Prima Pars
Lecture 137: The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son

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

But we say it's empty, no. There's nothing in the room, right? But now, of course, we all know that air exists, right? So air is a name of something that exists, substantial, but that you can hardly see, right? It seems to have little matter, right? So the name lends itself then to being applied to something that is in no way sensible and that is entirely material. Yeah, yeah. In Shakespeare, I should talk about that, right? Thin air a lot. It melted into thin air, right? Of course, Hexagre says that the mind is the thinnest of all things. Well, strictly speaking, it's not thin in the original sense of the word thin, right? But it's kind of interesting that you should carry that word over. So it can be some amount of matter? Yeah, and it can penetrate all things, right? Because the way he says it's the thinnest of all things and therefore it knows all things, right? And so how does that follow? Because it's the thinnest of all things, it can get inside of all things and therefore it can penetrate all things, it can know all things. So this is a good example of the word spirit there of how we carry names over from sensible things, right? We carry the word air over to these things rather than the word earth or something, right? For a spirit in its first meaning is an invisible body, right? And it has little matter. Because of those two things, to all immaterial and visible substances, we attribute this name. Of course, most people think of the soul as being kind of an air-like substance in the shape of the man, right? And we've mentioned how Dante, right, when he meets the souls of those who have died before him, right? He recognizes the soul of some friend, but then he tries to embrace them and hug them. And then it's very, you know, can't hug the air very well, can't you? It's frustrating. For us. So Thomas is admitting that, to some extent, an objection, right? There's a way in which you could call each member a Holy Spirit, right? Or you could call God a Holy Spirit, I suppose, right? Okay. But if it be taken by way of one diction, right? Thus from the use of the church is accommodated to signifying one of the, what, three persons. To it, the one who goes forward by way of love, for the reason, said, okay? I think it may be the first reason, you know, but also, maybe the second reason later on. It's interesting how things don't have names. Like, you know, even in geometry where things are easily known, right? The square has a name, and the oblong has a name, and the rhombus, the rhomboid, and the trapezium. But does an equilateral triangle have a name? Yeah. But equilateral triangle, maybe, is taken there and kind of functions as a name, right? We don't really, you know, have one name, you know? But it's kind of been taken, you know, in vi unis dictionis, as Thomas says here, right? But it's a different thing for the Holy Spirit, right? Because there's a way in which equilateral triangle has to be adapted to that one thing, right? But we don't have a name for it, right? Now, you see, when porphyry gives the five predicables, right, you can take these, first of all, as being, what, names, right? Genus, species, difference, property, and accident. But then when I say that equilateral triangle is a species of triangle, right? Well, the species here has got, it doesn't have, it doesn't have, no, no, I'm saying equilateral triangle is a species of triangle, right? But equilateral triangle is a species there, right? And it functions as a species, but it's not one word, one name, right? You don't have one name, right? So there are things that don't, even very familiar things sometimes, that don't have one name, right? I don't know why square got a name, an equilateral triangle, didn't it? Here's a different problem, right? Now, the second objection says, well, this name is not taken, what? It doesn't signify it out, it could, right? The second, therefore, it should be said that although this name, Holy Spirit, is not said relatively, right? Thomas has been in that. So just like he said about the word person, right? It's not said towards something, right? Nevertheless, it is laid down for something relative, insofar as it is accommodated, right? To signifying a person distinct from others by relation alone, right? So it's a little different from the word person, but the similarity in that the name itself is not relative towards another, right? But it signifies something, what? It's accommodated to signifying something relative, right? And then he gives a second way of explaining it, right? It is able, however, to be understood in the name, some relation, if by the word Spirit you understand, as it were, breathe, right? So if you say that the Holy Spirit is the breath of the Father and the Son, right? The breath of something might seem to imply what? A breather, right? So Thomas gives two things, right? He kind of emphasizes, first, the accommodation, right? But if you go back to the Bible article, it gives you two reasons. And one is from the common meaning of the Holy Spirit. And therefore you have to explain this as being the Church accommodated to this, right? And it gives you a reason why it's appropriately accommodated to him, right? But then he gives you a reason that's more private, right? Or proper. And that's because breath is a relation to, I don't know, to moving us, right? I remember my mother would say, you know, she'd be sitting at the dining table there after dinner, you know, and she's going to get up and do the dishes or something, you know. What'd you sit in there for? She'd say, wait until the Spirit moves her. But they remember this idea that the Spirit is something that moves things, right? I think we use that kind of, you know, in politics and so on now, it's the Spirit, you know, moving people, right? That's what I think. That's Dionysius, a lot of wind, Spirit, moves things. You know, it makes them seem like they're alive. He said, he saw a leaf one day, it was going on the ground, and he said, it looked kind of like a crab that was crawling down. And then the way it was moving. He said, it looked like it was moving it and giving it a fight. And those are the two things that are interesting. So money is spiritual because it moves people. That's quite it. We're not going to talk instead about snow. Snow really moves people. Calls them to action. You know, winters without snow, even the economies are, you know, snow, there's nothing about snowstorms that get people going. Again, you're talking about snow, there's nothing about snow, there's nothing about people. It's more material. Money makes the world go round. That's what they have. It's a final class. Okay, now to the third, it should be said, that in the name of the Son is understood only the relation of him who is from a beginning, right, to that beginning. But in the name of the Father is understood the relation of a beginning. Likewise, in the name of the Spirit. That's kind of interesting, huh? And the Spirit is not a beginning inside the Trinity, right? Insofar as it implies a certain motive power, right? But to know creature does it belong. ...belong to be a, what, beginning with respect to some divine person, but the reverse, and therefore is able to be called our father, right, and our spirit, the spirit that moves us, right, not our son, although in some sense I get to be called our son, but not our son. I'm kind of surprised that he solves it that way, though, because to some extent they're taking spirit there in terms of, what, the human spirit, right, and I don't know why he doesn't solve it that way, but I think other times he does solve it that way, so maybe we should stop now, it's before 21 there. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and rouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. May he be with us. Help us to understand what you're written. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. By the way, have you seen some of the Pope's general audiences there? This year, so far? St. Augustine, man. He had five of them devoted to Augustine. Of course, one of them is talking about Augustine's works in particular, and talking about the city of God, and the work of the Trinity, right? You know, among his greatest works. Then he quotes a letter, I think it's 169, I don't remember, but to Hodes, where he's talking about his books of the Trinity. I guess, you know, the first 12 books were published without Augustine's approval, because later on, he revised them a little bit and added a few more books, right? But this one particular thing, you know, he's thinking of, he said, there are very few people who understand this, or are able to understand what he says, right? And therefore, he's going to write books that are more useful to the many, right? Right, you know, so, but for 10 yards, I don't know. But it's good, it's nice to let it work, you know, since there are very few who are able to understand these things. Okay, so where is the Holy Spirit with seats in the sun? That's, I think, where we're up to, right? The second article. Notice, this is a very important thing that Thomas talks about in a number of places, places, but as you know, the persons are distinguished by relations of origin. So if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the sun, there's not going to be a real distinction between the father, I mean, between the sun and the Holy Spirit. So this is a very important thing. It would just be that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, but if he doesn't proceed from the son, well, then the Holy Spirit is distinct from the father, but not from the son. And therefore, the son and the Holy Spirit would be the same person, just as the father and the breather would be the same person. So this is a very important article for understanding the Trinity and so on. So it would be different from saying that there's two sons, that it would be the same person? The same person, yeah. Yeah, because, well, two sons are really out there. Yeah, that is a matter, yeah. Now, because, according to Dionysius, one ought not to dare say something about the, what, substantial divinity, apart from those things that are expressed to us, or said to us, from the sacred, what, writings. But in sacred scripture is not expressed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son, but only that he proceeds from the father, as is clear in the 15th chapter of St. John's Gospel. The spirit of truth, right, who proceeds from the, what, father, right? Although this is in that text a kind of reference to the second person, what he's called the spirit of, what, truth, yeah. That he proceeds from him also, but it's not said as explicitly as from the father, right? But this is a little interesting objection there. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not go forth from the, what, son, huh? More, and this is a big boat of contention, huh? In the symbol, right? What does that word symbol mean in Greek? Yeah, thrown together, yeah. And so, sometimes, you know, symbol is used in scripture for metaphor, right? So when they speak of symbolic theology, what do they mean? Metaphorical theology. And that's what, but then they use the word symbol also for what? The throwing together, but that's kind of, I don't know if you're saying it, but a kind of bringing together of the articles of faith in a creed, right? So sometimes the word symbol is used for the, what, the creed, huh? So in the symbol, or the creed of the synod, the council, Constantinople, right? We read, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the giver of life, right? Proceeding from the Father, right? Walk to be adored and glorified with the Father and the, what, Son, right? So it just says in the creed there, ex patria procedentina, from the Father proceeding, right? Doesn't say proceeding from the Son. Therefore, in no way ought it to be added in our symbol, right? In the West, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, which we have in the creed we see in Mass now. But it seems to be a, what, anachema, huh? A cursed thing, right? Those who added this, huh? And so I guess there are some, you know, Greek Orthodox, I think we're really radical, you know, because we added that there, right? Moreover, Damascene says, we say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father, right? And we name him the Spirit of the, what, Father. But we do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, but we name him the Spirit of the, what, Son, right? That seems to me it could almost be used against him as words there. If he's the Spirit of the Son, like he's the Spirit of the Father, why isn't he from the Son, like he is from the Father, right? Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. So Damascene is a great authority, and he's saying that we don't say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, right? They're going to uphold the authority of Damascene in this text, huh? Moreover, nothing goes forward from that in which it rests. But the Holy Spirit rests in the Son. For he said in the legend of the blessed Andrew, Peace to you, huh? And to those, all those who believe in the one, what, God the Father, and in his one, what, Son, the only, our only Lord, Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and remaining in the, what, Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, right? Because we see in some sense even that the Son remains in the Father, don't we? I think it proceeds from Him, huh? But we'll see how Thomas handles this here. Moreover, the Son goes forward as the Word, huh? The thought. But the, but our Spirit in us does not seem to, what, proceed from our, what? And he's talking about our breath there, maybe, huh? Therefore, knew that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. Although if you say that the, what, Thomas, between us and love there, that the first cause of love is the good as known, right? Then it would be a reason to say that the one who proceeds by way of love proceeds from the one who proceeds as the thought. Moreover, the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore, it's superfluous to say that he proceeds from the, what, Son. Actually, we're going to say he proceeds perfectly from both. But it's as far as that one principle in some way, the two. Moreover, in, what, eternal things, to be, and to be able to be, don't differ, huh? Because everything is actual there, right? As is said in the third book of the physics. And much less in divine things. But the Holy Spirit is able to be distinguished from the Son, even if he does not proceed from him. That's what Thomas is going to deny, right? Because the only distinction among the, what, persons in the Trinity is by relations of, what, origin, right? So, because the Son proceeds from the Father, right, then there's a real distinction between the Father and the Son. And if the Holy Spirit didn't proceed from the Son, then Thomas will argue there would not be a real, what, distinction, which would be radical. For Anselm says in his book about the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, That we have from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but in a diverse way. Because the one, by being born, right, and the other, by proceeding. So that there are other, through this, from each other, right? In a sense, people say, well, the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit is one proceeds by way of God's understanding of himself. The other proceeds by way of God, what? Loving himself. Is that sufficient to say that they are different persons, right? Well, as Thomas would point out sometimes, God's understanding and his loving are really one and the same thing. So why isn't it then one and the same person who's proceeding in both ways? And differ only in definition or in thought, but not in, what, reality, right? That's what Thomas is going to argue, that it's going to have to proceed, right? The Holy Spirit from the Son is going to be really distinct from him. And afterwards, St. Anselm joins, or adds, that if through nothing other, right, there were not many, the Son and the Holy Spirit, through this alone they would be, what, diverse, right? That they proceed in, what, diverse ways, right? One is the thought of God and one is the, what, love of God and the Spirit of God, yeah. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son, although not existing from him, right? So, a lot of objections here, right? Thomas is on the way there to the council there, right, when he died, huh? Yeah, getting ready for the Greeks. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We have a number of works there about the Greeks, yeah. I think Elric did what, though. But against this is what Athanasius says, what the Athanasian Creed says, right? The Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, right? Not made, not created, not generated, but going forth, right? See that the Greeks don't accept that creed as Athanasius, otherwise they don't have to see that as a, yeah. He didn't say that in 3.5, but he was Athanasian. I don't know the exact origin of the Athanasian Creed, they're not sure if it was back to Athanasians, but. Tributed to him, I don't know. That's it. So Thomas says, I answer, it ought to be said, that it is necessary to say that the Holy Spirit is from the, what? Son. Son, huh? For if he was not from him, right? In no way could he be distinguished from him as a person, huh? Which is clear from the things said, what? Above, huh? What was it that was said above, huh? For it is not possible to say that the divine persons are distinguished from each other according to something absolutum, huh? Something absolute. Now, as I mentioned before, Thomas used the word absolute in contradiction to, or in contrast with relative, right? Okay? Sometimes they'll say relative is, what? Ad alio, ad ultra, to another, right? And absolute is ad se, right? Which is to say, it's not to another, right? Because if they were distinguished by something absolute, it would follow that there was not one essence, one nature, one substance of the, what? Three, huh? For whatever is said in divine things absolutely, as opposed to relatively, pertains to the unity of the, what? Essence. So they say, in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit. Name is singular because the name of God is I am who am, right? God said to St. Catherine of Sion, remember two things. I am who am, and you are she who is not. Yeah, that set the reference straight. So that's the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, huh? The name of their divinity. It remains, therefore, right, that only by, what? Relations are the divine persons distinguished from each other, right? And notice, in a way, the relations constitute a person by being the same thing as a divine, what? Substance, huh? But they distinguish insofar as they are, what? Relations. Okay? That's kind of a subtle thing, right? Because relation is a different genus than person, which is a substance, right? So the relation, the fatherhood, and so on, the relations constitute a person by being the same thing as a divine, what? Substance, which understands and wills, and so on. But they distinguish insofar as they are, what? Relations, yeah. But the relations are not able to distinguish the persons except according as they are, what? Opposites, huh? You can see how much Thomas was taught by his master Aristotle. Because Aristotle takes up opposites. He says there are four meanings of opposite, right? Contradictories, having and lacking, contraries, and relatives, right? And then Thomas, when he talks about the distinction of persons, he says, well, you can't distinguish them by being and unbeing. You can't distinguish I am who am by being and unbeing. You can't do by having and lacking, right? And even in contraries, one is lacking something that the other one has. So it can only be distinguished by relatives. Unless you had a material distinction, but there's no matter in God, huh? Now, from this it is clear, he said, because the father has two relations, right? By one of which he was referred to the son, right? By his fatherhood, the father is compared to the son, right? And distinguished from him, right? And by another one, to the Holy Spirit, huh? And we have a hard time naming that, right? Let's say, you know, the relation of a breather, let's say, right? The breath, right? Okay? So by the relation of father, he's related to the son. And by breather, he's related to the Holy Breath. Okay? But because these two are not opposed, father and breather. Father and son are opposed, right? As well it is. But is father and breather opposed? No. So because they are not opposed, they do not constitute two persons, right? But they pertain to the one person of the, what? The father, right? If therefore, in the son and in the Holy Spirit, one did not find except two relations by which both are referred just to the father, right? Those relations would not be, what? Opposed to each other. Just as neither the two relations by which the father is referred to them. You see how he's doing? Whence, just as the person of the father is one, though he has these two relations, so it followed that the person of the son and the Holy Spirit were one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the, what? Father. But this is heretical. This is choosing rather than following, since it takes away the faith that we have in the Trinity. So in the recent things on the Vatican there, you know, that if you don't have the Trinity in baptism there, it's not valid, right? And there's some, you know, people trying to avoid sexist language and so on and saying, you know, the creator and the sanctifier or something else. That came up over it. Yeah. It was at some place run by the Jesuits, the chapel, and they were using that form of the baptism in the law. Yeah. It said, no, it's not valid. I guess maybe they argued it all the way up to that. Yeah. You saw the addendum there. It says, those who... We see this form of baptism, I think, that we categorize as non-Christians. It's necessary, therefore, right, that the Son and the Holy Spirit refer to each other by opposed, what, relations. But there are not able to be in God other opposed relations except relations of, what, origin this has been shown about. But opposite relations of origin are taken according to the beginning from whom one proceeds, right, and according to that which is from that beginning. It remains, therefore, that it's necessary to say either that the Son is from the Holy Spirit, which no one says, or that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, which we confess. There's a typo in here. Instead of saying, quote, nos contemplating, it says, quote, non contemplating. Whoops. I remember my teacher, because sir, you know, say, you know, it's a text that when some pious nun had edited, you know, and she kept the mistake of the text, you know, and you can't, because you can see there's obviously a mistake there, you know. See, that's the basic reason Thomas gives, huh? Now he adds to this, huh? And with this sounds together, right, consonant, the reason of the procession of both. For the Son goes forward by way of, what, understanding her, of the understanding, as the thought of God, right, as the word. But the Holy Spirit goes forward by way of will as, what, love. It's necessary, however, that love go forward from the word, for we do not love something, except according as we grasp it by a concept of our mind. Did we talk about time, six years, on love, this here one time? Yeah. And the first cause of love is the good as known, right? And so if the Holy Spirit, if the Son proceeds as knowledge, right, as a thought, then this is going to be the source of what? The Holy Spirit, yeah. Once, according to this, it is manifest that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son. That's kind of like a second reason there, right, or confirmation of the first reason, huh? Okay, now here's the third thing, which is a little more subtle here. Try to understand a little bit. And the very order of things teaches this, he says. For never do we find that from one thing there proceeds many without some, what, order, except in those only which differ, what, in a material way, as one, what, yeah, makes many, what, nice, materially distinct from each other, having no order among themselves, right? But in things in which there is not only a, there's not just a material distinction, there's always found in the multitude of things produced some, what, order, right? Whence also in the order of creatures produced is made known the beauty of divine, what, wisdom, huh? Now, just, you know, stop now for a second. When Thomas begins the commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, and he quotes what Aristotle says in the Prairie of the Wisdom, that belongs to the wise man to order things, huh? And Thomas gives a reason why it belongs to the wise man to order, or why it belongs to wisdom to be a knowledge of order, right? Well, wisdom means the highest and the greatest perfection of what? Reason, right? And it's characteristic of reason to look for what? Order. So the definition of reason that we get from Shakespeare, right? He defines it as the ability for a large discourse looking before an actor. Before an actor is like the definition of order, right? So what culminates in the definition of reason is that it looks before an actor, it looks for order, right? So the knowledge of reason, then, could be said to be a knowledge of order. And then Thomas goes on to distinguish knowledge of reason by the order that it, what considers, right? But because wisdom is the highest and the greatest perfection of reason, it's the best knowledge that reason has, and most of all, knows order, right? And so we talk about God being wise, right? We speak of his wisdom as what? Order of all things sweetly from beginning to end, huh? And this is, as Aristotle says in the 15th book, I guess it is a wisdom, order is one of the main forms of the beautiful. Okay? If, therefore, from the one person of the Father, there goes forward two persons, to which the Son and the Holy Spirit, they've got to go forward in some, what? Order. It's necessary for there to be some order of them to each other, huh? But there cannot be any order, other of them assigned, except what Augustine calls the order of nature, right? By which one is from the, what? Other, right? Thus it is not possible to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit thus go forward from the Father, that neither of them proceeds from the other one, unless one was to lay down in them a material distinction, which is impossible because there's no matter in God, right? That's the distinction that comes from the, what, continuance, right? Now, like in the first theorem of Euclid, right, huh? The first theorem of Euclid says, what? Well, on a straight line, construct a, what? Yeah. Well, he says, well, take this as endpoint, and this thing as the radius, and draw a circle, right? Then take this as the center, and what? A circle, right? And then when they meet, draw straight lines. Well, these two lines have to be equal because they're radiated in this circle, and these two have to be equal, right, because they're radiated in this circle, and lines equal to the same between each other. But what's the distinction between these two circles? Well, one's here, one's there. What's the distinction between this point and this point, huh? The lines, one's here, one's there. But do you have that kind of distinction in God? No. Because you don't have the continuous, right? God is not continuous. Otherwise, he would not be actual. He would be actual. So, Thomas says there has to be a distinction of order, right? The only kind of order you can have in God is, this is from that. And therefore, either the Son is from the Father, I mean, the Son is from the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is from the Son, or no one says that the Son is from the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit has to be from the Son. So that's kind of like the third reason, right? Therese Dahl says in the first book, the natural hearing, three is enough. And very often it's enough. I was reading this morning there, chapter 42 of book one of the Summa Chantiles, which is towards the end of the treatise on the substance of God, and it's to say that God is one. And Thomas gives 16 arguments. Wow. I mean, most of them, I probably missed one or two, though, you know. It's kind of, you know, when I need to come back to something like that, I try to remember how many arguments I can remember, you know. And usually I may miss one or two, you know. But then I go back and read the text, and I find the one or two I missed, you know. There's more joy, like over one sheet that's lost, you find it. So I rejoice, you know, to relish that 15th argument, you know, that I don't remember the 14 of them, you know. I get very excited about this. I get more joy out of that one argument that I've forgotten than the 14 ones I remembered, right? Because I put them away, but this is new. So Thomas says, therefore, what? Three arguments, right, huh? You all got that down now? It's interesting, huh, in the two main things there in the life of reason, right, where you're dealing with something immaterial and not having a material distinction, huh? But what's a definition composed of, huh? Yeah, genus and differences, right? Now, is there an order among these, huh? If you take the definition, say, of square, you'd say equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, right? Now, you don't want to confuse the grammatical order with the, what, logic order, right? Now, you might read it in Latin, you know. You could put the adjective after the noun, right? But in English, we put the adjective usually before, right? I mean, you could say quadrilateral, then, is equilateral and right-angled if you wanted to make the grammatical order. But the logic order, this is the fundamental one, right? And fundamentally, a definition is telling you what something is. And the quadrilateral tells you what the square is in a general way. Equilateral and right-angled don't tell you what it is, but how it is, what it is. So this is the fundamental one, right? So notice that there's an order among these, right? It's a little bit like what Thomas is saying there, right? That we have no material distinction, right? We're going to have to have a distinction that involves what? Order, right? Now, let's take the syllogism, right? And you say every B is A, let's say, and just do the formula here, every C is B. In a way, the minor premise here, that they call it, contracts the what? The major plan of premise, right? And so you might, for example, if you know that every D is a B, right? You can conclude that every D is an A, just like every C is an A, right? So in a sense, the universe cell T of the major premise is contracted, right? By the minor premise, right? So in this case, what comes out is every C is A. And over here comes out every what? D is A. D is A, right? Well, it's like the definition. Because I could use quadrilateral to define oblong, or rhombus, or rhomboid, right? Or trapezium, right? And the difference is with what? Narrow it down, right? So there's an order in both the syllogism and in the definition, right? They're not just, you know, a bunch of words, equally there. And one not before the other, right? Now, I'm white and I'm healthy. I'm a white healthy. Well, there's no order there, is there? I'm not healthy white or white healthy, or which is the fundamental one? That's not a definition of white healthy, is it? When you get a definition, then you have a real order there, right? And the genus is the first part of the definition, right? And then the difference is completed, right? And the major premise is a kind of analogous to the genus, and the minor premise to the what? To the differences, right? Okay? Contracting the universality of that, right? Okay? Just like, you know, this famous proposition that God is pure act, Thomas used that to show that God, you know, he admired Thomas for thinking so well in Latin, and so inferior to Greek. You know, we pay the cup of saying, what's Indian thought so well in French, even though it's inferior to English, huh? Yeah. Because both, I had mentioned how both, when Ciddean and Father Boulet, both whose native language is French, you know, they both insisted that English was better than French for philosophy and for poetry, for both. So, you know, someone like, you know, who's native language is not French, might say it's always because he's not home in French, right? But these guys, you know? And I'd go up to talk to him on Ciddean sometimes about the way I would speak in my classes, you know? And he'd prove it the way I'd speak, and then eventually, you can't say that in French, the language isn't, you know, isn't all short. So is English superior just because it has a large vocabulary, or what? Partly, yeah, and it's more concrete, too, so we'll start in the concrete, then. They used to bring in André Gide, you know, I guess he's the editor of the play-out edition of Shakespeare, right? And he speaks of the general difficulty, of course, of translating any poetry into the language, right? But then the particular difficulty of trying to translate Shakespeare into French, a language which he says is presque anti-poetic, almost anti-poetic, right? You know? Apparently French is better, you know, prose and poetry-wise, but it's very strong. And he's used kind of, you know, he requires a master of the French language, you know? He's admitted that the French language is... I'm doing like Thomas is doing here, right? Quoting them and teaching them. People say to me, but he's going to stop saying those things around the French students. You're going to travel. Well, Mark Twain said God created man somewhere between the angels and the French. Now, what do you mean by that, exactly? Now, the first objection is simply saying that it doesn't seem to be said explicitly in Scripture, right? And Thomas makes the point that he often does. This was probably the word person, remember, before? The same kind of objection, right? But it's kind of standard objection. To the first, therefore, it should be said that we ought not to say something about God that is not found in Scripture either through words, right? Or through the, what? Sense, huh? Because although through words it is not found in the sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Son, right? It is nevertheless found as far as the, what? Sense or meaning, right? And especially where the Son says, in the 16th chapter of St. John about the Holy Spirit that he will clarify me because he, what? He's taken from me, right? Okay. That's a very interesting reading, huh? Regularly in sacred Scripture it should be held that what is said of the Father must also be understood about the Son even if an exclusive diction is added, right? Except only in those things in which the Father and the Son are distinguished by, what? Opposite relations. And this is the famous text. For when the Lord says in Matthew chapter 11 no one knows the Son except the Father does that exclude the Son? One does not exclude but that the Son also knows himself, right? And thus, therefore, when it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father even if it were added that he proceeds from the Father alone one should not exclude the, what? Son of that Son. Because as far as being the beginning the one from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds the Father and the Son are not, what? Opposed, right? But only as far as this that this one is the Father and that one is the, what? The Son. So to be the breather is, what? It doesn't pertain to that distinction of the Father and the Son, right? The one is the breather and the other is not. So what is applied to one can be applied to the, what, other? Do you know when he says no one knows the Son except the Father and it says reverse. Does that exclude the Holy Spirit? no one knows the Holy Spirit? From knowing? No. You could play the same principle, right? Did you get that from Augustine, or is that just generally from the Father? Is that normal? Why, sure, it's in Augustine, yeah, as well as Thomas. But then it comes right up in those texts, right? How do you understand that text, right? Now, the second objection is taken from the, what? The original synod, right? The original symbol. The second should be said, that in each, what, consul, consul is what, the, more the Latin word, I guess, synod is more the Greek word, huh? In every consul, there was instituted some, what? Symbol, some creed, we'd say, on account of some error which was condemned in that consul, right? Whence the later consul, right, does not make another creed than the first, right? But that which is implicitly contained in the first creed, to some things added, is explained against the heresies that, what? Yeah. Okay. Whence the determination of the synod of Chalcedon, it is said that those who were congregated in the consul of Constantinople treated the, what? Teaching about the Holy Spirit. Not that it was less in the foreseeing ones, among those who were congregated in Isaiah, but declaring their understanding against, what? Heretics, right? Now, for example, you know, you might say one creed that Christ is man, right? Through man through God, right? Okay. And along comes some heretic and says, well, there's only one will in Christ, see? Well, when you say that Christ is both God and man, it's implicit in that that he has a human will and a divine will. He wouldn't be a man, truly a man, he didn't have human will. He wouldn't be God that didn't have the divine will, right? But when you say that God is true God and true man, Christ is true God and true man, you're not saying explicitly that he, what? Has a human will and a divine will. But that's implicit in there, right? And maybe a later consul will make that clear that someone is mona, mona. Yeah, he's saying there's only one will in Christ, right? So he says, because in the time of the ancient consuls there was not yet, what? Gone forth the error of those saying that the Holy Spirit does not receive the Father. It was not necessary that this be explicitly, what? Laid down. But afterwards, arising the error, right, of some, in a certain consul in the, what? Western parts, congregated. It was made explicit, it was expressed by the authority of the Roman, what? Pontiff. By his authority, even the ancient consuls were congregated and confirmed. But it's contained nevertheless implicitly in this, that we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, right? It's like in that text we say, only the Father knows the Son, right? It's implicitly contained that the Son knows himself, yeah. Okay. Now, Dustin says, that heresy is necessary for theology to develop, right? Because when a heretic denies something, well, then the Church Fathers have to make explicit what we believe, right? And they have to defend it against this heresy and so on. And so they come to a better understanding of that, right? That's seen in the consuls and also in the Rags of the Fathers. So Thomas talks about how Augustine's own understanding of grace, you know, increased as he was speaking against the Pelagians and so on. So much so that the Church said, you know, the mind of Augustine on grace is the mind of the Church on grace. Okay, now the third objection, right? Or, he's taking the authority of Damascene, right? Okay, Damascene should be saying this. To the third, it ought to be said that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son was first introduced by the Nestorians, which was a certain creed, you might say, of the Nestorians that was condemned in the, what, Synod of Ephesus, right? The Council of Ephesus. And this era, Theodorus, the Nestorian, followed, and many acted with him, right? Among whom was also, what, Damascene. So he's criticizing Damascene, right? Whence in this one ought not to stand in his, what? His judgment, Okay. Although, by some it is said that Damascene, just as he does not confess the Holy Spirit to be from the Son, so also does not deny it from the strength of those, what, words, right? So he's softening a bit, right? Damascene, huh? So he's also interesting, too, because he doesn't decease them right off the bat. Yeah. Just in this one piece, don't follow him. Just like, you know, Paul VI, and Theodore of Mount Westfield, who's called Paul VI, single amount, one statement he made about the Eucharist, and he said, and he said, he says, in this point, he speaks to the Catholic. On this point, he doesn't. Maybe other things he doesn't. This is when he does. I'm kind of surprised, you know, by Thomas, you know, in the Katina Aurea, you often quote Origen, you know, and explain these passages. Other times, it's like Origen's at the origin of the, you know, Arian Heresy or something, you know, and he's very rough on him, huh? And many, many problems at the origin, he said. He's still quoted almost like nine times in that passage, and then his first in the office, and that addition. The Pope had five talks that I mentioned on Augustine, but he has one on Boethius and Cassidora, so just one on the two of them, you know, but it's kind of interesting. The one with God, too. This one on Origen is very interesting because he says, he reflects about the origin. He says, there was always an example to me about the danger of pride and the intellectual thing would go off and it's an Origen at the problem, too, because he was hyper-ascetic, too, and so there was that kind of balance there. And he's talking throughout the East, there's all sorts of different people are affected by different origin things. Weird things about, you know, hell doesn't last forever, pray for the angels, pray for the demons so they'll be saved, and they'll certainly assess on some of these and others. In talking about Augustine there, Chris, the 16th speaks about the influence of Augustine upon him and his incentives there on these issues so far. But he's also talking about the humility of Augustine, right? And the book of Attractions, right? Yeah. And I think that's something most academic people should be forced to, because some of these people, they write book after book after book, but every book is changing their, what they think, you know, and what do they think, and what mistakes are they left after. What do they think? Yeah. Now the fourth objection was that the Holy Spirit is said to what? Proceed from the Father and rest in the Son. Well, how is that to be understood? To the fourth, it should be said that through this, that the Holy Spirit is said to rest or remain in the Son. It is not excluded that he proceeds from it, because also the, what, Son is said to remain in the Father whenever he comes to it. Unless he proceeds from the Father, right? What Thomas was talking about earlier, he was saying that the proceeding that gives rise to the Trinity is the proceeding that remains within the one. Just like understanding and willing remains within, right? And so when I think about something and I form a thought of it, that thought remains within my mind that is thinking. It's not the chair that I make, but it's outside me. But nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is said to rest in the Son, either as the love of the one loving rests in the love, right? I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Where your treasure is, there your heart shall be, however it says, right? Or as regards the human nature of Christ, on account of which it is written, the one upon whom you see the Holy Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is the one who baptized, right? The Tom's case is two different ways of solving this particular objection. Now the fifth objection is taken from our breath, I guess. It says, well, the word in divine things in God is not taken by a likeness to the vocal word, right? The spoken word, from which breath does not receive, because that should be said only metaphorically, right? But according to the likeness of the mental word, the thought, right, from which love proceeds, right? He's talking about the word that I express comes from my breath in a way, right? That's not the likeness between the Holy Spirit and the word, right? Sometimes they compare, though, the word made flesh to the exterior word, right? And then the Holy Spirit has that role there to play, to overshadow the Blessed Virgin, we say. Okay? Then there's a likeness there, right? So the vocal word is more like the, what, the Karni word, and the breath then would be before that in the sense in which the Holy Spirit is said to overshadow the Blessed Virgin, right? But if you're talking about the Trinity, right, then the word is the, what, like the thought. And the thought of God's goodness is what gives rise to the love and so on. Okay. Now the sixth objection was saying, well, doesn't the Holy Spirit proceed perfectly from the Father? Is he defecting the Father? He needs a son, you know, in order to, say. I mean, I could say, you know, like human beings, you know, where the Father can't generally, he's got to have the woman too, right? Well, most of Thomas answers his objection. To the sixth, therefore, it should be said that through this fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, right? You mean that, right? Not only is it not superfluous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but altogether necessary. Notice that he's turning it around, huh? Because one is the power of the Father and the, what? Son. And whatever is from the Father is necessary to be from the Son, except for it's repugnant to the property of the Son, right? For the Son is not from himself, although he is from the, what? The Father, right? Of course, there'll be an article here on there being the one beginning, right? With the one beginning of the Holy Spirit. That's been the fourth article. Come back to that. Now, the fifth one, seventh objection, rather, was these quotes from Anselm, right, huh? Isn't it enough to say that the fact that the Son proceeds by way of understanding and the Holy Spirit by way of love, isn't it enough to distinguish the two? To the seventh, it should be said that the Holy Spirit is distinguished as a person from the Son in this, that the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of another. But that difference of origin is through this, that the Son is only from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is, what? From both the Father and the Son, as they're mutual love, huh? For in no other way are the possessions distinguished, as has been said above, huh? Okay, now take a little break here, huh? Okay, now take a little break here.