Monarchy of the Father

[thinkandmull]

It still hasn’t been shown what about the notions is not of the Father.

innascibility is paternity seen by itself without the Son. Filiation is the relationship back of the son. Procession must be also, so why is procession a notion and not filiation? What about the Holy Spirit here is Aquinas’s speculation?

Sent. certa is just Ott’s speculation. How can there really be different kinds of infallible? I don’t think there is. That’s just his opinion

 

[Vico]

…

Sent. certa is just Ott’s speculation. How can there really be different kinds of infallible? I don’t think there is. That’s just his opinion

Fr. William A. Rice on 05-03-2002: Dear Mark, “De Fide” is a designation given to a dogma that MUST be believed by all the faithful. “Sent. certa” or “Sententia certa” is a designation given to doctrines that are said to be a “Certain Opinion.” In other words they have not been declared “de fide” but still are very certainly true. They have been part of the magisterium of the Church all along. Fr. Rice ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=319349&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=3&groupnum=329&record_bookmark=82381

 

[Vico]

It still hasn’t been shown what about the notions is not of the Father.

innascibility is paternity seen by itself without the Son. Filiation is the relationship back of the son. Procession must be also, so why is procession a notion and not filiation? What about the Holy Spirit here is Aquinas’s speculation?

…

The subsistent property that constitutes the person must be the one positive property prior in order of nature and there may be more than one in consideration. For the Father, being the first source is insufficient because it is a negation. Common origin of Spirit presupposes Paternity and Filiation, so the first notion of Father is Paternity. The first notion of Son is Filiation, and the notion of Holy Spirit is active spiration. So one can see that only three of the five notions are personal properties.

 

[thinkandmull]

Fr. William A. Rice on 05-03-2002: Dear Mark, “De Fide” is a designation given to a dogma that MUST be believed by all the faithful. “Sent. certa” or “Sententia certa” is a designation given to doctrines that are said to be a “Certain Opinion.” In other words they have not been declared “de fide” but still are very certainly true. They have been part of the magisterium of the Church all along. Fr. Rice ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=319349&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=3&groupnum=329&record_bookmark=82381

You’re other post said that were infallible, not just certain.

Theologians like to write that there “common consensus” is binding on lay people. Who made them the deciders of this, God only knows

 

[thinkandmull]

The subsistent property that constitutes the person must be the one positive property prior in order of nature and there may be more than one in consideration. For the Father, being the first source is insufficient because it is a negation. Common origin of Spirit presupposes Paternity and Filiation, so the first notion of Father is Paternity. The first notion of Son is Filiation, and the notion of Holy Spirit is active spiration. So one can see that only three of the five notions are personal properties.

But how can Catholics disagree with Aquinas on the notions, as he says we can. Q 33 Art 2 On the Contrary. He argues that paternity, that notion, is from the Bible.

 

[Vico]

You’re other post said that were infallible, not just certain.

Theologians like to write that there “common consensus” is binding on lay people. Who made them the deciders of this, God only knows

What is infallible and binding are two different things. What we are bound to accept includes the de fide, fides ecclesiastica, sententia fidei proxima, and certa. All of those are certain.

Ludwig Ott actually wrote:With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.

and

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediateiy revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita”.
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

After those are 3) sententia fidei proxima, and 4) theologice certa, both of which are certain truth.

You referred to common consensus which is less than certain:

These are 5) sententia communis, 6) sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata, 7) sententia pia, 8) opinio tolerata.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church hasn’t infallibly taught that non-infallible opinions of the hierarchy are binding.

 

[thinkandmull]

q 32 art 3 summa

Reply to Objection 4. Since Person implies dignity, as stated above (Question 19, Article
3) we cannot derive a **notion of the Holy Spirit **from the fact that no person is from Him. For this does not belong to His dignity, as it belongs to the authority of the Father that He is from no one.

maybe that is what we can disagree on in Aquinas’s opinion

 

[Vico]

The Church hasn’t infallibly taught that non-infallible opinions of the hierarchy are binding.

It has canon law for what is to be accepted. Canon law is not always about divine law, so there is no expectation that everything binding is infallible.

For the canons, CCEO:Canon 598 –
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

q 32 art 3 summa

Reply to Objection 4. Since Person implies dignity, as stated above (Question 19, Article
3) we cannot derive a **notion of the Holy Spirit **from the fact that no person is from Him. For this does not belong to His dignity, as it belongs to the authority of the Father that He is from no one.

maybe that is what we can disagree on in Aquinas’s opinion

It is not clear what you propose. He states that the irascibility notion belongs to the Father not the Holy Spirit. But we also know (pervious post) that irascibility is insufficient to constitute a personal property anyway, even if a notion.

 

[thinkandmull]

It has canon law for what is to be accepted. Canon law is not always about divine law, so there is no expectation that everything binding is infallible.

For the canons, CCEO:Canon 598 –
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

That only is about infallible teaching.

 

[thinkandmull]

It is not clear what you propose. He states that the irascibility notion belongs to the Father not the Holy Spirit. But we also know (pervious post) that irascibility is insufficient to constitute a personal property anyway, even if a notion.

You’ve been deviating from Aquinas’s wording. He says “Four only are properties. For common spiration is not a property, because it belongs to two persons.” I know what you mean though.

My point about Reply to Objection 4 is that maybe it is part of the dignity of the Holy Spirit not to have someone proceed from Him, and that is where we can disagree with Aquinas on. Because so far you haven’t said what about the Notions as Aquinas describes them is not of the Faith

 

[Vico]

You’ve been deviating from Aquinas’s wording. He says “Four only are properties. For common spiration is not a property, because it belongs to two persons.” I know what you mean though.

My point about Reply to Objection 4 is that maybe it is part of the dignity of the Holy Spirit not to have someone proceed from Him, and that is where we can disagree with Aquinas on. Because so far you haven’t said what about the Notions as Aquinas describes them is not of the Faith

Yes, that was a mistake to call common spiration a property. Properties of each Person allow them to be distinguished one from another.

Notions are characteristics we know that allow us to distinguish the Persons. This is the classical list of notions from Peter Lombard:

1. • innascibility
   • paternity
   • filiation
   • common spiration (active)
   • procession (passive spiration)
   The notions are not dogma because they describe reality as we described and understand it. To say these notions are dogma would be to make some heretics. There are other ways to describe and understand this. **Divine simplicity **is not changed by applying our language, i.e., we can employ abstract names to talk of God’s essence and concrete names to talk of subsisting relations. When considering intellectual abstraction as opposed to reality, relation it is still necessary for the distinction of the Persons.
   
   Re: “maybe it is part of the dignity of the Holy Spirit [to] not to have someone proceed from Him”.
   
   Dignity is rank or order. The subsistent property that constitutes the person must be the one positive property prior in order of nature, and there may be more than one in consideration.
   • The first notion of Father is Paternity.
   • The first notion of Son is Filiation.
   • The first notion of Holy Spirit is active spiration.
   St.Thomas Aquinas died in 1274 A.D. well before the councils of Lyons II and Florence.

 

[thinkandmull]

**Therefore, there are Five notions in God: “innascibility,” “paternity,” “filiation,” “common spiration” and “procession.” Of these only four are relations, for “innascibility” is not a relation, except by reduction, as will appear later (33, 4, ad 3). Four only are properties. For “common spiration” is not a property; because it belongs to two persons. Three are personal notions–i.e. constituting persons, “paternity,” “filiation,” and “procession.” “Common spiration” and “innascibility” are called notions of Persons, but not personal notions, as we shall explain further on (40, 1, ad 1). **

Why isn’t common spiration a personal notion? I guess that is where there can be disagreement on the notions. That’s my guess, since we have had any other guesses yet

 

[Richca]

**Therefore, there are Five notions in God: “innascibility,” “paternity,” “filiation,” “common spiration” and “procession.” Of these only four are relations, for “innascibility” is not a relation, except by reduction, as will appear later (33, 4, ad 3). Four only are properties. For “common spiration” is not a property; because it belongs to two persons. Three are personal notions–i.e. constituting persons, “paternity,” “filiation,” and “procession.” “Common spiration” and “innascibility” are called notions of Persons, but not personal notions, as we shall explain further on (40, 1, ad 1). **

Why isn’t common spiration a personal notion? I guess that is where there can be disagreement on the notions. That’s my guess, since we have had any other guesses yet

Common spiration is not a personal notion because spiration is common to the Father and the Son. In the Godhead, a personal notion such as paternity is personal because it is personal to the Father only; just as filiation is personal to the Son only and procession to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vico]

**… **Why isn’t common spiration a personal notion? I guess that is where there can be disagreement on the notions…

He uses the terms common spiration and spiration the same. In an earlier post I marked common spiration mistakenly as personal relation, corrected below:

R = relation,
P = property,
PN = personal notion (personal property) constituting person

1. 
   *]innascibility - P
   ]paternity - R, P, PN
   ]filiation - R, P, PN
   ]common spiration (active) - R
   ]procession (passive spiration) - R, P, PN
   
   S.T. I, I, Q 40, 1, 1:Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father,** and** the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained (30, 2).
   S.T. I, I, Q 30, 2, 1:Although there are four relations in God, one of them, spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father** and** of the Son, but belongs to both; thus, although it is a relation, it is not called a property, because it does not belong to only one person; nor is it a personal relation – i.e. constituting a person. The three relations – paternity, filiation, and procession – are called personal properties, constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the person of the Father, filiation is the person of the Son, procession is the person of the Holy Ghost proceeding.

 

[thinkandmull]

Why make it “common” instead of spiration 1 and 2. That would be a relation and thus notion. Why only four relations? You explained it on the other subforum, but still, isn’t it more complete to say there are 6 relations?

Are these semantical disagreements what Aquinas meant when saying we can disagree on the Notions? Its surely not as you say because they are imperfect. We can say God is One, and say its heresy to deny that, even though our idea of one is imperfect.

 

[thinkandmull]

He uses the terms common spiration and spiration the same. In an earlier post I marked common spiration mistakenly as personal relation, corrected below:

R = relation,
P = property,
PN = personal notion (personal property) constituting person

1. 
   *]innascibility - P
   ]paternity - R, P, PN
   ]filiation - R, P, PN
   ]common spiration (active) - R
   ]procession (passive spiration) - R, P, PN
   
   S.T. I, I, Q 40, 1, 1:Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father,** and** the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained (30, 2).
   S.T. I, I, Q 30, 2, 1:Although there are four relations in God, one of them, spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father** and** of the Son, but belongs to both; thus, although it is a relation, it is not called a property, because it does not belong to only one person; nor is it a personal relation – i.e. constituting a person. The three relations – paternity, filiation, and procession – are called personal properties, constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the person of the Father, filiation is the person of the Son, procession is the person of the Holy Ghost proceeding.

1. 
   The common “relation” is a relation of two, each a Person, so in that relation they are Persons, and the relating constitutes the Person

 

[Vico]

The common “relation” is a relation of two, each a Person, so in that relation they are Persons, and the relating constitutes the Person

The divine persons are not like creatures so common “relation” is not used. Due to divine simplicity the persons are essence The divine persons are the subsisting relations themselves.

• Question 28, Article 2: in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself.
• Question 29, Article 4: person signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature.

 

[Vico]

Why make it “common” instead of spiration 1 and 2. That would be a relation and thus notion. Why only four relations? You explained it on the other subforum, but still, isn’t it more complete to say there are 6 relations?

Are these semantical disagreements what Aquinas meant when saying we can disagree on the Notions? Its surely not as you say because they are imperfect. We can say God is One, and say its heresy to deny that, even though our idea of one is imperfect.

Aquinas covered this in Q28, Article 4.

• Relation is based on quantity or action.
• A real relation in God can be based only on action (no quantity in God), according to which there are internal processions in God. These are only two: the action of the intellect and the action of the will.
• Opposite relations arise from these making only four.
• paternity
• filiation
• common spiration (active)
• procession (passive spiration)