## Sources and Bibliography: Sources used in article: - [[Sacrae Theologiae Summa]] (II, book II). - *St. Thomas [[Aquinas]]*: - T.J. White General Bibliography: # Introduction: --- ## The meaning of the terms used in Trinitarian theology: Found in Appendix of Chapter I. See STS b.2 c.l a.4 th.30 n .371-375 for list and for Greek terms. - *Essence, nature,* and *substance:* that by which *a thing is constituted in a certain order of being*. - *Suppositum* and *hypostasis:* a complete subject distinct from others in a particular nature, about which all predications are made. - *Person:* a suppositum of an intellectual nature. - *Suppositality,* *personality,* *subsistentia* (*subsistence*): the formal reason constituting a suppositum and a person as such. - N.B. do not confuse *substance* and *subsistence* (see *ST* I.29.2 ad 2). - *Relations of origin:* The divine persons are not distinguished among themselves except according to the dogmatic axiom: “in God everything is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” - *Procession* and *production:* the origin of one person from another, or from others. - The divine processions are *immanent* and with a metaphysical immanence of identity of substance; it is most perfect, without causality and dependence. - Even though the Greeks use the words *cause* and *caused*, in Latin theology these words are not used. - In God there are *two processions*, *the generation of the Son from the Father* who is an unproduced person, and the *procession of the Holy Spirit* from the Father and the Son as from one principle. - In the divine processions there is a *communication* in the strictest sense of only one divine nature. Therefore the divine persons are said to be *consubstantial*. - *Principle* and *aim:* a person from whom another proceeds, and one who is from another. - *Relation:* an order or respect of one to the other. - *Real* and *from origin*, by which the divine persons are referred to each other as producer and produced. - *Relative opposition:* the necessity of a real opposition between them, for a real relation necessarily implies this. - *Four relations:* two in each procession: - *Paternity* and *filiation:* by which the Father and the Son are referred to each other. - *Active spiration*: common to the Father and to the Son. - *Passive spiration:* by which the Father and the Son act as one principle of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is referred to the Father and to the Son. - *Subsistent:* Divine relations are not predicated of absolute subjects that are referred to each other, but the relations themselves are related subjects. - *Common* and *proper:* in divine persons must be distinguished. Really and truly they agree in nature. - But also they are really distinguished from one another, therefore there is something real in each one by which he is distinguished from the others. - *Properties:* those things that are predicated formally only of each individual person. - *Personalities:* often said to be personal properties and they are three—*paternity*, *filiation* and *passive spiration*, all formally relative; therefore the relations are true properties. - *Personal property:* A predicate that belongs to only one person even though it is not properly his formal constitutive. - In this sense there is another property of the person of the Father, *originlessness* (see below for definition). - *Notion* or *notional property:* *a predicate not common to the three persons*, inasmuch as it makes known the Trinity or some person, whether it is formally relative or proper of one person only, or otherwise. - In general, in God the *notional is opposed to the essential*, as proper and not common to three, and as opposed to that which is common. - *Five notions in God*: If any other is found, it is reduced to one of these: - *Originlessness:* the notion of being ungenerated. - *Paternity* - *Filiation* - *Active spiration* - *Passive spiration* - *Essential power:* producing things externally, such as creating, which is common to the three persons. - *Notional power:* producing something internally, such as the power of *generating* in the Father and *spirating* in the Father and the Son. - *Essential acts:* of understanding, of willing, of creating, etc. - *Notional acts:* such as the formal processions which are called *origins*—*active generation*, *passive generation*, or birth, *active spiration* and *passive spiration*. - *Equality* and *likeness:* unity in quasi-quantity and quasi-quality of perfection, because of their identity in the same divine nature. - Their different relations of origin are not opposed to this. - In God there is no such thing as *priority* and *posteriority*, neither of *duration* nor of *nature*, as was defined in the Athanasian Creed. - *Order of origin:* This *is* in God, because of the processions, and therefore a *priority* and *posteriority* *just of origin* between the divine persons. - These words mean nothing else but that some persons are the *principle* of others, and the latter *proceed* from them; but they are all eternal, and some do not properly depend on others - A *logical priority in the proper sense*, which is called *a consequence of subsisting*, between relatives, or between absolutes and relatives, is not admitted, because the relatives are at the same time in cognition and they do not completely prescind from the absolutes. - An *imperfect logical priority*, by which nothing is properly thought about the thing itself, can be admitted in God. - *Circuminsession* and *circumincession:* mutual inexistence and a type of vital recirculation of the divine persons. - This is because of *consubstantiality* and the *immanence of the processions*. - Also because of the simultaneity of the relations by which the divine persons are constituted. - *Attribution* or *appropriation:* Although the *absolute attributes* of the divinity, and therefore the *external works*, are *common* to the three persons, nevertheless certain ones are *attributed* to some persons rather than to others, or, as they say, they are *appropriated*. - *"To be sent"*: said of persons proceeding truly and properly. - *Mission:* the communication of the will to accomplish some external effect, which in God cannot take place except through *procession*. - The special missions are *the mission of the Son in the Incarnation* and *the mission of the Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification and in the body of the Church.* - *Logical terms:* - distinguished into: - *Essential* - *Notional* - *Abstract* - *Concrete* - *Substantive* - *Adjectival*: e.g. Deity, God, Paternity, Father, generating, generates, is generated, Spiration, Spirator, Spirating. - In using these terms it is commonly required that the *predication* be *formal*, and that the *mode of signifying* also be taken into account. - Because of the divine simplicity *identical predication* is also possible, unless a special difficulty hinders it. - In this matter many rules are recommended by theologians, which in general provide protection lest something be innovated “against the way of speaking, either what has been approved by the Church, or sanctioned by the common consent of Catholic theologians,” by which the danger is avoided, even apparently, either of destroying the unity of nature or of denying the plurality of persons. - Under the appearance of a logical question often are hidden, in things proposed by the early theologians, matters of great importance in the area of dogmatic theology. ## Terms to be avoided in trinitarian theology: From *ST* I.31.2 *resp*: - **To avoid [[Arianism]]**: - *Diversity* and *difference:* removes unity of essence. - Instead, *'distinction'* should be used on account of the relative opposition of Persons. - "Whenever we find terms of *diversity* or *difference* of Persons in an authentic work, these...are taken to mean *distinction.*" (*ibid.*) - *Separation* and *division:* removes simplicity and singleness of the divine essence, as they belong to the parts of a whole. - *Disparity:* removes equality. - *Alien* and *discrepant:* removes similitude. - *St. [[Ambrose]]:* "in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead." - *St. [[Hilary]]:* "in God there is nothing alien, nothing separable." - **To avoid [[Sabellianism]]**: - *Singularity:* removes the communicability of the divine essence. - *St. [[Hilary]]*: "We exclude from God the idea of singularity or uniqueness." - Adjective *only* (*unici*): removes the number of persons. - Nevertheless, we say "the *only* Son," for in God there is no plurality of Sons. - We do not say "the *only* God," for Deity is common to several. - *Confused:* removes from the Persons the order of their nature. - *St. [[Ambrose]]:* "What is one is not confused." - *Solitary:* removes the society of the three persons. - *St. [[Hilary]]:* "We confess neither a solitary not a diverse God." # On the existence of the mystery of the Holy Trinity: ## The notion of the mystery of the Holy Trinity: Since *God is unique, so that it is repugnant for there to be many gods as there are many men*, nevertheless *there are three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, really distinct, who are that one God by a real identity.* - *In the formulas of faith* the mystery is expressed in this way: In God there is one essence or nature, and three Persons; or, God is one in nature, Triune in Persons. ## Chronology of errors: - *[[Judaizers]]* (1st cent.): Denied the divinity of Christ - i.e. Cerinthus and Ebionites. - *[[Gnosticism]]* (2nd cent.): Denied the divinity of Christ. Placed Christ or the Word and the Paraclete among the eons. - [[Marcion]] says nothing of the Trinity. - *[[Monarchianism]]* (2nd-3rd cent.): Wanted to protect the uniqueness of the divine principle, which they did not know how to reconcile with a Trinity of persons. - *[[Theodotianism]]/[[adoptionism]]/[[dynamic monarchianism]]* (2nd cent.): Denied the divinity of Christ. There were in him certain divine powers, Christ and the Spirit that are impersonal, or personally distinct from the Father. - *[[Sabellianism]]* (2nd cent.): "Places a unity of person with the unity of essence" (ST I.31.2 resp). The most successful form of [[modalism]]. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only modes by which the unique divine person reveals himself, as Creator, as he appears in Christ, and as he is given to the Church and to the Apostles. - i.e. Sabellius, Paul of Samosate - *[[Patripassionism]]* (2nd cent.): A form of *[[Sabellianism]].* The Father and the Son are one person, and that therefore the Father suffered in Christ. - i.e. Praxeas, Noetus and Kleomenes. - *[[Arianism]]* (4th cent.): "Placed a Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons" (ST I.31.2 resp). Denied directly that the divine Word is true God. The Word is the first created being, made before the ages, but having a beginning of his duration with reference to the creation of the world. Therefore he said that the Word is not generated and not eternal - Condemned by Council of [[Nicaea]]. - *[[Semi-Arianism]]* (4th cent.): Arose after condemnation of [[[[Arianism]]|[[Ariani]]sm]] at Nicaea. Totally dedicated to opposing the word “consubstantial.” Among the Semi-Arians many were really subordinationists, at least at the beginning, since they denied that the Word is perfectly equal to the Father, but only similar to him; but others, it seems, were arguing only about words. - *[[Pneumatomachism]]* (4th cent.): Arose among the *Semi-Arians*. The Holy Spirit was created by the Word. - i.e. Macedonius. - Condemned by Pope Damasus at the [[Council of Rome]] (380) and also at [[Constantinople I]] (381). - *[[Roscellinus]]* (11th-12th cent.): Tritheist. The three persons are three substances, like three men, but that they are called one God because of their perfect identity. - *Peter [[Abelard]]* (11th-12th cent.): Modalist. Confusing the appropriations with the personal properties of God, seems to have taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are nothing but three divine attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. - *[[Gilbert of Poitiers]]* (11th-12th cent.): Having established a real distinction between the nature and personality, was accused of placing a quaternity in God. - *[[Joachim of Fiore]]* (12th-13th cent.): Placed a mere collective unity of similarity between the divine persons. - *[[Meister Eckhart]]* (13th-14th cent.): Held many strange pantheistic opinions and denied the Trinity. - *Pantheism*: We are "transformed completely into God" (D 960) and "he himself makes me one with, not like, his being" (*ibid*). "Just and divine" men are generators of the eternal Word (D 963) and are "that only begotten Son of God whom the Father has begotten from eternity" (D 971), etc. - *Trinity:* "All distinction is foreign to God, either in nature or in persons." (D 974) - Also held erroneous opinions similar to [[Quietism]] and on sin. - Retracted any and all erroneous opinions before his death. - Influenced [[Matthew Fox]] (1940 - ). - *[[Protestantism]]* (16th cent.): The main Protestants embraced the Catholic doctrine on the Trinity. However, *[[Unitarianism]]* and *[[Arianism]]* appeared among them. - see [[Socinianism]] (16th cent.): Espoused by Servet, Laelius and Faustus Socinus (after whom it is named). - *[[Rationalism]]* and *[[Liberal Protestantism]]* (19th cent.): Rejected the dogma of the Holy Trinity. But in particular they deny that the earliest faith of the Church was catholic. - [[Antonio Rosmini]] (19th cent.): Proposed some strange things about the person of the Word and the Holy Spirit which were condemned. - e.g. "The Word is that invisible matter from which, as it is said in Wisdom 11:17, all things of the universe were created" (D 3219). - see 2001 decree from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "the meaning of the propositions, as understood and condemned by the Decree, does not belong to the authentic position of Rosmini." - *[[Modernism]]* (20th cent.): Agree with the rationalists; the Trinity of persons in God and the divinity of Christ cannot be retained, except insofar as religious sentiment is fostered by these formulas. ## Ecclesiastical documents on the Holy Trinity: see *STS* b.2 c.l a. 1 N.292 for list. The documents will be listed according to the proper topics below. # On the Mystery of the Holy Trinity ## The mystery of the Holy Trinity in Holy Scripture: **Thesis:** The Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence is proved from the N.T. - *In the New Testament*: - Though there are many *Trinitarian texts* in the N.T. (see b.2 c.l a.2 th.26 n.294), it is the context of the whole N.T. which clearly teaches the Trinity of Persons. - *Contra:* All heretics who oppose the Trinity. Today, these are [[1- GLOSSARY/Terms/Rationalism|Rationalism]] and [[1- GLOSSARY/Terms/Modernism|Modernism]], who contend that the Trinitarian doctrine is completely alien to the N.T. - *Doctrine of the Church:* No explicit definition of the revelation of the Holy Trinity in the N.T. has been given because it is not necessary, but in the preaching of the Church it is constantly asserted; hence it is the evident mind of the Church. - *Theological Note:* *critically and historically certain*, and at least a matter of *implicit divine faith* (he who reveals implicitly says that he is revealing) *and Catholic*. - That Sacred Scripture teaches that *the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons really distinct*: - That *the Son or Word is really and personally distinct from the Father:* - Christ is a unique subject concerning whom divine and human things are predicated. But Christ is clearly shown as a person and subject distinct from the Father. Therefore the Son or Word in divine things is a person distinct from the Father. From other sources that the Father is a person does not need proof. - That *the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father and the Son.* - The personal distinction of the Holy Spirit is clearly taught in the discourse at the Last Supper in John 14-16. - Many places in the Acts of the Apostles, which has been called *the Gospel of the Holy Spirit*, and describes his action in the body of the Church. - That *the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are true God.* - That the First Person, the Father, is true God does not require proof. - To him all the divine predicates are attributed and what has been revealed in the O.T and the N.T. about the divine nature. - Certainly the name of God is so specially applied to the Father, especially in the apostolic writings and also in the trinitarian texts, that it is given to him by *appropriation*. - Nevertheless, St. Paul refers to Christ as "God" in many places (e.g. Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13). - *The Divinity of Christ* pervades the whole of the New Testament. - see *De revelatione* for specific proof. - see STS b.2 c.l A.2 th.26 N.302-312 for extensive list of Scriptural proofs and response to various controversies of the exegetes. - *The Divinity of the Holy Spirit* is clearly shown in the New Testament. - see *ibid.* - *In the Old Testament:* - The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is not proposed in the O.T. in such a way “that it pertained to the common faith of the people of Israel." - they are being prepared to receive the revelation of the N.T. *in such a way that the N.T. presents an excellent exposition of the teaching actually contained in the O.T.*, at least with regard to some of its elements. - e.g. the divinity of the Messiah as a person distinct from God the Father is clearly communicated in various places, for Christ himself quoted the O.T. to prove his divine sonship. - *Fathers*: often say that the Trinity was revealed only in the N.T., but they also bring forth many statements of the O.T. in order to prove it. - The opinions of almost all Catholic theologians and exegetes agree on this. ## The mystery of the Holy Trinity in tradition (ante-Nicene): **Thesis:** The trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence is established by the perpetual and genuine tradition of the Church. We will begin with the *ante-Nicene*: - **Contra**: - *[[Rationalism]]*: attribute the apotheosis of Christ either to the imperial cult itself or especially to the philosophical-religious syncretism in the early days of the Church while she was advancing through the Roman Empire; placed the origin of the Trinitarian dogma often in the Indian “trimurti,” or in the Babylonian or Egyptian triads. - *[[Modernism]]*: explained the inner development of the Christian faith from the historical Christ as a mere man to the Christ of faith, through their theory of transfiguration and deformation of the religious life that manifested itself in the man Jesus - *[[Adolf von Harnack]]*: No fixed dogma before Nicaea; the minds of Christians wandered between monarchianism (in West) and subordinationism (in East). The whole trinitarian doctrine arose in Christianity from different causes not at all religious, and contrary to the mind of Jesus. - **Catholic doctrine**: - The Fathers in the 4th century clearly proclaim the prior tradition of the Church according to its essential elements: that there is one God in three persons really distinct, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. - *[[Athanasius]]*: “Likewise let us consider this tradition from the very beginning and the doctrine and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord handed on, the Apostles preached, and the fathers preserved.... Therefore the holy and perfect Trinity is what is recognized in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." - *[[Epiphanius]]*: “They (the Antiochenes) confess that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, three hypostases, one essence, one divinity, which surely is the true faith which has been handed down by the Fathers—it is prophetic and evangelical and apostolic, which our fathers and bishops, who were gathered together at the Council of Nicaea, professed.” - **Theological Note**: *critically and historically absolutely certain*; dogmatically it is at least *theologically certain*. - The witness of the common Faith is shown: - a) In the *baptismal liturgy:* - by the form “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - by the triple immersions, according to the testimony of the *Didache.* - b) In the *baptismal symbol* (or *creed*): - the Fathers often refer to it and explain it, such as St. Irenaeus, [[Tertullian]] who quotes it in opposition to the monarchianists, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, etc. - c) In *prayer* which is commonly directed to the Father (as it still is in the liturgy), but also almost always together with the Son and the Holy Spirit. - With this fact Novatian proved the Trinity. - Prayers were also offered directly to *Christ*. - Pliny in a letter to Trajan: “they were accustomed on a certain day before dawn to gather together and sing a song to Christ as to God." - Lucian who ridicules Christians because “they adore their crucified sophist." - Celsus complains about the Christians because they profess monotheism to such an extent that they even adore a man whom they say is God’s Son. - To him [[Origen]] replies, “If Celsus had known this: ‘The Father and I are one,’ and something else that the Son of God said: ‘Just as you and I are one,” it would not have occurred to him to think that we worship anyone else but the supreme God.” - *Evening Hymn* of the Greeks. - The prayer of Clement of Alexandria. - d) In the *doxologies*: - In the martyrdom of Polycarp. - In the *acts of Saints Perpetua and Felicity*. - In the celebration of the Eucharist, according to the testimony of St. Justin. - In blessings, according to the rule of St. Hippolytus. - In [[Origen]]. - In St. Dionysius of Alexandria. - Often in the preaching of homilies. - In remote antiquity two doxologies were in use: - the *major one* was “Glory to God in the highest” (*Gloria in excelsis*). - the *minor one* in two different forms: “Glory be to the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit,” and, “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.” - As St. Basil pointed out, the latter form was the most ancient. - St. Basil himself had already proposed against the pneumatics the liturgical argument for the common faith: “As we baptize so also do we believe, as we believe so are we also glorified... we are glorifying the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the Son, because we are convinced that he is not foreign to the divine nature; for he would not be participating in the same honors, if he were foreign according to nature." - From *the authority of the Church against the heretics:* - The Roman Pontiffs Saints Victor, [[Zephyrinus]] and [[Callistus]] condemned the monarchians and the Sabellians - [[Zephyrinus]] professed that there is one God, that Christ is God, but that the Father did not die. - [[Callistus]] said that the Father and the Son are one God, but not one person. - The Council of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosate in 260. - The Roman Pontiff, St. Dionysius, in the case of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, lucidly condemned all the anti-trinitarian errors, and in an excellent way proposed the doctrine of the Trinity. - From *the testimonies of ecclesiastical authors:* - Almost all of the ante-Nicene authors are outstanding witnesses of the trinitarian faith. - *St. [[Clement]] of Rome*: “God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, the faith and the hope of the elect,” which is the formula of an oath and adjuration from the O.T. - *St. [[Ignatius]]*: “There is one doctor, both carnal and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God existing in the flesh and in death true life, from Mary and from God...our Lord Jesus Christ;” “Our God Jesus Christ was nurtured in the womb by Mary according to the plan of God, from the seed indeed of David, but by the Holy Spirit.” - St. Ignatius is the most distinguished witness of the divinity of Christ. - *St. [[Aristedes]]*: expresses the divinity of the three persons. - *St. [[Justin Martyr]]:* declares the distinction and divinity of the persons, and the generation of the Word without a separation; about the Son he says this: “Those who say that the Son is the Father prove that they do not know the Father, and they do not acknowledge the Son to be from the Father of all things. Since the Word is the first-born of God, he also is God.” - *St. [[Athenagoras]]*: “Therefore who is not astonished, when he hears that they are called atheists who say that the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit, and demonstrate both their power in union and their distinction in order?” - *St. [[Theophilus of Antioch]]*: “Those three days, that before were shining lamps, are an image of the Trinity,... , of God, of his Word, and of his Wisdom;” “The Word was always existing and dwelt in the heart of God... since he is God and born from God...” - St. [[Irenaeus]]: outstanding in his explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity; he rejects suspect theories about the bringing forth of the Word, he defends his eternal generation and concerning the Holy Spirit he teaches clearly the same thing that the Fathers of the 4th century taught: “This is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ through his Word who is his Son....But the Son is always coexisting with the Father...;” “One God the Father is shown, who is over all and through all and in all. Indeed the Father is over all and he is the head of Christ; the Word is through all and is the head of the Church; the Spirit is in all of us and he is living water.” - *[[Tertullian]]*: was the first to shape the technical Latin terminology, though not perfectly (see b.2 c.l a .3 th.27 n.333 for full list and quotations.) - e.g.: “*The three are one essence, not one person,* as was said: The Father and I are one, in a *unity of substance*, not according to the singularity of a number.” - *St. [[Hippolytus]]*: says the same thing: “When God was alone...being alone he was many.... In addition to those things that were made he generated the Word as leader, counselor and worker,” etc. - *Antipope [[Novatian]]*: "having joined the divinity of the Word together with matter, we hold according to the Scriptures that (Christ) is God,” etc. *By generation and procession* he reconciles the unity of God with the plurality of persons. - *[[Clement of Alexandria]]*: “*Both* (God and the Word) *are one*, namely *God*;” “When he says that he was from the beginning he touches on *generation* without a beginning of the Son existing together with the Father... .For the Word (this is the Son) which according to the equality of substance is one with the Father, is *eternal* and *uncreated*.” - [[Origen]]: to a great extent developed the *Greek terminology* concerning the Trinity, took the beginning of the explanation from the *apostolic preaching*, and with great vigor rejected what the Arians taught later. - see b.2 c.l a .3 th.27 n.335 for lengthy list and quotations from his disciples on *consubstantiality* of Father and Son, etc. - e.g. [[Adamantius]]: “I believe.. .that there is one God; and God the Word, who was born from him and is *consubstantial* with him.. ..I also believe in the Holy Spirit, who always is” ## Objections from some ante-Nicene authors: **Thesis:** Though there are some difficulties, their objections are not opposed to the genuine and universal tradition of the Church. - *Statement* *of the difficulties*: - In many of those authors there is present a way of speaking that smacks of *subordinationism*, which was abused by the Arians and the Semi-Arians. - They say that the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are worshipped in the second and third place. - St. [[Justin Martyr]]: “Jesus Christ... we were taught that he is the Son of the true God, and he is in the second place, while we have the prophetic Spirit in the third order...” - [[Tertullian]]: “And thus the Father is other than the Son, since he is greater than the Son...while I acknowledge the Son, I defend him as second from the Father.” - [[Origen]] and others speak often in the same way. - [[Tertullian]] calls the Word a *derivation* or a *portion of the whole*: “The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation of the whole or a portion.” - [[Origen]] calls the Father ..., but the Son ... without the article, the second God ..., and others say the same (see *STS* for Greek). - They say that the generation of the Word is *voluntary*. [[Tatian]]: “The Word sprang forth from the will of his simplicity;” [[Novatian]]: “This one therefore when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father.” - The Son served the Father in creation, and followed his will. [[Theophilus of Antioch]]: “He used this Word to carry out his works.” [[Hippolytus]]: “At the command of the Father to make the world, the Word accomplished each thing in a way pleasing to God.” [[Origen]]: “The Word, however, as he was commanded made all things” - When they hand on the explanation of the dogma, they produce theories that seem to be infected with *subordinationism* or also *modalism*. - They explain the generation of the Word in reference to the creation of the world. For they seem to distinguish the internal Word (some call it innate) in the mind of God himself, and the spoken Word like external speech; and they call this discourse generation or perfect generation - Western theologians, [[Tertullian]], [[Hippolytus]] and [[Novatian]], call the *Trinity* “*economy*, dispensation, disposition, administration of a monarchy.” They oppose the monarchianists, but it is an idea that does not sufficiently protect the personality of the Word and the Holy Spirit. - They usually refer the theophanies in the O.T. to the Son, because the Father is invisible by reason of his immensity, but the Son is visible according to his own operation - [[Theophilus]]: “The Word... assuming the person of the Father and Lord of the universe, entered into Paradise in the person of God and spoke with Adam.” - [[Tertullian]]: “The Son was visible before the flesh, according to the way in which he speaks to Aaron and Maria.” - [[Origen]] seems to attribute to the Son not complete simplicity, because he contains ideas of things to be created; he has less knowledge than the Father; he circumscribes the operation of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with strict limits: “of the Son less than the Father, attaining finally rational things, still less the Holy Spirit having recognized only the saints; he says that in a proper sense only the Father should be prayed to: “it is not necessary to pray to the generated one...but only to the Father to whom he prayed." - *Opinions:* - *Rationalists:* these theories are a sign of the wavering and confused Christian mind about the Trinity in the early centuries. - *Catholic theologians:* whatever may be said about their imperfect way of speaking and speculating about the Trinity, that their faith in the Church and the genuine tradition is not weakened. Even to the authors who are infected with these defects, one cannot deny substantially their correct profession of dogma. - *Regardless,* there are those who say that they are really infected with subordinationism and that their teachings are contrary to the Trinitarian dogma. - *Adherents:* J.H. Newman, etc. - Even these authors, however, often soften their previous, harsher judgements in later writings. - *Others* however think that these theories and ways of speaking, even though they are imperfect, deserve a more benign interpretation. - *Adherents:* Bossuet, [[Franzelin]], etc. - *Resolution* *of the difficulties*: - Although it is true that some of the authors erred in explaining and defending the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity, *the faith of the Church did not suffer any damage from them.* - *Proof:* - The faith of the early Church is not based on these authors alone, and not primarily on them. - Those about whom one can raise a doubt were not Fathers of the Church in the strict sense, such as Tatian, Tertullian, Hippolytus and perhaps Origen. - Many such authors were at another time heretics or schismatics. - At that time suspicions were raised concerning their teachings; this is a fact that confirms the authentic faith of the Church. - St. [[Irenaeus]] seems to reprehend the theories of the apologists concerning the producing of the Word. - [[Tertullian]] and [[Origen]] declare that not everything they said can be proved. - [[Hippolytus]] himself reports that Popes [[Zephyrinus]] and [[Callistus]] accused him of a certain ditheism. - From Catholic principles it is certain that in the unerring Church there was always a distinct Catholic understanding of the principal dogma, at least according to its essential elements, namely, the true uniqueness of God, the real distinction of the persons, and their true divinity. - [[Franzelin]]: "it seems that these points should be firmly held; therefore we think that it is not possible to admit what was said against it." - Almost all of the ways of speaking and of the theories about the Trinity proposed at that time by Catholics, even though they do not explain it perfectly, *are free from error.* - *The ways of speaking* of these authors considered in themselves *can be* explained as formulas perhaps less apt in order to explain the *order of origin* among the divine persons, or they should be understood *metaphorically.* - Unless there is a problem with that for some other reason, *they ought to be explained in that way*, given the admirable firmness with which at the same time the same authors hand on the faith of the universal Church. - in such a profound matter almost all ways of speaking are more or less imperfect. - until certain terms were fixed, one could not demand from those writers that they speak with the care and exactness that was established later. - See b.2 c.l a.3 TH.28 N.340 for resolution of specific difficulties from some authors ([[Origen]], [[Tertullian]], etc.) - In judging the theories of the apologists of the 2nd century and of the theologians of the 3rd century, it is important to note that they are not acting as philosophers, even though they were philosophers, but as *apologists and expositors and defenders of dogma* against the pagans and modalistic heretics, or as interpreters of Holy Scripture - See b.2 c.l a.3 TH.28 N.341-343 for resolution of specific difficulties, particularly those of [[Origen]], the most difficult. - *Theological note*: The first part is *historically and theologically certain*; and the second part is *more probable.* ## The mystery of the Holy Trinity in tradition (Nicene and post-Nicene): **Thesis**: The thinking of the Fathers of the 4th century about the consubstantiality of the Trinity is wholly genuine and catholic. - **Brief history of Arian crisis**: - *318 A.D.*: Dispute with Arius begins. Teaches that the Son is a creature. There was a time when the Son did not exist. - Summarized in his work *Thalia* (or *Banquet*). - *325 A.D.*: Council of Nicaea (first ecumenical council). Nicene Creed is written, declaring that the Father and the Son are of the same substance (_homousios_), thereby taking a decidedly anti-Arian stand. - *ousia*: means 1) individual substance (first substance), 2) essence (second substance). - The Council meant *both* first and second substance (T.J. White) - *homousia:* can mean "one in essence" or "one in individual being." - Explicitly rejects the notion that if there is a distinction of persons you have a distinction of essence. - *381 A.D.*: Council of Constantinople I (second ecumenical council). Condemned the *pneumatomachi* and affirmed the consubstantiality of the Word. - **State of the question:** After the condemnation of [[Arianism]] and the definition of the consubstantiality of the Son of God in the Council of Nicaea (325), soon a large anti-Nicene movement begins, which gives birth to [[Arianism]] redivivus and semi-[[Arianism]]. - *Main positions:* - *Catholics:* said the Father and the Son are *homousion* (*consubstantial*). - *Adherents:* St. [[Athanasius]], St. [[Hilary]], Cappadocian Fathers (St. [[Basil]] the Great, St. [[Gregory of Nazianzus]], St. [[Gregory of Nyssa]]). - *Strict Arians*: called *anhomoians*, because they said that the Son is *not similar* to the Father. - *Adherents:* [[Eusebius of Nicomedia]], Aetius, and Eunomius (from whom they are also called *Eunomians*). - *Homoiani*: called such because they said the Word is *similar* to the Father. - *Semi-Arians*: said that the Son is *homoiusion* or *wholly similar* to the Father. - [[Semi-Arianism]] is a very unstable doctrine. For “homoiusion” was either a mask for [[Arianism]] or it could not mean anything other in reality than what is meant by the true “homousion.” *Catholics* did not accept them without a certain caution. - The question is raised about what really was the mind of the Fathers of the Church during all this time regarding the *consubstantiality* of the divine persons, which Catholics defended with all their strength. - **The idea of consubstantiality:** communion or unity of substance and essence of beings that otherwise are really distinct. - All Catholics that all the orthodox Fathers at Nicaea and after understood it as consubstantiality in the strict sense, *in the unity of one divinity.* - *Two senses:* - *Improper* (or *specific*): the consubstantiality of *creatures*. The unity and community of substance is only a logical difference, because each individual has his own nature or substance really distinct from others - *Proper* (or *strict*): due to the uniqueness of the divine nature. It is their real unity in nature. - **The meaning of the Council of Nicaea:** - The Greek word for *consubstantial* is... and based on this idea the divinity of the Son was defined. The word means communion of essence, that is, the unity of the divine nature in the Father and the Son who are really distinct - Clear from the controversy with the Arians, and from the history of the definition which was described by St. Athanasius in *De decretis Nicaenae Synodi* and elsewhere. - **Other meanings of the term:** - *Gnostics* and *Neo-Platonists:* indefinite meaning of *derivation* or participation of the divine nature in the eons and in the beings imagined to exist between God and created things. - *Catholics:* what is consubstantial with another was said to be that *which, as proceeding from God, has the same nature as he.* - In a similar way in human affairs as to how a son has a community of nature with the one who generates him. - On the other hand, created things have a substance different from that of their Creator. - This is also applied to the Holy Spirit. - *Arius:* the Catholic meaning was explicitly denied. - **Adversaries:** - *Rationalists*: impute to the Fathers of the 4th century a new explanation of consubstantiality which they designate with the name, *Neo-Nicenism*. - To these authors it is very obscure in what sense the word *homousion* was understood at Nicaea. - The interpretation of Catholic authors after the Council was new and eventually found its way into the Council of Constantinople I. - *Adherents*: Theodore Zahn, [[Adolf von Harnack]], some 17th century Anglicans (Cudworth, Clericus), and others. - **Theological note:** The thesis is *historically* and *dogmatically* entirely *certain*. - **Proof of the thesis:** - *Proof I*: The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was understood by all about the numerical unity (as the scholastic theologians say) or about the singularity of the divine nature in two Persons really distinct, not about a unity or universality, or of a subordinating quasi-universality. - The Fathers were strict monotheists and did not admit that there are inferior gods or anything of the sort. - *St. Athanasius*: to explain consubstantiality used the expression *identity of essence* or of divinity. - The Son is not only similar to the Father, but *he is the same and inseparable from his essence, which exists without composition*, and therefore the Son is other than the Father without division. Divine generation does not imply division of the essence or separation. - *St. Hilary:* uses the same formulas. He corrects the comparison with human generation, for in God *there is no transfusion of one to another*, but *unity of the same nature in both.* - “Therefore God is one (since both the Father is God, and the Son is God) because originlessness belongs only to one. But the Son is God for this reason—because he was born from the originless essence.” - *Proof II:* The true divinity of the Holy Sprit and his consubstantiality with the Father and the Son was defended against the *pneumatomchi*; on this account the whole doctrine about the Holy Spirit was explained. - As soon as the pneumatomachi appeared, they were immediately opposed by St. Athanasius, and afterwards by the Cappadocian Fathers, by Didymus and others - Using the Scriptures, they establish his absolute likeness of nature and equality with the two other persons, and his consubstantiality and communion of essence with them - *St. Athanasius*: “For the Trinity is undivided, and its divinity is one, and there is one God over all, through all and in all.” - *St. Basil*: “Therefore the identity of operation in Father, Son and Holy Spirit clearly shows the absolute similitude of nature. Wherefore even though the name of divinity refers to the nature, nevertheless in a proper sense the *communion of essence* demonstrates that that title is suitable also to the Holy Spirit.” - *St. Gregory Nazianzen*: “The Godhead is, to speak concisely, *undivided in separate Persons*.” - *St. Gregory of Nyssa*: the Holy Spirit “is separated neither by distance nor by a difference of nature from the Father or the Only-Begotten,” and he uses the same Athanasian ways of speaking about the unity of deity, nature and essence. - *The documents of the Church* against the Macedonians.: - The anathemas of St. Damasus accepted by the Council of Constantinople I. - The *Nicene-Constantinople Creed.* Having retained the “homousion” with regard to the Son, what pertains to the divinity of the Holy Spirit was added: the word *Lord*, the divine name of Christ, *who proceeds from the Father*. - Against the pneumatomachi, who said that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son—“who is adored and glorified with the Father and the Son.” - Though it has been doubted whether the Council of Constantinople I published this symbol or creed, at least since the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451) it has been attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council and has been used in the universal Church. - The Council of Constantinople I speaks about the consubstantial Trinity. - The Athanasian Creed (*Quicumquae Vult*), one of the four major creeds, has been in constant use by the Church. - *Proof II:* The formula "one essence, three hypostases" was understood about the true unity of singularity of the divine nature, not merely specific unity, or quasi-specific unity in the heterodox *homoiusion* sense. - *Formula "three hypostases"*: proposed by [[Origen]] and Dionysius of Alexandria. The Arians abused it and semi-Arians opposed it to homousion. - *Hypostasis*: "An individual, complete substance existing entirely in itself; an incommunicable substance. The term used by the Church to identify the *persons* in the Trinity and the union of two natures in one divine person in Christ. A person is a hypostasis endowed with reason." (Hardon, *Modern Catholic Dictionary*). - It can be translated as "singular personal subject" (White, *The Trinity*), or often just "person" in English. - See *ST* I.29.2 on the meaning of the terms 'person,' 'hypostasis,' 'substance,' and 'essence.' - For Latins, this was particularly difficult, as they translated it as *substance* by which word they meant *essence.* - Thus, they thought it was more suitable to be used for the divine nature, and many Greeks also thought the same thing. - Even so, when the meaning of the word “ousia” was settled, hypostasis was considered the best word to designate the three persons, as many of the Orientals maintained. - *ST* I.29.2 ad 2: "As we say '*three persons*' (*tres personas*) plurally in God, and *three subsistences* (*tres subsistentias*), so the Greeks say *three hypostases* (*tres hypostases*)....in order to avoid any occasion of error, it was thought preferable to use *subsistence* for hypostasis, rather than *substance*." - *Council of Alexandria* (362): orthodox homoiusions were asked in what sense they understood the formula, and they said that they proposed it in order that they might profess *the Trinity not just in name only, but as truly subsistent*, but in no way do they tolerate three gods, *but one divinity and one beginning principle.* - Those who spoke of one hypostasis wanted to declare that in God one undivided essence must be admitted. - After having once again condemned the Sabellians and the Arians, permission was given for both formulas. - It is established that the formula “one substance, three hypostases” was understood in the Church about the real individual unity of the undivided divine nature, not about a mere specific unity. - At that time “hypostasis” never designated a second substance, made only one by rational abstraction, but it meant the *first singular substance alone.* - Later, however, especially through the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, in the East and finally also in the West the formula of the three hypostases gained more and more acceptance; *it was really the best formula, and they understood it in the same way*, as is evident from their teaching. - *St. Basil:* explicitly excludes a *merely quasi-specific consubstantiality.* - “Not even the insane,” could possibly think “that God is a kind of community, intelligible by reason alone, and divided into several subjects,” as man is divided into Peter, Paul and John. - cf. Modern "social Trinity" theology (Moltmann). - “Do not divide him into a multitude of gods, but confess one nature in both. One God and Father, one God and Son, not two gods, since the Son has identity with the Father...” - “But when I say one essence, be on your guard about understanding two divided from one.... But identity is the essence.” - The one and simple essence is so common to the three that *not even mentally can he discern in it a distinction*: “Do not imagine in your mind that there are three, like undivided parts of one thing." - He distinguishes two persons from the one property of generated and ungenerated. - *St. Gregory of Nazianzen:* - “When I say God you grasp him under one light and three; three with regard to properties or hypostases...or persons, one with regard to the idea of substance or divinity.... For the indistinct is distinguished, so to speak, and it is connected with the distinct. For one in three is divinity, and *the three one*, I mean those in which there is divinity, or to speak more properly, *who are divinity*.” - *St. Gregory of Nyssa*: - the profundity of the mystery is “how the same thing is both numbered and flees numeration...and is distinguished regarding hypostasis and is not separated in the subject." - “Professing the nature without difference, we will not deny a distinction of the cause and the caused, *in which alone we apprehend that one is distinguished from the other*,’' “since the simple and immutable divine nature rejects all distinction with regard to the essence, because it is one to such an extent that it does not admit in itself any sign of plurality,” as if “there were a division of the essence of the subjects.” - **Objections:** See STS b.2 c.l a.3 th.29 N.352-355 for objections from the Rationalist theory of *neo-Niceneism*. ## Natural Reason and the Mystery of the Holy Trinity: **Thesis**: The mystery of the Holy Trinity, which is a mystery in the strict sense, is not opposed to natural reason. - **Definition of terms:** - *Mystery:* - *Vatican I*: “of their very nature so excel the created intellect that even when they have been given in revelation and accepted by faith, that very faith still keeps them veiled in a sort of obscurity,” and therefore in no way can they “be understood and demonstrated from natural principles.” - By the use of natural reason neither their *existence* nor their *essence* or possibility can be *proved positively*. - Reason can find some probable reasons by which the mind is more easily brought to faith in them. - Reason can sufficiently understand the terms in which they are expressed, explain them to some degree with analogies, and scientifically propose their nature. - Reason can and ought to show that they are not opposed to natural reason, which it does *negatively*, namely by showing that reasons raised against the mysteries are not certain. - **Adversaries**: - *That it is a mystery in the strict sense:* - *Peter Abelard:* "proves" the Trinity from the three divine attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. - *Contra:* introduces a veiled [[Sabellianism]] and erroneously confuses the appropriations with the personal properties. - see *ST* I.30.1 ad 2: "although (the absolute properties in God) subsist, nevertheless they are not several subsistent realities -- that is, several persons." - *Richard of St. Victor*: "proves" it from charity and from the supreme divine happiness which can be had only between distinct persons. - *Contra*: false because of God’s infinity. - *Raymond Lull*: argues from the necessary communication of God and his beneficence. - *Contra*: if it were to accomplish anything, it would complete the Trinity with one procession, and it would make the third person a product of the second person. - *Hermes*: contends that all Christian mysteries ought to be proved by natural reason. - *Gunther*: from a process of the conscious evolution of... - *Contra:* would accomplish the same thing as Lull, for according to him the knowing subject, the object known and the identity of both are subsistent and distinct. Moreover, he errs gravely both in conceiving divine cognition as produced, and in his concept of the person as consciousness of itself, by which the divine unity is constituted in a certain relative unity of three absolutes; this concept is diametrically opposed to Catholic doctrine. - *Rosmini*: after revelation, the Trinity pertains to the philosophical disciplines, and he "proved" it from three forms of *esse*—subjectivity, objectivity and the unity of both, which in an absolute *esse* or being cannot be conceived except as three subsistent persons. - *Contra:* same as Gunther, and the result is that the Holy Spirit is the Word itself insofar as it is loved. - *Schell*: deduces the Trinity from the positive aseity by which God is the cause of himself. - *That it is not opposed to reason:* Heretics who deny the Trinity, and deists and rationalists of all kinds. - **Doctrine of the Church:** - Clear from the condemnation of the opinions of Hermes, Gunther and Rosmini. - *Vatican I*: with explicit words it is stated that in revelation there are mysteries in the strict sense. - From the sense of the Church, if there is any mystery, the Trinity is the greatest of all. - Explicitly defines that “there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason.” - **Theological note:** - *That the Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense:* at least *theologically certain*, and according to many theologians it is *proximate to faith*. - *That the mystery of the Trinity is not opposed to reason:* *of faith* (*de fide*), at least *implicitly*, based on the revelation itself of the mystery, and from *Vatican I*. - **Proof:** - *That the Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense*: - *From Scripture:* in opposition to those things which can be known about God naturally (Rom. l:19f.), attributes what pertains to the mystery of the Trinity to one divine revelation (Matt. 11:27; 16:17). - *Fathers of the Church:* with great profundity teach the ineffable mystery of the Trinity. - *St. Irenaeus*: “Irrationally proud and rashly you say that you know the ineffable mysteries of God....Therefore since his generation is ineffable, whoever tries to explain his generations and words is out of his mind, when he promises to explain those things that are ineffable.” - *St. Hilary*: “I must undertake something that cannot be limited and venture upon something that cannot be comprehended, so that I may speak about God who cannot be adequately defined. He fixed the names of the nature—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whatever is sought over and above this transcends the meaning of words, the limits of perception, and the concepts of understanding. It may not be expressed, attained, or grasped. The nature of this subject exhausts the meaning of words, an impenetrable light darkens the vision of the mind, and whatever is without limits is beyond the capacity of our power of reasoning.” - *St. Gregory of Nyssa*: “And so one who diligently studies the depths of the mystery...is unable to explain clearly in words the ineffable depth of this mystery. As, for instance, how the same thing is capable of being numbered and yet rejects numeration, how it is observed with distinctions yet is apprehended as a monad, how it is separate as to personality yet is not divided as to subject matter.” - *Theological reasoning:* - Natural reason cannot *positively show the possibility of the Trinity.* - A complete nature and individual essence cannot naturally be understood except as incommunicable as such, and therefore as a suppositum (i.e., a person of an intellectual nature). But the Trinity is the mystery of an individual nature really communicated to three persons. And even though there is a logical distinction between nature and suppositum, it is not apparent to natural reason that there can be persons really distinct in the same nature, for it does not see that it is possible to affirm a real communication of one nature in several persons, or the multiplication of persons without the multiplication of nature. That is especially the case because of the great difficulties that occur from the principles that are seen from the evidence of reason. - Attempts to prove the Trinity by reason, proceed either from false principles or they pervert the dogma itself. - St. Thomas Aquinas: “Whoever tries to prove the Trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from the faith” - *That the mystery of the Trinity is not opposed to reason:* - *From the nature of truth:* - There cannot be any true opposition between *faith and reason*, “because it is the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith and has put the light of reason into the human soul. Now God cannot deny himself any more than the truth can ever contradict the truth.” (*Vatican I*) - *From the incomprehensibility of God:* - In order that reason can prove that a Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence is repugnant, it would have to show that: - It is repugnant to the proper way of existing of God. - *Cannot prove this* because by natural reason we do not know the proper way of divine existing, except inasmuch as analogically and with negative concepts we assert the greatest eminence of the divine being over and above anything thinkable. - It is opposed to the most universal principles of reason, according as they are legitimately in agreement with absolutely every being. - *Cannot prove this* because the analogy of being rightly understood should make us very cautious in determining the evidence by which the first principles based on it are known, lest gradually a certain transition or illegitimate extension occurs in applying them to the supreme being. - *By the solution of difficulties*, which is negative, but sufficient. - Solution of the difficulties of reason is based on a *distinction of reason* which has to be shown to exist between the *nature* and the *persons* or *relations*. - Insofar as it responds to our concept of *nature* is one, but insofar as it responds to our concept of *person* is a Trinity, that is, there are three persons. - There is no logical difficulty against the Trinity from the *principle of contradiction*, since there is never an affirmation or negation of the same thing about the same thing and in the same sense. - What in created things would imply a contradiction can be predicated of God, such as to be generated and not to be generated, which are said about the Son and the divine essence that are really identified, but it is done according to a reason that is formally different. - In *syllogisms* that are made about divine things, the aspect of *community* proper to the divine nature must be taken into account, both if this is a major or minor term, and especially when it is the middle term that is compared with personal or notional terms. - In this case the rules of *categorical* syllogisms must be applied and also the principles *said about all, said about none* (*dictum de omni, dictum de nullo*), but not the rules of the *expository* syllogism and the principle of *real identity*, even though the divine nature is really singular, because it is at the same time common (to three persons). For the expository syllogism demands full incommunicability of the middle term. - **Objections:** b.2 c.l a.4 th.30 n.363-370. # On the divine processions: ## The Existence of Processions in God: **Thesis:** In God there are two immanent processions. - **Definition of terms:** - *Procession:* a true production or the origin of one from another. Always involves a real distinction between the proceeding term and the principle from which it proceeds. - two kinds: - *Transient:* one whose term goes outside of the producing principle, as the world proceeds from the creating God. - Does not apply to the processions of the Persons. - *Immanent:* one whose term remains within its principle, as intellection remains within the one knowing. - Applies to both intellection and volition. - It is *of identity with divine nature.* - In *created substantial production*, namely in generation, the nature is said to be *communicated*. - This communication, which is only specific, is had only to the extent that a new nature is produced that is similar in nature to the producing principle. - In the divine processions there is *a perfect communication* of the *very same nature*, that is, of the divine nature, the principle producing the produced term. - the *term*, the *person*, is *produced*, but *the nature is not produced*, but only *communicated*. - the divine processions are not processions *of the operation of intellection and volition*, which are not produced and are unique in God, since they are really identified with the divine essence, but rather *by way of having been operated* (*per modum operati*), by the activities of understanding and loving. - The processions in God are most perfect and they take place without any dependence or causality in the proper sense - Among the Latins the word “cause” is not admitted, but only the word “principle.” - the Greek authors, as we have already said, use the word... equally with the word..., which has been permitted by the Church. - Does not introduce a transition: - From *potency to act*, but the *communication of a pure act*. - From non-being to being. - Something that *becomes* in the order of time, as is clear. - In the order of nature, because there is no causality or dependence. - In the order of reason, because the being (*esse*) of the proceeding person is the divine being itself. - The persons are constituted by the relations which are logically simultaneous. - see John 8:42; 15:26. - **Adversaries**: - Denied a true internal procession: - *[[Arianism]]:* the proceeding persons are outside of the divinity - *[[Sabellianism]]* - *[[modalism]]:* having denied a real distinction among the persons, necessarily had to reject the real origin of the Word and the Holy Spirit. - See St. Thomas I.27.1 - **Doctrine of the Church:** uninterrupted in the symbols and definitions, as we shall see in the following theses. - **Theological note:** It is *divine, catholic and defined faith* concerning the notions of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. - **Proof of the thesis**: It will be proved in the following theses from the sources of revelation. - The word *proceeds* concerning the Son is found in John 8:42 and concerning the Holy Spirit in John 15:26. - We do not prove the thesis just from this word alone. - **Theological reasoning:** Origin or procession is the unique reason why several persons can subsist in the divine nature. But there are three persons in God. Therefore there must be two processions in God. - *Major premise*: evident from the dogmatic and theological axiom: “in God everything is one where there is no distinction by relative opposition,” which cannot be anything else but a relation of origin. - *Minor premise:* clear from dogma. - *Conclusion:* will be proved in the next thesis. - **Natural reasoning:** cannot prove the thesis. According to Suarez, the very possibility of procession “is held more by faith, than it is proved by reason.” - Reason can show that no contradiction has been proven with regard to divine processions, that the mind can be led in a certain way to admit the divine processions, and to solve the opposing reasons. - *Procession in God is not repugnant* to reason. - Procession is not contrary to the supreme divine perfection *from the part of the producer*, for generally “to produce” is a mark of perfection. - *Objection:* Divine procession would be repugnant, either from the part of the *produced term*, because then it would have its being from another, or from the part of the production itself. - *Response:* That production include no imperfection, it is necessary that the product should receive exactly the same being that is in the producer. - If it received something else, then there would be in the product a participated being, which understandably includes some imperfection. - This production must be of such a nature that, through it, the same being is communicated. This however is not repugnant because that being is infinite, and therefore is communicable to all the persons with whom it does not affirm opposition. - Or, it can be in that nature which, because of its infinity, can be really identified with the producing principle and with the produced term that are really distinct. - If we accept this truth that it is not repugnant that the product receives the same nature that is in the producer, then it is easy to understand both that: - The true God can be produced. - Clear because whoever possesses divine nature is true God, and he has it either from himself or as communicated from another. - That such a production does not contain any imperfection. - Clear because the divine nature itself excludes all imperfection because it contains supreme perfection. # On the divine relations: # On the Divine Persons: # On the missions of the divine persons: