Prima Pars
100. Summa I, q.27, a.3: A Second Procession in God, the Procession of Love, and the Word as 'the Thought'
Class of 2007-10-25
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/100-summa-i-q-27-a-3-a-second-procession-in-god-the-procession/

[0:00] 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. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand all that you've written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Now, before we begin here, a little bit from the Pope's vacation, okay? Because I think it's important for people to know about this.

[0:33] 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. A piano was brought into the cabin where he stayed, and Navarro Walls reported that the Pope generally plans two lengthy sessions a day, with a heavy emphasis on his favorite compositions by Mozart.

[1:16] Okay. 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 it into two or three to know what you're doing, huh? So, how would you divide these five articles, huh?

[1:49] Well, one way of dividing it into three would be to say, "Is there a going forward in God?" Okay, question of whether something is right. Whether there's a going forward in God, and then secondly, what is that going forward, right? And that's the next three articles, which we saw the second one last time, and then finally, how many going forwards are there in God, right? Okay.

[2:25] 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

[2:38] generation, right, gives rise to the son. Now, in the third and fourth articles, he's asking about another going forward. What that is, and first of all, the fourth third article, is there a going forward in addition to this one we talked about in the second article? And then, where this can be called generation in the fourth article. So he says, "To the third, one proceeds thus. It seems that there is not in divine things another going forward from the generation or besides the generation of the Word.

[3:18] 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 is only one going forward in God or in divine things.

[3:43] So he's worried about, you know, if you 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, unity and diversity, right? But the procession in divine things is not except according to the communication of the divine nature, since therefore there is only one divine nature, as has been shown above.

[4:28] It remains that there is 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.

[4:59] 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, as has been shown above. Therefore, in God there is not another what going forward besides the going forward of the Word, okay?

[5:26] So between the divine understanding and divine wills, there a real distinction in God? No, they're one and the same thing, right? And the distinction between the two is in our mind, right? But corresponds to the unity of the two in God. So this third objection I was anticipating the fact that the second proceeding is going to be according to the will. But if the reason or the understanding of God, the will of God, are the same thing.

[5:57] Then the acts of the two are the same thing, the proceedings are the same thing. You're merely naming the same thing twice. I mean, you're falling back into the heresy of Sabellius, right, where they differ only in what thought, but not really, the Father and the Son, or the Son and the Holy Spirit in this case. That's kind of an interesting objection, huh? But against this, this is the second one, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as is said in the Gospel Saint John chapter fifteen, verse twenty six.

[6:35] But He, however, is other from the Son, according to what is said in John chapter fourteen. I will ask my Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, another Counselor, another Adviser for you. Therefore, in divine things, there is another going forward besides the going forth of the Word.

[6:57] Now, the reason why I brought my New Testament here in Greek and the Greek 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?

[7:21] So, for example, in one of the earlier texts here, where Thomas is, where Jesus is talking about this, in English, he says in John chapter eight, actually, verse forty two. For I proceeded forth and came from God, right? Okay. And he says,

[7:55] "For I came forth from God, and the Greek word is exeimi huh? Exeimi Okay. Now the Greek dictionary says about that word. It says

[8:41] to march out with an army, to come forth, right? Okay. So in Latin, they'll translate that by procedere, to proceed. To go forth, okay. Now, in this text, refers to there in fifteen twenty six here, John's Gospel again.

[9:09] 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 exeimi but ekporeuetai Okay. Now, give you that little thing there, Latin there, exporuo.

[9:42] To go out or forth, this is meaning here, passive, 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, or in the texts usually, which is procedere to proceed.

[10:11] And in English, we can say goes forth and comes forth. Okay. That's actually a little book learning there, you know. The Vatican and some theologians, ten or twelve years ago, they discussed. This was a sore point with the Orthodox and the Pyriokui and so forth and things like that. Large commission. They discussed the differences in two words and some of the nuances that the fathers, especially Greek fathers, might give that.

[10:50] But basically, they came down to the same thing. They're just basically two words for the same thing. So Thomas says in the body of the article, "I answer. It should be said that in divine things there are two processions, two going fords. One, which is the going forth of the word, thought of God, and there's a certain other one, which is not so well named.

[11:21] To the evidence of this, he says it should be considered that in God, in divinis, I don't know why he says in divinis why do you say in God, but in divine 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.

[11:47] 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? Understanding action. Yeah.

[12:13] But according to the operation of the will, there is found in us a certain other going forward, to wit, the going forth of love, by which the loved is in the lover, just as by the conception of the word,

[12:36] 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. Okay. This, of course, should be the reason later on why there's only two going forwards. This is the only two. Operations within, right? That remain within the one doing them that could give rise to a person.

[13:12] 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 one by way of loving is also what God is also God.

[13:35] Okay. So what is this going forward in God? Well, 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. Okay.

[13:53] Now, the first objection was saying, "Huh? If you have another procession from the original one, then why not 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 what going forward of the will, because that's where you what rest in what has gone forward, loving it.

[14:27] And 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,

[14:41] 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.

[14:52] But the trouble is that the being of my reason and the understanding my reason aren't the same thing, and my loving is again something different than my understanding. So, is the definition of reason reason? No.

[15:13] In some way, it is, but that's simply speaking, it's not reason. And is reason in my love reason? That's simply without qualification. 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.

[15:43] Now, the second objection is saying, "Well, how can there be more than one way that God is generated? " Another thing, this and so on.

[15:54] Well, the answer is given here in reply to the second objection that to 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? No. I have some knowledge in geometry. Is that me? I have some health. Is that me?

[16:27] Is 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, huh? These things are God. Okay. If there is a distinction between God and what He has, like there's a distinction between me and the little bit of knowledge I have of Greek, that's not me. Then there'd be a composition, right?

[17:07] There'd be one thing added to another of God, right? And that's excluded from the question on the simplicity of God. So since whatever is in God is God, which doesn't happen in other things, and therefore through any going forward which is not to the outside, there is going to be communicated the divine nature. This won't take place in other natures, huh? Okay. So there's a going forward in me, and more than one, right?

[17:48] Where 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.

[18:14] So that's a, 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.

[18:27] 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 say if a definition goes forward from my mind, it's a very distinct thought about that. Okay.

[18:53] But although it's less known to us than imagination, it's more like what's taking place in the Trinity. Why do I say that? Well, I can imagine a glass mountain,

[19:10] 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,

[19:34] 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 Go forward from my reason, a thought of itself.

[20:10] 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 to know. So reason can come back upon itself and know its own act, and even to some extent know itself. So so marvelous about that definition of Shakespeare, apart from all the use it has in philosophy and in our thinking and so on.

[20:41] 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 within it, but not insofar as the image of the very thing that is 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.

[21:13] But still falls very short. You know the Latin language lacks a part of a speech. You know, and that's the what Article. the article, yeah. Sometimes in the later scholastics, you know, you see because of this they start to stick in ly or something like that. Now I think that's what the French got law and so on, but I guess it isn't. You know, it comes more from

[21:43] Italy. But this is important in one way that Scripture speaks because Scripture often names things by antonomasia. Now, y'all know that word antonomasia. Just put on the board just for fun. You probably won't find it in most dictionaries, you know, but in the big Oxford dictionary, you know, the big dictionary of language, you'll find antonomasia, right? Antonomasia comes from a Greek word, huh? It's naming a certain figure of speech, right?

[22:23] But what is antonomasia? Just recall that most of you heard this before. Give common name to one particular thing because it's outstanding. Yeah, yeah. Or vice versa, to take a man who's outstanding in one kind of thing and use that for the common one, right? So I might say about somebody who's a lover, he's a Romeo, okay? That's antonomasia, right? Okay. Now this is very common in sacred scripture, right?

[22:57] 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. Oh, we have a new baby in the family.

[23:26] Good news, right? You know. What's not the Gospel, is it? At least not not this birth. That wasn't my grandchildren. So the good news here is really good, right? Very very good. Okay. Christ is named by what? Yeah. Now, when,

[23:52] like, say, in chapter, was it sixteen? Yeah, in chapter sixteen, there where Peter says, "What do you say?" And Peter answering said, "You are ho Christos." So you get the article there. You are the Christ, right? Okay. So he said to be that by antonomasia Okay. A 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 those who have been anointed, he stands out, right?

[24:38] Okay. So the beginning of John's Gospel. He says, "In the beginning was the Word." And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Well, the Greek would say ho logos, the word, right? Okay. Now,

[24:58] is logos there being used in Greek in its first meaning? Yeah, first meaning of logos in Greek is 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 word, and then you can maybe make a distinction there: the spoken word first, then the written word. But then it means the thought that the word signifies, right?

[25:37] 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, right?

[26:20] Okay. So beginning of John's gospel is saying, "In the beginning was the thought." Okay. So it is the thought. Now, when something is being said by antonomasia there is two things you have to do. The first thing is to recognize that something is being said by antonomasia, and secondly, why this is said by antonomasia? Why of all thoughts, this one is called the thought, right?

[27:10] That seems to me there is 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

[27:34] thought that God has. So then, like if we say, you know, the Bible is the book, right? Why we call the book? What's so special about this book? Well, it's the word of God, right?

[27:51] Okay. So one reason why this is called the thought is it's the thought of God, being the only thought that God has, right? Okay.

[28:03] That's not the only evidence of this. That by itself would be enough to say, "Who knows what is that thought?" Okay. Now, what's the second reason?

[28:17] Well, as the philosopher teaches us in the beginning of the in the proemium to the book, three 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 proemium to the parts of animals, Aristotle says the more important criterion is that's about a better and more wonderful thing.

[28:51] Okay. 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?

[29:17] It's chiefly a thought about what God is. Okay. Now we've been going to 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. Okay. But among all the thoughts of God, what's so special about this one, right?

[30:08] Well, none of these thoughts that I have about God, and there are many, 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. Okay, but this thought of God—the only thought of God—expresses what perfectly what God is, huh? Okay.

[30:45] So it's the only thought of God, and it expresses fully, or perfectly, what God is. Yeah. Now God also expresses everything else, but we'll do that for it's not

[31:15] the same thought, necessarily, right? Yeah. What's the third reason why this is the thought? Huh? Among all thoughts, this stands out. One thing makes it stand out is it's the only thought that God has, right?

[31:29] 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, huh? That's that's going to

[31:46] be four. We're building up. We're building up. Yeah. Where every other thought is an accident, right? Something that exists in another thing, right? Like my thoughts exist in my mind, which exists in in my soul, and so on. But this thought is something substantial, right? This thought is a substance, you could say, right? And obviously, substance of rational nature. Okay. So this is the only thought

[32:24] that is a substance that subsists. I'm going to put that way. Um, in the strict sense, that's going to be categorized as substance. He exists. It is a substance and a person, right? Okay. Now later on, when Thomas will take up the word "person," you'll see he he asks whether "person" should be applied to God, right? And he points out that there's nothing more perfect than a person, huh?

[32:56] Because a person is something that subsists in the highest kind of nature there is—the understanding of nature, right? So a person is is a very wonderful thing, but this is the only thought. This is a person.

[33:12] That makes a unique thought, right? Every other thought is just a accident that exists in another, right? And last but not least, this thought is God.

[33:30] You see, I've been leading up to the grand conclusion, right? But any one of these, right, makes this thought unique among all thoughts, and makes it to be called by antonomasia the thought, right? But I'm kind of giving them in the ascending order, right? Building up, right? This is the only thought that God has. Any thoughts in your head? I got lots of thoughts in my head, you know, you know, but God has only one thought.

[34:03] Must be something the thought that He has, right? I don't believe you, but must be something. The only thought He has. Put all his marbles in one thing. huh? And they said, "well, you judge the excellence of a thought but what's a thought enough? 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.

[34:34] All my 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? But even all together, they don't express what He is. So I said, this is the thought about the best thing there is to think about, and it's what, and

[34:55] most perfect expression of that. Why? I can see why it's called the thought, right? The thing that lies at this thought is, person, huh? It subsists, and finally, there's God Himself, right?

[35:12] So sometimes the Latin commentaries on Scripture maybe don't emphasize as much as they could antonomasia because 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 that 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.

[35:43] And in the words of the poet, "A long farewell to all my greatness," and but he's not named properly. He's just called the poet. Who is it? Shakespeare, yeah.

[36:07] 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? In other things, there's only one way. It's because of what? There being two operations within God, right?

[36:33] 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 they all proceed in one way according to the nature of the thing. But the other operations are not the being of the thing.

[36:56] Now the third, or a difficult objection, right? Thomas likes to build these up. What's nice about this way, you know, Thomas wrote the Summa, 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, is talking about the definition of eternity, right?

[37:24] 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.

[37:38] 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 persons proceeding differ except in definition, but not in in in meaning, right?

[38:16] To the third, it should be said, and this is very important for this filioque, you know, later on that comes up. 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 way order.

[38:46] For there is not a going forward of love except in order to the going forward of the word. For nothing is able to be loved by the will unless it be conceived in the understanding. This goes back to what Aristotle or Thomas himself teaches in the treatise on love. We haven't done that together, have we? We did it, yeah, yeah. You might recall that there are three questions about love that Thomas has, right?

[39:16] 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 concupiscence, and the sense love and the chosen love. And then the second question is 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.

[39:48] 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.

[39:58] So. There's a certain order there between knowledge and love. I used to when I taught that I would say to students, you know, we use a little poets. We use this famous thing from Christopher Marlowe, where he says, "Whoever loved, the love not at first sight." And Shakespeare quotes that right.

[40:28] In As You Like It. And so, gets the next discussion going, right? And some people, you know, say, "The first time I saw her, I knew there was something there." You know. And the the famous love stories like Romeo and Juliet, right? It's love at first sight. Okay. 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?

[40:55] You know, and so on. And when they get too argued about, I said, "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?

[41:15] 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 first. Since, therefore, there is to be noted then a certain order of the word or thought to the beginning from which it goes forward, right?

[41:47] Although in divine things there is the same substance, right, of the understanding itself and the concept, 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?

[42:21] The procession of love proceeding from the procession of the word in divine things. Okay. 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 people don't understand, right? Okay. I'm going to

[42:53] take a little break here. We're going to keep this. We'll go on to the fourth article. Put the break between articles, and that's where Thomas has broken it down.