LaCugna both affirms and revises Rahner’s axiom about the economic and immanent Trinity, using it to push Trinity back into soteriology and daily life while criticizing how the “immanent Trinity” category functions in his system.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
## Affirmation of Rahner’s basic move
– She acknowledges that Rahner’s axiom (“the ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity”) was crucial in reuniting Trinity and salvation and in blocking any gap between the God who saves and God in himself.[3][6][1]
– She credits him with restoring the unity of theologia and oikonomia and with insisting that soteriology is decisive for theology: who God is for us in Christ and the Spirit truly reveals who God is.[5][1][3]
## Her corollary and shift of focus
– LaCugna proposes a “corollary” to Rahner’s rule: “**Theology is inseparable from soteriology, and vice versa**,” so reflection on God must always be tied to God‑for‑us and to Christian life and worship.[2]
– She wants to move from the abstract pair “immanent/economic Trinity” to a more concrete focus on the one **oikonomia of God’s life for us**, where we participate in and praise the triune God.[4][2][5]
## Critique of the “immanent Trinity” category
– LaCugna thinks the economic/immanent paradigm, as usually handled, still tends to re‑introduce a speculative “Trinity‑in‑itself” behind the economy; she worries that the second half of Rahner’s axiom (“the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity”) risks collapsing God’s free saving action into a necessity of the divine nature.[7][2][3]
– She argues the language of “immanent Trinity” easily becomes a **God‑for‑God** realm, too detached from God‑for‑us and from doxology and ethics, and so she prefers to speak of the “mystery of God’s life with us” rather than of an ontologically prior inner life we can somehow describe apart from the economy.[2][3][5]
## Her revision: one mystery of God‑for‑us
– In her chiastic model of “emanation and return,” LaCugna says there is, strictly speaking, “**neither an economic nor an immanent Trinity; rather there is only the mystery of the oikonomia—the mystery of God’s life with us and our life in God**.”[2]
– This does not deny that God’s life transcends history, but it insists that theology should not speculate about a separate inner Trinity; we know and name God only as the One who is eternally for us and with us in Christ and the Spirit.[5][2]
## Implications for theosis and participation
– Because she radicalizes Rahner’s insistence that the God we meet in salvation *is* the triune God, participation in the “economic” Trinity just is participation in God’s own life; there is no second, hidden Trinity to which we do not have access.[8][4][2]
– In this frame, deification means being drawn into God’s life‑for‑us—into the relational, self‑giving communion of Father, Son, and Spirit displayed in the oikonomia—rather than ascent into an immanent realm behind or above that history.[8][5][2]
Sources
[1] [PDF] Immanent and Economic Trinity https://www.saet.ac.uk/
[2] The Dimensions of God’s Life – Religion Online https://www.religion-online.
[3] [PDF] CATHERINE MOWRY LaCUGNA’S CONTRIBUTION TO … https://theologicalstudies.
[4] [PDF] Navigating the Trinity’s Practical Symphony with LaCugna and … https://digitalcommons.csbsju.
[5] [PDF] God For Us – -ORCA – Cardiff University https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/
[6] Immanent and Economic Trinity https://www.saet.ac.uk/
[7] [PDF] 5. TRINITAS RAHNER _Janggat_ – Neliti https://media.neliti.com/
[8] Participating in the Life of the Triune God: Towards a Trinitarian … https://imtglobal.org/
[9] [PDF] The Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity and Vice Versa https://www.midamerica.edu/
[10] Coordinating the Immanent and Economic Trinity – jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/
[11] Rahner’s Rule – Theopolis Institute https://theopolisinstitute.
[12] [PDF] Economy and Immanence – Gospel Studies https://www.gospelstudies.org.
[13] Review of Paul Molnar’s Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the … https://fredfredfred.com/
[14] The “Practical” Trinity – Catherine Mowry LaCugna https://theologyandchurch.com/
[15] Contemporary Trinitarianism Part Four (Excursus B): Rahner’s Rule http://agreatercourage.
[16] Revisiting Rahner: On the Theological Status of Trinitarian Theology https://journals.sagepub.com/
