The Angelic Doctor Against the Errors of the Greeks - Part Two - Epilogue

Most holy Father, these are the points which at your command I have excerpted from the texts of the Greek Doctors, both to be clarified and to be cited in confirmation of the true faith. Scattered, however, among the aforementioned authorities are a number of inappropriate interpretations, as when the translator renders “logos” almost always as “sermo mentalis” (mental discourse),  whereas, in conformity with the Latin usage, it should have been more appropriately rendered:verbum” (word).And “hypostasis” he translates as “essential person”,  and following this interpretation he is forced at times to use unfortunate phrases as when he says: “Deus Trinipostatos” (God-tri-postatic), that is, tri-personal by essence.  Now it is absolutely wrong to say God is triune by essence. It would have been enough to render “hypostasis” as “person”; for we so use the term person in the profession of faith where the Greeks use the term hypostasis, as Augustine says,  even though the manner of signifying of each term is not identical.

He also introduces certain praises of the holy Fathers which raise them above the level of mere men; he calls some of them “fathers of the faith”,  something exclusive to Christ alone, from whom according to the Apostle in Hebrews 2:3 faith takes its origin. Others, however, may be called teachers or expositors of the faith, but not its fathers.

He also cites at the beginning of this book certain texts of Holy Scripture which of themselves do not expressly prove the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, such as: the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters (Gen. 1:2);  or: I am the God of Abraham, etc. (Exodus 3:6). 

He also uses certain turns of phrase which he finds in texts of the holy Fathers, which, as noted above,  are in the statements of the Fathers to be interpreted reverently rather than be cited by others; for instance that there is in God a first, second, third;  a cause and a caused. 

In his own explanations  as well he uses words improperly and inappropriately, as when he says that the Son has a kind of twin property, subalternated so to speak in terms of predication. He is first to the Father as subject to predicate and then to the Holy Spirit as predicate to subject, which is absolutely mistaken.

He likewise says that, in Greek, image means the same as second entity, an absolutely inept phrase. He also says that the word image does not imply origin, which contradicts what Augustine says in the book on the 83 questions. 

There are perhaps other points in the aforesaid book which either could be considered doubtful and would need clarification, or which could be useful in affirming the faith. But almost all of them can be reduced, I believe, to the points set forth above.