Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects A Comparison of the Kenotic Trinitarian Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Sergei Bulgakov Katy Leamy Marquette University Recommended Citation Leamy, Katy, "A Comparison of the Kenotic Trinitarian Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Sergei Bulgakov" (2012). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 211. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/211 A COMPARISON OF THE KENOTIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF HANS URS VON BALTHASAR AND SERGEI BULGAKOV by Katy Leamy A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2012 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE KENOTIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF HANS URS VON BALTHASAR AND SERGEI BULGAKOV Katy Leamy Marquette University, 2011 Vital to Balthasar’s own articulation of the dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity is the kenotic Trinitarian theology of Sergei Bulgakov. The ways in which Balthasar both incorporates and modifies Bulgakov's Trinitarian theology provide an insight into his overarching theological agenda. My dissertation argues that Sergei Bulgakov, a 20th century Russian Orthodox theologian, is an important resource for Balthasar, directly and indirectly influencing key doctrinal points as well as the overall shape and direction of his theological project. This dissertation explores how Balthasar employs and adapts the thought of Sergei Bulgakov, with the Trinitarian theology of Thomas Aquinas to form a kenotic Trinitarian theology that is based on the notion of Personhood as a relation of self-donating love. It is a Trinitarian theology that is descriptive of both the Divine life as relation and human nature made in the image of God. The structure of this Trinitarian theology leaves a sphere for genuine human and Divine freedom and agency that can be characterized as a real drama. When we look at Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology in light of Bulgakov, and particularly as a re-reading of Bulgakov in light of a Thomistic Trinitarian theology, we are not only able to more clearly understand the implications of Balthasar’s own Trinitarian theology, but also to highlight the beauty and relevance of Bulgakov’s Trinitarian contribution. Finally, this reading of Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology, read in light of a Thomistic adjustment of Bulgakov, provides an excellent point of integration for an ethics that takes into account, not only individual virtues and perfection, but also the social/relational context of human personhood. This ethics is based in a concept of human nature bearing the imago trinitatis, and fulfilling that nature through sacramental participation and ethical extension of Christ’s self-offering love. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Katy Leamy This dissertation was made possible by the support and encouragement of numerous people, to whom I am immensely grateful. The first word of thanks goes to the members of my committee. I am deeply grateful for their excellent scholarship, probing questions, and kindness. Thanks to them, there were times where putting this dissertation together was even kind of fun. I am grateful to Danielle Nussberger for her unfailing encouragement and for keeping our discussions of the Triune Persons personal. I want to recognize Steve Long for being the fastest mouse in the Midwest, at least with respect to editing and returning chapters. I thank Mark Johnson for answering my questions on Thomas Aquinas, and for always teaching me something I didn’t expect to learn, like about Italian rock stars. I thank Fr John Laurance for his friendship and wisdom, and for sharing poetry, which brings out the beauty in life. I would like to thank my fellow graduate students, Christine Wood, Juli Vazquez, Joseph Flipper, and Becca Hylander who have shown me true friendship and have provided invaluable help in reading my work and discussing ideas. I would also like to thank Drs. Joshua Hochschild, Warren Smith, Reinhard Hütter, and Robert Masson who have not only taught me about God, but have also taught me how to teach. I offer a special thank you to Bill and Linda Hylander for their friendship and support throughout my graduate studies. I also want to recognize Carisa Henniger and Mike and Leanne Reed for their significant contribution to my graduating from high school. I thank Kristen Olver, Laura Niver, Lauren Gyorfi, and MaryAnn Shepherd for their friendship and assistance with basic study skills, writing, and making life delightful. A very special thank you goes to my grandparents, Buster and Billie, and my mother Becky who have been pillars of truth, love, and fidelity to me throughout my life. They taught me how to love God, laugh at myself, and put up with my “running around the barn” in hundreds of conversations about theology. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Outline of the Argument ................................................................................................. 5 Chapter One ................................................................................................................ 5 Chapter Two................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter three ............................................................................................................... 9 Chapter four .............................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 1: How do you solve a problem like Sophia?...................................................... 16 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16 Background ................................................................................................................... 18 The Intersection of Russian Sophiology with the Kenotic Theology Movements. .. 18 Bulgakov’s Reading of Thomas Aquinas ................................................................. 23 Bulgakov’s Trinitarian Insight ...................................................................................... 35 The Divine Essence is Kenotic Love ............................................................................ 36 Divine Nature as an Expression of the Triune Life .................................................. 39 The Image of the Trinity in Creation ........................................................................ 40 Four Accomplishments of Sophia ................................................................................. 43 Bulgakov’s Sophiology ................................................................................................. 45 The Trinity and Sophia ............................................................................................. 45 Creaturely Sophia, Eternal Humanity, and the Incarnation ...................................... 49 Created Sophia and Human Nature ........................................................................... 50 Human Nature ........................................................................................................... 55 The God-Man ............................................................................................................ 56 Salvation History: Humanity and the Church ........................................................... 62 Church: Sophia and Sobernost .................................................................................. 64 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 68 Chapter Two: Relation as Donation and its Reflection in Creation.................................. 71 iii Introduction ................................................................................................................... 71 Balthasar’s reading of Thomas on Trinity and Divine/creaturely relation ................... 76 Thomas Aquinas and the Trinity............................................................................... 78 Balthasar’s Appropriation of Thomas ........................................................................... 93 Bulgakov’s Insight in a Thomistic Framework .......................................................... 102 Ousia=Relation=Glory=Suffering .............................................................................. 105 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 107 Chapter Three: Emptiness vs. Effigies: Christology and the descent into hell ............... 109 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 109 The Trajectory of Descent: ......................................................................................... 114 a) Kenosis of the persons is suffering, suffering=glory .......................................... 120 b) Divine Simplicity and Its Economic Expression ................................................ 124 c. Divine Freedom as “Distance” ............................................................................ 127 d. “Trinitarian Inversion” ........................................................................................ 130