Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from Jn. 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 2: Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 4: Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 5: Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 6: Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.

Objection 7: Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (Question 28, Article 3; Question 30, Article 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (Question 28, Article 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (Question 27, Articles 2,4; Question 28, Article 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Reply to Objection 1: We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" (Jn. 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son.

Reply to Objection 2: In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

Reply to Objection 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.

Reply to Objection 4: When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (Jn. 1:33).

Reply to Objection 5: The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love.

Reply to Objection 6: For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

Reply to Objection 7: The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in Question 27.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod spiritus sanctus non procedat a filio.

Quia secundum dionysium, non est audendum dicere aliquid de substantiali divinitate, praeter ea quae divinitus nobis ex sacris eloquiis sunt expressa.

Sed in Scriptura sacra non exprimitur quod spiritus sanctus a filio procedat, sed solum quod procedat a patre; ut patet ioann. XV, spiritum veritatis, qui a patre procedit.

Ergo spiritus sanctus non procedit a filio.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, in symbolo Constantinopolitanae synodi sic legitur, credimus in spiritum sanctum, dominum et vivificantem, ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum.

Nullo igitur modo debuit addi in symbolo nostro quod spiritus sanctus procedat a filio, sed videntur esse anathematis rei, qui hoc addiderunt.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, spiritum sanctum ex patre dicimus, et spiritum patris nominamus, ex filio autem spiritum sanctum non dicimus, spiritum vero filii nominamus.

Ergo spiritus sanctus non procedit a filio.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, nihil procedit ab eo in quo quiescit. Sed spiritus sanctus quiescit in filio.

Dicitur enim in legenda beati Andreae, pax vobis, et universis qui credunt in unum deum patrem, et in unum filium eius, unicum dominum nostrum iesum christum, et in unum spiritum sanctum, procedentem ex patre, et in filio permanentem.

Ergo spiritus sanctus non procedit a filio.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, filius procedit ut verbum. Sed spiritus noster in nobis non videtur procedere a verbo nostro.

Ergo nec spiritus sanctus procedit a filio.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, spiritus sanctus perfecte procedit a patre.

Ergo superfluum est dicere quod procedit a filio.

Argumentum 7

Praeterea, in perpetuis non differt esse et posse, ut dicitur in III physic.; et multo minus in divinis. Sed spiritus sanctus potest distingui a filio, etiam si ab eo non procedat.

Dicit enim Anselmus, in libro de processione spiritus sancti, habent utique a patre esse filius et spiritus sanctus, sed diverso modo, quia alter nascendo, et alter procedendo, ut alii sint per hoc ab invicem.

Et postea subdit, nam si per aliud non essent plures filius et spiritus sanctus, per hoc solum essent diversi.

Ergo spiritus sanctus distinguitur a filio, ab eo non existens.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicit Athanasius, spiritus sanctus a patre et filio, non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere spiritum sanctum a filio esse. Si enim non esset ab eo, nullo modo posset ab eo personaliter distingui.

Quod ex supra dictis patet.

Non enim est possibile dicere quod secundum aliquid absolutum divinae personae ab invicem distinguantur, quia sequeretur quod non esset trium una essentia; quidquid enim in divinis absolute dicitur, ad unitatem essentiae pertinet. Relinquitur ergo quod solum relationibus divinae personae ab invicem distinguantur.

Relationes autem personas distinguere non possunt, nisi secundum quod sunt oppositae. Quod ex hoc patet, quia pater habet duas relationes, quarum una refertur ad filium, et alia ad spiritum sanctum; quae tamen, quia non sunt oppositae, non constituunt duas personas, sed ad unam personam patris tantum pertinent. Si ergo in filio et in spiritu sancto non esset invenire nisi duas relationes quibus uterque refertur ad patrem, illae relationes non essent ad invicem oppositae; sicut neque duae relationes quibus pater refertur ad illos. Unde, sicut persona patris est una, ita sequeretur quod persona filii et spiritus sancti esset una, habens duas relationes oppositas duabus relationibus patris. Hoc autem est haereticum, cum tollat fidem trinitatis. Oportet ergo quod filius et spiritus sanctus ad invicem referantur oppositis relationibus.

Non autem possunt esse in divinis aliae relationes oppositae nisi relationes originis, ut supra probatum est.

Oppositae autem relationes originis accipiuntur secundum principium, et secundum quod est a principio. Relinquitur ergo quod necesse est dicere vel filium esse a spiritu sancto, quod nullus dicit, vel spiritum sanctum esse a filio, quod nos confitemur. Et huic quidem consonat ratio processionis utriusque.

Dictum enim est supra quod filius procedit per modum intellectus, ut verbum; spiritus sanctus autem per modum voluntatis, ut amor. Necesse est autem quod amor a verbo procedat, non enim aliquid amamus, nisi secundum quod conceptione mentis apprehendimus. Unde et secundum hoc manifestum est quod spiritus sanctus procedit a filio.

Ipse etiam ordo rerum hoc docet. Nusquam enim hoc invenimus, quod ab uno procedant plura absque ordine, nisi in illis solum quae materialiter differunt; sicut unus faber producit multos cultellos materialiter ab invicem distinctos, nullum ordinem habentes ad invicem. Sed in rebus in quibus non est sola materialis distinctio, semper invenitur in multitudine productorum aliquis ordo. Unde etiam in ordine creaturarum productarum, decor divinae sapientiae manifestatur. Si ergo ab una persona patris procedunt duae personae, scilicet filius et spiritus sanctus, oportet esse aliquem ordinem eorum ad invicem. Nec potest aliquis ordo alius assignari, nisi ordo naturae, quo alius est ex alio. Non est igitur possibile dicere quod filius et spiritus sanctus sic procedant a patre, quod neuter eorum procedat ab alio, nisi quis poneret in eis materialem distinctionem, quod est impossibile.

Unde etiam ipsi Graeci processionem spiritus sancti aliquem ordinem habere ad filium intelligunt. Concedunt enim spiritum sanctum esse spiritum filii, et esse a patre per filium.

Et quidam eorum dicuntur concedere quod sit a filio, vel profluat ab eo, non tamen quod procedat.

Quod videtur vel ex ignorantia, vel ex protervia esse. Quia si quis recte consideret, inveniet processionis verbum inter omnia quae ad originem qualemcumque pertinent, communissimum esse.

Utimur enim eo ad designandum qualemcumque originem; sicut quod linea procedit a puncto, radius a sole, rivus a fonte; et similiter in quibuscumque aliis. Unde ex quocumque alio ad originem pertinente, potest concludi quod spiritus sanctus procedit a filio.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non invenitur vel per verba, vel per sensum.

Licet autem per verba non inveniatur in sacra Scriptura quod spiritus sanctus procedit a filio, invenitur tamen quantum ad sensum; et praecipue ubi dicit filius, Ioan. XVI, de spiritu sancto loquens, ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet.

Regulariter etiam in sacra Scriptura tenendum est, quod id quod de patre dicitur, oportet de filio intelligi, etiam si dictio exclusiva addatur, nisi solum in illis in quibus pater et filius secundum oppositas relationes distinguuntur.

Cum enim dominus, Matth. XI, dicit, nemo novit filium nisi pater, non excluditur quin filius seipsum cognoscat. Sic igitur cum dicitur quod spiritus sanctus a patre procedit, etiam si adderetur quod a solo patre procedit, non excluderetur inde filius, quia quantum ad hoc quod est esse principium spiritus sancti, non opponuntur pater et filius; sed solum quantum ad hoc, quod hic est pater et ille filius.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in quolibet Concilio institutum fuit symbolum aliquod, propter errorem aliquem qui in Concilio damnabatur. Unde sequens Concilium non faciebat aliud symbolum quam primum, sed id quod implicite continebatur in primo symbolo, per aliqua addita explanabatur contra haereses insurgentes.

Unde in determinatione chalcedonensis synodi dicitur, quod illi qui fuerunt congregati in Concilio Constantinopolitano, doctrinam de spiritu sancto tradiderunt, non quod minus esset in praecedentibus (qui apud Nicaeam congregati sunt), inferentes; sed intellectum eorum adversus haereticos declarantes.

Quia igitur in tempore antiquorum Conciliorum nondum exortus fuerat error dicentium spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio; non fuit necessarium quod hoc explicite poneretur.

Sed postea, insurgente errore quorundam, in quodam Concilio in Occidentalibus partibus congregato, expressum fuit auctoritate Romani pontificis; cuius auctoritate etiam antiqua Concilia congregabantur et confirmabantur. Continebatur tamen implicite in hoc ipso quod dicebatur spiritus sanctus a patre procedere.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio, primo fuit a Nestorianis introductum; ut patet in quodam symbolo Nestorianorum damnato in ephesina synodo. Et hunc errorem secutus fuit theodoretus Nestorianus, et plures post ipsum; inter quos fuit etiam Damascenus. Unde in hoc eius sententiae non est standum. Quamvis a quibusdam dicatur quod Damascenus, sicut non confitetur spiritum sanctum esse a filio, ita etiam non negat, ex VI illorum verborum.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod per hoc quod spiritus sanctus dicitur quiescere vel manere in filio, non excluditur quin ab eo procedat, quia et filius in patre manere dicitur, cum tamen a patre procedat. Dicitur etiam spiritus sanctus in filio quiescere, vel sicut amor amantis quiescit in amato; vel quantum ad humanam naturam christi, propter id quod scriptum est, Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum descendentem, et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod verbum in divinis non accipitur secundum similitudinem verbi vocalis, a quo non procedit spiritus, quia sic tantum metaphorice diceretur, sed secundum similitudinem verbi mentalis, a quo amor procedit.

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod per hoc quod spiritus sanctus perfecte procedit a patre, non solum non superfluum est dicere quod spiritus sanctus procedat a filio; sed omnino necessarium. Quia una virtus est patris et filii; et quidquid est a patre, necesse est esse a filio, nisi proprietati filiationis repugnet.

Non enim filius est a seipso, licet sit a patre.

Ad 7

Ad septimum dicendum quod spiritus sanctus distinguitur personaliter a filio in hoc, quod origo unius distinguitur ab origine alterius. Sed ipsa differentia originis est per hoc, quod filius est solum a patre, spiritus sanctus vero a patre et filio. Non enim aliter processiones distinguerentur, sicut supra ostensum est.