Relation absolue et relation relative. La Trinité selon Basile de Césarée et Marius Victorinus

Abstract

In which manner do two of the most speculative theologians of the first Nicaean tradition, a Greek and a Latin, almost contemporary, use the Aristotelian category of “relation” in respect of both the Neoplatonic definition of the monadic God and the necessity to conceive, inside the divine identity, relations corresponding to the generation of the Logos-Son and to the act of presence proper to the Holy-Spirit? Around 360, Marius Victorinus says that “the Father is existence which has actual value, i.e. substantiality (actualis exsistentia, id est substantialitas), while the Son is act with existential value (actus exsistentialis)”. Around 375, Basilius of Caesarea says that only equal honour (homotimon) attached to the three Persons of the Trinity can demonstrate the validity of the Nicaean proclamation defining the essential unity and existential distinction of divine identities. Based on “identity”, “equality” and “similitude”, the concept of equal honour (homotimon) is considered as the condition for the possibility of conceiving the unique God in three hupostaseis; it also shows the possibility to conceive divine image and divine knowledge. Both kinds of relation - absolute relation inside identity and relations between correlative items - used by Basilius and Victorinus to design the Trinitarian structure are based on the Aristotelian use of “similitude” and “equality” in the Categories and in Metaphysic Delta. Equality, called “pure relation”, expresses unity and is particularly important in the conception of the intra-trinitarian relations topical (by means of the particles) to both definitions of the Trinity. Although their definitions are not similar, Basilius and Victorinus use the same philosophical instruments. Two kinds of theological arguments derive from the category of “relation”: (1) one, together with the heritage of Plato and Plotinus, develops reflexivity and argues for divine image; (2) the other is basically indebted to the ontological categories of Aristotle and uses their philosophical virtues to demonstrate that act and potentiality can reflect reciprocal relation and that relatives and correlatives can reflect simultaneous being inside One.