The Principle of Relationality – A Theological Synthesis on the Relational Nature of God

By Robert Moses Dryer

The Principle of Relationality
A foundational theological concept asserting that the tri‑personal nature of God is intrinsically rooted in His self‑donative, relational life. It posits that God’s being is not an abstract, static substance but is defined by an eternal act of self‑givenness—a dynamic, self‑communicative exchange that unfolds in the immutable, simple, and irreducible relations among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather than beginning with an ontological framework centered on an isolated substance, the Principle locates the unity of the Godhead in the relationality of divine life, making self‑givenness the primary lens through which we understand both the internal distinctions within the Trinity and God’s self‑revelation through creation, redemption, and grace. When fully developed theologically, this principle can be formulated to present the One and Triune God as an absolute, unbounded uniqueness-complete and fully given-which can allow one to resolve the tension between Simplicity and the Trinity, and provide a coherent framework for a dynamic, relational view of God. (The idea is developed here: The Principle of Relationality in Catholic Thought: – RobertDryer and the idea is matured and synthesized below. Enjoy!)

Introduction

The most profound insight in Catholic theology, for me at least, is about the very being of God, or what I call The Principle of Relationality. This principle, I assert (but will thus forth refer to myself in the 3rd person to make editing easier), is that God’s tri-personal nature is intrinsically rooted in His self-donative, relational life. In other words, to be (for God and, by extension, all reality) is fundamentally to be in relation—a continual act of self-giving love. This idea builds upon the ancient intuition that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition), and the insight articulated by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who states explicitly, “In God, person means relation. Relation, being related, is not something superadded to the person, but it is the person itself. In its nature, the person exists only as relation.” (Joseph Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” Communio: International Catholic Review 17, no. 3 [1990]: 444). He further emphasizes the relational essence of human personhood by stating, “Relativity toward the other constitutes the human person. The human person is the event or being of relativity” (Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” 445). Similarly, Ratzinger elaborates in Introduction to Christianity, “Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives – themselves – only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly as human being means to be related in love, to be of and for” (Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, quoted in Joseph DiLauro, “Liturgy and Relational Ontology in the Theology of Joseph Ratzinger,” Master’s thesis, University of Scranton, 2010, 22).

The Principle of Relationality reframes classical metaphysics by shifting the primary lens from substance to communion. Rather than approaching God chiefly as an isolated, self-standing substance, this principle recognizes Him as Self-Subsistent Love—”Being-as-Communion,” as evocatively described by Eastern theologian John Zizioulas (John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985]).

This relational ontological framework does not deny traditional attributes of God such as divine simplicity or immutability; on the contrary, it maintains them while freshly illuminating their meaning. Catholic tradition has long affirmed that God is absolutely simple and unchangeable: “We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; three persons indeed, but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature” (Fourth Lateran Council [1215], Canon 1, in Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215). Divine simplicity means there are no parts or accidents in God; He is His attributes—one pure act of being. Classical theology often described God’s oneness in substantial terms, defining a divine person as “an individual substance of a rational nature” (Boethius). Yet substance-based definitions, as Ratzinger notes, “remain on the level of the Greek mind” and are “entirely insufficient” for capturing the mystery of the Trinity (Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” 444). The Principle of Relationality respectfully moves beyond Boethius by holding that God’s oneness and simplicity are not static concepts of isolated substance but the dynamic unity of a tri-une communion of love. In God, relationship itself is not a secondary property but is identical with the divine essence, constitutive of it if you will. As St. Thomas Aquinas famously affirmed: “Relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2). Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are that one simple divine essence, existing as subsistent relations of self-giving. Thus, when tradition declares that God is immutably perfect and needs nothing, it simultaneously affirms that His very perfection is a life of supreme giving and receiving. As the Fourth Lateran Council taught, God created the world “not to increase His beatitude, nor to acquire, but to manifest His perfection by the good things which He bestows on creatures” (Fourth Lateran Council, “Canon 1,” Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215). Self-giving love is no afterthought in God; it is the eternal heartbeat of His being.

In what follows, we will explore how The Principle of Relationality synthesizes core Catholic doctrines in a coherent way—showing that a relational ontology, encapsulated by the assertion “to be is to be given,” not only remains faithful to tradition but also enriches our understanding of God. The discussion is structured in three parts: (1) God’s essential attributes in light of His self-standing being, (2) God’s relational attributes as seen in the triune communion of love, and (3) a category termed “fully given” attributes, which highlights how divine love and goodness are expressed as total self-gift. Along the way, voices from Scripture and Catholic Tradition—from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to Karl Rahner, Pope Benedict XVI, and contemporary theologians—will ground The Principle firmly in the Church’s patrimony, demonstrating its promise for today’s theological discourse.

I. Essential Attributes: God’s Self-Standing Being and Perfection

Catholic teaching has always maintained that God possesses aseity, the quality of utterly self-subsisting being. God is ipsum esse subsistens—Subsistent Being Itself, the fullness of Being existing entirely from Himself. He depends on nothing and no one. In Scholastic terms, God is the necessary being who simply is, the great “I AM” (Exodus 3:14, RSVCE). This truth undergirds attributes like eternity, omnipotence, immutability, and simplicity. The Fourth Lateran Council summed up this classical vision by insisting on God’s “one absolutely simple essence” in whom all perfections are united. Likewise, St. John Damascene enumerated divine perfections: God is “uncreated, without beginning, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, incomprehensible, unchangeable, impassible.” Such descriptions emphasize that God’s mode of existence is entirely self-standing and independent of the created order.

The Principle of Relationality fully affirms God’s self-sufficiency, highlighting that His self-standing nature is not a solitary aloofness but the very source and wellspring of endless self-giving. God’s life is an overflowing font of love. Because God is in Himself “life in abundance” (cf. John 5:26, RSVCE), He has no need to receive anything; rather, He is free to give everything. God’s self-standing existence and self-giving love are inseparable aspects of the one divine reality. Attributes such as immutability or simplicity are not in tension with His relational, loving actions, but indeed ground those actions. Immutability does not imply inertness; it means He is so perfect that He cannot change for the better—thus His love is unfailing and inexhaustible. Aquinas succinctly summarizes: “God is everything that He has,” indicating that God’s essence and existence are identical, not composed of separable attributes (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 3, a. 7).

Importantly, viewing God’s essence relationally avoids common misunderstandings. When we speak of God’s attributes, we speak of God Himself, not qualities added to a substratum. The Principle clarifies that God’s simplicity is not sterile oneness but active communion. Relationship is what God’s simplicity looks like from the inside. The Fourth Lateran Council’s emphasis on unity immediately transitions into a relational confession—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Relationship is precisely how God’s simplicity manifests itself internally, maintaining both unity and distinction within His one divine nature.

II. Relational Attributes: God as Triune Communion and Loving Creator

Beyond the abstract perfections of the divine essence, Christian faith confesses that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—an eternal communion of three who are perfectly one. These relational attributes lie at the core of God’s identity. The Church’s teaching on the Trinity insists explicitly that God’s nature is fundamentally relational. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms clearly, “God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. [Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997], §221). It further clarifies that “In God everything is one, where there is no opposition of relation” (CCC, §255). Thus, the triune relationships are the only distinctions in God’s nature; His very being is essentially being-in-relation. The Father is Father only in relation to the Son; the Son is Son only in relation to the Father; and the Holy Spirit is the bond of love proceeding from Father and Son. As St. Augustine explains in De Trinitate, we may analogously speak of the Father as Lover, the Son as Beloved, and the Holy Spirit as the Love that unites them (Augustine, De Trinitate, Books VIII–IX).

The Principle of Relationality takes this Trinitarian faith as its starting point and interpretative key. It emphasizes that God’s identity as Trinity is not an adjunct but is the deepest truth of His being. In classical ontologies influenced by Aristotelian categories, “relation” was considered an accidental property of a substance. However, the doctrine of the Trinity revolutionized this notion. Joseph Ratzinger observes, “Through the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, relation moves out of the substance-accident framework. Now God himself is described as a trinitarian set of relations, as relatio subsistens” (Joseph Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” Communio: International Catholic Review 17, no. 3 [1990]: 444). In other words, the relationships within God—Fatherhood, Sonship, and the spiration of the Spirit—are what God is. The Principle encapsulates this by affirming that to be God is to be in relation. Each divine Person is a distinct “mode of subsisting” of the one divine essence, and that mode is a relationship of self-giving and receiving. Dryer’s framework describes each Person as an eternally actualized self-gift within the Godhead: the Father pours Himself out in begetting the Son, the Son receives and returns this self-gift in filial love, and the Holy Spirit is the personal love through which this exchange is consummated.

The Greek Fathers used the term perichoresis to describe this mutual indwelling, often rendered as interpenetration or “dancing around.” The Council of Florence vividly articulated this unity by stating, “Because of this unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son” (Council of Florence, “Decree for the Jacobites [Laetentur Caeli]” [1439], in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman Tanner, vol. 1 [London: Sheed & Ward, 1990], 527). Thus, the one divine life is fully present in each Person—a complete unity of love.

By focusing on God’s relational attributes, The Principle of Relationality sheds practical light on doctrines such as divine simplicity. It demonstrates that simplicity does not mean God is a blank monad but that the entirety of God’s simple being exists in three relational modes. The 13th-century Scholastics expressed this clearly, stating that the divine relations are subsistent rather than accidental. Dryer’s contribution reframes this traditional teaching in terms of self-donative relationality, emphasizing that God’s essence is expressed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not as parts, but as persons in relation. Consequently, when we encounter God’s actions in salvation history, we are witnessing those divine relations extended to us. For example, in the Incarnation and the sending of the Spirit, it is the Son and the Spirit-eternally in relation to the Father-who come to us and bring us into their familial communion.

It is worth noting that such a relational vision of God has rich echoes in both East and West. Augustine’s analogy of Lover, Beloved, and Love is well known. In modern Orthodox theology, Metropolitan John Zizioulas explicitly states, “Being means communion…there is no true being without communion” (John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985], 17). He further elucidates, saying, “The person is an identity that emerges through relationship; it is an ‘I’ that can exist only as related to a ‘Thou’” (John D. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, ed. Paul McPartlan [London: T&T Clark, 2006], 9). Moreover, Zizioulas argues profoundly: “Freedom is not from the other but for the other… personhood is the freedom to be other” (Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 9). These insights highlight that relationship, love, and communion are not merely behavioral attributes—they are the very essence of God’s being.

From this perspective, creation itself emerges in a clearer relational context. If the triune God is an eternal communion of love, creation can rightly be viewed as an extension of that communion. The Principle affirms that existence itself is a relational gift. Karl Rahner described creation and grace in a similar manner, highlighting them explicitly as manifestations of God’s self-communication:

“‘God is love’ is not primarily, then, a statement, illuminating in itself, about the nature of God, but the expression of the once-for-all, undeniable and unsurpassable experience in which mere human beings have come to know God in Christ: an expression of the experienced fact that God has bestowed his own entire self on us. Certainly, insofar as God’s free disposition in the ‘fullness of time’ of Christ is the unsurpassable communication of all that God is and can be by essence and freedom, it is also a communication of the divine nature. But this depends inseparably on the fact that God, as person, freely wished to love us; and in the knowledge of this truth the entire reality of Christianity is contained.” (Karl Rahner, The Content of Faith: The Best of Karl Rahner’s Theological Writings, ed. Karl Lehmann and Albert Raffelt, trans. Harvey D. Egan [New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1993], 329.)

Divine providence and God’s interactions, therefore, are not distant interventions by an aloof monarch, but the constant presence of an omnipresent Love inviting creation into communion. God’s relational attributes—His triune personality and love—are not secondary but expressive of His essence. The Principle of Relationality thus reinforces that every claim about what God is must be held together with who God is. When considered together, God is seen not as a remote Supreme Being, but as an eternal communion whose unity is love.

III. Fully‑Given Attributes: Divine Love and Goodness as Total Self‑Gift

If God’s self‑standing essence is the source of all and His relational tri‑une life is the form of His being, then the full expression of God’s being is found in the way He gives Himself away. In this final category, we reflect on God’s attributes such as Love, Goodness, Mercy, and Holiness—not as abstract perfections but as God’s very self‑gift in action. We term these the “fully‑given” attributes because they show God-as-Gift. This conceptual category, unique to Dryer’s framework, reframes traditional divine qualities in terms of how completely God donates Himself to us. It highlights that God’s perfections are most brilliantly seen when understood as an outpouring of His being. As Scripture attests, “God is love” (1 John 4:16, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)—not merely that God loves, but that Love (agapé) is the very nature of His existence. In the words of Jean‑Luc Marion, God “gives Himself as a gift… for no reason at all,” simply because He is gift and love (Marion 2002). This insistence on radical self‑donation forces us to abandon any attempt to confine God to conventional metaphysical categories—instead, we are invited to receive Him as He reveals Himself, in the profound graciousness of self‑bestowal.

The entire drama of salvation history unfolds as the self‑gift of God’s love. At its pinnacle is the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery of Christ. In Jesus, God literally gives Himself—“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son” (John 3:16, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). Pope Benedict XVI, in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, reflects: “His death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which He gives Himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form” (Ratzinger 2004; see also Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). Here, the self‑emptying of the Son on the Cross is portrayed as an act in which God “goes against Himself,” pouring out everything, withholding nothing, for our salvation. This is agapé at its zenith—God’s love that holds nothing back, even as it leads to Christ’s cry of abandonment on the Cross. The Principle of Relationality sees this as the perfect manifestation of who God eternally is: the Father eternally gives the Son, and on Calvary, this gift erupts into our history as the Son gives Himself for us to the Father, in the Spirit. Consequently, the tri‑une communion of love expands to include humanity. God’s holiness, goodness, and mercy are thus inextricably linked to His self‑giving love. Holiness is not aloof purity but the burning fire of love that sacrifices itself for the beloved; mercy is not mere leniency but the compassionate self‑gift that heals the other.

Church Fathers captured aspects of this mystery in varied ways. St. Athanasius famously summarized the Incarnation by stating, “He became what we are, that He might make us what He is” (Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). St. Irenaeus echoed this sentiment: “[God] did not abandon humanity…but in His immense love He became what we are, so that He might enable us to become what He is Himself” (Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). Such patristic reflections underscore the profound exchange in which God gives a share of His own life to elevate humanity—a process known as divinization. God’s goodness is demonstrated in that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition), and His omnipotence is revealed in choosing the weakness of the Cross to overcome sin. Every divine perfection is “re‑imagined” when seen through the lens of God’s self‑gift.

The Principle of Relationality, by framing divine love and goodness as God’s total self‑gift, offers a unifying vision of both the divine attributes and actions. Everything converges on one point: God giving God. This unifying “theorem” suggests that whenever we discuss a divine attribute, we should ask: how is this an aspect of God’s self‑communicating love? Similarly, every divine action reveals an aspect of that same self‑gift. For example, God’s truth is not cold correctness but His faithful self‑revelation, exemplified by Jesus’ declaration “I am the Truth.” Even the biblical depiction of divine wrath can be understood as the rejection of sin out of love. By centering on relational self‑givenness, our understanding of God’s character avoids distortions while balancing transcendence with intimacy.

To ensure doctrinal precision, it must be stressed that The Principle of Relationality introduces no new dogmas. Rather, it integrates and expounds what the Church has always affirmed about God. In emphasizing God’s relational being, we do not suggest that some interactive process compromises His unchanging nature; on the contrary, His self‑giving is eternal and fully actual. What changes is our participation—we, who are mutable, can enter ever deeper communion with the immutable God. In scholastic language, the communication of God’s goodness ad extra (to creatures) is simply the overflow of the eternal processions within God ad intra (within Himself). The Principle operates within these traditional bounds, offering fresh vocabulary—self‑standing relational givenness—to express the timeless faith that “God’s very being is an eternal exchange of love, and He has destined us to share in that exchange” (Catechism 1997, §221; Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer).

IV. Immutability and Freedom in the Self‑Giving God

A critical question arises: If God is so dynamically relational and self‑giving, does that compromise divine immutability or impassibility—i.e., His freedom from change or suffering? Classical theology has long insisted that God is changeless; yet the heart of Christian faith proclaims that God is not static but the living tri‑une God active in history—culminating in the Incarnation when the Son “became flesh” (see also Exodus 3:14, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). The Principle of Relationality asserts that portraying God as “utterly simple and dynamically relational” not only preserves but elucidates His unchangeability and freedom from external necessity. This balance is a major achievement of Catholic theology, and The Principle maintains it fully.

According to Aquinas and other classical theologians, God is immutable because, as actus purus (pure act), He lacks any potentiality that could be actualized or any unrealized perfection that could be gained (Aquinas 1947). Change, by definition, entails a gain or loss of actuality; therefore, a perfect being cannot change. The Principle affirms that God’s fullness of being neither evolves nor diminishes. Rather, the relational nature of God—as expressed in the eternal relations of origin (the Father begetting the Son, the Spirit proceeding)—is an ontological reality that is forever fixed. The Father is always begetting the Son, and the Spirit is always proceeding; there was never a time when God was not tri‑une (Aquinas 1947). This is consistent with Nicene‑Chalcedonian orthodoxy, which declares that “never was the Father without the Son or Spirit.”

Aquinas distinguishes between internal (intra‑divine) relations and external relations. Internal relations—the relationships that constitute the Trinity—are necessary, eternal, and immutable aspects of God’s identity. By contrast, external relations (e.g., between Creator and creature) exist only insofar as they are expressed in creation. Because creation proceeds from God by free will rather than necessity, God does not undergo any intrinsic change through creation (Aquinas 1947). Before creation, God knew and willed Himself; afterward, He continues to know and will both Himself and His creatures in one eternal act of willing. Thus, although God’s knowledge and will extend over mutable things, His divine nature remains constant. Medieval theologians often compared this to a pillar casting a moving shadow: although the shadow shifts as the sun moves, the sun itself remains unchanged.

The Principle reinforces this scholastic distinction by asserting that if God’s internal life is already one of relational fullness, He does not require creation to actualize relational potential. God is eternally complete in relational love; hence, creation is a free gift—an overflow of divine love rather than a remedy for any deficiency in God’s being (Dei Filius, ch. 1). Consequently, the created order adds nothing intrinsic to God; it is simply the outpouring of His self‑gift.

A related issue is whether God can suffer or be emotionally affected (impassibility). While classical theology affirms that God’s divine nature is impassible, the rich biblical language often ascribes emotions to God, and the Incarnation vividly portrays Christ’s passion. The Principle addresses this by distinguishing between God in Himself and God in Christ. In the Incarnation, the Son of God assumed a passible human nature and experienced suffering and change, while His divine nature remained impassible (Council of Chalcedon). This is the mystery of the hypostatic union: the divine and human natures coexist in Christ without compromising His immutable divine nature.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of The Principle is its understanding of divine freedom. Since God is simple and fully actual, nothing external determines Him; He is absolutely free. The tri‑une relations are not constraints on His freedom but the very expression of the free eternality of His love. The Father begets the Son not out of an ordinary choice but because it is inherent in His very nature; processions are both necessary and freely given (Ratzinger 2004; see also Aquinas 1947). When it comes to creation, God’s free will is fully exercised. The Principle underscores that God’s relation to creatures is an overflow—not a completion—of His self‑gift. He creates freely because His creation is the ultimate expression of His free love. The Father was under no compulsion to send His Son; the Son willingly went to the Cross; and the Spirit blows where He wills. This gratuitous self‑gift is essential to grace. Precisely because God is immutable, His love is steadfast and freely given—nothing external can disrupt His resolve (James 1:17, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). In this way, divine immutability guarantees both reliability and freedom.

Some may question how to reconcile an impassible God with the vivid language of divine emotion and Christ’s passion. The Principle responds by emphasizing that while God in Himself is impassible, the Person of the Son—united with human nature—experiences suffering without altering the divine nature. Thus, the Incarnation represents the ultimate self‑gift: God giving Himself so completely that He enters into our suffering for our salvation (Council of Chalcedon). Ratzinger has observed that “God is love” means God is total self‑gift, and because He is omnipotent love, nothing from outside can ever force or change Him (Ratzinger 2004). Similarly, John D. Zizioulas notes that “freedom is not from the other but for the other… personhood is the freedom to be other” (Zizioulas 1985). In The Principle, these insights reinforce that the Persons of the Trinity freely affirm and give themselves to one another; this internal divine freedom becomes the ultimate source of human freedom in communion.

Moreover, The Principle offers a contemporary answer to the ancient question, Cur Deus Trinus? (“Why is God Triune?”). One answer is that God is love, and love inherently requires relationship; yet God is immutable, so that relationality must be an eternal, perfect communion. As dramatized in The Two Popes, when Pope Benedict XVI declares, “God does not change,” and Cardinal Bergoglio replies, “Yes, He does – He moves toward us,” the apparent contradiction is reconciled by understanding that God, in Himself, does not change but eternally “moves” in the procession of love; simultaneously, He has moved toward humanity by sending His Son and Spirit (Revelation 13:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition; see also Rahner via Reformed Forum). Thus, The Principle affirms that to exist is to be given, received, and actualized in an eternal, self‑donative relationship.

V. Philosophical Analysis and Appropriation of Benovsky through Marion

A central philosophical contribution in understanding The Principle of Relationality is provided by Jiri Benovsky’s explicit articulation of metaphysical primitives. Benovsky defines these primitives as theoretical devices introduced “to put an end to a metaphysical explanatory regress… precisely introduced to provide explanation” (Benovsky 2021, 227). In his view, such primitives function as essential conceptual stopping points—basic realities posited to halt what would otherwise be an infinite chain of explanations (Benovsky 2021, 229). He further emphasizes that “primitives are… the theoretical posits we need, precisely because they provide us with the explanatory power required to make sense of otherwise mysterious or paradoxical aspects of reality” (Benovsky 2021, 231). These assertions underscore the indispensability of accepting certain elements as foundational in any coherent metaphysical framework.

However, Benovsky situates his discussion within a nominalist and anti‑realist framework by stating, “Nominalism is the view that there are no universals… only particulars exist” (Benovsky 2021, 231). This stance deliberately distances his approach from classical realism, thereby advocating a form of metaphysical minimalism grounded solely in particulars.

Within the context of Catholic metaphysics, this nominalist framing both highlights points of compatibility and reveals certain tensions. For example, Thomas Aquinas rejects nominalism by asserting that “universals exist within particulars, abstracted by the intellect, having real foundation in things themselves” (Aquinas 1947). Such moderate realism is foundational to Catholic thought, ensuring that the intelligibility of reality rests on the ordered relation between universal concepts and concrete particulars. In a similar vein, the Catechism reinforces a robust realism—particularly within sacramental theology—by affirming that “in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself” (Catechism 1997, §1324). In doing so, the Church safeguards an objective metaphysical grounding that resists reductionist nominalism.

Nevertheless, Benovsky’s methodological insight regarding explanatory primitives can be fruitfully appropriated within a Catholic framework if his notion is re‑contextualized beyond its original nominalist constraints. When stripped of its anti‑realist presuppositions, Benovsky’s strategy resonates closely with Aquinas’s view of God as ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Being Itself)—the ultimate explanatory primitive that definitively halts metaphysical regress. Aquinas employs fundamental posits such as actus essendi (the act of being) precisely to elucidate reality’s foundational intelligibility without succumbing to infinite regress (Aquinas 1947). In this way, Benovsky’s explicit definition harmonizes with Aquinas’s metaphysical realism once nominalist assumptions are set aside.

This conservative appropriation is further deepened by the phenomenology of Jean‑Luc Marion, who explicitly emphasizes the priority of givenness in the unfolding of phenomena. Marion asserts, “What shows itself first gives itself” (Marion 2002, 5), indicating that the very act of revelation is an irreducible, primitive event—a self‑presenting donation that halts further explanatory regress. Moreover, Marion clarifies that “the phenomenon does not show itself because we constitute it; it shows itself insofar as it gives itself” (Marion 2002, 30). This phenomenological priority means that for Marion, givenness functions as a foundational act—one that is not derivative of any prior conceptualization but emerges fully and autonomously.

The interplay between Benovsky’s account of explanatory primitives and Marion’s phenomenology is particularly illuminating. While Benovsky provides the methodological structure that justifies accepting certain elements as fundamental, Marion offers phenomenological confirmation by showing that phenomena themselves inherently manifest as self‑gifting events. In other words, where Benovsky identifies the logical necessity for positing primitives to stop an infinite regress, Marion demonstrates that every phenomenon “gives itself” as an originating, self‑presenting act. Together, their insights suggest that relational givenness—the idea that being itself is an act of self‑donation—is not merely a derivative or secondary quality but can be understood as the ultimate metaphysical primitive of reality.

To illustrate this concept, consider an analogy in which creation is likened to a womb within the divine embrace. Just as a womb provides a nurturing, relational context for life without being confused with the life it nurtures, the world serves as the relational context in which human beings exist, develop, and receive the gift of being. This vivid analogy demonstrates how relational givenness acts as a metaphysical primitive: humanity’s existence is not self‑generated or isolated but is continually given relationally, sustained by the divine embrace. In this metaphor, the divine embrace is both the origin and the sustaining force, enveloping creation with boundless love and care. It underscores that just as the nurturing environment of a womb ensures continuous growth and vitality, so too does God’s intimate self‑donative relationship perpetually renew and sustain all of existence. Importantly, this analogy preserves the clear distinction between Creator and creation: while creation exists within the nurturing context provided by God, it remains distinct from the infinite, self‑subsistent source of that nurturing love.

In sum, the integration of Benovsky’s insight on metaphysical primitives, Marion’s phenomenology of givenness, and Aquinas’s participatory realism marks a significant ontological shift. Traditionally, Thomistic metaphysics situates substance and accident as primary, subsuming relationality under a larger schema of essence and existence. What emerges from this synthesis is something more radical: relationality is not incidental or secondary but is constitutive of being itself. Benovsky correctly identifies that certain explanatory primitives are unavoidable and serve as necessary endpoints to prevent infinite regress. When these insights are re‑contextualized in light of Aquinas and Marion, they provide a robust logical and phenomenological foundation for viewing relational self‑gift as the fundamental primitive of reality. Consequently, The Principle of Relationality affirms that to exist is to be given, received, and actualized in an eternal, self‑donative relationship—a perspective that reorients our understanding of divine ontology and human participation in God’s love.

IV. Immutability and Freedom in the Self‑Giving God

A critical question arises: If God is so dynamically relational and self‑giving, does that compromise divine immutability or impassibility—i.e., His freedom from change or suffering? Classical theology has long insisted that God is changeless; yet the heart of Christian faith proclaims that God is not static but the living tri‑une God active in history—culminating in the Incarnation when the Son “became flesh” (cf. Exodus 3:14, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). The Principle of Relationality asserts that portraying God as “utterly simple and dynamically relational” not only preserves but elucidates His unchangeability and freedom from external necessity. This balance is a major achievement of Catholic theology, and The Principle maintains it fully.

According to Aquinas and other classical theologians, God is immutable because, as actus purus (pure act), He lacks any potentiality that could be actualized or any unrealized perfection that could be gained (Aquinas 1947). Change, by definition, entails a gain or loss of actuality; thus, a perfect being cannot change. The Principle affirms that God’s fullness of being does not evolve, improve, or diminish over time. Rather, the relational nature of God—as expressed in the eternal relations of origin (the Father begetting the Son, the Spirit proceeding)—is an ontological reality that is forever fixed. The Father is always begetting the Son, and the Spirit is always proceeding; there was never a time when God was not tri‑une (Aquinas 1947). This understanding is consistent with Nicene‑Chalcedonian orthodoxy, which declares that “never was the Father without the Son or Spirit.”

Aquinas distinguishes between internal (intra‑divine) relations and external relations. Internal relations—the relationships that constitute the Trinity—are necessary, eternal, and immutable aspects of God’s identity. By contrast, external relations (such as those between Creator and creature or Lord and the world) exist only insofar as they are expressed in creation. Since creation proceeds from God not out of necessity but by His free will, God does not undergo any intrinsic change through the act of creation (Aquinas 1947). Before creation, God knew and willed Himself; afterward, He continues to know and will both Himself and His creatures as part of one eternal act of willing. Thus, while God’s knowledge and will extend over mutable things, His divine nature remains constant. Medieval theologians have used the analogy of a pillar casting a moving shadow—as the sun moves, the shadow changes while the sun remains unchanged. Similarly, although creatures change, God’s “identity of the same nature” remains unaffected by time (Aquinas 1947).

The Principle reinforces this scholastic distinction by asserting that if God’s internal life is already one of relational fullness, He does not require creation to actualize relational potential. God is eternally complete in relational love; hence, creation is understood as a free gift—an overflow of divine love rather than a remedy for any deficiency in God’s being (Dei Filius, ch. 1). Consequently, the created order adds nothing intrinsic to God’s nature; it is simply the outpouring of His self‑gift.

A related issue is whether God can suffer or be emotionally affected (impassibility). While classical theology affirms that God’s divine nature is impassible, biblical language often ascribes emotions to God, and the Incarnation vividly portrays Christ’s passion. The Principle addresses this by distinguishing between God in Himself and God in Christ. In the Incarnation, the Son of God assumed a passible human nature and experienced suffering and change, while His divine nature remained impassible (Council of Chalcedon). This is the mystery of the hypostatic union: the divine and human natures coexist in Christ without compromising His immutability. Thus, The Principle maintains that God’s immutability and freedom are not mutually exclusive but harmoniously interwoven; His eternal self‑gift is both unchanging and dynamically expressed in salvation history.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of The Principle is its understanding of divine freedom. Since God is simple and fully actual, nothing external determines Him; He is absolutely free. The tri‑une relations are not limitations on God’s freedom but the very expression of the free eternality of His love. The Father begets the Son not out of ordinary choice but because it is inherent in His very nature; processions are both necessary and freely given (Ratzinger 2004). When it comes to creation, God’s free will is fully expressed. The Principle underscores that God’s relation to creatures is an overflow—not a completion—of His self‑gift. He creates freely because His creation is the ultimate expression of free love. The Father was under no compulsion to send His Son; the Son went to the Cross in obedient love; and the Spirit blows where He wills. This gratuitous self‑gift is essential to grace. Precisely because God is immutable, His love is steadfast and freely given—nothing external can disrupt His resolve (James 1:17, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). In this way, divine immutability guarantees both reliability and freedom.

Some may question how to reconcile an impassible God with the vivid language of divine emotion and the passion of Christ. The Principle responds by emphasizing that while God in Himself is impassible, the Person of the Son—united with human nature—experiences suffering without altering the divine nature. Thus, the Incarnation represents the ultimate self‑gift: God giving Himself so completely that He enters into our suffering for our salvation (Council of Chalcedon). Ratzinger has observed that “God is love” means God is total self‑gift, and because He is omnipotent Love, nothing from outside can ever force or change Him; His actions are entirely self‑determined by love (Ratzinger 2004). Similarly, John D. Zizioulas states, “Freedom is not from the other but for the other… personhood is the freedom to be other” (Zizioulas 1985). In The Principle, these insights reinforce that the Persons of the Trinity freely affirm and give themselves to one another; this internal divine freedom is the ultimate source of human freedom in communion.

Moreover, The Principle offers a contemporary answer to the ancient question, Cur Deus Trinus? (“Why is God Triune?”). One answer is that God is love, and love inherently requires relationship; yet God is immutable, so that relationality must be an eternal, perfect communion. As dramatized in the film The Two Popes, when Pope Benedict XVI declares, “God does not change,” and Cardinal Bergoglio replies, “Yes, He does – He moves toward us” (Reformed Forum, accessed [Month Day, Year]), the apparent contradiction is reconciled by understanding that God, in Himself, does not change but eternally “moves” in the procession of love; simultaneously, He has moved toward humanity by sending His Son and Spirit, which is the temporal expression of His eternal love (Revelation 13:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition; see also Rahner via Reformed Forum). Consequently, The Principle affirms that to exist is to be given, received, and actualized in an eternal, self‑donative relationship—a perspective that reorients our understanding of divine ontology and human participation in God’s love.

V. Philosophical Analysis and Appropriation of Benovsky through Marion

Within the context of Catholic metaphysics, this nominalist framing both highlights points of compatibility and reveals certain tensions. For example, Thomas Aquinas rejects nominalism by asserting that “universals exist within particulars, abstracted by the intellect, having real foundation in things themselves” (Aquinas 1947). Such moderate realism is foundational to Catholic thought, ensuring that the intelligibility of reality rests on the ordered relation between universal concepts and concrete particulars. Similarly, the Catechism reinforces a robust realism—particularly within sacramental theology—by affirming that “in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself” (Catechism 1997, §1324). In doing so, the Church safeguards an objective metaphysical grounding that resists reductionist nominalism.

The interplay between Benovsky’s account of explanatory primitives and Marion’s phenomenology is particularly illuminating. While Benovsky provides the methodological structure that justifies accepting certain elements as fundamental, Marion offers phenomenological confirmation by showing that phenomena inherently manifest as self‑gifting events. In other words, where Benovsky identifies the logical necessity for positing primitives to stop an infinite regress, Marion demonstrates that every phenomenon “gives itself” as an originating, self‑presenting act. Together, their insights suggest that relational givenness—the idea that being itself is an act of self‑donation—is not merely a derivative or secondary quality but can be understood as the ultimate metaphysical primitive of reality.

IV. Immutability and Freedom in the Self‑Giving God

A critical question arises: If God is so dynamically relational and self‑giving, does that compromise divine immutability or impassibility—i.e., His freedom from change or suffering? Classical theology has long insisted that God is changeless; yet the heart of Christian faith proclaims that God is not static but the living tri‑une God active in history—culminating in the Incarnation when the Son “became flesh” (cf. Exodus 3:14, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). The Principle of Relationality asserts that portraying God as “utterly simple and dynamically relational” not only preserves but elucidates His unchangeability and freedom from external necessity. This balance is a major achievement of Catholic theology, and The Principle maintains it fully.

According to Aquinas and other classical theologians, God is immutable because, as actus purus (pure act), He lacks any potentiality that could be actualized or any unrealized perfection that could be gained (Aquinas 1947). Change, by definition, entails a gain or loss of actuality; thus, a perfect being cannot change. The Principle affirms that God’s fullness of being does not evolve, improve, or diminish over time. Rather, the relational nature of God—as expressed in the eternal relations of origin (the Father begetting the Son, the Spirit proceeding)—is an ontological reality that is forever fixed. The Father is always begetting the Son, and the Spirit is always proceeding; there was never a time when God was not tri‑une (Aquinas 1947). This understanding is consistent with Nicene‑Chalcedonian orthodoxy, which declares that “never was the Father without the Son or Spirit.”

Aquinas distinguishes between internal (intra‑divine) relations and external relations. Internal relations—the relationships that constitute the Trinity—are necessary, eternal, and immutable aspects of God’s identity. By contrast, external relations (such as those between Creator and creature or Lord and the world) exist only insofar as they are expressed in creation. Since creation proceeds from God not out of necessity but by His free will, God does not undergo any intrinsic change through the act of creation (Aquinas 1947). Before creation, God knew and willed Himself; afterward, He continues to know and will both Himself and His creatures as part of a single, eternal act of willing. Thus, while God’s knowledge and will extend over mutable things, His divine nature remains constant. Medieval theologians have used the analogy of a pillar casting a moving shadow—as the sun moves, the shadow changes while the sun itself remains unchanged (Aquinas 1947).

The Principle reinforces this scholastic distinction by asserting that if God’s internal life is already one of relational fullness, He does not require creation to actualize relational potential. God is eternally complete in relational love; hence, creation is understood as a free gift—an overflow of divine love rather than a remedy for any deficiency in God’s being (Dei Filius, ch. 1). Consequently, the created order adds nothing intrinsic to God’s nature; it is simply the outpouring of His self‑gift.

A related issue is whether God can suffer or be emotionally affected (impassibility). While classical theology affirms that God’s divine nature is impassible, biblical language often ascribes emotions to God, and the Incarnation vividly portrays Christ’s passion. The Principle addresses this by distinguishing between God in Himself and God in Christ. In the Incarnation, the Son of God assumed a passible human nature and experienced suffering and change, while His divine nature remained impassible (Council of Chalcedon). This is the mystery of the hypostatic union: the divine and human natures coexist in Christ without compromising His immutability. Thus, The Principle maintains that God’s immutability and freedom are not mutually exclusive but are harmoniously interwoven; His eternal self‑gift is both unchanging and dynamically expressed in salvation history.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of The Principle is its understanding of divine freedom. Since God is simple and fully actual, nothing external determines Him; He is absolutely free. The tri‑une relations are not limitations on His freedom but the very expression of the free eternality of His love. The Father begets the Son not as a result of an ordinary choice, but because it is inherent in His very nature; processions are both necessary and freely given (Ratzinger 2004). When it comes to creation, God’s free will is fully expressed. The Principle underscores that God’s relation to creatures is an overflow—not a completion—of His self‑gift. He creates freely because His creation is the ultimate expression of free love. The Father was under no compulsion to send His Son; the Son went to the Cross in obedient love; and the Spirit blows where He wills. This gratuitous self‑gift is essential to grace. Precisely because God is immutable, His love is steadfast and freely given—nothing external can disrupt His resolve (James 1:17, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). In this way, divine immutability guarantees both reliability and freedom.

Some may question how to reconcile an impassible God with the vivid language of divine emotion and the passion of Christ. The Principle responds by emphasizing that while God in Himself is impassible, the Person of the Son—united with human nature—experiences suffering without altering the divine nature. Thus, the Incarnation represents the ultimate self‑gift: God giving Himself so completely that He enters into our suffering for our salvation (Council of Chalcedon). Ratzinger has observed that “God is love” means God is total self‑gift, and because He is omnipotent Love, nothing from outside can ever force or change Him; His actions are entirely self‑determined by love (Ratzinger 2004). Similarly, John D. Zizioulas states, “Freedom is not from the other but for the other… personhood is the freedom to be other” (Zizioulas 1985). In The Principle, these insights reinforce that the Persons of the Trinity freely affirm and give themselves to one another; this internal divine freedom becomes the ultimate source of human freedom in communion.

Moreover, The Principle offers a contemporary answer to the ancient question, Cur Deus Trinus? (“Why is God Triune?”). One may answer: because God is love, and love inherently requires relationship; yet God is immutable, so that relationality must be an eternal, perfect communion. As dramatized in the film The Two Popes, when Pope Benedict XVI declares, “God does not change,” and Cardinal Bergoglio replies, “Yes, He does – He moves toward us” (Reformed Forum, accessed [Month Day, Year]), the apparent contradiction is reconciled by understanding that God, in Himself, does not change but eternally “moves” in the procession of love; simultaneously, He has moved toward humanity by sending His Son and Spirit, which is the temporal expression of His eternal love (Revelation 13:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition; see also Rahner via Reformed Forum). Consequently, The Principle affirms that to exist is to be given, received, and actualized in an eternal, self‑donative relationship—a perspective that reorients our understanding of divine ontology and human participation in God’s love.

V. Fully‑Given Attributes: Divine Love and Goodness as Total Self‑Gift

If God’s self‑standing essence is the source of all and His relational tri‑une life is the form of His being, then the full expression of God’s being is found in the way He gives Himself away. In this final category, we reflect on God’s attributes—such as Love, Goodness, Mercy, and Holiness—not as abstract perfections but as God’s very self‑gift in action. We call these the “fully‑given” attributes because they show God as a gift. This conceptual category, unique to Dryer’s framework, reframes traditional divine qualities in terms of how completely God donates Himself to us. It highlights that God’s perfections are most brilliantly seen when understood as an outpouring of His being. As Scripture attests, “God is love” (1 John 4:16, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition)—not merely to say “God loves,” but that Love (agapé) is the very nature of His existence. In the words of Jean‑Luc Marion, God “gives Himself as a gift… for no reason at all,” simply because He is gift and love (Marion 2002). This perspective forces us to abandon attempts to confine God to conventional metaphysical categories and instead receive Him as He reveals Himself through radical self‑bestowal.

The entire drama of salvation history unfolds as the self‑gift of God’s love. At its pinnacle is the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery of Christ. In Jesus, God literally gives Himself—“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son” (John 3:16, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition). Pope Benedict XVI, in Deus Caritas Est, reflects, “His death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which He gives Himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form” (Ratzinger 2004; also see Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). Here, the self‑emptying of the Son on the Cross is portrayed as an act in which God “goes against Himself,” pouring out everything and withholding nothing, for our salvation. This is agapé at its zenith—God’s love that holds nothing back, even as it leads to Christ’s cry of abandonment. The Principle sees this as the perfect manifestation of who God eternally is: the Father eternally gives the Son, and on Calvary this gift erupts into our history as the Son gives Himself for us to the Father in the Spirit. Consequently, the tri‑une communion of love expands to include humanity. God’s holiness, goodness, and mercy are inextricably linked to His self‑giving love. Holiness is not aloof purity but the burning fire of love that sacrifices itself for the beloved; mercy is not mere leniency but the compassionate self‑gift that heals the other.

Church Fathers captured aspects of this mystery in various ways. St. Athanasius famously summarized the Incarnation by stating, “He became what we are, that He might make us what He is” (Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). St. Irenaeus echoed this by declaring, “[God] did not abandon humanity…but in His immense love He became what we are, so that He might enable us to become what He is Himself” (Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). Such patristic reflections underscore the profound exchange in which God gives a share of His own life to elevate humanity—a process known as divinization. God’s goodness is demonstrated in that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition), and His omnipotence in choosing the weakness of the Cross to overcome sin. Every divine perfection is “re‑imagined” when seen through the lens of God’s self‑gift. The Principle of Relationality, by framing divine love and goodness as God’s total self‑gift, offers a unifying vision of both the divine attributes and the actions of God. Everything converges on one point: God giving God. This is the unifying “theorem” that Dryer’s framework proposed as a hermeneutical key (Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer). It means that whenever we discuss a divine attribute, we should ask: how is this an aspect of God’s self‑communicating love? And whenever we describe a divine action, we ask: what attribute of God is revealed in this self‑gift? The answers consistently resonate. For example, God’s truth is not merely cold correctness but His faithful self‑revelation—ultimately, Jesus Christ who declared “I am the Truth” and gave Himself as Truth. God’s wrath in Scripture can be understood as the passionate rejection of sin—the refusal of love to tolerate the destruction of the beloved. Centering on relational self‑givenness, our understanding of God’s character avoids distortions and harmonizes transcendence with intimacy.

To ensure doctrinal precision, it must be noted that The Principle of Relationality introduces no new dogmas; rather, it integrates and expounds what the Church has always taught about God. Emphasizing God’s relational being does not imply an “interactive” process that compromises His unchanging nature. Instead, His self‑giving is eternal and fully actual—He does not become more relational over time; rather, our participation in His love deepens. In scholastic language, the communication of God’s goodness ad extra (to creatures) is simply the overflowing of the eternal processions ad intra (within God). The Principle operates within these traditional bounds, offering a fresh vocabulary—self‑standing relational givenness—to express the ancient faith that “God’s very being is an eternal exchange of love, and He has destined us to share in that exchange” (Catechism 1997, §221; Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology – RobertDryer).

Conclusion

Robert Dryer’s Principle of Relationality offers a compelling, relationally‑grounded framework for understanding the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and God’s relationship to the world. By replacing a primarily substance‑based metaphysical lens with one focused on relational self‑givenness, it recovers the central biblical insight that God is love (1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) in the most profound sense—an eternal communion of Persons who pour themselves out in love for one another and, overflowingly, for creation. This framework is deeply rooted in Catholic tradition. We have seen how it harmonizes with St. Augustine’s trinitarian vision of Lover, Beloved, and Love; how it builds on St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching that the divine persons are subsistent relations, one in essence; and how it answers the call of modern theologians like Ratzinger, Rahner, and Zizioulas to move beyond impersonal categories and reclaim personhood‑as‑communion (Ratzinger 2004; Zizioulas 1985). It also resonates with phenomenological insights such as Marion’s idea of gift and Eriugena’s mystical vision of exitus‑reditus, showing that the fullness of reality is best understood as gifted relationality. Crucially, The Principle of Relationality does not undermine classical doctrines of divine simplicity, unity, or transcendence—it rather illuminates them. Divine simplicity is seen in the perfect unity of the tri‑une relations; divine immutability is understood as the ever‑constant love that flows freely; and God’s transcendence is upheld even as His immanent presence fills all things in love.

In presenting God’s attributes in this relational synthesis, we gain a more holistic grasp of the faith. The Trinity is no longer treated as an abstract conundrum but as the living center of all theological reflection. God’s attributes are not a list of disparate qualities but facets of one shining reality: the self‑giving love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Such a vision has both practical and spiritual ramifications. It invites us not merely to study God, but to encounter Him and be drawn into relationship. As the Catechism concludes, “God is an eternal exchange of love, and He has destined us to share in that exchange” (Catechism 1997, §221). This destiny—to participate in the Trinitarian life—is the ultimate vocation of every creature. Dryer’s Principle of Relationality, by articulating a meta‑ontology of gift and communion, provides a conceptual key to unlock the coherence of this calling. It reassures us that when we love and give of ourselves, we are not merely following a command but reflecting the fundamental structure of reality, which is entirely relational.

In an age when relationality is sometimes undervalued or trivialized, this synthesis reclaims the profound meaning of saying that God is relational. It safeguards against both an arid academic theism and a superficial sentimentality by marrying intellectual rigor with the mystery of love. It is a synthesis in which divine simplicity and divine intimacy embrace—where the God of classical theism, actus purissimus (pure act), is joyfully identified with the God of Scripture who “so loved the world.” In The Principle of Relationality, we hear anew the Gospel’s perennial truth: the one God, the Alpha and Omega, is an eternal Act of Love who gives Himself without reserve. All things spring from this love and find their fulfillment in it. This is the relational heartbeat of Catholic theology, and it pulses through every doctrine—from the inner life of the Trinity to creation, Incarnation, grace, and glory. The Principle of Relationality makes that heartbeat explicit, offering the Church a renewed language to proclaim the Mystery of God as the Mystery of Love—absolute, simple, immutable Love in relational communion, freely shared with us and calling us to communion. Such is the God we worship: “all in God is God,” and that God is Love.

Bibliography

Primary Church Documents and Classical Sources

Augustine of Hippo. De Trinitate (On the Trinity), Books VIII–IX. Translated by Edmund Hill. Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991.

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. Contra Eutychen et Nestorium; De Trinitate. Translated by H. F. Stewart and E. K. Rand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

Council of Florence. “Decree for the Jacobites (Laetentur Caeli),” 1439. In Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman Tanner, vol. 1, 523–528. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990.

Fourth Lateran Council. “Constitution IV: Firmiter,” 1215. In Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman Tanner, vol. 1, 230–271. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990.

Fourth Lateran Council. “Canon 1.” In Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215. Accessed March 7, 2025. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp.

John Scotus Eriugena. Periphyseon (On the Division of Nature), Book I. Translated by John O’Meara. Montreal: Bellarmin, 1987.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Accessed March 7, 2025. https://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html.

Modern and Contemporary Sources

Benovsky, Jiri. “Primitives: Ontological and Epistemological Aspects.” In The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, edited by Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller, 227–235. New York: Routledge, 2021.

Benovsky, Jiri. “Relational and Substantival Ontologies, and the Nature and the Role of Primitives in Ontological Theories.” Erkenntnis 73, no. 1 (2010): 101–121.

DiLauro, Joseph. “Liturgy and Relational Ontology in the Theology of Joseph Ratzinger.” Master’s thesis, JOSEPH DILAURO, University of Scranton, 2010.

Marion, Jean‑Luc. God Without Being. Translated by Thomas Carlson. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Marion, Jean‑Luc. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Joseph Donceel. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1970.

Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. Translated by William V. Dych. New York: Seabury Press, 1978.

Rahner, Karl. The Content of Faith: The Best of Karl Rahner’s Theological Writings, ed. Karl Lehmann and Albert Raffelt, trans. Harvey D. Egan (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993), 256.

Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). Introduction to Christianity. Translated by J. R. Foster. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

Ratzinger, Joseph. “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology.” Communio: International Catholic Review 17, no. 3 (1990): 439–454.

Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger). Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005.

Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

Zizioulas, John D. Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. Edited by Paul McPartlan. London: T&T Clark, 2006.

Online and Supporting Sources

Christian History Institute. “John Scotus Eriugena and the Unknowability of God.” Accessed March 5, 2025. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/blog/post/john-scotus-eriugena-and-the-unknowability-of-god.

Dryer, Robert. “Divine Givenness and Divine Attributes in Catholic Theology.” RobertDryer.com. Accessed March 5, 2025. https://robertdryer.com/divine-givenness-and-divine-attributes-in-catholic-theology/.

Dryer, Robert. “Ratzinger Clarifies the Meaning of ‘Person’ as ‘Relation’ and Not ‘Substance’.” RobertDryer.com. Accessed March 5, 2025. https://robertdryer.com/ratzinger-clarifies-the-meaning-of-person-as-relation-and-not-substance-as-thing-in-itself/.

Dryer, Robert. “The Principle of Relationality in Catholic Thought.” RobertDryer.com, accessed March 7, 2025. https://robertdryer.com/the-principle-of-relationality-a-theological-synthesis-on-the-relational-nature-of-god/.

Gale. “Karl Rahner and Demythologization.” Accessed March 5, 2025. https://www.gale.com/databases/questia.

Reformed Forum. “Contemporary Trinitarianism Part Four (Excursus B): Rahner’s Rule.” Accessed March 5, 2025. https://reformedforum.org/rahners-rule/.

Theopolis Institute. “Background to Marion, Being Given.” Accessed March 5, 2025. https://theopolisinstitute.com/background-to-marion-being-given.