INABITAZIONE DI DIO NELL'UOMO. – It is the special, permanent presence of the Most Holy Trinity in the soul that is in a state of Grace; it must therefore not be confused with God’s common presence in all things.
SUMMARY:
I. In Sacred Scripture
II. In the patristic age
III. Theological debates
IV. In the spiritual life.I. IN SACRED SCRIPTURE
1. The name. In Sacred Scripture, the term ἐνουκείν, “to indwell” (Rom. 8, 11; II Tim. 1, 14), is found to express it, as is the simple term οἰκείν, “to dwell” (Rom. 8, 9.11; I Cor. 3, 16). In the fundamental texts for this entire doctrine, S. Giovanni prefers the verb μέκενν (μονή = “dwelling”), “to abide,” “to remain” (Io. 14, 16.17.23). Alongside these terms, which express God’s dwelling in the soul as an accomplished fact, there are others that rather indicate either its coming about (the Holy Spirit sent to us: ibid. 14, 26; Gal. 4, 6; given to us: Io. 7, 39; 14, 16; Act. 5, 32; 8, 18; Rom. 5, 5; I Thess. 4.8; I Io. 3, 24; 4, 13; received as a gift: Act. 2, 38; I Cor. 2, 12), or else our transformation, soul and body, into the temple of God (ibid. 3, 16 sgg.; 6, 19; II Cor. 6, 16).2. The first revelation. From the fact that S. Paolo, in the I Cor., recalls the faithful to a doctrine which they ought to know (“Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” I Cor. 3, 16), it may be inferred that the preaching of this doctrine belonged to primitive Christian catechesis. Indeed, it must have held considerable importance, above all because of the frequent visible descent of the Holy Spirit upon the newly baptized, especially in the Church’s first years, and also because charismatic phenomena were widespread among Christians (ibid. 12). Those visible descents of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and the first Christians, and the outpouring of his charisms, foretold by Joel (cf. Act. 2, 16 sgg.), evidently appeared (ibid. 1, 4-8) as the fulfillment of Jesus’ great promise at the Last Supper. Subject to one and the same condition (“If you love me,” “He who loves me,” “If anyone loves me”), Jesus had promised three things, which were nevertheless evidently connected with one another: “He will give you another Paraclete,” “I will reveal myself to him,” “We shall come to him and make our dwelling with him” (Io. 14, 16. 21. 23). Although Jesus promises the coming and indwelling of all three divine Persons, nevertheless the coming of the Holy Spirit always received greater prominence. Thus it was for the Apostles, and thus it was for the apostolic Church.
II. NELL'ETÀ PATRISTICA
La dottrina dell'i. di Dio nell'u. passò con uguale, se non maggiore, rilievo dall'età apostolica a quella patristica. Anzi fece un passo innanzi: dalle semplici affermazioni della Epistula Barnabae, che oppose al tempio materiale degli Israeliti il vero tempio in cui veramente abita Dio, cioè l'anima libera dal peccato (Epist. Barn., 16: PG 2, 774) o di Ignazio di Antiochia che coniò i termini espressivi θεοφόροι, νεοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, ἀγιοφόροι (Eph., 9: PG 5, 652), si giunse persino a servirsi del fatto universalmente conosciuto dell'i. per provare contro gli eretici alcune verità fondamentali della fede: la risurrezione dei corpi che furono tempio di Dio (Herma, Pastor, III, simil. 5, 6: PG 2, 962; Ireneo, Ad. haeres., V, cap. 6, 2: ibid. 7, 1139; Novaziano, De Trin., 29: PL 3, 973), l'incorporeità dello Spirito Santo (Origene, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, I, cap. 1, 3: PG 11, 122), la sua divinità (Atanasio, I Epist. ad Serap., 24: ibid. 26, 586; Didimo Aless., De Spiritu S., 6: ibid. 39, 1037; Cirillo Aless., In Io. Evang., I [cap. 1, 13]: ibid. 73, 158; cf. anche IX: ibid. 74, 258; X: ibid. 291; altri testi in Petavio, De Trin., I. VIII, cap. 5, nn. VIII-XVI), la divinità del Verbo (Atanasio, De synodis, 51: ibid. 26, 783; cf. 53: ibid. 787). Taziano arrivò a subordinare la stessa immortalità dell'anima all'i. dello Spirito di Dio (Gratio adv. Graecos, 13: ibid. 6, 834). Ciò dimostra che si aveva in mente una presenza sostanziale e testimonia del grande rilievo e della larga diffusione che questa certezza incontrastata aveva nell'età patristica. Come già nell'età apostolica, così anche nell'età patristica si parla abitualmente dello Spirito Santo. Ma con un semplice processo illativo si passò facilmente alla presenza in noi delle tre Persone divine, a causa della loro inseparabilità (Ilario, De Trinit., VIII, 27: PL 10, 256; Didimo, De Trinit., II, 7: PG 39, 530; Giovanni Crisostomo, Hom. XIII in Epist. ad Romanos, 8: ibid. 60, 519; Agostino, Epist. ad Dardanum [Epist. 187 alias 57], 16: PL 33, 837). Del resto bastava ricordare l'esplicita promessa di Gesù circa la venuta del Padre e del Figlio (Origene, Περὶ ἀρχῶν, I, cap. 1, 2: PG 11, 122; Cirillo Aless., In Io. Evang., X [cap. 14, 231: ibid. 74, 290). Lo scopo e il compito di questa i. su cui insiste principalmente la letteratura patristica, è quello di santificarci, trasformarci in tempio di Dio e prepararci alla beatitudine eterna. Perciò questa presenza di Dio è riservata a coloro che ne realizzano le condizioni, e non può esser confusa con la presenza di Dio in tutte le cose. Lo dirà, fra gli altri, espressamente s. Agostino nella Lettera a Dardano (loc. cit.).III. THEOLOGICAL DEBATES
Thus a doctrine strongly and clearly affirmed both in Sacred Scripture and in tradition presents itself to theological inquiry. It will be the theologians’ task to define its concept more precisely and to study its nature. A preliminary question is whetherthe i. belongs to all three divine Persons or is proper to the Holy Spirit. Jesus clearly promised the coming of the Father and of himself to whoever loves him; but the insistence with which he promised the Holy Spirit, and the prominence that the action of the Holy Spirit has always had both in the primitive Church and in patristic literature, led certain theologians—including the two founders of positive theology, Petavio and Tomassino, as well as not a few modern theologians—to attribute specific functions to the Holy Spirit concerning the i. and the sanctifying action in souls. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of theologians appealed to the principle according to which among the three divine Persons everything is one and undivided, except for the relations of origin. They therefore hold that the i. belongs equally to all three divine Persons, and explain the insistence of the documents on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the theological doctrine of appropriation, that is, the attribution to one divine Person of a predicate common to all, on account of a particular analogy with that Person’s personal property. This is the sense in which Leo XIII expressed himself in the encyclical Divinum illud of 9 May 1897, and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis of 29 June 1943. The other question is more controversial: how is this special presence to be conceived? According to the explanations that have hitherto most engaged theologians, the following may be indicated:
1. The great Scholastic tradition, while not forgetting the sanctifying function attributed to the i. of the Holy Spirit by patristic literature (Peter Lombard even exaggerated it: I Sent., d. 17), ultimately concentrated its attention more on its nature as a reward: « If anyone loves me... we shall come to him... ». In this order of ideas, St. Thomas conceived the plan of creation as a cycle which, causing creatures to proceed from God as their principle, makes them return to him as their ultimate end. This return is fully accomplished in creatures endowed with intellect and will, insofar as they come to possess him through the gifts of Grace and Glory (In I Sent., d. 14, q. 2, a. 2, c.). It may therefore be said that Grace, imperfectly here on earth, and Glory, perfectly in heaven, make us possess God as an object of cognition and love: sicut cognitum in cognoscente et amatum in amante (ibid., ad 2.; Sum. Theol., 1°, q. 8, a. 3, ad 4; q. 43, a. 3).
2. Around this formula a dispute arose toward the end of the sixteenth century between Vazquez and Suárez. To Vazquez, the formula seemed insufficient to denote a real presence of the divine Persons in the soul; he therefore held that the divine Persons, already present in the soul by immensity, became present in a special way through the production of Grace. Suárez countered that this explanation reduced presence by grace to a mere extension of the presence of immensity. According to him, on the contrary, the i. must have a formal cause independent of the presence of immensity; indeed, he said, such is the exigency of love between God and the soul that even if God were not present by immensity, he would become present in order to satisfy these demands of love. Suárez lacks the actual explanation of how these demands are fulfilled, because, although love tends toward union with the beloved object, it does not realize that union by itself.
3. This was the criticism that the Dominican Giovanni di S. Tommaso directed against Suárez. According to his explanation, presence by Grace is integrated with presence by immensity, in the sense that God, already present in the soul as its principle through immensity, is also reached as its end by the cognition and love derived from Grace. He therefore rejected Suárez’s famous conditional proposition.
4. In our own day, the dispute has again been brought to the center of theologians’ attention, especially through the work of Fr. Gardell O. P., who follows the thesis of Giovanni di S. Tommaso, and of Fr. Galtier S. J., who, developing an explanation already mentioned by Petavio (De Trinit., I. VIII, cap. 5, nn. 1-3) and based on certain texts of St. Paul (Eph. 1, 13; 4, 30; II Cor. 1, 22) and of some of the Fathers, explains the i. as a kind of impression of the divine Persons in the soul, just as a seal produces its imprint through real and immediate contact.
The debate, as can be seen, is not yet closed; but the various explanations proposed, besides agreeing on the fact
of the i. and on its subordination to Grace, agree in assigning the greatest importance to the fruitful aspect of this « gift » that God makes of himself.