Trying to Understand the Monarchy of the Father

[MilesVitae]

(I've asked about this before in the course of at least on other conversation, but I'd like to bring up again in a further attempt to understand - maybe I'll explain myself better this time, or someone will be able to address the issue more clearly)

In preparation for a presentation at a (mostly) Catholic men's group (i.e., tobacco, beer, and whiskey accompanied by argument/discussion about politics and religion) I've been reading some Orthodox materials on the filioque. I think I understand a lot of the issues involved (fairly well, at least), but one thing that continues to confuse me is the monarchy of the Father. What precisely does the monarchical principle mean and why?
That the Father is the one source of the Trinity, the font of the whole Godhead, of course, is true, and if this were all there were to it, there'd be no confusion for me. There'd also seem to be (as far as the monarchy is concerned, at least) no issue with the filioque (i.e., the Spirit proceeding also from the Son would not in any way negate the fact that the Father is the unoriginate font of the whole Trinity, since the Son Himself would still have his own origin in the Father, not being thereby unoriginate as the Father is). However, it seems the monarchical principle (at least in the East) has been understood to mean that, furthermore, only the Father can act as cause within the the Trinity (hence, the Son cannot be a cause of the Spirit's being). This is where I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this matter - why does the Father's position as the unoriginate one within the Trinity and the font of the whole Trinity imply that only He can exercise causality within the Trinity?

Thanks

 

[truefiction1]

This is a rather delicate matter and difficult to discern, and at times I've been able to glimpse the Latin understanding. However, just because we can image or feel it does not mean it is what is true of the Trinity. We are created in the image and likeness of the Triune Divine being, but only in human perfection does this become the case. Since that is the case, then only when we have breached the perfection of ourselves will our sense of the nature of the Triune relationships become unobscured by philosophy and clarified within Living Theology. We ourselves, individually, have a tripartite construction that reflects God's tripartite being. Our own parts become less conflicted and more perfectly united with increase in personal purity and virtue. The various Trinitarian models express differing degrees of conflictedness: from high conflict models (like that presented by the heretic Arius) to a models more consistent with total unity and zero conflict. We believe that our model more perfectly expresses Triunity and you believe that yours does, and we each have our reasons and these correspond roughly to the natures of our own feelings.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Subscribing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

according to one of the Cappadocians (Basil, I think), this is not something for man to wrap his head around. the truth that only the Father is the cause is because He is the Father. God reveals Himself as Trinity so either you apply an attribute to all Three to show one God (ie one in essence, mind, will, etc) or unique to the hypostasis to show distinction of Person. so the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit. to say that, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son blurs the distinction of Persons and you run into the heresy of semisabellianism.

so, if the Father is the sole cause of the Two other Persons in a unique way (the Son being begotten and the Spirit by procession), He is the sole cause of Their diversity in Person and oneness in Divinity. so the monarchy of the Father as the sole cause is the only way to uphold the Trinity as Trinity without going down a slippery slope.

 

[MilesVitae]

according to one of the Cappadocians (Basil, I think), this is not something for man to wrap his head around. the truth that only the Father is the cause is because He is the Father. God reveals Himself as Trinity so either you apply an attribute to all Three to show one God (ie one in essence, mind, will, etc) or unique to the hypostasis to show distinction of Person. so the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit. to say that, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son blurs the distinction of Persons and you run into the heresy of semisabellianism.

There is that, but my main concern is not the blurring of the two persons. Rather, that aside, why does there seem to be a fear that the Son having causality in the Trinity threatens the Father's position - or, put another way, why does the Father's position itself entail that only He have causality, since another Person having causality would not undo the Father's role. Also, and maybe this is intimately related, why does there also seem to be in the East the fear of introducing "two principles" within the Trinity? What does this mean?

Perhaps you're addressing these points here....

so, if the Father is the sole cause of the Two other Persons in a unique way (the Son being begotten and the Spirit by procession), He is the sole cause of Their diversity in Person and oneness in Divinity. so the monarchy of the Father as the sole cause is the only way to uphold the Trinity as Trinity without going down a slippery slope.

But, I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to convey to me. Yes, if the Father is the sole cause of the Persons, then He is the sole cause both of diversity and unity. But from there, I don't see how it follows that the Son having causation would cause problem. I'm just having difficulty seeing what conclusion exactly you're drawing and how.

 

[truefiction1]

Rather, that aside, why does there seem to be a fear that the Son having causality in the Trinity threatens the Father's position - or, put another way, why does the Father's position itself entail that only He have causality, since another Person having causality would not undo the Father's role. Also, and maybe this is intimately related, why does there also seem to be in the East the fear of introducing "two principles" within the Trinity? What does this mean?

That the Father's position is threatened is not the concern. What is of concern is "why do we choose to express the relationships within the Trinity differently?" It may be that we have a different approach to how we do theology or that we simply have a different view of how the Divine persons are related. And the big question is, "what is the underlying psychological basis of those differing approaches or views". This is what the real problem to be solved is. If we could solve that question and agree upon the answer, we would understand what lays beneath all of our differences in theology and in ecclesiology.

 

[buzuxi02]

The one and same divinity is derived from the hypostasis of the Father. Neither the Son nor the Spirit sends the Father, He alone is unbegotten, He alone does not proceed. On the other hand the Son can send forth the Spirit in time and likewise the Spirit together with Father can send the Son.
The Father has given all things to the Son but the Holy Spirit takes from the Son and declares it. The relationship is reciprocal, both the Son and the Spirit are paracletes.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wish I could explain how that suddenly dawned on me one day. My question was exactly the same as Miles' and I struggled with it, listening to podcasts on the subject for most of a year. It made no sense. Then - suddenly - it just did, with perfect clarity. But I am not nearly well versed enough in it to explain. I mean to say, Miles, keep working on it!

 

[MilesVitae]

I wish I could explain how that suddenly dawned on me one day. My question was exactly the same as Miles' and I struggled with it, listening to podcasts on the subject for most of a year. It made no sense. Then - suddenly - it just did, with perfect clarity. But I am not nearly well versed enough in it to explain. I mean to say, Miles, keep working on it!

Ah, yes - I'm hoping I'll at least eventually have that "Ah! Now I see!" moments with this too. Sometimes I think I'm starting to grasp it - and then I lose it. What is interesting to me is that many of the medieval western writers on the topic acknowledged the objection against multiple principles, and replied with arguments purporting to show that the filioque did not contradict this truth - apparently both sides saw something relatively clearly which, to me, is making next to no sense...AGH!
Anyway, Thanks!

 

[MilesVitae]

That the Father's position is threatened is not the concern.
What is of concern is "why do we choose to express the relationships within the Trinity differently?" It may be that we have a different approach to how we do theology or that we simply have a different view of how the Divine persons are related. And the big question is, "what is the underlying psychological basis of those differing approaches or views". This is what the real problem to be solved is. If we could solve that question and agree upon the answer, we would understand what lays beneath all of our differences in theology and in ecclesiology.

But it has been a concern - or at least the implications of the Father's position, and the possibility for only one principle within the Trinity, have been a concern and reasons on the part of those in the East for objecting to the filioque. I don't mean at all to discount the rest of what you're saying. Feel free to expand on it if you wish - but my primary intention here is to try to understand the above mentioned principles, what exactly they mean (if I misunderstand them), and why they are true.

 

[MilesVitae]

The one and same divinity is derived from the hypostasis of the Father. Neither the Son nor the Spirit sends the Father, He alone is unbegotten, He alone does not proceed. On the other hand the Son can send forth the Spirit in time and likewise the Spirit together with Father can send the Son.
The Father has given all things to the Son but the Holy Spirit takes from the Son and declares it. The relationship is reciprocal, both the Son and the Spirit are paracletes.

I'm not sure I understand what you're addressing here.

 

[truefiction1]

But it has been a concern - or at least the implications of the Father's position, and the possibility for only one principle within the Trinity, have been a concern and reasons on the part of those in the East for objecting to the filioque. I don't mean at all to discount the rest of what you're saying. Feel free to expand on it if you wish - but my primary intention here is to try to understand the above mentioned principles, what exactly they mean (if I misunderstand them), and why they are true.

It has historically been a concern because it has been believed that the filioque clause fails to establish that the Father is the sole unifying principle. Why is that felt to be important by Eastern theologians? Because what is felt about the unity of the Godhead comes from within -- from how we feel about wherein within ourselves is located our own unifying principle. In our speculative philosophies about the relationships between the Divine Persons, the Trinity is a metaphor for our own tripartite constitution. The Father comes to represent to us (perhaps unconsciously) our own deepest core self, stripped of rational thought (cognition) and irrational affect (feeling, emotion, energy). So there is the Father (Self/simple awareness?), the Word (cognition taking the form of symbolic, expressive language), and the Spirit (energy, feeling, desire, motivation (from which the word emotion comes from).

Our concern is that a Trinidadian model that depicts one's Affects (Spirit) as proceeding from the Core self (Father) and the Cognitive faculty (Word) as from a single principle, reflects an unhealthy psychological assymetry, wherein cognition is given greater credence than affect in the life of a human person. When this happens, philosophy dominates True Theology, because True Theology can only take place within the spaces that exist when there is a healthy balance and unity between the self, cognition, and affect, when the three agree as one.

 

[buzuxi02]

There is no double causation in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the Son. Christ said when He goes away He will send "another paraclete". Meaning one equal to Him, another helper.
In Isaiah 48.16 and in the creed where it says Christ was incarnate by the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, both hypostasis are interdependant to each other in operation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The reason for the fear is because that is not what was revealed. The Son did not reveal that He was the cause of the Spirit, and that is why it is rejected. It is speculation about what we should not speculate about.

 

[Lukaris]

"Again, the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be coeternal with the Father, but not co-unoriginated with Him. They are coeternal in that They coexist with the Father from eternity; but They are not co-unoriginate in that They are not without source: as has already been said, They are derived from Him as the light from the sun, even though They are not inferior or sequent to Him. They are also said to be unoriginate in the sense that They do not have an origin in time. If this were not the case, They would be thought of as subject to time, whereas it is from Them that time itself derives. Thus They are unoriginate not with regard to Their source, but with regard to time. For They exist prior to, and transcend, all time and all the ages; and it is from Them that all time and all the ages are derived, together with everything that is in time and in the ages. That is because They are, as we said, coeternal with the Father: to Him, with Them, be glory and power through all ages. Amen."
St. Thalassios (4th Century (texts of statements) # 100, Philokalia vol. 2, 7th century AD


Info for St. Thalassios is obscure but here is a little:
http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/2171-thalassios-the-libyans-biography/

 

[MilesVitae]

Matt, TF, Lukaris, Buzuxi:

The reason for the fear is because that is not what was revealed. The Son did not reveal that He was the cause of the Spirit, and that is why it is rejected. It is speculation about what we should not speculate about.

But the defenders of the Orthodox position (as well as the Latin position) have gone beyond an appeal to authority and attempted to show with reason (based in revelation, of course) the impossibility of procession from the Son, and why the Father alone can be a cause, etc. Is it really the case that no explanation has been given to what "principle" means in the statement "There can be only one principle within the Godhead," or why only the Father (as source of the whole Godhead, perhaps) can have causation?

I was also hoping to better understand your reasoning in your prior post.

It has historically been a concern because it has been believed that the filioque clause fails to establish that the Father is the sole unifying principle. Why is that felt to be important by Eastern theologians? Because what is felt about the unity of the Godhead comes from within -- from how we feel about wherein within ourselves is located our own unifying principle. In our speculative philosophies...[etc]

Thank you. I find it odd that this would fail to establish the Father as the sole unifying principle, since He remains the source of both Son and Spirit, who both remain originate (as per the quotation provided by Lukaris).
As for the type of psychological explanation of the Trinity you've given, where are you drawing this from, as it is has been related to this issue, I mean? I don't think I recall coming across it in the classic writings on the topic - is it a more recent theory and objection?

There is no double causation in the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the Son.....

Thank you, although this seems to be addressing another point that I was not trying to bring up here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again, because if you apply a quality to Two Persons of the Trinity, you blur the distinctions of those Persons. There is no quality that is shared by only Two Persons.

And while you are correct that the Fathers did use reason to explain the mystery as best they could, it was not based on speculation.

Plus, the only thing we have from Scripture is the Father as the cause. Nowhere does it say that the Son is the cause

 

[truefiction1]

Thank you. I find it odd that this would fail to establish the Father as the sole unifying principle, since He remains the source of both Son and Spirit, who both remain originate (as per the quotation provided by Lukaris).

It fails to establish the Father as the sole unifying principle because it sets up an asymmetry that tends to create a hierarchy of sorts (mostly unconscious) by unifying the Father and Son as one principle from which the Spirit proceeds. The unconscious effect of this on believers is a reduction in the significance of the Holy Spirit and an increase in the significance of the Word. Some Orthodox see this unconscious psychological asymmetry as being responsible for the way that the Western Church and the Western world has developed. They detect a very big problem in it. Some of them even believe that the asymmetry is not from the filioque, but that the asymmetry existed early on and has been increasing gradually for a very long time. The introduction of the filioque is because of the asymmetry, not the cause of it, as Vladimir Lossky seems to claim. Some Orthodox see the acceptance of the filioque as an acceptance of a damning psychological asymmetry and so they resist it even til now. These may very well be correct in doing so.

As for the type of psychological explanation of the Trinity you've given, where are you drawing this from, as it is has been related to this issue, I mean? I don't think I recall coming across it in the classic writings on the topic - is it a more recent theory and objection?

1 Corinthians 2:11, for starters.

 

[MilesVitae]

Again, because if you apply a quality to Two Persons of the Trinity, you blur the distinctions of those Persons. There is no quality that is shared by only Two Persons.

Yes, I know that, but the impression I've gotten is that with the whole "one principle," monarchy of the Father, etc., other distinct points were being made by the Eastern theologians, but maybe I'm misreading them *shrugs*

 

[MilesVitae]

It fails to establish the Father as the sole unifying principle because it sets up an asymmetry that tends to create a hierarchy of sorts (mostly unconscious) by unifying the Father and Son as one principle from which the Spirit proceeds. The unconscious effect of this on believers is a reduction in the significance of the Holy Spirit and an increase in the significance of the Word.

I can see this to some extent, especially the diminishing of the Spirit relative to the Son. It still seems to me, though, that it leaves (or, at least, can leave) the Father as the unifying principle, since He is still the unoriginate one from Whom the other two have their being - there are not two unoriginate principles. Though to the extent that the filioque tends to "join" the Father and Son in regards to the procession of the Spirit, I could see how that might lead us to think less of the Father in terms of His place as unifying source of the Trinity.

1 Corinthians 2:11, for starters.

I'm not sure I understand.... To be clear, when I asked about the "psychological explanation", I was referring to the model of the Trinity in terms of Understanding and Affect. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough there.