← Back to Distinction 12

Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus
p. 221

Quaestio II. Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre plenius et principalius quam a Filio procedat.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio. Et quod sic, videtur:

Ad oppositum:

1. Quia propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis1: ergo cum Filius spiret per Patrem, quia hoc habet a Patre, ergo Pater magis spirat.

2. Item, omnis causa prima plus influit quam secunda2; sed Pater est primum principium spirandi: ergo plus influit quam Filius.

3. Item, plenius procedit aliquid, a quo procedit proprie et principaliter, quam a quo nec principaliter nec proprie; sed Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre proprie et principaliter, sicut dicitur in littera3 et Augustinus dicit: ergo etc.

4. Item, plenius procedit aliquis ab eo, a quo habet quidquid habet, scilicet substantiam et proprietatem, quam a quo non habet; sed Spiritus sanctus habet a Patre quod sit, et quod procedat a Patre et Filio4: a Filio autem non habet, quod procedat a Patre, quia tunc Filius daret aliquid Patri: ergo etc.

Contra. Fundamenta:

1. Si plenius a Patre, ergo perfectius: ergo a Filio non procedit perfectissime, ergo in Trinitate est aliquid imperfectionis.

2. Item, si plenius a Patre quam a Filio, plus accipit a Patre quam a Filio; sed ubi est ponere plus et minus, ibi est diversitas: ergo in persona Spiritus sancti est diversitas.

3. Item, videtur quod nec principalius a Patre, quia qui perfecte dat aliquid alicui, dat ei usum5 et iurisdictionem sive auctoritatem; si ergo dat Pater Filio posse spirare, ergo dat ei auctoritatem spirandi: ergo aeque principaliter procedit a Filio ut a Patre6.

Conclusio. In sano sensu dici potest, Spiritum sanctum procedere a Patre principaliter vel principalius et per se; non tamen procedit plenius nec perfectius.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur procedere7 a Patre principaliter et per se: principaliter, quia auctoritas est in Patre; per se, quia non tantum mediante Filio, sed etiam immediate. Non tamen plenius procedit a Patre nec perfectius, quia plenius ponit gradum perfectionis, ponit etiam compositionem substantiae in producto, quorum neutrum est in divinis. Unde si proponatur haec: quod illud quod procedit ab aliquo principalius, procedit plenius, simpliciter est neganda8.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

Ad 1 et 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de causa prima et propter quod etc.; dicendum, quod sicut dictum est prius9, illud solum habet locum, ubi pluralitas causarum est; hic autem non est pluralitas nec causarum nec principiorum: ideo non habet hic locum.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non habet Spiritus sanctus a Filio, quod procedat a Patre; dicendum ad hoc, quod habere a se vel ab alio non ponit gradum plenitudinis. Unde quamvis Filius divinitatem habeat a Patre, ita10 tamen est perfectus Deus ut Pater; et ideo non sequitur, quod plenius a Patre procedat, quia principalius. — Quod11 obiicitur: plenius habet quod habet essentiam et proprietatem; responderi potest interimendo minorem; habet enim Spiritus sanctus a Filio proprietatem, licet non habeat secundum omnem respectum; habet enim processionem a Filio, sed non ut a Patre.

p. 223

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater dat Filio auctoritatem; dicendum, quod dando auctoritatem super Spiritum sanctum, nihilominus ex ipso habet auctoritatem12, quia ex hoc debet Filius eam referre ad Patrem, quia habet a Patre; et inde est, quod in Filio est auctoritas et subauctoritas. Unde etiam principaliter producit Spiritum sanctum13, sed Pater principalius, quia in eo est tantum auctoritas, non subauctoritas. Principalitas autem dicitur auctoritas in divinis.

Scholion

I. Quo sensu hic intelligenda sint vocabula plenius, principaliter, auctoritas, subauctoritas, satis apparet ex ipsis verbis S. Doctoris, hic et infra dub. 3. positis. Negatur, quod Spiritus sanctus plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio, quia hic terminus significat gradus perfectionis, vel saltem connotat compositionem in aliquo; affirmatur vero, quod principalius Pater producat Spiritum sanctum, in sensu et ex ratione in q. 1. expressis. Filius autem principaliter Spiritum sanctum producere asseritur, quia dat ei quidquid habet; unde dicitur habere auctoritatem respectu eiusdem, subauctoritatem vero respectu Patris, a quo omnia habet. Habere igitur auctoritatem et principalitatem nostro Doctori idem est. Unde in fine solut. ad 4. respondet «interimendo» i.e. ut falsam negando minorem. — Hunc modum dicendi, quod Pater principalius producat Filium [scil. Spiritum sanctum], S. Doctor, Magistrum aliosque antiquos theologos secutus, non reprobat. Immerito nonnulli moderni theologi cum Suarez hanc locutionem Seraphici tanquam erroneam reiiciunt. Attendere enim debuissent, ipsum S. Doctorem eam explicasse in sensu certe orthodoxo nec eam commendasse, sed sane explicatam solummodo tolerasse, uti apparet ex ultima propositione in corp. Ad 3. oppositum non respondetur explicite, quia iam solutum est in corp. Quo sensu dici possit, quod Spiritus sanctus proprie a Patre procedit, cfr. infra dub. 3.

II. Quoad conclusionem cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. I. q. 36. a. 3. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. i. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2. — Aegid. R., 2. princ. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father more fully and more principally than from the Son.

Secondly it is asked, whether [the Spirit] proceeds more fully from the Father than from the Son. And that He does so seems [to follow]:

For the affirmative:

1. Because that on account of which each thing [is], that more so1: therefore since the Son spirates through the Father — because He has this from the Father — the Father spirates more.

2. Likewise, every first cause infuses more than the second2; but the Father is the first principle of spirating: therefore He infuses more than the Son.

3. Likewise, [a thing] proceeds more fully from one from whom it proceeds properly and principally than from one [from whom it does] neither principally nor properly; but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father properly and principally, as is said in the text3 and as Augustine says: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, one proceeds more fully from him from whom one has whatever one has, namely substance and property, than from him from whom one does not have [it]; but the Holy Spirit has from the Father that He be, and that He proceed from the Father and the Son4: but from the Son He does not have that He proceeds from the Father, because then the Son would give something to the Father: therefore etc.

On the contrary. Foundations:

1. If [He proceeds] more fully from the Father, therefore more perfectly: therefore He does not proceed most perfectly from the Son, therefore in the Trinity there is some imperfection.

2. Likewise, if [He proceeds] more fully from the Father than from the Son, He receives more from the Father than from the Son; but where there is more and less, there is diversity: therefore in the person of the Holy Spirit there is diversity.

3. Likewise, it seems that not even more principally from the Father: because he who perfectly gives something to someone gives him use5 and jurisdiction or authority; if therefore the Father gives to the Son the power to spirate, He gives him the authority of spirating: therefore [the Spirit] proceeds equally principally from the Son as from the Father6.

Conclusion. In a sound sense it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally or more principally and per se; yet He does not proceed more fully nor more perfectly.

I respond: It must be said that the Holy Spirit is said7 to proceed from the Father principally and per se: principally, because the authority is in the Father; per se, because [He proceeds] not only with the Son as medium, but also immediately. Yet He does not proceed more fully or more perfectly from the Father, because more fully posits a degree of perfection, and also posits composition of substance in the produced — neither of which is in the divine being. Hence if the proposition be advanced: what proceeds from someone more principally, proceeds more fully, it is simply to be denied8.

To the arguments to the contrary:

To 1 and 2. To what is objected concerning the first cause and the propter quod etc.; it must be said that, as has been said before9, that [maxim] holds only where there is plurality of causes; but here there is plurality neither of causes nor of principles: therefore it does not hold here.

To 4. To what is objected — that the Holy Spirit does not have from the Son that He proceeds from the Father — it must be said in reply that to have from oneself or from another does not posit a degree of fullness. Hence although the Son has divinity from the Father, yet10 He is as perfectly God as the Father; and therefore it does not follow that He proceeds more fully from the Father, because more principally. — As to11 what is objected: He proceeds more fully who has substance and property; the reply can be made by killing the minor: for the Holy Spirit does have from the Son His property, although He does not have it according to every respect; for He has procession from the Son, but not as from the Father.

To 3. To what is objected, that the Father gives authority to the Son; it must be said that, by giving authority over the Holy Spirit, [the Son] nonetheless has the authority from Him [the Father]12, because from this the Son ought to refer it back to the Father, since He has it from the Father; and from this it is, that in the Son there is authority and sub-authority. Hence also He principally produces the Holy Spirit13, but the Father more principally, because in Him there is only authority, not sub-authority. Now principality is called authority in the divine being.

Scholion

I. In what sense the words more fully, principally, authority, sub-authority are here to be understood is sufficiently apparent from the very words of the Holy Doctor placed here and below at dub. 3. It is denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds more fully from the Father than from the Son, because this term signifies degrees of perfection, or at least connotes composition in something; but it is affirmed that more principally the Father produces the Holy Spirit, in the sense and on the ground expressed in q. 1. The Son, however, is said principally to produce the Holy Spirit, because [the Father] gives Him whatever He has; whence He is said to have authority with respect to the same [Spirit], but sub-authority with respect to the Father, from whom He has all things. Therefore to have authority and principality are, for our Doctor, the same. Hence at the end of the reply to 4 he replies «by killing» — i.e. by denying the minor as false. — This way of speaking — that the Father more principally produces the Son [scil. Holy Spirit] — the Holy Doctor, following the Master and other ancient theologians, does not reject. Without justification, some modern theologians with Suárez reject this expression of the Seraphic [Doctor] as erroneous. For they should have noticed that the Holy Doctor himself explained it in a certainly orthodox sense, and did not commend it but only tolerated it when soundly explained, as is plain from the last proposition in the body of the article. To the third [argument] for the contrary no explicit reply is given, because it has already been resolved in the body. In what sense it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds properly from the Father, see below at dub. 3.

II. As to the conclusion, cf. St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; S. I, q. 36, a. 3, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3, i. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2. — Giles of Rome, 2. princ. q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Aristot., I Poster. c. 2. Cfr. etiam II Metaph. text. 4 (1. brev. c. 1.). — In quo textu plures codd. post unumquodque addunt tale. Mox circa finem argumenti ope mss. et primarum edd. restituimus habet.
    Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, c. 2. Cf. also Metaphysics II, text 4 (lesser book, c. 1). — In which text several codices after unumquodque add tale. Just after, near the end of the argument, by the help of the manuscripts and the early editions, we have restored habet.
  2. Libr. de Causis, prop. 1, in quo textu plures codd. ut B D E F G M X etc. cum edd. 2, 3 falso prius loco plus.
    Liber de Causis, prop. 1, in which text several codices, as B D E F G M X etc., with editions 2 and 3 falsely [read] prius in place of plus.
  3. Cap. 2; ubi et verba Augustini habentur. — Unus alterve codex ut Y Z Magister dicit pro dicitur.
    [Lombard, d. 12,] cap. 2; where Augustine's words are also given. — A codex or two, as Y Z, read Magister dicit in place of dicitur.
  4. Multi codd. cum edd. 2, 3 forte ex eo, quod eadem verba immediate post occurrant, indebite omittunt et Filio; e contra cod. R omittit Patre et, cum quo conveniunt codd. aa bb legendo et procedat etiam a Filio; lectio non spernenda. Mox post non habet, quod cod. Y bene addit a Patre sit et.
    Many codices with editions 2 and 3 — perhaps because the same words occur immediately after — improperly omit et Filio; on the contrary, codex R omits Patre et, with which codices aa bb agree by reading et procedat etiam a Filio; a reading not to be despised. Just after non habet, codex Y well adds a Patre sit et.
  5. Emendavimus lectionem Vat. et cod. cc ex aliis mss. et ed. 1 ponendo usum pro vim.
    We have emended the reading of the Vatican and codex cc from other manuscripts and ed. 1, placing usum in place of vim.
  6. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 ordinem argumentorum invertit, ponendo ultimum hoc argumentum quinto loco inter argumenta ad oppositum, licet in margine etiam respectu ipsius habeat: Fundamenta. Ratio huius inversionis videtur fuisse, quod hoc argumentum partem conclusionis neget, scil. quod Spiritus sanctus principalius a Patre procedat. Sed melius cum codd. hoc argumentum, licet sub aliquo respectu ad oppositum pertineat, ultimo loco ponitur, quia est argumentum speciale seu sui generis, scil. negans, quod Spiritus sanctus principalius a Patre procedat, dum cetera argumenta vel probant vel negant, quod Spiritus sanctus plenius a Patre procedat.
    The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, inverts the order of the arguments, placing this last argument in the fifth slot among the arguments for the affirmative — though even in [the Vatican's] margin it has Fundamenta with respect to it as well. The reason for this inversion seems to have been that this argument denies part of the conclusion, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds more principally from the Father. But better, with the codices, this argument is placed last, because — although in some respect it pertains to the affirmative — it is a special argument sui generis, namely denying that the Holy Spirit proceeds more principally from the Father, while the other arguments either prove or deny that He proceeds more fully.
  7. Unus alterve codd. ut V X procedit loco dicitur procedere.
    A codex or two, as V X, read procedit in place of dicitur procedere.
  8. Multi codd., ordine inverso, quod procedit ab aliquo plenius, procedit principalius. Licet utraque lectio, attentis definitionibus terminorum, in se vera sit, attamen unus terminus verificatur in divinis, alter non, et attento ordine terminorum inter se, praeferenda videtur lectio in textum recepta, quae iam in pluribus antiquis mss. ut H L O et ed. 1 invenitur. Cfr. resp. ad 4. — Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 ponatur loco proponatur, et post plenius addit aut si non plenius, neque principalius. Codd. H Y post haec addunt quaestio, sed melius subintelligendum: propositio, quod procedat principalius.
    Many codices, in inverse order, [read] what proceeds from someone more fully, proceeds more principally. Although either reading is in itself true given the definitions of the terms, yet one term is verified in the divine being, the other not; and given the order of the terms among themselves, the reading received into the text is to be preferred, which is found already in several ancient manuscripts (H L O) and in ed. 1. Cf. reply to 4. — The Vatican, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads ponatur in place of proponatur, and after plenius adds aut si non plenius, neque principalius. Codices H Y after this add quaestio, but it is better to understand: the proposition, that He proceeds more principally.
  9. Quaest. praeced. ad 1.
    Preceding question, reply to 1.
  10. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus non bene omissum ita. Concordat Anselm., de Process. Spir. sanct. c. 24.
    From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied ita, which had been wrongly omitted. Anselm agrees, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, c. 24.
  11. Pauci codd. ut H S ee Ad illud quod.
    A few codices, as H S ee, read Ad illud quod.
  12. Codd. L O adiiciunt super Spiritum sanctum.
    Codices L O add super Spiritum sanctum.
  13. Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 Filius pro Spiritum sanctum.
    The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, [reads] Filius in place of Spiritum sanctum.
← Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 3→