Important elements of
Nicene Monarchism include the priority of the Father over the Son and the Holy
Spirit, and the etiological principle that the Father is the cause/source of both
the person and substance of the Son and Holy Spirit. Though post-Augustine
Catholic theologians rarely place an emphasis on the above aspects of
Trinitarian thought (unlike many Anglican and Eastern Orthodox theologians), I
remained convinced that the Catholic tradition has never denied those teachings.
For instance, I found vestiges of Nicene Monarchism in the thought of Thomas
Aquinas, who taught:
One of the most important 'relational'
distinctions between the three persons of the Trinity is that, "the Father is the principle of the whole Godhead" (P1.Q.39.A5), the "fontal principle of the
entire divinity" (fontale principium totius divinitatis - Aquinas, Commentum in Lib. 1 Sententiarum, D.34.Q.2) [See THIS
THREAD for more on this issue.]
In
his commentary on the Gospel of John (verse 14:28), we read:
1971 One could also say, as Hilary
does, that even according to the divine nature the Father is greater than the
Son, yet the Son is not inferior to the Father, but equal. For the Father is
not greater than the Son in power, eternity and greatness, but by the dignity
of a grantor or source. For the Father receives nothing from another, but the
Son, if I can put it this way, receives his nature from the Father by an
eternal generation. So, the Father is greater because he gives; but the Son is
not inferior, but equal, because he receives all that the Father has: "God
has bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). For
the one to whom a single act of existence (esse)
is given, is not inferior to
the giver. [LINK to
online source.]
So,
although I had found snippets of Nicene Monarchism in post-Augustine Catholic
theologians, it was not until I had recently read the English translation of
Matthias Joseph Scheeben's, Die Mysterien des Christentums (The
Mysteries of Christianity), that I came across definitive support for
Nicene Monarchism within the Catholic tradition. The following germane
selections will be from the B. Herder Book Co. 1947 English edition, translated
by Cyril Vollert.
From
Chapter IV - The Productions of the Second and Third Persons, we read (all bold
emphasis mine):
The
term "generation" is of course employed, in the first place, to
indicate that the production of the Second Person in God is wholly different
from creation, the act by which non-divine beings come into existence. Creation
is a free act of the divine will, whereby God calls into being things which of
themselves were nothing, and communicates to them an existence which is
essentially different from His own. But God brings forth His interior Word
by communicating to Him His own being, His own substance. The Word proceeds
from the Father's innermost substance, which passes over to the Word and places
Him in full possession of the very nature that is proper to the Father.
(Page 87.)
In
God, in whom all that is found scattered in creatures is one, faith reveals to
us the production of the Word from the substance of the Father. This
Word is an intelligible image of its principle, because it proceeds from the
latter's cognition and manifests it. It is likewise a real. substantial,
personal image, because the cognition and also the object of the cognition, are
expressed and impressed in this Word. The Second Person in the Godhead is
produced because the First Person wills to utter and attest Himself, to express
and manifest His nature. The Second Person receives the Father's nature in
order to exhibit and manifest it in Himself. What then is to prevent us from
saying that He is truly generated, nay, that in accord with the words of Holy
Scripture, all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is so-called after the
generating fatherhood of His principle? (Page 91.)
Then,
in a footnote (#4, p. 91 ff.) Scheeben provides a quotation from Aquinas' Summa
Contra Gentiles (IV.11), a work I had read in the 90's, long before my
studies into Nicene Monarchism, and quite frankly, failed to recall its
importance to Nicene Monarchism. Note the following:
We
must note that what is generated is said to be conceived, so long as it remains
in the parent. God's Word is begotten of God in such wise that He does not depart
from the Father but remains in Him. Therefore God's Word may rightly be said to
be conceived of God. This is the reason why the Wisdom of God affirms: 'The
depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived' (Prov. 8:24). (Page 92.)
A
bit later, from the same footnote, we read:
Again,
what is brought forth issues from the womb. For a similar reason the
generation of God's Word, which is called birth to indicate his perfect
distinction from His Father, is called birth from the womb, according to
Psalm 109:3" 'From the womb before the day star I begot Thee."
However, the distinction of the Word from the speaker does not prevent the Word
from existing in the speaker. Hence, just as the Word is said t0 be begotten or
brought forth from the womb, to indicate His distinct existence, so to show
that this distinction does not exclude the Word form existence in the speaker,
revelation assures us that He 'is in the bosom of the Father' (John 1:18).
Finally,
we must advert to the fact that carnal generation of animals is effected by an
active and a passive principle. The father has an active, the mother a passive
part. Hence for procreation of offspring the father has one function, the
mother a different one: the father confers nature and species on the progeny, whereas
the mother, as passive and receptive principle, conceives and gives birth.
Procession is predicated of the Word inasmuch as God understands Himself: but
the divine intelligence involves no passive element, but is wholly active, so
to speak, since the divine intellect is not in potency but exclusively in act.
Therefore in the generation of God's Word there is no maternal function, but
only a paternal function. Hence the various functions which pertain to the
father and the mother in carnal generation, are attributed by Scripture to the
Father in His generation of the Word: the Father is said to give life to the
Son (cf. John 5:16), to conceive Him, and to bring Him forth.
(Page 93.)
Towards
the end of the chapter, Scheeben, provides some insightful commentary on the
issue of 'relation' as it pertains to the three persons of the Godhead/Trinity.
Scheeben writes:
The
communication of the essence from one person to the others involves no
separation or partition of the essence. On the contrary, the essence can be
transmitted to one of the other persons only if this person enters into
relationship with the First Person and is united to Him in oneness of essence.
Furthermore,
the first principle is one, the original possessor of the divine nature is one,
and the distinction among persons proceeds from this one principle. The
distinction issues from the unity, and is in turn stabilized by this same
unity. for the Second and Third Persons are distinct from the First Person only
because they have their origin from Him and stand in relation to Him by virtue
of this origin...(Page 115.)
The
Father unites the other two persons with and in Himself as their common root
and source; for He is the common principle of both. (Page 116.)
In
ending, I would like to say that it is quite reassuring (and refreshing) to
discover a 'heavy-weight' Catholic theologian who espouses a number of the
propositions concerning the Godhead that I have been defending over the last
few years.
Grace
and peace,
