Thomistica

Purpose of the Article

 

In reality, the interior life of God is eternal, that is, it is SIMULTANEOUS AND IMMOBILE (no actualization of potency, i.e. not to be taken temporally). So the ordering of God’s revealed interior life is to be understood as REAL ONLY IN THE ORDER OF REASON. This ordering is of great value for two reasons: the first reason being the means to an end, the end being the second reason. The first is that, since it is by relations of origin that we distinguish the  divine persons, by properly understanding the persons and their origins which imply order, we can fend off heresy that compromises the purity of the divine essence, that is its absolute simplicity. This is a means to loving God, and fulfilling imago in ourselves, since, as we dive deeper into the mystery of His life, we can better conform our life to His. Lastly, for the sake of interpretation, we will blend the jargon of Aquinas and Scotus in hopes to implement an abundantly clear terminological system.

 

Methodology for Ordering Interior Action

 

The order of the persons is known: Father, Son, and Spirit in descending order. From Aquinas, we will borrow the word “property.” A “relational property” is one that is proper to a person (i.e. paternity, spiration, filiation, procession). Innascible is a property of the Father but not a relational property and therefore cannot be used to distinguish the Father from the Spirit or Son since it has no reference toward them. From Scotus, we will borrow the word “formality.” A “formality” is a relational property that is specific to one person alone, and therefore can be used to identify a person as distinguished from the other persons (i.e. paternity, filiation, procession). All formalities are relational properties but not all relational properties are formalities. This is because spiration is common to the Father and Son. Formality can also be called “constitutive property.” But here we will use formality. A distinction can also be made between the same person as they are signified prior to production and following production. A hypostasis cannot subsist unless it subsists as the relation that follows production. So, the person which does not yet subsist really yet but who we need to identify will be signified by their hypostatic name (i.e. Father, Son, Spirit) followed by “(taken conceptually not really).” Elsewhere, the persons will be signified by their hypostatic names. We will use the words “production, product, productive, and produce,” to identify actions in God, or what Aquinas calls notional acts (i.e. generation, spiration). If a person has productive power in some respect (either generatively or spirationally), we will call Him fecund.

 

The Father is Innascible

 

The Father is unique because He subsists prior to any production. Because of this, He subsists really, but not yet as Father since He is not yet relative to the Son.

 

The personal property of the Father can be considered in a twofold sense: firstly, as a relation; and thus again in the order of intelligence it presupposes the notional act, for relation, as such, is founded upon an act: secondly, according as it constitutes the person; and thus the notional act presupposes the relation [though not yet relating], as an action presupposes a person acting. (ST I, q. 40, a. 4, co.)

 

From the way that Aquinas orders the Father, as first, considered both prior to and following the generative act, it is clear that the distinct hypostasis of the person of the Father does not subsist until after the generative act. No hypostasis can subsist as distinct from another unless it opposes another in relation. Yet, the Father is an exception because He is unproduced. Only, He does not yet subsist as Father but only as the divine essence. 

 

The Son Follows Generation

 

Knowing that this [above paragraph] is how Aquinas orders the Father, we can apply these same principles to the other persons. The Son cannot be called Son unless He relates to the Father in such a way. Nor can He relate to the Father unless He is generated. Therefore, preceding generation, the Son does not possess the relational property of filiation, and nor does the Father possess the relational property of paternity, so the hypostatic distinction does not exist yet. We also cannot say that a formality is anything particular to a person prior to production lest the persons be distinct prior to their ordering. For if this were the case, then the persons would possess distinguishing factors independent of their mutual correlation and therefore be of difference essence. However, we can identify the Son prior to production conceptually, but not really as He subsists relatively and therefore hypostatically distinct, for the sake of identifying that in which the Father prior to being Father exhaustively multiplies hypostasis through the essence as identical to the essence. So we will call him Son (taken conceptually not really) but withholding applying the formality until after the generative act is complete.

 

The Spirit Follows Spiration

 

As to the person of the Spirit, the same applies. He exists prior to spiration only conceptually for the sake of identifying a subject in which the divine essence can be exhausted. But He is not truly Spirit unless He relates to the Father and Son as proceeding. Therefore, His relation property of procession, as well as the Father and Son’s relational property of common spiration, as they are one principle due to their sharing the same essence, is to be predicated of them following production (spiration). 

 

Order of Interior Divine Life

 

1. The Father (taken conceptually not really) subsists as fecund respective to the Son.

2. The Father exhausts the essence into the Son (taken conceptually not really).

3. The Father (taken really) and Son (taken really) oppose each other as active and passive respectively and relational properties can now be applied.

4. The Father and Son subsist as fecund respective to the Spirit.

5. The Father and Son exhaust Their essence into the Spirit (taken conceptually not really).

6. The Father and Son (relational names taken really) oppose the Spirit (relational name taken really) as active and passive respectively and relational properties can now be applied.

7. The Trinity remains fecund but divine interior actions cease because, twice exhausted, it is fully equipped for the divine mission.

 

Clarifiers Regarding the Aforementioned Order

 

It is apparent that several things need clarification. Firstly, it must be demonstrated that the hypostases cannot subsist without mutual relation to one another. For proof, we must recall that relation is the only accident that can distinguish subjects without affecting the essence of the subject itself. Accidents are to be taken substantially in God. Moreover, we can run Aquinas’ mental experiment that seeks to answer whether the hypostases remain if the relations are mentally abstracted. To this, he answers that they cannot:

 

If, however, the personal property [relational properties] be mentally abstracted, the idea of the hypostasis no longer remains. For the personal properties are not to be understood as added to the divine hypostases, as a form is added to a pre-existing subject: but they carry with them their own "supposita," inasmuch as they are themselves subsisting persons; thus paternity is the Father Himself. For hypostasis signifies something distinct in God, since hypostasis means an individual substance. So, as relation distinguishes and constitutes the hypostases… it follows that if the personal relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostases no longer remain. (ST I, q. 40, a. 3, co.)

 

Having proven that hypostasis is dependent on relation, a question remains as to whether or not relation adds parts to the divine essence, and therefore compromising His perfect simplicity. All things predicated of the divine essence are identical to the divine essence because He is what He has. If we do not uphold this absolute truth, then God no longer remains the first principle of reality, mandating that we posit something ontologically greater which combines existence (the fact that it is) and essence (what it is). Therefore, it must be said that relations are the hypostases, each identical to one essence. The persons are in opposition to each other and not the essence, enabling hypostatic distinction without compromising the essence.

 

Obj. 1: Whether the Son is Fecund

 

Three common objections are raised. The first of these is whether fecundity might be the formality of the Father rather than paternity. Fecundity, taken absolutely, encompasses both generation and spiration. Some say that if fecundity distinguishes the Father, then the Son cannot spirate since spiration belongs to absolute fecundity. However, we arrive at the formality from relation, not relation from formality. Fecundity is indeed proper to the Father but not as a formality distinctive from the other persons since the spirative power is also in the Son. And so the Son is fecund generally or relatively. The Father is fecund absolutely because He has the power to generate and spirate while the Son is fecund generally, relative to His spirative power. Paternity then constitutes the Father alone. Absolute fecundity can only be predicated of the Father after the divine essence is exhausted in the Spirit. But prior to the spiration of the Spirit, the divine essence has already been exhausted in the Son through generation. Therefore, the Son necessarily possesses all that the Father possesses, which is to include the spirative power lest we subordinate the Son to the Father. This is best demonstrated by Scotus in his Ordinatio:

 

Whatever has a perfect productive principle first before it be understood to have a product can produce by that principle, namely when the principle is so perfect that it does not depend on something passive nor can be impeded by anything; the Son has will [productive principle for procession], which is a productive principle of adequate love [the Spirit], and he has it as it is pre-understood to ‘produced act of the will [the Spirit]’; therefore he can produce it, therefore also he does produce it. (Ord. I, d. 11, q. 1, n. 11)

 

Will here refers to the spirative fecundity or power. The truth of this is based on the assumption that the Son is generated prior to the spiration of the Spirit in order. The only alternative would be to propose that generation does not happen prior to spiration. If this were the case, then either spiration precedes generation or there is no order between the two. The consequent error to the first is evident: the Father would spirate the Spirit and the generative power would be in the Spirit so that the Father and Spirit co-generate the Son as one principle. But this is obviously absurd and repugnant to the notions of generation and spiration. The distinction between generation and spiration lies in the number of persons with productive power (active productivity), the generative power as assigned to one principle and one subject and the spirative power as assigned to one principle and two subjects. As to whether generation and spiration must be ordered, it is apparent that if two acts are perfectly active, there must be an order lest there be no distinction between the acts.

 

Obj. 2: Disparate Relations

 

The second objection that may be raised is that the Spirit would not need to proceed from the Son if the opposing relations between the Father and Son and Father and Spirit are disparate. This supposedly would maintain distinction between the Son and Spirit not mandating for relation between them. But this is clearly erroneous for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is most apparent that if there is order in production, there must be relation. Therefore, even if the relations are disparate by reason of the principle or terminus, the Son still has productive power. Otherwise, it must be said that the Father does not exhaust His being entirely into the Son, withholding spirative fecundity from the Son. This would subordinate the Son substantially. Now, consequent of the order of production proved above, if the disparation between generation and spiration is due to the number of persons with productive power, then we can account for their difference not by reason of the principle or terminus, but by relations preceding in order, generation following no preceding relation and spiration following a preceding relation in order:

 

…but the difference itself of origin [difference between generation and spiration] 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… (ST I, q. 36, a. 2, ad 7)

 

If disparation between relations is accounted for by reason of the principle or terminus, it must be by the principle, for the effect has a likeness to its principle and not vice versa. When an action is immanent, the effect is proportionate in similitude depending on the affective power of the principle. If the principle agent has absolute power, as we must say that the divine does, then the effect, or terminus, has perfect similitude to its principle agent. For this reason, the first act in the order, which is generation, must be fully exhaustive and thereby include spirative fecundity. Otherwise, it must be argued that the Father intentively withholds the entirety of His being from the Son, which is blatant heresy. 

 

Obj. 3: Commonality of productive Power

 

The third objection is whether, if it is proved that productive power be in both the Father and the Son, that it should also be in the Spirit, through which a fourth person would be produced, and so on to infinity. However, this misunderstands the configurement of person and essence within the Trinity. The persons are each identical to the same essence, the productive power being that essence substantially. Since the persons are identical to one essence, only distinct by “towardness” to each as relation, the productive power is to be attributed to the essence and not to the person as if a person was identical to an essence that included or excluded productive power. This is how it can be said that the Father and Son are one principle, because they have essence in common. It still remains why personal production terminates if the Spirit possesses productive power. The answer is merely that interior production is complete by nature for the perfection of the divinity since, preeminent to intellective creatures, there are two produced faculties, intellect and will. Further production is futile. Once compulsion toward an object or concept in the intellect arises, exterior action can be initiated and the agent begins to operate outside of itself. After interior operation is unified and completed, nothing remains prior to exterior operation. It would be repugnant to divine simplicity and perfection, for another person to be unnecessarily produced.

​

​

​

Article by Matthew Shuler