|
This article justifies the accepted mode of speaking of
the Trinity. The reply is in the affirmative: five
notions are commonly given, namely, innascibility,
paternity, filiation, common (active) spiration, and
procession.
Such is the general usage of theologians, but Scotus
added a sixth, the infecundity of the Holy Ghost. This
notion is not acceptable because it does not pertain to the
dignity of the Third Person.
In the body of the article St. Thomas shows why there
are no more and no less than five notions. A notion is
that which is the proper reason for knowing a divine
person. But the divine persons are multiplied according
to their origin (both active and passive). Therefore
according to origin (active and passive) we derive the
notions denoting the persons. Thus we have paternity,
filiation, common active spiration, passive spiration,
to which we add innascibility, because the person of the
Father is known not only by paternity but also by the fact
that He is from no one and that He is the principle
without a principle. This notion is in conformity with
the dignity of the Father, but the infecundity of the
Holy Ghost is not an expression befitting the dignity of
the Third Person.[370]
First corollary. Of these five notions only four are
relations, since innascibility is not a relation but the
negation of the relation of origin in the Father.
Second corollary. Only four of the notions are
properties since common spiration belonging to two persons
is not a property.
Third corollary. Of these five notions only three are
personal notions, that is, notions constituting persons,
since common spiration and innascibility are not personal.
As we shall see below, innascibility does not properly
constitute the First Person.[371] We shall also
see that there are two notional acts, that is, the
processions in their active sense, namely, generation and
active spiration.
Objection. Innascibility seems to be pure negation and
is therefore not a distinct notion because negation adds
nothing to the dignity of the person.
Reply. Innascibility signifies that the Father is the
principle without principle, and this is a great dignity.
On the other hand, infecundity does not pertain to the
dignity of the Third Person.[372]
|
|