|
State of the question. This is the difficult question of
appropriation. To solve it the theologian should preserve
the "sense of the mystery," and he should not try to
reduce the mystery in every instance to clear and univocal
ideas. This theory of appropriation is found at least
explicitly only among the Latins. The Greeks use the
proper names of the persons, and besides this they speak
only of appellations, kleseis, which are found in the
Scriptures. As De Regnon[537] points out, the
Greeks have but one proper name for each of the divine
persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Besides this they have especially for the Son many
appellations: thus in the Scriptures the Son is called
Logos, Wisdom, Truth, Image, Justice,
Sanctification, Redemption, and Resurrection.
According to the Greeks, these appellations are
conducive to a better knowledge of a divine person, but
they did not arrive at an explicit concept of
appropriation. Indeed they had less need for this theory
because they began their study with the three persons
rather than with the unity of nature.
The Latin theologians, particularly the Scholastics,
desired to perfect the doctrine of the Trinity by a
precise classification of all terms and concepts. Thus
they distinguished exactly, in the case of each divine
person, the proper names from the other appellations found
in Holy Scripture, and in making these distinctions they
relied on St. Augustine's psychological theory,
according to which the Son proceeds as the Word after the
manner of intellection or rather enunciation, and the
Holy Ghost proceeds after the manner of love.
Thus, as we have seen above, St. Thomas showed that
the proper names of the Son are, the Son, Word, and
Image, and the proper names of the Holy Ghost are Holy
Ghost, Love, and Gift. The other appellations found
in Scripture are not proper names, but they are
appropriated to one person rather than to another because
of the affinity they have for one person rather than for
another. Thus Wisdom is appropriated to the
Son.[538]
In presenting the question in this article, St. Thomas
poses three difficulties against the theory of
appropriation accepted by the Latin theologians.
1. A difficulty arises because this theory may lead to
an error in faith since it is possible that essential
terms, like wisdom, could be understood as belonging to
one person alone, or to that person in a greater degree.
This would be erroneous since the Father and the Holy
Ghost are equally wise with the Son.
2. Another difficulty arises from the fact that abstract
essential terms, like wisdom as distinct from a wise
person, cannot be appropriated to any one person, for
then the Son would be the wisdom of the Father or the
form of the Father. But no person is the form of another
person. Like the first difficulty, this one confuses an
appropriation with a proper name.
3. That which is proper is prior to that which is
appropriated. But the essential attributes are prior to
the persons, at least according to our method of
understanding, just as that which is common is prior to
that which is proper. Therefore the essential attributes
should not be appropriated to the persons.
This statement reveals the difficulties inherent in the
theory, whether the appropriation is not adequately
distinguished from the property or whether it is explicitly
distinguished from it. The importance of this problem
arises particularly from our manner of speaking of the
indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul by
appropriation, although the Father and the Son also
dwell in the souls of the just, according to our Lord's
words, "If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and
My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and
will make Our abode with him."[539] We shall see
that a mission means more than an appropriation, although
the appropriation is not merely something verbal.
Reply. St. Thomas replied: "For the manifestation
of the faith it is fitting that essential attributes be
appropriated to the persons." Such is the common answer
of Latin theologians.
1. The reply is proved by the authority of St. Paul,
who said, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of
God."[540] In this passage wisdom, which is an
attribute common to the three persons, is appropriated to
the Son. In the following article we shall see other
appropriations indicated by Holy Scripture.
2. The theological proof may be thus summed up.
Although the Trinity of persons cannot be demonstrated,
yet it can be fittingly explained by such truths as are
clearer to us. But the essential attributes, known to us
from creatures, are more clear to us than the properties
of the three persons. Therefore it is fitting that the
essential attributes be appropriated to the persons,
especially when there is a similarity or affinity, as when
wisdom is appropriated to the Son. The reader is
referred to the article.
In reading the article the following difficulty comes to
mind: if the essential attributes, known from creatures,
can manifest the divine persons, then the divine persons
can be known from creatures. St. Thomas replies to this
difficulty in the body of the article. He recalls what
was said earlier, that creatures are the effects of the
creative omnipotence, which is common to the three
persons, and from creatures therefore we cannot
demonstrate the Trinity of persons.[541] On the
other hand Scripture tells us that there are traces of the
Trinity in creatures, indeed even an image of the
Trinity in the human soul.[542] Hence the divine
essential attributes, known from creatures with rational
certitude, can in some way manifest the divine persons,
although the Trinity cannot be demonstrated by them and
can be known only through revelation.
This is to say, that the theory of appropriation is not
something merely verbal, like the difference between
Tullius and Cicero, nor is it merely a fiction in the
theologians, minds, but it has according to the
Scriptures a foundation in reality, at least a foundation
of trace and image, although it is difficult to determine
in what this foundation consists.
In general this appropriation is made because of likeness
or affinity, but sometimes it is because of
dissimilarity, as when power is appropriated to the
Father, as St. Augustine said, because among men
fathers are weak because of their age, and we should not
insinuate anything like this about God.
Reply to the first objection. No error follows from this
theory because a clear distinction is made between a
property and an appropriation. At least in the tract on
the Trinity appropriation does not signify that something
becomes a property, because the essential attributes
cannot become proper to any one person, nor is the Son
wiser than the Father and the Holy Ghost.
Appropriation signifies adaptation or accommodation, as
the doctors of the Church were accustomed to do when they
attributed wisdom to the Son because He is the Word.
We have therefore no error but rather more light on the
truth.
Properties can easily be distinguished from
appropriations. Properties are those things which are
attributed to one person and cannot be attributed to
another; appropriations are those things which of
themselves are common to the three persons but for greater
clarity are attributed to one person. Such was
Cajetan's argument.
Abelard, however, ignored this distinction and fell into
error. According to St. Bernard, he taught that power
was proper to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and
goodness to the Holy Ghost.[543] Hence the
following proposition was condemned: "The Father is
full of power, the Son is a certain power, and the Holy
Ghost has no power."[544]
Reply to the second objection. If wisdom when
appropriated to the Son would become proper to Him, the
Son would become the form of the Father. But to be
appropriated does not signify becoming a property. Hence
when St. Paul said, "Christ the power of God, and
the wisdom of God, " he meant that the Son is the
wisdom of the Father in the sense that the wisdom is from
the wisdom of the Father as when we say Light of Light.
Hence the Father is not wise by the wisdom which He
generates but by the wisdom which is His essence.
Reply to the third objection. An essential attribute
like wisdom is in itself prior to a person, but as
appropriated it follows the property of a person. So
color is consequent on the body but it is prior to a white
body. Such is the solution of the difficulties although
the idea of appropriation remains confused and we cannot
arrive at a perfect distinction according to our manner of
understanding. We must always retain the "sense of the
mystery" and not attempt the clarification of every detail
in this dogma.
|
|