There are four internal divine relations in the Holy Trinity, of which only three are really distinct relations. To grasp this very important concept in the theology of the Triune God, we begin by considering again what we have said of the Trinitarian processions, namely, that there are two processions, generation and spiration. We may schematize the processions thus:
Father -> Son (Generation)
Father and Son (as one principle) -> Holy Ghost (Spiration)
The processions, in establishing distinct termini a quo and termini ad quem, give us four relations: two of origination and two of procession. For “Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related.”[1] The relations may be thus diagrammed:
Father -> Son (Paternity - a relation of origination)
Father <- Son (Filiation - a relation of procession)
Father and Son[2]-> Holy Ghost (Active Spiration - a relation of origination)
Father and Son <- Holy Ghost (Passive Spiration - a relation of procession)
Although the doctrine of the relations was developed in all its refinement by the Latin Scholastics and later defined at the Council of Florence (contra the Greek dissidents), the essential dogmatic foundation is found in the Greek Fathers. Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, against the Eunomian objection that consubstantiality renders any distinction between the persons impossible: “Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another.”[3]
The Aristotelian definition of relation which St. Thomas borrows is “order of one thing to another [ad aliquid].” In Aristotle’s metaphysics, relation is one of the nine categories of accident. Through a process of affirmation (the via eminentia seu excellentiae) and negation (via negativa seu negationis), we can strip relation it of its character as accident so as to apply the notion to God. For, as St. Thomas affirms, “whatever has an accidental existence in creatures, when considered as transferred to God, has a substantial existence; for there is no accident in God; since all in Him is His essence.”[4] Elsewhere, he had already negated the notion of accident: “Relationship is not predicated of God according to its proper and formal meaning, that is to say, in so far as its proper meaning denotes comparison to that in which relation is inherent, but only as denoting regard to another.”[5]
The Dominican Doctor will go on to show that the relations are contained as distinct hypostases in God’s own essence.
Even as an accident, a relation is not primarily something inhering in a thing, but is, rather, an ordering to something outside the hypostasis itself: “But relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what refers to another [again, ad aliquid].”[6] And elsewhere: “But the true idea of relation is not taken from its respect to that in which it is, but from its respect to something outside.”[7]
This unique, ad aliquid, attribute of relation makes its elevation to the category of substance all the easier. Thus, it is “more than a perfection in the subject, [but] is a reference to the terminus, and its essential characteristic lies precisely in that reference (esse ad), while its inherence in the subject (esse in) is secondary, and may be real or only logical.”[8]
Having explained the general idea of relation and affirmed its valid application to God, we will now break the concept down into its notional parts and apply this to the Persons of the Trinity. “In every real relation there are three elements: 1) the subject (father), 2) the term (son), 3) the foundation of the relation (activity of generating). [What is here said of generation can be said of the three other relations as well, mutatis mutandis.] The essence of the relation consists in being ordered to another; in Latin this is called ‘esse ad’ and the foundation [ - the reason for which the subject has reference to the term - ] is called ‘esse in.’”[9]
Since relation is this ordering to another, it is, in our experience, between two substances (e.g., I am related to my father as his son). However, in God, the relations are between the subsistences, or hypostases, which are also known as the Trinitarian Persons. They are, then, acts ad intra, i.e., internal activities in the One Substance of the Godhead. For this reason, we call them “internal relations.”
For our intellects, limited by temporal notions of before and after, it is all too easy to conceive of the Trinitarian processions happening first; and then, once the Three Persons exist, the relations come into being. Besides the obvious objection that the processions are eternal and that God (the Most Pure Act) does not “become,” the metaphysics of this view of the processions and relations is really backwards. For, although the relations can be logically inferred immediately from the doctrine of the processions, ontologically it is the relations which constitute multiplicity in God. Thus, St. Thomas cites Boethius to the effect that “in God the substance contains the unity; and relation multiplies the Trinity.”[10] More authoritatively, the Council of Florence defined that in God “everything is one where there is no distinction by relative opposition.”[11] Now, the “relative opposition” is the relation.
St. Thomas lucidly explains why such a relative opposition must be posited: “The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute, namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity - but according to that which is relative.”[12] In other words, we cannot distinguish persons at all without such (metaphysical) opposition.[13]
The relations do not merely exist between the Persons. They are the Persons, for they are subsistent relations. Thus, St. Thomas says that “relation… enters into the notion of the person…” and cites Boethius’ affirmation that “every word that refers to the persons signifies relation.”[14] Therefore, “The fatherhood constitutes the Person of the Father, the sonship constitutes the Person of the Son, and the passive spiration constitutes the Person of the Holy Spirit.”[15] Because these relations actually subsist, St. Thomas has it that “each divine Person is a subsistent, incommunicable,[16] internal divine relation.”[17] This means that when we say “Father,” we are naming a personal relation. So, too, when we say “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”
An even stronger way of saying this is that Paternity, Sonship, and (Passive) Spiration are the three divine Persons.
The saintly author of the Summa resumes the thoughts of the previous paragraphs in the following terse language: “Therefore person in any nature signifies what is distinct in that nature… Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin…, while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists. … Therefore, a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this is to signify relation by way of substance, and as such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature…”
Now the question begs to be asked, “if there are four relations, why are there only three Persons?”
The answer is implicit in the Florentine definition that “everything is one where there is no distinction by relative opposition.” The active spiration (which opposes passive spiration) is not a personal (or subsistent) relation because the one Spirator is actually two Persons, namely, the Father and Son, who, “as one principle,” spirate the Holy Ghost. In other words, active spiration is identical with paternity and filiation. Said another way, the complete concept of both paternity and filiation contain in themselves the notion of active spiration, with this difference, that in paternity, spiration is from the Father Himself, whereas, in filiation, it is received from the Father.
In the words of Father Baker: “Of the four real internal divine relations, three stand in opposition to one another and, therefore, are really distinct, i.e., fatherhood, sonship and passive spiration (= Holy Spirit). The active spiration stands in opposition to the passive spiration only; it is not opposed to fatherhood and sonship and, therefore, is not really distinct from them. So there are only three really distinct relations in God which constitute the three Persons.”[18]
St. Thomas explains this in the Summa: “Although there are four relations in God, one of them, spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father and of the Son, but belongs to both; thus, although it is a relation, it is not called a property, because it does not belong to only one person; nor is it a personal relation - i.e., constituting a person. The three relations - paternity, filiation, and procession - are called personal properties, constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the person of the Father, filiation is the person of the Son, procession [passive spiration] is the person of the Holy Ghost proceeding.”[19]
Bibliography:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition: Kevin Knight, 2003. Online, available at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ [accessed 12 July 2006].
Parente, Pietro; Piolanti, Antonio; and Garofalo, Salvatore, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology. Translated by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., S.T.D., Ph.D. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1951.
Joyce, G. H., “The Blessed Trinity” in The Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Online Edition by K. Knight, 2003. Online, available from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm [accessed 13 July 2006].
Pohle, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph, Ph.D., D.D. The Divine Trinity. Adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1925.
[1] G. H. Joyce, “The Blessed Trinity” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Robert Appleton Company, 1907; Online Edition, 2003 by K. Knight). Online, available at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm [accessed 13 July 2006].
[2] It is imperative that the Son be included in the active spiration. Filiation and and passive spiration do not establish a relative opposition between the Son and the Holy Ghost, and without the relative opposion between active and passive spiration, there is no basis for a distinction between the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Ghost. This is one of the many reasons why anti-filioque heresy of the Greek schismatics is so inimical to Trinitarian theology.
[3] Joyce, op. cit.
[4] Summa Theologiae Ia Q. 28, A. 2.
[5] Ibid., A. 1.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Summa Theologiae Ia Q. 28, A. 2.
[8] Parente, Pietro; Piolanti, Antonio; and Garofalo, Salvatore, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, translated by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., S.T.D., Ph.D. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1951) p. 239.
[9] From Lesson 9: Internal Divine Relations http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02509.htm
[10] Summa Theologiae Ia Q. 28, A. 3.
[11] Denzinger 703. This dogma, first articulated by St. Anselm (On the Procession of the Holy Spirit), is called by Father Pohle, “The Fundamental Law of the Trinity.”
[12] Summa Theologiae Ia Q. 28, A. 3.
[13] With this in mind, what I said in footnote 2 (regarding the Son’s participation in active spiration) should be considered to see its true importance.
[14] Summa Theologiae Ia Q. 29, A. 4.
[15] Cited in class notes: “Lesson 10: Three Persons are Subsistent Relations,” http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c025010.htm.
[16] Of all the notes contained in St. Thomas’ definition, the word incommunicable is not elsewhere explained in this paper. I shall do so here: Incommunicable is the inability to be communicated. Now, the Father communicates to the Son all that the Father Himself is - except the personal property of innascibility (being “not born” or being the “Origin without origin”). So, too, the Father and the Son communicate all they are to the Holy Ghost, except the Father’s innascibility and the Son’s passive generation (his being the Son). Although it may seem unnecessary because of the very notion of relation (with is, essentially, a “relative opposition”), what St. Thomas has done here in including the term “incommunicable” is add an important, additional barrier against modalism.
[17] Class notes, “Lesson 10: Three Persons are Subsistent Relations,” http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c025010.htm.
[18] Class notes, “Lesson 9: Internal Divine Relations,” http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02509.htm.
[19] Summa Theologiae Ia Q. 30, A. 2.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Tobias Petrus // Jan 25, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“In other words, active spiration is identical with paternity and filiation. Said another way, the complete concept of both paternity and filiation contain in themselves the notion of active spiration, with this difference, that in paternity, spiration is from the Father Himself, whereas, in filiation, it is received from the Father.”
This bears upon two other Trinitarian teachings. First, at Florence (I believe), the Church said that the Filioque could be understood in Greek by “dia tou Huiou” (*through* the Son) as opposed to the literal rendering “ek Patros kai Huiou.” Why? As you’ve discussed here before, the Latin formula emphasized the Son’s equality with the Father in the active spiration of the Holy Ghost. The Greek formula emphasizes the Son’s “reception” of active spiration from the father. So one could say that the Latin “from the Son” and the Greek “through the Son” were equally orthodox, provided both sides mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both as from one principle.
Secondly, the idea of the Son receiving spiration from the Father fits nicely with the teaching that the Holy Ghost is Love or Gift. The Father gives personal Love to the Son, Who receives it. To say that Paternity and Filiation together constitute active spiration is the same as saying that this act of begetting naturally entails love.
2 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. // Jan 26, 2008 at 9:27 am
Thank you, Tobias Petrus, for your thoughtful observations.
You are correct in saying that “through the Son” was a Greek formula approved by the Fathers of Florence. Here are a few paragraphs from the acts of the Council (Session 6, on 6 July 1439), with some emphasis of mine. Note, both of your points are found here:
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
— taken from http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm
3 Jennifer R. // Jan 26, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Please forgive my simpleness, but I could help but want to respond. I’ve read about this debate that helped put disunity in the Church so many years ago, and couldn’t help but think at the time, how silly, it’s just a word. But upon meditating on it at different times, I came to the conclusion that the importance of it is, because by saying “from the Father and the Son” it implies an active participation, whereas “through the Son” implies a passive participation. I came to this conclusion because I believe we were taught that all acts of God, no matter if we say, for example, God the Father, creator of heaven and earth, that all three Persons acted or participated in the act.
Since my conclusion is based on this teaching, please, please correct me if this not true or if I got it mixed up. And also, if my conclusion is not sound, can you please comment.
BTW, I really enjoy your articles. God Bless you and the Center.
Jennifer
4 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. // Jan 28, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Dear Jennifer,
What you say regarding active and passive participation is correct. It means, as the Council of Florence affirmed, that the Logos both a) receives His power to spirate the Holy Ghost from the Father, and b) actively spirates the Holy Ghost with the Father.
The problem here is the reason you offer for for that conclusion, namely, what is commonly called in theology the “appropriations.” We appropriate to the Father creation, to the Son, redemption, and to the Holy Ghost, sanctification; yet, all Three created, redeemed, and sanctify. Because these three realities have some analogous correspondence to the essential and eternal realities of the Persons, or a real correspondence to their missions in time, we “appropriate” these three acts to the three respective Persons individually.
Let me explain: In the Trinity, the Father is the Origin without Origin, so we call him “Creator”; the Son died on the Cross, so we appropriate redemption to Him, even though the other Two Persons redeemed us; and the Holy Ghost is the mutual Love of Father and Son, so we attribute Sanctification to Him, even though the Father and the Son also sanctify us. (Much more can be said on this heading.)
The big distinction here is between what are called the acts “ad intra” and the acts “ad extra”; the former are eternal realities in God, and this is the only place where we can really distinguish the acts of God as acts of individual Persons. The latter are acts which God does in creation. The theological axiom about these latter is: “the acts ad extra are acts of all Three Persons.”
Because the spiration of the Holy Ghost is an “ad intra” act, you cannot discuss it in terms of the appropriations, which are acts “ad extra.”
I hope this helps. I know it’s not easy reading; but neither is it easy to explain!
5 Catholicism.org » Blog Archive » «Ad Rem» N° 60 (1/26/2008): Ecumenical Monologue // Jul 30, 2008 at 6:31 pm
[...] » Posted on the Theology Blog is “The ‘Relations’ in the Blessed Trinity.” [...]
Leave a Comment