Trinitarian Dynamics: Exploring Divine Processions and Relations in Thomistic Theology

 

 

Under a Thomistic interpretation of Christianity, God the Father is the one who possesses the divine essence in an absolute sense such that he is unbegotten. Before all ages he has always been and will be an eternal act of communicating the divine essence out. Imagine having an idea about yourself, this idea is like you but it will not be exactly you due to human limitations of imagination and therefore, will not be a perfect image. However, God knows himself perfectly and he is the only thing that can possibly understand his own essence. In his act of understanding himself it will be a perfect image with the same essence as it will be identical as it will be a reflection of his essence. Therefore, the Son proceeds by way of knowing. Knowledge is a procession. The reason why it becomes a person is because it is the perfect image of the divine essence.

        

“Thus can also be explained how "to speak" is in God "to see by thought," forasmuch as the Word is conceived by the gaze of the divine thought. Still the term "thought" does not properly apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16): "Therefore do we speak of the Word of God, and not of the Thought of God, lest we believe that in God there is something unstable, now assuming the form of Word, now putting off that form and remaining latent and as it were formless." For thought consists properly in the search after the truth, and this has no place in God. But when the intellect attains to the form of truth, it does not think, but perfectly contemplates the truth. Hence Anselm (Monol. lx) takes "thought" in an improper sense for "contemplation." (Summa, First Part, Q34, Article 1)

 

The Son possesses the divine essence since he receives it from the Father. Furthermore, under Thomistic Christianity, the Father is considered to be the “principle” rather than the “cause” of the Son and Spirit.

        

“The Greeks use the words "cause" and "principle" indifferently, when speaking of God; whereas the Latin Doctors do not use the word "cause," but only "principle." The reason is because "principle" is a wider term than "cause"; as "cause" is more common than "element." For the first term of a thing, as also the first part, is called the principle, but not the cause. Now the wider a term is, the more suitable it is to use as regards God (I:13:11), because the more special terms are, the more they determine the mode adapted to the creature. Hence this term "cause" seems to mean diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is not implied in the word "principle." For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term "principle" even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of a line.” (Summa, First Part, Q33, Article 1)

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that “principle” is a wider term than “cause”. Here, he draws an analogy between “cause” and “element” stating that just as “cause” is more specific than “principle” and  “element” is more specific than “cause”. Principle is better terminology for God since the more specific a term is implying more limitations upon it. Aquinas explains that the term “cause” implies a diversity of substance and a dependence of one thing on another which are concepts that are not necessarily conveyed by the term “principle”. He further explains that “principle” can be used in cases where there is a certain order or relationship between things, even without implying a difference in substance or power. For instance, he gives the example of a point being the principle of a line, or the first part of a line being the principle of the whole line. A cause might imply an imperfect resemblance between two things while a principle would not. For example, God is the cause of everything in existence but he is not identical to it while it does still reflect his glory. However, under Aquinas’ strict divine simplicity, God’s acts are identical to his essence and one could argue that is the case. However, a counter argument would be that while his act is identical to his essence, the result of the act would not be. The causation of the Son (even though we just agreed that the word cause is not appropriate (the Eastern Orthodox are okay with it)) is atemporal while the causation of creatures is temporal and furthermore, creatures do not partake in the essence.

 

“The eternal comes before the temporal. But God is the Father of the Son from eternity; while He is the Father of the creature in time. Therefore paternity in God is taken in a personal sense as regards the Son, before it is so taken as regards the creature.” (Summa, First Part, Q33, Article 3)

 

It seems then that principle has the distinction also of being atemporal while causation is temporal. Therefore, the reason why the Father is the Father while the Son is the Son is purely relational while the Son proceeds necessarily. If such distinction was not made, apart from creation, the Father and Son would be identical which would result in modalism which is heresy. The Son who is the perfect image of the divine essence proceeds from the Father eternally. From this they share the divine essence and are co-equal and co-eternal. One may ask how something can proceed eternally, that I do not know but the alternative for Christians is to claim that the Son was begotten in time which would then make him a creature which is what Arius argued which is heresy. Either way, this is why the Son is called the “Word”. The Son is referred to as the Word of God because, in the divine processions, God 'speaks' or expresses the perfect image of Himself, and the term “Word” signifies the creative and expressive aspect through which the Son proceeds as the perfect and identical representation of the divine essence. The loving relation between the Father and the Son qualifies the spiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

“Thus, as the divine processions must be denominated from certain actions; no other processions can be understood in God according to goodness and the like attributes except those of the Word and of love, according as God understands and loves His own essence, truth and goodness.” (Summa, First Part, Q27, Article 5)

 

This simply seems like a brute fact as if it were not the case then there could be an infinite regress of divine persons in the Godhead. None of this explains how there are not three Gods.