The Inner Structure of Uncreated Love

by Paul Quay, S.J.

The Gospel of St John, chapter 17: 1-5

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Chapter 3 of "The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God"

At this point, to discuss at length the intra-trinitarian structure of charity in order to learn more about original sin might seem to be using a cannon to shoot at sparrows. But before we finish, we will have abundant use for the cannon. Not only will it be important for the analysis of original sin towards which it is first directed, but we should keep in mind that whatever we learn of the Trinity is something learned about our final goal -- for it is in the radiance of God's light that we shall see light and be given to drink from the river of His delights. 

Moreover, since our spiritual life is a sharing in that of Christ, the more aware we are of His relations to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, the more we can of set purpose follow Him and become like Him. I shall, then, turn at once to the Church's trinitarian doctrine, without attempting to derive it anew, and shall use it to see what more can be found of the inner structure of the divine Love Itself.

Among Western theologians, a particular psychological imagery, based on the processions of interior word and love, has come to overshadow all other ways of thinking of the Trinity. Marvelously developed by St. Thomas on the basis of some remarks of St. Augustine, it continued to develop in our own days through Lonergan's work. 

The imagery, also psychological, that Augustine himself preferred was that of a lover, his beloved, and the love between them. This, too, was developed and extended in the Middle Ages, especially by Richard of St. Victor. Richard substituted, however, for the love between the lover and his beloved, the presence of a friend of the beloved given by the lover lest their love be closed on itself. This current of thought also has continued to exert much influence till the present. (1)

In strong contrast, the careful language of the great ecumenical Councils of the Middle Ages used no psychological imagery at all. Why this should have been the case, I leave to historians of dogma. But the austerity of the conciliar texts is extremely helpful to anyone seeking to develop further imagery, since they highlight key elements of structure that must be found in any suitable image.

Yet given the importance of the mystery, strangely little has been done, at least in the West, in a strictly theological way with other sorts of images, many of which are found in great richness in the Eastern Fathers of the Church. (2) Their imagery, however, was left largely at the level of suggestiveness and intuitive insight. Not much was done by them, or by others since, in the way of systematic development of their insights.

Our concern with such development here will be governed entirely by the conviction that charity is the created reflection of the divine Love Itself  and that what God has revealed concerning His own inner life must throw some light on the mysteries connected with our sharing that life. Our investigation will be focussed by the questions we have already indicated: Is there a "trinitarian structure," if one may so speak, that created charity possesses in virtue of its being a sharing in the uncreated Love? And since "God is love" (I Jn.4: 8,16), in what way, if any, could such a structure (i.e., the order of the Persons) be understood as a love between Them?

In Section I, I propose a way to see the "active" and "passive" generation of the Son as forms of Personal love. Then, emboldened by the relative ease of that task, I seek in Section II to carry out an analogous task concerning the Holy Spirit. This, however, calls for an effort to find some new imagery for the Holy Spirit still hidden in the Scriptures. Such imagery is pointed out by some remarks of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Then, guided by the medieval councils, we can see something of how the Spirit may be said to love the Father and the Son, and conversely. Finally, I discuss briefly such reasons as I can see why this imagery for the Spirit received so little attention from the Fathers (section omitted here--Gerard). That done, in the following chapter I shall apply the insights gained to the structure of created charity, after which we will be ready to turn back to theproblem of original sin as the innate nullification of this structure.


At the center of trinitarian theology is the ancient doctrine of the monarchia, "the most august topic of the preaching of the Church of God," St. Dionysius called it (DS 112). All three Persons are not merely equal but absolutely one in all that pertains to the divine essence: majesty, love, glory, power, and all other divine attributes. Yet there exists an order of origin, immanent within the Godhead, such that the Father is the sole Principle, the sole Source, who has Himself no source or principle. Both Son and Holy Spirit proceed from Him; the Son, from Him alone; the Holy Spirit, from Him through the Son; each, therefore, ultimately from that sole unoriginated Principle from which all that is, in heaven or on earth, has its being.

Given this inner order of the Persons in the Godhead, then, since "God is love," we may speak of the Father as unoriginated Love; the Son, as originated Love; the Spirit, as Love breathed forth from both, from the Father through the Son. Yet there is but the one Love, the one inclination of the one divine will. Since one with the divine essence, this Love is common to all three Persons.

A love that is common to all, however, cannot be the love characteristic of any Person. For, what the Father is, is indistinguishable, even logically, from what the Son is and what the Spirit is. Each of the Persons, then, is that act of infinite Love.

Yet there does exist a perspective from which one may speak of a love for the Son that is characteristic of the Father, of the Son for the Father, of the Spirit for Both. Indeed, such a perspective is imposed upon us as soon as we consider our Lord's words at the Last Supper no longer in economic terms but immanently, (3) no longer as referring to His human nature only but to His Person. Any such love must, of course, as a Personal characteristic, (4) be definable ultimately in terms of who each Person is. And among the Persons, we recall, there can be no other distinctions than those of the structure or order of origination.

There is only one act of generating, and this belongs to the Father alone, not to the Son nor to the Spirit. There is but one act of breathing forth, which belongs to Father and Son but not to the Spirit. And so for all Personal characteristics. Since God is love, the question we need to address is, "In what way can one see, in the inner logical structure of each of these Personal characteristics, a structure that of itself bespeaks love or has a structure that we can legitimately identify with love?"

How, for example, do generation and spiration form two distinct kinds of love, each characteristic of the Father? True though it is that the Father is generative or unoriginated or spirative Love, nothing in "generative" or "unoriginated" or "spirative" of itself suggests love; yet it is in such adjectives that the structure of the divine Love must somehow be hidden.

It is not hard to show that what is "generative' has a logical structure that, with one proviso, is clearly identifiable as a type of love. (5) If one takes care that each of the Personal loves has exactly that relation of origin (and, all together, the same order) as the Persons themselves, no theological harm is done. One is doing no more ultimately than seeing under a new formal light the same characteristics that have long been known and accepted by all Christians.

But, in matters where language is so weak an instrument, it will be better to break off statements of purpose and show by the doing what I intend.

1. The Father's Love for the Son

The great medieval Councils give the basic statements concerning the generation of the Son by the Father. But though these Councils speak of the generation of the Son and of His being born, they translate these into a language of giving and receiving. Thus, the ecumenical Council of IV Lateran states: "The Father, by begetting the Son from eternity, has given His own substance to Him ... [W]ithout any diminishment, the Son by being born has received the substance of the Father" (DS 805). 

The Father gives the divine nature in its fullness to the Son without its being thereby diminished in the Father. The whole divine nature is given to the Son; and the Son is God because He receives the one divine nature from the Father. The Son is identically what the Father is, but is not who the Father is. (6) The Father wills, then, the infinite Good, the Godhead itself which He Himself is, to the Son, in an act of total love, for among men the language of gift is a language of love. St. Thomas sets out this connection well:

A gift, properly speaking, is 'a giving without a return'...that is, which is not given with an intention of some return; thus it involves a gratuitous handing over. The intelligible structure, however, of a gratuitous handing over is love; for on this account we give something gratuitously to someone, that we win some good for him. The first thing, therefore, that we give him is the love by which we will him the good. (7)

One need add only that every gift is seen as a good not previously had by the recipient, though the love that motivates the gift is already directed to the recipient.

To love is to will what is truly good for the one beloved. But the Father wills to give all that belongs to Him, except to be Father, to the Son (cf. DS 1301). Since this gift contains the infinite goodness of the divine essence, the Father can be said truly, as Father, to love the Son. The goodness of the Son, then, by which He is equal to the Father, is a given goodness. The giving is logically prior to this goodness as it is in the Son; the Giver is its Source. Thus, this love is logically antecedent to the Son's worthiness of it; and the Recipient could not have it except by this gift. (8)

Since the Father's love for the Son is logically antecedent to the gift of the divine essence, which latter alone makes the Son worthy of the Father's love, it is clear that the Father's love is an unoriginated love. It is a love not stirred in response to some good other than the Father's. It does not have its origin in any way elsewhere. Nor is it drawn by an antecedent goodness of the Son. It involves no principle of origination other than the Father, and flows spontaneously only from the goodness of the Father Himself.

The Father begets the Son by giving Him all that the Father is (9) (except to be Father). As mentioned, then, the Father's willing for His Son of the good that is the divine nature is logically prior to the Son's being worthy of such love. Therefore, it is not inasmuch as the Son has the divine nature that the Father gives it but that the Son may have it. The good that is the divine nature in the Son is not logically antecedent to the Father's love but consequent upon it -- if one may use such language so as to seek to express something of the intrinsic order of origin within God.

Thus the Father does not love the Son because the Son is good but the Father makes the Son good because He loves Him. The Father does not love the Son because the Son could in some way be thought to be and actually be infinite Goodness -- hence infinitely worthy of the Father's love -- antecedently to the Father's gift to Him. Rather, because the Father loves Him, therefore He constitutes Him Son.

It is this pattern of giving that defines the characteristic love of the Father. In loving the Son (though not freely) He chooses (albeit necessarily) to be One who makes the gift of all that He is to this Other. Inasmuch, then, as the Father gives, seeking no return other than that the gift be accepted, His act is, though not free, perfectly voluntary and gratuitous.

But this gratuity is not merely psychological, seeking no return. It is also metaphysical since, as in human generation, the Father gives existence to one who, therefore, has no antecedent claim whatever upon it. The Father loves before (in merely logical priority) there is any goodness present in the one loved that could coerce, draw, or even invite His love. Even, then, in the absolutely necessary love of the Father for the Son, one can discern the gratuity that love requires.

2. The Son's Love for the Father

The Son, also, "love[s] the Father" (Jn.14:31), with His human will indeed, and with the divine will in the love common to all the Persons; but He can also be said to love the Father with a love that is a personal characteristic of the Son. But in what way can mere reception be considered as love? Among men, to be begotten is a great good, but it is hardly love. What good is thus willed to the Father by the Son?

If He who is Father, the Unoriginated, is constituted Father only by His gift of His being to the Son, then He is Personally constituted only by the Son's reception of His gift of the divine essence -- for a gift is formally a gift only insofar as it is received. Hence, the Son's will to receive the gift is a will that the Unoriginated be Father to Him. He wills to receive, even as the Father wills to give, the divine essence, so that the Unoriginated have the goodness of paternity and that He, the Son, be like His Father in everything except for origination.

As mentioned earlier, "by being born, the Son has received without any diminishment the substance of the Father." (10) Hence, the Son not only receives but chooses (though not freely) to receive all that He is without changing or altering it in any way. He seeks in no way to be different from His Father except by being His Father's Son, i.e., by receiving all, in perfect sameness except for what pertains to origination. The Son does not have or seek to have in or of Himself any independent root of being, neither independence of origin nor diversity of attribute. He wills this reception precisely in order that He be, consequently and not antecedently, a worthy Son of such a Father.

Humanly speaking, we may receive a gift in several ways:

 a) We may recognize it as contributing to our good, accept it accordingly, but regard it as no more than we deserve. 

b) Or we may receive what is given but refuse, for whatever motives, the love it implies. For we may consider this love as not genuine; we may see it, say, as an effort to resolve a dispute or to buy a favor or to ingratiate the giver with us. Or we may sufficiently dislike or even hate the giver, so that we want no love from him no matter how genuine. 

c) Or we may receive the gift and the love that gives it but see this reception as also a humiliation, since it manifests that there was something we truly valued or desired that was both lacking to us and supplied by another who was, thus, in some way better than we.

d) Finally, there is the reception we speak of as 'grateful acceptance.'

All but the last way of receiving a gift fail, on scrutiny, to be full acceptance of the gift as a gift. The first treats what is given as merited and, therefore, not as a gift at all but as one's due. The second way takes, in fact, not the gift but only the thing that is given, considering it either as being without the love that 'gift' implies or refusing that love as unworthy or rejecting it as from someone disliked. The third way may be a true reception of the gift. but it is an inadequate one. Too conscious of ourselves, we attend to other things than the giver and his gift. However much we prize the good that is given, we see our receiving of it as somehow an evil. The love that gives it is mistrusted or depreciated as insufficiently considerate, sensitive, or wise -- for it has slighted our self-esteem.

That a gift be received, the recipient must be pleased both with the thing given and with the love of the giver, each in truth and right proportion, yet always both together. Thus, the love behind the gift may be much greater than the goodness-to-the-reciplent of the thing given, which then serves chiefly as a token and sign of this love. 

Conversely, we know of gifts we prize but which came with relatively little love. Assuming right proportion, we can say that gratitude is an intrinsic and constitutive element in the acceptance of any gift. Without gratitude, no gift is ever truly accepted; only when suffused with gratitude can a receiving be regarded as full acceptance of a gift.

The response, then, of Him who is Son to the gift of the divine essence is, as perfect acceptance of this infinite and perfect gift, an infinite gratitude. He receives the divine essence as wholly His own and as possible for Him only as gift, and accepts the characteristic love that the Giver of His being has for Him. But gratitude has the form or structure of love, since one way of  willing another's good is to be pleased with his goodness as expressed in his gift. Perfect gratitude does nothing to change or alter the gift, for the gift represents the giver. And one who accepts another's love, loves this other. One accepts the Giver's estimate of what the gift should be, hence, of what is good for oneself and of the goodness of his love for one.

But the will to accept a gift is logically prior to its being received. Hence, the Son wills to receive the gift antecedently to His having any good, while still "unworthy" in signo primo of the Father's love. Thus, He accepts as one who has no claims on the Giver, for He has nothing to offer of His own. He can do no more than receive. He cannot make a return in kind. He has no way to offer a gift in return, because to give the divine essence is precisely to be Father, not Son. (11)

Though the Son's will to accept is logically prior to the actual acceptance, this will to accept is not antecedent to the gift's being offered. Therefore the Son's acceptance is, as just described, taken in relation to the Son; yet it must also be consequent upon the Father's goodness in giving and upon the goodness of what is given.

Willingly to receive oneself from another, then, is an act of love; and the Son loves the Father as His Son, i.e., as One defined by His receiving of His whole being directly from the Father.


The conciliar texts say far less about the Holy Spirit than about the Father and the Son; and the information they give about the procession of the Spirit is not comparable to what they give about the generation of the Son. The language used is singularly colorless. Apart from the Scriptural "proceeds," the Councils use only such words as 'has" or "is from." 

Moreover, some of what is said about the Spirit serves only to manifest an equivalence of meaning underlying a diversity of language. (12) Elsewhere, what is stated is merely negative, denying that the Spirit proceeds as from two principles or by two spirations. (13) Such statements are important for what they show of structure of relationships between the Persons, but shed very little light on the inner nature of the Spirit's procession.

The conciliar language does serve, however, to underline the fact that the personal characteristic of the Spirit is to proceed. Though mentioning (active) "spiration" as personal characteristic of Father and Son, (14) the Councils go out of their way through careful circumlocution to avoid any positive utilization of this notion. (15) (Passive) "spiration" seems nowhere to be used of the Spirit, any apparent ambiguity on this point in Florence (16) being removed by reference to the earlier and uncontested assertion in II Lyons. (17)  Hence procession must be the characteristic love that we seek.

Now, the theological difficulties attendant on the procession of the Spirit are notorious. Apart even from the dispute over the Filioque, there is the problem of distinguishing the procession of the Spirit from the generation of the Son. The words are different. But since each action has the Father as Source and terminates in a distinct Person who has the whole of the divine essence, giving the words a different content has not been easy, except for the fact of some type of mediation by the Son in the procession of the Spirit.

Closely connected to this problem are the questions concerning the logical order of the constitution of the Persons. Why, for example, must spiration take place "after" rather than "before" or even "along with" generation? (18)  Or, since the Unoriginated cannot be said, precisely inasmuch as He Father, to love the Spirit (or He could not give this power to the Son), is there any way to speak of a characteristic love of the Father for the Spirit or of the Son for the Spirit or of the Spirit for either?

More positive content for the conciliar statements and the further insight needed for dealing with the above difficulties would seem to be obtainable only from a return to the other revealed designations for, or names of, the Holy Spirit. 'Holy Spirit' must remain, in my judgment, the principal name for the Third Person. But there seems to be no reason not to supplement what we already know by quarrying further in what God has given us for our profit.

In this part, then, I shall try to show that there is another name for the Spirit, given in the Scriptures and known to the Fathers (though singularly little used by them for reasons we shall have to consider), that enables us to offer somewhat fuller answers to the questions mentioned.

What we need for our present purposes especially is: 

a) a designation that clearly relates to the Third Person;

b) that relates to His existence in the bosom of the Trinity (prior, that is, to His being sent);

c) that implies clearly His distinction from the Father and the Son by relations of origin in mutual opposition; 

d) that shows procession under an aspect other than those mentioned by the Councils; and

e) such that this aspect may rightly be seen as a characteristic love belonging to the Holy Spirit and that, by oppositional relation, points to a correlative love belonging to the Father and the Son, united as one principle.

The designation 'Holy Spirit' or simply 'Spirit' meets the first three requisites easily. For, the Spirit (To Pneuma, that is, the Breath) proceeds from (ekporeuetai, Jn.15:26) the Father. This procession constitutes a personal characteristic of the Spirit, founding a "relationis oppositio." For, whatever proceeds from or goes forth from is distinct by relational opposition from that from which it proceeds; and the Breath stands in relational opposition to the Breather.

The fourth requisite merely states what we are looking for, since the Councils use 'Holy Spirit' but no other name. As to the fifth, it is hard to see that one may speak usefully of loving one's own breath, still more if this is shared, e.g., as one breath from two nostrils, or as one breathing forth from the lungs through the nose, or even in artificial respiration, in a sort of crisscross, the breathing-out of one being the breathing-in of the other.

St. Paul makes clear, of course, that 'spirit' often means the intelligent, immaterial, 'but substantial principle of life, especially when speaking of the Holy Spirit (e.g., I Cor 2:11). If the spirit is not equivalent to the person, it is at least the principle by which he is a person. Now, one does love one's life, one's own soul (cf. I Sam 18:1 & 3 concerning Jonathan's love for David). So, this analogy might be helpful for active spiration. But how would it avail for procession? Does one's life love one? Or a person's soul love the person? Indeed, the going forth of the spirit suggests death, not life. (19)

1. Gregory of Nyssa: the Spirit Is Glory

In one of his minor works, St. Gregory of Nyssa argues briefly that the Spirit is called 'glory' by our Lord in His prayer to the Father at the Last Supper (in Jn. 17:5):

I think that He there [Jn.17.22] calls the Holy Spirit 'glory,' (that Spirit) which He gave to the disciples through His breathing on (them). For there is no other way for those who are divided from one another to be made one if not conjoined by the oneness of the Spirit ... [Rom 8:9]. But the Spirit is the glory, as He says elsewhere to the Father, 'Glorify me with the glory which I had from the beginning beside You before the world was'. For God the Logos, having before the world the glory of the Father, since in the last days He became flesh, it was necessary for the flesh, through compenetration by the Word, to become that which the Word is. (20) But this happens from the taking of that which before the world the Word had. But this was the Holy Spirit, for there was nothing else before the ages except Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (21)

Toward the end of the last of his great sermons on The Song of Songs, Gregory again remarks that the Spirit is called 'glory' by our Lord in Jn.17:5 & 22. (22)

But the bond of this oneness is 'the glory'. But that the Holy Spirit is called 'glory' no one would deny who reflects upon the Lord's own words, 'for the glory,' He says, 'which You gave to Me, I gave to them'  [Jn.17:22]. For, of a truth, the One saying to them 'Receive the Holy Spirit' gave to the disciples such glory. But He received this glory, which He always had before the world was, when He was clothed about by human nature. Once (this nature) had been glorified through the Spirit, the glory of the Spirit was distributed to all those of the same (nature), beginning with the disciples.

Now, in contrast to Gregory's undeveloped and somewhat casual interpretation of Jn.17:5, we find carefully, even elaborately wrought arguments in St. Hilary and St. Augustine for very different interpretations. Further, this same v 17:5 is simply unmentioned by Gregory in his major works on the Trinity, by St. Gregory of Nazianzen in his Theological Discourses, and by St. Basil in his Treatise on the Holy Spirit. 

Nor apart from two very minor allusions, to be mentioned below, does St. Augustine comment upon it in his de Trinitate. Leaving till later an attempt to understand such strange facts, here let us simply take our cue from the passages from Gregory of Nyssa cited above and examine the relevant portion of Jesus' prayer (Jn 17:1-5) in detail (that section omitted in this online version - Gerard)

2. The Glory that Jesus Desired

An obvious parallelism exists between the beginning of Jesus' prayer in Jn. 17:1-5 and the beginning of His discourse in in. 13:31-32. (23) In the latter, to judge from both its own content and its context, the glory in question arises from the Lord's suffering and death in their ordering to His resurrection and ascension. Through the preaching of the Church, the salvation He has wrought is made known to all the world, and this redounds to the glory of the Father, made known in the fullness of His love for men. But this passage refers as well, and principally, to the Father's seating Jesus beside Himself at His right hand on the throne of His glory (Mt. 25:31, with Rev 3:21), so that Jesus as King might bring all things to the Father --a  Johannine parallel to I Cor 15:24-28. Our question here is to what extent these understandings apply to 17:1-5.

The parallelism mentioned above is evident. In both passages, Jesus indicates the singular nature of the present moment, speaks of His being glorified in it in order that the Father be glorified, and then speaks of the Father glorifying Him in return. In both, the language, simple as it is, gains special solemnity and elevation by our Lord's extensive referring to Himself in the third person instead of the first. (24)

Yet despite these and other parallels between these passages (25) the differences are major:

a) In 13: 31-32, Jesus speaks of Himself only as the "Son of man"; in chap 17, only as "(Your) Son."

b) In chap 13, the Son of man has just now been glorified; in 17, the Son speaks of "the hour" that has come and requests that He be glorified as a result.

c) "God" glorifies the Son of man; the "Father" is to glorify His Son.

d) God is glorified in the Son of man; (26) in chap 17, the Son glorifies the Father.

e) In chap 13, glorification has just taken place or is to do so in the immediate future; in chap 17, Jesus' glorification lies in an indefinite future, not on earth. (27)

Even the solemnizing use of the third person instead of the first differs significantly in the two passages.

Jesus often, even habitually, spoke of Himself in the third person. In the majority of cases, He did so by speaking of Himself as "Son of Man," far the most common of the third-personal self-designations scattered throughout all the Gospels. In the Synoptics, though rarely, He also spoke of Himself as "Bridegroom" (Mk.2:19-20), "your Lord" (Mt.24:42), "the King" (Mt.25:34, 40), "Son (of God)" (Mk. 9:7; cf. also Mk.14: 61-62, Mt.26: 63-64), and, of particular interest here, "Christ" (Mt. 23:10 with the article, Mk. 9:41 without the article).

This use of third-personal designations, while giving His ordinary speech a characteristic objectivity and calm elevation of tone, serves two other purposes as well. In some places Jesus seems to speak this way for the discomfiture of His enemies, to assert things of Himself certain to make them bristle yet which they cannot accuse Him of saying of Himself unless they make manifest that they have fully understood what He has been saying to them. His references to Himself before Caiaphas are examples of this usage. In other places (or sometimes the same ones) He speaks in this way when saying things that He wishes to be matters of public record or things to be made part of the preaching of His followers. His calling Himself  "Son" in the baptismal formula of Mt.28:19 is an example.

For the most part these designations are separated from one another by references to Himself in the first person. When He does make use of this trait of style in extenso. He seems to wish to emphasize the solemn gravity of the message. So, with the account of His Second Coming (Mt. 24:27-31, 36-44) and the judgment of the nations (Mt.25:31-46). John reports the same usage, but in cases where its use in extenso seems based on the loftiness of the content rather than, as in the Synoptics, on its awesome fearfulness. (28)

In Jn.13: 31-32 at the beginning of the great discourse, Jesus refers to Himself not as "Me" or "I" but only as 'the Son of man," resumed five times by the third-personal pronoun. Similarly, in 17:1-3, He refers only to "your Son" and "the Son." Then, after four third-person pronominal forms referring to Himself, this usage reaches its climax in v 3, when He refers to Himself by name and title, "that they may know ... Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ." (29)

Yet how strikingly different is the effect in the opening vv of chap 17! Their singular power (again considering only this one feature of His manner of speech) comes from our Lord's using the second person to speak to the Father with the utmost of familiarity and tenderness while yet, in profound reverence before Him, referring to Himself in the third person. This contrast, to my knowledge, is found nowhere else in any of the Gospels.

The prayer begins simply yet solemnly, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify You" (17: 1). Verse 2 (concerning the Son's mission to make eternal life available to all flesh) and v 3 (specifying what eternal life is) both serve to make clear that the glorifying of which He speaks is indeed to be accomplished among men. The third-personal self- references indicate not only a content of sublime importance, as mentioned above, but also that what He is saying is, in one form or another, to be part of His disciples' future teaching.

Abruptly and with the emphasis provided by explicit use of the personal pronoun, Jesus returns to the first person: "I glorified You upon earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do." He has anticipated the morrow's sacrifice in the Eucharist just established (cf. the possible echoes in Jn.19:28, 30 of the accomplishment, completion, or fulfillment mentioned here). (30)  He has already glorified the Father upon earth; that task is, in principle, finished. He is now looking forward to His glorification at the right hand of the Father.

Jesus continues in the first person (v 5) with a peculiar intensity of longing. "And now, Father, do You glorify Me alongside Yourself (i.e., in your presence, beside and with Yourself with the glory which I had alongside You before the world was." He yearns to be with the Father; yet He expresses this indirectly. What He asks for directly is that the Father glorify Him along with Himself (the Father) with the glory that He (Jesus) had before the world began. No longer is it a matter of being glorified Himself that He may then glorify the Father; the glory He is homesick for belongs eternally to the Father also .

Whatever interpretation one may offer for the first clause of this verse, the remainder requires an interpretation that satisfactorily answers the question: "What glory did Jesus have with the Father before the world began?"

Though we shall see (not given in this online version - Gerard) that Hilary and Augustine both have difficulty in finding a satisfactory answer to this question, modern commentators, like most of those before them, expound the text as its stands and pass quietly by the theological problem thus presented. 

Brown says little on the point, but cites two translations he seems to regard as competent, pointing out that they "refer to pre-creation glory in the fellowship of the Father and the Son, and then asks, "Does this imply that the glory that Jesus has after his exaltation in the flesh will be the same as the glory he had before the incarnation?" This he leaves unanswered; but his unhappiness at the prospect of an affirmative answer would indicate that he sees the problem. (31) Barrett takes the verse in much the same sense but without hesitation: "para seauw", that is, by causing me to return to the position I enjoyed before the incarnation." (32)

Now, as Gregory of Nyssa argued, since the Son had this glory before creation and since all that He has comes from the Father, this glory of the Son proceeds eternally from the Father. But this glory cannot be the glory that is the divine nature itself, i.e., the common glory of all three Persons. For, this is not something that Jesus lacks as God nor that His humanity is capable of receiving, pace St. Hilary. (33)

Nor was it the lumen gloriae that He sought. For this stands in essentially the same relationship to His human nature as to ours. He was to be given the complete enjoyment of the lumen gloriae (if He did not already have it); (34) but so are we in our small measure. Yet we cannot make this part of His prayer our own. This glory that pre-exists the world is identifiable neither with the Father nor the Son, but is that by which the Father glorifies the Son along with Himself.

To paraphrase v 5 under Gregory's interpretation, I would suggest this: "And now, do You, Father, let Me be made glorious in my humanity alongside Yourself by the Holy Spirit, who is that Glory which I had with You eternally as Son before the world was." The making glorious of the humanity here relates to the Spirit's part in Jesus' enthronement and the Spirit's work in the world as He glorifies both Father and Son among men.

It is not hard to see the plausibility of Gregory's identification of this glory with the Holy Spirit. There is but the one glory, of the Father and the Son alike, as there is but the one Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father (15:26) but whom the Son had alongside the Father before creation. If this glory that the Son has eternally belongs to the divine nature, then His humanity cannot long for it or receive it. 

But if the glory is another divine Person, neither Father nor Son, then the humanity can be glorified with this Glory in whatever way it is intrinsically capable of being glorified while also the Son is glorified according to His divinity within the Godhead. Our problem will then be to discern something of this latter glorification. (35)

But if one accepts the identification of the Spirit with the glory that Jesus desired, the question remains, "What can possibly be meant by 'glory' in this context?" The most obvious meanings are already excluded. 'Glory' here cannot mean the intrinsic glory of the Godhead. Neither can it mean some merely created glory -- though this was Augustine's opinion, who drew "from the ancients" the definition: "Glory is someone's widespread and laudatory reputation" (36) and applied it in his commentary on Jn.17:1-5 both to the glory the blessed offer God in heaven and to the glory given Him in the present age.

St. Basil the Great, however, in an important passage suggests that the sort of laudatory glory favored by Augustine might indeed have an eternal and uncreated counterpart. Basil begins by noting:

The Spirit of Christ] alone worthily glorifies the Lord. For 'He will glorify Me,' He [Jesus] says, not as creation [does], but as 'the Spirit of truth,' dearly making the truth shine forth in Himself and, as Spirit of wisdom, revealing in His own majesty the Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. And as Paraclete, He expresses in Himself the goodness of the Paraclete who sent Him, and in His own dignity He manifests the grandeur of Him from whom He came forth. There exists, then, one glory which is natural, as light is the glory of the sun; another which is extrinsic, judiciously offered by deliberate choice to those thought worthy.

Basil indicates that the glory he is speaking of does not lie solely in the created world, not only by his negative reference to creation but by designating the Spirit's office as "another Paraclete" as an expression of the goodness of Christ and the grandeur of the Father in a manner that is interior or intrinsic to Himself.

Then, having distinguished clearly between intrinsic ("natural") and laudatory ("extrinsic") glory, he goes on to divide the latter into a "servile" glory, given by creation, and a "familial" one given by the Spirit.

This [laudatory glory] also is twofold. For, "a Son," [Malachy] says, "glorifies His Father, and a slave his Lord." Of these two, therefore, the servile glory is rendered by the creation; that glory which is, might I so speak, familial is brought to fullness by the Spirit." (37)

In view of the carefully designed parallelism of the third sentence, one might at first assume that, as the creation is the agent of the servile glory as it brings its praises before its Lord, so the Spirit would be the agent of familial glory, the Glorifier within the Godhead. (38) Such an interpretation, however, would destroy the initial assertion that it is the Son who glorifies His Father.

Rather, though creation 'renders' or 'proffers' the servile glory, the very different word ekplhroutai is used to say what is done by the Spirit. When the Son glorifies (doxazei) the Father, He does so in a familial manner, in contradistinction to all created activity; therefore, within the Trinity, by means of the Spirit. Thus, the role of the Spirit is that of Glory. The Son laudatorily glorifies the Father with a glory that is 'filled up,' 'fulfilled,' or even 'constituted' by the Spirit.

What Gregory, who was Basil's brother, did was to argue that it was of this glory that Jesus was speaking in His prayer; and Basil's explanation of Jn.16:13-14 (39) -- the Son glorifying the Father with the eternal Glory that is the Spirit -- may be seen as reciprocal to Gregory's interpretation of Jn.17:5.

3. Glory as Relational: Human Glory

But a question remains: can 'glory' be used relationally at all, in such manner that it could, in principle at least, be used of One of the three Persons without including the Others?

What does one man do who 'glorifies' another? What is human 'glory'? Unfortunately, in our day these words, like 'honor' and 'piety,' have undergone a great denaturing and fallen from use almost completely except in religious contexts. So, it will not be out of place to examine more carefully just what 'glory' and 'glorification' signify. 'Glory' may be defined as a superlative fame and renown for one's excellence, issuing from admiration and praise that are universal among those who know of and are competent to judge of this excellence -- that belongs to one "when all men speak well of you" (Lk.6:26). (40) Linguistically, this meaning is the most basic one, from which the others we shall discuss are derived.

If, then, one person is to glorify another, (i.e., to be the source of his: glory in the laudatory sense just defined) he must first perceive the intrinsic excellence and goodness of the other. This excellence is also oftentimes called 'glory' (I shall refer to it as 'intrinsic' or 'non-relational' glory). Evidently, one may 'glorify' someone with this glory also, by being the source of the excellence for which he is glorified in the laudatory sense. 

The images characteristic of this non-relational, substantive glory seem by preference related to external splendor, brilliance, and radiance. What is glorious manifests its excellence by its splendor. For, its goodness must be seen or perceived by the eye or the mind. The substantive glory of objects of great value, such as a gold, gems, or crowns, so long associated with kingship, make the association easy enough to understand.

The one who glorifies responds to this perceived excellence by exulting in it and declaring, to himself and to any and all who will listen, its goodness, and greatness. Glorification, then, results from a non-self-reflective impulse of appreciation and from an awareness of what is excellent as excellent, without any concern for oneself by way of comparison. One praises a good man for his perceived goodness alone. Yet by this praise, one becomes a better man oneself.

This exultation in the excellence perceived is expressed in English (but not in Greek) by another cognate: 'to glory in' the perceived excellence of another. (41) 'Glorying in' is the necessary paroxysm of the glorifier's love of goodness that brings into being the praise and fame that constitute this relational glory. To glorify someone, then, is exultantly to proclaim his excellence, precisely as his own, or joyfully to give credit and honor to him for his prowess or splendor, of action or of being.

If the same excellence is perceived in more than one person, so that it is not seen as unique to the one who is being glorified but as shared with others, then either it belongs to the one being glorified in a way not found in the others or else the glorifier will glory equally in this same excellence in each. But he will still glorify any one of these persons with a glory other than that of the others. For, one does not glorify someone's excellence but glorifies him for this excellence. (42)

Glorification requires that one man perceive the exalted excellence of another (his intrinsic or substantive glory) and esteem it and praise it as such. Hence, the one who glorifies must be capable of a true and sound judgment about this excellence, if the glory he offers is not to be vainglory. Conversely, one's praising of another's excellence is logically consequent upon the glorifier's being illumined and irradiated by the splendor that is the non-relational glory of the one being glorified. (43)

Glorification is formally such only when one's glorying-in 'comes forth,' i.e., ceases to be private and merely one's own so as to become public, i.e., fame. The glorifier praises to others, perhaps also to the one being glorified, the latter's intrinsic goodness and greatness. Glory is what results. Relational or laudatory glory, therefore, exists only in the act or process of glorification, even as does thought, which exists only in its activity.

Thus, laudatory glory is not like a gift, i.e., a thing, something substantive. So, when one speaks of 'giving (laudatory) glory'' to someone, it is not a handing over of something pre-existent or logically prior. "Giving glory to'' is either synonymous with 'glorifying' or signifies a permission to glorify others on the same grounds as oneself, to share in one's fame or in the excellence at its base (cf. Is 42:8; 48:11, "I will not give My glory to another.")

Obviously, glory can be reciprocal, i.e., the one glorified can glorify his glorifier while the latter is glorifying him. If the excellences in each are of the same kind, the glories given by each to the other could in principle also be the same.

To sum up, if one man glorifies another, 'glorify' means either that (i) the glorifier gives the person glorified a certain excellence that, insofar as manifest, makes him glorious and henceforth shines out from him; or that (ii) he perceives and truly appreciates the other's excellence, glories in it, and so proclaims it to himself and to others. The activity of glorification is intrinsic to the glorifier; the glory, however, is not, but proceeds from the glorifier, though subsisting in his activity as its connatural effect, especially insofar as conjoined to the glory given the same person by others. Glory, obviously, is also other than the one glorified, neither part of him nor in him.

Correspondingly, 'glory' refers either (a) to the manifestation of someone's intrinsic but splendidly manifest excellence; (b) to this excellence in itself; (c) to the state of affairs resulting from the enthusiastic appreciation and praise of his excellence by others. One notes that this appreciative or laudatory glory of someone exists only relationally, i.e., it does not exist as his possession or property but it subsists in the actions of others in a particular relation of praise to some excellence in him. 

This excellence itself is his glory in sense (b), a non-relational or substantive glory. His glory in sense (a) is the radiant shining forth or effulgence that manifests his proper excellence, called glorious because of this radiance.

4. Glory as Relational. Divine Glory

The same three notions of 'glory' recur in the Scriptures, along with the following, strictly religious enrichments:

(A) 'Glory' is an overwhelming brilliance and splendor, especially that which is the characteristic manifestation of the divine presence. (44)

(B) Often 'glory' is taken as the glorious being itself. Thus, the angels are called "glories" (Jd 8; II Pet 2:10). More frequently, "glory" refers directly to the LORD Himself, to God. 'Glory' in this latter sense is proper to the Godhead as such. Since proper to the divine essence, this glory is non-relational. Many passages in both OT and NT use this sense only. The same is true of liturgical usage.

(C) Thirdly, 'glory' as widespread renown among men of the LORD's excellence, is common in both Testaments. In the New, especially in John's Gospel, it refers, as St. Hilary and St. Augustine emphasize, to the acknowledgment of Jesus by all the world, angels as well as men, as Christ and LORD through His incarnation and, most especially, by His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension; hence, to creatures' consequent praise and adoration of the Father.

One sees, despite the difference of imagery involved, that glory in sense (C) results from the recognition and praise of the intrinsic glory of sense (B), perceived through the radiant glory of sense (A). Glory in senses (A) and (B) is, then, in some way, substantive, belonging to or being itself the glorious; whereas notion (C) involves a relationship with others who recognize and respond properly to the excellence that constitutes the glorious one as such. (45)

But radiant glory (sense (A)) is relational as well as substantive, since it shines forth from what is glorious and, so, is distinguished from the glorious by a relational opposition, as coming forth from it. This relationality of radiant glory is to be carefully distinguished from that belonging to laudatory glory (sense (C)). This latter is relational only. It proceeds not from something glorious but from those to whom the glorious has been made manifest. (46) This laudatory glory, then, subsists only in its going forth from the glorifiers.

In which of these meanings, then, may 'glory' be used correctly of the Holy Spirit as Person, immanent within the Godhead?

If one takes 'glory' as intrinsic or substantive, i.e., as the divine excellence itself, then glory cannot be restricted to any one Person but is a divine attribute belonging to all three Persons without possibility of distinction. This does not obviate, of course, the possibility of appropriating 'glory' to the Spirit, even as 'holiness' and 'love' are appropriated to Him.

If one takes 'glory' as radiant, i.e., as the uncreated effulgence of the intrinsic glory that is the divine essence, there does exist an an opposition of relations, i.e, a relation to the Glorious of what shines forth from it and an opposite relation to what shines forth on the part of the Glorious.

This is, indeed, a Person-constituting opposition. But evidently neither the Glorious nor its Effulgence could be the Spirit. (47) For these relations, as the Fathers never ceased to point out, are those spoken of by Hebr 1:3, between the Effulgence and the (intrinsic) glory from which it shines forth, i.e., between the Son and the Father. The Father is the Glorious One, whose intrinsic glory is manifested by its Effulgence which is the Son. For, the Father glorifies the Son, in this context, precisely by giving Him the Father's own excellence, so that the Son is the manifestation and Image of the intrinsic glory of the Father.

Now, I have suggested, apropos of Gregory of Nyssa's remarks, that the glory Christ asks for in Jn.17:5, is appreciative or laudatory glory of renown. What I am proposing is that this renown and appreciation are not restricted in 17:5 to the created order, as they are in v 4 and, perhaps, v 1 but, rather, that they refer exclusively to the uncreated. The Holy Spirit is the reciprocal, laudatory Glory of the Father and the Son.

If, then, one speaks of the Spirit as laudatory or appreciative Glory, i.e., as the uncreated praising of the two Persons by One Another, then, as seen above, a new set of opposing relations of origination is to be considered. For relational glory, in general, comes forth from one person, has another as object, and is identifiable with neither.

Translating, then, what has been said already into the language of glory, we see, firstly, that the Father 'glorifies' the Son in sense (i) (i.e., that He acts as the source of the Son's excellence) by giving Him the Father's own intrinsic glory, i.e., the divine essence. Secondly, the divine essence is manifested to the Father (i.e., as radiant glory, if sense (A) be extended to the uncreated order) as the Son's own excellence and to the Son as that which is the Father's. But how to translate properly the interrelations of Father, Son, and Spirit that are implicit in laudatory glorification (sense (ii) extended to the uncreated order) calls for some care.

5. The Holy Spirit as Glory of Father and Son

We assume two things: that the Glory that the Son had before creation is the Holy Spirit; and that this Glory is laudatory or appreciative in nature.

The Spirit is, on this interpretation, the Father's exultant praise of the Son in admiration of the Son's exalted excellence. The Father perceives fully the excellence of the Son as equal to His own; and His praise of the Son is the result of His appreciation of the Son's divinity, a praise offered by the only one competent to appreciate and good enough rightly to love such excellence. The Father then glories in His Son's excellence precisely as in Another's than the Father's. The resultant Glory subsists only in the act itself, as the Father's glorying expresses itself 'publicly,' not on the created order but still 'outside' the Father, that is, as proceeding from the Father.

Since the Glory is laudatory, for the Father to glorify the Son with Himself, Father and Son must both be already constituted, with purely logical priority, as Persons (though it is by the one mind and one will of the divine nature that the Father glorifies the Son.) (48) 

Secondly, the Unoriginated, already constituted as Father, duly appreciates what He has given to His Only Begotten and what the Son has perfectly received. This gift from the Father (the divine essence) is the Son's intrinsic glory. It is manifest to the Father as His radiant glory, as the perfect effulgence and image of the Father's own intrinsic glory. For the Son is the effulgence of the Father's glory by His receiving of the divine essence and is perfect image of the Father by His having the divine in essence as already received.

Now, if the Father is to glorify the Son appreciatively alongside Himself with the Spirit, then the Father must (first) glory in the excellence of the Son. He glories, then, in the Sonship of the Son, i.e., in the perfection of His likeness to the Father, a likeness of simple identity of essence, for there is no other Source or root of being than the Unoriginated. The Father, then, rejoices over and praises exultantly His Son, and this Glory proceeds from the Father as the very Breath of His life.

The words of our Lord in Jn.17:1, "Father, glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You," suggest a further aspect of this Glory that we must consider, that is, its reciprocity. A line from St. Hilary expresses these things well (though Hilary expressly and repeatedly refers it solely to man's glorifying of Christ and the Father): "All praise of the Father is from the Son, because in whatever things the Son is praised, this praise will be the Father's." (49) If we extend this to uncreated Glory, then, in all in which the Father glorifies the Son, this Glory will also be the Father's.

If we interpret Jesus' words to include but not be restricted to created glory, they would read, "Father, let the (laudatory) Glory proceed from You in praise of Your Son, so that (laudatory) Glory may proceed from Your Son in praise of You." Hence, "Let the Spirit proceed from You (and, also, be sent by You) in praise of Your Son, so that the Spirit may proceed from Your Son (and, also, be sent by Him) in praise of You."

In brief, the gift of the divine essence (by the Unoriginated to the Immediately Originated whereby they are constituted Father and Son) is the Father's intrinsic glorification of His Son. Its reception constitutes the essential and intrinsic glory of the Son. It is, then, something that They both glory in, though from different aspects.

For, the Unoriginated cannot laudatorily glorify the Son until the latter has received the divine essence from Him (until the Unoriginated is Father) since the perfect reception of the divine essence (imaging of the Father) is the intrinsic Personal perfection the Father praises. Hence, for the Son to glorify the Father, the Son must be able to praise that Personal excellence of the Father that constitutes Him Father, i.e., the utterly gratuitous giving of the divine essence to the Son.

Recalling the definitions of II Lyons and Florence, (50) we see that, since "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," the Glory proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is constituted Person by His going forth from the Father, as the Father glorifies His Son, and by His going forth from the Son -- on reception from the Father -- as the Son glorifies the Father.

In detail, the Father laudatorily glorifies the Son for the Son's intrinsic excellence, which is that He is the Immediately Originated recipient of the divine essence. But since the gift the Son has from the Father is that the Spirit, i.e., the Glory, proceeds from the Son also, we must say that the Son laudatorily glorifies the Father for the Father's intrinsic excellence, which is that He is is the Unoriginated Source of the divine essence. In Scriptural terms, the Son glorifies the Father even as the Father glorifies the Son, though the Son can glorify the Father only if the Father glorifies the Son first.

The Father glories in the excellence of the Son, who is intrinsically glorious, since He is the Father's perfect Image by the Father's gift; and the Son glories in the excellence of the Father, who is intrinsically glorious, simply of Himself. This glorying-in from which the Glory results is, then, the theologians' "power of spiration."

This reciprocal glorying brings about the Father's glorifying of the Son and the Son's glorifying of the Father. From both actions the Glory arises.

Yet since the Son must receive His power to glorify the Father from the Father, along with all else that belongs to the Son, the Spirit can in no way proceed from the Son except insofar as this proceeding from the Son is given by the Father.

The relations of glorification are of a different kind than those constituting Father and Son (i.e., those of giving and receiving the divine essence). The doubly-directed structure of reciprocal glorification of two Persons takes place in the presence of Another who is Their Glory. The Glory with which Father and Son glorify one another goes forth from Each toward the Other. The relations here involve two Persons already constituted, as well as the Third, to be constituted by His coming forth from Both as from one principle, from the First through the (non-free) mediation of the Second.

The relations of opposition between the Spirit and the Father-and-Son would seem to be these: In the Father's glorifying of the Son, the Glory is opposed to the Father, who is the One from whom the Glory proceeds. In the same act, the Glory is opposed to the Son as the object of glorification, just as any person appreciatively glorified is not his own glory; and the laudatory glory he has, is not he. The Glory is directed to His object, the Son, as that "about which" He comes to be.

So also, in the Son's glorifying of the Father, the Glory is opposed to the Son as the One from whom the Glory proceeds. And in this same act, the Glory is opposed to the Father as the object of the Son's act of glorifying, as the One 'about whom' the Glory comes forth from the Son.

Hence, one cannot argue that, because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and because the Son is begotten by the Father, the Spirit might antecede the Son or that They might come forth together. The order of origination of Son and Spirit is not indeterminate nor ambiguous. The antecedent love of the Unoriginated for the Immediately Originated (i.e., the giving of the divine essence) which constitutes Them Father and Son must be regarded as completed before (logically) one can speak of this reciprocal glorification which gives rise to the Spirit.

We can offer, then, a slightly more detailed response than usual to the ancient and difficult question: How does the procession of the Spirit from the Father differ from the generation of the Son? The Spirit comes forth from the Unoriginated not by generation, which is an intrinsic glorification, a gift to the Son of the Father's excellence, but by the reciprocal actions of laudatory glorification of the Son by the Father and the Son's logically indistinguishable glorification of the Father.

This response to the question rejoins in an unexpected way a traditional one based on the different modes of procession of Eve and of Seth from Adam, (51) though going considerably beyond it. Seth proceeded from Adam by natural generation, and thus is his son. But Eve came forth from his side, in a manner known only to God. One may now see that procession by way of glorification fits this well enough, since "woman is the glory of man" (I Cor. 11:7).

A better analogy can be developed from the patristic images of the Spirit as intelligible Light. (52) The Spirit shines forth from Each, being made to go forth from Both by the Father, in a way analogous to the way a single beam of light can be constituted by the reflection of light in a perfect mirror back upon its source. (53) 

The light proceeds from the source, yet comes forth from the mirror to irradiate the source. But both source and mirror are active principles in the emission of the one beam of light. There need be no difference in the quality of the light from the mirror, though this is not the original light but is made to come forth from the mirror by the latter. And no light can come from the mirror unless the light has already come to the mirror from the source.

6. The Numbering of Glories

If we are to maintain Gregory's identification of the Spirit with uncreated (laudatory) Glory, we must deal with a difficult y arising from the fact indicated earlier that laudatory glories are numbered primarily by the persons who are their objects rather than by the excellences that are their motives. For we cannot say that the Glory that has the Son as object is a numerically different Glory from that which has the Father as object; there are not two Holy Spirits.

At the most general level, we must consider what factors render glories multiple. What aspects of glorification, when themselves of a certain multiplicity, result in an equal multiplicity of glories? Then we must analyze the particular situation in which several persons are being glorified who have the same excellence, especially when the glorifiers of one of these persons are not those who glorify another, so that there would seem to be a distinct glory for each person who is the object of glorification.

Among men, when someone is being glorified, he has but one glory regardless of the number of those who glorify him. His glory will be greater if more people contribute to it; but he does not thereby have more glories. Even though laudatory glory subsists only in the act of glorification adequately considered, the "act of glorification" is a collective act, not ordinarily the act of each single person or supposit. 

An exception may occur if the one glorified possesses several distinct excellences for which distinct groups of people glorify him, so that each group has its own particular and valid reasons for glorifying him. Thus, one group might glorify St. Irenaeus as one of the Church's greatest theologians. Another, let us suppose quite different, group might glorify him for his death as martyr to Christ. Still another group might center their admiration and praise upon the charm and vigor of his literary style. So, he might be said to have three glories.

But more commonly, the different excellences are sufficiently interrelated glories by the simple fact of belonging to the same person that they coalesce into one, richer, and more complex glory: the glory of one man in whom all these excellences are found harmoniously together.

Yet such coalescence need not take place. There are some, for example, who glorify Michelangelo for the Sistine chapel who do not know him as the one to be glorified for the Medici tombs, and still others who do not know he is to be glorified for the greatness of his sonnets. What is pertinent for our inquiry in such an example is that it shows us that glory is not so strictly tied to its personal object as we might first have supposed.

Whether Michelangelo the painter be known to be the same as Michelangelo the poet or the sculptor, or not, the concrete fact that these are the same man does not determine the number of glories, but the awareness (or lack of awareness) of this sameness on the part of the glorifiers. Yet any glory given that does not spring from knowledge of the whole concrete multiplicity of excellences is an imperfect glory. Perfect glory is but one, arising only from perfect knowledge of the full excellence of the one being glorified.

Turning now to the problematic situation involving the glorification of several persons for a single excellence, we note first that the oneness of the excellence that leads to the glorification of several people is ordinarily a oneness according to conceptual class, where each person glorified is seen as possessing one concrete instance of a (logically) universal excellence. Such is the case, say, when one glorifies several men for their scientific genius or for their sanctity. Under these conditions, part of one's glorying involves the implicit recognition of the merely analogous likeness of the excellences one sees in each. Each of these saints or scientists is known as somehow unique and only in some abstractly definable way as "just like" some other.

Thus, the multiplication of glories according to the number of objects of glorification involves a recognition that one is really glorying in concretely different excellences, however hard it may be for our concepts to express the diversity.

What, then, of a situation where the excellence in two or more persons is identically the same, e.g., a singleness of authority, a unicity of operation, or oneness of being? St. Basil deals with this question in the extreme case of a glory given to an image; he asks if this glory is the same or other than the glory of the one whose image it is. His response is that there is no way rightly to see the glory given to the image as other than glory given the person.

Thus, if one kisses a crucifix or bows low before a statue of a saint, "the honor given the image passes through to the prototype" whose image it is. (54) Then arguing a fortiori, he says: "So, what the image is here by imitation, this the Son is there by nature. And just as among the results of art, the likeness is by form, so in the divine and uncomposite nature, the oneness lies in the [Persons'] sharing in divinity."  Any (laudatory) glory given to the perfect Image of the Father, precisely as His Image, is a glory that has the Father as object. (55) This suggests, in turn, that, though glory is multiplied numerically according to the number of persons glorified, this multiplication is not, strictly speaking, personal.

Applying all this to the Trinity, we see that the generation of the Son is describable in two ways: the Unoriginated gives the divine essence to the Immediately Originated; or the Immediately Originated receives the divine essence from the Unoriginated. But these statements are completely convertilble, in all ways equivalent to each other. Hence, the one excellence that is the reason for Their reciprocal glorying is the Father's begetting of the Son, which is identically the Son's being begotten of the Father.

Thus, if the Unoriginated, as constituted Father by this gift, glories in that perfect reception of the divine essence that constitutes the Immediately Originated as Son, by that fact He who is Son is glorying in the Father's perfect giving of the divine essence. Who is being glorified in this case is both Father and Son, the Father through His glorification of the Son, whose glorification is, in turn, that of the Father. The Glory that proceeds from the Glorifier of the Son cannot be even logically distinguished from the Glory that proceeds from the Glorifier of the Father.

Thus it would seem that the multiplication of laudatory glories according to the number of persons glorified is an accident of the human condition. For we, unlike the Lord, glorify someone for what he is or does, not for who he is. The concrete supposit in itself escapes our concepts and is beyond our ability truly to grasp. Our nearest approximations would lie in the glorifying of the saints -- yet we glorify them by recounting their deeds, not by declaring who each is. It is noteworthy in this regard that the Scriptures do the same with respect to God. 'Who' is indicated only by the divine Names; all else we learn of from His actions. Persons in themselves, whether created or divine, in their incommunicable core, escape our power to know.

7. The Spirit's Procession from the Father through the Son

It is clear now that the theory here proposed asserts what the Church has taught: that the Glory that is the Holy Spirit proceeds as from one principle. Yet, as Fathers and Councils agree, the procession of this Glory from the one principle takes place from the Father through the Son in virtue of the reciprocity of their mutual glorification.

For, as Basil indicated,  (56) the Son manifests the power of the Father by imaging it; therefore, by the Son's imaging the Father's power to breathe forth the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the Glory of both Father and Son. Glory proceeds from Both, as from one principle; that is, the Son is, in oneness with the Father, source of the Spirit's being, though the Son is such only by the Father's gift. 

The Son's power to glorify the Father comes in its entirety from the Father-- since there exists no difference between them except as to giving or receiving the divine essence. Yet, because the Personal differences lie in the order of origination, Glory proceeds from the Father through the Son, since the Son is the necessary object of the Father's glorifying, without which there could be no Glory.

It is to be noted that the Father does not give the Glory Itself to the Son. (57) What the Son has from the Father as the Father's gift is that the Glory come forth from the Son, that the Son be Immediate Origin, not Ultimate Origin, of the Holy Spirit. The Son glorifies the Father, then, by the Father's gift -- the gift that (laudatory) Glory proceed from the Son. On the other hand, the Father glorifies the Son without needing any gift to Himself that this (laudatory) Glory proceed from Him.

Obviously, one may not treat the divine essence and the procession of the Holy Spirit as additive parts making up a single gift of the Unoriginated to the Immediately Originated. (58) The procession of the Spirit is not part of, the gift but all of it, described in a language proper to the Persons, a language that necessarily refers to the operations of the Persons in consequent manner (the Persons must be constituted before one can speak solely of Them) rather, than in the antecedent manner called for when speaking of their constitutions through reference to the divine essence.

For He who is Unoriginated is sole Ultimate Source. As Source, He has two operations, two immanent actions. The Unoriginated is Father by giving His own essence to the Immediately Originated, (who is Son by receiving the Father's essence.) The other, really distinct operation of the Unoriginated, already constituted as Father, is to glorify the Immediately Originated, already constituted as Son.

For, the procession of the Spirit, as such, does not make Him who is Father to be Father and could not take place unless He is already Father with a Son to glorify, through whose Glory He is reciprocally and simultaneously glorified. Father and Son are already constituted by the antecedent giving and receiving of the divine essence. Consequently, they glory in Each Other. And the breathing forth of this Glory -- not the Glory Itself -- is the consequent designation of the Father's gift to the Son. (59)

From a different perspective, laudatory glorification in God is what theologians have called active spiration and is reciprocal in the manner described, so that the relational opposition that exists here has an internal structure. Spirit is the Glory of both Father and Son, the "result" of Their act of spiration (as the Son is the "result" of the Father's act of generation). Thus, generation implies the intrinsic glorification of the Son by the gift to Him of active spiration (of the act by which He laudatorily glorifies the Father, even as the Father laudatorily glorifies Him) and the Immediately Originated is begotten by receiving it.

The Unoriginated's breathing forth of the Spirit does not make the Unoriginated to be Father; but His giving of this same operation to the Immediately Originated does. It is the giving of the power of spiration that makes Him who is Father to be Father. This giving, therefore, cannot be communicated to Another. But the gift that is given, which is the power of spiration itself, can be and is communicated to Him who is Son.

The gift that the Spirit proceed from the Son is the whole of the Father's gift to the Son. The Father's gift that the Glory proceed is not really distinct from the antecedent gift of the divine essence to the Son, who antecedently receives the proceeding of the Glory so as to be Son. Only from a divine Person already constituted can divine Glory, as another divine Person, proceed. So also, the Father's glorifying of the Son is the procession of the Spirit from the Father.

If the power of spiration does not make the Unoriginated to be Father, then, conversely, it cannot make the Immediately Originated to be Son. But its reception does. The Son's reception of the Spirit's proceeding (His being Image and doing what He sees the Father doing, i.e., breathing forth the Spirit) is not really distinct from the antecedent reception of the divine essence from the Father. The Spirit's proceeding from the Son is the Son's glorifying of the Father.

Note that the Spirit does not Himself glorify either Father or Son. He is the Glory with which They are glorified, not Glorifier. There are, however, many passages in the Fathers and in the Scriptures that speak of the Spirit's glorifying the Son. But these seem all (even such as Jn.16:14) to refer to the Spirit's activity on the created order. (60)

As seen above, glory among men proceeds from the one who glorifies. It is complete insofar as the glorifier has drawn, by his praises of the one glorified, all those who are competent to see the same excellence and to join in glorifying him to whom it belongs. So in God, the Spirit proceeds from the Father as the Glory with which He glorifies His Son. This Glory is complete; the Son, hearing this praise, sees the same intrinsic excellence and glorifies the Father to whom it belongs. As the Glory with which Father and Son glorify one another, i.e., precisely as reciprocal in the manner already discussed, the Glory is complete and, so, is not a Source, direct or indirect, of another Person.

The Holy Spirit, then, is wholly the Spirit of the Father and wholly the Spirit of the Son, subsisting as their reciprocal Glory. Though proceeding from Them, the Glory has no further terminus beyond Them. As the Spirit of the Father, It terminates in the Son; as Spirit of the Son, It terminates in the Father. Thus there is no other Person "beyond" the Spirit. No further real relation is possible. There is no further origination of another Person. Being the Glory of Father and Son completes the processions.

It would be a serious mistake, however, to take this completion of the processions in the Godhead as a sort of closed self-centering in God. For, the Glory is sent into the world to be the principle by which both Father and Son are glorified. This created glory, the Spirit's "reflection" on the created order, is not complete till all creatures have been drawn to join the Father and the Son in their glorifying of Each Other by the Spirit. It is, then, eminently suitable, even necessary, to attribute to the Spirit all actions in the created order by which Father is glorified by the Son or the Son by the Father.

8. The Rest of Jesus' Prayer

It would be tedious to go through every passage that speaks of God's glory in the New Testament to ascertain which sense of glory is to be found in each. Yet it seems appropriate to look briefly at the rest of Jn.17. Evidently, v 10, "All My things are Yours and all Your things are Mine and I have been glorified in them," can play its traditional role concerning the procession of the Spirit. (61) 

This can be interpreted in our context as, "I have received from You all that is Yours, including Your act of glorifying Me. But this act, now being Mine, glorifies You; and the Glory is from Us both, from You as sole Origin through Me." On any interpretation, v 10 serves to highlight the complete reciprocity of the glorifying that is spiration, while keeping clear the primacy of the Father's action.

"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one," (v 22) is the verse for whose analysis Gregory of Nyssa pointed out the identity of the Spirit with the Glory. What is to be noted here is that, though v 22 is twice the occasion for his making this identification, the identification itself is made each time in virtue of v 5. In Gregory's mind, v 22 is clearly not concerned with a giving to the Logos in the Godhead but to the Spirit's being given to Jesus in the incarnation. (62)

What, then, of: "that they may behold My glory which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the creation of the world" (Jn.17:24), which also speaks of the Son's glory as "given"?

The comma inserted above in this portion of the verse (63)  seeks to resolve an ambiguity that cannot be removed definitively. As suggested by its proximity to v 22 and similarity of phrasing, this would be interpreted as Gregory interpreted v 22: of a beholding of the Holy Spirit in His greatest work of power, uniting all believers into one in Christ and through Him to the Father. 

Or since, as it stands, the emphasis is on the reason for the giving, i.e., because of the eternal love the Father has had for Jesus, this glory given could be taken as that of His resurrection and His subsequent glory in all the earth. If so, the verse would be interpreted much as St. Augustine interpreted all references to glory in chapter 17. (64) But then the possible connections with v 5 would be too tenuous for such an interpretation either to support or to weaken Gregory's identification.

With an additional, gramatically awkward comma, however, after the second 'Me,' the giving itself would have taken place before creation. This would directly contradict at least one aspect of my theory if Jesus were referring to a giving of the Glory that is the Spirit. (65)

But given this comma, it seems to me that Jesus would here be referring to His intrinsic glory, i.e., to His divinity as such, indeed given Him before creation, by which He is Son. For there would then be no suggestion of the Spirit's being in mind at all. Jesus' use of the possessive, 'My glory,' seems out of harmony with His usual way of speaking of the Spirit to the Father. Nowhere else, at least, is there a suggestion that anyone "beholds" the Spirit (unless one would choose to take His descent in the form of a dove or in the tongues of fire as such). But a beholding of Jesus Himself in glory is mentioned often enough (cf. at the transfiguration, at the ascension, in Stephen's vision, the many scenes in Apocalypse).

9. The Characteristic Loves of the Spirit

At last we are in a position to consider the question that has prompted this long discussion: How does the Spirit love (characteristically) the Father and the Son; and They, the Spirit.

The characteristic loves of Father and Son for the Spirit and of the Spirit for Them, since these loves are really distinct from the loves of gift and acceptance between Father and Son, are simply identical with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son as from one principle and, conversely, Their breathing Him forth. These loves are characteristic and proper; the only problem is to see how they may rightly be called 'love' at all. For, if the Spirit is the Glory by which Father and Son glorify One Another -- and is Himself neither Glorifier nor Glorified -- how can His procession be understood as love for Them?

Firstly, we note that the reciprocal glorification of the Son by the Father and of the Father by the Son has the structure of a manifestation of mutual love. For example, the Father's glorying in the Son's intrinsic excellence is itself a kind of love, now not antecedent to the Son's being begotten but consequent upon it.

For, the Father's glorying in His Son manifests perfect appreciation and contemplative love of the Son's excellence as Son, as one wholly like His Father and infinitely grateful for the gift. But this glorying-in is not merely a love of  joy or fruition but actively wills not merely the continuation of the Son's excellence and the Father's enjoyment of it but issues in glorification, "making public" this excellence so that it is not enjoyed by the Father alone.

Since such manifestation is itself a good and is willed for the Son, this glorification is a love of the Father for Him. Like the Father's antecedent love for the Son, this love contains an implicit reference to the divine love that is the divine essence itself. Yet this consequent love is not identical with the antecedent one -- for the generation of the Son is really distinct from the proceeding of the Holy Spirit. Similar things may be said, mutatis mutandis, about the Son's glorification of the Father.

On the other hand, these consequent loves still retain the relational opposition as to origin found in the antecedent ones. But this relational opposition appears only as the structure of Their common act of spiration, in which They remain distinct as Persons though one as principle of the Spirit. Their consequent loves belong, as such, to the procession of Their Glory, in which They act as one, and not to the first procession (of generation) by which they are constituted as distinct from Each Other.

Yet, though they act as one in spiration of the Holy Spirit by their mutual glorification of One Another, they remain always Father and Son and, therefore, distinct. The consequent loves, then, of Father and Son are those that constitute the Father and the Son as but one principle of glorification while yet remaining two distinct Persons. These reciprocal loves have their being only in the procession of the Glory. The mutual willing of the Glory to Each Other is identically the love of the Father and Son for the Spirit.

The Father and the Son love the Spirit since, loving Each Other, Each wills the Glory of the Other. Hence, They love not only Each Other. Each loves the one Glory, not as His own but as the Other's. To say 'love' here implies that Father and Son will some good to the Spirit even as, conversely, the Spirit wills the corresponding good of communion to Them. But the Father and the Son do will that there be a Glory with which to glorify Each the Other, i.e., They will the Spirit's co-existence with Themselves -- a good greater than which there is no other.

The Spirit's love of Father and Son is, conversely, His (non-free) willing to eternally come-to-be in that structure of origination and oppositional relation that "defines" Him. The Spirit wills to be defined only by Their reciprocal and consequent glorification of Each Other. He wills to be, but only as Others' Glory. His being, as Person, is to be Glory for Others. He wills for them that good which is Their Glory.

From a different point of view, the Spirit's procession is precisely that in which, even as distinct Persons, Father and Son are wholly one and without distinction inasmuch as acting as the common principle of the Spirit's proceeding. This oneness of the Two in relation to the Spirit, as little as we may understand it, is in some way the unspeakable good of communion of Persons not only by oneness of essence but by inter-Personal activity.



The theological development of the "actus notionales" or, in particular, of the "amores notionales," old as it is, seems not to have gone much beyond the analyses necessary to validate such designations as "paternal Love" or "filial Love" -- and rarely, indeed, this far. Here I have tried to show how each of these loves has its characteristic and proper quality as love given by the order of origination in the Godhead.

These characteristic loves are based on the non-psychological structures set forth by the Councils, and not on psychological analogies -- though these come into play when showing that a given inter-Personal act deserves the name 'love.' The advantage of this procedure is that it enables one to speak about loves between the Persons that are not indistinguishably common to Them all. Thus, one can do justice to what is legitimate in the "communitarian" understandings of the Trinity without having to abandon the Church's tradition concerning the Persons or to resort, as do Muhlen and many others today, to considering God as mutable, suffering, etc.

There seemed to be, however, no sufficient information offered by the Councils for establishing the characteristic love of the Holy Spirit for the Father and the Son, or conversely. This led to a search for and, indeed, the finding of another, much neglected, proper name for the Holy Spirit, given in the Scriptures and reasonably referred immanently to the third Person by St. Gregory of Nyssa, albeit only in passing, and by St. Basil.

This name of the Spirit is Glory, not the intrinsic glory that is the divine essence nor the radiant glory that is the Effulgence of the Father, but that uncreated yet laudatory Glory that results from the Father's glorification of the Son and the Son's reciprocal and wholly dependent glorification of the Father. This identification of the Spirit with Glory was validated theologically by showing that there is but one Glory and that It comes forth from both Father and Son, though differently from each, proceeding from the Father through the Son.

The first fruit of all this, when analyzed in terms of the characteristic loves, was to offer some clue as to how the Spirit's procession from the Father differs from that of the Son: as glorification differs from generation. Secondly, since active spiration is mutual glorification, it necessarily depends on both Father and Son; yet the monarchia is intact, since the Son's activity is intrinsically and totally dependent on the Father's. There is only the one Principle in the Godhead, yet the Son is more than a mere conduit for the Spirit's coming forth.

All this may seem a bit rash in view of the centuries of sometimes bitter dispute concerning the procession of the Spirit. Yet St. Gregory Nazianzen, the Theologian, told his people that, nearly three centuries after the death of the last apostle, the Holy Spirit was just beginning to give a clearer vision of Himself, as He enlightened men bit by bit, with partial additions and advances, since knowledge of His divinity earlier would have burdened men excessively. (86) 

But Gregory's death did not end the Self-revelation of the Spirit. Is it not possible that the "burden" of disagreement about His procession may now be lightened by His action, though on the basis of what was long ago written down but only gradually understood? I hope, then, that this chapter's development -- from a distinctively Greek understanding of the passage in Jn. 17,1-5 as referring to the Holy Spirit -- may be of help towards the resolution of the doctrinal aspects of the problem of the Filioque.

Thirdly, it was possible to show how all the relations in the Godhead, including those between Father and Son, can be stated in this language of glorification. This not only can clarify a seemingly endless jumble of different notions of glory in Scripture and the Fathers but offers a new perspective even on the better known relationship between Father and Son.

More importantly for the effort to gain deeper insight into created charity, we were able to see how the Spirit's coming forth from Father and from Son does indeed represent a structure of love that is recognizable as such. The Spirit's characteristic love for Father and Son is His willing their common and greatest good: that the Son have perfect Glory from the Father and that the Father, in turn, have perfect Glory from the Son. 

They, likewise, love the Spirit, each willing the Glory of the Other as belonging to the Other. Thus the relations of origin become intuitively visible as the uncreated model upon which created charity may he formed. Our conscious loves must be modeled directly, of course, on the Son's as they exist in His human nature. We would be more than a little rash, I think, to seek to form our conscious loves directly 6n the Trinity's in any way other than that shown in Jesus. 

But it is Jesus Himself who insists that we love one another as He has loved us and who adds that He loves us as the Father has loved Him, and this not simply on the created order. Having sought to unfold a small aspect of that mystery of love which transcends all the 'loves' the world designates as such, our task is now to understand bow the untreated charity is mediated to us through the one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.


1 - One thinks here of Heribert Muhlen's earlier work in which he describes the Holy Spirit as subsistent We-Relation coming forth from the Father as subsistent I-Relation and the Son as subsistent You-Relation (Der heilige Geist als Person, 2nd ed., Munster: Aschendorff [19661; or of Edmund Fortman's arguments for 'Friend' as Personal name for the Holy Spirit, in parallel with 'Father' and 'Son,' on the basis of a phrase of Augustine's and some development by Albert the Great (Activities of the Holy Spirit, Chicago: Franciscan Herald [1984], pp 175-183).

2 - The Scriptures offer us many images of the lesser mystery that is the Church. Often in seeming conflict, all are needed to describe her. Yet, they are not simultaneously applicable without generating objectively unfounded but still, for us, insuperable contradictions. Cf. II Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, ##3-9. For the way in which such seemingly incompatible diversities are to be dealt with by the theologian, cf. Henri de Lubac, 'How Is the Church a Mystery?', in 7he Church: Paradox and Mystery, tr. J. R. Dunne, Staten Island: Alba House (1969), pp 13-29, originally published as Paradoxe et mystere de 1'eglise, Paris: Aubier (1967). A fortiori, we may expect greater diversity of imagery concerning the mystery that underlies all others, the Trinity.

3 - Cf. R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to Jobn (xiii-xxi), (AB 29A: Garden City [NY]: Doubleday, 1970) 632.

4 - This term is awkward, and 'personal property' would be easier. But the latter has become a consecrated term for use solely of the relations of Paternity, Filiation, etc. What we are principally concerbed with here, however, are what St. Thomas calls the actus notionales, e.g., generation or procession.

5 - Evidently, to speak of the Persons' characteristics as love, it is necessary always to assume, at least implicitly, a reference to the particular Person's willing of this characteristic. For generation, say, to be love, it must be an act that, whatever its logical structure, is willed or assented to by the One who generates. This guarantees, then, reference to the one will of the Three and their common love. Something similar is done by St. Thomas (in ST I, 45, 6 c) when he remarks: '[P]rocessiones Personarum sunt rationes productionis creaturarum, inquantum includunt essentialia attributa, quae sunt scientia et voluntas."

6 - ST I, 31, 2 ad 4.

7 - ST I, 38, 2c

8 - "The divine essence is the gift which the Father gives to the Son," St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, 38, 1, obj. 2, where he refers this doctrine back to St. Hilary's statement: "Major utique donam est, sed minor jam non est, cui unum esse donatur." Hilary's entire chapter, however, is concerned with this discussion of the gift and the giving of the glory of the Father to the Son, a glory we shall speak of later as "intrinsic glory." Thus, Hilary goes on to say: 'Si autem in ea gloria donatur ei esse qua Pater est, habes et in donantis auctoritate quia major est, et in donati confessions quia unum sunt. Major itaque Pater Filio est. Et plane major, cui tantum donat esse, quantum ipse est." Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi, De Trinitate 9, 54. Ed. P. Smulders (CCL 62A), p 433 (PL 10, 325). So also, in de Synodis (PL 10, 520C): "Omnibus creatures substantiam Dei voluntas attulit; sed naturam Fdio dedit ex impassibili ac non nata substantia perfecta nativitas."

9 -  This double 'object' manifests the character of the act as love. Cf. e.g., St. Thomas' remark: "An act of love is always directed to two things, namely, to the good which one wills for someone and to him for whom one wills the good.... And to this extent, love is said to be a unitive force even in God.... For that good which He wills for Himself is not other than Himself, who is good by His own essence."  ST I, 20, 1 ad 3.

10 -  IV Lateran (DS 805) 

11 - I would now wish to alter what I wrote in The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality, pp 62-63, concerning the Trinity, where I used "gift" and its cognates of the Persons indiscriminately. A better statement, I think, can be found in Joseph A. Bracken, What Are They Saying About the Trinity?, New York: Paulist (1979), p 17. As he indicates on p 22, however, there are some serious weaknesses even in his formulation.

12 - "[Q]uod ... Patres dicunt, ex Patre per Filum procedere Spiritum Sanctum, ad hanc intelligentiam tendit, ut per hoc significetur Filium quoque esse secundum Graecos quidem causa, secundun Latinos vero principium subsistentiae Spiritus Sancti sicut et Patrem" (DS 1301). This is to be taken, of course, in conjunction with DS 1300; cf. infra note 16.

13 - "Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter ex Patri et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit" (II Lyons, DS 850).

14 - Cf. II Lyons, ibid.

15 - E.g., "Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternaliter est, et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio" (DS 1300). Or again, "Et quoniam omnia, quae Patris sunt, Pater ipse unigenito Fflio suo gignendo dedit, praeter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Fillio, ipse Filius a Patre aetemaliter habet, a quo etiam aeternaliter genitus est" (DS 1301). And again, "Spiritus Sanctus quidquid est aut habet, habet a Patre simul et Filio" (DS 133 1).

16 - "[E]x utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit" (Florence, DS 1300).

17 - Cf. note 13.

18 - Cf. the theory of Francois-Xavier Durrwell, (Holy Spirit of God - an essay in biblical theology, tr. Sr. B. Davies, OSU, London: Geoffrey Chapman [1986], pp 140-148) where he seems to attempt to justify this last position, insisting that "The entire activity of the Father is to beget the Son.... He [the Spirit] must therefore be this begetting... He is the begetting' (pp 140-141).

19 - Thus Jesus "delivered up the spirit" (Jn.19:30) and "He sent forth the spirit (Mt.27:50). In the other Gospels, the less expressive 'ex-spired" is used, but with the same association.

20 - There is an interesting parallel to this sentence in St. Hilary: "The Son, now made flesh, was praying that the flesh might begin to be to the Father what the Word (is); so that that which was temporal might receive the glory of that brightness which is apart from time, so that the corruption of the flesh might be absorbed into the power of God and transformed by the incorruption of the Spirit." But this is followed by examples that seemingly tie it entirely to the created order. Cf. De Trinitate 3, 16, p 88.

21 - Opera Dogmatica Minora, II, 'In Illud Tunc et lpse Filius,' ed. J. K. Downing, (GN 3/2, 1987), pp 21-22 (PG 44, 1320D)

22 - In Cantica Canticorum, ed. Hermann Langerbeck, Oratio XV, (GN 6, 1960), p 467.

23 - This parallelism takes on special importance in St. Hilary's treatment of our passage.

24 - Between 13:32 and 17:1 there is only one instance of this stylistic trait (a fleeting reference to the Son in 14:13), a trait we shall look at in more detail below.

25 - Cf., e.g., Brown, John, 745.

26 - This peculiar locution occurs nowhere else in this Gospel; cf. Brown, John, 606. Of itself, it would seem a common hebraism, better translated as 'by.' Yet it seems to be a sign that the glorification spoken of is at the created level; cf. what is said below (pp 38, 57-59) about Augustine's notion of the glorification of the Father and Jesus among men. (N.B. This refers to pages not online in this version - Gerard)

27 - Many other passages, e.g., in. 12:23, make clear that such differences cannot be pressed independently of context; our purpose here is only to avoid neglect of differences and unjustifiable conflation.

28 - Note especially the long passage Jn.5:19-23, 25-29. The reference throughout is to "the Son," except for once explicitating that He is "the Son of God," and one comment that He is also "Son of man."

29 - One may wonder if it is not the influence of this unforgettable sentence that led St. Paul and early Christians generally to call our Lord "Jesus Christ" by preference, rather than "Jesus, the Christ," which would seem the expression of greatest utility in preaching, especially to their fellow Jews. In any case, in the light of Jesus' typical manner of self-reference, this naming of Himself, though extraordinary, is not out of character or implausible, given the extraordinary nature of this whole prayer, despite the opinion of some that this line must be a later insertion, e.g. Brown, John, 741. Cf., however, C. K, Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Westminster (1978), 503-504.

30 - Cf. Barrett, Gospel,  553.

31 - Brown, John, 742-743. In his more general comments, he is quite explicit: "[Tlhe glory that Jesus requests is identified with the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world existed" 753.

32 - "Barrett, Gospel, 504. The glory in question is, for Barrett, not the Holy Spirit (pp 500-501) but what I shall call Christ's "intrinsic glory," as is clear from his comment on v 17:24, "This means the glory of Christ within the Godhead, his glory as God" (514). Brown states that there is no reference in chap 17 to the Holy Spirit (John, 741). Yet, though his remarks referred to above (743) suggest that he also takes the pre-creation glory as "intrinsic glory," it seems that all his comments explicitly concerned with 17:5 could be also interpreted in accord with the identification of the Spirit as the Glory.

33 - Cf. pp 56-57 below. This seems to be Barrett's error also - cf. note 32.

34 - Cf. DS 36,45

35 - Confirmation of the identification of the Spirit with glory can, I think, be found in a number of NT passages e.g., Rom. 3:23; 6:4 with 8:11; Eph.1:14; Rev.11:11. But the theologically helpful results of this identification seem to me more likely to open one to conviction than too quick a rehearsal of scriptural passages taken in a new or forgotten interpretation. In any case, I am concerned here only to make plausible Gregory of Nyssa's suggestion, not to try to nail it down irrefutably.

36 - "[F]requens de aliquo fama cum laude," In Johannis, Tract. 105, p 605.

37 - Here Quay gives the full Greek text of St. Basil, which I omit. Basile de Caesaree, Traite du Saint-Esprit, (SC 17, ed. B. Pruche, Paris: editions du Cerf, 1946), c 18, 46, pp 195-196.

38 - So Pruche seems to understand the passage in his translation, ibid.

39 - The context, it is true, mixes together both created and uncreated glories, but does so only in the effort to show the uncreated nature of "the Spirit of Christ."

40 -  Since among men such glory may be to greater or lesser degree hollow, as is implied in this remark of our Lord's, no corresponding excellence being truly present, there is a parallel usage that implies this hollow fame, especially where it has been sought or promoted by the person being praised. The fuller term is 'vainglory', i.e., vana gloria, empty glory. This pejorative usage we shall not need to consider further.

41 - One glories only in someone's excellence, but not in him.

42 - Some qualifications to this paragraph will be needed. Cf. pp 49 below.

43 - The element or aspect of praise in glorifying is necessary to distinguish it from a simple manifestation of goodness, which could be made to others without any of the personal involvement required for praise and glory.

44 - Cf. the comment of Brown (John 29A, 751): "['G]lory' has two aspects: it is a visible manifestation of majesty through acts of power."

45 - Durrwell would seem to argue, as do others, that the Spirit is to be named Glory on the basis of many passages in the OT as well as in the NT. But it is not easy to see most of these passages as referring to the relational Glory that the Spirit is.

46 - Evidently, as based on an appreciated excellence of another, this relational glory can also be said to 'come forth' from the appreciated excellence itself, inasmuch as this acts as occasion for the former. Such a usage is unsuitable here since it would have (relational) glory 'coming forth' from that which is not its active source.

47 - There is no serious problem in speaking of the Spirit as (radiant) glory on the created order; indeed, there is much to commend it.

48 - Evidently the language of Persons must be used in all speaking of laudatory Glory, since this is definable only in terms of the Persons' actions as Persons, i.e., in terms of the order of origination.

49 - de Trinitste 3, 15, p 86.

50 - Cf. note 13 above for II Lyons and notes 12 & 16 for Florence

51 - Cf. St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio (31) Theologica 5, 11 (SC 250, pp 294-296; PG 36, 144D-145B). The same thought is developed in a work attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, "Quid Sit Ad Imaginem Dei," PG 44, 1329C-1332A. St. Thomas' harsh verdict on this may be found in ST I, 93, 6, ad 2.

52 - Cf., e.g., Basfil, Saint-Espirit, 'Introduction' by B. Pruche, pp 64-77, and text, esp. chap 26, 64, pp 230-231.

53 - Basil, Saint-Esprit, 193-4, with note 3 on 193 concerning the choice of reading.

54 - Saint-Esprit, 194-195.

55 - Or to use again (our etension of) Hilary's language: "In whatever things the Son is praise, this praise will be the Father's"-cf. above, note 49 & text.

56 - Saint-Esprit 230-231. Cf. also note 54 above & text.

57 - "[T]his very thing -- that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son -- the Son Himself has eternally from the Father, by whom also He is eternally generated' (DS 1301). Cf. pp 52-53 below for further discussion of this statement.

58 - Cf. Bernard Lonergan, de Deo Trino, II, Pars Systmetica, 2nd ed., Rome: Gregorian U.P. (1964), p 131.

59 - According to Florence (cf. second citation in note 19), "all things" which belong to the Father have been given. Yet the Council distinguishes between the proceeding of the Spirit the Son has eternally from the Father, from His also being eternally generated. "[H]oc ipsum... habet" is distinguished from and set in parallel to "a quo ... genitus est," as though indicating Son is not constituted by 'hoc ipsum ... habet" but, as Son, has it. If one did not advert to for both antecedent and consequent language when speaking of the Persons as such, this could suggest, incorrectly, a double teminus of operation in the Son: reception of the divine essence (genitus est) and having the Holy Spirit's proceeding (habet). This "aetemaliter habet" looks like a reminiscence of Jn.17:5.

60 - On the other hand, the attention of a writer may focus on something else; and "glory" and its cognates may be used without regard for the various distinctions the same writer makes at other times. Thus, in a long and difficult passage ('Adversus Macedonianos de Spiritu Sancto' in Opera Dogmatica Minora, I, ed. Frederick Mueller, [GN 3/1; Leiden: Brill, 1958], pp 108-109 [PG 45, 1327D-1329B]), Gregory of Nyssa seems to argue that the Spirit's power to glorify shows that the Spirit Himself is glory of one nature with the Father and the Son, since one cannot glorify without sharing in glory oneself. Gregory seems here to speak of each Person's glory -- whether intrinsic or extrinsic is in each instance hard to tell -- as that which makes Him glorious and therefore "glorifies" Him. He also seems here to use "glorify" as equivalent to "is the glory of." Though alien to our usage here, neither sense is an abuse of language. But the passage contains such a diverslty of meanings as to require a protracted study, even to establish the direct sense of the passage as whole.

61 - Cf. Bemard Lonergan, de Deo Trino, I, Pars Dogmatica, 2nd ed., Rome: Gregoriati U.P. (1964), pp 230-236.

62 -  Cf. the two citations on pp 33-34 above.

63 - Cf. The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, et al, 3rd ed., United Bible Societies, ad loc. along with the corresponding punctuation apparatus.

64 - Cf. pp 57-60 below.

65 - One could say simply that the Lord is not speaking here in our theological terms and that he is not distinguishing, as we did above, between "giving the Spirit" and "giving the breathing forth of the Spirit," between giving the Glory Itself to the Son and the gift that the Glory proceed from Him. Yet the patristic method of mining this prayer of Jesus' for trinitarian doctrine would, I think, find such an argument a mere evasion.

86 - St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oratio (31) Theologica 5,  26-27 (SC 250, pp 326-330)

For the full unique and wonderful exploration of Paul Quay's The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God, you can order it here from Amazon. It isn't "cheap" but, believe me, it is well worth its price. And the wait may not be long; but, regardless, any waiting, too, is worth it! It is a GREAT book. You may wish, too, to read a fine review of this truly remarkable work by Fr. Addison Hart.


Limited Availability at Amazon

MHAG.jpg (5000 bytes)

return to Filioque Page