Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Pars·Q37. The name of the Holy Ghost—Love
Source context
- Theme
- The Holy Spirit named as Love: procession of the third Trinitarian Person as the mutual love of Father and Son
Steiner
not engaged in the GA corpus
Cross-tradition
- Eastern Orthodox theology (Cappadocian Fathers)The Cappadocian tradition identifies the Spirit as the bond of communion between Father and Son, exhibiting cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's Augustinian thesis that the Spirit proceeds as Love.
- Sufi metaphysics (Ibn Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam)Ibn Arabi's principle that divine self-disclosure is motivated by love (al-mahabba) shows cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's claim that the Spirit's proper name is Love as the immanent act of divine will.
Q37. The name of the Holy Ghost—Love
Article 1
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that "Love" is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17): "As the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are called Wisdom, and are not three Wisdoms, but one; I know not why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost should not be called Charity, and all together one Charity." But no name which is predicated in the singular of each person and of all together, is a proper name of a person. Therefore this name, "Love," is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod amor non sit proprium nomen Spiritus distincte pro duabus personis simul. » Cæterum in responsionem ad quintum redit; quod probabiliter, eam omittendo, D. Thomas voluit innuere. sancti. Dicit enim Augustinus, De Trinit., lib. XV, cap. xvii, col. 1080, t. 8: « Nescio cur, sicut sapientia dicitur et Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes non tres, sed una sapientia; non ita et charitas dicatur Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes una charitas. » Sed nullum nomen quod de singulis personis prædicatur, et de omnibus in communi singulariter, est nomen proprium alicujus personæ. Ergo hoc nomen, amor, non est proprium Spiritus sancti.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.2] Further, the Holy Ghost is a subsisting person, but love is not used to signify a subsisting person, but rather an action passing from the lover to the beloved. Therefore Love is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Spiritus sanctus est persona subsistens. Sed amor non significatur ut persona subsistens, sed ut actio quædam ab amante transiens in amatum. Ergo amor non est proprium nomen Spiritus sancti.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.3] Further, Love is the bond between lovers, for as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "Love is a unitive force." But a bond is a medium between what it joins together, not something proceeding from them. Therefore, since the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as was shown above (Question 36, Article 2), it seems that He is not the Love or bond of the Father and the Son.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, amor est nexus amantium, quia, secundum Dionysium, De divin. nom., cap. iv, § 12, col. 710, t. 1, « est quædam vis unitiva. » Sed nexus est medium inter ea quæ connectit, non autem aliquid ab eis procedens. Cum igitur Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio, sicut ostensum est, videtur quod non sit amor aut nexus Patris et Filii.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.4] Further, Love belongs to every lover. But the Holy Ghost is a lover: therefore He has love. So if the Holy Ghost is Love, He must be love of love, and spirit from spirit; which is not admissible.
[I.q.37.a.1.arg.4] 4. Præterea, cujuslibet amantis est aliquis amor. Sed Spiritus sanctus est amans. Ergo ejus est aliquis amor. Si igitur Spiritus sanctus est amor, erit amor amoris, et spiritus a spiritu; quod est inconveniens.
[I.q.37.a.1.sc] Gregory says (Hom. xxx, in Pentecost.): "The Holy Ghost Himself is Love."
[I.q.37.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit in Homil. Pentecostes, xxx in Evang., § 1, col. 1220, t. 2: « Ipse Spiritus sanctus est amor. »
[I.q.37.a.1.co] The name Love in God can be taken essentially and personally. If taken personally it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost; as Word is the proper name of the Son.
To see this we must know that since as shown above (27, 2,3,4,5), there are two processions in God, one by way of the intellect, which is the procession of the Word, and another by way of the will, which is the procession of Love; forasmuch as the former is the more known to us, we have been able to apply more suitable names to express our various considerations as regards that procession, but not as regards the procession of the will. Hence, we are obliged to employ circumlocution as regards the person Who proceeds, and the relations following from this procession which are called "procession" and "spiration," as stated above (27, 4, ad 3), and yet express the origin rather than the relation in the strict sense of the term. Nevertheless we must consider them in respect of each procession simply. For as when a thing is understood by anyone, there results in the one who understands a conception of the object understood, which conception we call word; so when anyone loves an object, a certain impression results, so to speak, of the thing loved in the affection of the lover; by reason of which the object loved is said to be in the lover; as also the thing understood is in the one who understands; so that when anyone understands and loves himself he is in himself, not only by real identity, but also as the object understood is in the one who understands, and the thing loved is in the lover. As regards the intellect, however, words have been found to describe the mutual relation of the one who understands the object understood, as appears in the word "to understand"; and other words are used to express the procession of the intellectual conception--namely, "to speak," and "word." Hence in God, "to understand" is applied only to the essence; because it does not import relation to the Word that proceeds; whereas "Word" is said personally, because it signifies what proceeds; and the term "to speak" is a notional term as importing the relation of the principle of the Word to the Word Himself. On the other hand, on the part of the will, with the exception of the words "dilection" and "love," which express the relation of the lover to the object loved, there are no other terms in use, which express the relation of the impression or affection of the object loved, produced in the lover by fact that he loves--to the principle of that impression, or "vice versa." And therefore, on account of the poverty of our vocabulary, we express these relations by the words "love" and "dilection": just as if we were to call the Word "intelligence conceived," or "wisdom begotten."
It follows that so far as love means only the relation of the lover to the object loved, "love" and "to love" are said of the essence, as "understanding" and "to understand"; but, on the other hand, so far as these words are used to express the relation to its principle, of what proceeds by way of love, and "vice versa," so that by "love" is understood the "love proceeding," and by "to love" is understood "the spiration of the love proceeding," in that sense "love" is the name of the person and "to love" is a notional term, as "to speak" and "to beget."
[I.q.37.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod nomen amoris in divinis sumi potest essentialiter et personaliter; et secundum quod personaliter sumitur, est proprium nomen Spiritus sancti, sicut Verbum est proprium nomen Filii. Ad cujus evidentiam sciendum est quod cum in divinis, ut supra ostensum est, sint duæ processiones, una per modum intellectus, quæ est processio Verbi, alia per modum voluntatis, quæ est processio amoris; quia prima est nobis magis nota, ad singula significanda quæ in ea considerari possunt, sunt magis propria nomina adinventa, non autem in processione voluntatis. Unde et quibusdam circumlocutionibus utimur ad significandam personam sic procedentem, et relationes etiam quæ accipiuntur secun- « Nescio cur non sicut sapientia et Pater dicitur; — ita et caritas et Pater dicitur, » etc. Ex versione Joannis Sarrasini. Corderius « estque hoc virtutis cujusdam unificæ ac collectivæ dum hanc processionem, et processionis et spirationis nominibus nominantur, ut supra dictum est, quæ tamen sunt magis nomina originis quam relationis secundum proprietatem vocabuli. Et tamen similiter utramque processionem considerari oportet. Sicut enim ex hoc quod aliquis rem aliquam intelligit, provenit quædam intellectualis conceptio rei intellectæ in intelligente, quæ dicitur verbum; ita ex hoc quod aliquis rem aliquam amat, provenit quædam impressio, ut ita loquar, rei amatæ in affectu amantis, secundum quam amatum dicitur esse in amante, sicut et intellectum in intelligente; ita quod cum aliquis seipsum intelligit et amat, est in seipso, non solum per identitatem rei, sed etiam ut intellectum in intelligente, et amatum in amante. Sed ex parte intellectus sunt vocabula posita ad significandum respectum intelligentis ad rem intellectam, ut patet in hoc quod dico intelligere; et sunt etiam alia vocabula adinventa ad significandum processum intellectualis conceptionis, scilicet ipsum dicere et verbum. Unde in divinis intelligere solum essentialiter dicitur, quia non importat habitudinem principii Verbi ad ipsum Verbum procedens; sed Verbum personaliter dicitur, quia significat id quod procedit; ipsum vero dicere dicitur notionaliter, quia importat habitudinem principii Verbi ad Verbum ipsum. Ex parte autem voluntatis præter diligere et amare, quæ important habitudinem amantis ad rem amatam, non sunt aliqua vocabula imposita quæ importent habitudinem ipsius impressionis vel affectionis rei amatæ, quæ provenit in amante, ex hoc quod amat, ad suum principium, aut e converso. Et ideo propter vocabulorum inopiam hujusmodi habitudines significamus vocabulis amoris et directionis; sicut si verbum nominaremus intelligentiam conceptam, vel sapientiam genitam. Sic igitur in quantum in amore vel dilectione non importatur nisi habitudo amantis ad rem amatam, amor et diligere essentialiter dicuntur, sicut intelligence et intelligere; inquantum vero his vocabulis utimur ad exprimendam habitudinem ejus rei quæ procedit per modum amoris, ad suum principium, et e converso, ita quod per amorem intelligatur amor pro-excellenterque contemporantis. « Sic » omittitur in edit. — Nicolaï: « simpli-citer. » — cedens, et per diligere intelligatur spirare amorem procedentem: sic amor est nomen personæ, et diligere vel amare est verbum notionale, sicut dicere vel generare.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.1] Augustine is there speaking of charity as it means the divine essence, as was said above (here and 24, 2, ad 4).
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur de charitate secundum quod essentialiter sumitur in divinis, ut dictum est.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.2] Although to understand, and to will, and to love signify actions passing on to their objects, nevertheless they are actions that remain in the agents, as stated above (Question 14, Article 4), yet in such a way that in the agent itself they import a certain relation to their object. Hence, love also in ourselves is something that abides in the lover, and the word of the heart is something abiding in the speaker; yet with a relation to the thing expressed by word, or loved. But in God, in whom there is nothing accidental, there is more than this; because both Word and Love are subsistent. Therefore, when we say that the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father for the Son, or for something else; we do not mean anything that passes into another, but only the relation of love to the beloved; as also in the Word is imported the relation of the Word to the thing expressed by the Word.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod intelligere et velle et amare, licet significentur per modum actionum transeuntium in objecta, sunt tamen actiones manentes in agente, ut supra dictum est, ita tamen quod in ipso agente importent habitudinem quamdam ad objectum. Unde amor etiam in nobis est aliquid manens in amante, et verbum cordis manens in dicente, tamen cum habitudine ad rem verbo expressam, vel amatam. Sed in Deo, in quo nullum est accidens, plus habet; quia tam Verbum quam Amor est subsistens. Cum ergo dicitur quod Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris in Filium, vel in quidquam aliud, non significatur aliquid transiens in alium, sed solum habitudo amoris ad rem amatam; sicut et in Verbo importatur habitudo Verbi ad rem Verbo expressam.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.3] The Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the Father and Son, inasmuch as He is Love; because, since the Father loves Himself and the Son with one Love, and conversely, there is expressed in the Holy Ghost, as Love, the relation of the Father to the Son, and conversely, as that of the lover to the beloved. But from the fact that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the third person in the Trinity; whereas as regards the aforesaid relation He is the bond between the two persons, as proceeding from both.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur esse nexus Patris et Filii, inquantum est amor; quia, cum Pater amet unica dilectione se et Filium, et e converso, importatur in Spiritu sancto, prout est amor, habitudo Patris ad Filium, et e converso, ut amantis ad amatum. Sed ex hoc ipso quod Pater et Filius se mutuo amant, oportet quod mutuus amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, ab utroque procedat. Secundum igitur originem Spiritus sanctus non est medius, sed tertia in Trinitate persona: secundum vero prædictam habitudinem est medius nexus duorum ab utroque procedens.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.4] As it does not belong to the Son, though He understands, to produce a word, for it belongs to Him to understand as the word proceeding; so in like manner, although the Holy Ghost loves, taking Love as an essential term, still it does not belong to Him to spirate love, which is to take love as a notional term; because He loves essentially as love proceeding; but not as the one whence love proceeds.
[I.q.37.a.1.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod sicut Filio, licet intelligat, non tamen sibi competit producere Verbum, quia intelligere convenit ei ut Verbo procedenti, ita, licet Spiritus sanctus amet essentialiter non tamen convenit ei quod spiret amorem, quod est diligere notionaliter sumptum, quia sic diligit essentialiter ut amor procedens, non ut a quo procedit amor. In idem redit S. Bonaventuræ ratio: quod
Article 2
[I.q.37.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that the Father and the Son do not love each other by the Holy Ghost. For Augustine (De Trin. vii, 1) proves that the Father is not wise by the Wisdom begotten. But as the Son is Wisdom begotten, so the Holy Ghost is the Love proceeding, as explained above (Question 27, Article 3). Therefore the Father and the Son do not love Themselves by the Love proceeding, which is the Holy Ghost.
[I.q.37.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod Pater et Filius non diligant se Spiritu sancto. Augustinus enim, De Trin., lib. VII, cap. 1, col. 935, t. 8, probat quod pater non est sapiens sapientia genita. Sed sicut Filius est sapiens sapientia genita, ita Spiritus sanctus est amor procedens, ut dictum est. Ergo Pater et Filius non diligunt se amore procedente, qui est Spiritus sanctus.
[I.q.37.a.2.arg.2] Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost," this word "love" is to be taken either essentially or notionally. But it cannot be true if taken essentially, because in the same way we might say that "the Father understands by the Son"; nor, again, if it is taken notionally, for then, in like manner, it might be said that "the Father and the Son spirate by the Holy Ghost," or that "the Father generates by the Son." Therefore in no way is this proposition true: "'The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost."
[I.q.37.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, cum dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, hoc verbum, diligere, aut sumitur essentialiter, aut notionaliter. Sed non potest esse verum secundum quod sumitur essentialiter, quia pari ratione posset dici quod Pater intelligit Filio: neque etiam secundum quod sumitur notionaliter, quia pari ratione posset dici quod Pater et Filius spirant Spiritu sancto, vel quod Pater generat Filio. Ergo nullo modo hæc est vera: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.
[I.q.37.a.2.arg.3] Further, by the same love the Father loves the Son, and Himself, and us. But the Father does not love Himself by the Holy Ghost; for no notional act is reflected back on the principle of the act; since it cannot be said that the "Father begets Himself," or that "He spirates Himself." Therefore, neither can it be said that "He loves Himself by the Holy Ghost," if "to love" is taken in a notional sense. Again, the love wherewith He loves us is not the Holy Ghost; because it imports a relation to creatures, and this belongs to the essence. Therefore this also is false: "The Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost."
[I.q.37.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, eodem amore Pater diligit Filium, et se, et nos. Sed Pater non diligit se Spiritu sancto, quia nullus actus notionalis reflectitur super principium actus, non enim potest dici quod Pater generat se, vel spirat se. Ergo etiam non potest dici quod diligat se Spiritu sancto, secundum quod diligere sumitur notionaliter. Item amor quo diligit nos non videtur esse Spiritus sanctus: quia importatur in illo respectus ad creaturam, et ita ad essentiam pertinet. Ergo et hæc est falsa: Pater diligit Filium Spiritu sancto.
[I.q.37.a.2.sc] Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 5): "The Holy Ghost is He whereby the Begotten is loved by the one begetting and loves His Begetter."
[I.q.37.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VI De Trinit., cap. v, col. 927, t. 8, quod « Spiritus sanctus est quo genitus a generante diligitur, genitoremque suum diligit. »
[I.q.37.a.2.co] A difficulty about this question is objected to the effect that when we say, "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost," since the ablative is construed as denoting a cause, it seems to mean that the Holy Ghost is the principle of love to the Father and the Son; which cannot be admitted.
In view of this difficulty some have held that it is false, that "the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost"; and they add that it was retracted by Augustine when he retracted its equivalent to the effect that "the Father is wise by the Wisdom begotten." Others say that the proposition is inaccurate and ought to be expounded, as that "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost"--that is, "by His essential Love," which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost. Others further say that this ablative should be construed as importing a sign, so that it means, "the Holy Ghost is the sign that the Father loves the Son"; inasmuch as the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both, as Love. Others, again, say that this ablative must be construed as importing the relation of formal cause, because the Holy Ghost is the love whereby the Father and the Son formally love each other. Others, again, say that it should be construed as importing the relation of a formal effect; and these approach nearer to the truth.
To make the matter clear, we must consider that since a thing is commonly denominated from its forms, as "white" from whiteness, and "man" from humanity; everything whence anything is denominated, in this particular respect stands to that thing in the relation of form. So when I say, "this man is clothed with a garment," the ablative is to be construed as having relation to the formal cause, although the garment is not the form. Now it may happen that a thing may be denominated from that which proceeds from it, not only as an agent is from its action, but also as from the term itself of the action--that is, the effect, when the effect itself is included in the idea of the action. For we say that fire warms by heating, although heating is not the heat which is the form of the fire, but is an action proceeding from the fire; and we say that a tree flowers with the flower, although the flower is not the tree's form, but is the effect proceeding from the form. In this way, therefore, we must say that since in God "to love" is taken in two ways, essentially and notionally, when it is taken essentially, it means that the Father and the Son love each other not by the Holy Ghost, but by their essence. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 7): "Who dares to say that the Father loves neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, except by the Holy Ghost?" The opinions first quoted are to be taken in this sense. But when the term Love is taken in a notional sense it means nothing else than "to spirate love"; just as to speak is to produce a word, and to flower is to produce flowers. As therefore we say that a tree flowers by its flower, so do we say that the Father, by the Word or the Son, speaks Himself, and His creatures; and that the Father and the Son love each other and us, by the Holy Ghost, or by Love proceeding.
[I.q.37.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hanc quæstionem difficultatem affert quod cum dicitur: Pater diligit Filium Spiritu sancto, cum ablativus construatur in habitudine illud personæ est vere proprium, quod ipsius modum emanandi dicit; sed amor est hujusmodi, quia modum emanandi Spiritus sancti dicit. Unde Spiritui sancto amor est proprium. alicujus causæ, videtur quod Spiritus sanctus sit principium diligendi et Patri et Filio; quod est omnino impossibile. Et ideo quidam dixerunt hanc esse falsam: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto; et dicunt hanc esse retractatam ab Augustino in suo simili, cum scilicet retractavit istam: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita, lib. I Retr., cap. xxvi, col. 626, t. 4. Quidam vero dicunt quod est impropria, et est sic exponenda: Pater diligit Filium Spiritu sancto, id est, amore essentiali, qui appropriatur Spiritui sancto. Quidam vero dixerunt quod ablativus iste construitur in habitudine signi, ut sit sensus: Spiritus sanctus est signum quod Pater diligat Filium, in quantum procedit ab eis Spiritus sanctus ut amor. Quidam vero dixerunt quod ablativus iste construitur in habitudine causæ formalis, quia Spiritus sanctus est amor quo formaliter Pater et Filius se invicem diligunt. Quidam vero dixerunt quod construitur in habitudine effectus formalis; et isti propinquius ad veritatem accesserunt. Unde ad hujus evidentiam sciendum est quod cum res communiter denominetur a suis formis, sicut album ab albedine, et homo ab humanitate, omne illud a quo aliquid denominatur, quantum ad hoc habet habitudinem formæ; ut si dicam: Iste est indutus vestimento, iste ablativus construitur in habitudine causæ formalis, quamvis non sit forma. Contingit autem aliquid denominari per id quod ab ipso procedit, non solum sicut agens actione, sed etiam sicut ipso termino actionis, qui est effectus, quando ipse effectus in intellectu actionis includitur. Dicimus enim quod ignis est calefaciens calefactione, quamvis calefactio non sit calor, qui est forma ignis, sed actio ab igne procedens: et dicimus quod arbor est florens floribus, quamvis flores non sint forma arboris, sed quidam effectus ab ipsa procedentes. Secundum hoc ergo dicendum quod, cum diligere in divinis dupliciter sumatur, essentialiter scilicet, et notionaliter; secundum quod essentialiter sumitur, sic Pater et Filius non diligunt se Spiritu sancto, sed essentia sua. Unde Augustinus, De Trinit., lib. XV, cap. vii, col. 4065, t. 8: « Quis audet dicere Patrem, nec se, nec Filium, nec Spiritum sanctum diligere, nisi per Spiritum sanctum. » Et secundum hoc procedunt primæ opiniones. Secundum vero quod notionaliter sumitur, sic diligere nihil est aliud quam spirare amorem; sicut dicere est producere verbum, et florere est producere flores. Sicut ergo dicitur arbor florens floribus, ita dicitur Pater dicens Verbo vel Filio se et creaturam, et Pater et Filius dicuntur diligentes Spiritu sancto, vel amore procedente, et se, et nos.
[I.q.37.a.2.ad.1] To be wise or intelligent is taken only essentially in God; therefore we cannot say that "the Father is wise or intelligent by the Son." But to love is taken not only essentially, but also in a notional sense; and in this way, we can say that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost, as was above explained.
[I.q.37.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod esse sapientem vel intelligentem, in divinis non sumitur nisi essentialiter; et ideo non potest dici quod Pater sit sapiens vel intelligens Filio. Sed diligere sumitur non solum essentialiter, sed etiam notionaliter, et secundum hoc possumus dicere quod Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, ut dictum est.
[I.q.37.a.2.ad.2] When the idea of an action includes a determined effect, the principle of the action may be denominated both from the action, and from the effect; so we can say, for instance, that a tree flowers by its flowering and by its flower. When, however, the idea of an action does not include a determined effect, then in that case, the principle of the action cannot be denominated from the effect, but only from the action. For we do not say that the tree produces the flower by the flower, but by the production of the flower. So when we say, "spirates" or "begets," this imports only a notional act. Hence we cannot say that the Father spirates by the Holy Ghost, or begets by the Son. But we can say that the Father speaks by the Word, as by the Person proceeding, "and speaks by the speaking," as by a notional act; forasmuch as "to speak" imports a determinate person proceeding; since "to speak" means to produce a word. Likewise to love, taken in a notional sense, means to produce love; and so it can be said that the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost, as by the person proceeding, and by Love itself as a notional act.
[I.q.37.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quando in intellectu alicujus actionis importatur determinatus effectus, potest denominari principium actionis ab actione et ab effectu; sicut possumus dicere quod arbor est florens floritione et floribus. Sed quando in actione non includitur determinatus effectus, tunc non potest principium actionis denominari ab effectu, sed solum ab actione. Non enim dicimus quod arbor producit florem flore, sed productione floris. In hoc igitur quod dico, spirat, vel generat, importatur actus notionalis tantum. Unde non possumus dicere quod Pater spiret Spiritu sancto, vel generet Filio. Possumus autem dicere quod Pater dicit Verbo, tanquam persona procedente, et dicit dictione, tanquam actu notionali: quia dicere importat determinatam personam procedentem; cum dicere sit producere verbum. Et similiter diligere, prout notionaliter sumitur, est producere amorem: et ideo potest dici quod Pater diligit Filium Spiritu sancto tanquam persona procedente, et ipsa dilectione tanquam actu notionali.
[I.q.37.a.2.ad.3] The Father loves not only the Son, but also Himself and us, by the Holy Ghost; because, as above explained, to love, taken in a notional sense, not only imports the production of a divine person, but also the person produced, by way of love, which has relation to the object loved. Hence, as the Father speaks Himself and every creature by His begotten Word, inasmuch as the Word "begotten" adequately represents the Father and every creature; so He loves Himself and every creature by the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost proceeds as the love of the primal goodness whereby the Father loves Himself and every creature. Thus it is evident that relation to the creature is implied both in the Word and in the proceeding Love, as it were in a secondary way, inasmuch as the divine truth and goodness are a principle of understanding and loving all creatures.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[I.q.37.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod Pater non solum Filium, sed etiam se et nos diligit Spiritu sancto; quia, ut dictum est, diligere, prout notionaliter sumitur, non solum importat productionem divinæ personæ, sed etiam personam productam per modum amoris, qui habet habitudinem ad rem dilectam. Unde sicut Pater dicit se et omnem creaturam Verbo quod genuit, inquantum Verbum genitum sufficienter repræsentat « In illa Trinitate quis audeat dicere Patrem nec seipsum, nec Filium, nec Spiritum sanctum Patrem et omnem creaturam; ita diligit se et omnem creaturam Spiritu sancto, inquantum Spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor bonitatis primae secundum quam Pater amat se et omnem creaturam. Et sic etiam patet quod respectus importatur ad creaturam et in verbo et in amore procedente quasi secundario, inquantum scilicet veritas et bonitas divina est principium intelligendi et amandi omnem creaturam.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-pars/q037.json