155. Notional Acts and Divine Uniqueness in the Trinity

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Notional Acts and Divine Persons #

• Definition of Notional Acts: Acts that constitute and distinguish the divine persons (e.g., generation of the Son, procession of the Holy Spirit)
• Question Posed: Can notional acts terminate at multiple persons, producing multiple sons or multiple emanations in God?
• Central Claim: There can be only one Son and one Holy Spirit; no multiplicity of divine persons of the same kind is possible

Four Reasons for Divine Uniqueness #

1. Formal Distinction and Matter #

• Multiple persons of the same kind (multiple fatherhood, multiple sonship) would require a material distinction
• Material distinction requires matter subject to quantity; God has no matter
• Therefore, only a formal distinction can exist in God (distinction by relations like fatherhood and sonship)
• Just as there cannot be two subsisting whiteness (but only one), there cannot be two subsisting fatherhood or sonship

2. Simplicity of Divine Acts #

• God understands all things and wills all things by one simple act
• Therefore, there can be only one person proceeding by way of understanding (the Word/Son)
• And only one proceeding by way of love (the Holy Spirit)
• Unlike humans with multiple thoughts and multiple acts of will, God has singular understanding and willing

3. Natural Procession #

• Divine persons proceed naturally, not by voluntary choice
• Nature is determined to one thing; nature cannot be divided or multiplied
• Therefore, natural procession from the Father can produce only one Son

4. Perfection of Divine Persons #

• The Son contains the whole perfection of divine sonship
• A truly perfect son lacks nothing; another son would be identical to the first
• Therefore, another son would not truly be another person but the same person
• Perfection itself prevents multiplicity: what is perfect admits no addition

The Power of Generating: Essence vs. Relation #

• Although the Father and Son possess the same divine power, the Son cannot generate
• The distinction turns on active vs. passive: the Father has power to generate (active); the Son has power to be generated (passive)
• This is expressed through gerundive distinction: generandi (generating/active) vs. generandi as passive (being generated)
• The same ability is present in both, but relation determines its mode: in the Father as constituting him as generator; in the Son as constituting him as generated

Objection from Augustine #

• Augustine states that the Son did not generate the Creator “not that he is not able, but that it was not suitable”
• This phrasing suggests the Son has the power but refrains from exercising it
• However, Thomas maintains that this concerns notional acts that constitute persons, not merely acts of power
• Generation is not an act the Son performs but rather the relation that constitutes him as Son

Key Arguments #

On Why the Son Cannot Generate #

• Premise 1: Generation is a notional act that constitutes a person as Father
• Premise 2: The Son is constituted by sonship (the relation of being generated), not fatherhood
• Premise 3: One cannot be both constituted as Father and Son; these are opposite relations
• Conclusion: The Son cannot generate, because to do so would contradict his constitution as Son
• Clarification: The Son possesses the same divine power/ability as the Father, but this ability in the Son is the ability to be generated (passive), not to generate (active)

On Multiplicity of Divine Persons #

• Premise 1: If God could generate multiple sons, there would be multiple divine persons
• Premise 2: Multiple persons of the same kind require material distinction (difference of matter)
• Premise 3: God has no matter; God has only formal distinction (by relations)
• Premise 4: Formal distinction cannot be repeated (cannot have two fatherhoods, two sonships)
• Conclusion: There cannot be multiple sons; only one Son exists in God

On Simplicity of Divine Understanding #

• Premise 1: Divine understanding is one simple act (not multiple acts like human understanding)
• Premise 2: This one act is God’s understanding of himself, which comprehends all things
• Premise 3: The Word (Son) proceeds as the thought/concept of God understanding himself
• Conclusion: There can be only one Word/Son (just as there can be only one divine thought)

Important Definitions #

Notional Act (Actus Notionales) #

• An act that constitutes a divine person and distinguishes it from other divine persons
• Examples: generation (constitutes Father and Son), procession/breathing (constitutes Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
• Characterized as natural and necessary, not involving choice or exhaustion of power

Material Distinction (Distinctio Materialis) #

• Distinction arising from matter subject to quantity/extension
• Enables multiplicity of individuals of the same kind (multiple chairs, multiple humans)
• Absent in God, who is immaterial

Formal Distinction (Distinctio Formalis) #

• Distinction not based on matter but on opposite forms or relations
• The only type of distinction possible in God
• In God’s case: distinction by opposite relations (e.g., fatherhood vs. sonship)

Gerundive (Active vs. Passive) #

• Generandi (as active gerund): power of generating; the capacity to bring forth
• Generandi (as passive gerundive): power of being generated; the capacity to proceed from another
• Same underlying ability distinguished by relational mode (who has it and how it functions)

Virtual Quantity (Quantitas Virtualis) #

• Perfection or excellence understood as degree, not physical magnitude
• In God, “equality” concerns virtual quantity (no person exceeds another in perfection, eternity, or power), not physical size

Examples & Illustrations #

Multiplicity and Matter #

• Two window panes: Exactly alike yet multiple because of matter subject to quantity (here/there)
• Two equilateral triangles: Can be constructed in geometry but are distinct in location, not in form
• Cats and kittens: Same species, same perfection potentially, but different individuals because of matter; the kitten has the mother’s features but not numerically the same features

Divine Nature vs. Created Nature #

• Human generation: Father generates son from part of his substance (not exhausted); son is like father in nature but different in individual number
• Divine generation: Father generates Son from the whole divine nature (nature remains undivided); Son is like Father not just in nature but in the very same numerical nature
• Phrase: “Chip off the old block” captures the human sense; in God, the Son IS the whole block, not just a chip

Teaching and Knowledge #

• Geometry teacher: The teacher acts (teaches) but does so by means of the science of geometry (that by which the teacher teaches)
• Application: I teach geometry, but I do not teach geometry by my personhood; I teach by the science of geometry
• The teacher is one who generates knowledge; geometry is that by which knowledge is generated
• In God: The Father generates the Son, but by the divine nature (not by fatherhood); the divine nature is that by which the Father generates

My Thoughts vs. God’s Thought #

• Human mind: I can think of a triangle and separately think of a square—two thoughts because I have multiple acts of thinking
• Divine mind: God thinks of himself, and in this one thinking, he thinks of all things (all possibilities, all creatures)
• Implication: If God had multiple acts of understanding, multiple Words might proceed; but having one act, only one Word proceeds

Questions Addressed #

Can the Son Generate Another Son? #

• Objection: The Son possesses the same power as the Father; the Father can generate; therefore, the Son should be able to generate
• Response: Although the Son has the same divine power, generation is a notional act constitutive of personhood. The Son is constituted as Son (recipient of generation), not as Father (agent of generation). The Son’s relation is sonship, not fatherhood. To generate would be to assume fatherhood, contradicting his constitution as Son.
• Further Clarification: The Son has the power to be generated (passive), not the power to generate (active). These are the same ability distinguished by relation and personhood.

If God Is All-Powerful, Why Can’t He Generate Multiple Sons? #

• Objection: God’s power is not diminished by generating one Son; therefore, God should be able to generate multiple sons, just as a human father can have multiple sons
• Response: Four reasons prevent this: (1) multiple persons of the same kind require matter; God has no matter; (2) God’s understanding is one act, so only one Word proceeds; (3) natural procession is determined to one; (4) the Son contains the whole perfection of sonship, so another son would be identical and not truly another

Does Generation Prove the Power of Generating Is a Relation, Not Essence? #

• Objection: Power signifies a beginning; a beginning in God is said notionally (i.e., with respect to a person/relation); therefore, power of generating must signify a relation, not the divine essence
• Response: Although generation itself is a notional act (a relation), the power of generating signifies the divine essence directly (in recto) and the relation obliquely (in obliquo). The divine essence is that by which the Father generates; fatherhood is how the Father is constituted as the one who generates.

Why Doesn’t Augustine’s Statement Create a Problem? #

• Objection: Augustine says the Son did not generate “not that he is not able, but that it was not suitable,” suggesting the Son has the power but chooses not to exercise it
• Response: Augustine speaks from the perspective of divine will and suitability, not from the metaphysical impossibility arising from personhood. The real issue is that generation constitutes personhood; the Son cannot generate because he is constituted by being generated (sonship). It is not merely unsuitable; it is metaphysically impossible given the relational constitution of the persons.

Related Philosophical Observations #

Distinctions vs. Inventions #

• Berquist reflects on whether Thomas’s distinctions are discovered (pre-existing in reality) or invented (fabricated to escape difficulty)
• Comparison to Mozart: Einstein remarked that Beethoven seemed to make his music, while Mozart seemed to find it—suggesting Mozart’s music was somehow already present in the universe, merely discovered
• Implication: Theological distinctions, like mathematical truths, are seen rather than made up; they reflect the actual structure of reality

The Order of Knowledge vs. The Order of Things #

• Aristotle and Porphyry organize their treatments (of categories and predicables) not arbitrarily but according to the order of things themselves
• Substance grounds all accidents; quantity precedes some qualities; relations depend on quantity or quality
• Similarly, Thomas’s distinctions about divine persons follow the actual metaphysical structure, not merely linguistic convenience