FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439  
440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   >>   >|  
that the Father is a hypostasis as not from another, and the Son is a hypostasis as from another by generation. And that the consequent relations which are to be regarded as properties of dignity, constitute the notion of a person, and are thus called "personal properties." Hence, if these relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostasis, but not the persons, remain. But this is impossible, for two reasons: first, because the relations distinguish and constitute the hypostases, as shown above (A. 2); secondly, because every hypostasis of a rational nature is a person, as appears from the definition of Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) that, "person is the individual substance of a rational nature." Hence, to have hypostasis and not person, it would be necessary to abstract the rationality from the nature, but not the property from the person. Reply Obj. 1: Person does not add to hypostasis a distinguishing property absolutely, but a distinguishing property of dignity, all of which must be taken as the difference. Now, this distinguishing property is one of dignity precisely because it is understood as subsisting in a rational nature. Hence, if the distinguishing property be removed from the person, the hypostasis no longer remains; whereas it would remain were the rationality of the nature removed; for both person and hypostasis are individual substances. Consequently, in God the distinguishing relation belongs essentially to both. Reply Obj. 2: By paternity the Father is not only Father, but is a person, and is "someone," or a hypostasis. It does not follow, however, that the Son is not "someone" or a hypostasis; just as it does not follow that He is not a person. Reply Obj. 3: Augustine does not mean to say that the hypostasis of the Father would remain as unbegotten, if His paternity were removed, as if innascibility constituted and distinguished the hypostasis of the Father; for this would be impossible, since "being unbegotten" says nothing positive and is only a negation, as he himself says. But he speaks in a general sense, forasmuch as not every unbegotten being is the Father. So, if paternity be removed, the hypostasis of the Father does not remain in God, as distinguished from the other persons, but only as distinguished from creatures; as the Jews understand it. _______________________ FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 40, Art. 4] Whether the properties presuppose the notional acts? Objection 1: It would seem t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439  
440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

hypostasis

 

person

 

Father

 
nature
 

distinguishing

 
property
 

remain

 
removed
 

distinguished

 
relations

dignity

 
paternity
 
rational
 
unbegotten
 

properties

 
individual
 

constitute

 

impossible

 

follow

 
persons

rationality

 

Augustine

 
innascibility
 

constituted

 

ARTICLE

 

Whether

 

presuppose

 

Objection

 

notional

 

FOURTH


understand

 

speaks

 

negation

 
positive
 

general

 

creatures

 
essentially
 

forasmuch

 
Person
 

hypostases


distinguish

 
reasons
 

Boethius

 
definition
 

appears

 

abstracted

 
consequent
 

regarded

 

generation

 

notion