Thomas Aquinas, Joachim of Fiore, and the Trinity

Image: Saint Thomas Aquinas (Detail from Valle Romita Polyptych
by Gentile da Fabriano (c. 1400)

This article is related to the previous one, which can be found here: Translation of marginal note at 1 John 5:7-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot http://theworldperceived.blogspot.com/2019/08/translation-of-marginal-note-at-1-john.html

1 John 5:7-8

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Marginal Note at 1 John 5:7-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514)

“Saint Thomas, in his exposition of the second Decretal concerning the Most High Trinity and the Catholic faith, treating of this passage, ‘There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,’ in opposition to the Abbot Joachim, uses precisely the following language: — And to teach the unity of the three persons it is subjoined, And these three are one; which is said on account of their unity of essence. But Joachim, wishing perversely to refer this to a unity of affection and agreement, alleged the text that follows it. For it is immediately subjoined, And there are three that bear witness on earth, namely, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And in some books it is added, And these three are one. But this is not contained in the true copies, but is said to have been added by the Arian heretics to prevent the text that precedes from being correctly understood as relating to the unity of essence of the three persons.’ — Thus the blessed Thomas, as above referred to.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part 1, Question 39, Article 5)

“I answer that, Concerning this, the abbot Joachim erred in asserting that as we can say ‘God begot God,’ so we can say ‘Essence begot essence’: considering that, by reason of the divine simplicity God is nothing else but the divine essence. In this he was wrong, because if we wish to express ourselves correctly, we must take into account not only the thing which is signified, but also the mode of its signification as above stated (Article 4). Now although ‘God’ is really the same as ‘Godhead,’ nevertheless the mode of signification is not in each case the same. For since this word ‘God’ signifies the divine essence in Him that possesses it, from its mode of signification it can of its own nature stand for person. Thus the things which properly belong to the persons, can be predicated of this word, ‘God,’ as, for instance, we can say ‘God is begotten’ or is ‘Begetter,’ as above explained (Article 4). The word ‘essence,’ however, in its mode of signification, cannot stand for Person, because it signifies the essence as an abstract form. Consequently, what properly belongs to the persons whereby they are distinguished from each other, cannot be attributed to the essence. For that would imply distinction in the divine essence, in the same way as there exists distinction in the ‘supposita.’ [that is: a distinct subsistent individual in a particular nature].”

Source: Summa Theologica (Part 1, Question 39) The persons in relation to the essence: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm

The Abbot and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Fiore

“Thomas' second period in Paris (1269-72) brought all these insights together in systematic fashion in the Summa. Joachim's Trinitarian errors are dealt with in q. 39, a. 5 of the Prima Pars, ‘Whether essential names signified in the abstract are able to stand for the [divine] Person.’ In its clarity and brevity the article shows an advance over the more diffuse treatment of the In Decretalem Secundum Expositio.”

Source: The Abbot and the Doctors: Scholastic Reactions to the Radical Eschatology of Joachim of Fiore (page 39) https://tinyurl.com/yy5djl9y   

The Second Decretal of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

2. On the error of abbot Joachim

We therefore condemn and reprove that small book or treatise which abbot Joachim published against master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essence of the Trinity, in which he calls Peter Lombard a heretic and a madman because he said in his Sentences, “For there is a certain supreme reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and it neither begets nor is begotten nor does it proceed”. He asserts from this that Peter Lombard ascribes to God not so much a Trinity as a quaternity, that is to say three persons and a common essence as if this were a fourth person. Abbot Joachim clearly protests that there does not exist any reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit-neither an essence nor a substance nor a nature — although he concedes that the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are one essence, one substance and one nature. He professes, however, that such a unity is not true and proper but rather collective and analogous, in the way that many persons are said to be one people and many faithful one church, according to that saying : Of the multitude of believers there was one heart and one mind, and Whoever adheres to God is one spirit with him; again He who plants and he who waters are one, and all of us are one body in Christ; and again in the book of Kings, My people and your people are one. In support of this opinion he especially uses the saying which Christ uttered in the gospel concerning the faithful : I wish, Father, that they may be one in us, just as we are one, so that they may be made perfect in one. For, he says, Christ’s faithful are not one in the sense of a single reality which is common to all. They are one only in this sense, that they form one church through the unity of the catholic faith, and finally one kingdom through a union of indissoluble charity. Thus we read in the canonical letter of John : For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father and the Word and the holy Spirit, and these three are one; and he immediately adds, And the three that bear witness on earth are the spirit, water and blood, and the three are one, according to some manuscripts.

We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. For the Father, in begetting the Son from eternity, gave him his substance, as he himself testifies : What the Father gave me is greater than all. It cannot be said that the Father gave him part of his substance and kept part for himself since the Father’s substance is indivisible, inasmuch as it is altogether simple. Nor can it be said that the Father transferred his substance to the Son, in the act of begetting, as if he gave it to the Son in such a way that he did not retain it for himself; for otherwise he would have ceased to be substance. It is therefore clear that in being begotten the Son received the Father’s substance without it being diminished in any way, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance. Thus the Father and the Son and also the holy Spirit proceeding from both are the same reality.

When, therefore, the Truth prays to the Father for those faithful to him, saying I wish that they may be one in us just as we are one, this word one means for the faithful a union of love in grace, and for the divine persons a unity of identity in nature, as the Truth says elsewhere, You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect {2} , as if he were to say more plainly, You must be perfect in the perfection of grace, just as your Father is perfect in the perfection that is his by nature, each in his own way. For between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them. If anyone therefore ventures to defend or approve the opinion or doctrine of the aforesaid Joachim on this matter, let him be refuted by all as a heretic. By this, however, we do not intend anything to the detriment of the monastery of Fiore, which Joachim founded, because there both the instruction is according to rule and the observance is healthy; especially since Joachim ordered all his writings to be handed over to us, to be approved or corrected according to the judgment of the apostolic see. He dictated a letter, which he signed with his own hand, in which he firmly confesses that he holds the faith held by the Roman church, which is by God’s plan the mother and mistress of all the faithful.

Source: Fourth Lateran Council (1215) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm

++++

Some critics assert that the marginal note at 1 John 5:7-8 of the Complutensian Polygot was added after Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was printed in 1516, because Erasmus did not include the passage, but this assertion is weak and inconclusive: see pages 67-68 in Ignacio J. García Pinilla, “Reconsidering the relationship between the Complutensian Polyglot Bible and Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum” here: https://tinyurl.com/y28add2l

Joachim of Fiore (1132-1202): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08406c.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm 

Complutensian Polyglot: https://www.wdl.org/en/item/10636/ 

Translation of marginal note at 1 John 5:7-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot

Image: Marginal note at 1 John 5:7-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514)

Below is the Latin marginal note found at 1 John 5:7-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514) along with an English translation:

“Sanctus Thomas in expositione secunde Decretalis de suma Trinitate et fide catholica tractans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim ut tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo. Pater: Verbum: et Spiritus Sanctus: dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur, Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensus inducebat consequeintetn auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem: Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra. s. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur: Et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis Arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personaruim. Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra.”

“Saint Thomas, in his exposition of the second Decretal concerning the Most High Trinity and the Catholic faith, treating of this passage, ‘There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,’ in opposition to the Abbot Jochim, uses precisely the following language: — And to teach the unity of the three persons it is subjoined, And these three are one; which is said on account of their unity of essence. But Joachim, wishing perversely to refer this to a unity of affection and agreement, alleged the text that follows it. For it is immediately subjoined, And there are three that bear witness on earth, namely, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And in some books it is added, And these three are one. But this is not contained in the true copies, but is said to have been added by the Arian heretics to prevent the text that precedes from being correctly understood as relating to the unity of essence of the three persons.’ — Thus the blessed Thomas, as above referred to.”

Translation source: MEMOIR OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE I JOHN V. 7.
INCLUDING CRITICAL NOTICES OF THE PRINCIPAL WRITERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION.
by Rev. William Orme (1787-1830)
(see pages 80/81-81/82):
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AJF5099.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext 

Thanks to Matthew B for providing me with this source via his comment on the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog.

Review: The Spanish Civil War (Cambridge Essential Histories)

Image: Fascismo

The Spanish Civil War (Cambridge Essential Histories)
Stanley G. Payne
286 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 7/14/12 edition (August 13, 2012)
$27.99

This book is probably one of the best introductions to the Spanish Civil War (or, as the author says: revolutionary/counterrevolutionary struggle).

In short, the political left started the whole thing by excluding the right and instituting an all leftist government, even though half the population of Spain at the time was conservative. Add to this the left's hatred of all things traditional and religious and you have a recipe for disaster.

The left in Spain had a bad habit of calling anyone on the right—even right-of-center—"fascists!" when in fact, as the author points out, this was not at all true.

The left also created a mythology that remains to this day: that their democratic government was unjustly attacked by "fascists!" when in fact their election rigging, exclusion of conservatives from government, murder of political opponents, church burnings, and murders of clergy eventually resulted in their humiliating defeat on the battlefield at the hands of righteously angered (and mostly religious) conservatives (they also got forty years of right-wing dictatorship).


It's no wonder the academy, media, and Hollywood ignores the Spanish Civil War. Their side lost. Badly.

If you want to know the truth about the Spanish Civil War read this book. I was hoping this book would be a good one, in that the truth would finally be told, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was. Kudos to the author and the publisher for telling the unpopular truth.

Everyone in the USA should read this book, because the left is using the same tricks now that they were using then. They want to silence all conservatives and have them removed from government, despite the fact that half the country is conservative and deserves a voice in government.

The USA now, resembling the Spain of 1936, has no place for center-moderate politics, compromise, or tolerance.

We live in a time where the other side is considered evil, and you don't compromise with or tolerate evil; you destroy it.

This is what happened in Spain, and also during the US Civil War. Two different civilizations competed for total political and cultural dominance. There was no room for compromise. Total victory was all that could be imagined.

God help us if we don't change our ways.

This book has a happy ending: the center-moderates eventually formed a democratic government wherein everyone had a say and all peoples were enabled to compromise and tolerate one another. 

It's a shame they couldn't have done that sooner, and avoided the war.

"The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others..."

Image: Thomas Aquinas

The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (I:22:2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23): "What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory" and (2 Timothy 2:20): "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor." Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matthew 20:14-15).

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Part 1, Question 23, Article 5, Reply to Objection 3)

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father..."

Image: Sunshine and rain on flowers

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:43-48).

Followers of Jesus cannot be cheerleaders for executions, wars, or any other actions that destroy human life. We're called to love people. To love all people. Good people and evil people. Friends and enemies. And by loving those whom the world deems unlovable we become very different from the world. We become followers of Jesus.