Part, Question
1 1, 3 | themselves should be subsisting "supposita." ~Therefore "suppositum"
2 1, 31 | term, plurality of ~the "supposita," and a unity of some kind
3 1, 31 | unity of nature; as the "supposita" ~of a nature are said to
4 1, 31 | that the nature is in its "supposita."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[31] A[
5 1, 31 | imports a distinction in the "supposita" of which it is ~spoken.
6 1, 31 | there would be three ~"supposita" of the Trinity; as when
7 1, 31 | follows ~that there are three "supposita" of the Godhead.~Aquin.:
8 1, 36 | Son, but only order of 'supposita'; and hence we say that
9 1, 36 | property being in two ~"supposita" that possess one common
10 1, 36 | But if we consider the ~"supposita" of the spiration, then
11 1, 36 | of the ~distinction of "supposita," as also there are two
12 1, 36 | of the plurality of the "supposita" but not two ~spirators
13 1, 36 | their number from the "supposita" but substantives from themselves, ~
14 1, 39 | them they ~distinguish the "supposita"; and yet the essence is
15 1, 39 | are called "subjects," "supposita," or ~"hypostases." So the
16 1, 39 | divine persons are named "supposita" or ~"hypostases," but not
17 1, 39 | adjectives depends upon their ~"supposita." In creatures, one form
18 1, 39 | does not exist in several "supposita" ~except by unity of order,
19 1, 39 | forasmuch as in the three "supposita" of human nature there are
20 1, 39 | reason ~of the plurality of "supposita." For we say there are three "
21 1, 39 | reason of the plurality of "supposita" the Greeks said "three ~
22 1, 39 | to be found in ~several "supposita." So it need not always
23 1, 39 | exists distinction in the "supposita."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[
24 1, 39 | because actions ~belong to "supposita." So "nature from nature,"
25 1, 39 | Godhead is one in several "supposita," it agrees ~in a certain
26 1, 39 | verified of ~any one of the "supposita" of the divine nature. For
27 1, 39 | although to ~say of any of the "supposita" of the divine nature, "
28 1, 40 | are not designated as ~"supposita," but as forms of "supposita."
29 1, 40 | supposita," but as forms of "supposita." And so their mode of ~
30 1, 40 | carry with them their own "supposita," ~inasmuch as they are
31 1, 39 | them they ~distinguish the "supposita"; and yet the essence is
32 1, 39 | are called "subjects," "supposita," or ~"hypostases." So the
33 1, 39 | divine persons are named "supposita" or ~"hypostases," but not
34 1, 39 | adjectives depends upon their ~"supposita." In creatures, one form
35 1, 39 | does not exist in several "supposita" ~except by unity of order,
36 1, 39 | forasmuch as in the three "supposita" of human nature there are
37 1, 39 | reason ~of the plurality of "supposita." For we say there are three "
38 1, 39 | reason of the plurality of "supposita" the Greeks said "three ~
39 1, 39 | to be found in ~several "supposita." So it need not always
40 1, 39 | exists distinction in the "supposita."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[
41 1, 39 | because actions ~belong to "supposita." So "nature from nature,"
42 1, 39 | Godhead is one in several "supposita," it agrees ~in a certain
43 1, 39 | verified of ~any one of the "supposita" of the divine nature. For
44 1, 39 | although to ~say of any of the "supposita" of the divine nature, "
45 1, 40 | are not designated as ~"supposita," but as forms of "supposita."
46 1, 40 | supposita," but as forms of "supposita." And so their mode of ~
47 1, 40 | carry with them their own "supposita," ~inasmuch as they are
48 3, 2 | two ~hypostases, or two supposita, or that the union did not
49 3, 2 | maintained two hypostases, or two supposita, saying that a man, composed ~
50 3, 2 | maintain two hypostases or supposita in Christ is the ~same as
51 3, 3 | be predicated of several supposita, but nothing prevents several ~
52 3, 3 | multiplied by ~distinct supposita. ~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[3] A[
53 3, 3 | several men ~have distinct supposita, whereas in this case there
54 3, 3 | by the multiplication of ~supposita. But in the mystery of the
55 3, 3 | without ~distinction of supposita.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[3] A[7]
56 3, 3 | unless ~there are several supposita. For a man who has on two
57 3, 4 | are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, ~it may fittingly
58 3, 4 | the Word of God in all its supposita.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[4] A[5]
59 3, 4 | human nature in all its ~supposita.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[4] A[5]
60 3, 4 | assumed by God in all its supposita. ~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[4] A[
61 3, 4 | by the ~Word in all its supposita. First, because the multitude
62 3, 4 | because the multitude of supposita of ~human nature, which
63 3, 4 | would belong to all its ~supposita.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[4] A[5]
64 3, 4 | human nature in ~all its supposita.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[4] A[5]
65 3, 16 | fall those who suppose two supposita or ~hypostases in Christ,
66 3, 16 | assert that there are two ~supposita in Christ [*Cf. Q[2], AA[
67 3, 16 | as those who assert two supposita in ~Christ, this man might
68 3, 16 | certain ~conjunction of supposita, or of personal dignity,
69 3, 17 | 2/2~Now some placed two supposita in Christ, and one Person,
70 3, 17 | Hence, since they placed two supposita in Christ, they said ~that
71 3, 17 | does not stand for two supposita, ~but for two words signifying
72 3, 20 | person, since "acts belong to supposita and to ~singulars," according
73 3, 20 | this implies a plurality of supposita, which is required in ~order
74 3, 20 | and not by a diversity of supposita.~
75 3, 23 | or two hypostases or two ~supposita in Christ, no reason prevents
76 Suppl, 72| to particular persons ~[supposita]. Hence, were we to say: "
|