Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 13
ARTICULUS UNICUS.
De processione Spiritus sancti et de differentia processionis a generatione.
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum in divinis ponenda sit processio.
Circa primum, quod processio sit ponenda in divinis, ostenditur:
1. Primo auctoritate Domini, Ioannis decimo quinto1, ubi dicit ipse Salvator: Mittam vobis Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit. Si ergo Veritas non dicit nisi verum, et Verbum Dei non loquitur
improprium, vere ergo et proprie2 est processio in divinis.
2. Item, in divinis verissime est origo, ergo et productio; sed omni productioni activae respondet productio passiva; sed productio passiva est processio: ergo a primo3 in divinis vere et proprie est [processio].
3. Item, amor noster et est amor4 et ab alio, et exitus eius ab alio vere et proprie exprimitur in verbo procedendi: cum igitur amor divinus, qui est Spiritus sanctus, vere et proprie amor sit et ab alio sit, sicut nomen amoris ei competit propriissime, ita videtur ei convenire et processio.
4. Item, ad completam rationem processionis ista duo requiruntur, quod sit ab alio et in alium tendat; sed amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, non procedit a Patre, in quantum amat se, nec5 a Filio, in quantum amat se, sed in quantum unus amat alterum, quia nexus est: ergo Spiritus sanctus est amor, quo amans tendit in alium: ergo est amor et ab alio et in alium6, et ista duo complectuntur rationem processionis perfectae: ergo processio est in divinis.
CONTRA:
1. Processio de ratione sui nominis dicit elongationem et recessionem; unde processio quasi procul cessio, sicut praecessio dicit antecessionem; sed sicut in divinis non est antecessio propter summam simultatem, ita non est elongatio propter summam unitatem: ergo sicut in divinis non ponitur nomen praecessionis, ita nec7 debet poni nomen processionis.
2. Item, in creaturis processio de ratione sui generis dicit motum, et ita indigentiam et imperfectionem; sed nullum tale nomen debet transferri ad Deum: ergo nec processio.
3. Item, creatio dicit specialem differentiam processionis et differentiam addentem nobilitatem, quia dicit egressum rei a Creatore, qui est causa nobilissima; sed creatio passiva nullo modo reperitur in divinis; nulla enim persona dicitur creari: ergo pari ratione nec processio.
4. Item, processio in creaturis non dicitur nisi dupliciter, videlicet localis et causalis: localis, quae est in motu progressivo, causalis, quae est effectus a causa. Sed localis non potest transferri ad divina, quia nulla mutatio secundum locum nec in generali nec in speciali cadit in Deo. Et praeterea8, cum talis sit ab uno in alium, oportet ponere, quod Spiritus sanctus aeternaliter non procederet a Patre et Filio; non ergo invenitur processio localis. Sed haec nobilior est quam causalis, quia ista est entis completi et a principio intrinseco: ergo per locum a maiori nec causalis invenitur in Deo: et ita nullus modus processionis reperitur9.
CONCLUSIO.
Ratio processionis vere, proprie et perfecte invenitur in divinis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod processio in creaturis dicit respectum ad principium a quo, ut radius dicitur procedere a sole, sive flos ab arbore; et quod dicat mutationem10, hoc accidit ei. Et similiter ratione nominis dicit respectum ad terminum ad quem; et quod dicat elongationem, hoc accidit ei.
Quoniam igitur in divinis uterque respectus reperitur; nam persona procedens respectum habet ad principium a quo, amor procedens11 respectum habet ad amatum, amor scilicet ille, qui est nexus et caritas: ideo vere et proprie et perfecte ratio processionis invenitur in divinis. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc adductae12.
Ad argumenta in contrarium:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod processio dicit elongationem; dicendum, quod hoc verum est in creaturis, in quibus per approximationem ad terminum ad quem fit elongatio a termino a quo propter sui finitatem et circumscriptionem et distantiam; et13 sic non est in Deo.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicit motum in creaturis; dicendum, quod non transfertur ratione motus, quem dicit, sed ratione duplicis respectus, qui, quamvis non possit esse in creaturis sine motu propter imperfectionem, nihilominus tamen est in Creatore.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de creatione, dicendum, quod creatio de principali impositione dicit exitum de nihilo; et ideo nullo modo significatum eius potest in Deo salvari, nec proprie nec transsumtive; non sic autem est de generatione et processione.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nec causalis nec localis; dicendum, quod immo ad modum causalis convenientiam habet processio in divinis cum locali. Nam causalis processio uno modo terminatur in procedente, et ita14 quod nihil ultra respicit, ut cum dicitur: filius procedit a patre; alio modo, prout effectus respicit aliquem ut terminum; et sic procedit amor ab amante in amatum, et aliquo modo convenit cum processione locali, quia respicit terminum ad quem; aliquo modo differt, quia non respicit, tanquam in illo recipiatur, sed tanquam obiectum. Et quoniam respectus et emanatio vere reperiuntur in divinis, hinc est, quod illa emanatio dicitur ad similitudinem emanationis causalis. Sed similitudo localis processionis ibi non cadit nisi longinque; et ideo Graeci decepti sunt.
Et ad illud, quod processio localis est perfectior; dicendum, quod processio localis semper habet imperfectionem coniunctam de ratione nominis; non sic originalis. Et verum est, quod perfectior est inter motus; sed processio in divinis non dicit motum, sed originem sine motu et mutatione, sicut supra dictum est de generatione.
SCHOLION.
I. Ratio processionis in creaturis continet essentialiter duplicem respectum, scilicet ad terminum a quo et ad terminum ad quem. Hi respectus per se nullam important imperfectionem, unde etiam in divinis poni possunt. Secundario vero et per accidens (« hoc ei accidit, » ut dicit S. Doctor) processio in creaturis importat imperfectiones, nempe tum mutationem seu motum principii a quo, tum elongationem termini ad quem. Hae imperfectiones excludi debent a processione in divinis. Circa hanc distinctionem et aliam in solut. ad i. positam cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 43. m. i. in corp.
II. Conclusio pertinet ad fidem. Cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. — Scot., pro hac et duabus seqq. in Oxon. et Report. hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 27. a. 1. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 11. a. 1; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. i. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 4. princ. q. i. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. S. a. 61. q. 2. n. 6. seq. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, I. Sent. d. 11. q. 1.
---
Sole Article.
On the procession of the Holy Spirit and on the difference of procession from generation.
Question I.
Whether procession is to be posited in divine things.
Concerning the first point — that procession is to be posited in divine things — it is shown:
1. First, by the authority of the Lord, John fifteen1, where the Saviour himself says: I will send you the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. If, then, Truth speaks only what is true, and the Word of God does not speak
improperly, then truly and properly2 there is procession in divine things.
2. Likewise, in divine things there is most truly origin, therefore also production; but to every active production there corresponds a passive production; but passive production is procession: therefore from the first point3 there truly and properly is [procession] in divine things.
3. Likewise, our love both is love4 and is from another, and its issuing-forth from another is truly and properly expressed by the verb to proceed: since therefore the divine love, which is the Holy Spirit, is truly and properly love and is from another — just as the name love belongs to him most properly, so likewise procession seems to befit him.
4. Likewise, for the complete account of procession these two are required: that it be from another, and that it tend toward another; but the love who is the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father insofar as the Father loves himself, nor5 from the Son insofar as the Son loves himself, but insofar as one loves the other, since he is the bond: therefore the Holy Spirit is the love by which the lover tends toward another: therefore he is love both from another and toward another6, and these two embrace the account of perfect procession: therefore procession is in divine things.
On the contrary:
1. Procession from the meaning of its very name signifies withdrawal and recession; whence processio is as it were procul cessio ("a going-away-from-afar"), just as praecessio signifies antecession; but just as in divine things there is no antecession on account of supreme simultaneity, so there is no withdrawal on account of supreme unity: therefore, just as in divine things the name of praecession is not posited, so neither7 ought the name of procession to be posited.
2. Likewise, in creatures procession from the very meaning of its genus signifies motion, and so indigence and imperfection; but no such name ought to be transferred to God: therefore neither procession.
3. Likewise, creation signifies a specific difference of procession, a difference adding nobility, since it signifies the going-forth of a thing from the Creator, who is the most noble cause; but passive creation is in no way found in divine things, for no person is said to be created: therefore by parity of reasoning neither procession.
4. Likewise, procession in creatures is said only in two ways, namely local and causal: local, which is in progressive motion, causal, which is the effect from a cause. But local cannot be transferred to divine things, since no change with respect to place falls in God either generically or specifically. And besides8, since such [local procession] is from one to another, we should have to posit that the Holy Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Father and the Son; therefore local procession is not found. But this is more noble than causal, since the former [local] is of a complete being and from an intrinsic principle: therefore by argument a maiori through place, neither is causal procession found in God: and so no mode of procession is found9.
Conclusion.
The account of procession is found in divine things truly, properly, and perfectly.
I respond: It must be said that procession in creatures signifies a relation to a principle from which — as a ray is said to proceed from the sun, or a flower from a tree; and the fact that it signifies change10 is incidental to it. And likewise, by reason of its name, it signifies a relation to a term to which; and the fact that it signifies withdrawal is incidental to it.
Since therefore in divine things both relations are found — for the proceeding person has a relation to the principle from which, and the proceeding love11 has a relation to what is loved (that love, namely, who is the bond and charity) — for that reason the account of procession is found truly, properly, and perfectly in divine things. Hence the arguments adduced for this12 are to be granted.
To the arguments to the contrary:
To 1. To that which is objected to the contrary — that procession signifies withdrawal — it must be said that this is true in creatures, in which by approach to the term to which there comes about a withdrawal from the term from which, on account of their finitude, circumscription, and distance; and13 it is not so in God.
To 2. To what is objected — that it signifies motion in creatures — it must be said that it is not transferred by reason of the motion which it signifies, but by reason of the twofold relation, which, although it cannot be in creatures without motion on account of imperfection, nonetheless is in the Creator.
To 3. To what is objected concerning creation, it must be said that creation in its principal imposition signifies issuance from nothing; and therefore its signification can in no way be saved in God, neither properly nor by transferred meaning; but it is not so concerning generation and procession.
To 4. To what is objected — that neither causal nor local [procession applies] — it must be said that on the contrary, in the manner of causal procession, divine procession has a likeness with local. For causal procession in one mode terminates in the proceeder, in such a way14 that it looks no further, as when it is said: the son proceeds from the father; in another mode, insofar as the effect regards something as a term; and in this way love proceeds from the lover into the beloved, and in some manner agrees with local procession, since it regards a term to which; in another manner it differs, since it does not regard [the term] as if it were received in it, but as an object. And since relation and emanation are truly found in divine things, hence it is that the emanation [in God] is said in likeness to causal emanation. But the likeness of local procession does not fall there except remotely; and therefore the Greeks were deceived.
And to the point that local procession is the more perfect, it must be said that local procession always has imperfection joined to it from the meaning of its name; not so the originative kind. And it is true that it is the more perfect among motions; but procession in divine things does not signify motion, but origin without motion or change, as was said above concerning generation.
Scholion.
I. The account of procession in creatures contains essentially a twofold relation, namely to the term from which and to the term to which. These relations of themselves entail no imperfection, hence they can also be posited in divine things. Secondarily, however, and by accident ("this is incidental to it," as the Holy Doctor says), procession in creatures imports imperfections, namely both change or motion of the principle from which, and withdrawal of the term to which. These imperfections must be excluded from procession in divine things. On this distinction and the other given in the response to 1, cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. 1, q. 43, m. i, in corp.
II. The conclusion pertains to faith. Cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions in Oxon. and Report. here, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Summa I, q. 27, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 11, a. 1; Summa p. I, tr. 7, q. 31, m. i. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. — Aegidius of Rome, here, 4. princ. q. i. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following, Summa a. 61, q. 2, n. 6 ff. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, I Sent. d. 11, q. 1.
---
- Vers. 26, ubi Vulgata: Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit. — Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, vocum, per quam dicit Salvator.Verse 26, where the Vulgate reads: But when the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. — The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, has vocum, per quam dicit Salvator ("of the words, by which the Saviour says").
- Corruptam lectionem Vat. et verba Dei non loquitur nisi proprie vere: ergo proprie emendavimus ope antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1.We have corrected the corrupt reading of the Vatican edition — et verba Dei non loquitur nisi proprie vere: ergo proprie — with the help of the older manuscripts and ed. 1.
- Vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt hic in Vat. et cod. ec additum ad ultimum.The older codices, with ed. 1, omit ad ultimum ("to the last [point]"), which is added here in the Vatican edition and codex ec.
- Cod. K addit iterum est.Codex K adds est a second time.
- Aliqui codd. ut N cum ed. 1 sed nec.Some codices, such as N, with ed. 1, read sed nec ("but neither") in place of nec.
- Ita antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1, quamvis plures falso in aliis pro in alium; Vat. autem cum cod. cc omittit verba ergo est usque in alium.Thus the older codices, with ed. 1, although several wrongly read in aliis for in alium; the Vatican edition, however, with codex cc, omits the words ergo est through in alium.
- Vat. cum pluribus mss. minus bene non pro nec.The Vatican edition, with several manuscripts, less well reads non for nec.
- Ed. 1 propterea. Mox Vat. oporteret pro oportet.Ed. 1 reads propterea ("therefore") for praeterea ("besides"). Shortly after, the Vatican edition has oporteret ("it would be necessary") for oportet ("it is necessary").
- Codd. Y ee addunt in divinis, cod. F in Deo. — De eo, quod processio sive motus localis sit ceteris motibus nobilior cfr. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 54-60. (c. 7.).Codices Y and ee add in divinis ("in divine things"), codex F adds in Deo ("in God"). — On the point that procession or local motion is more noble than the other motions, cf. Aristotle, Physics VIII, text. 54–60 (c. 7).
- Vat. cum cod. cc dicit motum; plures tamen antiquiores codd. ut F H I M X Y aa bb ee cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram, quae confirmatur lectione falsa multorum mss. dicat unitatem. Circa finem responsionis Vat. cum cod. cc, ceteris codd. tamen cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, dicit loco dicat. Dein multi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt ei.The Vatican edition with codex cc reads dicit motum ("it signifies motion"); several older codices, however — F, H, I, M, X, Y, aa, bb, ee, with ed. 1 — show our reading [dicat mutationem, "should signify change"], which is confirmed by the corrupt reading of many manuscripts dicat unitatem ("should signify unity"). Near the end of the response, the Vatican edition with codex cc — though the other codices with ed. 1 are against it — reads dicit in place of dicat. Then many codices with ed. 1 omit ei ("to it").
- Vat. contra omnes codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3 ut amor procedens ab amante. Mox cod. K post habet addit ad i et, sed perperam, quia in hoc divisionis membro ad solum secundus respectus, scil. terminus ad quem.The Vatican edition, against all the codices and edd. 1, 2, 3, reads ut amor procedens ab amante ("as love proceeding from the lover"). Shortly after, codex K after habet adds ad i et ("to 1 and"), but wrongly, because in this member of the division ad concerns only the second relation, namely the term to which.
- Plures codd. ut GHIKPQ etc. inductae.Several codices, such as G, H, I, K, P, Q, etc., read inductae ("introduced") for adductae ("adduced").
- Ed. 1 sed loco et.Ed. 1 reads sed ("but") in place of et ("and").
- Vat. adiungit processio. Mox auctoritate vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus quem dicit, et circa finem solutionis tameii [recte: tamen].The Vatican edition adds processio ("procession"). Shortly after, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have supplied quem dicit ("which it signifies"), and near the end of the solution tamen ("nonetheless").