Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J. F.

Buch: The Way to Nicea

Titel: The Way to Nicea

Stichwort: Athanasius (Textstellen über Konsubstantialität); Intelligibilität in den "Bildern" der Schrift; Metapher: Licht - Sonne, Helligkeit

Kurzinhalt: Athanasius: ... we must transcend the senses utterly ...; Therefore, because they are one, and because the divinity itself is also one, what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, except the name, Father ...

Textausschnitt: 99c It is clear enough, then, how Athanasius' own mind worked, and, at least by his account, also the minds of the ante-Nicene authors and of the council Fathers at Nicea. They began with the images, taken mostly from scripture, with which we are now so familiar; in these images they grasped a certain intelligibility, which they expressed in the concept of consubstantiality; then, taking this concept of consubstantiality, derived from what is sensible, they adapted it, mainly in accordance with sayings of scripture itself, to the best of their ability, in order to conceive the divine generation of the Son. (Fs)

100a Athanasius certainly insisted on the need for the final step of adaptation: as the meaning of the word, Son, had to be adapted, so too had the meaning of the word, consubstantial:

"When we speak of him as offspring, we do not understand this in a human way, and when we acknowledge God as Father, we do not attribute bodily characteristics to him: these words and images we apply to God in a fitting manner, for God is not like man. In the same way, when we hear him described as consubstantial, we must transcend the senses utterly and, following the Proverb (23, 1), understand spiritually what is laid before us, to know that as life comes from the source and brightness from the light, so he is truly Son, out of the Father, and like the Father".1

100b As an indication of the extent to which Athanasius himself achieved this adaptation and purification we may cite the following:

[...]
If, on the other hand, he is the Father's own illuminating and creative power, without which the Father neither creates nor is known (for through him, and in him, all things are held together), why do we refuse to use the word that expresses this understanding of him? What else does it mean, to be of the same nature as the Father, if not, to be con-substantial with him? For it is not as if God, needing somebody to help him, assumed a son from outside of himself; neither are the things that God made equal to him in dignity, so that they ought to be honoured as he is honoured, or that we should say that they and the Father are one. Besides, who will say that the sun and its brightness are two different lights, or different substances? Or who will say that the brightness of the sun is an accident of the sun, and not purely and simply the sun's offspring, in such manner that, while the sun and its brightness are two things, they are nonetheless the one light, because the brightness comes from the sun? Since the nature of the Son is even more inseparable from the Father than the brightness of the sun is from the sun itself, and since the divinity of the Son is not something added to him-but the divinity of the Father is in the Son, so that whoever sees the Son sees the Father in him-why should the Son, who is like this, not be called consubstantial with the Father"?1
"Thus, the Son is not another god, because he is not something from outside of God. If one were to think of any divinity outside of God, then one would be introducing several gods. For although the Son, as begotten, is other than the Father, still, as God he is the same as the Father; and so he and the Father are one, both as having the same nature and as sharing the same divinity, as we have said. For the brightness itself is also light; it does not come after the sun, nor is it another light, nor does it become light by participating in the sun's light, but it is, in the fullest sense, the sun's offspring. Where light, in this way, gives birth to light, there is, of necessity, only one light, and it cannot be said that the sun and its brightness are two different lights; the sun and its brightness are two things, but there is one light, born of the sun, which with its brightness illuminates the whole universe. Similarly, the Son's divinity is also that of the Father, and so there is but the one divinity; so also there is but one God, and no other God apart from him. Therefore, because they are one, and because the divinity itself is also one, what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, except the name, Father. Thus, therefore, the Son is called God: And the Word was God; he is also called the Omnipotent: Thus says the Omnipotent, who was, and who is, and who is to come; similarly, he is the Lord: The one Lord, Jesus Christ; and he is also called the Light: I am the Light; and further, he is said to take away sins: But that you may know, he says, that the Son of Man on earth has power to forgive sins; and there are many other similar sayings in scripture. For the Son himself says: All things that the Father has are mine; and again: What I have is yours".1