Divine Communications, Communicators & Communions – differentiating incarnation, embodiments

& presences

the concrete analogia entis is the old green deal, the whole green deal, the proto-eschato-logical
green deal

The person of Christ eternally & incarnationally contains (already) – not only the thatnesses,
whatnesses & hownesses, but – even the very thisnesses that each & every particular creature
becomes (not yet) through its synergistic co-operation with divine energeia.

Do the many presences of the embodiment-realizing Logos differ only in degree, per univocal
conceptions of presence, or modally, evoking metaphorical conceptions?

Appropriated within a semiotic heuristic, we can certainly distinguish divine communications per
iconic, indexical & symbolic modes, which, ordinarily, could be thought to differ in
communicative power (eg icons, mantras, rituals, sacraments, etc).

However, there’s FAR more going on in divine-creaturely agential interaction than ordinary
semantic communications.

Beyond the modal semantic differences of diverse embodiments,  communicatively, Incarnation

also has performative significance, a pragmatic dimension, effecting divine-
creaturely communion.

The eternally, incarnate Word, Who self-reveals – not only iconically, indexically &
symbolically, but – personally, invites robustly performative engagements, which, pragmatically,
will not return empty, for the Word utters no ordinary communications, but always offers Her
very self.

While divine-creaturely communications (as embodiments) proceed semantically, it is in the

pragmatic dimension that divine-creaturely communicators, i.e. hypostatic processions
(of embodiers), realize communion, ie Real Presence, every creature becoming identical to its
logos as eternally contained by the Word.

So, while there are diverse divine embodiments, semantically, there’s but one multiply-
realized Incarnation, pragmatically, ie the eternal Word, Who contains every logoi,
hypostatically, while otherwise eternally transcending creatures both naturally (per idiomata &
propria) and energetically (per energeia).

Meta-heuristic Implications
There’s a semantical univocity & ontological analogy of the ur-kenotic acts (revealed per
propria, appropriations, energeia, etc) of divine & human persons.

There’s a semantical & ontological univocity of the kenotic acts of divine & human persons.

Divine & human persons both have primary & secondary essential natures, as well as irreducibly
unique hypostatic natures.

The human (indeed, all creaturely) primary & secondary essential natures are identical to the
divine secondary essential nature.

Christ’s divine personhood includes an irreducibly unique hypostatic nature (haecceitas-like,

idiomata, etc) in addition to a nondeterminate primary essential nature & self-determinate
secondary (assumed) essential nature.

Human personhoods include irreducibly unique hypostatic natures (haecceities) in addition to

divinely determined primary essential natures plus, potentially & self-determinedly, can become 
(acquire) secondary essential natures, both such essential natures (primary & secondary), again,
identical to the divine secondary essential nature.

Divine & human personhoods are thus semantically univocal & ontologically analogous – not
only because they’re infinite vs finite, but also – because, while each is, in part, self-determined
vis a vis their secondary essential natures (variously by assuming or becoming), they’re
otherwise alternately nondetermined vs determined vis a vis their primary essential natures.

Posted in systematic theology, systematic

theophanyTagged christology, Incarnation, pansemioentheism, semiotic