Question: What is the quotation or source of St. Teresa’s assertion, that in spiritual marriage the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation mentioned in the Creed can be contemplated (“seen”) to be alive in oneself?
Answer : The importance of this question cannot be underestimated. It is a deep question with its share of difficulties and has many ramifications.
Dogmas: One of the ramifications is something I often think of and teach: how come a man like St. Athanasius was able to clearly see the vital necessity of confessing the divinity of the Lord? More comprehensible is the fact that there is a direct relationship between holiness and the contemplation of God’s mysteries here on earth. One of conditions for the Church to declare a saint “doctor of the Church” is evidence of eminent holiness. i.e. a holiness above average so to speak. This condition embodies in fact a trace of something to which we should pay closer attention: the relationship between holiness (union with Christ) and the contemplation of God and of God’s mysteries. How, then, does this contemplation occur?
The answer lies in the how we view the Fathers of the Church: St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Symeon the New Theologian and others. Were they not capable of seeing the mysteries of God? St. Athanasius is the herald of the divinity of the Lord, St. Basil the herald of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, St. Cyril the herald of Our Lady Mother of God and St. Symeon is the herald of the two natures in Christ. They were able to “see” something of these mysteries. Are these “visions” unique to them, however, or a common experience among people who are united to God? St. Teresa of Avila seems to say that this experience of seeing God and God’s mysteries is common to all persons who have reached Union with Jesus. Of course, with individual emphases and with more or less focus on this or that mystery.Icons: Another ramification is the mystery of being a theologian. And the Iconographer (the writer of icons) is a theologian, a contemplative, who also knows theology and the rules of iconography. He or she needs to first contemplate the mystery, so “see” it, and then, respecting Faith, Theology, and the Rules of Iconography (the language of images), he or she “writes” it by using forms, colours and symbols. The first task of the iconographer, consequently, is holiness and contemplation. There can be no icons without contemplation. They are not an art form, they are simply an expression of the mystery contemplated, they are a form of theology.
Liturgy: When we receive Communion in the Byzantine rite isn’t “we have seen the true Light” sung by all? The allusion here is to the second person of the Trinity, “true God from true God”. When we receive Communion with a pure heart, giving ourselves totally to the Lord, we are offered a vision of the Lord, true Light and we receive the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit. Isn’t this a profound spiritual experience?
Contemplation: the Palamite crisis and its outcome on trying both to understand what contemplation is (what the three Apostles actually saw on the Mountain of the Transfiguration) and what the life of a Monk is, reveal that at its heart (contemplation) is of transcendent meaning for the whole Church. Can we see God’s very Nature? What are the conditions? What is the spiritual vocation of the Christian faithful and more specifically of the Monk.
Many questions arise and need answers: Which part in us sees? Also it, “seeing”, depends on our spiritual growth. Visions do follow the development of our spiritual life. This is why different types of visions exist.
St. Teresa’s Visions
St. Teresa’s visions are mystical experiences in which God communicates with her soul in a way that surpasses ordinary human understanding. These visions are not merely subjective or the result of an overactive imagination; rather, they have a spiritual reality that leaves a deep imprint on Teresa’s spiritual life. The visions in St. Teresa’s life are not an end in themselves but are means through which God guides and strengthens her spiritual life. The visions lead Teresa to a deeper union with God and help her better understand her mission and relationship with Him. Teresa, in turn, was always prudent and cautious regarding her visions, subjecting them to the discernment of her confessors and spiritual directors to avoid any deception or illusion.
St. Teresa of Avila herself mentions at least three types of visions: Corporeal, Imaginary and Intellectual. Their names do not necessarily indicate their contents, which is why we need to understand what they mean and what experience they are alluding to, and to which stage of growth they correspond.
1. Corporeal Visions: These are visions where St. Teresa perceives with her external senses, particularly sight. Examples include visions of Christ or the Virgin Mary, which she saw as if they were physically present.
2. Imaginary Visions: These visions occur within St. Teresa’s imagination or mind. Although they are not perceived through external senses, they are very vivid and can have a significant emotional and spiritual impact on her.
3. Intellectual Visions: These are the most spiritual and elevated of all. They do not involve sensory, imaginative images or mental notions but are a direct and profound perception of spiritual realities by our spirit. St. Teresa describes them as an inner knowledge given directly by God. This will be developed further down.
The difficulty is to explain the “Intellectual Vision” in theological and in experiential words. Although the expression used by St. Teresa and other authors is “Intellectual Vision”, the word “intellectual” is misleading as here it does not refer to the conscious intellect, that is, the soul.
If one pays close attention, one can easily see that these categories of visions are directly connected to the development of the spiritual life of the person. The more we are transformed, the more we are purified, the more our “experience” of God develops and changes. It becomes more subtle, more elevated, closer to God himself. God in his very nature is not created. Therefore, He does not fall into material categories. What falls in our senses, that is, what our senses can grasp, is created. What falls in our imagination, is created, even if it is slightly more subtle. What falls into our conscious mind, is also created. Anything that is created, however, does not bear any resemblance to the very nature of God.
St. Teresa describes spiritual growth and the different graces and visions that one can/may have in her book The Interior Castle. She says that having reached the Seventh Mansion, united with Christ, one is able to contemplate, to “see”, with intellectual vision, the mystery of God, the mystery of the Lord. St. Teresa emphasises the fact that what the soul sees in the Seventh Mansion corresponds to what is believed, particularly in the context of the Creed. This vision is called an “intellectual vision”. She describes the “intellectual vision” of the Trinity which is ever-present in the Seventh Mansion and says: “de manera que lo que tenemos por fe allí lo entiende el alma, podemos decir, por vista, aunque no es vista con los ojos del cuerpo ni del alma, porque no es visión imaginaria,” (7M1,6), namely, “so that what we hold by faith the soul may be said here to grasp by sight/vision, although not by means of the eyes of the body or of the soul, because it is not an imaginary vision.” And she adds: “Oh God help me! What a difference there is between hearing and believing these words and being led in this way to realise how true they are!” (7M 1,7)
Note: In this Mansion, there is another constant vision, the vision of the humanity of Christ. (See also Bl. Marie Eugene when he explains them in I am a Daughter of the Church.)
This passage is from the Seventh Mansion, Chapter 1. Here St. Teresa is explaining that in this profound spiritual state, the person sees what is believed in faith with a clarity that is almost like physical sight, though it is not with the eyes of the body. This highlights the experiential nature of the truths of the faith in the Seventh Mansion.
Note: In several passages in the Living Flame of Love, the boundary is very slim between a dogmatic development and a description of something contemplated. For example, at the end of the commentary of the Stanza III, St. John of the Cross broadly quotes an opuscule for a long time attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Beatitudine”. Despite the obvious traces of the opuscule, the saint’s words do not lose their sense of inspiration.
Intellectual Vision in the Seventh Mansion
In the Seventh Mansion of The Interior Castle, St. Teresa of Ávila describes the “intellectual vision” as one of the highest forms of mystical experience. In this context, the intellectual vision is a profound and intimate experience of God’s presence, where the spirit perceives divine truths directly, without the need for sensory images or imaginative constructs, or anything that falls in the mind. It is an experience of both the reality of the mystery of the Trinity and of the mystery of the Incarnation. St. Teresa seems to say that the person has a constant vision of both mysteries. “so that what we hold by faith [in the Creed] the soul may be said here to grasp by sight/vision, although not by means of the eyes of the body or of the soul, because it is not an imaginary vision.”
It is in this text, while talking about the Seventh Mansion, that St. Teresa talks for the first time about the existence of the spirit as a part of our being, and about the fact that it is distinct from the soul. She is, also, perfectly aware of the immense difficulty to talk about this to a person who does not have the “experience” of such heights and of this twofold reality.
Now, how does the “intellectual vision” occur? Where does this vision happen? What does it mean?
Characteristics of the Intellectual Vision in the Seventh Mansion:
4. Transcendence of the Senses, the Imagination and the Mind: St. Teresa emphasises that this experience goes beyond the senses, imagination and the conscious mind. It is purely spiritual, affecting the deepest part of the soul: the spirit. The reasons why the intellectual vision cannot be adequately described in human terms is because it transcends ordinary human experience.
1. It is a Direct Knowledge of God is communicated to us: The intellectual vision involves a deep, non-sensory perception of God in all his mysteries. The Triune God, the Incarnate God, the Mystery of Redemption, etc.
It is very important to note that there is a fundamental anthropological dimension to this discussion. One cannot proceed to understand these issues without accepting the tripartite division of spirit, soul and body in the human being, especially the difference between the spirit and the soul. (For longer explanation please see this article.) If the distinction between spirit and soul is not clear in the mind of the reader or the theologian, great confusion will emerge. Any grace is directly and first communicated to our spirit. In the case of St. Teresa of Avila, she never mentions the spirit and the distinction between the spirit and the soul before her four chapters of the Seventh Mansion. She is aware that the distinction is difficult to perceive, to acknowledge, to grasp, but she insists that it is important to know about it. In the four chapters of the Seventh Mansion, she even gives two images to help us understand the difference. It is worth noting that only the spirit “sees”… and since the spirit receives the uncreated grace, and the soul cannot receive it as such (it receives only the created effect of it), it is then difficult to understand what this vision is – the “intellectual vision” as she coins it.
Note: We refer here to the “supra-conscious” not the “unconscious” because it is – contrary to the unconscious – higher and more profound than the conscious part of the human soul. Jacques Maritain, the Catholic philosopher, puts forward this expression in a retreat he preached to the Little Brothers of Jesus: “De la grâce et de l’humanité de Jésus” (On the grace and humanity of Jesus), Bruges, 1967, pp. 50-64.
It’s not something the soul “sees” with physical eyes or even with the imagination or the conscious mind, but rather it is a direct, infused knowledge of God that the spirit receives. What occurs in the spirit can or cannot have an echo in the conscious soul (see below for the explanation).
2. Union with the Divine Will: In this vision, the human being experiences a profound union with God’s will. St. Teresa describes this union as a spiritual marriage, where the human being and God are so closely united that they seem inseparable. This union brings about a deep peace and a transformative knowledge of God’s love and truth.
3. Permanence and Certainty: Unlike other mystical experiences that may be fleeting or less certain, the intellectual vision in the Seventh Mansion is characterised by its stability and the clarity it brings to the human being. The knowledge imparted by this vision remains with the person and continues to affect their relationship with God in a lasting way.
Still it is important to notice what St. Teresa says: sometimes, trials may hide the vision. She says that they are not long-lasting. Despite what she says, we need to acknowledge that in the case of St. Therese the trial – which is a participation in the Passion of the Lord and his Redemptive Mission – lasted for eighteen months. And in the case of other saints it can last two years (Curé of Ars), forty years (St. Paul of the Cross), fifty years (P. Pio, Mother Teresa of Calcutta).Note: Similar divisions of mystical experiences, including visions, are found in other authors like St. John of the Cross, though with some differences in emphasis and interpretation. St. John of the Cross, a close spiritual companion and mentor to St. Teresa of Ávila, also categorises mystical experiences into different types. By contrast, his approach to these experiences, including visions, is deeply rooted in his emphasis on the purification of the soul and the importance of faith over sensory, mental or extraordinary experiences.
Spiritual Anthropology
of saying to that there is a difference in their capacity of dealing with the Uncreated God.
The Problem and its Solution: St. Therese
The “Intellectual Vision” is a real vision. If it is our spirit which “sees” and contemplates, being transformed into God, and since the spirit is beyond consciousness, how come claims one can “see”? How does this occur? Where does it occur? Does it have only one form of perception?
Father Louis Guillet OCD (1902-1992) offered in his book where he studied St. Therese’s trial, a solution of pure genius based on the anthropology of St. John of the Cross.
He stated that the spirit and the soul are different, as St. Teresa says, but he followed first and foremost St. John of the Cross in his anthropology saying that what occurs in the spirit is transcendent, that is, the spirit deals directly with the very nature of God and therefore the “experience” the spirit has cannot be “translated” or conveyed, as it is, to the conscious mind (the soul).
So he considered that something of what is happening in the spirit can be “echoed” in a created way in the soul, that is, the conscious mind. It is God who regulates the echo in the soul, according to his wisdom and sometimes the echo can be prevented from occurring in the soul, like in the case of St. Therese’s Trial. First she had the “experience” of faith as she states, and then, one day, the Lord introduced her to the mysterious table of the sinners, and the echo in her conscious soul stopped completely; it seems to her as if she is being prevented from enjoying the certainty of the existence of heaven: it looked to her as if a wall hiding heaven extended to the skies/heavens stopping any light from filtering to the conscious soul. Darkness and nothingness only were perceived.
This clear distinction between what is constantly occurring in the spirit and a possible echo in the soul is fundamental. It preserves the height of God’s grace, its transcendent quality, as being uncreated and communicated to the spirit which is the only area capable of receiving God as He is. It allows a better understanding of the nature of what can be perceived in the soul namely, as created echo, and it allows us to understand that the echo is not mandatory and that at certain moments, it can be completely stopped. This occurs in the case of the trial, and the trial is a participation in the Redemptive work of the Lord. All this is revealed through a thorough study of through the proper study of Therese’s trial using St. John of the Cross’ anthropology.
Note: It is important to notice that St. Thomas Aquinas offers this explanation in the case of the Lord in his Passion, who is said to be at one and the same time “viator” (walking with a human nature, suffering, etc) and “comprehensor”, that is, comprehending with the contemplation by his human spirit of his own divinity. It is worth noticing that Fr. Louis Guillet started his book by studying the Passion of the Lord first before studying St. Therese’s participation in the Passion of the Lord. In fact, it is Therese herself who led him to this method by her observation one day, when she read on a footnote in her book of the Imitation of Christ, that in his Passion He suffered the most utter sufferings and at the same time in the very depths of his soul He was contemplating the Beatific Vision.
St. Teresa of Avila
What is the source of her affirmation in the Seventh Mansion? St. Teresa’s experience is the very source of her affirmation in the Seventh Mansion. But she was always keen/eager to check what she said with the best available theologians (and Spain back then had the best). So the question to ask is: is there any confirmation to what she says in theology?
Hummmmm Difficult!
The first confirmation of this has been outlined above in St. Therese’s explanation in her Trial of Faith, that the Lord simultaneously suffered physically while contemplating the Beatific Vision, because of what she herself was undergoing. Therese: I understand something about this from what I am going through.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly makes this affirmation: “There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas.” (CCC 89)
For sound confirmation of this our Spiritual Theology needs to be based on the best Dogmatic Theology, on our best Christological Theology. This is seen, for example, when St. Thomas Aquinas states clearly that the Lord was experiencing, even during his Passion, the Beatific Vision. He was “simul viator et comprehensor”. So, our “asymptotic curve” is what the Lord himself went through. He is our ideal, the maximum realisation we can reach. Remember that we are supposed to reach union with Him.
St. Paul himself audaciously states that Jesus is living in him, and that at the same time he is suffering the Passion (“I complete in my body what is lacking in the Passion for his body, the Church” (Col 1:24)).
Now, even if this fails to exactly answer your question, it shows us how Spiritual Theology (understanding the spiritual experience, and here, understanding it at its supreme height) has to follow the Lord’s experience (Christology is our “standard meter”, Jesus is our Way). He is our “asymptotic curve”, that is, our spiritual experience must follow Christ as closely as it can.
(Note: In math “asymptote” means: a straight line that constantly approaches a given curve but does not meet at any infinite distance. It means that Jesus is our ideal, not surpassed.)
One has to accept that we live in a time where our dogmatics (Christology) are weak and diluted and that theologians even doubt the fact that the Lord was conscious of his own divinity. We give less “experience of the divine” to the human nature of the Lord in Christology than what St. John of the Cross gives to the human being having reached the maximum of his development (see the Living Flame of Love) which is simply ridiculous! The experience of the soul having reached the summit of its development, described by St. John of the Cross, is greater than what many theologians say about the experience of the Lord’s human nature. Moreover, today it is very difficult to find one major theologian who believes in the Beatific Vision and explains how Jesus took part in it. Until the 1950s this was a truth in dogmatics (Christology), but sadly it is no longer the case! So your question has first to find an answer in Christ himself (I wish you luck for that (so to speak)). From my very early studies in Christology (especially studying St. Thomas Aquinas), I studied this issue and wrote a long essay on it. I was fortunate to have Fr. François-Marie Léthel OCD in Rome who of course believed in the Beatific Vision of the Lord during his life here on earth. Today’s Christology struggles deeply with this. Why? In my opinion, Exegesis and modern Psychology/Psychoanalysis (and the weakness of Spiritual Theology and of Dogmatics) are the cause.
Now, as mentioned above, if we move to the Living Flame of Love we will find Dogma and Spiritual Theology are interconnected. Indeed, St. John of the Cross, in the middle of his description of the spiritual experience after Spiritual Marriage, copies a long passage from a work attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas. It shows how dogmatics and spiritual life are very close. (In former times, in the classification of the modules in theological studies, “Spiritual Theology” was placed by many (like Fr. Garrigou Lagrange OP) under Dogmatics).
To explain the “organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas” (CCC 89) is something that only saints and Doctors of the Church (who have a higher holiness) can do.
However, I hope this provides you with a clearer view and understanding of the issue. Personally, I just quote St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese and St. John of the Cross as my authorities. And of course St. Thomas Aquinas is always present in the background.
In fact, your question implies that we need to study the highest type of visions St. Teresa of Avila talks about (Intellectual Visions above-mentioned), seeing how it occurs at these heights; also we need to study the points in the Seventh Mansion where she says that sometimes the soul can be troubled, and this (clear) “vision” can be obstructed by trials for short periods. A clear Spiritual Anthropology of Union is a must, otherwise our efforts to understand these heights will not make sense at all. One needs to examine the following anthropological elements:
– The Spirit: mind, memory and will, receptive and supra-conscious.
– The Soul: mind, memory and will (and many other faculties like imagination and inner senses) which constitute the conscious part in us.
– The “Veil” (opaque or not): what it means. The created echo which “filters” or is “refracted” from the spirit to the soul.
– And something I rarely mention: the unity of the whole (unity of the “supposit”, i.e. the person), that is, the unity between the three parts (body, soul and spirit) from “underneath” (supposit) so to speak (having the same supposit (see also the same idea in Christology in St. Thomas Aquinas). This unity allows a certain “communication” between the parts because of their unity in one supposit. It is a different “communication” than the direct one between spirit and soul.
In sum then, St. Teresa of Avila’s affirmation is a milestone, and today’s Spiritual Theology is so weak (just have a look at her Spanish speaking commentators) that your question cannot really find any serious written theological comments in support of it.
Furthermore, Theology (dogmatics) would benefit immensely from your question. There is an intimate relationship between it and between Christology, that is, what is happening in Jesus’ intimate human nature: is He seeing the Father? Is He listening to the Father? The answer is, of course, in the affirmative, but Dogmatics is paralysed when faced with such questions – not to mentions Exegesis!
If we find an answer today to Christ’s human nature, then the way is open for St. Teresa’s affirmation, St. Thérèse’s affirmation, and what St. John of the Cross writes in the Spiritual Canticle (A) and in the Living Flame of Love.
John Henry Newman, while studying one of the first century’s major crisis, Arianism, that is, doubting Jesus’ divinity, found that according to the Fathers of the Church the Creed was a prayer, a psalm. You can find this in the added text below and also in the Handouts on the lesson: “Dogma and Spiritual Life”)
The Creed was a treasure you would never commit to pen and paper. Why? It embodied the mystery, the secret between you and God, too precious, too important to be thrown to the pigs. The Creed is like the X-Ray of our inner life. The secret inside of us. Are we not God-bearers? So, while preparing for Baptism, the Bishop would give the Creed (“traditio”) to the Catechumens and then he would return to them and listen to what they had memorised (“redditio”). Today who understands why it was not written down in the beginning and not for centuries? It was learned by heart, like THE treasure of our life, eternal life in us, our treasure, and that it was not written down so that it would be preserved sacrosanct form non-christians.
Conclusion
Finally, what in us “sees” and how? To answer these questions we need to understand three things at least:
1- The very uncreated nature of God is communicated directly (no intermediates) to our spirit. God transforms our spirit in Him. He gives it back, the “likeness” it lost, grace after grace.
2- Something of God in our spirit, “filters through” to the conscious soul, that is, is “refracted” (changing nature), that is, becomes a created grace in our soul, so ordinarily we “enjoy” the light of faith (as Therese of the Child Jesus puts it).
But fundamentally there is a huge difference between what is occurring in the spirit (necessary, direct contact with God Uncreated) and what is occurring in the conscious soul (we can live without it).
So I use the word “veil” to speak about it. A veil usually allows what is veiled to come through to a certain extent.
2- Spiritual Marriage seems to “detach” our spirit from the soul. This is why ecstasies stop. The soul can function normally while united. The human being is not “dislocated” as he is during ecstasy. So we can speak about the spirit from that time onward. (St. Teresa does it for the first time in the Seventh Mansion.)
3- This veil can be opaque so to speak so as to completely “block” any created light in the conscious soul, for example, during the Lord’s Passion, during Therese’s participation in the redemptive work of the Lord. God controls what filters through the veil so to speak. He controls the opacity of the veil so to speak.
I hope this helps.
in Mary
JeanPS Also available is a text in French (and an unchecked translation in English (there are errors in the translation)) of “Dogma and Spiritual Life”. I have it also published in Italian. It is a much more substantial text on the lesson than the Handout.
Regarding Christ, the spirit in his soul, please read: “On the Grace and Humanity of Jesus” by Jacques Maritain.
________________________________
Text: Newman and the Creed
In his book, Grammar of assent” John Henry Newman reminds us that the Creed is a Prayer:
“Break a ray of light into its constituent colours, each is beautiful, each may be enjoyed; attempt to unite them, and perhaps you produce only a dirty white. The pure and indivisible Light is seen only by the blessed inhabitants of heaven; here we have but such faint reflections of it as its diffraction supplies; but they are sufficient for faith and devotion. Attempt to combine them into one, and you gain nothing but a mystery, which you can describe as a notion, but cannot depict as an imagination. And this, which holds of the Divine Attributes, holds also of the Holy Trinity in Unity. And hence, perhaps, it is that the latter doctrine is never spoken of as a Mystery in the sacred book, which is addressed far more to the imagination and affections than to the intellect. Hence, too, what is more remarkable, in the Creeds the dogma is not called a mystery; not in the Apostles’ nor the Nicene, nor even in the Athanasian. The reason seems to be, that the Creeds have a place in the Ritual; they are devotional acts, and of the nature of prayers, addressed to God; and, in such addresses, to {133} speak of intellectual difficulties would be out of place. It must be recollected especially that the Athanasian Creed has sometimes been called the “Psalmus Quicunque.” It is not a mere collection of notions, however momentous. It is a psalm or hymn of praise, of confession, and of profound, self-prostrating homage, parallel to the canticles of the elect in the Apocalypse. It appeals to the imagination quite as much as to the intellect. It is the war-song of faith, with which we warn, first ourselves, then each other, and then all those who are within its hearing, and the hearing of the Truth, who our God is, and how we must worship Him, and how vast our responsibility will be, if we know what to believe, and yet believe not. It is
“The Psalm that gathers in one glorious lay
All chants that e’er from heaven to earth found way; Creed of the Saints, and Anthem of the Blest,
And calm-breathed warning of the kindliest love That ever heaved a wakeful mother’s breast,”
For myself, I have ever felt it as the most simple and sublime, the most devotional formulary to which Christianity has given birth, more so even than the Veni Creator and the Te Deum. Even the antithetical form of its sentences, which is a stumbling-block to so many, as seeming to force, and to exult in forcing a mystery upon recalcitrating minds, has to my apprehension, even notionally considered, a very different drift. It is intended as a check upon our reasonings, lest they rush on in one direction beyond the limits of the truth, and it turns them back into the opposite direction. Certainly, it implies a glorying in the {134} Mystery; but it is not simply a statement of the Mystery for the sake of its mysteriousness.
[The Nicene Creed is celebrated like the triumph of our Faith]
[The Creed is entrusted to the future Baptised like a Treasure]
[we call the Creed, symbolon (symbol) because he gathers everything in it, the totality of what we believe in]
What is more remarkable still, a like silence as to the mysteriousness of the doctrine is observed in the successive definitions of the Church concerning it. Confession after confession, canon after canon is drawn up in the course of centuries; Popes and Councils have found it their duty to insist afresh upon the dogma; they have enunciated it in new or additional propositions; but not even in their most elaborate formularies do they use the word “mystery,” as far as I know. The great Council of Toledo pursues the scientific ramifications of the doctrine, with the exact diligence of theology, at a length four times that of the Athanasian Creed; the fourth Lateran completes, by a final enunciation, the development of the sacred doctrine after the mind of St. Augustine; the Creed of Pope Pius IV. prescribes the general rule of faith against the heresies of these latter times; but in none of them do we find either the word “mystery,” or any suggestion of mysteriousness.
Such is the usage of the Church in its dogmatic statements concerning the Holy Trinity, as if fulfilling the maxim, “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” I suppose it is founded on a tradition, because the custom is otherwise as regards catechisms and theological treatises. These belong to particular ages and places, and are addressed to the intellect. In them, certainly, the mysteriousness of the doctrine is almost uniformly insisted on. But, however this contrast of usage is {135} to be explained, the Creeds are enough to show that the dogma may be taught in its fullness for the purposes of popular faith and devotion without directly insisting on that mysteriousness, which is necessarily involved in the combined view of its separate propositions. That systematized whole is the object of notional assent, and its propositions, one by one, are the objects of real.” (John Henry Newman, “Grammar of assent”, 1870, pp. 132-135)