|
The reply is in the affirmative: innascibility is a
property of the Father since the Father is the principle
without principle. Thus He is known by the fact that He
is not from another. Of the Father it is generally said
that "He was not made, nor created, nor begotten, nor
proceeding."[381] He is the principle without
principle.[382]
Reply to the first objection. Primary and simple things
are denoted by negations, as when we say that a point is
that which has no parts.
Reply to the second objection. In another way the Holy
Ghost may be said to be unbegotten since He does not
proceed by generation. But the Father is properly said
to be unbegotten because He does not proceed from any
other and is the principle without principle whereas the
Son is the principle from a principle and the Holy Ghost
is the principle from both persons.
Reply to the third objection. In this way the relation
of the Son is denied in the Father.
First doubt. Whether the Unbegotten is constituted as a
notion by something positive or something negative.
Reply. Following the principle laid down in the reply to
the first objection: the Unbegotten directly implies the
negation of passive generation. But this negation denotes
a great dignity, for from the fact that the Father is not
from any principle it follows that He is the origin of the
other persons, and this is something positive.
All these things can be illustrated by the commentaries on
Christ's sacerdotal prayer, in which the Father is
addressed personally. In this prayer frequently and it
seems with insistence the Son of God says that His
Father has given all things to Him: "Father, the hour
is come, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify
Thee. As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh,
that He may give eternal life to all whom Thou hast given
Him... . And now glorify Thou Me, O Father,
with Thyself, with the glory which I had, before the
world was, with Thee" (John 17:1-5).
Second doubt. Why has not a special feast been
instituted in honor of the Father?
The reply is found in the encyclical of Pope Leo
XIII, Divinum illud munus[383] (namely, the
Holy Ghost): "A danger might arise in belief and
worship that the divine persons would be confused with each
other and that the one nature would be separated... .
Wherefore Innocent XII, our predecessor, refused the
request of those who had asked for some solemnities proper
to the honor of the Father." The faithful might
attribute to the principle of origin priority of dignity,
which would be in opposition to the identity of nature.
|
|