The Perfection of Reception

Metaphysical Reflections in the Light of the Trinity

I wrote this paper for my Thomas Aquinas class at Catholic Pacific College. I’m happy with how it turned out, so I thought I’d share. Lord willing, I’ll be back to posting regularly in a few months.

Introduction

W. Norris Clarke credits Hans Urs von Balthasar with the insight that “in an adequate notion of the perfection of love receptivity is the necessary complement of active self-communication and of equal dignity and perfection as the latter.”¹ Clarke considers himself a faithful adherent to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Still, his reading of the Angelic Doctor is a creative one which often differs in emphasis from other Thomists, synthesizing insights from modern philosophy and theology. He acknowledges that Aquinas seems to associate the concept of “receptivity” with “potentiality” and, therefore, to a lower degree of perfection. God, says Thomas, is actus purus whose essence and existence are identical; He does not receive any perfection from without, as does every created nature. On the contrary, God is the only source of every created perfection and preeminently possesses them all. Thus, St. Thomas seemingly associates receptivity with creatureliness, and the further one descends along the “Ladder of Being,” the less one discovers “active self-communication,” and the more one discovers potency/receptivity. In contrast, we will argue that receptivity is a creaturely perfection analogous to God’s own being. “Passive potency” should be distinguished from receptivity since a proper notion of receptivity includes an active dimension, whose highest form is the relations between persons. We will further argue that Thomas’ metaphysical principles imply this “personalist” ontology and theology, specifically by analyzing the “principle of proportionate causality.” Since, as Thomas argues, any perfection possessed by an effect must be contained within its cause, some principle of receptivity must exist within God for it to exist as a perfection in the created world. We will conclude by discussing the theological implications of this metaphysical argument. 

Is receptivity a perfection? 

Whether receptivity can be considered a creaturely perfection—pre-eminently contained in God—depends on whether it is identical to potentiality. If receptivity and potentiality are indistinguishable or inseparable, then God cannot be said to possess receptivity as He contains no potentiality: “In God there is no potentiality, but He is pure act.”² Potentiality is possessed by creation alone, as the defining feature of created nature is its lack of self-subsistence and dependence upon a higher actuality (God) for its being. 

It is impossible for God to “receive” anything, as He is the First Cause who grants being to all beings. For Aquinas, God does not need any other person or being to be perfect. Thomas will even say that to be dependant upon another implies a lack of perfection: “...when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other’s good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness.”³ God, on the other hand, subsists as perfect goodness by nature. He needs no “partner” to be Himself and create; to say otherwise is to undermine the unity and perfection of God. 

In our view, reception is indeed a created perfection with an uncreated basis. However, for the sake of piety and theological coherence, creaturely reception must be distinguished from divine receptivity just as much created and uncreated nature must be. That is to say, we argue, with Aquinas, that creation is essentially different yet possesses a natural analogy to divinity: all beings “are like God as the first and universal principle of all being.”⁴ If one attempts to argue for a univocal relationship between creaturely and divine receptivity, then one necessarily implicates God within the limitations and incompleteness of the world. For God, to “receive” is something different than what it means for created beings to receive. 

The basis of the difference between divine and creaturely reception lies in the latter involving relations from without with other substances/things. For God, reception cannot involve a relationship to something substantially “other,” as this would imply that His perfection passes from potency to act through this relationship. God’s perfections must be realized essentially and in Himself as pure act. How can we conceive of this “intra-divine” receptivity, and on what basis do we argue for a natural analogy between it and receptivity in creation? 

Before answering these questions, we must establish why receptivity is a perfection. While “self-subsistence” and lack of dependency on others are associated with greater actuality and a higher degree of perfection, it is erroneous to assume “receptivity” is necessarily the same as the passive potency characterizing lower orders of creation (and therefore negatively correlated with higher degrees of actuality). One of the characteristics of these lower orders is precisely a lack of received perfection through participation in and likeness to God. Higher orders of being have “received” more from the One who gives all, while lower orders have received less and, therefore, possess less of a participation in and likeness to God. After all, Aquinas himself affirms that the perfection of humans is realized through the beatific vision (union with God), which transcends the powers of human nature. In other words, the fullness of human perfection—Man himself being the image of God and above all other creatures—coincides with a state of total receptivity that is not identical to passive potency. Man does not cease to receive upon attaining the beatific vision, nor does he become less actual; on the contrary, reception is perfectly realized precisely as an actuality. This is a state of “act-through-reception,” which ultimately defines all creaturely perfections, as no creature is perfect in itself/essentially. Receptivity is no less uniquely associated with potency than every other creaturely perfection, so it cannot be distinguished from them on this basis. 

One may object that receptivity is not a perfection per se but rather a finite condition of perfection (like the state of being created). Only creatures “receive” because only creatures are created. Thus, to receive act is to be created; they are synonymous. Given that being created is not a perfection, it would follow that receptivity is not either. Firstly, it is true that to “receive act” is to be created. Our claim is not that divine receptivity involves the movement from potency to act but that a more preeminent form of receptivity exists in God as actus purus.  Furthermore, while receptivity in creation is always created (by definition) and involves the reception of act, this does not imply that receptivity as such must always be created or involve the movement from potency to act. 

Is there receptivity in God?

If “receptivity” is a creaturely perfection that is mutually interior to every other perfection (as every created perfection is received from without), then some principle of receptivity must exist within God, serving as the archetype and metaphysical basis of created receptivity. This follows from the fact that, as St. Thomas argues, “whatever is found in the effect must be found in the effective cause, either in the same form formally, or in a higher and more eminent way” (the principle of proportionate causality).⁵ As already argued, God’s receptivity cannot be formally or essentially identical to creation. Thus, God must possess the perfection of receptivity “in a higher and more eminent way” than creation. 

The passage from potency to act characterizing creation possesses an analogical relationship to the receptive love in God and is made possible by it. If there were no eternal and intra-divine principle of “sharing,” then God would not be capable of the “sharing” that constitutes the creative act. The receptive love in God is the uncreated foundation for creating a world characterized by receiving; even the causal power granted to creatures is first received as a gift from God. Receptivity, then, is convertible with every other perfection: to “be” is to receive being from God, to “be one” is to receive unity from God, and to “be good” is to receive one’s goodness and telos from God. While God does not receive from any other, the receptive nature of created perfections possesses an analogy to Him; all of His perfections are eternally actualized within an intra-divine relationship of giving and receiving: the communion of the Holy Trinity. 

Trinitarian Receptivity

According to St. Thomas, the Trinity is one of the “articles of faith,” all of which are “truths which exceed human reason.”⁶ Our goal is not to replace divine revelation with reason, nor is our argument that receptivity in the world “proves” the Trinity. Rather, our goal is to demonstrate that the Trinity—despite being a revealed doctrine—is the most reasonable doctrine of God in light of the nature of causation and the movement from potency to act. Our metaphysical argument for receptivity in God based on created receptivity is no more a transgression of the boundaries of reason than it is to argue that God is the First Cause based on cause and effect in the world.

While the “First Cause” does not, at least on the surface, seem to imply any particular understanding of God (other than that He is actus purus, perfect, etc.), our argument from receptivity aligns naturally and logically with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. If God were unipersonal, like the “Allah” of Islam, then there would be no ability to conceive of intra-divine receptivity (or active self-communication). It is no surprise that in a famous Islamic hadith, Allah says he created “so that I would be known” (The Hadith of the Hidden Treasure). Christianity, however, does not need to posit some divine desire for recognition, as all three divine persons eternally “recognize” one another as God in an eternal communion of love. Creation remains an entirely contingent and free manifestation of love on God’s part, an act of His will not done out of the necessity of His nature. Yet, God’s loving creative act is consistent with His nature since God is loving by nature. For Allah, however, creating is radically contrary to His nature since Allah is eternally alone. 

By intra-divine receptivity, we refer to how all three divine persons not only give love to the other two but also receive it. We must stress, however, that this “giving and receiving” is eternal, never decreasing or increasing, but remaining the perfectly actual love of the three divine persons. Any relationship of gift and reception (or cause and effect) in creation possesses an analogical likeness to the love of God but is not identical to it. 

Since receptivity is a divine perfection, it must be shared by all three divine persons, as all three are equally God. Nonetheless, as Aquinas asserts, the divine persons are distinguished by their relations of origin,⁷ and each person possesses the divine nature in their unique way in relation to the other persons. Thus, the Father possesses receptive love as the Father, the Son possesses it as the Son and the Spirit as the Spirit. The “personal mode” of realizing perfect receptivity differs between the three persons in accordance with their relations of origin. Christ will, therefore, say that He has been “granted life in himself” (John 5:26 NIV) from the Father, not the other way around. Christ, as the second divine person, is “granted” (in other words, He receives) life in himself/essentially (as God), while the Father is the one who actively begets/grants (as God). However, unless we wish to say that the Father does not receive love back from the Son (and the Spirit), God the Father must also possess the perfection of reception, but in his own personal (paternal) way. 

While we have focused our analysis on the nature of “receptivity,” this is only because it is often seen as inferior to active self-communication. True love (of which God is the truest) is not a one-sided act of initiation but involves reception and reciprocation on the part of other persons: 

Thus in its highest and purest form, echoed analogously and proportionately, with increasing imperfection, down through creation, the radical dynamism of being as self-communicative evokes as its necessary complement the active, welcoming receptivity of the receiving end of its self-communication. Authentic love is not complete unless it is both actively given and actively—gratefully—received. And both giving and receiving at their purest are of equal dignity and perfection. The perfection of being—and therefore of the person—is essentially dyadic, culminating in communion.⁸

In God, giving, receiving, and reciprocating is immediate, traversing no interval or distance. Thus, the love of the Holy Trinity is beyond time. Time only exists where there is a distance between things/persons to be traversed, which is why our union with God correlates with our entrance into eternity. Thus, as Maximus the Confessor states, “Although it stays in immovable rest, the divine essence seems to move, moving towards each other.”⁹ The “movement” of love realized by the three divine persons is one of “immovable rest” precisely because it is perfect; the love of the Holy Trinity is so complete that it does not increase or diminish, but all three divine persons rest in a perfect communion of giving and receiving, forming an eternal and unchanging relationship of mutual interiority/perichoresis. 

Conclusion

We have argued that receptivity is not simply a mark of imperfection or potentiality but a real and created perfection rooted in the uncreated communion of the Trinity. While divine receptivity is not to be confused with the passivity of creatures, it remains the archetype and source of every act of reception within creation. Unlike any unipersonal conception of God, the Trinitarian God possesses in Himself the eternal and perfect reciprocity of love—each person giving and receiving without lack or change. This intra-divine communion grounds the relations of created beings (both amongst themselves and to God) and the movement from potency to act. To receive is not necessarily to lack, but to be in relation, to participate, to be perfected through communion. In God, the perfection of receptivity is eternally realized as act; in creation, it is the path toward the fullness of being. The world, then, is not the result of divine solitude but of perfect, eternal love—a love at once self-giving and receptive.

1. W. Norris Clarke, “Person, Being, and St. Thomas,” Communio 19, no. 4 (Winter 1992): 601–618.

2. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, 3, 1, in Summa of the Summa, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011).

3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, 32, 1, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, available at https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1 (accessed April 9, 2025).

4. Ibid. I, 4, 3.

5. Ibid. I, 4, 2.

6. Ibid. I, I, 1.

7. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, 28, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, available at https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm (accessed April 9, 2025).

8. W. Norris Clarke, “Person, Being, and St. Thomas,” Communio 19, no. 4 (Winter 1992): 601–618.

9. Quoted in Eucharistic Ontology: Maximus the Confessor’s Eschatological Ontology of Being as Dialogical Reciprocity by Nikolaos Loudovikos.