🧵The Eminent Doctor, Fr. Francisco Suárez, on Transitivity ['LPT'] and how it relates to the Holy Trinity.
The Eminent Doctor briefly touches upon this topic in his "Summa, Seu Compendium," wherein he lists out the positions of different Schools; and gives his final thought.
The Eminent Doctor briefly touches upon this topic in his "Summa, Seu Compendium," wherein he lists out the positions of different Schools; and gives his final thought.
- The citation is Part 1, Book 4, Chapter 3, Page 189.
- The source of this work is to be found here:
google.co.uk/books/edition/…
- The source of this work is to be found here:
google.co.uk/books/edition/…
“This axiom is expounded: Whatever things are the same as one third thing are the same among themselves.
Thus Durandus and Scotus explain it: Things which are so the same as one third that they are distinguished from it neither really nor formally, are likewise the same among themselves, and conversely. But the Persons, according to Scotus, are formally distinguished from...
...the essence by the nature of the thing. Therefore they are not the same among themselves. But this formal distinction of Scotus is denied.
St. Thomas says that this is verified in those things which are the same in reality and in notion, but not in those things which are the same only in reality and are distinguished in notion. But in this way the divine attributes would not be the same among themselves...
since they are identified. Therefore the same St. Thomas says elsewhere as follows: “Things which are the same as one third are the same among themselves, not simply, but in that third, for example the Father and the Son in the essence”; but in this way nothing is concluded.
[This is seemingly paraphrased from the Angelic Doctor in ST. I, q. 28, a. 3 - ] aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q2…
Nor does the following opinion compel [us]. Capreolus and others explain it thus: Things which are the same as one third adequately are the same among themselves; but not inadequately; or, they are the same among themselves unless an opposition stands in the way.
This explanation, and that of St. Thomas as well, is sufficiently convenient, but it resolves no difficulty, since nothing similar is found in creatures.
Therefore, if this axiom is taken in the most general sense, insofar as it abstracts from created and uncreated being, I say that it is false; because although it is true in particular cases, such as in creatures, it does not thereby follow that the whole generality is true.”
The concise and simple explanation of Fr. Suárez may be viewed below; in Latin and in English.
If you enjoyed this thread, be sure to spread it amongst your friends.🧵
If you enjoyed this thread, be sure to spread it amongst your friends.🧵
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
