Gregory Nazianzen (Nazianzus) and the monarchy of God

Towards the end of July, I received an email from a reader of this blog that precipitated an in depth investigation into the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (the external works of the Trinity are indivisible.)

This axiom/rule had never been a focus of my theological studies, but the very mention of if brought back to mind something Augustine wrote near the beginning of his book, De Trinitate  (On the Trinity); note the following:

…the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. (On the Trintiy, 1.7 – NPNF 3.20; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)

…the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably. (The Trinity, 1.7 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)

[Latin: Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur]

And:

…the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works (On the Trintiy, 1.8 – NPNF 3.21; trans. Arthur West Haddan, revised and annotated by W.G. T. Shedd)

…the Trinity works inseparably in everything that God works The Trinity, 1.8 – The Works of Saint Augustine I/5, p. 70; trans. Edmund Hill)

[Latin: inseparabiliter operari trinitatem in omni re quam deus operatur]

The connection between the above Augustine quotes and the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa is obvious. With that said, subsequent online research revealed something to me that I had been unaware of—this axiom/rule was quite influential in the formulation of the Latin/Western understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. During that research one particular book came to my attention, Adonis Vidu’s The Same God Who Works All Things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology (Google preview).

I finished reading the book a few days ago. It was not an easy read for me given the fact that my previous knowledge of the doctrinal axiom/rule termed, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa was limited. I can now say with confidence that this is no longer the case; Vidu’s book—along with the reading of a number of the works referenced therein—has greatly enhanced my knowledge of the axiom/rule.

Now, with that said, though I certainly appreciated Vidu’s in depth contribution, the book is not without flaws, and it is one of those flaws that will constitute the primary focus of this post—Gregory Nazianzen’s teachings on the monarchy of God.

From Vidu’s book we read:

Arguing against the personalistic trend epitomized by Zizioulas, Chrysostom Koutloumousianos demonstrates that neither the Cappadocians, nor John Damascene, Maximus the Confessor, nor any other Eastern Father, sets the person of the Father himself as primordial in relation to the divine essence. There is no monarchy of the Father, but rather a monarchy that is shared by all the persons in virtue of their sharing the one divine essence. (Page 98 – bold emphasis mine.)

Vidu, apparently relying on Koutloumousianos, makes an all too familiar mistake concerning Gregory’s thoughts on the monarchy of God—i.e. that Gregory has only ONE interpretation concerning what the monarchy of God means.

A number of patristic scholars have exposed this mistake, but for now, I shall limit this post to one—John Zizioulas. Note the following lengthy selection:

This brings us to the question of divine monarchia. What meaning did it have for the Fathers and for the Cappadocians, in particular? Did it relate to the Father or to all three persons? Let us try to answer this question with particular reference to the evidence of Gregory Nazianzen, who seems to be trusted more by the critics of the Cappadocians.

Monarchia means one arche. The idea was first employed to indicate that there is only one rule in God, amounting to one will, one power, and so on.[56] Soon, however, the concept had to be employed ontologically, as it applied not only to the Economy but to God in his eternal life. In such a case, it was inevitable for the question to arise as to its precise meaning for the being of God. The Cappadocian Fathers witness to this development by specifying what arche means with reference to God.

Basil clearly understands arche in the ontological sense of the beginning of being. As such, arche is attached exclusively to the Father. He writes: the names Father and Son 'spoken of in themselves indicate nothing but the relation (schesis) between the two'. 'For Father is the one who has given the beginning of being (arche ton einai) to the others... Son is the one who has had the beginning of his being (arche tou einai) by birth from the other'.[57]

Gregory Nazianzen seems to use the term monarchia in the early sense of one rule, will and power. As such, he refers it to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet he is not unaware of the ontological meaning which he expresses with the term monas. This he refers not to all three persons but to the Father. Let us consider carefully the following passage which is crucial for our subject.

There are three opinions (δόξαι) about God, anarchy, polyarchy and monarchy. The first two were played by the children of the Greeks, and let them continue to be so. For anarchy is something without order; and the rule of many is factions, and thus anarchical and thus disorderly. For both these things lead to the same thing, namely disorder; and thus to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution. But monarchia is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a monarchia that is not limited to one person, for it is possible for unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is constituted by equality of nature, and agreement of opinion, and identity of motion, and a convergence (or concurrence) of its elements to one[58] ...so that though numerically distinct there is no division of ousia.[59]

So far, monarchia seems to refer to all Persons and not to any one of the Trinity. Yet we should note that Gregory uses monarchia in the sense of one will and concord of mind, that is, in the old moral or functional sense of the term, to which we referred earlier: monarchy is contrasted with anarchy and polyarchy, and the accent falls on order as opposed to disorder, and on common will, and so on. The ontological sense of monarchia comes with the text that immediately follows the one just quoted:

For this reason, the One (μονάς) having moved from the beginning (from all eternity) to a Dyad, stopped (or rested) in Triad. And this is for us the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The one as the Begetter and the Emitter (προβολεύς), without passion of course and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner, of whom the others are one of them the begotten and the other the emission.

In this passage, the subject is transferred to the ontological level; it is now a question not of a moral unity in which disorder and anarchy are excluded but of how the three Persons relate to one another in terms of ontological origination. The crucial point here is the word monas: to what does it refer? Does it refer to something common to the three Persons out of which the Trinity emerged? Or to the person of the Father?

If the monas referred to something other than the Father, that is to ousia or something common to the three persons, we would have to exegete the text in the following way: 'The one ousia (monas) moved to a Dyad and finally stopped at the Triad'. This would mean that from the one ousia came first the two persons together (a dyad) to which a third one was added finally to make the Trinity. Unless we are talking about the Filioque such an interpretation would look absurd. If we wish to have the Trinity simultaneously emerging from the ousia, which is what I suppose those who refer the monas to ousia would prefer, the text would forbid that, for it would have to read as follows: 'The one ousia (monas) moved (not to a dyad first but simultaneously) to a triad'.

The text clearly refers the One (μονὰς) to the Father, for it explains itself immediately by saying: 'the one (moved) as the Begetter (γεννήτωρ) and Emitter (προβολεύς), of whom the others are the one begotten and the other the emission (τῶν δέ, τό μέν γέννημα, τό δέ προβολεύς)'. Furthermore, in continuing his thought, Gregory explains all this by saying that the reason why he would insist on what he just said is that he wants to exclude any understanding of the Trinity as a derivation from an a-personal something, like an overflowing bowl (an explicit reference to Plato), lest the emergence of the Son and the Spirit be conceived of as 'involuntary', his intention being to 'speak of the unbegotten and the begotten and that which proceeds from the Father'.

In conclusion, when Gregory uses monarchia in the moral sense of unity of mind, will, and so on, he refers it to the three persons taken together (how could it be otherwise?). But when he refers to how the Trinity emerged ontologically, he identifies the monas with the Father. (Zizioulas, John D.,  Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 131-134 – Amazon link.)

Notes:

56. Thus in Justin, Dial. 1; Tatian, Or. ad Gr. 14; etc.; see above, n. 20.

57. Basil, C. Eun. 2.22. Note again the language employed by Basil: the Father gives the Son not ousia but einai, 'being'; there is a difference between these two terms: person is being, but does not denote ousia', ousia and being are not identical. See the implications of this above.

58. This is the rather inadequate rendition given of this sentence in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 301. A translation and commentary more adequate and more interesting for our subject is given by J. Mason, The Five Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, 1899, p. 75: 'This complete harmony of mind and will in the Godhead is itself based upon the concurrence of the other Blessed Persons with that One of their number from Whom they are derived, viz. the Father'. In this case, the monarchy is ultimately referred to the Father. Exegetically, the meaning depends on how we render the word 'one' (ἓν) and the 'from it' (τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ): do these refer to the One from whom the others derive, i.e., the Father, or to the elements that make up the unity of nature, motion, etc.? The sentence that immediately follows would support the first option. My argument, however, is unaffected in either case, as can immediately be seen.

59. Gregory Naz., Theol. Or. 3.2. [This is the 3^rd ‘theological oration’ and has the title ‘On the Son’; it is also numbered as #29 among the 45 extant orations of Gregory N.]

In ending this opening post, I would like to submit that an objective reading of Gregory Naziansen’s writings reveals he submitted TWO interpretations, not ONE, concerning the monarchy of God—the most important being the monarchy of God the Father.

Grace and peace,

David

The Monarchy of God the Father and the Trinity - selections from Eastern Orthodox scholars/theologians

Over the past few years, I have provided a number of selections from Eastern Orthodox scholars/theologians concerning 'the monarchy of God the Father' and the doctrine of the Trinity. In this post I expand some of the excerpts, and add a few more.

Boris Bobrinskoy (The Mystery of the Trinity, 1999) -

The paternity of the Father is unique, ineffable, perfect, not only the mystery of the relation between the Father and the Son, but also the archetypal foundation of all human fatherhood, source of the perfect grace coming from on high, from the Father of lights (Jm 1:17): "For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (Page 262).

Following the Cappadocians, the patristic tradition differentiates in the mystery of the Father between His "absolute," negative property of being ungenerated, and His "relative" and positive property of Paternity.

The proprium of the Hypostasis of the Father is to be "without cause," without "beginning." These negative terms carry all the weight of the Uniqueness of the Father, who is the only one not to receive His origin in the divinity from another Hypostasis. But these terms do not suffice, and the concept of "Ungenerated" specifies still more the unique character of that One who does not have origin.

"The Father is uncaused (anaitios) and ungenerated (agennētos); He is not from another, but He has being from Himself [i.e. autotheos]; and whatsoever He has, He does not have from another." [3]

3. St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, I.8, PG 94:821D. (Page 263)

...the Father is not only "uncaused" and "ungenerated," but he is the "cause," the "principle" (archē) not only of the being of creatures, but also of the trinitarian Hypostases of the Son and of the Spirit. (Page 264)

St. Gregory Nazianzen said, "I want to call the Father greater (than the Son); this expression "greater" refers to cause, not to essence, because to those who are like essence (tōn homoousiōn) there is no greater or less in the point of essence.) [5]

5. Oratio XL., In sanctum baptisma, 43, PG 36:419BC. (Page 264)

Causality, then, belongs properly to the Father. This is the fundamental principle of the "monarchy". (Page 265)

The Monarchy of the Father proclaims, by necessity, the nontemporal origin of the Son and the Spirit. (Page 265)

The Father is the sole cause of the Godhead... (Page 266)

Thus, the oneness of God is placed not only on the level of the nature common to the Three, but on the basis of the personal relation or origin from the Father. (Page 266)

Vladmir Lossky (Orthodox Theology, Eng. trans. 1978, 2nd ed.) -

The term "monarch" for the Father is current in the great theologians of the fourth century. It means that the very source of divinity is personal. The Father is divinity, but precisely because he is the Father, He confers it in its fullness on the two other persons. The latter take their origin from the Father, μόνη ἄρχή, single principle, whence the term "monarchy," the divinity-source," as Dionysius the Areopagite says of the Father. It is from this indeed that springs—this that is rooted—the identical, unshared, but differently communicated divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Page 46)

John Meyendorff (Byzantine Theology, 2nd ed, 1983) -

The same personalistic emphasis appears in the Greek Fathers' insistence on the "monarchy" of the Father. Contrary to the concept which prevailed in the post-Augustinian West and in Latin Scholasticism, Greek theology attributes the origin of hypostatic "subsistence" to the hypostasis of the Father—not to the common essence. The Father is the "cause" (aitia) and the "principle" (archē) of the divine nature, which is in the Son and in the Spirit. What is even more striking is the fact that this "monarchy" of the Father is constantly used by the Cappadocian Fathers against those who accuse them of "tritheism": "God is on," writes Basil, "because the Father is one." (Page 183)

John Zizioulas (Being As Communion, 1985) -  

Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological "principal" or "cause" of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the "cause" both of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. (Pages 40, 41)

John Behr -

So how can Christians believe in and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet claim that there is only one God, not three? How can one reconcile monotheism with trinitarian faith?

My comments here follow the structure of revelation as presented in Scripture and reflected upon by the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, the age of trinitarian debates. To avoid the confusion into which explanations often fall, it is necessary to distinguish between: the one God; the one substance common to Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and the one-ness or unity of these Three.

The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world “God” (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures. This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: I believe in one God, the Father…

“For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:6).

The proclamation of the divinity of Jesus Christ is made no so much by describing Him as “God” (theos used, in Greek, without an article is as a predicate, and so can be used of creatures; cf. John 10:34-35), but by recognizing Him as “Lord” (Kyrios).

Beside being a common title (“sir”), this word had come to be used, in speech, for the unpronounceable, divine, name of God Hiself, YHWH. When Paul states that God bestowed upon the crucified and risen Christ the

“name above every name” (Phil 2:9),

this is an affirmation that this one is all that YHWH Himself is, without being YHWH. This is again affirmed in the creeds.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God… true God of true God.”

According to the Nicene creed, the Son is

“consubstantial with the Father.”

St Athanasius, the Father who did more than anyone else to forge Nicene orthodoxy, indicated that

“what is said of the Father is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father” (On the Synods, 49).

It is important to note how respectful such theology is of the total otherness of God in comparison with creation: such doctrines are regulative of our theological language, not a reduction of God to a being alongside other beings. It is also important to note the essential asymmetry of the relation between the Father and the Son: the Son derives from the Father; He is, as the Nicene creed put it, “of the essence of the Father” – they do not both derive from one common source. This is what is usually referred to as the Monarchy of the Father.

St Athanasius also began to apply the same argument used for defending the divinity of the Son, to a defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit: just as the Son Himself must be fully divine if He is to save us, for only God can save, so also must Holy Spirit be divine if He is to give life to those who lie in death. Again there is an asymmetry, one which also goes back to Scripture: we receive the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead as the Spirit of Christ, one which enables us to call on God as “Abba.” Though we receive the Spirit through Christ, the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, yet this already implies the existence of the Son, and therefore that the Spirit proceeds from the Father already in relation to the Son (see especially St Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius: That there are not Three Gods).

So there is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit, three “persons” (hypostases) who are the same or one in essence (ousia); three persons equally God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really distinct, known by their personal characteristics. Besides being one in essence, these three persons also exist in total one-ness or unity.

There are three characteristics ways in which this unity is described by the Greek Fathers. The first is in terms of communion:

“The unity [of the three] lies in the communion of the Godhead”

as St Basil the Great puts it (On the Holy Spirit 45). The emphasis here on communion acts as a safeguard against any tendency to see the three persons as simply different manifestations of the one nature; if they were simply different modes in which the one God appears, then such an act of communion would not be possible. The similar way of expressing the divine unity is in terms of “coinherence” (perichoresis): the Father, Son and Holy Spirit indwell in one another, totally transparent and interpenetrated by the other two. This idea clearly stems from Christ’s words in the Gospel of John:

“I am in the Father and the Father in me” (14:11).

Having the Father dwelling in Him in this way, Christ reveals to us the Father, He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15).

The third way in which the total unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is manifest is in their unity of work or activity. Unlike three human beings who, at best, can only cooperate, the activity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one. God works, according to the image of St Irenaeus, with His two Hands, the Son and the Spirit.

More importantly,

“the work of God,” according to St Irenaeus, “is the fashioning of man” into the image and likeness of God (Against the Heretics 5.15.2),

a work which embraces, inseparably, both creation and salvation, for it is only realized in and by the crucified and risen One: the will of the Father is effected by the Son in the Spirit.

Such, then, is how the Greek Fathers, following Scripture, maintained that there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God. (From the online article, The Trinity: Scripture and the Greek Fathers - link - bold emphasis added)

Thomas Hopko -

... in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the Liturgy, it’s very important, really critically important, to note and to affirm and to remember that the one God in whom we believe, strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The one God is God the Father. In the Bible, the one God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is God who sends his only-begotten Son into the world, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God, that the Holy Spirit, being the Spirit of God, is therefore also the Spirit of Christ, the Messiah, because the Christ is the Son of God, upon whom God the Father sends and affirms his Holy Spirit. (From the online transcript of the podcast, The Holy Trinity - link)

Grace and peace,

David

"The monarchy of the Father as the most fundamental issue of Trinitarian theology" - an insightful assessment of Thomas F. Torrance's and John Zizioulas' contributions on the Trinity

Dr. Thomas F. Torrance and Dr./Fr. John Zizioulas are two of the most important Trinitarian theologians of the late 20th and early 21st centuries (a period recognized by many as one which has seen a significant increase of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity). I have read a number of the works produced by both men; and came to realize, quite early, that though there are some common elements in their Trinitarian thought, there are also some very important differences.

A couple of days ago, I came across an excellent article/paper by Nikolaos Asproulis in the online journal, Participatio (link), which focuses on one of those differences—the monarchy of God the Father. The following is the abstract of Asproulis' contribution:

The disagreements between T. F. Torrance (1913-2007) and John Zizioulas (1931-) regarding the reading of the patristic (especially Cappadocian) doctrine of the monarchy of the Father bear implications for fundamental issues of theological method which require careful study. In the present article, questions regarding the transcendent and immanent Trinity, historical revelation as a starting point of Christian theology and the interpretation of the Cappadocian Fathers will be discussed in connection with a critical comparison of the way these two eminent theologians, who belong to different traditions (Torrance, Reformed; Zizioulas, Eastern Orthodox), interpret the monarchy of the Father as the most fundamental issue of Trinitarian theology. (Page 162.)

As noted in the above abstract, "the reading of the patristic (especially Cappadocian) doctrine of the monarchy of the Father bear implications for fundamental issues of theological method which require careful study" [I would certainly add Athanasius to the Cappadocians.] Asproulis goes on to demonstrate that Torrance's patristic interpretations bear some significant differences from those of Zizioulas, especially concerning the monarchy of God the Father. [Interestingly enough, Keith W. Goad's readings, as found in is doctoral dissertation, Trinitarian Grammars, are quite similar to those of Torrance—who he cites a number of times—for a link to the dissertation, and some of my musings, see THIS THREAD.]

Torrance places a heavy emphasis on the being/substance/essence (Gr. ousia) of God; and as Asproulis points out, he has a, "preoccupation with the term homoousian"(p. 164). But, Zizioulas' focus is quite different; note the following from Asproulis:

Since the beginning of his career Zizioulas has focused on the importance of the concept of personhood both as a conceptual tool for the conceptualization of the doctrine of the Trinity and as the very soteriological reality of Christian faith, the fulfillment of theosis. As he puts it, “the concept of person with its absolute and ontological content was born historically from the endeavor of the Church to give ontological expression to its faith in the Triune God.” (Page 166.)

A bit later in the article, we read:

Torrance is known for his robust critique of the “Cappadocian settlement,” which identified the monarchy exclusively with the person of the Father and introduces causal relations within the Holy Trinity: the Cappadocians “sought to preserve the oneness of God by insisting that God the Father, who is himself without generation or origination, is the one Principle or Origin and Cause of the Son and the Spirit.” (Page 172.)

This is followed by:

According to Torrance, the introduction of such a hierarchical and subordinationist structure, following from the priority of the person of the Father as the “cause” of the Godhead and the one principle of Trinitarian unity, constitutes the main thrust of the Cappadocian teaching. (Ibid.)

Torrance's rejection of the “Cappadocian settlement”—in contrast to Zizioulas' emphatic acceptance—establishes the wide difference between their respective understandings of the monarchy of God.

Personally, I side with Zizioulas on this "most fundamental issue of Trinitarian theology", and would be interested in hearing from others as to which side they take.

Grace and peace,

David

A comprehensive Eastern Orthodox site

I have been studying the early Church Fathers (I use the term "early" for the CFs who wrote between the end of the first century and the end of fifth century) for over three decades now. In addition to trying to understand what those CFs taught within the framework of the period in which they wrote, I have also attempted to understand how their writings relate to the developed theologies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions.

Earlier today, I discovered a comprehensive Eastern Orthodox site that is nothing short of a 'goldmine' of valuable information on Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church Fathers and numerous other topics:

ORTHODOX OUTLET for DOGMATIC INQUIRIES

I was led to this site via the following page concerning the Cappadocian fathers:

The contribution of the Cappadocian  fathers

The above page is part of the "Lessons on Christian Dogmatics" (link) series, which is:

... the notes that were taken from the lectures of Professor I. Zizioulas (current Metropolitan of Pergamus and Chairman of the Athens Academy) at the Poemantic Division of the Thessaloniki University’s School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985.

They are published with the blessing and the permission of the reverend Metropolitan.

Given my in depth work on the of the Monarchy of God the Father, I found the following from above "Cappadocian fathers" page to be of particular interest:

The third element that the Cappadocian Fathers contributed was that they not only “endowed” a complete hypostasis to each of the three persons, they in fact attributed the cause of God’s existence to the person of the Father. In other words, they attributed the beginning of God’s existence to the person of the Father – to a person.  

In view of the fact that they introduced these new elements (note: in the terminology, not in the dogma), the Cappadocian Fathers utilized images and analogies when referring to the Holy Trinity, which always had the characteristic of comprising complete beings.

In the 1^st Ecumenical Council, with the theology of Saint Athanasius it was stressed very much that the Son is born of the nature -or of the essence- of the Father. That could have been misconstrued as an extension of the Father’s essence, and not as a birth of a complete and independent entity. If we have three extensions of God’s essence, then we are dangerously close to Savellianism [i,e, Sabellianism/Patripassianism/modalism].  That is why such a huge reaction against the “homoousion” had been raised, by those who were concerned that the “homoousion” -as defined in Nice- might contain in it the danger of Savellianism.

Savellius viewed God as a unit that extended itself; a unit that expanded and took on these three separate roles, and that in the end, this group would again contract unto itself, and become once again the original one unit. He saw God as a being that extended itself and acquired three “offshoots” which had the same essence.

The Cappadocians wanted to eliminate this interpretation, hence their insistence that these three persons are not extensions of the one essence, but three independent, complete entities, and that is the reason for their stressing the meaning of “hypostasis”.

The images they used for this purpose are characteristic. In both the 1^st Ecumenical Council as well as the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), we note the image of light, which was used to portray the unity between the Father and the Son. There is the image and the expression of: “light out of light”.  Just as light emanates rays that cannot be distinguished from their source, nor the source from the rays, this proved itself to be a useful portrayal, to indicate that the Son is united with the Father inseparably, as “light out of light”.

The Cappadocian Fathers found this depiction inadequate, as it (the rays) could be construed, as the extension of a body, also, the Son could be construed as an energy of God.  So, instead of saying: “light out of light”, they preferred the concept of three suns.  Not just a light that originates from a light, but three individual suns, three lit torches.

These are the favored depictions, by which it is illustrated that we have three self-existent, complete persons, which, together with this depiction, are simultaneously presented as united. But here is the critical point: What is that common thing that unites those three suns?  It is the common essence, the common energy which they possess, because all three suns emanate the same heat and the same light. Consequently, the energy is common to all three, and the Essence –which goes along with the energy- is also common to all three.  It is in this manner that the presence of their hypostasis and the fullness of each person and their unity are simultaneously depicted.

In the analogy used for man, they used three persons in order to denote the three persons of the Holy Trinity.  Just as Basil, George and John are three persons, three people joined by a common nature, a common essence, which is their human nature, so can the three persons of the Holy Trinity be denoted by the image of three people.  In the instance of God, an adjustment of this depiction is necessary, because it is different to the instance of three people.  What needs to be stressed as an introduction to what will follow, is that the Cappadocian

Fathers insisted that each person of the Holy Trinity comprises a complete entity, and that the depictions we use should be depictions of complete entities and not extensions of a body.  Three suns, three torches, three people.  This is the way to denote the full hypostasis of each person.

And then a bit later, we read the following provocative assessment:

Thus, in the East, the Greek Fathers came to a halt at the Cappadocians, with regard to the dogma on the Holy Trinity.  Whoever is not acquainted with the Cappadocians, is not acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity.  One cannot learn about it from anyone else, only from the Cappadocians.  Prior to the Cappadocians, many ideas had been expressed, which, however, needed to be supplemented by the Cappadocians. With the Cappadocian Fathers, the East possessed the dogma on God in its completed form. (Bold emphasis mine.)

Though I have read a good number of works by Eastern Orthodox theologians on the issue of the doctrine of the Trinity, the above is the first time I have come across such a bold assertion. I am left wondering if this a consensus view within the Eastern Orthodox paradigm...

With that said, I believe that the entire page worth reading—finding much of the content in agreement with my own thought—though I suspect that a number of folk will take issue with some of the content as I have (especially the author's reflections on Augustine).

Off to take in more of this site's content...

Grace and peace,

David

"The Monarchy": God the Father or the Essence/Godhead?

This current post is the third in a 'series' of threads (first; second) which explores the issue of "the one true God", as delineated in the Bible, and the subsequent 'development' and understanding of this concept in the writings of the post-Biblical Church Fathers.

In the prior two threads, I have presented evidence that the Bible makes some important distinctions between the One who called ό θεός and the one called θεός ; between the ό θεός who begets, and the μονογενής θεός who is begotten; between the one termed "τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ" (John 5:44) and "τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν" (John 17:3), and the one He sends. I also pointed out that only one person in the Bible is declared to be the "εἷς θεὸς" (and it is not Jesus).

The above mentioned threads prompted 183 responses in the comboxes, including some informative posts from a couple of our Eastern Orthodox brothers who presented, and defended, the 'traditional' EO concept/definition that God the Father is "the one God"—a teaching which is also termed 'the monarchy of the Father'. Links to contemporary EO theologians (e.g. Behr and Hopko) who embrace this view were provided. My own personal studies (prior and subsequent) add other EO scholars who support this motif—e.g. Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Trinity (pp. 264-268); Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology (p. 46 ) and The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (p.58); Anthony Meredith, The Cappadocians (p. 106); John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (p. 183); Athanasius Yevtich (Atanasije Jevtich), "Between the "Niceneans' and 'Easterners': The 'Catholic' Confession of St. Basil" in Christ - The Alpha and Omega (pp, 171-173); John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion (pp. 40, 41) and Communion and Otherness (p. 134).

However, it was brought to my attention by Iohannes/John (via a link [https://www.scribd.com/document/129708361/LOUDOVIKOS-on-Zizoulas] he provided in THIS POST), that not all EO scholars/theologians are convinced the concept of "the monarchy" has God the Father in mind, but rather, as with most Latin/Western theologians, it is the One divine essence/nature (sometimes termed the 'Godhead' [θεότης]) that is the reference point. Nicholas Loudovikos, in his The Heythrop Journal essay, "Person Instead of Grace and Dictated Otherness: John Zizioulas' Final Theological Position", critiques a number of Dr. Zizioulas' 'positions', including "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father". (Page 5 - bold emphasis mine.) Note the following:

John Zizioulas' Trinitarian theology is based on the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father. He attributes this doctrine mainly to the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor, and this of course is true. It is not always easy, however, to agree with his understanding of their texts.

For Zizioulas the Father is the one God of the Creed. Once again the discussion is about freedom that can be assured only if the Father 'as a person and not substance' (p. 121) (in Zizioulas' vocabulary this always opposes nature/necessity to person/freedom, even in God) makes a 'personal rather than ousianic' (p. 120) constitution of the two other hypostases. The two characteristics of Zizioulas' Triadology are therefore: first, its (rather) non-ousianic character, and second, the rejection of any element of reciprocity. As we shall see, the Cappadocians as well as Maximus never supported such views. (Pages 5, 6.)

Dr. Loudovikos goes on to build a solid case that John Zizioulas (and so many other EO scholars/theologinas), has misread the Cappadocian Fathers concerning the issue of "the monarchy". This is a very important charge, for 'the traditional' reading the Cappadocians on this issue of "the monarchy" has been one of the key components for the "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father."

In the combox of the Is "the one God" of the Bible the Trinity, or God the Father? thread, Iohannes/John and I delved into St. Basil's "classic statement" (Sermon 24.3) on "the monarchy". Our research uncovered the possibility of two legitimate readings/translations of the passage; one reading supports "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father", the other does not. Prior to my subsequent research efforts, I leaned toward the former position; however, after a considerable amount study and reflection, I am now rethinking that assessment. The following selection, with surrounding context, is Dr. Loudovvikos' reading/translation of the passage:

Basil has no difficulty connecting monarchy with the unity of substance, as a careful reading of his On the Holy Spirit, 45, demonstrates. Basil makes a distinction concerning the Trinity between the specificity of hypostases and the monarchy; he connects the persons with the former and the common substance/nature (το κοινόν της) which he also calls 'communion of deity' (κοινωνία της θεότητος) with the latter. More explicitly, in his Sermon 24 (par. 3) to forestall any identification of the monarchy with just one person (the Father) who might act independently, he writes: 'there is one God who is the Father; there is also one God who is the Son, but there are not two Gods, because there is an identity between the Father and the Son. Because there is not another deity in the Father, and another in the Son nor another substance (physis) in either of them'. (Pages 7, 8.)


Dr. Loudovvikos' essay provides a number of brief citations from the writings of the three Cappadocian Fathers that provide a broader context for determining which reading/translation of Sermon 24.3 is the more accurate. I would like to build upon his foundation; first from Basil:

...they ought to confess that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, as they have been taught by the divine words, and by those who have understood them in their highest sense. Against those who cast it in out teeth that we are Tritheists, let it be answered that we confess one God not in number but in nature. (Letter 8.2 - NPNF 8.116.)

And from Gregory "the Theologian" Nazianzen (Nazinanus):

The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia (ἀναρχία), Polyarchia (πολυαρχία), and Monarchia (μοναρχία). The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order ; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder ; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.

But Monarchy (μοναρχία) is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy (μοναρχία) that is not limited to one Person (πρόσωπον), for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality ; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity―a thing which is impossible to the created nature―so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence (οủσία). Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. (Orations, 29.2 , The third theological oration - NPNF 7.301)

What is our quarrel and dispute with both? To us there is One God (εἷς θεός), for the Godhead is One (μία θεότης), and all that proceedeth from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another less God ; nor is One before and another after ; nor are They divided in will or parted in power ; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things ; but the Godhead (θεότης) is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons ; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined, to each other. When then we look at the Godhead (θεότητα), or the First Cause (πρώτην αἰτίαν), or the Monarchia (μοναρχία), that which we conceive is One ; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead (θεότης) dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being (ὄντα) from the First Cause (πρώτης αἰτίας) there are Three Whom we worship. (Orations, 31.14 , The fifth theological oration - NPNF 7.322)

Concerning the above passages from Gregory, Loudovikos wrote:

...the only definition of monarchy [from the Cappadocians] must be that of Gregory Nazianzen: 'Monarchy that cannot be limited to one person, for it is possible for unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is constituted by equality of nature, and agreement of opinion, and identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to one, something that is impossible to happen in the created nature; so that though numerically distinct there is no division of ousia'. (Page 8.)

I do not think I would go as far as endorsing Loudovikos' assertion that the above is, "the only definition of monarchy", that should be considered; but I will say, from my readings of the Cappadocians, it is certainly the most direct, and clearest definition.

Another EO scholar, Hegumen Hilarion Alfeyev, in his essay "The Trinitarian Teaching of St. Gregory of Nazianzen" (in The Trinity - East/West Dialogue, pp. 107-130), concurs with Loudovikos' assessment:

As we have seen, the idea of God's monarchy was fundamental to both Sabellius and Arius; the notion of the Son's co-eternity with the Father was rejected by Arius precisely because he perceived in it a breach of the principle of the Father's monarchy. For Arius, those who insist on the eternal begetting of the Son introduce 'two unbegotten origins.' Gregory opposed this understanding of monarchy and claimed that the term is not related to the Hypostasis of the Father, but to the Godhead as such, i.e. to the three Hypostases together. In other words, Gregory did not associate the idea of monarchy with the Father but with the unity of the Godhead. (Page 113 - bold emphasis mine.)

[NOTE: Interestingly enough, Alfeyev's translation of Basil's Sermon 24.3a seems to support "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father"; however, he concludes that, "according to Cappadocian theology, ideas of the primal cause and of the monarchy were connected." As such, Alfeyev suggests that one must make a distinction between the "ideas of the primal cause and of the monarchy", even though they are in a certain sense "connected".]

I could supply a number of other passages from the Cappadocians which strongly suggest that they identified "the monarchy", "unity", "One God" (εἷς θεός), etc. with the one "essence" (οủσία) and/or the Godhead (θεότης), and not with the person of the Father, but I believe the above has established issue adequately enough.

Now, I do not wish to give the impression that the Cappadocians did not place a certain emphasis on the priority of the Father as the 'source', 'fount' of divinity—for they all in fact did so (but then, even Augustine spoke in such language)—the point I want to highlight is that they did not seem to ever explicitly uphold "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father."

So, as I reach the end of this current post, I am left asking myself: why have so many Eastern Orthodox scholars/theologians read/understood the Cappadocians in a manner that seems at odds with the broader context of their writings?


Grace and peace,

David