GOD WITHIN US:

LONERGAN’S ACCOUNT OF THE INDWELLING TRINITY

Ezra Sullivan, OP
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2
CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................... 3
METHOD ...................................................................................................................................... 4
AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... 6
AN ASCENT TO UNDERSTANDING ................................................................................................ 9
In General................................................................................................................................ 9
Understanding Ourselves ...................................................................................................... 10
Understanding God ............................................................................................................... 12
God and Ourselves ................................................................................................................ 14
THE ASSERTION ......................................................................................................................... 20
Recognizing the Indwelling .................................................................................................. 21
Issues of Grace ...................................................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................. 27
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 30

1
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

INTRODUCTION

Among theologians, there has been a sense for many years that modern followers of St.

Thomas Aquinas such as Bernard Lonergan could make Trinitarian theology hopelessly complex

and spiritually unfruitful. For example, Karl Rahner dismisses the “subtle explanations” of

Lonergan and his “metaphysical subtleties” as problems that no longer command the interest of

modern minds.1 From a very different theological perspective, a contemporary Thomist

examined a number of theories of how the Holy Trinity dwells within the soul and concluded

that none of the theories were completely adequate, but this was of little concern to growth in the

spiritual life. He said, “[W]hat is important for our purposes is not so much the nature or mode

of the indwelling as the fact of the indwelling, and concerning this, all theologians are in

accord.”2 For his part, Lonergan was aware that Thomistic Trinitarian theology could be

unnecessarily obscure and spiritually fruitless; it is the contention of this essay that he responded

to these critiques above all in treating how the Holy Trinity dwells in the soul.

In order to evaluate the clarity and spiritual usefulness of Lonergan’s treatment of the

indwelling, we will begin by placing it within its proper context. This will involve giving an

historical context to The Triune God: Systematics, taking account of the aim and method of

theology as a whole, and seeing the treatise as a fruit of theology. Following that, we will

proceed to give a close textual analysis to Lonergan’s understanding of the indwelling. This will

comprise the bulk of the essay. Finally, we will conclude with a summary and an appraisal of

Lonergan’s theology of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwell in the souls of the just.

1
Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. Josef Donceel (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 80-81.
2
Antonio Royo Marin, The Theology of Christian Perfection, trans. Jordan Aumann (Dubuque: Priory
Press, 1962), 47.

2
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

CONTEXT

As a widely-read, thoughtful, and experienced professor, Lonergan was familiar with the

difficulties that Trinitarian theology could bring to the student. First published in 1964,

Lonergan’s textbook on the Trinity was, in large part, composed of material written almost

twenty years prior. During that time, Lonergan had a large task on his hands.3 As he recounted

in 1971, “to be a dogmatic professor meant being a specialist in. . . the Old Testament, the New,

the Apostolic Fathers, the Greek Fathers, the ante-Nicene, Greek and Latin, the post-Nicene, the

medieval Scholastics, the Renaissance period, the Reformation, contemporary philosophy and so

on.”4 This was, of course, an impossible task. Lonergan met did what he could and met this task

with method. Conn O’Donovan notes that Lonergan’s Trinitarian theology is greatly

“intertwined” with his methodological thinking.5 “Doing method,” Lonergan would say,

“fundamentally is distinguishing different tasks, and thereby eliminating totalitarian ambitions.”6

The ambition method defeats is the desire to do all things at once.

Lonergan divided his labor into two basic categories: dogmatic and systematic. The first

would take a positive look at what the Fathers had said on the Trinity, the second would organize

the concepts into a unified system.7 Bringing together the matter into dogmatic and systematic

systems, Lonergan’s work became the two parts of his treatise, The Triune God.

3
David Tracy notes that, though Lonergan in The Triune God kept to the general structure of the
theological manuals which were then considered necessary, he broke away from them by having distinctly
conscious, historical and methodological sections in his treatise. See David Tracy, The Achievement of Bernard
Lonergan (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 195 ff.
4
Bernard Lonergan, “An Interview with Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J.” in A Second Collection (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1974), 212.
5
Bernard Lonergan, The Way to Nicea, trans. and introduction Conn O’Donovan (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976), xviii. This is evident even from the courses Lonergan taught in the years leading up to the
publication of The Triune God: at least four were on theological method. See xx, n.35.
6
Lonergan, “An Interview,” 212.
7
In fact, what Lonergan said about the great mass of historical facts applies well to the systematic task:
“The abundance and variety of the material, unless it be drawn together in a manner that displays a pattern or order,
are more likely to obfuscate than to illuminate the mind, to cloud the issue rather than clarify it.” Lonergan, The
Way to Nicea, 105.

3
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

METHOD

While we contend that Lonergan’s treatment of the divine indwelling attempts to be both

clear and spiritually helpful to a reader, we do not claim that the weighty tome is simple or a

work of moral theology. On the contrary, The Triune God: Systematics is quite complex as a

whole and in some of its precise arguments; this is partly because it is a work of systematic

theology. The systematic task has its pitfalls, as Lonergan knew. He critiqued a theology which

can be little more than “logical exercises”; at the same time, he held that, “the fact of abuse does

not invalidate right use.”8 Though speculative theology could be spiritually unfruitful, one

should not therefore abandon it or allow one’s theology to be sloppy, shallow, and lacking

logical rigor.9

In the preface to The Triune God: Systematics, Lonergan states that his purpose is to

produce a speculative treatise on the Trinity. The bases of such speculation are the sources of

revelation properly interpreted by capable exegetes and the dogmas of faith.10 Now the aim of

dogmatic theology is to formulate a divine truth or reality and “how this reality should be

conceived at all times by all believers.”11 Thus, what positive theology discovers and formulates

8
Lonergan, The Way to Nicea, 29.
9
Only a short while after Lonergan published the Latin edition of The Triune God: Systematics, Thomas
Dubay wrote on the divine indwelling and attempted to steer a middle course between books which were
“exclusively pious” and those which were “heavily speculative.” “The first,” Dubay asserted, “do good, but not as
much as they would if theology preceded practice. The second inform theologians, but they do not move the people
of God.” Thomas Dubay, God Dwells within Us (Denville: Dimension Books, 1971), 11. While Dubay’s effort is
admirable, his work could be fairly critiqued from a Lonerganian point of view as being problematically eclectic,
un-systematic, and lacking in a robust philosophic anthropology incorporating the psychological analogy of
processions.
10
See Bernard Lonergan, The Triune God: Systematics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 19.
11
Lonergan, The Triune God: Systematics, 51. From here forward, the page number of all direct citations
of this work will be found within parentheses.

4
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

is what systematic theology organizes and tries to understand.12 In sum, the systematic task is to

understand more profoundly a principle of faith.

In keeping with this pedagogical perspective, Lonergan explicitly considers the reader of

The Triune God. He presupposes two things about the reader: that he is both firm in his Catholic

faith and well educated in it.13 Since the reader is well educated in the faith, Lonergan does not

pile up authorities to remove doubts or refute errors regarding the faith. Because the reader’s

faith is firm, Lonergan wants to move him from a basic assent of faith to a higher level of

understanding.14

Beyond understanding alone, Lonergan held that theology ought to aim at “the

intellectual conversion of the subject” (313). Although “conversion” is a technical term for

Lonergan, and an idea that he later developed, it is clear that in The Triune God: Systematics, it

is connected to one’s union with God.15 This is because, for Lonergan, theology does not rest in

the intellect alone: it produces truth in us so that “love may be spirated [by us] toward God and

neighbor” (113). Because humans are made in the image of the Trinity, theological

understanding bears fruit in intellectual conversion, which reflects the procession of the Word

12
Systematic theology, Lonergan says, tries to gain “an understanding of the truths that we accept as
certain” (51). Elsewhere, Lonergan reformulates the goal of theology more concisely: “certorum quaerimus
intelligentiam,” which is a clear development of Anselm’s fides quarens intellectum (118) .
13
See p. 11.
14
In his attempt to help his reader, Lonergan repeatedly refers to a principle established in Vatican I:
“Reason illumined by faith, when it inquires diligently, reverently, and judiciously, with God’s help attains some
understanding of the mysteries and that a highly fruitful one, both from the analogy of what it naturally knows and
from the interconnection of the mysteries with one another and with our last end.” Vat. I, Sess. 3, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 4, quoted by Lonergan at (19).
15
Later, Lonergan would say, “Fundamental to religious living is conversion. . . . It is not merely a change
or even a development; rather, it is a radical transformation, on which follows, on all levels of living, an interlocked
series of changes and developments. What hitherto was unnoticed becomes vivid and present. What had been of no
concern becomes a matter of high import. So great a change in one’s apprehensions and one’s values accompanies
no less a change in oneself, in one’s relations to other persons, and in one’s relations to God.” Bernard Lonergan,
“Theology in Its New Context,” A Second Collection (1974), 55-67 at 65-66. Developing the idea even further in
his Method in Theology, Lonergan would distinguish more clearly between intellectual, religious, and moral
conversion—all of which, one researcher would say, “are mutually connected. . . religious conversion grounds moral
and intellectual conversion.” Dariusz Oko, European University Studies Series XX, vol. 361: The Transcendental
Way to God according to Bernard Lonergan (New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 227.

5
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

from the Father and the Spirit from them both. Any other result of theology would be a “useless

subtlety” or a series of “extremely clever schemes” (27 body and n.15). In this light, one might

say that Lonergan was trying to be “relevant”—which would be true in the broadest sense

possible.

Now if theology is related to the spiritual life, which is nothing other than the union of

God and man, we must understand what theology is in itself. Near the beginning of The Triune

God, Lonergan examines in detail the act of theological understanding. He states that its proper

object is not statements about God, but God Himself and everything related to Him. In other

words, a theologian through his work aims at being united to God through his understanding.

The understanding itself is imperfect, analogical, and obscure;16 it develops through time,

whether on the individual or corporate level; it is synthetic because “after individual mysteries

have been considered on their own, further questions arise about how they are connected with

one another and with our last end.” In addition, theological understanding is highly fruitful in

four specific ways: it helps us to grasp the truth, teach it, move our own will, and especially to

guide others while they move to their “final supernatural end” (17).

AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES

We have seen that Lonergan conceives theology as a whole to have consequences for

man’s spiritual life in its aim, method, and fruit. The content of theology is also important for

man’s relations with God, and this is especially true for the doctrine of the indwelling.

16
Lonergan develops this thought, saying, “theology attains, not the kind of understanding that would
suffice for discovering with certitude what is true, but that obscure, analogical, and imperfect understanding that
throws some light on truth already known from elsewhere, and enables us to possess it more fully” (107, emphasis
added). Thus, if theology, despite its shortcomings, does not help the believer grasp his faith more firmly, that is,
draw him closer to God, then theology has not done its job.

6
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

Lonergan formally begins his exposition of the indwelling with the question, “Is it by

way of love that the divine persons are in the just and dwell in them?” (501). Regarding the

answer, he states that there are two issues: the fact itself, which Scholastics would call the an sit,

and the understanding of the fact, which involves the “what it is” (quid) and the “how it is” (quo)

(Ibid).

As established in positive theology, the fact of the indwelling is a matter of faith. To

confirm this, Lonergan appeals to the highest authorities. The New Testament, Lonergan says, is

“quite clear” that there is some kind of indwelling (Ibid.). To support this claim, Lonergan

quotes from the Gospel and letters of St. John as well as various works of St. Paul.17 In doing so,

Lonergan avoids performing “biblical theology” or any kind of exegesis; he stays within the

bounds of systematic theology because he is looking for an understanding that stems from

definitions of the Church but which has itself not yet been defined (36). At the same time, by

starting explicitly from biblical instead of Magisterial categories, Lonergan is consciously using

language that speaks “of God while at the same time telling us what we should feel, what we

should say, what we should do,” rather than speaking only of the “divine reality itself” (35).

The next authorities to which Lonergan appeals are “almost countless other texts [in

Catholic tradition],” which he finds in such places as official Magisterial teachings and the work

of theologians. Lonergan only devotes a footnote to the “other texts” before explaining—in his

own way—the indwelling (501). In the footnote, he makes reference to Pius XII’s encyclical

Mystici Corporis. Though Lonergan does not quote the encyclical, he clearly realized its

17
E.g., “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God and God abides in them” (1 John 4:16); “If
the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to
your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you” (Rom 8:11). All Biblical quotations are from the
Revised Standard Version.

7
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

importance to his project. One reason for this is because the Pope summarized Catholic belief

about the indwelling:

The Divine Persons are said to indwell inasmuch as they are present to beings endowed
with intelligence in a way that lies beyond human comprehension, and in a unique and
very intimate manner, which transcends all created nature, these creatures enter into
relationship with Them through knowledge and love.18

Taking the rational soul as the locus of the indwelling, Lonergan sums up the doctrine with the

terse statement: “God is in the just as the known in the knower and the beloved in the lover”

(503).

We should not overlook the fact that, in laying down the essence of the divine indwelling,

both Pius XII and Lonergan reference the same place in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa

Theologiae: Prima Pars, Question 43, Article 3. Nevertheless, neither gave an exposition of

Thomas’ teaching; neither was doing the work of positive theology. For his part, Lonergan was

keenly aware that the indwelling is a matter of faith, but he also knew that there were many

“disputed points” surrounding the doctrine (437). Nevertheless, Lonergan did not discuss the

content of these points.19 In light of what we have already established about the aims and

methods of Lonergan’s theology, it is likely he was silent because he thought such discussions

would not be fruitful for the reader.20

18
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 79. From http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals.
Accessed April 20, 2008.
19
Lonergan certainly could have entered the fray over the indwelling doctrine. For example, in order to
make clear the correct position on the divine processions, he examines the various opinions: the erroneous, the
insufficient, the poorly propounded, and (apart from that unsavory crowd) that of St. Thomas. See pp. 130-133.
20
Despite the great length of his work, Lonergan claims to have included in his arguments “only what is
indispensible” to his aim and methods (3).

8
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

AN ASCENT TO UNDERSTANDING

In General

Now that we have discussed the context, method, and authorities Lonergan established in

regard to the indwelling, it is time to discuss his account of the doctrine. Taken together,

Question 32 and Assertion 18 comprise Lonergan’s exposition of what it means that the three

Persons of the Blessed Trinity dwell within the soul of the just. It is, in many ways, the

culmination of The Triune God: Systematics. As with much of Lonergan’s thought, it is equally

important to understand both what he said and how he said it. The “how” is a methodological

question; the “what” is exegetical. Our purpose here is to thoroughly analyze Lonergan’s

exposition of this important doctrine, working through his question and his assertion step by step

in the order by which he proceeds—contextualizing, interpreting, and illustrating it in light of

relevant passages of the entire work.

In its most general sense, the indwelling for Lonergan is “a mutual ‘being in’ that implies

not only the uncreated gift of God but also our acts, by which we habitually keep Christ’s

commandments through love” (503). To understand what this means, Lonergan leads the reader

to grasp the various meanings of “presence” through a series of steps “beginning from objects of

sense and gradually proceeding to higher realities.”

Lonergan’s method for understanding “presence” is the step-by-step technique which is a

mirror of his technique in The Triune God as a whole, in each of its sections, and in its various

parts.21 Regarding the whole, he had said: “one step at a time, we develop our ideas until we

come to as much understanding as is available on these matters” (121). It is important to note

that Lonergan did not think that we “develops our ideas” by working on them as something

21
For a thorough example of the stepwise, introspective method applied to philosophy, see Lonergan’s
Insight, written in 1957.

9
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

external to ourselves as a writer produces an essay; rather, we develop our ideas through a

process of self-reflection and self-understanding.22 Despite the connections this method may

have to that of modern philosophers, Lonergan insists that St. Thomas used it, even if not in an

“explicit contemporary way,” to such an extent that “those who do not attend to their own

consciousness will not be able to understand the words of St. Thomas” (155 n.18).23 Even more,

without careful introspection, people will have great difficulty knowing themselves and

consequently knowing God in themselves.24

With his stepwise introspective method in mind, Lonergan leads us to grasp idea of

presence. He discusses presence with respect to bodies, senses, imagination, and in the fourth

place, the presence of “one person to another” (505). This personal presence manifests itself

through knowledge, love, and the good of order.

Understanding Ourselves

Generally speaking, if we interpret presence in a passive way, the idea of personal

presence can, despite its name, seem impersonal. Lonergan therefore states that we must discuss

the operations proper to persons. These operations provide the foundation of personal presence.

22
What Lonergan wrote to help the reader understand the divine processions applies to those who are
trying to understand the indwelling, “[W]e seek to acquire some knowledge of our mind as will enable us to have
some understanding of the divine processions. . . .We are therefore attempting something very easy. For we are
attempting neither to grasp some philosophic synthesis nor to review and pass judgment on a whole series of
opinions, but to go through a simple, brief process of reflection. Everyone who has truly reached the age of reason
can go through this process” (135).
23
Even if Thomas is the fundamental source of Lonergan’s introspective method, it certainly has strong
connections to St. Augustine’s less formal method, encapsulated in his well-known prayer from the Soliloquies: “O
Domine. . . noverim me, noverim te.” In J. P. Migne, Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol. 32 (Paris,
1854), 2.1. In addition, his step-by-step method—which is intrinsically connected to introspection—resembles St.
Bonaventure’s method in his Itinerarium. In St. Bonaventure’s work, there are six steps by which the soul is to
ascend to God through a process of abstraction and gradual introspection then transcending of oneself in reaching
the Trinity.
24
Although this principle is clearly present in The Triune God: Systematics, Lonergan was more explicit
about it later. While discussing the flaws of many modern Thomists, he said, “I urge the necessity of a self-
appropriation of the subject, of coming to know at first hand oneself and one’s own operations both as a believer and
as a theologian. . . .Without such a basis systematic theology will remain what it has been too often in the past, a
morass of questions disputed endlessly and fruitlessly.” Bernard Lonergan, “The Future of Thomism” in A Second
Collection (1974), 51.

10
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

For persons, presence means communication: we reach others and they reach us through our

intellectual natures. Our intellectual nature is oriented toward and fulfilled in “the totality of

being, truth, and goodness.” These transcendental are, in the end, what is communicated between

persons. Thus, “once there is an intellectual nature, interpersonal relationships and

communications follow,” both on the divine and created levels (351).

More specifically, there are “instances of presence,” Lonergan states, when the known is

in the knower and the beloved is in the lover (505). The known is present to the knower “with an

intentional existence,” that is, the known has an intellectual existence in the mind of the knower.

On the other hand, the beloved is “joined and united to the lover” as a person is present to

himself, for a friend is “half of my soul.”

Next, Lonergan makes an important contribution to the discussion of presence with his

idea of “an intelligible good of order” (505). For humans, Lonergan made clear in Question 31,

the ultimate end is God, “communicated immediately in the beatific vision” (495). This must be

the case because God is the supreme, substantial Good in which all things find their fulfillment

and happiness. Proximately, our end can be described in different ways, according to the ways

of understanding our relation to God’s presence. Our proximate end is the general good of order,

with respect to human nature; the kingdom of God, with respect to social order; the body of

Christ, with respect to the incarnate Son as Mediator; the Church as the body of Christ extended

in time and place.

The various elements of the rational good of order are the same as those which comprise

personal presence: 1) persons, who are the subjects of relationships; 2) habits, such as mutual

knowledge, which is integral to relationships; 3) coordinated operations, especially mutual love;

4) a series of goods, including benefits to being united to another; 5) personal relationships

11
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

themselves, which come about through the love that unites men to each other and the Trinity.25

Further, Lonergan states that, since one achieve a greater or lesser complete good of order, the

“degree of perfection” one achieves in the good of order is directly proportional to the “degree of

perfection” one achieves in personal presence (505).

Understanding God

Having discussed the indwelling with respect to created persons, Lonergan invites his

reader, “let us ascend to consider the triune God in order from there to strive for some

understanding of the economy of salvation” (507). In ascending to God, Lonergan recapitulates,

in a small way, his entire work. First, he summarizes the doctrine of the processions. He does

so, on the one hand, by discussing God’s knowledge and how the Word is God. On the other

hand, he shows the procession of the Spirit by discussing divine love and how the Holy Spirit is

God. Secondly, Lonergan summarizes the doctrine of the relations by discussing the mutual

indwelling of the divine Persons. Thirdly, Lonergan summarizes the doctrine of the missions.

He does so by discussing the creation, then by discussing the Incarnation and the redemption.

All of this leads up to Lonergan’s conclusions about how the Trinity dwells within the soul of the

just. Let us now turn to the key moves within Lonergan’s exposition.

To begin with, it is clear that God dwells in Himself as the known is in the knower. The

Father knows Himself and expresses himself in an intelligible Word, which is of His very nature.

What the Father knows by His nature is the same as the Father’s substance. Thus, the Son exists

in the Father as someone known and the Son, having the same divine operation, knows the

Father—they are in each other with a substantial intentional existence. The same follows for the

Holy Spirit.

25
See pp. 495-497.

12
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

In addition, God dwells in Himself as the beloved in the lover. In uncreated as in created

friendships, the persons are never destroyed in the unity of love. Here it is germane to note that

the divine Persons dwell within each other through a love which resembles friendship but far

exceeds it.26 Lonergan quotes Horace’s epigram that a friend is “half of my soul” in reference to

the circumincession of the three divine Persons (419). The epigram is only half-right in regarding

the friendship in the Holy Trinity: there is in God a unity in uncreated love far beyond the

created: “in God love involves a true and full identity between the lover and the beloved” (Ibid).

The unity comes from the identity of the substance, existence, and operation of the divine

Persons. Thus, since the Holy Spirit has his own operation, he surely loves the Father and the

Son; they are in his love. Again, the Holy Spirit is the substantial love of the Father and the Son

for each other: and because of this, Lonergan states, Father and Son are consubstantial “by

reason of the love that joins the two into one” (421). Showing how there is a mutual indwelling

among the divine Persons based on their complete identity, the doctrine of circumincession

summarizes the fact that divine inter-personal communication is communion.

With respect to the Trinity, Lonergan held that the only thing the Three could not

communicate was their distinctive relations, upon which is predicated their respective Persons.

The Father cannot communicate Paternity to the Son, the Son cannot communicate Filiation to

the Spirit, the Spirit cannot communicate his spirated-ness to Father or Son. Due to the

incommunicability of the Person, this means that the Father communicates everything to the Son

except that without which the Father would no longer exist—His Fatherhood. Due to the

complete communication between the divine Persons, there is complete personal presence:

“Those whose being and understanding and knowing and loving are one and the same and are

26
Later we will see how, through friendship with Christ and the Holy Trinity, people can enter into the
circumincession.

13
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

indeed that which they themselves are, are in one another in the most perfect way” (507). For

created persons, communication is not entirely the same. Like the Trinity, our person cannot be

the what we share in communion, but unlike them we are “incommunicable by reason of

substance, existence, and operation” (351). Nevertheless, our operations of knowing and loving

help us communicate truth and goodness; they provide the foundation of personal presence in

ourselves.

God and Ourselves

Having seen the indwelling in terms of created and uncreated persons in themselves, the

next step in our ascension is to see how created and uncreated persons are in each other.

Created things, including persons, are in God in at least two ways. Insofar as things are

created, they are in God under the aspect of Creator; insofar as persons are redeemed, they are in

Him as Redeemer. Both indwellings are by way of knowledge and love, but only the redeemed

are “elect” because in a “special way” they are conformed to the “image of the Son” (509).

In order to understand how creation dwells in the Creator, we must make a brief excursus

regarding how the world relates to the Word. An important foundational principle is that there

can be primary and secondary objects of an act of understanding, that one can consider a single

object under different formalities.27 Because God is completely simple, He only considers one

primary object: the divine being itself. The secondary object of God’s consideration is His

creation, which is in God either as a possibility or as an actuality. In all cases, God understands

all things in one act of understanding, where all things are represented in God’s Word. The

Word, the perfect image of God, represents the perfections of creatures as their exemplar and

27
In the first case, as we saw above, a person can have God as his primary intention and the kingdom of
God as his second intention. In the second case, one can consider his friend insofar as he is human and insofar as he
is a book lover.

14
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

principle; in this way, the name “Word” implies “the operative idea of what God makes.”28

There is also a relation of God to creatures due to God’s completely simple will by which he

loves things into existence. There are not many volitions in God. Rather, He “wills objects that

are ordered to one another,” which means that the divine Persons love each other with one act,

and in the same act they love creation on account of the divinity (481, n.44).

Given that there is a relation between Creator and things created, there is an even deeper

relation between Redeemer and redeemed. Above the love of the Holy Trinity for their creation,

we share in the love of the divine persons for each other through our identification with the Son.

The love proper to the divine persons is what “implies and grounds the supernatural order,” by

which man is raised above his nature and brought into the life of God. This is the ultimate

meaning of the missions: “the Son was sent so that the Father might be able to love us as he

loves his own Son, and the Spirit is sent because the Father does love us as he loves his own

Son” (483).29

That the reader might grasp how one can have most intimate relations with God, whereby

he dwells in God and God in him through a supernatural union, Lonergan returns to Scriptural

authority and language.30 The just are the elect, as we saw, because they are united to the Son,

but here we see their connection to Christ in his humanity. It is by his humanity that Christ

“entered into personal relationships with the children of men” and through his humanity, all

28
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Allen:
Christian Classics, 1981) I, q. 34. a. 3. All quotations of the Summa Theologiae (ST) are from this translation. God
is related to things only insofar as He contains them in Himself and causes them to be. Because God is
supereminently beyond all creatures, as very Being itself, He is not related to them as one thing is to another: see ST
I, q. 5. a. 3, ad 2.
29
Later we explore more thoroughly how the divine processions are present in the soul of the just. For
now, we should note that their presence is due to the missions of the Son and Spirit. Regarding the connection
between the divine processions and missions, St. Thomas said, “the missions include the eternal processions and add
something to them, namely, temporal effects” ST I, q. 43, a. 2, ad. 3.
30
See p. 511. As with Lonergan’s previous compilation of Scriptural texts, we will not comment on them,
for they are the sources of all theology and not that which makes Lonergan’s theology unique.

15
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

humans can become friends of Christ (489). In their mutual friendship, the just believe in Christ

and love him; they are equally known and loved by him. Through their unity in Christ, the end

of Christ’s mission is accomplished: “new interpersonal relations [are established] between God

the Father and all human persons” (487).

One should not pass quickly by Lonergan’s emphasis on the communitarian aspect of the

indwelling. So far we have discussed the indwelling in terms of the individual and God, but

Lonergan does not have a “me and Jesus” theology. For him, the indwelling implies a neighbor,

both with respect to the end and the means of the indwelling. Regarding the end, Lonergan

plants the seeds of an ecclesiology and a theology of the communion of the body of Christ, for he

states that Christ unites “the members of the body with himself. . . [and] God the Father” (511).

But whoever is united to God with an organic, quasi-natural unity must also be united to each

other. The members of the body are not only connected to the head, but to all the other

members. There is a specific means to unity among the members of the mystical body, Lonergan

tells us. The means is also that which constitutes the unity: the charity of Christ. Without

supernatural love, “we do not arrive at this ultimate unity,” but with it, we love our neighbor and

“by that very fact [we] love Christ.”

With all of the essential elements in place, Lonergan proceeds to summarize his

understanding of the indwelling. From the doctrine of the unity of the body of Christ, we can

know the subjects of the mutual indwelling: “the divine persons themselves, the blessed in

heaven, and the just on earth” (511). Based on man’s nature and revelation, we know the

ultimate end of man which is the same as the end of Christ’s mission: man’s union with God

himself in the beatific vision. The proximate end is the good of order, the kingdom of God, and

so on.

16
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

The mode of mutual indwelling in persons is “in accordance with what suits the

perfection of their nature” (509). As we have seen, the way one man dwells in another is

different than the way the divine Persons dwell in each other; both of these indwellings are not

entirely the same as the way man dwells in God and God in him. Here we see a return to the

theme of ascending to God. If the mutual indwelling “differs according to each one’s nature and

status,” then there is a different indwelling for those of a different status, as we have seen: God

dwells in the just in a special way (511).

Through the charity of God which dwells in our hearts, the just know and love one’s

neighbor whom one sees, which means loving—at least—Christ the man. By loving him in his

humanity, we come to love him in his divinity. Thus, we enter into the love of the Trinity—“we

are led. . . to that higher knowledge and love in which we no longer know Christ from a human

point of view,” but in a quasi-divine way (513). Our soul comes, not only to imitate but also to

have within us the inner workings of the Trinity.

Our union with the Trinity is due to the missions, which reveal and make present the

processions: the Son and Spirit are sent “to encounter us and dwell in us” (513). They encounter

us according to the various levels of being present to the Trinity: they encounter us insofar as we

have bodies, sensation, and imagination. They dwell within us as known and beloved “in

accordance with similar processions produced in us through grace.” Thus, we ought to compare

the processions with the indwelling.31 Like the processions, the indwelling is not something

made or created, like a charism. Nor is the indwelling external, like an efficient cause. Nor,

even though the indwelling is internal to the soul, is it an operation (such as the act of faith) nor

one operation coming from another operation (such as the act of charity whose prerequisite is

31
See p. 157. Such a comparison is important due to the foundational nature of the processions: “it is well
established,” Lonergan says, “that the key to the entire Trinitarian question lies in the meaning of procession and
mode” (171).

17
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

faith). Further, through grace, the divine persons dwell within us in a higher way than they

naturally do.

Due to our cognitional structure, we naturally have processions in us; these processions

are more than vestigia trinitatis—they are manifestations of the image of the Trinity within us.32

In contrast to the Thomists who follow John of St. Thomas, Lonergan holds that the two

processions are not from our intellect and will. For Lonergan, one procession is from the

intellect alone, the other from the intellect moving the will. Thus, the first procession is an act of

understanding that produces a word of insight within us—the known is in the knower. In the

second procession the word breathes forth into love, which causes the beloved to be in the lover.

This indwelling, St. Thomas said, stems from a principle of love, and from the principle of an

“apprehended intelligible, which is the word that has been conceived concerning the lovable.”33

The primary principle of love is for created persons the mind, and for uncreated Persons, the

Father. The apprehended intelligible is for created persons the inner word and for uncreated

Persons, the Word of God. Thus, the Father and the Son are together one principle of the Holy

Spirit, who is the Love which proceeds from both.

Discussing the psychological processions in the just, Lonergan states that when we know

Christ in a supernatural way, “our inner word of the divine Word is spoken in us intelligently

according to the emanation of truth” (513). In some way, then, the eternal procession of the Son

is within us. At the same time, there are a number of ineradicable differences between our inner

word and the divine Word.34 The foundation of these differences is that “to an infinite degree

32
For Lonergan’s entire exposition of the imago Trinitatis in the soul, see pp. 219-229.
33
St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, c. 49, quoted by Lonergan at (225).
34
See p. 659, ff. We give only a partial list. One difference is that our word comes about in time, while the
divine Word is eternal. Another difference is that, there are many words in us—many even regarding the one
Word—while there is only one Word in God. Again, from the fact that in God essence and understanding are the
same, the Word is God according to nature, while for us essence and understanding are distinct, so our word is not
ourselves by nature. Further, if we understand “generation” to mean “the origin of something alive from a conjoined

18
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

and in an ineffable manner God is being, one, true, and good by reason of his unrestricted act of

being, understanding, and loving” (683). Regarding ourselves, these differences indicate that,

though the Word is in us according to his procession in a certain way, our cognitional structure is

not thereby destroyed and our nature is preserved. God may be in us, be we remain ourselves

and we retain what is natural to us.

If the procession of the Word is within us, the procession of the Spirit is no less present.

When we come to grasp and love the Holy Spirit, that very habitual loving is breathed forth in

holiness, affecting everything we do and say. Consequently, we love God in a supernatural way:

“our love of divine Love is spirated according to the emanation of holiness” (513). Our spiration

of holy love is in complete conformity with the eternal, substantial, communion of love in the

Trinity: “the Father and the Son are holy as the principle of holy love, while the Holy Spirit is the

love itself that proceeds in a holy manner” (355). Despite the conformity, there are many

differences between our spiration the divine spiration, just as there are differences between our

word and the divine Word.35 One difference is in the familiar realm of temporality: our love

only with extreme difficulty “reaches up to the supreme good,” while Eternal Love is always

directed to other divine Persons. Again, our love is impure and mixed with unequal motives,

while True Love exists solely for the sake of divine goodness. Further, our love is contingent

and imperfect, while Divine Love is necessary and perfect. In addition, our love arises from

material causes, since we do not love what we cannot know and all of our knowledge begins in

the senses, while purely Spiritual Love is “unique and simple.” Finally, through our love, the

beloved and lover are united with a “quasi-identification” while due to the Holy Spirit, the

Father and the Son are united in an unsurpassable intimacy.

living principle, with a resulting likeness of nature,” our word is not generated from our very being, but the Word is
generated from the Father, for is living and effective in the highest sense.
35
The following quotations of this paragraph are from p. 677.

19
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

To sum up our examination of Lonergan’s answer to his question, “Is it by way of love

that the divine persons are in the just and dwell in them?” we can say that it is primarily by way

of knowledge moving one toward love. God dwells in the soul in a two-fold way: as the known

is in the knower and as the beloved is in the lover. Our supernatural knowing is a living out of

the procession of the Son; our loving is a living out of the procession of the Spirit. In both our

knowing and loving, the Father is surely present. Due to his unity with the Son and Spirit,

through the unity of divine being, understanding, operation, and the mutual circumincession, the

Son and Spirit never come without the Father.36

How the just come to recognize the indwelling and in what that indwelling consists is

addressed in the final assertion of The Triune God: Systematics.

THE ASSERTION

To give the reader a fuller understanding of the indwelling, and so that the just might

better manifest that indwelling, Lonergan makes this assertion: “the indwelling of the divine

persons, although it exists more in acts and is better known by them, is nevertheless constituted

through the state of grace.”37

Lonergan proceeds to explain the meaning of this assertion in an orderly way, beginning

with a definition of the indwelling in light of his work above. He notes that things are better

known in their acts, but that the indwelling exists even in the absence of an act. This is known
36
Frederick Crowe, the preeminent Lonergan scholar, notes that Lonergan claims that the Father is present
in the soul but does not elaborate further. Crowe develops his own theory for why tradition is so silent about the
Father, pointing out that while there is an invisible mission of the Spirit and a visible mission of the Son, there is a
“non-mission or non-advent” of the Father. This is fitting, Crowe says, because “the Father is the Intelligere Dicens
in the Trinity, the Understanding that utters the Truth, and such a Truth as will issue in infinite Love. As, therefore,
the Father is the hidden, original, abysmal Source of the other persons in God and of their mission to us, it is fitting
that the Father remain hidden in this life, and be the final revelation, the One who becomes present to us through our
understanding, in the light of the beatific vision.” Frederick E. Crowe, “Rethinking God-With-Us: Categories from
Lonergan,” Science et Esprit, XLI/2 (1989), 167-188 at 178-179. Though Crowe begins with Lonergan’s theology
of the indwelling, he goes beyond him and even contradicts Lonergan’s teaching—and that of Catholic tradition—
which clearly states that the Father is present in the souls of the just even while here on earth.
37
My translation from the Latin on p. 512.

20
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

by revelation, he claims, which emphasizes the continuous indwelling over a Christian’s life

(which must necessarily have discontinuous, discrete acts). Also, no reputable theologians doubt

the habitual nature of the indwelling. The continual nature of the indwelling is important for the

spiritual life, for it shows that a Christian has a relationship with the Holy Trinity not primarily

on account of something the Christian does, but because of something God does for him. We

will develop this theme further on.

Recognizing the Indwelling

The next step Lonergan takes is to show the reader how to recognize God in himself. The

indwelling, he says, is best known through acts, especially through the acts of the just. 38 Almost

as a prescription for self-knowledge, Lonergan gives the reader a general indication for

recognizing one’s own relationship with the Holy Trinity: “the nature of the indwelling can

better be understood in each person the more he lives not for himself but for Christ, abides in

Christ, and is in the Spirit” (515).39 The cognoscibility of the indwelling is due to the fact that, in

every intellectual act the object is present as intended, the act is present as that by which the

objected is intended, and the subject is present as that which intends. 40 So God is present as

intended by the human in his act of charity, the act of charity is present as a manifestation of the

Spirit in the heart of human, and the human is clearly present. Even more, because God is the

primary actor in three Persons, the human is present in the Father’s speaking of the Word which

38
In a helpful phrase, Lonergan states, “although children or the sleeping or those who sin venially or those
who are about to sin mortally can be in a state of grace, we must not consider only or mainly such persons in order
to understand the nature of the indwelling” (515).
39
St. Thomas lists different indications that the Trinity dwells within one’s soul; they are different acts of a
person: 1) contemplating God, 2) rejoicing in God and being secure against temptations, 3) fulfilling God’s
commandments, 4) loving God as a friend. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. IV, ch. 22, nos. 1-6.
Though Lonergan does not explicitly reference St. Thomas’ list, we will see below that some of these elements are a
part of the situation of indwelling as Lonergan understands it.
40
See p. 141.

21
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

breathes love, the processions of the Son and Spirit are present in their processions, and thus God

is truly present in the divinized acts of the human person.

For an even clearer way to recognize the indwelling, we can turn to how the divine

Persons dwell in each other. Here it may be helpful to discuss one of Lonergan’s unique

contributions to the issue of circumincession: his notion of consciousness.41 In its most general

sense, Lonergan defines consciousness as the subject being present to himself, that is, knowing

himself as agent.42 Consciousness is distinguished from reflection or introspection, which

“renders the subject present as an object [understood],” for the subject is present as that which

understands (141). Since the divine Persons have a single operation, they also have a single

consciousness which encompasses the divine essence.

Beyond mere self-consciousness, each Person of the Holy Trinity is conscious “of each of

the others, since it is impossible for anyone to be consciously related to another without by that

very fact being conscious both of oneself and of the other to whom one is related” (387).43 Now,

when each divine Person is conscious through the essential, substantial divine act, he is

conscious of the other Persons who are nothing different than this very act. Unlike human

consciousness, which is different from what we ourselves are, the divine act is the same as the

divine essence: each Person is the divine consciousness. Thus, the divine Persons are within

each other—not as if they were in the imagination of another, nor as if they saw the other as a

41
In 1963, Lonergan stated that his teaching on the Trinity held a framework “that could be found in every
Catholic manual of theology.” On top of that framework, he added the notion of consciousness, integrating it with
much Thomistic and systematic thought. This integration, he said, has to be “brought all along the line or it is not
brought in at all.” Thus, Lonergan’s understanding of consciousness comes part and parcel along with his teaching
on the Trinity and their indwelling. Bernard Lonergan, “Consciousness and the Trinity” in Philosophical and
Theological Papers 1958-1964, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 127.
42
A caveat is in order: consciousness is notoriously difficult to understand and define; there have been
many different theories and descriptions of it from Descartes through Locke to Heidegger and Husserl. The aim
here is not to begin a discussion with other views of consciousness, but to focus on how Lonergan’s understanding
of consciousness relates to the indwelling.
43
For example, this means that the Father knows himself as Father-generating-the-Son-spirating-the-Spirit
and the Son knows himself as Word-being-generated-by-the-Father-breathing-the-Spirit.

22
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

subject who acted apart from himself, nor as an object that could be known without knowing

oneself. This is another way to understand the divine circumincession: “each [divine] person is

really within the very consciousness of the other two” (417).

In light of consciousness, a basis of inter-Trinitarian circumincession, we can better see

how the Trinity dwells in the souls of the just. We have already seen that God dwells in the

souls of the just through His divine action. Now that action, because it is intellectual, must by

definition also be conscious—we do not perform any specifically human actions without being

aware that are performing them as subjects.44 If a person performs an act that he knows is

beyond his natural powers, for example an act with a supernatural object, such as believing and

loving the Triune God, he implicitly recognizes the act must have a higher cause than himself

alone: it comes from God. In his very cooperation with God, the human is conscious of God as

dwelling within himself: God is within him as the known is in the knower. Even more, through a

second-order reflection, the human person knows that he is within the knowledge of God, since

God acts through His knowledge and love of person and strengthens the human with gifts of

grace to perform acts of faith and charity. Thus, the human person is within the divine Persons

as the known is in the knower. A similar situation obtains in terms of love.

While there are some clear indications of how to recognize and understand the

indwelling, Lonergan acknowledges that it cannot be seen as our eyes see a tree or even as our

mind grasps its own inner workings. The indwelling, he states, is difficult to know for at least

three reasons. First, “introspective analysis is very difficult” (515). Second, “there is no science

in the strict sense about the interior supernatural life,” for we can only come to a judgment of our

state based on our exterior acts—an induction which is only probable, not certain or scientific

44
Lonergan states that consciousness awareness, not just of oneself as subject-agent, but also of the act
which one performs, whether it be exterior or interior. See p. 381.

23
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

(Ibid). Third, the Lord ultimately decides whether or not we have a relationship with Him: we

are to live in hope for ourselves and congruously for others—we can not judge their interior state

nor be scientifically certain of ours.

Issues of Grace
Turning from epistemological issues, how we know the indwelling in us, Lonergan

focuses on three meanings and forms of grace, constitutive aspects of the indwelling.45 With

respect to the giver of grace, there is God Himself, the uncreated gift. Because God comes to the

soul in His entirety, God as gift is not entirely identifiable with the Holy Spirit, one of whose

names is Gift. In Lonergan’s treatment, the indwelling concerns a relationship between the

divine and the human; God is not the indwelling, rather, the “indwelling” is a “situation” or a

relationship between God and the rational creature. With respect to the human recipient of God,

there is, generally speaking, what Lonergan calls a “habit of grace” (515). This is subdivided

into sanctifying grace and those graces consequent upon it. Sanctifying grace is “an absolutely

supernatural entiative habit received in the essence of the soul” (Ibid). Consequent upon

sanctifying grace come supernatural virtues and gifts which orient the soul toward God and

whereby “the just are readily moved by God towards eternal life” (Ibid). Together, these three

forms of grace compose “a single intelligible order,” an organic whole (517). Though each grace

is distinct from the others, they proceed naturally from one to the other if unimpeded.

Lonergan next considers the subjects of the indwelling. He notes that a habit of grace

regards the individual. Distinguished from this is a “situation of grace,” which concerns “many

45
Here we treat only what Lonergan taught about grace in The Triune God: Systematics. He dealt
extensively with the question of grace in many other works, especially in Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in
the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Herder & Herder, 1971). In light of the thoroughness, ability to
solve difficult questions, clarity, and the creative insight of Lonergan’s teachings about grace, one extensive study
states that were “a remarkable accomplishment” of “enduring significance.” J. Michael Stebbins, The Divine
Initiative: Grace, World-Order, and Human Freedom in the Early Writings of Bernard Lonergan (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1995), xix.

24
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

distinct subjects together.”46 Thus, the situation of grace involves the Holy Trinity, Father, Son,

and Holy Spirit united with the just. Now, these four persons are not united in any sort of way,

but according to their nature, as we saw above. There are four aspects to this unification: 1) the

Trinity and human person united in knowledge and love,47 2) the just endowed with sanctifying

grace, 3) the just receiving virtues and gifts, 4) the effects of sharing in the life and love of the

Trinity: the human persons are “thereby just and upright and ready to receive and elicit acts

ordered towards eternal life.”48 Taken together, these four aspects of the situation of grace

constitute a “divine-human interpersonal situation.” In sum, the indwelling is “in accordance

with this state,” which is called a state because it is stable and persists between the various

persons. In fact, the indwelling is the same as and nothing more than the four interconnected

aspects which comprise the situation of grace and the divine-human interpersonal situation.49

The indwelling, Lonergan emphasizes, comes first and foremost from God’s initiative. A

union takes place between God and the just, whom because of the Son the Father loves by the

Holy Spirit and to whom the Father gives gifts by the Holy Spirit. 50 In other words, the

indwelling is due to the missions of the divine Persons from the Father. It is important to recall

Lonergan’s conclusion that the aim of a mission is so that “new personal relations be initiated

and strengthened” (485). Personal relations, because they are consciously pursued by God and

46
The following quotations in this paragraph are from p. 517.
47
By placing the unification of the persons first, it is uncertain whether Lonergan means that the indwelling
happens first chronologically or that it is first absolutely because it is most important. If he means that the
indwelling is the cause of created grace, and it seems that this is the case, he contradicts the teaching of many
Thomists, who hold that “the gifts of grace, that is, of wisdom and charity, are a disposition to receiving the divine
person. . . . Created gifts are necessary in order to ‘proportion’ a human being to the divine persons, that is, in order
to raise the human soul so as to make it capable of attaining God, or of being divinized.” Gilles Emery, The
Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas trans. Francesca Murphy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007),
385.
48
These supernatural acts include, as we have seen, knowing and loving Christ, obedience to God’s
commands and love of one’s neighbor. Such acts manifest the presence of the divine persons within.
49
See p. 517, n.124.
50
See p. 517.

25
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

man, is necessary due to cooperation between the persons involved: “He who created you

without you will not justify you without you.”51

There is, of course, an order in the cooperative action, for God is the primary actor in all

supernatural works while man is an accidental, secondary, and instrumental actor. Even more,

there is a cooperation of the divine Persons among themselves. Now, if cooperation means a

“coordinated operation” among persons, then there is necessarily cooperation among in the

Trinity: there is one essential, divine operation equal to all three. In addition to this unity of

divine operation, the Son performs works proper to himself, including the work of being a

mediator, through his human nature.52 Aside from the work proper to the Son and Spirit, there is

a personal relationship associated with them or appropriated to them. To the Son pertains the

friendship between God and man, while to the Spirit pertains the intimate relations between the

two.53

In line with his idea of cooperation, Lonergan concludes his account of the indwelling

with a final assertion couched in Aristotelian language. The assertion is not just an assertion: it

manifests Lonergan’s concern for the actual state of his reader’s soul, for it also contains an

exhortation. He states that the indwelling is “second act” for the divine Persons, while for the

just it is “first act” so that it might become “second act” (519). What he means is that the

indwelling is for God an operation. For the just, the indwelling is first of all a form received into

the soul: a supernatural state of being. The state is not something in which the just should rest;

rather, they are to move into operation “under divine influence” (Ibid). At this point, Lonergan

incorporates into his text chapter 10 the Council of Trent’s Decree on justification along with its

Scriptural admonition, saying, “Let him who is justified be justified still” (519, quoting Rev.

51
Augustine, Sermon 169, quoted by Lonergan (485).
52
See p. 497.
53
See p. 487.

26
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

22:11). This is significant, for it manifests Lonergan’s interest—present throughout The Triune

God: Systematics—in the spiritual welfare of his reader.54

As the culmination of his entire work, Lonergan alludes to the famous statement of St.

Irenaeus, reinterpreting in light of his doctrine of the indwelling the declaration which runs, “The

glory of God is man fully alive while the life of man consists in beholding God.”55 Thus,

Lonergan states that “the glory of the Father” is the inter-Trinitarian procession of Son and

Spirit, which leads to the gratuitous missions whereby, through the Incarnate Son, “we might

speak and understand true inner words,” especially those concerning God Himself, and through

the Holy Spirit we might be joined to God in love and be “made living members of the body of

Christ” so that we might cry out “Abba Father!” (521).56

CONCLUSION

What are we to make of Lonergan’s treatment of the indwelling? Our original contention

that was Lonergan attempts to discuss the indwelling in a clear and spiritually fruitful manner,

but some might object that he failed.

A spiritual theologian such as Royo Marin could well object that though Lonergan

touched on the essentials for showing how the indwelling directly relates to one’s relationship

with God, he did not elaborate on any of the practical means to it. To this, one might respond by

recalling that it was not Lonergan’s intention to write a manual of spiritual theology or any

54
The following chapter in Trent’s Decree on Justification gives the reader encouragement which is very
well incorporated into Lonergan’s theology: “God does not command the impossible, but by commanding he
instructs you both to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you. . . .Those
who are children of God love Christ; and those who love him (as he himself bears witness) keep his words which, of
course, they can do with the divine help.” Council of Trent, Sess. 6 “Decree on Justification” ch. 10, Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils vol. 2, Norman B. Tanner trans. (Washington, DC: Georgetown, 1990), 675.
55
Ireneaus of Lyons, Adversus Hereses ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau (Paris: Editions du Cerf,
1979), Bk. IV.20.7. My translation.
56
Here Lonergan is also making an oblique reference to a text fundamental to the doctrine of the
indwelling: “Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”
Galatians 4:6.

27
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

practical treatise. His primary aim was to write systematic theology, but in such a way as to

emphasize its relation to the spiritual life. Additionally, as seen above, Lonergan understands

systematic theology such that it is not merely an exercise intended to illuminate the mind; it is

also meant to move the will of the teacher and learner alike. In that way, his theological work

lays the foundation of a deeper spiritual union with the Blessed Trinity.

Another theologian, such as Francis Cunningham, could correctly assert that, despite his

thoroughness, Lonergan was not clear enough on the nature of the indwelling. 57 What is the

formal cause of the indwelling? Is God present as something known through experiential

knowledge? How does this relate to Thomas’ various teachings on the indwelling? Regarding

this, one ought to recall that Lonergan did not write The Triune God: Systematics as a work of

positive but of systematic and speculative theology.58 Part of Lonergan’s method was to write

only what was indispensible to his aims, including the intellectual conversion of his reader. This

means that Lonergan consciously avoided the positive exegesis of St. Thomas not only because

that was a separate task from the one he had undertaken, but he also avoided engaging in

theological controversy regarding the indwelling because he thought it would not be of the most

help to his reader.59

57
About ten years before Lonergan published The Triune God: Systematics, in 1955 Francis Cunningham
wrote The Indwelling Trinity: A Historico-Doctrinal Study of the Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas. Lonergan’s brief
review of this work summarizes its contents but says little beyond the fact that it is a “beautiful book.” See Bernard
Lonergan, review F.L.B Cunningham: The Indwelling of the Trinity, Gregorianum 37 (1956), 664-665. Although
Cunningham’s thorough treatment seems to definitively establish his case, a number of other thorough studies on the
same subject were published—with different conclusions (for just two out of literally dozens of examples, see
William Hill, Proper Relations to the Indwelling Divine Persons [1955] and John F. Dedek, Experimental
Knowledge of the Indwelling Trinity: An Historical Study of the Doctrine of St. Thomas [1958]). If nothing else,
they all show the great difficulties involved in trying to determine precisely what St. Thomas said and how to relate
that to other theories. Lonergan escaped these problems by focusing his attention on the personal/relational aspect
of the indwelling, seen in light of the psychological analogy.
58
Had Lonergan wanted to establish definitively St. Thomas’ views on the indwelling, he would have
proceeded as he did in his work Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas
(1971).
59
After his extensive study of various modern accounts of the indwelling, Petro Chirico noted that, up to
his day, most discussions on the indwelling dealt with the precise way in which God was in the soul. His conclusion

28
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

Finally, from another perspective, a theologian such as Karl Rahner could argue that

Lonergan’s overly subtle theology is of little use to the modern reader. Although the final

judgment is left to the individual reader, it is clear that Lonergan did not practice theology solely

for the sake of advancing one’s knowledge. Lonergan’s theology rests on his psychology, which

holds that understanding does not rest in the intellect alone: one’s inner word moves the will to

love. Thus, theology produces truth in us so that “love may be spirated [by us] toward God and

neighbor” (113). Theology, when done properly, is an imitation of the Trinity—for the Word is

not static, but is a Word breathing forth the Holy Spirit. In addition, theology is a cooperation

with the Holy Trinity, for only through a supernatural gift can God dwell within our minds as

something known in theology. Only through God can we conceive of the Word. Similarly, only

through cooperation with the Word within us can we spirate supernatural love, which is the Holy

Spirit of charity. However we judge Lonergan’s account of the indwelling, we cannot deny that,

for him, it is a personal relationship with the Triune God in which the Word of truth and the

Spirit of love dwell in the soul through processions produced in us by grace from the Father,

bringing along with it acts by which we keep the commandments and love our neighbor.

fits perfectly with Lonergan’s project: “We think much may be gained by framing the question in such a way as to
shift the emphasis away from the notion of presence in order to concentrate on the personal aspect of our
relationship with God. The problem of the Indwelling is not really one of locating God, of determining how and
why He is in a certain place. . . .[T]he basic problem is one of the relationship between the soul and God. Hence, we
might do well to ask ourselves, as the primary question, what is the relationship that exists between God and the soul
and is this relationship personal. Secondarily, we may ask about the presence of God necessary to sustain the
relationship.” Petro F. Chirico, The Divine Indwelling and Distinct Relations to the Indwelling Persons in Modern
Theological Discussion, (Roma: Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, 1960). Although we cannot establish a direct link
between the two authors, it is worth noting that both were simultaneously writing on the same topic in the same
university. A difficulty with Chirico’s position, from Lonergan’s point of view (as seen above), is that it avoids the
“how” and the “why”, which constitute two of the chief questions of systematic theology.

29
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
Allen: Christian Classics, 1981.

Augustine. Soliloquia, Ed. J. P. Migne, Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol 32.
Paris, 1854.

Chirico, Petro F. The Divine Indwelling and Distinct Relations to the Indwelling Persons in
Modern Theological Discussion. Roma: Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, 1960.

Crowe, Frederick E. “Rethinking God-With-Us: Categories from Lonergan.” Science et Esprit

XLI/2, 1989.

Dubay, Thomas. God Dwells within Us. Denville: Dimension Books, 1971.

Emery, Gilles. The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Francesca Murphy. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007

Ireneaus of Lyons, Adversus Hereses, Ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau. Paris :
Editions du Cerf, 1979.

Lonergan, Bernard. The Triune God: Systematics, trans. Michael G. Shields. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 2007.

——-. “Consciousness and the Trinity” in Philosophical and Theological Papers 1958-1964.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

——-. “Review of F.L.B Cunningham: The Indwelling of the Trinity.” Gregorianum 37, 1956.

——-. “The Future of Thomism” in A Second Collection. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,

1974.

——-. The Way to Nicea, trans. and introduction Conn O’Donovan. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1976.

——-. “Theology in Its New Context” in A Second Collection. Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1974.
30
Lonergan on the Indwelling Trinity Sullivan, O.P.

Marin, Antonio Royo. The Theology of Christian Perfection, trans. Jordan Aumann. Dubuque:
Priory Press, 1962.

Oko, Dariusz. European University Studies Series XX, vol. 361: The Transcendental Way to God
according to Bernard Lonergan. New York: Peter Lang, 1991.

Pope Pius XII. Mystici Corporis. From http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals.

Accessed April 20, 2008.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity, trans. Josef Donceel. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.

Stebbins, J. Michael. The Divine Initiative: Grace, World-Order, and Human Freedom in the
Early Writings of Bernard Lonergan. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Tracy, David. The Achievement of Bernard Lonergan. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.

31