What provides the best resources for perfect knowledge of the new creation – a Christological or Participatory Monism?

Aquinas treats the new creation, and especially the incarnate Christ, as thoroughly theophanic. What knowledge of and through the divine essence provides, which no theophany itself can provide, are the resources for perfect knowledge of this new creation as precisely what it is, namely, the theophanic manifestation of God.

Thomas Aquinas, the Beatific Vision and the Role of Christ: A Reply to Hans Boersma by Simon Francis Gaine

If, when Aquinas uses “comprehension” to refer to our eternal beatitude, he uses it in the sense that we will comprehensively behold that we remain interminably united with the Trinity, but not in the sense that we could ever fully comprehend the essence quidditatively, then the best resource for perfect knowledge of the new creation — as precisely what it is — would be the Christo-logic of hypostatic identity, where the Many theophanic symbols are precisely the symbolized One.

As multiplicative monisms go, this notion of eschato-comprehension squares better with a robustly Christological Monism than with a plain vanilla Participatory Monism. It also squares better with how I like to (re?)interpret Bracken’s Divine Matrix, where persons & societies are equiprimordial, where creatures & Creator are unitively One beyond natural distinctions (whether absolute or modal).

So, I prefer this –

A Multiplicative Christological Monism

If God wills all persons to accomplish, i.e. repeat, the mystery of His embodiment through the tropoi of our personal being, then the logoi of our wellbeing will be “fully in sync” with the logos of being.

Each person will embody the Logos, joining together being and well-being, by way of personal tropoi that are – not “limited and deficient” or “imperfect,” but – finite and relatively perfect.

Christ’s hypostatic union, the union of the Logos with creation and each person’s own finite theotic embodiments would constitute the Totus Christus or the divine embodiment of all creaturely logoi & tropoi.

The Creator – creature distinction would be absolute.

Hypostatically, the Creator & creatures are unitively One.

We wouldn’t be here becoming either “what” or “who” we are but would be rather co-self-determining, by way of our tropoi, “how” we want to give.

In “how” we would synergistically actualize our relative being, we would more & more authentically reflect our essential being or “what we already are” & enjoy our constitutive relationships or “who we already are.”

That’s not to say this is incoherent –

A Multiplicative Participatory Monism

If God wills all persons to accomplish, i.e. imitate, the mystery of His embodiment through the tropoi of our personal being, then the logoi of our wellbeing will be “fully in sync” with – that is to say, in infinite potency to – the logos of Christ’s human nature.

Each person could embody Christ’s human nature, joining together Christ’s humanity & our well-being, by way of personal tropoi that are – not “limited and deficient” or “imperfect,” but – finite and relatively perfect.

Christ’s hypostatic union would refer to the divine embodiment of the very same “what & how” potencies that we can synergistically reduce to act in our own finite theotic embodiments.

The Creator – creature natural distinction would be modal.

We would be here becoming “what” & “who” we are in the process of co-self-determining, by way of our tropoi, “how” we want to give.

We would be instantiating our essential being as we actualize our relative being and initiate relationships.

In “how” we would synergistically actualize our relative being, we would instantiate our essential being or “what we could become” & enjoy initiating relationships, thereby determining “who we would become.”

This reflection was prompted by the various thoughts of JDW, H. Boersma & S. Gaine. I don’t claim to fully grasp what any of them are saying.