Prima Pars
Lecture 112: The Second Procession in God: Love and the Holy Spirit

Transcript
================================================================================

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds. Lord, illumine our images and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, pray for your house. Help us to understand all the truth, and the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. Now, before we begin here a little bit from the Pope's vacation, okay? Because I think it's important for you to know about this. He's up there for 18-day vacation in the Italian Alps there, right? Although Pope Benedict did not tackle the vigorous hikes that the late Pope John Paul II enjoyed during his early summer days at the same Italian resort, the current pontiff did devote himself intensively to another vocation. Another vocation, excuse me, pursuit, music. The piano was brought into the cabin where he stayed, and Navarro Walz reported that the Pope generally plans two lengthy sessions a day with a heavy emphasis on his favorite compositions by Mozart. A little bit of support there from Mozart, you know, despite being a mason. So, now, as you notice in the 27th question, there is, what, five articles, huh? And, of course, you have to divide into two or three to know what you're doing, huh? So, how would you divide these five articles, huh? Well, one way of dividing it into three would be to say, is there a going forward in God? Question, whether something is, right? That there's a going forward in God. And then, secondly, what is that going forward, right? And that's the next three articles, huh? Which we saw the second one last time. And then, finally, how many going forwards are there in God, right? So, in that middle part, which we're in right now, in the article we just read last time, I think the second article, there is a going forward that is a, what, generation, right? It rises to the sun. Now, in the third and fourth articles, he's asking about another going forward, what that is. And, first of all, in the fourth or third article, is there a going forward in addition to this one we talked about in the second article? And then, whether this can be called generation in the fourth article. So, he says, to the third one proceeds thus, Thus, it seems that there is not in divine things another going forward from the generation, or besides the generation of the word, huh? For for the same reason, there would be another procession from that procession. And thus, one would proceed forever, right? Which is unsuitable, right? Therefore, one ought to stand in the first thing and say there's only one going forward in God, or in divine things. So, it's worried about, you know, if you've met another procession in addition to that one, then why don't you go on forever? Processions and processions, you know, like you're a Buddhist or something, you know? Moreover, in every nature, there is found only one way of communicating that nature. And this is because operations have their, what? According to their limits, huh? Unity and diversity, right? But the procession in divine things is not except according to the communication of the divine nature. Since, therefore, there's only one divine nature, as has been shown above, it remains that there's only one going forward, one proceeding in God. Moreover, if in divine things there is another going forward from the understandable going forward of the word, it will not be except the going forward of love, which is according to the operation of the will. But such a going forward cannot be other than the going forward of the understanding, the intelligible going forward. Why? Because the will of God is the same thing as his what? Yeah, it's not other from his understanding. It's how it's been shown above. Therefore, in God, there is not another what going forward besides the going forward of the word, okay? So, between the divine understanding and divine wills, there are real distinctions in God. They're one and the same thing, right? And the distinction between the two is in our mind, right? But it corresponds to the unity of the two in our mind. So, this third objection now is anticipating the fact that the second proceeding is going to be according to the will. But if the reason or the understanding of God and the will of God are the same thing, then the acts of the two are the same thing, the proceedings are the same thing, we're merely naming the same thing twice. You're falling back into the heresy of Sibelius, right? Where they differ only in thought, but not really. The Father and the Son, or the Son of the Holy Spirit in this case. That's kind of an interesting objection, right? But against this, this is the second one, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as is said in the Gospel of St. John, chapter 15, verse 26. But he is other from the Son, according to what is said in John, chapter 14. I will ask my Father that he will give you another character, another consoler, another visor for you. Therefore, in divine things, there is another going forward besides the going forward of the word. Now, this is why I brought my New Testament here in Greek and the dictionary here, right? It's interesting, these two texts that Thomas refers to here, right? In the Latin, in both cases, you'd speak of a proceeding, a going forward, right? But actually, in the Greek text, there's two words, huh? So, but really synonyms for this, huh? So, for example, in one of the earlier texts here, where Thomas is, where Jesus is talking about this. In English here, it says, in John, chapter 8, actually, verse 42. For I proceeded forth and came from God, right? Okay. And he says, for I came forth from God, huh? And the Greek word is ex-imae, huh? Ex-a-mae, okay. Now, what the Greek dictionary says about that word? It says, to march out with an army. To come forth, right? So, in Latin, they'll translate that by pocheter, huh? To proceed, to go forth, huh? Okay? Now, in this text, it refers to there in 15, 26 here. Look at John's Gospel again. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, right? Okay? And the Greek word here is not ex-imae, but ex-pouruatai. Now, to go out, or forth, it is his meaning here. That's it. To march out. So, the Son marches out from the Father, right? And the Holy Spirit marches out from the Father and the Son, right? So, you have two different words in Greek. But they're... really synonyms, more or less. And so in Latin, you have just one word to translate that in the text, usually, which is bocederea, to proceed. And in English, we can say goes forth and comes forth. It's actually a little book learning there. It's just always a sore point with the orthodoxy about that and so forth. And like that, in large commission, they discuss some of the nuances of the fathers, especially for your fathers. I give that but basically it came out of the same thing. It's basically two words. So what Thomas says in the body of the article, I answer it should be said that in divine things there are two processions, two going forths. One which is the going forth of the word and thought of God, and there's a certain other one, which is not so well named. To the evidence of this, he says, it should be considered that in God, in divini, I don't know why he says in divini, so I didn't say in God, but in fine matters, there is not a going forward except by an action that does not tend to something outside of God, but remains within the one doing it. But an action of this sort in a understanding nature, intellectual nature, is the action of the understanding and the action of the will. but the going forth of the word is to be noted according to a what? Yeah. But according to the operation of the will, there is found in us a certain other going forth. To it, the going forth of love by which the loved is in the lover. Just as by the conception of the word, the thing said or understood is in the one what? Understanding. Whence, besides the going forth of the word, there should be laid down another going forward in divine things, which is the going forward of what? Love. This, of course, would be the reason later on why there's only two going forwards. These are the only two operations within, right? They remain within the one doing them that could give rise to a person. And because the divine understanding and the divine loving are the same as the divine what-being, then the one who proceeds by way of knowing and the one by way of loving is also what? God. It's also God. So what is this going forward in God? It turns out to be at least two, right? But when you get to the fifth article, we'll say that's all there is. Now, the first objection was saying, you have another procession from the original one, then why not? Another one from that one, and so on forever. The first, therefore, should be said that it is not necessary to go forward in divine going forwards forever. For the going forward which is towards what is within, in understanding nature, terminates in the going forward of the will, because that's where you rest in what has gone forward. Loving it, So if you take that image, you know, of the Trinity in us, right? When there proceeds from my reason, Shakespeare's definition of reason, and then I realize what a great thing reason is, then I rest in the beauty of reason, and that's what comes to an end. But the trouble is that the being of my reason and the understanding of my reason aren't the same thing. And my loving is, again, something different than my understanding. So, is the definition of reason, reason? In some way it is, but that's simply speaking, it's not reason. And is reason in my love, reason? That's simply the provocation. But if my loving and my understanding were my being, then they would be. And then I'd be just like God. Fortunately, I'm not. Now, the second objection is saying, well, how can there be more than one way that God is generated? The other things isn't so on. Well, the answer is given here in reply to the second objection. That the second should be said that whatever is in God is God, right? Which does not take place in other things, right? You can say in general, too, whatever God has is God, right? Is that true of you and me? I have some knowledge of geometry, is that me? I have some health, is that me? He has something added to me, right? But since God is altogether simple, there's no multiplicity, no composition in God, whatever God is said to have, like knowledge, he has knowledge, he has virtues, these things are God, okay? If there's a distinction between God and what he has, like there's a distinction between me and the little bit of knowledge I have on Greek, that's not me, then there'd be a composition, right? And one thing added to another in God, right? And that's excluded from the question on simplicity of God. So, since whatever is in God is God, which doesn't happen to other things, and therefore, through any going forward, which is not to the outside, there is going to be communicated to the divine nature. This won't take place in other natures, huh? So there's a going forward in me, and more than one, right? Or something goes forward within me and stays within me, right? And the first example I gave of that was the imagination, right? When I imagine a gold mountain, or a glass mountain, like in the fairy tale, there goes forward from my imagination an image of a glass mountain, right? But that image of a glass mountain remains within my imagination. So that's in some ways like what's going on in God, because there's a going forward that remains within the one that it goes forward from. Now, it's not as well known to us, but when I think about something, right? There goes forward from my mind a thought of what I'm thinking of. And sometimes it's a very vague thought, but if a definition goes forward from my mind, it's a very distinct thought about that, huh? But although this is less known to us than the imagination, it's more like what's taking place in the Trinity. Why do I say that? Well, I can imagine a glass mountain, but can I imagine my imagination? My ability to imagine? Can I imagine my imagination? No. But when Shakespeare defines reason as he does, the ability for a large discourse, looking before and after, then he's understanding itself. The reason is understanding itself. And so that going forward is more like the going forward of the word of God from God, right? Than was the image going forward, right? Because it doesn't go forward from the imagination and image of itself. But there can be a Go forward from my reason, a thought of itself. That's why when Thomas Aquinas is explaining logic, he says, you know, reason can think about how to use your hands to cook and so on, but in logic you think about how to use your reason itself. Reason thinks about how to use itself, you know. So reason can come back upon itself and know its own act and even to some extent know itself. So it's so marvelous about that definition of Shakespeare. I mean, apart from all the use it has in philosophy and in our thinking and so on, but it's an image of something in God, and it's more like the going forward, right, than the image is. The image going forward is like it insofar as it remains authentic, but not insofar as the image of the very thing that it's imagining. But in reason defining itself and knowing what reason is, then reason and its thought of itself is very much like what you have in God, but still falls very short, right? You know, the Latin language lacks a part of speech, you know, and that's the, what? The article, yeah. Sometimes in the later scholastics, you know, you see, because of this, they start to stick in a L-Y or something like that. And I think that's what the French got in law and so on, but I guess it isn't, you know, it comes more from Italy. But this is important in one way that scripture speaks, because scripture often names things by antonomasia. Now, you all know that word, antonomasia? It's just on the board, it's just on. You probably won't find it in most dictionaries, you know, but again, the big Oxford Dictionary, you know, the big Greek dictionary, the English language, you'll find antonomasia, right? Antonesia comes from a Greek word, and it's naming a synod figure of synod. It's a speech, right? But what is antonomasia? It's called as, most of you, right? Yeah. Or vice versa, to take a man who's outstanding in one kind of thing and use that for a common one, right? So I might say about somebody who's a lover, he's a Romeo, okay? That's antonomasia, right? Now, this is very common in sacred scripture, right? And the word Bible is naming this book by antonomasia. Because all the word Bible means is what? A book, yeah. So we'd say the Bible is the book, right? Okay? Why does it stand out among all books as being the book? Well, because it's the word of God, right? Okay? The word gospel is named by antonomasia. What does gospel mean? Good news. Yeah. Probably for a new baby in the family. Good news, right? You know? But it's not the gospel, is it? At least not this man. That would have been my grandchildren. So, the good news here is really good, right? Great, great. Christ is named by what? Now, when, like say in chapter, what is it? Yeah, in chapter 16 there, where Peter says, what do you say? And Peter Anderson said, you are, ho Christos. So you got the article there, huh? You are the Christ, right? So he said, to be that by antonomasia, huh? Okay? Now, Christ means what? Anointed, right? So kings and priests and prophets were anointed in the Old Testament. So Christ is not the only one anointed. But among all of those who have been anointed, he stands out, right? So, the beginning of John's gospel, he said, in the beginning was the word. And the word was with God, and the word was God. But the Greek would say, hologos, the word, right? Okay? Now, is logos there being used in Greek in its first meaning? Yeah, the first meaning of logos in Greek is a word, right? And it's interesting that in translating that, we kept the English word, right? But notice the difference here, right? The Greek word logos, the first meaning, is a word. And then, you can make a distinction there. The spoken word first, and then the written word. But then, it means a thought that the word signifies, right? Why, the English word, word, has not been, what? Moved, right? Okay? But when we read here, in the beginning was the word, right? Is it being used in this sense or in this sense? In the second sense, it's being used, right? So, we have to move the English word, word, from word to what? Now, sometimes in Latin, they'll say the verbum oris, of mouth, you know, the verbum cordis, or something like this stuff, right? Okay? So, the beginning of John's gospel is saying, in the beginning was the thought. Okay? So, it is the thought. When something is being said by Antonia, there's two things you have to do. The first thing is to recognize that something is being said by Antonia, Antonia, and secondly, why this is said by Antonia, why of all thoughts, this one is called the thought, right? Now, it seems to me there's three or four reasons why this is called the thought. First of all, it's the only thought that God has. He's kind of limited, right? The only thought that God has. So, like if we say, you know, the Bible is the book, right? Why do we call it the book? What's so special about this book? Well, it's the word of God, right? So, one reason why this is called the thought is this thought of God, meaning the only thought that God has, right? That's not the only excellence in this. That, in itself, would be enough to say, my goodness, what is that thought? How do you? Okay. Now, what's the second reason, Antonia? Well, as the philosopher teaches us in the beginning of the, in the premium to the book, the few books on the soul, all knowledge is good, right? But one knowledge is better than another, either because it's more certain or sure, or because it's about a better and more wonderful thing. But then in the premium to the parts of animals, Aristotle says, the more important criterion is that's about a better and more wonderful thing. So, it's better to have an imperfect knowledge of the soul than a perfect knowledge of the triangle. So, one thought is better than another thought because it's a thought of a better thing. What is this one thought of God? It's chiefly a thought about what God is. Okay? Now, even going through here and studying about God, we have all kinds of thoughts about God, right? Okay? And so, these thoughts are better than the thoughts I have about triangle and square and cube and prime numbers and so on, right? Because God is infinitely better than cube numbers and so on. Thank you. But among all the thoughts of God, what's so special about this one, right? Well, none of these thoughts that I have about God in my minute, God is simple, God is good, God is wise, and so on, none of these thoughts really express what God is. They don't express fully what God is, they don't really express what God is. But this thought of God, the only thought of God, expresses what? Perfectly what God is. So it's the only thought of God, and it expresses fully or perfectly what God is. Now it also expresses everything else, but we'll do that for it. It's not the same thing, this is it, right? What's the third reason why this is the thought? I am among all thoughts, it stands out. The one thing that makes us stand out is it's the only thought that God has. And secondly, it's a thought about God, and the only thought about God that perfectly expresses what God does. Now what's the third thing that's so amazing about this thought? Boy, that's number four. We're building up, we're building up, yeah. Every other thought is an accident, right? Something that exists in another thing, right? Like my thoughts exist in my mind, which exist in my soul, and so on. But this thought is something substantial, right? This thought is a substance, you could say, right? And obviously it's a substance of a rational nature. Okay, so this is the only thought that is a substance, or it subsists, you want to put it that way. It's a strict sense of the category of substance, but it's a substance and a person, right? Now later on, when Thomas will take up the word person, you'll see, he asks whether a person should be applied to God, right? He points out that there's nothing more perfect than a person, huh? Because a person is something that subsists in the highest kind of nature there is, the understanding nature, right? So a person is a very wonderful thing. But this is the only thought that is a person. It makes a unique thought, right? Every other thought is just an accident that exists in another, right? And last but not least, this thought is God. You see, I've been getting up to a grand conclusion, right? But any one of these, right, makes this thought unique among all thoughts, and makes it to be called by Antonio Masia, this thought, right? But I'm kind of giving them an ascending order, right? Building up, right? This is the only thought that God has. Can he thoughts in your head? Yeah, I have lots of thoughts in my head, you know? But God has only one thought. There must be something that thought that he has, right? And I'm going to leave to do that until he thought he has. Put all his marbles in one thing. And he said, well, you judge the essence of a thought, but what is a thought not? What is this one thought of God? It's primarily and chiefly a thought of God himself. And unlike our thoughts that we have about God, this is a thought that fully expresses what God is. None of my many thoughts express fully what God is. All of them together express better what he is than one of them alone, right? Leave it all together, they don't express what he is, huh? He said, this is the thought about the best thing there is to think about. And it's what? A most perfect expression in that world. Why? I can see why it's called the thought, right? The thing in the mind is that this thought is a person, huh? It subsists. And finding that it's God himself, right? So, sometimes the Latin commentators in scripture maybe don't emphasize as much as they could in front of Messiah because they don't, what? They don't have the article, right? But we tend to use the article when we want to bring this out. So, Aristotle refers to Homer as the poet. And I mentioned how when I was reading the Federalist Papers years ago and they were talking about the danger of disunion, you know, and how we lose our greatness and so on. And in the words of the poet, a long farewell to all my greatness. And if he's not named properly, he's just called the poet. Who is it? Shakespeare. So, we've looked at the first two objections, right? And the second objection, of course, as we said, was how come there's two ways in which God is communicated, right? And other things is only one way. Well, it's because of what? There being two operations within God, right? Two ways of proceeding. But these two operations are the divine being, right? So, there's two ways that the divine nature can be communicated. And this is not possible in other things, huh? Because we all proceed in one way according to the nature of the thing. But the other operations are not the being. Now, the third or difficult objection, right? Thomas likes to build these up. What's nice about this way, you know, Thomas wrote this, as he said, for beginners, right? But the objections force you to concentrate upon one part of the problem, one part of the question, right? And then the reply to that will bring out that one part. It's like when Thomas, you know, was talking about the definition of eternity, right? He has one objection against this part of the definition, another objection against that part, another objection against that part, that part. But it focuses your mind on each part of the definition, and therefore on the whole definition in a distinct way. Now, the third objection is saying, hey, you know, the divine understanding and the divine will, these two powers, are the same thing in God, right? And just as the divine being is the same thing as his understanding and his willing, so then his understanding and his willing are the same thing, right? So if these don't really differ, then how can you say that the person in the proceeding differ except in definition but not in meaning, right? To the third it should be said, to the third it should be said, that although in God the will and the understanding are not other, right? Nevertheless, it pertains to the notion of the will and of the understanding that the proceedings, right? Which are according to the action of each of them, have themselves according to a certain, what? Order. For there is not a going forward of love except in order to the going forward of the word, right? For nothing is able to be loved by the will unless it be conceived in the understanding, right? This goes back to what Aristotle or Thomas himself teaches in the treatise on love. I don't know. You must have couldn't have. We haven't done it together, have we? We did it, yeah, yeah. You might recall that there are three questions about love that Thomas has, right? And the first question about love is on the nature of love and the kinds of love, the love of friendship and the love of incubus and son, and the sense love and the chosen love. And then the second question was on the causes of love, right? And the third question was on the effects of love, right? Now, when Thomas talks about the cause of love, the first article was whether the good is a cause of love, and the answer is yes. And the second question is whether knowledge is a cause of love, and the answer is yes, right? And the third is whether the likeness is a cause of love, and so on. So, there's a certain order there between knowledge and love. When I taught that, I would say to students, we use a little bit of poets. We use this famous thing from Christopher Marlowe, who says, whoever loved the love not at first sight. And Shakespeare quotes that, right? As you like it. And so, it gets a nice discussion going, right? And some people, you know, say the first time I saw her, I knew there was something there in her. And the famous love stories like Romeo and Juliet, right? It's love at first sight. So you get them going and they argue back and forth, you know. Is there only true love at first sight or can there be true love at second sight or third sight, you know? And so on. And they get to argue that. I don't care where the truth is here. I just want you to see that it's at some sight. Nobody's denying this at sight, right? The question is whether it has to be at first sight or whether it could be at second sight, right? Okay. So Thomas is pointing this out again, right? So he says, Nothing is able to be loved by the will unless it be conceived in the, what? Understanding, huh? First. Since, therefore, there is to be no of any certain order of the word or thought to the beginning from which it goes forward, right? Although in divine things there is the same substance, right? Of the understanding itself and the concept, huh? Thought born in the understanding. So also, although in God the will and the understanding are the same thing. Nevertheless, because it's of the notion of love, right? It does not go forward except from a thought of the understanding, a concept of the understanding. You have the distinction of order of one from another, right? The procession of love proceeding from the procession of the word and divine things, huh? So Thomas is going to argue later on that unless the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as the Father, you would not be really distinct from the Son, right? And that's what some of the people don't understand, right? You want to take a little break or you want to because they were going to the fourth article and put the break between articles, huh? And that's where Thomas is broken, right? Yeah.