Monarchy of the Father

[thinkandmull]

There is a relation from

Father to Son

Son to Father

Father to Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit to Father

Son to Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit to Son

These are ontological relations and its so strange that Aquinas doesn’t speak of them as 6 relations

 

[Vico]

There is a relation from

Father to Son

Son to Father

Father to Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit to Father

Son to Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit to Son

These are ontological relations and its so strange that Aquinas doesn’t speak of them as 6 relations

There are not six that are ontological, as he explains.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m not seeing where he argued that. There is a real relationship between each Person to each of the other two. These 6 relations are the essence of the Trinity. What good did it do to combine some of them and say 4 instead of speaking of each relation?

 

[Vico]

I’m not seeing where he argued that. There is a real relationship between each Person to each of the other two. These 6 relations are the essence of the Trinity. What good did it do to combine some of them and say 4 instead of speaking of each relation?

He did explain it thoroughly. There are only two processions. One is Father to Son and the other is Father (aiton) to Holy Spirit. What St. Thomas Aquinas states is that the personal properties are only three:

1. 
   ]paternity - R, P, PN
   ]filiation - R, P, PN
   ]procession (passive spiration) - R, P, PN* 3
   
   Active:
   Father to Son = paternity
   Father to Holy Spirit - excluded because of shared property
   Son to Holy Spirit - excluded because of shared property
   Passive:
   Son to Father = filiation
   Holy Spirit to Father = procession
   Holy Spirit to Son = procession

 

[thinkandmull]

The Father has a relationship with the Holy Ghost that is not the relationship of the Son to the Holy Ghost. So combining them doesn’t really make sense. There are 6 relationships of love in the Trinity, and just because Aquinas may not have been able to write on each one, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have recognized them.

 

[Vico]

The Father has a relationship with the Holy Ghost that is not the relationship of the Son to the Holy Ghost. So combining them doesn’t really make sense. There are 6 relationships of love in the Trinity, and just because Aquinas may not have been able to write on each one, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have recognized them.

Person, and personal properties, and how the persons are distinguished is studied by St. Thomas Aquinas who presents the relations of opposition.

Keeping in mind that the Father is the author (**He is the **principle without principle - St. Augustine) and the Son is the principle from a principle then the following six could be written, but it does not change the personal properties (marked by *).

Father → Son (Paternity - origination - author) *
Father ← Son (Filiation - procession) *

Father → Holy Ghost (Active Spiration - origination - author)
Father ← Holy Ghost (Passive Spiration) *

Son → Holy Ghost (Active Spiration - origination through)
Son ← Holy Ghost (Passive Spiration) *

*A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites from the Bull “Cantata Domino,” February 4, Florentine style, 1441, modern, 1442.***Denzinger 704 ** "Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning. and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.’’*Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and **He is the **principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle.

 

[thinkandmull]

Yes, with the Church Aquinas should have said 6 relations. Loving the other is what makes up the Trinity and there are six acts of love

 

[thinkandmull]

But why isn’t God the Father the cause of the Son. Ontologically, is He not prior to the Son?

 

[Richca]

Yes, with the Church Aquinas should have said 6 relations. Loving the other is what makes up the Trinity and there are six acts of love

There is only one will in God and one act of will since God is pure act and unchangeable. By one act of will, God wills all things and by one act of His intellect, He knows all things. I think the idea of six acts of love is out of the question.

I think I see what you mean by 6 relations yet Aquinas says there are 4 real relations in God of which 3 are really distinct. This is more difficult to answer for me without some further study and reflection. According to Ludwigg Ott (Funadamentals of Catholic Dogma), the two internal Divine processions establish in God two pairs of real mutual relationships. This gives us 4 real relations and not 6. Apparently, the processions in God which are but two, have something to do with giving us the 4 relations; each procession establishes a pair of relations.

 

[Vico]

But why isn’t God the Father the cause of the Son. Ontologically, is He not prior to the Son?

Not sure why you have that idea. The Father is the Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Prior does not mean before “in time”. In God causality is within one and the same nature: it is only the image of an expressible communion.

 

[thinkandmull]

There is only one will in God and one act of will since God is pure act and unchangeable. By one act of will, God wills all things and by one act of His intellect, He knows all things. I think the idea of six acts of love is out of the question.

I think I see what you mean by 6 relations yet Aquinas says there are 4 real relations in God of which 3 are really distinct. This is more difficult to answer for me without some further study and reflection. According to Ludwigg Ott (Funadamentals of Catholic Dogma), the two internal Divine processions establish in God two pairs of real mutual relationships. This gives us 4 real relations and not 6. Apparently, the processions in God which are but two, have something to do with giving us the 4 relations; each procession establishes a pair of relations.

There is a relation of Son to Holy Spirit, even though Aquinas meshes this with the Father’s relation. But since they are distinct Persons, there are 6 distinct relations

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas rejects the use of the word cause in this context (Q 33, art 1, re 1) because it implies “dependence of one from another”. But isn’t that was “from the Father” means?

 

[Richca]

There is a relation of Son to Holy Spirit, even though Aquinas meshes this with the Father’s relation. But since they are distinct Persons, there are 6 distinct relations

The distinct relations in the Trinity are personal relations and personal relations constitute the persons in the Trinity. But there are only three persons in the Trinity. So there can only be three distinct relations. This is the reasoning I think behind the three distinct relations. True, the Father and Son are meshed together in the relation in the common spiration of the Holy Spirit. For they as one, spirate the Holy Spirit. From what your saying, It would appear that the Father and the Son would each have a distinct relationship to the Holy Spirit as the Father and Son are distinct persons. But if a distinct relation is a personal relation, then as the spiration of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and Son, this does not establish a personal or distinct relation but it is called, I think, a virtual one. The Father and Son cannot be distinguished from each other through the spiration of the Holy Spirit since it is common to both. The spiration of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son does not establish opposed relations between the Father and the Son since it is common to both. But it does establish a relation to the Holy Spirit since it is through the spiration of the Father and Son whereby the Holy Spirit receives the divine nature. Active spiration is not a property of the Holy Spirit but passive spiration is.

Aquinas says the “relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations” (ST, Pt.I, q.36, art.2) The common spiration distinguishes the Father and Son from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. But it does not distinguish the Father from the Son or the Son from the Father since it is common to both. So, the active spiration establishes a real relation, since the Father and Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, to the Holy Spirit. But, it is not said to be a personal or distinct relation since it is common to Father and Son.

Aquinas further says “There cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other except relations of origin. And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a principle, and of what is from the principle” (ibid).

Your probably thinking as six distinct relations suggest, does not the Holy Spirit have a relation to the Father and likewise a relation to the Son? I think undoubtalby this is true but it is not considered or counted as two opposed relations in themselves since the Father and Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle. The relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son is that he has his origin from both as from one principle and one God since the Father and Son are one in everything except paternity and filiation.

This is a fascinating topic as it involves the mystery of the Trinity whom we believe to be one God in three persons.

 

[Vico]

"Vico:

There are not six that are ontological, as he explains.

I’m not seeing where he argued that. There is a real relationship between each Person to each of the other two. These 6 relations are the essence of the Trinity. What good did it do to combine some of them and say 4 instead of speaking of each relation?

thinkandmull:

Aquinas rejects the use of the word cause in this context (Q 33, art 1, re 1) because it implies “dependence of one from another”. But isn’t that was “from the Father” means?

In Latin the word for principle is a better choice, so principle without principle is used. “there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term “principle” even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other” - said St. Thomas Aquinas.

However we know that cause is correct for Greek, but is it not temporal.

Read in Q33, A3, R1 where “from the Father” is used:
Common terms taken absolutely, in the order of our intelligence, come before proper terms; because they are included in the understanding of proper terms; but not conversely. For in the concept of the person of the Father, God is understood; but not conversely. But common terms which import relation to the creature come after proper terms which import personal relations; because the person proceeding in God proceeds as the principle of the production of creatures. For as the word conceived in the mind of the artist is first understood to proceed from the artist before the thing designed, which is produced in likeness to the word conceived in the artist’s mind; so the Son proceeds from the Father before the creature, to which the name of filiation is applied as it participates in the likeness of the Son, as is clear from the words of Rom. 8:29: “Whom He foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son.”
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Q28, Article 4, that there are two spirations, one from the action of the intellect and the other from the action of the will. Each has an active and passive relation which brings four total. However there are not four personal properties, only three. The spiration of intellect has to do with the Father and Son. The spiration of will has to do with the Father and Holy Spirit and the Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father give to the Son all but being the Father (principle without principle) the Father and Son both spiratate. The ordering is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

St. John of Damascus (676-749 A.D.) used “from” for cause, otherwise “through”:The Father is the engenderer of the Word and, through the Word the Originator (Spirator) by procession of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father, manifesting the hidden Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son, as He Himself knows, but not by generation. The Father is the source and cause, aitia, of the Son and Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from Him, for there is no impulse, horme, without the Spirit. He is also the Spirit of the Son, but not because He is from Him, but because, through Him, he proceeds from the Father, for the Father is the sole cause.

Ref: The Comforter by Sergius Bulgakov, Boris Jakim, p. 85.

 

[thinkandmull]

The distinct relations in the Trinity are personal relations and personal relations constitute the persons in the Trinity. But there are only three persons in the Trinity. So there can only be three distinct relations. This is the reasoning I think behind the three distinct relations. True, the Father and Son are meshed together in the relation in the common spiration of the Holy Spirit. For they as one, spirate the Holy Spirit. From what your saying, It would appear that the Father and the Son would each have a distinct relationship to the Holy Spirit as the Father and Son are distinct persons. But if a distinct relation is a personal relation, then as the spiration of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and Son, this does not establish a personal or distinct relation but it is called, I think, a virtual one. The Father and Son cannot be distinguished from each other through the spiration of the Holy Spirit since it is common to both. The spiration of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son does not establish opposed relations between the Father and the Son since it is common to both. But it does establish a relation to the Holy Spirit since it is through the spiration of the Father and Son whereby the Holy Spirit receives the divine nature. Active spiration is not a property of the Holy Spirit but passive spiration is.

Aquinas says the “relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations” (ST, Pt.I, q.36, art.2) The common spiration distinguishes the Father and Son from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. But it does not distinguish the Father from the Son or the Son from the Father since it is common to both. So, the active spiration establishes a real relation, since the Father and Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, to the Holy Spirit. But, it is not said to be a personal or distinct relation since it is common to Father and Son.

Aquinas further says “There cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other except relations of origin. And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a principle, and of what is from the principle” (ibid).

Your probably thinking as six distinct relations suggest, does not the Holy Spirit have a relation to the Father and likewise a relation to the Son? I think undoubtalby this is true but it is not considered or counted as two opposed relations in themselves since the Father and Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle. The relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son is that he has his origin from both as from one principle and one God since the Father and Son are one in everything except paternity and filiation.

This is a fascinating topic as it involves the mystery of the Trinity whom we believe to be one God in three persons.

How can their be a relation in the Trinity that is not personal? That is against the very nature of the personalism of the Trinity.

“But it does not distinguish the Father from the Son or the Son from the Father since it is common to both.” It would have to if the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and Son

 

[thinkandmull]

In Latin the word for principle is a better choice, so principle without principle is used. “there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term “principle” even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other” - said St. Thomas Aquinas.

However we know that cause is correct for Greek, but is it not temporal.

Read in Q33, A3, R1 where “from the Father” is used:
Common terms taken absolutely, in the order of our intelligence, come before proper terms; because they are included in the understanding of proper terms; but not conversely. For in the concept of the person of the Father, God is understood; but not conversely. But common terms which import relation to the creature come after proper terms which import personal relations; because the person proceeding in God proceeds as the principle of the production of creatures. For as the word conceived in the mind of the artist is first understood to proceed from the artist before the thing designed, which is produced in likeness to the word conceived in the artist’s mind; so the Son proceeds from the Father before the creature, to which the name of filiation is applied as it participates in the likeness of the Son, as is clear from the words of Rom. 8:29: “Whom He foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son.”
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Q28, Article 4, that there are two spirations, one from the action of the intellect and the other from the action of the will. Each has an active and passive relation which brings four total. However there are not four personal properties, only three. The spiration of intellect has to do with the Father and Son. The spiration of will has to do with the Father and Holy Spirit and the Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father give to the Son all but being the Father (principle without principle) the Father and Son both spiratate. The ordering is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

St. John of Damascus (676-749 A.D.) used “from” for cause, otherwise “through”:The Father is the engenderer of the Word and, through the Word the Originator (Spirator) by procession of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father, manifesting the hidden Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son, as He Himself knows, but not by generation. The Father is the source and cause, aitia, of the Son and Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from Him, for there is no impulse, horme, without the Spirit. He is also the Spirit of the Son, but not because He is from Him, but because, through Him, he proceeds from the Father, for the Father is the sole cause.

Ref: The Comforter by Sergius Bulgakov, Boris Jakim, p. 85.

Would Aquinas agree with John of Damascus that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit THROUGH or BY the Son. The Catechism says that the Western and Eastern Catholic conception of this are complementary. But if Aquinas agreed with John Damascus on this, than the two views are identical.

 

[Richca]

How can their be a relation in the Trinity that is not personal? That is against the very nature of the personalism of the Trinity.

“But it does not distinguish the Father from the Son or the Son from the Father since it is common to both.” It would have to if the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and Son

Well, since the Holy Spirit is one person there is one Love in the Trinity. The same Love by which the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father. This Love is the one Holy Spirit.

 

[Vico]

How can their be a relation in the Trinity that is not personal? That is against the very nature of the personalism of the Trinity.

“But it does not distinguish the Father from the Son or the Son from the Father since it is common to both.” It would have to if the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and Son

St. Thomas shows that there are four relations: paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession, but that only three are personal: paternity, filiation, and procession (excluding common spiration), and that the common spiration “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 hope that will clarity the terminology usage (in case I wrote it incorrectly).

St. Thomas Aquinas quotes:

Summa Theologica I, I, Q 27, 4, 3:
We can name God only from creatures (13, 1). As in creatures generation is the only principle of communication of nature, procession in God has no proper or special name, except that of generation. Hence the procession which is not generation has remained without a special name; but it can be called spiration, as it is the procession of the Spirit.

Summa Theologica I, I, Q 28, 4:But the procession of Love has no proper name of its own (27, 4); and so neither have the ensuing relations a proper name of their own. The relation of the principle of this procession is called spiration; and the relation of the person proceeding is called procession: although these two names belong to the processions or origins themselves, and not to the relations.
Summa Theologica. 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 Fatherand 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.

Summa Theologica. 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).

 

[Vico]

Would Aquinas agree with John of Damascus that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit THROUGH or BY the Son. The Catechism says that the Western and Eastern Catholic conception of this are complementary. But if Aquinas agreed with John Damascus on this, than the two views are identical.

There are in almost complete accord, but ok on ‘cause’. St. Thomas acknowledges that Greeks use ‘cause’ more absolutely when speaking of God, to indicate origin** only**, whereas Latin Fathers do not use ‘cause’ that way (because it implies made).

The difference is that the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well as the Father. St. John does not try to explain the difference in personal order rather he states that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and the Son is not the Son of the Spirit.

 

[thinkandmull]

There are in almost complete accord, but ok on ‘cause’. St. Thomas acknowledges that Greeks use ‘cause’ more absolutely when speaking of God, to indicate origin** only**, whereas Latin Fathers do not use ‘cause’ that way (because it implies made).

The difference is that the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well as the Father. St. John does not try to explain the difference in personal order rather he states that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and the Son is not the Son of the Spirit.

I was wondering if Aquinas thought that the Father was primary in the spiration of the Spirit. In way He is because the Son comes from Him, but once the Son, than the Son can join with the Father the “cause” the Spirit. But in this co-action, is the Father primary?