If our accounts of Perichoreses have often lacked coherence as well as orthodoxy, maybe it's because they've been - not radical, but - insufficiently radical?

The Univocities, Identities, Symmetries & Synergies of Trinitology, Chalcedon & Cosmotheanthry

I’m sympathetic to monist intuitions, in a way.

The Neo-Chalcedonian logic, while multiplicative re hypostases & tropoi, ontologically per logoi = ex Deo vis a vis the Logos, so, perhaps self-determinedly & economically, we might intuit a logoic "pan”?

It's per the immanent Trinity that I intuit an ex nihilo dynamic vis a vis the paternal monarchy's radical nondeterminacy, hence an ontological & analogical "panen-" relative to a determinate creation?

But, ontological schmontological, existentially & personally, it's hypostases all the way down, who are vertically willing (as principles w/o principles) multiform conditions, & all the way across, who are willing to be conditioned (yes, affected) by each mutually constituted horizontal manifold of other persons, divine &/or created.

There's nothing formal in play with any hypostases as persons per se, divine or created, respectively,  as exemplifications or individuals. There's something haecceity-like, where haecceity explains nothing, but serves as an heuristic bookmark that refers & ultimately reduces to an empty abyss, which is no-thing less than a fontal plenitude.

All created persons vertically will when self-determinedly co-creating their own secondary nature or esse secundarium.

The Father vertically wills as arche anarchos in eternally sourcing the Son & Holy Spirit.

The Son vertically wills to eternally mediate & incarnate.

The Holy Spirit vertically wills to eternally intercede & lend a helping divine hand to Jesus & to each of us vis a vis our journeys of, respectively, humanization & divinization.

Both ur-kenosis & kenosis are generative by virtue of the fact that each act of self-determination of one’s authentic esse secundarium is integrally & inextribably a further real-ization of our mutually constituted I - Thou-ness-es, so, will generate relations to others and will, eternally & epectatically, generate new intimacies & degrees of intimacy.

Our horizontally willed acts real-ize our divine beatitudes, both primary (beatific vision) & secondary (cosmotheandric relational interactions), both proleptically & eschatologically, as we live and move and well enjoy our eternal being, reasonably happy now & perfectly joyful in our end.

It’s the personal realization of divine beatitude all the way down & all the way across in a sense that’s variously - less spatial, but more so - intra- vs inter-personally oriented, i.e. volitionally self-determining vs efficiently realizing our final potencies.

While some aspects of the perichoreses of Trinitology, Chalcedon & Cosmotheanthry are certainly analogical, the ones that matter most are - not only semantically univocal, but - beatifically identical, synergetically cooperative (not the least competitive) & hypostatically symmetric in their teloi.

I thought I was doing my old friend, Mike Morrell, and Fr Richard Rohr a favor in once delicately parsing various elements of The Divine Dance over against detractors who’d charged heresies. But, given all I’ve learned and remain poised to better learn from Jordan Daniel Wood, I can see various types of univocities, identities, symmetries & synergies to which I once was blind. And, so, I’m more often feeling led to inquire further regarding whether or not some radical hermeneutics have failed in the past but only because they haven’t been sufficiently radical.

Perhaps we might, therefore, lean into John Milbank & David Bentley Hart’s dialogue regarding what might be our next task - to try and sort of reconcile that greater personalism of the West with a valid metaphysical monism that’s more Eastern.

It was precisely in my grappling w/whether & how our cosmotheandric / theotic perichoresis is a/symmetric or how analogous it is to the perichoreses of Trinitology & Chalcedon that I saw the asymmetry in how the esse secundarium of divine & created persons was, respectively, self-determined vs co-caused.

The symmetry was located, rather, in our final beatitude, which is identical to the divine's own delight in God. Further, there's a transcendece of this tropic asymmetry by grace, gifting us this beatitude, helping us to our end. Jordan Daniel Wood has thus merged a Logos w/a Spirit - Christology.

It was apparently from a pneumatological point of view that not only the relationship of Yahweh to Jesus was understood, but also the relationship of the community itself to Yahweh & to Jesus.

~ Philip J. Rosato, S.J.

Do questions still beg regarding the sufficiency of the Immanent Trinity’s perfect bliss?

With Bracken, I'd say that, independent of what transpires w/in creation, the F, S & HS, to a real extent, certainly enjoy an interpersonal life w/one another.

Yet, per a Scotus inspired reading, while the divine nature's communicable (like a secondary substance), it's indivisible &, per his scheme, a primary substance. So, one takeaway - the divine nature's like - not genera, but - persons, and that somewhat mutes our divine esse naturale vs intentionale distinction?

So, to some extent, we can’t avoid category errors when inquiring what God does naturally and of necessity vs what God otherwise wills gratuitously.

We do know God’s naturally donative and that we’re undeniably gifted. And freely & willingly giving love is what God naturally does, eternally, and what we’re invited to do, too!