Chapter 7: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

1. Introduction
   • The Task at Hand
     • From philosophy we learn that the one true God is “infinite existence, possessing all that He is in one single act of being, living His life of infinite knowledge and infinite love, without change and without end” (98-2).
     • From Revelation we learn that “the one divine nature is possessed in its totality by three distinct persons” (98-2).
     • Our task now is to see how these two truths (one divine nature, three divine persons) are actually one truth.
     • Note: In what follows we will be using the words “proceed” and “procession” in regard to the persons of the Blessed Trinity.
       • In common usage, that which proceeds is processing, that is, it is “coming forth.”
       • The act of processing is called procession. Consequently, to proceed is to be in a state of procession.
       • As used in what follows below, the word “procession” does not imply:
         • A group of beings moving together, such as in a parade
         • Motion from one place to another
         • A time-based activity
       • Rather, in the context of the Blessed Trinity, “procession” is the divine nature’s eternal, immanent and infinite self-expression via the divine intellect and will.
2. The First Person Generates the Second
   • The Relationship of Father to Son
     • We begin with the relationship of the First Person to the Second Person.
     • Scripture provides us with two names for the Second Person: Son and Word. Each of these words convey something to us that the other one does not.
       • Principally, “son” conveys the idea of a distinct person, and “word” (i.e., idea, concept) conveys the idea of semblance in nature, that is, a word has the nature of that which uttered it.
         • Notice: Sheed writes: “We naturally think of a word [i.e., idea, concept] as within the same nature [as that possessed by the one who utters the word]” (99-2).
         • As written, the sentence is ambiguous. His meaning is clarified by the bracketed text, which represents what he alludes to this at the top of page 103, and makes explicit in 105-2 when he says: “the thought is in the nature of the thinker.”
         • What he says here is clearly true for God and angels, who are spirits, but not for man, because man is a union of spirit and matter, and a word (when understood as an idea or concept) has nothing in common with matter. However, the reality is that man’s thoughts are produced by his soul, not by his body. Hence, as offspring of the soul, they take on the spiritual “nature” of the soul.
     • We will first consider the name “Son,” and we will then consider the name “Word.” In doing so, keep the following notes in mind.
       • First: Both Son and Word refer to “the same vital [i.e., living] process in the Godhead” (99-2).
       • Second: The second person of the Blessed Trinity is not called “Son” because He became man. He is eternally the Son of God, regardless of whether the universe were ever to come into existence.
3. Considering the First Name: Son
   • The Second Person as Son in Scripture:
     • An Old Testament reference in a Messianic Psalm
       • “I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’” (Ps 2:7).
     • New Testament references
       • Baptism of the Lord: “And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (Mt 3:17).
       • Transfiguration: “A voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!’” (Lk 9:35).
   • The Essence of Sonship
     • What does it mean to be a son? The essence of sonship is twofold (99-3):
       • A son has a nature like that of his father.
       • A son receives his nature from his father.
     • Philosophically: Sonship is “the origin of a living thing from another living thing, by communication of substance unto likeness of nature” (99-3).
       • “Likeness of nature” means the son of a man is a man, the son of a horse is a horse, etc. (100-1).
       • “Communication of substance” means the father does not make the son from something external to himself; rather, the father produces the son from what is internal to himself (100-1).
     • It follows that when God reveals to us that the Second Person of the Trinity is His Son, He teaches us that the Second Person “is like in nature” to the First Person and that He proceeds from the First Person (100-1).
     • The Son’s being is taken entirely from the Father’s being. There is no aspect of the Son’s being that is external to the Father’s being. The Son is “produced” within (comes forth from) the very nature of the Father (100-1).
       • Footnote on page 100: We come across a difficulty in using the speech of finite humans to describe an infinite reality.
         • In our experience, the word “produced” implies that something came into existence in the order of time, and that what came into being is an effect of some cause.
         • We must make the necessary adjustments in our minds, since we cannot make them with words. We are speaking of something that is not in the order of time and is not a matter of cause and effect.
     • Since the Son is like in nature to the Father, the Son’s nature is infinite, as is the Father’s; the Son is God (100-1).
     • Both Father and Son must fully possess the same divine nature, for both are infinite, and “infinity is the total possession of the fullness of existence.” It follows that the Son is equal to the Father, infinite, omnipotent and eternal (100-1).
       • This is expressed in the second article of the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father” (Nicene Creed).
   • Sonship and Human vs. Divine Generation
     • We must notice a difference between human generation and divine generation. A human son has a nature like his father’s, yet “they may have every kind of inequality between them” (100-1).
       • The inequalities arise because of the “individuation” of matter. Their natures are the same (more about this below), that is, they are both compositions of body and soul, but the two sets of matter, of which their bodies are composed, are not identical.
       • For this reason each has his own unique physical (i.e., material) characteristics and the various differences that come from differences in their material makeup.
     • Clearly, the difference between a human father and son is due to the limitations of the father’s finite nature.
     • The situation is different when the father and son are alike in nature and that nature is infinite. In this case they “must be totally equal, since infinity is the total possession of the fullness of existence.” Consequently, the Son is infinite, omnipotent and eternal (100-1).
       • Note the difference between generation of the Son and the creation of the universe:
         • The universe was created (not generated) from what was external to the Father, nothingness. Consequently, the universe is finite.
         • The Son, on the other hand, is generated (not created) from what is internal to the Father, His own divine nature. Consequently, the Son is infinite.
   • Sonship and Eternity
     • The imagination may object to our saying that the Son is eternal (outside of time) for, in our experience, a father necessarily precedes his son chronologically. Hence, we may be inclined to think that what we know from our experience is universally applicable (100-2).
     • Recall the caution about arguing from the image back to the original and apply it to the present situation (see 94-3):
       • In regard to generation, is that which is true for humans true because it is of the essence of generation, or because the generation comes about in the finite order of man’s nature? (101-1).
     • The definition of sonship says nothing about a need for a lapse of time before a father can generate a son:
       • “The origin of a living thing from another living thing, by communication of substance unto likeness of nature” (101-2).
     • A human father necessarily precedes his son in time due to the limitations of his nature. Man does not possess all of his faculties when he first comes into existence; fatherhood is impossible to man until he has reached a certain level of physical maturity (101-2).
     • However, the situation is different for God. He has revealed Himself to us as being eternally Father:
       • “[We] proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father . . .” (1 Jn 1:2-3).
     • Because He is eternally Father, there must be an eternal Son. Thus, the Father and the Son must be co-eternal (101-2).
       • We must not think of the Son as being contingent on the Father’s decision to have a Son. If this were the case, the two could not be co-eternal, and they could not have the same nature (101-2).
     • Finally, “by the same infinite necessity the Father both is and is Father: that is to say, by the same infinite necessity, the Father is and the Son is” (101-2).
     • Note the ambiguous sentence: “God never had any existence except as Father: Father and Son are co-eternal” (101-2).
       • In other words, God always existed as Father; therefore, He always had a Son. There was never a “time” when God existed and He was not Father. Consequently, Father and Son are co-eternal.
   • The Son Is Not a Second God
     • In summary, we have determined from the word “Son” that “there is a Second Person [in the Trinity], equal in all things to the First, God as He is God, infinite as He is infinite” (101-3).
     • On the surface, it looks as though we are admitting to the existence of two God’s, two infinities, but two infinities is a contradiction in terms for there could be no distinction between the two (101-3).
     • In the paragraph that continues on page 101, Sheed raises an issue that he uses to segue into his consideration of the second name Scripture uses for the second person of the Blessed Trinity. However, as written, the segue speaks inaccurately about human nature. Consider this statement:
       • “Thus far [in our exposition of the procession of the Son]. . . there is a Second Person equal in all things to the First . . . Yet here we come up against an apparently enormous difficulty . . . we seem to have established two Gods. . . . The trouble is that the concept of human sonship brings us to likeness of nature [from the definition of sonship] but not to oneness of nature; a father and son are like in nature: both are human, but each has his own separate equipment as a man, his own separate human nature” (102-1).
     • This statement implies that there are multiple human natures, one for each of us, because a son “has his own separate equipment as a man, his own separate human nature,” so we need to clarify what is meant by human nature.
   • Nature and Instances of Nature
     • Note that it is the union of matter and a human soul that is the essence of human nature:
       • “It is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature” (CCC 365).
       • The 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council [I] teach the doctrine that “man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul” (Ott, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” 96).
       • “[The Jews sought to kill Jesus because] He called God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (Jn 5:18).
     • Recognizing that the union of matter and a human soul is what constitutes human nature, consider a quotation from Thomas Aquinas found in his Compendium of Theology:
       • “Men are alike in their common humanity [i.e., there is no distinction of human nature among human beings] but differ from one another in virtue of something that is outside the concept of humanity [i.e., the differences that exist among human beings lies somewhere outside of human nature]” (ch. 14).
       • He goes on to say: “A number of individuals [i.e., individual human beings] comprised under one species [i.e., humans] differ in their existence, and yet are alike in their one essence [i.e., their one human nature]” (Ibid.; the bracketed text is mine for both quotations).
     • The differences among us reside in the matter that comprises the human body. Each of us has our own unique set of matter that individuates our common human nature.
     • Stated alternatively, the matter that constitutes our “common humanity” makes each union of matter and a human soul a unique instance of human nature.
     • We can see this more clearly with an analogy by considering circularity to refer to the nature of a circle, and humanity to refer to the nature of a human being (note that “humanity” has other meanings as well).
     • The geometric figure known as a circle has a definition which states that the locus of all points in a plane that are equidistant from a common point is an instance of a circle. This definition is a statement of the nature of a circle, and the statement can be called the principle of circularity.
       • Notice that the principle of circularity is a concept; it would exist even if all the circles in the universe disappeared. Every circle “possesses” the concept, and possesses it fully, but is only an instance of it. This concept, the principle of circularity, is the nature of every circle.
     • The definition of a human being states that the union of matter and a human soul is an instance of human nature. This definition is a statement of the nature of a human being, and the statement can be called the principle of humanity.
       • In the case of humanity, we have the principle of humanity which every individual human being fully possesses, and every individual human being is an instance of that principle. Being a concept, the principle of humanity existed before the universe was created, and it would continue to exist as a principle even if every human being were annihilated.
     • Returning to the quotation from Sheed, it should be modified to state something like the following, and we should assume that this is what Sheed was intending to convey:
       • “Thus far [in our exposition of the procession of the Son]. . . there is a Second Person equal in all things to the First . . . Yet here we come up against an apparently enormous difficulty . . . we seem to have established two Gods. . . . The trouble is that the concept of human sonship brings us to likeness of nature [from the definition of sonship] but not to oneness of [an instance of] nature; a father and son are like in nature: both are human, but each has his own separate equipment as a man, his own separate [instance of] human nature [whereas with the divine nature there is and can only be one instance of it; hence, each divine person must fully possess that singular instance of the divine nature]” (102-1).
     • Notice that there is nothing remarkable about each of the divine persons fully possessing the divine nature, for the same is true of all created beings with respect to their own natures.
       • But, where there are many instances of every creature’s nature, there is no creature that possesses anything other than its own instance of its nature.
       • Consequently, what is remarkable about the divine persons possession of the divine nature is that they all three fully possess the one instance of the divine nature.
     • In summary, a human son does have the same human nature as his father, but it is a human nature that is individuated by matter. Hence, we can easily distinguish between a father and his son because the matter that makes up their bodies is unique to each of them, though they have the same human nature, that is, they are both a union of body and soul.
     • Now, since a human son does not possess the same instance of human nature that his father possesses, we would be inclined to think that the Son of God, similarly, would not possess the same instance of divine nature that the Father possesses.
       • However, this type of reasoning from the image to the original would lead us into a significant error. Consideration of the second name Scripture uses for the second person, “Word,” corrects the error.
4. Considering the Second Name: Word
   • The Second Person as Word in Scripture:
     • In Sirach we have an implicit reference to the Word that is also a Son:
       • “I came out of the mouth of the most High [Word], the firstborn [Son] before all creatures” (Sir 24:5 DR).
     • In the Gospel of John we have an explicit reference to the Word that is also a Son:
       • “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only [begotten] Son from the Father (Jn 1:1, 14).
   • The Father’s Knowledge of Himself
     • The Word spoken by God in the beginning could not be a spoken word, for God is spirit. Therefore, Scripture must be speaking of a “mental” word, a word of the mind, a thought, or an idea (102-3).
     • With the divine intellect God knows, but what is the object of His knowing? The “principle of adequate object” states that the finite cannot be an adequate object of infinite activity. The only adequate object for God’s infinite knowing power “is the Infinite, God Himself” (103-2).
     • With His infinite knowing power, God knows Himself infinitely. This is a closed circle as far as human reason is concerned, but with the revelation that God “conceives an idea of Himself” along with the idea that the second person is the divine Word, the circle opens and “the whole vast inner life of God invites us” (103-2).
       • Terminology note: Sheed tends to use the words “knower” and “thinker” interchangeably in this chapter, and that is not a problem as long as we keep in mind that strictly speaking, God does not “think.” He has nothing to think about due to His infinite knowledge. There is no possibility of thinking for the Person to Whom everything is known. Thus, it would be less confusing to always think of the Father as “Infinite Knower” rather than “Infinite Thinker.”
     • In our experience, the idea of something is a mental representation of that thing. If we want to have a good idea of something, we put as much into the knowing of that thing as we can (104-1).
       • However, our efforts are always inadequate due to our finite knowing power (104-1).
     • The situation is infinitely better with God. When He knows a thing with His infinite knowing power, there can be no defect in the “idea” He conceives (104-1).
     • The “idea” God conceives of Himself can lack nothing of what is in His own being. The Idea must contain all of the perfections of being that exist in God Himself (104-1).
     • That is, “there can be nothing in the Thinker [i.e., the Knower] that is not in His Thought [i.e., Knowledge] of Himself, otherwise the Thinker [Knower] would be thinking of [knowing] Himself inadequately, which is impossible for the Infinite” (104-1).
     • Thus, “the Idea, the Word that God conceives, is Infinite, Eternal, Living, a Person, equal in all things to Him Who conceives It – Someone as He is, conscious of Himself as He is, God as He is” (104-1).
       • Note that Sheed says the next paragraph (104-1) “must be read by beginners with the greatest care; studied minutely” (103-3).
   • Son and Word Parallels
     • Our examination of “Word” as a name for the second person has brought us to the same truth that we obtained by examining the word “Son.” Consider this truth (i.e., that the Son is like in nature to the Father and that the Thought is like in nature to the Thinker) from two perspectives (104-2):
       • First, from the perspective of generation:
         • The Infinite Father generates an Infinite Son Who resembles Him infinitely (104-2).
         • The Infinite Thinker conceives an Infinite Idea that infinitely resembles the Infinite Thinker (104-2).
       • Second, from the perspective of the nature generated:
         • The Son is like in nature to the Father, and equal in all things to God because the Father’s nature is infinite (104-2).
         • The Idea [i.e. the Word] is like in nature to what the Infinite Thinker is thinking of (i.e., Himself), and equal in all things to what the Infinite Thinker is thinking of (104-2).
       • The two verses that follow below refer to Jesus; nevertheless, they are speaking of His divine personality and are, thus, applicable here.
         • “He [i.e., the Son] is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).
         • “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9).
     • We can make an additional parallel between the Son and the Word.
       • A son is not his father, and a thought is not its thinker (104-3).
         • Therefore, if God’s Son is a person, He is a Person who must be distinct from the Father (104-3).
         • Similarly, if God’s Idea of Himself is a Person, He is a Person who must be distinct from the Infinite Thinker (105-1).
   • The Divine Nature Unreceived and Received
     • We can go one step further still in our consideration of “Word”: “Though the thought is not the thinker, the thought is in the nature of the thinker” (105-2) because, as we have already learned, “nature is the source of our operations” (94-1) and knowing is an operation.
     • Consequently, “we have God within His Own Nature conceiving an Idea, which, because it is an idea, is wholly in that one same Nature; and because it is an adequate idea, it contains that nature wholly” (105-2).
       • “All that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15).
       • Recall from above that in God essence and existence are not distinct (Summa I, q. 3, a. 1). Because God’s existence is His essence, there can be nothing of God that exists outside of His essence. Consequently, His Idea of Himself must be “within” the Divine Nature or, more accurately, identical with the Divine Nature.
       • Consequently, in saying that the infinite Idea “contains that [infinite] nature wholly,” Sheed is saying that the infinite Idea wholly possesses the infinite nature.
     • Therefore, God’s infinite Thought of Himself cannot be something separate from His own divine nature. It must be within or, better, identical with His nature (105-2).
       • The reason for this is that, as we have already learned (see 92-4), nature is the source of operation. Thinking is an operation; thus, God’s thinking of Himself must take place within His divine nature.
       • Consequently, this answers the question of whether the Father and the Son are one God or two Gods (102-1), for “likeness of nature” (from the definition of sonship) must mean, in the case of the Second Person of the Trinity, oneness of nature (102-1).
     • It follows, then, that everything in the Idea is received from the Thinker. But the Infinite Thinker puts everything He is into the Idea. Thus the Idea is infinite and equal to the Infinite Thinker, yet distinct from the Infinite Thinker (105-2).
     • Stating the above with respect to the word “Son,” we can say that the Son possesses the divine nature as received from the Father, who possesses the divine nature unreceived (105-2).
     • The only distinction between the Father and the Son is the manner in which the divine nature is possessed. Both possess the divine nature in its totality (105-2).
       • Sheed notes that in the generation of the Second Person, both the male and the female roles of human procreation are used to convey the infinite fecundity of God: the Father generates a Son; the Thinker conceives an Idea (105-3).
5. The Third Person Proceeds from the First and the Second
   • First Preliminary Consideration: An Understanding of Love (Charity)
     • Before we discuss the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we must briefly consider two other topics: love and bonding agents. We begin with “love.”
     • In contemporary speech the word “love” possesses a wide spectrum of meanings that range from the greatest of virtues (giving one’s life for another – John 15:13), all the way down to mortal sins such as fornication, adultery and sodomy.
     • In the language of Scripture, love is the theological virtue of charity, the only virtue that exists in heaven. It is in this sense that we are using the word.
       • “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13).
     • So, what is this “love” that is known as charity? Perhaps the question is most easily answered by first asking what is the opposite of love.
       • Hate? No. Hate is an automatic (i.e., unwilled) emotional/physical response to some stimulus that we find repugnant.
       • Hate is the opposite of “like,” which is also an automatic (i.e., unwilled) emotional/physical response to a pleasing stimulus.
       • Hate and like are opposites.
     • Love is different from the emotions of hate and like in that love is an act of the will and acts of the will contain no emotional element. They may produce an emotional element as a side effect, but acts of the will are absolutely unfelt.
       • Consequently, one who says he feels as though he loves God is confusing emotion (which is unwilled) with volition (an act of willing), because an act of the will (which is an essential element of an act of charity) produces, of itself, no emotional “feeling.”
     • The primary characteristic of love is that it is always directed outward toward another person, either God or neighbor. Therefore, it’s opposite must be directed inward.
       • Love, being outwardly directed, is always a matter of self-giving; hence, it always involves some loss on the part of the lover.
       • Consequently, love always involves suffering, in this life. To love is to suffer; to love much is to suffer much.
         • “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13).
       • The object of authentic love (the theological virtue of charity): The glory of God.
         • “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31).
     • The opposite of love is self-love, that is, acts of the will that are motivated by self-interest that are exclusive of God and neighbor.
       • Whereas love is self-giving, self-love is self-serving. Acts of self-love always produce some sort of temporary satisfaction through gratification of the senses or gratification of the will.
       • The object of self-love: One’s own pleasure
   • Second Preliminary Consideration: Love (Charity) as a Bonding Agent
     • Let us now consider the concept of bonding agents.
     • A bonding agent is that which binds two things together.
     • Consider three types of bonds in the material order, and notice that in each example, the bond is something real in and of itself and it is external to the objects bonded (i.e., distinct from them).
       • First, consider an example in which two material objects are bonded with glue.
         • The glue is the bonding agent. When it cures, it becomes a bond that binds the two material objects. This is a common experience.
       • Second, consider a covalent chemical bond.
         • Water is composed of covalent bonds between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
         • Pure oxygen is a dangerous substance. It is ignited by a small spark and it burns explosively.
         • The covalent bond between oxygen and hydrogen atoms is something real and something distinct from the elements themselves. The bond makes the bonded oxygen atoms harmless while bonded.
         • The bond cannot be directly observed because it exists at the atomic level, but its effects can be observed and its existence is a basic fact of chemistry.
       • Third, consider an ionic chemical bond
         • Table salt is composed of an ionic bond between sodium and chlorine atoms.
         • Both elements are extremely hazardous to man.
         • The ionic bond between the sodium and chlorine atoms is something real and something distinct from the elements themselves. The bond makes the sodium and chlorine atoms harmless while bonded.
         • The bond cannot be directly observed because it exists at the atomic level, but its effects can be observed and its existence is a basic fact of chemistry.
     • Now consider a spiritual bond, the marriage bond.
       • The marriage bond is spiritual in nature, but it is easily recognized as having a real existence based on the behaviors of the persons bonded.
       • That the marriage bond is external to the spouses can be seen from the permanent character of the bond, for even if both parties involved intensely desire that the bond be broken, it is not possible to do so according to the words of Our Lord Himself, for the “bonding agent,” charity, has its primary source in God:
         • “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt 19:6).
     • From these examples, we can see that bonds, even spiritual bonds are realities in finite creation. It follows that a spiritual bond of some sort must exist in God, for all perfections that exist in creation must first exist in God. Hence, the perfection of spiritual bonding is an infinite bond, and that bond is the Holy Spirit.
   • In summary: Love as a Bonding Agent
     • Authentic love, the theological virtue of charity, is volitional in nature (i.e., willed), rather than emotional (i.e., unwilled).
     • Love essentially consists in self-giving.
     • Love produces a bond (in the created order the bond could be one-directional).
     • A love-bond is a spiritual being.
     • A love-bond is distinct from the persons bonded.
   • Divine Procession by Way of Love
     • We learned in chapter one that knowing and loving are the principal operations of a rational being. It follows that just as the second person proceeds by way of knowledge, the third person proceeds by way of love. “To a point, the two ‘processions’ are parallel” (105-4).
       • Procession of the Third Person
         • The Father and the Son love each other infinitely, for they give themselves completely to one another, and love is self-gift.
         • This Infinite act of loving (i.e., self-giving), which originates within the one divine nature, produces a state of Infinite Lovingness (i.e., an Infinite Love-Bond) between the Father and the Son.
         • The Love-Bond lacks nothing that is in the Father and the Son, for they give of themselves completely; thus, the Love-Bond is “Infinite, Eternal, Living, Someone, a Person, God” (106-1).
         • Just as an act of love is distinct from the lover, so the Love-Bond is distinct from the Father and the Son.
         • The Love-Bond is the Third Person, proceeding from the Father and the Son by way of love.
         • The Love-Bond is in the Divine Nature because the operation of loving is wholly within the nature of the lover (106-1).
       • Procession of the Second Person:
         • The First Person knows Himself infinitely.
         • His Infinite act of knowing Himself, which originates within the one divine nature, generates an Infinite Idea, an Infinite Word.
         • The Word lacks nothing that is in the Father, and is, thus, the exact image of the Father; consequently, the Word is “Infinite, Eternal, Living, Someone, a Person, God” (106-1).
         • Just as the thought is distinct from the thinker, the Word is distinct from the Father.
         • The Word is the Second Person, generated by the Father by way of knowledge.
         • The Word is in the Divine Nature because the operation of knowing is within the nature of the one who knows.
     • An alternate statement of the procession of divine persons in which the logical reasoning and the supporting Scripture verses are presented in a complete yet more concise manner can be found on the class blog:
       • https://dicklandkamer.wordpress.com/the-holy-trinity-procession-of-persons/
   • The Name of the Third Person
     • The name of the third person is not as revealing as are the two names, Son and Word, of the second person (106-2).
     • “Spirit,” as used in the name of the third person, does not have the same meaning as when the word is used to speak of a type of being (i.e., spirit vs. matter). Rather, it has the more ancient meaning that conveys the idea of “movement of air” (106-2).
       • On the first day of creation: “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit [“ruach”, breath, wind] of God was moving over the face of the waters” (Gen 1:2).
       • Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus: “The wind [Spirit] blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (Jn 3:8).
       • To the Apostles on the day of the Resurrection: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (Jn 20:22).
       • On the day of Pentecost: “And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting . . . And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:2, 4).
     • The word “holy” provides another description of God, for just as He is existence (Ex 3:14) and love (1 Jn 4:8) He is also “holy”; thus, it is appropriate that the name of the third person include the word “holy.”
       • “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pt 1:16).
       • “Day and night [the four living creatures] never cease to sing, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!’” (Rev 4:6).
       • “Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy” (Lev 19:2).
     • Holy Spirit, then, can be understood as a “holy breathing forth.”
       • The Latin word for “holy” is “sanctus,” and the Latin word for “breathing forth” is “spiro,” from the infinitive “spirare” (to breathe forth). The second person plural, imperative mood (i.e., emphatic), active voice form of “spirare” is “spirate.” The noun form of “spirate” is “spiritus.” Hence, we have Spiritus Sanctus, or Holy Spirit, a “holy spiration” or a “holy breathing forth.”
     • For this reason, the Latin word “spirate” (breathe!) is used to express the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son “spirate” or “breathe forth” the Holy Spirit by way of love (107-3).
       • Thus we have a “holy breathing forth, a holy spiration, a Spiritus Sanctus, the Holy Spirit.
     • The third person is like the first and second because the Father and the Son “have put themselves wholly into their love” (107-3).
   • Distinction: Generation and Spiration
     • The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle of love (recall that nature is the source of operation, and there is only one divine nature) (107-2).
       • In the Nicene Creed we say, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
         • Note: This reference to “Father and the Son” (qui ex Patre Filioque procedit”) was not in the original Nicene Creed (325 A.D.). Two hundred years after the Council of Nicaea, the “Filioque” began to appear in Western Europe. It was added to the creed recited in the Roman Mass (Latin Rite) by Pope Benedict VIII (1024) so as to more precisely express what is found in Scripture.
       • Council of Florence (1438-45): “The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son eternally, and has His essence and subsistence from Father and Son together, and proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one single spiration.”
     • Note that we do not say the Father and the Son “generate” the Holy Spirit. The word “generate” is reserved for the procession of the Second Person from the First. The Father and the Son do not “generate” the Holy Spirit (107-3).
       • The reason for this is that it is the nature of knowing to generate a likeness in the intellect (i.e., a concept of what it known), but it is not the nature of loving to generate a likeness in the will (107-3).
     • In summary, we say that both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed, with the Father generating the Son, and the Father and Son together spirating the Holy Spirit (107-3).
     • The Holy Spirit fully possesses the divine nature, but, like the Son, possesses it as received. In the case of the Holy Spirit, the divine nature is received from both the Father and the Son (108-1).
     • Putting all of this together, we can say the following:
       • Emphasizing procession: The Son proceeds from the Father by way of knowledge, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a single principle, by way of love.
       • Emphasizing the theological terms appropriate to each procession: The Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father and the Son as one principle of spiration.
       • The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) writes: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds” (CCC 254).
   • God Is Triply Hypostatized
     • Each of the three persons “subsists.” That is, each possesses the whole perfection of personality, each is the whole of Himself. None of the three persons are a part of some greater entity (108-3).
     • “Using the technical word ‘hypostasis’ for person, we can say that whereas our finite human nature is singly hypostatized, the infinite Divine Nature is triply hypostatized. It is wholly . . . expressed as Existence in the Person of the Father, as Knowledge in the Person of the Son, as Lovingness [Love-Bond] in the Person of the Holy Spirit” (108-2).
6. Processions in Eternity (108-3)
   • Divine Processions and Time-Based Language
     • Though we speak of the procession of persons in the Trinity, we must keep in mind the understanding that these processions exist outside of time; they are eternal processions (108-3).
       • The generation of the Son is an eternal generation by the Father (108-3).
       • The spiration of the Holy Spirit is an eternal spiration by the Father and Son (108-3).
     • When thinking or speaking of the Blessed Trinity, there is the likelihood that we will speak incorrectly as a result of our experience of being immersed in time (109-1).
       • Our language is necessarily built around tenses whereas the divine realities we are speaking of are entirely outside of tenses (i.e., time). For God, there is only the eternal present, Boethius’ “tota simul” or “all at once” (see p. 67 footnote) (109-1).
       • If we say that the Father generated (past perfect) His Son, we are speaking of a past action for beings that have no past (109-1).
       • If we say that the Father is generating (part participle) His Son, we convey the notion of incompleteness or a continuing action (109-1).
       • “It may be well for the mind to use both phrases, moving from one to the other, until the mind finds itself in some way seeing both in one new verb for which it has no word” (109-1).
         • One may also find the simple present tense to be the most satisfactory solution, for it has no connection to the past and it does not imply continuing action.
           • It fails in that it is necessarily an expression of the “nunc fluens,” the flowing now, but I find in it a closer connection to the reality of the eternal now, the “tota simul.”
         • Perhaps the best solution is to speak of the Son as the eternal generation of the Father, and the Holy Spirit as the eternal spiration of the Father and the Son.
     • “[We can] form only the most shadowy notion of what that life of Three-in-One means in itself . . . [that] Three should possess one another totally, give themselves to one another totally, utter their life-secret to one another totally, in the changeless stillness of infinite Life” (109-2).
     • Earlier theologians coined the word “circumincession” to refer to the flow of vital activity within one another of the three persons; modern theologians use the word circuminsession to refer to “the utter repose of Three dwelling within one another” (110-2).