: to the extent that our Lady can be revered uniquely as All-pure
or “firstborn” daughter of the Father, it is important to remember that she
is also the daughter of Jewish parents, who placed the fruitful potential
of their love for each other and also their loving parental care for their
daughter at the disposal of the Will of the God of their Fathers.46

Turning now to a second special grace granted to Mary, the paper

will consider the cooperation of St Joseph with the Perpetual Virginity of
his bride. Joseph’s free cooperation with this privilege, as husband, is an
edifying aspect of their spousal love. If Joseph had divorced Mary upon
discovering that she was pregnant, it is by no means clear that Jesus would
have been recognised unequivocally as a descendant of David, legally
speaking. The Gospel of Matthew highlights Joseph’s status as ‘son of
David’ and his cooperation would seem to have been indispensable to the
mission of Jesus, precisely as the Christ, as the Messiah awaited from the
family (πάτριά) of David (Lk 2:4).

The angel reveals to Joseph that Mary had conceived “by the
Holy Spirit” so as to encourage him to ‘ratify’ their marriage through
the Jewish home-bringing celebration (Mt 1:24). God’s plan required
not only our Lady’s consent, but also the free cooperation of her ‘man’
(cf. Lk 1:34) precisely in his role as her loving husband. St Ambrose
explicitly associates Joseph’s life-long respect for the miraculous
virginal Motherhood of Mary, as bearer of the Messiah, with this angelic
revelation.47 Returning to the issue of Mary’s unique relationship to
the Holy Spirit with this in mind, perhaps a suitable way to frame our
understanding of this relationship is as follows: to the extent to which
there is some theological basis to refer to Mary as ‘consort’ (partner) or

46 Pope Pius XII, "Bendito seia o Senhor' 266.

47 St Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam LibrisX Comprehensa. 2, 6
(PL 15/1555B). “Ioseph, satis declaravit quod sancti Spiritus templum, uterum
mysterii, matrem Domini violare non potuit.” Stefan Finkl cites this passage
mentioning Joseph in reference to a popular alternative title for Mary: Temple of
the Holy Spirit, cf. Finkl, Maria, Braut Des Heiligen Geistes 11.

39
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

‘spouse’ of God the Holy Spirit in some metaphorical sense, it is also

important to recall her role as Ever-virgin spouse of St Joseph, her Jewish
husband, who placed his earthly, ‘manly’ love for her at the disposal of
the Will of God for her virginal partnership with the Holy Spirit.

A Crescendo of ‘Yeses’ over Three Generations of the Immediate

Family of Mary

The roles played by Mary and the members of her iimnediate Family
illustrate that Jesus did not save humanity in isolation. While the
Incarnation required Mary’s agreement to be Mother, the cooperation
of both her parents and her husband with the Will of God were also
crucial. Salvation history unfolded as a crescendo of ‘yeses’ which are
interdependent with hers : that of her parents and then that of her husband,
culminating in the third generation with the omnipotent, saving ‘Yes’ of
their divine Child to our heavenly Father from the Cross.

At tliis point, the reader may well ask: How are these extraordinary
one-off events of the past relevant to implications of the Trinitarian
Mystery for our ordinary daily life today? Before proceeding to the
concluding section of the paper, however, it is worthwhile pausing to note
that the cooperation of the iimnediate Family of Mary with the unique
graces she was granted -as daughter, spouse and mother- underscores
the advantages of understanding the family as a lattice-like unity of
interwoven relationships. This understanding contrasts with the Western
reduction of family into isolated nucleic units in which husband and wife
are considered as if they are completely severed from their origins as son
and daughter.

The inseparable unity of the Immaculate Virgin Mother’s roles

as Jewish daughter, bride and mother challenges this narrow, inward-
looking. Western conception of the ‘nuclear’ family, offering instead the
anthropologically more wholesome concept of the ‘immediate’ family.48

48 For the purposes of this article, the immediate family is taken in its narrowest
sense, i.e. one's relatives in the first degree of consanguinity (parents and

40
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

While it is important to recognise the autonomy of husband and wife

from the parents they have ‘left’ behind to fonn their new ‘one flesh’
unity (Gn 2:22-24, Mt 19:5, Eph 5:31), it is also important not to make
tliis relative autonomy absolute, extracting it from its context, which is
the braiding together of two lineages, two branches of the broader unity
of humanity. Only this more integrated understanding of the family can
provide an adequate sociological basis within which to contemplate the
implications of the Trinitarian Mystery of the Incarnation for the human
family as a whole.49

Marriage in the Jewish tradition, and in many other cultures, is

not understood myopically as a contract exchanged simply between
individuals, but rather more circumspectly as the concrete realisation
of a broader coimnunal contract (connubium) between two families or
lineages: “we will give you our daughters and take your daughters in
marriage” (cf. Gn 34:9). The bride consents to being given in marriage
by her community (cf. Mt 24:38, Gn 24:50, Tob 6:7-14), and the
contract is typically between the bride’s father, representing her family,
and the groom, considered not in isolation but as son, again as member
of a family. The ketubah (written contract) always describes bride and
groom as daughter and son of their respective parents, and in some
cases as members of a particular lineage (or tribe). Mary, as daughter
of Joachim, was first given by her family as bride to Joseph, son of
David, before becoming mother of Jesus. A seedling first flowers before
bearing fruit. Incredibly, if Joachim were alive at the time, then all three
male relatives would have taken part in the home-bringing celebration

children) and affinity (spouse). Nevertheless, other members of the extended

family of Jesus, the Holy Kinship, are present in the Gospel accounts, such
as Sts Elisabeth and Zacharias, as well as their son St John the Precursor and
various other relatives clearly play a part in supporting Mary in her role in the
Incarnation, at the foot of the Cross, and so on.
49 Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis writes of a kind of sensus fidelium among
the Greek Orthodox regarding the sacredness of the family considered “not
only as a unit of parents and children, but also as an extended family.” Cf. "The
importance of the family' Voice ofOrthodoxy’ 102 (1988) 62. The Byzantine Rite
fosters this sensus or phronema in part through the frequent invocation of Sts
Joachim and Anna in its liturgies.

41
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

which ratified Mary’s marriage: her father, her husband and her unborn
Son.50

At tliis point, a further excursus seems necessary to clearly

underline the risks of any Trinitarian social analogy drawn from the
‘nuclear’ family. In the West, the three persons of the ‘nuclear’ Holy
Family -Joseph, his virgin bride and their divine Son- have at times been
made the basis of a pious analogy to the three Persons of the Trinity.
While it is true that the revelation of the Trinitarian Mystery took place
in the context of the holy love between these three persons, it is important
not to uncritically narrow the contemplation of that Holy Family to these
three persons alone when considering Trinitarian implications of the
Incarnation of God in that Family. Otherwise there is a risk that such an
analogy might encourage a tri-theistic misconception of the Holy Trinity
itself.

In artistic depictions of the three persons of the Holy Family

portrayed in such a manner as to evoke the mystery of the Trinity, the
allusion may be intended as only an analogy between the communal
dimension of the Holy Family and that of the Holy Trinity. However,
in some portrayals there is little to inhibit the inference of a direct
correlation: Joseph with God the Father and Mary with God the Holy
Spirit. For example, Cornelius A. Lapide outlined such a one-to-one
correspondence as follows:

Symbolically, in tliis marriage and family union of Joseph with

Mary there was an image of the sacred Trinity. For Joseph
represented the eternal Father, the Blessed Virgin the Holy

50 While the presence of St Joachim in this hypothetical nuptial scene may seem
fanciful to some, the stark reality of Levitical law, regarding the situation Mary
seemed to find herself in, brings into sharp focus the interconnectedness of the
roles of these three male relatives. Mary had not conceived her Son, Jesus, with
her husband, Joseph, and so Joseph was required by law to denounce her and
she was to be stoned to death in front of the house of her father, Joachim (cf. Dt
22:21). While it seems that already in the time of Jesus this sentence was rarely
if ever executed, it nevertheless would have weighed heavily in the background
of Joseph's dilemma.

42
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

Spirit, both because she was the most holy, and because she had
conceived by the Holy Spirit. Christ represented Himself, even
the Son of God. Hence, as there is in the sacred Trinity essentially
one God in three Persons, so here was there one marriage and
one perfect family, consisting of three persons, namely, Joseph,
Mary, and Christ [...] This family was then, as it were, a heaven
upon earth.51

While St Augustine writes that he is not convinced by a Trinitarian

analogy with the family (as father, son and wife/mother), St Thomas
Aquinas goes so far as to label the analogy as “prima facie [evidently]
absurd.”52

Nevertheless, the task of discerning a Trinitarian dimension to

the Holy Family need not therefore be simply abandoned.53 Perhaps the
difficulties inherent in such analogies are minimised if the analogy is
enlarged to consider the broader iimnediate Family of Mary as a unity.
Instead of considering the three individuals of the ‘nuclear’ Holy Family,
an analogy could be made considering the three fundamental ‘relations’
which lovingly unite family life - parenthood, filiation and spousality.

A consideration of the Holy Family as an imago trinitatis, in that it

is a family united by these three distinct loving relationships, would seem
to resonate with the imago as outlined by St Gregory of Nyssa. Since the
tenn for 'man.‘, k/r/m. used in the Genesis account of our creation in the
image of God is general and does not refer to the individual Adam but to
the race of which he was the first, Gregory understands the imago in tenns

51 Cornelius A. Lapide, The Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew, trans.

Thomas W. Mossman (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2008) 30.
52 St Augustine, On the Trinity’ 12.5 (NPNF 156-57) and St Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae Volume 13: Man Made to God's Image, ed. Edmund Hill
(London: Blackfriars, 1964) 69 (la q.93, a.6, ad 2).
53 Sts Augustine and Thomas were referring to analogies with the family where a
one-to-one correspondance was indicated. It would be overly simplistic to extend
their negative judgement regarding such analogies as automatically applying to
more general analogies, such as those poetically referring to the Holy Family as
a 'trinity' on earth in the sense of a lovingly united community of persons.

43
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

of the unity of all the members of humanity. In this conceptualisation,

the: “whole race [...] spoken of as one man [...] extending from the first
to the last, is, so to say, one image of Him Who is.”54 St Gregory makes
it clear that he does not mean merely some indeterminate generality or
platonic form called ‘man,’ but rather the totality of individuals who
share a coimnon humanity (and common ‘relations of origin’), from the
first human individual (i.e. the first of our ancestors), to the last (the last
of our descendants). This understanding, which considers the imago in
tenus of the human family considered as a unity seems to complement
the better known Trinitarian analogies, those made considering either
one or three human individuals. Understanding the imago in tenus of the
unity of the human race can counter-balance the tendencies of these other
analogies to either modalism or tri-theism.

Implications for Everyday Family Life

In concluding, we might first realistically observe that while revelation

teaches that humanity is created in God’s image, nevertheless the many
limitations, imperfections and sins of men and women throughout
history are a clear reminder of how profoundly unlike God humanity has
acted at times. The paper began with a brief discussion of the assertion
of Przywara and von Balthasar that a humble, apophatic realisation of
these imperfections can be understood to imply an ethical flip-side to
the revelation of our status as imago Dei, expressed long before them by
St Gregory of Nyssa in tenus of a call to cooperate with God’s work of
theosis:

you came into existence as [...] a likeness of incorruptible

Beauty [...] in the contemplation of which you become what it is,
imitating what shines within you.55

54 St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making ofMan 16. 16-18 in Gregory, Bishop of

Nyssa, trans. William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson, Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers: Second Series V (Grand Rapids, MI: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1976)406.
55 St Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on the Song of Songs 2 in Gregory of Nyssa:
Homilies on the Song ofSongs, trans. Richard A. Norris Jr. (Atlanta, GA: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2012) 75.

44
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

We also looked at Mark Husbands’ argumentation against

understanding the Trinitarian Mystery as a ‘social program.’ While
I agree that we should not “construct patterns of social community”
from the doctrine of the Trinity, this does not preclude the possibility
of drawing from revelation an understanding of the human family as
intentionally ‘constructed’ as a loving community in such a way as to act
as a kind of language written into our hearts (Rm 2:15), which is capable,
albeit imperfectly, of both communicating the Trinitarian form of divine
Love and communicating this form as a model.56 Is not God the Father
portrayed as using this language to indicate that the disciples should
listen to Christ because he has pleased God as a son pleases his father?
(cf. Mt 17:5). Does not that divine Son use tins language when indicating
that the divine Will which should be done on earth is that of a loving
Father (cf. Mt 6:9-13, Lk 22:42)? In what sense are we to understand
these revelations, other than that divine Trinitarian Love is a model for
human love? It is in doing the Will of God the Father, as God’s children,
that we become a loving community in Christ, his family as Ms “brother
and sister and mother” (Mt 12:50). St Paul uses a fatherly tone in calling
upon the Corintliian comimmity to imitate him as Ms beloved cliildren in
Christ and sends them Timothy as a faithful reminder of Ms example, as
Ms beloved son(l Cor 4:14-17).

Husbands asks social trimtarians: “Where is tliis concrete human

comimmity of dynamic self-giving and love of wliich you speak so
positively?”571 would respond that the Holy Family -Jesus, Ms Mother
and their immediate relatives- is such a community. Together they
corresponded with the graces offered them in such a way as to constitute
a comprehensive example of how a human community can take divine,

56 Husbands, "NOT our social program' 133. Regardless of whether Husbands is

correct that St Gregory of Nyssa does not “does not employ a social analogy of
the Trinity” in the treatise AdAblabiimi, it nevertheless seems clear that Gregory
advocated understanding our creation in the image of God in terms of the unity of
humanity considered precisely as a social community, that we were "constructed‘
(made) to be like God, (in On the Making ofMan 16) and so to imitate God (in
Homily on the Song ofSongs 2).
57 Husbands, "NOT our social program' 125.

45
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

Trinitarian Love as its model. This Love shines through the example of
tliis Holy Family precisely in the way they loved each other as parents,
as children and as spouses, shedding light on why revelation resorts to
tenus of family relationships to unveil the mystery of Trinitarian Love.
Each member of that Αγία Οικογένεια lived out the Will of God through
their love for each other in various ways:

• Our salvation was achieved through the omnipotent obedience of

God as Son to the eternal, divine Father, yet Jesus prepared for
tliis humanly, as a child, through his loving filial obedience to
Mary as his finite, human mother;
• God became a member of the human race through a fruitful
partnership between God the Holy Spirit and humanity, yet the
context for tliis partnership was the loving spousal partnership of
Joseph and Mary as his Ever-virgin bride;
• The eternal Will of our heavenly Father, that parents might bear
children without stain of sin, was finally achieved with the birth
of the Theotokos, when Sts Joachim and Anna corresponded to
the Will of God in bearing and rearing Mary as All-pure daughter.

Given the example of tliis Holy Family, it would seem that a sound
devotion to the Mother of God as also All-pure daughter and Ever-virgin
spouse of God, if understood correctly, is appropriate to inspire the
members of Christian families to love each other according to the divine
Will for our sanctification through family life. While it is important to
avoid any projection of the imperfections of family life into our belief in
the Trinity, tliis should not lessen the force of the Son of God’s call for
us to be perfect in imitation of our Heavenly Father, “from whom every
family in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph 3:15).

Following the example of the Holy Family, parents are called to

lovingly care for the children they have ‘generated’ in imitation of the
Love of God the Father for the Son. In their turn, children are called to
reciprocate with a loving obedience and respectful honour toward their
parents, in imitation of the filial Love of God the Son for the Father.

46
Phronema Volume 33(1), 2018

Finally, spouses are called on to lovingly rejoice, together with their

parents, in the joy which mutual, self-giving love open to the divine Will
can bring, in imitation of the loving “Joy of the Father and Son” which is
the Holy Spirit, the ‘giver of life. ’58

The analogy suggested in this paper is not a one-to-one

correspondence between each member of the ‘nuclear’ Holy Family and
a given divine Person. Rather the analogy would be with the three loving
‘relations’ that weave the human family as a whole into one, focusing
on the love characteristic of parents, children and spouses considered
precisely in their interrelatedness.59 It is hoped that this paper indicates
some tentative first steps towards developing the understanding of the
image of God proposed by St Gregory of Nyssa, as referring to the
entire human family considered as a unity, in a manner which might
complement the better known psychological and sociological analogies
to the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Christian families have an opportunity to evangelise from within

a sometimes narcissistic culture in which the glorification of self makes it
difficult to recognise value in the self-giving to others which is demanded
by parental, filial and spousal love in family life. Every family, extended
or blended, will have suffered the imperfections and sin which are a part

58 For St Gregory Palamas, the Son rejoices with the Father who rejoices in the
Son, and this Joy is the Fioly Spirit. Cf. St Gregory Palamas, The One Hundred
and Fifty Chapters, ed. Robert E. Sinkewicz (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, 1988) 123: “for this pre-eternal joy of the Father and the Son
is the Holy Spirit in that he is common to them by mutual intimacy [χρησιν].”
59 Interestingly, like Mary, each person in the Holy Family illustrates, to a greater
or lesser extent, all three roles of parent, child and spouse. Properly understood
as a kind of "circumincession‘ of roles in each human person, this nexus of roles
need not diminish the clarity of the analogy, but rather confirms the impression
of a Trinitarian structure in the family. While this paper has noted the special
role in salvation history which Sts Joachim and Anna played as parents, their
spousal love speaks directly to the place of the marital act in God's Will for the
love between Christian spouses. Similarly, while the Perpetual Virginity speaks
of the special spousal love of Mary and Joseph, it is in their role as parents that
Scripture offers more detail that is relevant for Christian parents.

47
Embroidering the Fabric ofFamily Love with the Trinitarian Mystery

of everyday life. Nevertheless, precisely because of our limitations and

sinfulness, family life in all its wounded forms is full of opportunities for
children, spouses and parents to respond to the challenge to joyfully love
and forgive one another. That edifying drama of love has the potential
to attract others to Christ, if it seeks to reflect the Source of that love,
“indistinctly... as in a mirror” (1 Cor 13:12). That Source, which can
shine so beautifully through families, is ultimately the God of Love, a
Unity of three loving, inseparably ‘related’ Persons.

48
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at [email protected].

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.