|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed
from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must
not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except
what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in
the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears
from Jn. 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the
Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 2: Further, In the creed of the council of
Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy
Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father;
with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore
it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of
anathema.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i):
"We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him
the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is
from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore
the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 4: Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it
rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the
legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in
the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus
Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and
abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed
from the Son.
Objection 5: Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our
breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our
word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 6: Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the
Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the
Son.
Objection 7: Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in
things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in
God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from
the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says
(De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy
Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different
way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus
distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if
for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this
alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from
the Son, without proceeding from Him.
On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the
Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding."
I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the
Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be
personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said
above (Question 28, Article 3; Question 30, Article 2).
For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from
each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would
not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is
spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence.
Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished
from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot
distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite
relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two
relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the
other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and
therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one
person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost
there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the
Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as
neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to
them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow
that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one,
having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But
this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity.
Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other
by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations
opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above
(Question 28, Article 44). And opposite relations of origin
are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the
principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say
that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or
that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.
Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this
conclusion. For it was said above (Question 27, Articles
2,4; Question 28, Article 4), that the Son proceeds by the
way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will
as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love
anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in
this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature
itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one
without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for
instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other
materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which
there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order
exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures
produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from
the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the
Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any
other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from
the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy
Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them
proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material
distinction; which is impossible.
Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the
Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy
Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father
"through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He
is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that
He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a
just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word
procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin
of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as
when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a
stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence,
granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we
can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
Reply to Objection 1: We ought not to say about God anything which
is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But
although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the
sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the
Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of
Mine" (Jn. 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture
that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although
there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs
to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are
distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, "No one
knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing
Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He
proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all
excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost,
the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as
regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son.
Reply to Objection 2: In every council of the Church a symbol of
faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the
council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be
described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly
contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed
against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of
Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in
the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the
Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the
doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea,
but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter.
Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of
those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had
not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on
that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another
council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the
west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman
Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned
and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the
belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
Reply to Objection 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce
the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as
appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus.
This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several
others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that
point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been
asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy
Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a
denial thereof.
Reply to Objection 4: When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or
abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from
Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He
proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in
the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in
reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is
written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining
upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (Jn. 1:33).
Reply to Objection 5: The Word in God is not taken after the
similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not
proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the
similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love.
Reply to Objection 6: For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He
proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary.
Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and
because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it
be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from
Himself, although He is from the Father.
Reply to Objection 7: The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the
Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of
the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that
the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the
Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be
distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in Question
27.
|
|