138. The Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Unity of Principles

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Procession “Through” the Son #

• Question: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father to the Son, or through the Son?
• Central Issue: If the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son (rather than immediately from the Father), does this violate the principle that what proceeds from one through another is not immediate?
• Key Principle: The Aristotelian maxim propter quod unum quodque illud magis - “that to which the same belongs, but to one because of the other, belongs more to the cause”
  • Fire heats the air around it; the air is hot because the fire is hotter
  • Sugar sweetens coffee; coffee is sweet because sugar is sweeter
  • Medicine is desirable because health is desirable; health is more desirable
  • Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, it proceeds more from the Father than from the Son

The Preposition “Through” (διὰ/per) and Its Multiple Meanings #

• Three Types of Causality for Acting “Through”:

  1. Final Cause: Acting through desire for wealth or profit (the end motivates the action)
  2. Formal Cause: Operating through one’s art or skill
  3. Mover/Efficient Cause: Acting through command of another (as in “your wish is my command”)
  • All three relate to how the action proceeds from the agent

• Instrumental Causality: A fourth sense where “through” designates how action terminates in the thing made

  • Example: The artist acts through the hammer (not that the hammer causes the artist to act, but the hammer is instrumental in producing the artifact)
  • The hammer is not the cause that makes the artist act; it is the cause that the artifact proceeds from the artist

• Distinction Between Authority and Dependence:

  • “In recto” (directly): The king acts through the bailiff (the bailiff is the middle through whom the king’s authority operates)
  • “In oblique” (indirectly): The bailiff acts through the king (the bailiff receives power from the king)
  • In human affairs, both expressions can be used; but in the Trinity, only one direction is proper

One Beginning vs. Two Beginnings #

• Question: Are the Father and Son one beginning or two beginnings of the Holy Spirit?

• Thomas’s Answer: The Father and Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit

• Rationale: The Father and Son are one in all things where they are not distinguished by opposition of relation (oppositio relationis)

  • They are not opposed as beginning and proceeded-from (unlike their opposition as Father and Son, or as generator and generated)
  • Therefore, they constitute one principle

• The Problem of Naming: How can something signifying a property take its number from the form signified?

  • The word “beginning” (principium) signifies a property (a relational aspect), yet it takes its number from the form signified (the divine nature/substance)
  • Just as “God” is singular despite three persons because it signifies the one divine nature
  • Therefore, just as the Father and Son are “one God,” they are “one beginning of the Holy Spirit”

• Distinction Between Substantive and Adjective Names:

  • Substantive names (Father, Son, God, beginning): Take their number from the form signified
  • Adjective names (breathing): Take their number from the individual substances
  • Therefore: Two persons are breathing, but one breathing (one power); two breathers, but one beginning

Key Arguments #

Against the Objection That Proceeding “Through” the Son Violates Immediacy #

Objection: If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, then it does not proceed immediately from the Father.

Response:

• There are two things to consider in every action: (1) the agent/individual who acts, and (2) the power by which they act
• Considering the power: There is no middle. The power of the Father and Son is one and the same—it is the divine substance itself as it subsists in both the Father and the Son
• Considering the persons: The Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father insofar as it proceeds from him as the source of power; it proceeds in a mediate way insofar as it proceeds from the Son, who is from the Father
• Analogy: Just as Abel proceeds immediately from Adam (his father) and mediately from Eve (his mother, who came from Adam’s rib), so the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son (who came from the Father)

Against the Objection That One Power Makes Them Not Two Breathers #

Objection: If the Father and Son have one power of breathing, why do we call them two breathers rather than one breather?

Response:

• Breathing is an adjective, and adjective names take their number from the individual substances that perform the action
• Since there are two persons (Father and Son) who breathe, there are two breathers
• One breathing (singular) refers to the one power they share
• This is analogous to how actions are attributed to individual substances (suppositta), not to powers alone

Against the Claim That One Principle Means One Person #

Objection: If the Father and Son are one beginning, it seems they are one person (since the beginning appears to stand for either the person of the Father or the person of the Son).

Response:

• The term “beginning” has confused and indistinct supposition (confusa et indistincta suppositio) for both persons together, not determinate supposition for one person
• This is not a fallacy but a legitimate way of speaking
• Analogy to Contradictories: Just as “either you are the man doing breakfast or you are the man not doing breakfast” are true contradictories (mutually exclusive and exhaustive), but “are you the man doing breakfast?” can be answered “neither” (if the question presupposes a false dichotomy), so too “the beginning either is the Father or is the Son” is a false dichotory
• The word “beginning” confusedly refers to the shared divine nature and power in both, not determinately to one person

Against the Objection from Hilary’s Text #

Objection (based on Hilary’s On the Trinity): Hilary says the Holy Spirit is “through” the only-begotten Son. If this means the Son is a middle cause, it seems the Son acts as an instrument, making the Holy Spirit proceed more from the Father than the Son.

Response: The preposition “through” in this context must be understood as signifying the cause insofar as it is the source from which the power derives, not as an instrumental middle.

• The Son has from the Father the divine nature and the power to breathe the Holy Spirit
• Therefore, the Father breathes the Holy Spirit through the Son means: the Father breathes through the Son insofar as the Son has this power from the Father
• This does not make the Son an instrument but a co-principle who receives the same power from the Father

Against the Reversal: Why Not “The Son Breathes Through the Father”? #

Objection: If we can say the Father breathes the Holy Spirit through the Son, why cannot we say the Son breathes the Holy Spirit through the Father?

Response:

• The reversibility of “through” depends on the type of causality signified
• When reversible: The king acts through the bailiff (the king operates via the bailiff’s agency) AND the bailiff acts through the king (the bailiff’s power comes from the king)—both are true but in different senses
• When not reversible: We do not say the hammer acts through Michelangelo; only Michelangelo acts through the hammer
• In the Trinity:
  • There is an order of persons (not of power) that distinguishes the direction
  • The Son has his power from the Father; the Father does not have his power from the Son
  • Therefore, we properly say: the Father breathes through the Son
  • We do NOT say: the Son breathes through the Father
  • The distinction lies in the order of dependence of persons, not in any difference of power

Important Definitions #

Principium (Beginning/Principle) #

• Signifies a relational property rather than a person
• Yet takes its number from the form signified (the divine nature), not from the persons
• Analogous to how “God” is one name for three persons
• The Father and Son are “one beginning” as they are “one God”

Oppositio Relationis (Opposition of Relation) #

• The only basis of real distinction among divine persons
• The Father and Son are opposed relatively (one generates, one is generated)
• The Father and Holy Spirit are opposed relatively (one breathes, one is breathed)
• The Father and Son are NOT opposed relatively with respect to being the beginning of the Holy Spirit—they are united in this function

Confusa et Indistincta Suppositio (Confused and Indistinct Supposition) #

• A term that refers to multiple things at once without specifying which one
• Example: “The beginning” in “the Father and Son are one beginning” confusedly refers to both persons insofar as they share the same nature and power
• Distinguished from determinata suppositio (determinate supposition), which refers to one specific thing
• The confusion here is not a fallacy but a legitimate logical operation

Fallacia Accidentis (Fallacy of Accident) #

• One of six kinds of mistakes from words distinguished by Aristotle
• Occurs when treating something as determinate when it is actually confused
• Example: Moving from “the beginning is either the Father or the Son” to “the Father and Son are one beginning” only appears to violate logic if one confuses the term

Examples & Illustrations #

The Adam and Eve Example (Abel’s Procession) #

• Illustration: Abel proceeds immediately from Adam (his father) and mediately from Eve (his mother, who came from Adam’s rib)
• Application to Trinity: Just as Abel has both an immediate relation to Adam and a mediate relation through Eve, the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately through the Son
• Caveat: Berquist notes this material example is inadequate (inept) for signifying immaterial divine procession, but it helps clarify the logical structure

The King and Bailiff Example #

• Illustration:
  • “The king acts through the bailiff” = the bailiff is the middle through whom the king’s authority operates
  • “The bailiff acts through the king” = the bailiff receives his power and authority from the king
  • Both can be said, but in different senses
• Application: In the Trinity, we say “the Father breathes through the Son,” not the reverse, because the Son’s power comes from the Father, not vice versa
• Distinction: Unlike the king and bailiff, the Father and Son are not related as principal cause and instrument; they share the same power

Aristotle’s Principle: Propter Quod Unum Quodque Illud Magis #

• Examples from Nature:

  • Fire is hot; air near fire is hot; but air is hot because of the fire (which is hotter) → heat belongs more to fire
  • Sugar is sweet; coffee with sugar is sweet; but coffee is sweet because of sugar (which is sweeter) → sweetness belongs more to sugar
  • Salt is salty; French fries with salt are salty; but fries are salty because of salt (which is saltier) → saltiness belongs more to salt

• Examples from Logic and Ethics:

  • Premises of a syllogism are known; the conclusion is known; but the conclusion is known because the premises are more known → knowledge belongs more to the premises
  • Health is desirable; medicine is desirable; but medicine is desirable because health is desirable (which is more desirable) → desirability belongs more to health

• Application to Trinity: If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, then the Holy Spirit proceeds more from the Father than from the Son (since the Son has his power from the Father)

The Hammer and Michelangelo Example #

• Illustration: “Michelangelo makes the statue through his chisel” vs. “The chisel makes the statue through Michelangelo”
• The Asymmetry: We say the first but NOT the second, because:
  • The hammer is an instrument; it does not act on its own but is moved by the artist
  • The hammer is the cause through which the action terminates (in the marble)
  • The hammer is NOT the cause that makes the artist act

Notable Quotes #

“In every action there are two things to be considered. One is the individual who’s acting, right? And the other is the power by which he acts. Just as fire heats by heat.” — Duane Berquist, explaining Thomas’s distinction between agent and power in divine action

“The Father and the Son in all things are one in which the opposition of relation does not distinguish among them. Whence in this, which is to be the beginning of the Holy Spirit…they are not opposed relatively. It follows that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit.” — Thomas Aquinas (via Berquist), on why the Father and Son form one principle

“Beginning…signifies a property, nevertheless it signifies it in a substantial way. Just as this name Father or Son…Whence it takes its number from the form signified, just as other substantial names do.” — Thomas Aquinas (via Berquist), on how a relational term takes its number from the nature signified

“The word beginning…confusedly and indistinctly for two persons together…fallacy of…from a confused supposition to a determinate.” — Thomas Aquinas (via Berquist), on the logical structure of “one beginning” terminology

Questions Addressed #

Article 3: Does the Holy Spirit Proceed from the Father Through the Son? #

Question: What does it mean for the Holy Spirit to proceed “through” the Son, and does this violate the principle that what proceeds through another is not immediate?

Berquist’s Exposition of Thomas’s Solution:

• Considering power: There is no middle; the power is one and the same divine substance in both Father and Son
• Considering persons: The Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father (as source) and mediately through the Son (who receives from the Father)
• The analogy of Adam and Abel clarifies this: Abel is immediate offspring of Adam, mediate offspring through Eve

Article 4: Are the Father and the Son One Beginning of the Holy Spirit? #

Question: How can two persons be “one” beginning when they are not one person?

Multiple Objections Presented:

1. The Holy Spirit would have to proceed from them as one, but they are not one in nature (else the Spirit would proceed from itself) or in property (one property cannot belong to two persons)
2. “One beginning” seems to presuppose either personal identity or property identity, neither of which applies
3. The Father and Son agree more than Father and Spirit, so if Father-Spirit cannot be one beginning, neither can Father-Son
4. “One beginning” must either designate the Father or the Son determinately, which leads to contradictions
5. If they are “one” beginning, they are the same beginning, but they are said to be two breathers, not one breather
6. We do not reverse the preposition: we do not say “the Son breathes the Spirit through the Father,” so how can we say the Father breathes through the Son?
7. The Father and Son are two breathers (due to distinction of persons), just as Creator applies to all three; so “one beginning” seems improper

Thomas’s Central Response:

• The Father and Son are one in all things where opposition of relation does not distinguish them
• They are not opposed relatively with respect to being the beginning of the Holy Spirit
• Therefore they constitute one principle
• The term “beginning” has confused supposition (refers to both persons together in their shared nature/power) rather than determinate supposition (refers to one person specifically)
• This is analogous to how “God” is singular despite three persons

To the Objection About “Two Breathers but One Beginning”:

• “Breathing” is an adjective that takes its number from the agents (the two persons)
• “Beginning” is a substantive that takes its number from the form signified (the divine nature)
• Therefore: two breathers, but one beginning—this is consistent

To the Objection About Reversal (Why Not “Son Breathes Through Father”?):

• When “through” designates a cause in the order of agents, the order is reversible (king/bailiff)
• When “through” designates a cause in the order of persons and dependence, it is not reversible
• In the Trinity, there is an order of persons (the Son depends on the Father, not vice versa), though not an order of power
• Therefore: “Father breathes through the Son” is proper; “Son breathes through the Father” is not

Medieval Scholastic Method #

Berquist explains that medieval theological education employed a distinctive pedagogy:

• Lectures (Monday, Wednesday, Friday): The master presents doctrine systematically
• Disputations (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday): Students pose objections for and against positions; the master then solves the entire problem
• This method trained students in rigorous logical analysis and the ability to address sophisticated objections
• The public defense of a dissertation was a major intellectual event where successful defenses were celebrated publicly