Prima Pars
124. Summa I, q.36, a.2: Does the Holy Spirit Proceed from the Son? The Filioque, Distinction by Opposed Relations, and the Creeds
Class of 2008-03-27
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/124-summa-i-q-36-a-2-does-the-holy-spirit-proceed-from-the-son/

[0:00] 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 arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. By the way, have you seen some of the Pope's general audiences there this year so far?

[0:35] He had five five of them devoted to Augustine. Yeah. Of course, one of them he's talking about Augustine's works in particular, and talking about the City of God and the work on the Trinity, right? You know, among his greatest works, and then he quotes from a letter, I guess one sixty nine of the number, but to Vodus, where he's talking about his books of the Trinity. I guess you know the first twelve books were published without Augustine's approval, and because later on he revised them a little bit and added a few more books, right?

[1:10] But in this one particular thing, you know, he's thinking of he said, there are very few people who understand this, or can are able to understand it, he says, right? And therefore, he he's going to write books that are have more are more useful to the many, right? You know, so but for two years,

[1:32] I mean, it's good, nice little letter where Augustine, you know, says there are very few who are able to understand these things. Okay, so whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that's I think where we're up to, right? The second article. You know, this is a very important thing that Thomas talks about in a number of places. But as you know,

[2:02] the persons are distinguished by relations of origin. So if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, there is not going to be a real distinction between the Father. I mean, between the Son and the Holy Spirit. So this is a very important thing. It would just be that the the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but if he doesn't proceed from the Son, then the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father, but not from the Son, and therefore the Son and Holy Spirit would be the same same person, just as the Father and the Breather would be the same person.

[2:41] So this is a very important article for understanding the Trinity and so on. So it'd be different it would be different from saying that there is two sons; they'd be the same. The same person, yeah. Yeah.

[2:58] Yeah, because well, well you really have to have a distinction material or something. like that. Yeah, that doesn't matter. Yeah, Yeah. yeah. Now, because according to Dionysius, one ought not to dare say something about the what substantial divinity. Apart from those things that expressed to us or said to us from the sacred what writings,

[3:28] 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 fifteenth chapter of Saint John's Gospel, the Spirit of Truth, right, who proceeds from the what Father, right. Although there's in that text a kind of reference to the second person when he's called the Spirit of what truth, yeah,

[3:58] that He proceeds to 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? Moreover, and this is the big bone of contention, huh? In the symbolo, right? What does that word symbolo mean in Greek? Yeah, thrown together, yeah. And so, sometimes you know, symbol is used in Scripture for metaphor, right?

[4:32] 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. That's kind of not a good way of me 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.

[4:58] So in the symbol or the creed of the synod, the council of Constantinople, right? We read, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Giver of Life, right? Proceeding from the Father, right? Who ought to be adored and glorified with the Father and the what Son, right?

[5:24] So it just says in the creed there ex ex patre procedentem, from the Father proceeding, right? Doesn't say proceeding from the Son. Therefore, in no way oughted 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 say in Mass now. But seems to be a what anathema, cursed thing, right? Those who added this, huh?

[5:53] Okay. And so I guess there are some, you know, Greek Orthodox who think we're really heretical, you know, because we added that there, right?

[6:05] 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 his words there. If he's the Spirit of the Son, like he's the Spirit of the Father, why is he from the Son?

[6:36] Maybe he's from the Father, right? Okay. 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? So we're going to hold the authority Damascene in this text, huh?

[7:00] 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.

[7:40] 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.

[7:57] Moreover, the Son goes forward as the Word, the thought, but the but our Spirit in us does not seem to what proceed from our what. Yeah, and he's talking about our breath there, maybe. Therefore, neither does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son. Although, if you say that the what Thomas introduces some 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.

[8:40] Moreover, the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore, it is superfluous to say that he proceeds from the what Son. Actually, we're going to say, he, proceeds perfectly from both, but insofar as the one principal in some way of the two.

[9:03] Moreover, in what eternal things to be and to be able to be don't differ, 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?

[9:39] 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 would argue there would not be a real what distinction, which would be heretical.

[9:54] 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 they are other through this from each other, right? And sometimes people say, "Well, the distinction between the the Son, the Holy Spirit, is one proceeds by way of God's understanding of himself.

[10:28] the other proceeds by way of God what loving Himself." Is that sufficient? You see, they are different persons, right? Well, as Thomas will 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,

[10:54] and differing only in definition or in 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.

[11:15] And afterwards, St. Anselm joins or adds that if through nothing other, right, there were not many the Son, 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?

[11:47] 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. So, we have a number number of works there about the Greeks. Yeah. I think Elric worked on. But against this is what Athanasius says. What the Athanasian Creed says, right? The Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, right?

[12:22] Not made, not created, not generated, but going forth, right? So it must be that the Greeks don't accept that creed as Athanasius, otherwise they would yeah see that as yeah. He didn't say that in 325 but he was Athanasian. I don't know the exact origin of the Athanasian Creed. You're not sure it goes back to Athanasius, but attributed to him. I don't know.

[13:13] Yeah. So Thomas says the answer it ought to be said that it is necessary to say that the Holy Spirit is from the what? Son.

[13:24] For if he was not from him, right, in no way would 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?

[14:00] 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?

[14:17] 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.

[14:29] For whatever is said in divine things absolutely as opposed to relatively, pertains to the unity of the what? Essence. So when you 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 Saint Catherine of Siena, remember two things: I am who am, and you are she who is not.

[14:57] Let's set the record straight. So that's the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, huh? 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 in so far as they are what relations.

[15:39] That's kind of 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 in so far as they are what relations, yeah.

[16:06] 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?

[16:34] 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 I am by being and unbeing. One, 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?

[17:04] Now, now from this it is clear, he says, 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 the relation of a breather, let's say, right?

[17:36] 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.

[17:50] But because these two are not opposed, Father and breather. See, Father and Son are opposed, right? As relatives, but is Father and breather opposed? No. See.

[18:04] Okay. So because they are not opposed, they do not constitute two persons, right? But they pertain to the one person of the what Father, right?

[18:21] 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.

[18:40] 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 follows 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.

[19:22] So it was a recent thing from 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, saying, you know, the Creator and the Sanctifier or something else. Came up over, it's over ten years ago in Boston. Yeah. Was it some place run by the Jesuits?

[19:43] Chapel, and they were using that formula for baptism as the cardinal law. Yeah. Said no, it's not valid. I guess maybe they've argued it all the way up to the end. Yeah. Yeah. Pretty amazing. And and you saw the addendum there. It says those who have Received this this form of baptism, are to be categorized as non-Christians,

[20:12] Is necessary, therefore, right, that the Son and Holy Spirit referred to each other by opposed what relations? But they are not able to be in God other opposed relations, except relations of what origin? This has been shown about.

[20:38] 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 is 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.

[21:05] Right. There's a typo in here. Instead of saying "quote nos confiteamur," it says "quote non confiteamur." Whoops! Got it right. I remember, my teacher, you know, saying you know, it's a text that when some pious nun had edited, you know, and she kept the mistake in the text, you know, and you can't because you can see it's obviously obviously a mistake there, you know.

[21:40] Okay, so that's the basic reason Thomas gives, huh? But now he adds to this, 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 is

[22:12] 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 Thomas Aquinas on love this here one time? Yeah, and first cause of love is the good as known, right? And so, if the Holy Spirit, if the if the Son proceeds as knowledge, right, as the thought, then this is going to be the source of what the Holy Spirit, yeah.

[22:49] Whence, according to this, is manifest that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son. That's like a kind of like a second reason there, right, or confirmation of the first reason, huh?

[23:10] Okay, now here's the third thing. Now it's a little more subtle. There, try to understand a little bit. And the very order of things teaches this, he says.

[23:25] For never do we find that from one thing there proceeds many, without some what order, except in those only which differ what in material way, as one what,

[23:42] 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 the multitude of things produce some what order, right?

[24:08] Whence also in the order of creatures produced is made known the beauty of divine what wisdom. Now, just you know, stop that for a second. When Thomas begins the commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, and he quotes what Aristotle says in the Proemium to 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 belongs to wisdom to be a knowledge of of order, right?

[24:48] Well, wisdom names 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 and after. Before and after is like the definition of order, right? So what culminates the definition of reason is that it looks before and after, looks for order, right?

[25:18] So the knowledge of reason then could be said to be a knowledge of order. Then Thomas goes on to distinguish the knowledge of reason by the order that it what considers, right? But because wisdom is the highest and the greatest perfection of of of reason, it's the best knowledge of reason has, and most of all knows order, right? And so we talk about God being wise, right?

[25:41] Then we speak of His wisdom as what ordering all things sweetly from beginning to end, then. And this is Aristotle says in the 15th book, I guess it is, of Wisdom, orders one of the main forms of the beautiful. Okay.

[26:04] If therefore from the one person the Father there goes forward two persons, to wit, the Son, the Holy Spirit, they've got to go forward in some what order. Is necessary for there to be some order of them to each other.

[26:21] 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?

[26:36] 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 a distinction that comes from the what continuance, right? You know, like the first theorem of Euclid, right? The first theorem of Euclid says what?

[27:10] On a straight line, construct a what? Yeah. Off 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? The circle, right? And then when they meet, draw straight lines. Well, these two lines have to be equal because they're radius of this circle, and these two have to be equal, right? Because they're radius of this circle, and lines equal to the same are equal to each other.

[27:42] 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? None. One's here, one's there. But do you have that kind of distinction in God? No, because you don't have the continuance, right? God is not continuous. Otherwise, he would not be actual, be the actual. So Thomas says there has to be a distinction of order, right?

[28:10] The only kind of order you can have in God is this is from that. And therefore, the 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 the third reason, right?

[28:33] Aristotle says in the first book of Natural Healing, three is enough. Okay. And very often it's enough. Well, I was reading this morning there, a chapter 42 of Book One of the Summa Contra Gentiles, which is towards the end of the treatise on the substance of God, and it says that God is one. And Thomas gives 16 arguments. Wow.

[28:59] I can read most of them. I probably probably miss one or two, though you know. It's kind of you know when I get to come back to something like that, and I try to remember how many arguments I can remember, you know. I usually maybe 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.

[29:21] There's more joy like over one, one sheet is lost. You find it. So I rejoice to you know to realize that, 15th argument, you know, that I I only remember 14 of them. You know, get very excited about this. Get more joy that one argument I forgot than than the 14 ones I remembered, right?

[29:45] Put them away. But this is new. So Thomas says, therefore, what? Three arguments, right? 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 having a

[30:22] a material distinction, huh? Well, what's a what's a definition composed of? Yeah, yeah, genus and differences, right? Okay. Now, is there an order among these, huh?

[30:53] I could take the definition, say, of square. It's a equilateral and right angles quadrilateral, right? Now you don't want to confuse the grammatical order with the what logic order, right? Now you might, maybe in Latin, you know, you can put the adjective after the noun, right?

[31:27] 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 tell you what something is. And the quadrilaterals 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.

[32:01] 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? You're going to have to have a distinction that involves what order, right? Okay. Now, they could take the syllogism, right?

[32:27] And you say every B is A, let's say, and just do the form of it here. Every C is B. Um, in a way, the minor premise here, did they call it, contracts the what major premise, right? And so you might, for example,

[32:54] 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 universality of the major premise is contracted, right, by the minor premise, right? So in this case, what comes out is every C is A. Over here comes out every what? D is A, right? Well, it's like the like the definition, because I can use quadrilateral to define oblong, or rhombus, or rhomboid, right, or trapezium, right?

[33:31] And the difference is with what narrowed down. 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?

[33:57] Now I'm white and I'm healthy. I'm a white healthy. Well, there's no there's no order there, is there? See, healthy white or white healthy or which is the fundamental one? That's not a definition, not white healthy, is it? See, 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?

[34:25] 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 the universality of that, right?

[34:44] Just like you know this famous proposition that God is a pure act. Thomas used that to show that God. You know, they admired Thomas for thinking so well in Latin, and so in French. We we pay the compliment to Monsignor Dionne who is so inferior to Greek You know we we pay the compliment to Monsignor Dionne thought so well in French, even though it's inferior to English, huh?

[35:04] Yeah, because both I mentioned how both Monsignor Dionne and Father Boulay, 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, native English not French might say just so wise because that poem in French, right? But these guys, you know, and we'd go up to talk to Monsignor Dionne sometimes about the way I would speak in in my classes, you know, and he he proved the way I'd speak, and then he mentioned, oh, you can't see that in French, the language just doesn't, you know, doesn't.

[35:39] Oh, sure. So is English superior just because it has a large vocabulary, or partly? Yeah, it's more concrete too. So starting the concrete. I used to bring in André Gide, you know. I guess he's the editor of the play 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 in trying to translate Shakespeare into French, a language which he says is presque antipoétique almost anti poetic, right?

[36:12] You know, apparently French is better, you know, in prose and poetry. But that's very strong. I mean, he's kind of, you know, he regards a master of the French language. You know, he's admitted that the French language is.

[36:31] So, I'm doing like, like Thomas here, right? Quoting them and using them. People say to me, "But we should stop saying those things around the French." You got to tell. Mark Mark Twain said, "God created man somewhere between the angels and the French."

[36:56] 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 is brought up with the word "person." Remember before the same kind of objection, right? But it's kind of standard objection. To the first, therefore, 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.

[37:33] Because although through words it is not found in Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Son, right, is nevertheless found as far as the what sense or meaning, right? And especially where the Son says in the 16th chapter of Saint John about the Holy Spirit that He will clarify me because He what?

[38:00] 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?

[38:27] 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?

[38:49] 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 then 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?

[39:23] But only as far as this, that this one is the Father and that one is the what Son. So to be the breather is what doesn't pertain to that distinction of the Father and the Son, right? The one is the breather, the other is not. So what is applied to one can be applied to the what other?

[39:51] Do you know when he says no one knows the Son except the Father, and it says reverse Uh uh Does that exclude the Holy Spirit? From knowing, no, you could apply the same principle, right? Do you get that from Augustine, or that just generally from the fathers that norm brings us sort of laid out there? Well, sure, it's in Augustine, yeah,

[40:16] as well as Thomas, but but that 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.

[40:36] The second should be said that in each what council? council is what the more the Latin word, I guess. Synod is more the Greek word, huh? In every council, there was instituted some what symbol, some creed, we'd say, on account of some error which was condemned in that council, right? Whence the later council, right,

[41:12] does not make another creed than the first, right? But that which is implicitly contained in the first creed, through some things added, is explained against the heresies that what? Yeah.

[41:34] Whence in the determination of the synod of Chalcedon, it is said that those who were congregated in the council of Constantinople treated the what teaching about the Holy Spirit, not that it was less in the preceding ones among those who were congregated, in Isaiah. But declaring their understanding against what heretics, right?

[42:08] Now, for example, you know, you might say one creed that Christ is man, right? True man, true God, right? Okay. And along comes some heretic and says, "Well, there's only one will in Christ. " Say. Say.

[42:27] 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, because he wouldn't be a man truly a man didn't have human will, and he wouldn't be God didn't have the divine will, right? But when you said 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 divine will, but that's implicit in there, right?

[42:54] And maybe a later council will make that clear that someone is. mona, mona. Yeah, he's saying there's only one will in Christ, right? Okay.

[43:08] 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 proceed from 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. Um, it was made explicit; it was expressed by the authority of the Roman what Pontiff.

[43:46] 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? Just 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

[44:19] Augustine says that heresy is necessary for theology to develop, right? Because when a heretic denies something, 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? But that's a that's in the consuls and also in the ranks 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.

[44:57] 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? Where he's taking the authority of Damascene right? Okay, Damascene seems to 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, huh?

[45:34] 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 Damasene. So he's he's criticizing Damasene, right? Whence in this one ought not to stand in his what? His judgment, Okay.

[46:12] 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.

[46:25] from the strength of those words, right? Now he's softening a bit, right? Damascene, okay. So he's. Also interesting too because he doesn't dismiss him right after that. Yeah. Just in that's one case, don't follow.

[46:45] Just like Pope Paul VI, what's his name, Theodore Mopsuestius, have a heritage. Paul VI singled him out for one statement he made about the Eucharist, and he said, and several others, and he says, he says, in this point he speaks against, on this point, yeah, maybe other things he doesn't. but that's what 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.

[47:16] Other times it's like Origen's at the origin of the, you know, Arian heresy or something you know very rough on him, huh? And many many problems with Origin.

[47:30] He said. Yeah, because he's still quoted almost like nine times in that catechism. Yeah. And then he's pushing out. Bad edition. Essentially, the Pope he 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

[47:57] kind of interesting. There was one on Origin as very interesting because he says he reflects about Origin. He says it was always an example to me about the danger of pride and intellectual freedom.

[48:13] And Origin had the problem too because he was hyper ascetic, too, and so there was that lack of balance there. In his talk throughout the East, there's all sorts of different people affected by different Origin things, weird things about, you know, hell doesn't last forever. Yeah. Pray for the angels. Pray for the demons so they'll be saved, and all sorts of weird stuff like some of these others.

[48:50] I do. In talking about Augustine there, Chris, Benedict the 16 speaks about influence of Augustine upon him. It isn't semi close there. Once he's issued so far. But he also talking about the humility of of Augustine, right? And and the book of Retractions, right? And something you know, most academic people should be forced to, because some of these people, you know, they read book after book after book, but every book is changing their what they think, you know, and what what do they think and what mistakes have they left?

[49:25] Do they think? Now the fourth objection was that the Holy Spirit is said to what proceeds from the Father and rests 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 him, because also the what Son is said to remain in the Father when nevertheless. he proceeds from the Father, right?

[50:03] Well, Thomas was talking about earlier when he's saying that the proceeding that gives rise to the Trinity is proceeding that remains within the One, just like understanding the One remains within, right? Okay. And so, 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 that is outside me. Um.

[50:35] But nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is said to rest in the Son, either as the love of the One loving rests in the loved, right? I left my heart in San Francisco, okay. 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?

[51:06] Thomas gives two different ways of solving this particular objection. Okay. Now the fifth objection is taken from our breath, I guess, huh? Okay. Thomas 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 proceed, because thus it would be said only metaphorically, right? But according to the likeness of the mental word, the thought, right, from which love what proceeds, right?

[51:59] Okay. He's talking about you know the word that I express comes from my breath in a way, right? Well, that's not the likeness between the Holy Spirit and the word, right? Sometimes they compare though the the word made flesh to the exterior word, right? And then the Holy Spirit has a role there to play, overshadowing the Blessed Virgin, we say, and okay. Then there's a likeness there, right?

[52:25] Huh? So the vocal word is more like the what incarnate 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 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.

[52:51] Okay. Now the sixth objection is 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. " I mean, I could say, you know, like human beings, you know, where the father can't generate, he's got to have the woman too, right? Well, St. Thomas answers this objection. To the sixth, therefore, it should be said that through this fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, right?

[53:23] You mean that, right? Not only is it not superfluous to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but altogether necessary. Notice how he's turning it around, huh? Because one is the power of the Father and the what? Son. And whatever is is from the Father is necessary to be from the Son, except where it's repugnant to the property of the Son, right. For the Son is not from himself, although he is from the what?

[53:53] Father, right. Of course, there'll be an article here on there being one beginning, right? With the one beginning, the Holy Spirit. That's with the fourth article. Let's go back to that.

[54:07] Now, the fifth one, seventh objection, rather, was these quotes from Anselm, right? Isn't enough to say that the the fact that the Son proceeds by way of understanding and the Holy Spirit by way of love is enough to distinguish the two.

[54:28] 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 their mutual love, huh? For in no other way are the processions distinguished, as has been said above, huh?

[55:06] Okay, now take a little break here.