This entry is mainly addressed to David Waltz. Thanks for your interaction on this issue, David.
1) After reviewing a number of things written by Aquinas, wherein he explains in what sense the Father is greater than the Son, I have concluded that it's possible to interpret the taciturn Doctor in different ways. I understand Aquinas' application of John 14:28 to the human nature of Christ; others believe he applies the verse to both the divine and human nature of Christ, whereas yet others understand Aquinas to be saying that John 14:28 might apply to both natures.
In any event, another statement from Aquinas is found in Contra Errores Graecorum, Part One, Chapter II.:
But when Basil asserts that the Spirit is second from the Son in dignity, he appears more seriously mistaken, because he seems to posit degrees of dignity in the Trinity, whereas all three persons are equal in dignity. This statement, however, can be explained as referring, not to natural, but to personal dignity in God, just as we say that “a person is a hypostasis in virtue of a distinct property entailing dignity.” Footnote Hilary adopts this manner of speaking when he says Footnote that the Father is greater than the Son by reason of authority of origin. But by reason of oneness in substance the Son is not thereby less than the Father.
See http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
I would also suggest my own revised M.Th. thesis (my book about Tertullian), which contains a discussion of the pre-Nicenes and John 14:28.
2) Aquinas analyzes "person" language as well as cause and effect statements about God. See Part One, Chapter I of Contra Errores.
3) For Aquinas' definition of person, please see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-trinity-doctrine-and-personhood-my.html
The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a utile article on divine personhood too. That article can be found online for the older version of the encyclopedia.
For another discussion on the western view of divine personhood, see http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/10/karl-rahner-on-trinity-qua-relations.html
9 comments:
Hi Edgar,
Thanks much for this new thread. I am enjoying the discussion; it has been the impetus behind some deeper reflections on my part, of which I am grateful for. I will be checking all of the suggested resources you listed, but it will have to wait until Tuesday, for my wife and I are heading out of town shortly to visit one of our daughters for a couple of days.
In the meantime, you might be interested in a new thread I posted at AF on the 15th:
Aquinas on John 14:28 and John 5:19
Will be checking back in on Tuesday, the Lord willing...
Grace and peace,
David
Have safe travels, David. I'll converse with you later and read what you've posted about Aquinas.
All the best,
Edgar
Hi Edgar,
As mentioned, upon my return, I wanted examine the resources you referenced in this thread. I thought it prudent to re-read your entire book, Angelomorphic Christology and the Exegesis of Pslam 8:5 in Tertullian's 'Adversus Praxean (2005), which I did earlier today. For now, I am going to focus on this work. You wrote that it, "contains a discussion of the pre-Nicenes and John 14:28."
The first reference to John 14:28 that I found was on page 65, which contained a quote from Tertullian's Against Praxeas, chapter 9:
"For the Father is the whole substance, while the Son is an outflow and assignment of the whole, as he himself professes, Because my Father is greater than I: and by him, it is sung in the psalm, he has also been made less, a little on this side of the angels. So also the Father is other than the Son as being greater than the Son, as he who begets is other than he who is begotten, as he who sends is other than he who is sent, as he who makes is other than he through whom a thing is made." [This seems to be Evans' translation.]
In footnote #9, you provide the Latin text:
"Pater enim tota substantia est, filius vero, derivatio totius et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, Quia pater maior me est: a quo et minoratus canitur in psalmo, Modicum quid citra angelos.sic et pater alias a filio, dum filio maior, dum alias qui generat alius qui generatur, dum alius qui mittit alius qui mittitur, dum alius qui facit alius per quem fit."
The second half of the above quote is cited again on page 67, with part of the order is shifted:
"So also the Father is other than the Son as being greater than the Son, as he who sends is other than he who is sent, as he who begets is other than he who is begotten, as he who makes is other than he through whom a thing is made."
You then write:
"The economy is not utterly reducible to the incarnatio Christi, however. Ergo, while Tertullian invokes John 14:28in Adv Prax 9, he does so to demonstrate how the Son relates to the Father in the Godhead apart from His Menschwerdung." (Page 67.)
With this, I fully concur; and would argue, that so would Aquinas.
Then on pages 71-75 you interact with, Roy Kearsley's, "groundbreaking and informative work setting forth Tertullian's theology of divine power", focusing on, and critiquing (rightfully so IMO), his belief that Tertullian's use of John 14:28 in ch. 9, has reference "exclusively to the incarnate Son".
You sum up this section with:
"We therefore conclude that Tertullian follows a common pre-Nicene pattern and interprets Jn 14:28 "independently of the circumstances of the incarnation." (Page 75.)
Once again, I fully concur.
Now, it sure seems to me that Aquinas affirms with Tertullian that, "the Father is other than the Son as being greater than the Son, as he who begets is other than he who is begotten, as he who sends is other than he who is sent."
We both agree that Aquinas teaches that the Son is begotten by the Father, and is sent by the Father. In addition, we know that he states that, "the Father is the principle of the whole Godhead" , and the "fontal principle of the entire divinity". For these (and a few other) reasons, I believe that Aquinas's reference to Hilary was done so with approval.
Thanks again for the continuing dialogue.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for your response. I'm not going to address your statements point by point, but I do appreciate all the work you've put into this discussion. At the end of the day, I think there is room for interpreting Aquinas different ways. I've already found three interpreations of his statements in his commentary on John; I mentioned them earlier.
Concerning the two statements that you quote from Adv Praxean 9, as found in my book: I have reviewed them and I think the second one is a typo. It's possible that the book might undergo revision in the future. If it does, that would be something I would like to correct. Thank you for calling it to my attention.
On the other hand, while you think Aquinas would readily concur with Tertullian's application of John 14:28 in Adv Prax 9, would Aquinas concur with the idea that the Father is the whole substance, but the Son is only a portion thereof? Please see note 10, page 75. While Tertullian seemed to apply John 14:28 to the preexistent and incarnate Christ, later "orthodoxy" began to understand the text differently (Henri Crouzel points out this developement in his book on Origen of Alexandria).
One point I also tried to make with my work about Tertullian was that he believed the preexistent, but generated Son, was made lower than the angels by virtue of his generation. Seee Adversus Marcionem 2.27. I don't believe that Aquinas would agree with that point at all.
Finally, two scholars who've critiqued Tertulloian's view of Father-Son relations are Bernard Lonergan and Syndey Mellone. I'll post links in order that you may read their thoughts. One other thought: have you read the Shorter Summa of Aquinas?
All the best,
Edgar
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2009/11/mellone-on-tertullians-christology.html
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2007/06/lonergan-on-tertullian.html
I discuss Lonergan and Mellone on pp. 72-73 of Angelomorphic Christology. See the former's criticism of Tertullian's Christology.
Good morning Edgar,
Forgive my somewhat tardy response, but I had very busy weekend with no time for the internet. In one of your recent posts, you wrote:
==On the other hand, while you think Aquinas would readily concur with Tertullian's application of John 14:28 in Adv Prax 9, would Aquinas concur with the idea that the Father is the whole substance, but the Son is only a portion thereof? Please see note 10, page 75. While Tertullian seemed to apply John 14:28 to the preexistent and incarnate Christ, later "orthodoxy" began to understand the text differently (Henri Crouzel points out this developement in his book on Origen of Alexandria).
Aquinas most certainly would not agree with Tertullian's assessment that the Son is a 'portion of the whole substance'. Though he emphatically affirms that the Son recieves his essence/substance from the Father, he also clearly states that it is the entire essence/substance of the Father that is communicated/given to him.
The "later 'orthodoxy'" you referred to can basically be divided into two groups; one began to limit John 14:28 to Christ's human nature only, while the other (particularly in the East, but not exclusively so), applied John 14:28 to both natures, emphasizing the Son is but one person/hypostasis and that what ever the Son has/is comes from the Father.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. You mentioned that your, "book might undergo revision in the future"' if so, you might want to consider Epiphanius' contribution on the Ebionites--specifically that there were two groups of Ebionites; one which denied the virgin birth, while the other affirmed it.
Hi Edgar,
At the very end of the post I quoted from above, you asked:
" One other thought: have you read the Shorter Summa of Aquinas?"
No and yes; allow me to clarify...
The title, "Shorter Summa", did not 'ring any bells', so I Googled it, and learned that it is a retitle of Aquinas's Compendium of Theology. I own, and have read, the Sophia Institute Press English edition of this book, published under the title: Light of Faith - The Compendium of Theology, in 1993. This is pretty much a reproduction of the B. Herder Book Company edition of 1947/1958 with some corrections and new headings, which is available online at:
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm
Grace and peace,
David
Good morning, David. Thanks for the suggestion regarding Epiphanius. If the work is ever revised, that would be a good addition to the book.
All the best,
Edgar
Post a Comment