The Monarchy of the Father as Relation

How can the one unity of God be preserved alongside the distinct, co-equal Persons of the Trinity?

I. Introduction

My systematic theology re-envisions the traditional doctrines of the Trinity through what I call the Principle of Relationality. Central to this approach is a metaphysical insight that has long guided my reflection: to be is to be given; to exist is to be self given relationally. In this view the divine essence is not a static, abstract substance but rather an eternal, dynamic act of self donation. This self-donative reality is the very means by which God’s unity is both maintained and made manifest, expressed in distinct yet perfectly co-equal modes by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the pages that follow I will clarify how this Principle of Relationality not only explicitly affirms the traditional doctrine of the monarchy of the Father but also demonstrates that the relational distinctions among the divine Persons are modes of eternal self-donative expression rather than indicators of hierarchical ordering. By reinterpreting divine simplicity as dynamic communion rather than as a static property, my approach aims to resolve the perennial theological question: How can the one unity of God be preserved alongside the distinct, co-equal Persons of the Trinity?

My treatment begins with an affirmation of the traditional doctrine and moves through a detailed analysis of relational distinctions and their non-hierarchical nature. I then reinterpret divine simplicity in light of dynamic self-donation. Finally, I integrate both classical patristic insights and modern philosophical innovations to show how this synthesis robustly supports the orthodox teaching of Trinitarian unity and equality. In doing so I demonstrate that the Father’s monarchy, his role as the unoriginated source (archē or principium) of all divine life, is not an assertion of unilateral domination, but rather the eternal foundation of a relational self-gift that reveals unity in complete donation that is also complete donation that is unity. After all, if God is Father by nature, then the Spirit of this relationship is equally present in that there is necessarily a Son too.

This essay is both an exposition and a defense of a relationally rich vision of the Trinity that is thoroughly rooted in the patristic and conciliar tradition and yet open to contemporary philosophical reflection. I will show that the dynamic nature of divine simplicity, understood as perpetual self-donation, allows the eternal relational distinctions among the Persons to emerge without compromising the essential unity of the divine essence. The goal reflect on the mystery of a God who is alive with relational self-gift fully realized.

II. Affirmation of the Traditional Doctrine: The Monarchy of the Father

A. The Father as the Sole Unoriginated Source

The affirmation that the Father is the unique, unoriginated source of all divine life is important in the history of trinitarian theology. In this eternal economy the Father is the sole personal principle from which the Son is eternally begotten, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. This doctrinal cornerstone principally commits the oneness of God while entailing the affirmation that the Son and the Holy Spirit remain fully co-equal and consubstantial with the Father. The monarchy of the Father, properly understood, secures the relational balance of the Trinity without compromising the essential unity of divine nature.

I find this traditional teaching both compelling and necessary. The idea that the Father is the archē, without origin, underscores the very foundation of Trinitarian doctrine. Consequently, all relational distinctions among the divine Persons are ultimately grounded singularly in the thatness of the uniqueness that the status of unoriginated source implies. This concept is not merely an abstract philosophical construct, so let’s see how the greats expressed it to get some nuance.

B. Gregory of Nazianzus’ Mystical Insight

I have always found Gregory of Nazianzus especially illuminating when it comes to unraveling the mysteries inherent in the Trinity. My reading of Gregory is deeply attuned to his mystical and paradoxical acceptance of divine mysteries. Gregory teaches that the Father, as the eternal and unbegotten source, is the singular principle (archē) from which the begotten Son and the proceeding Holy Spirit share one indivisible divine essence. Although the distinctions of begottenness for the Son and procession for the Spirit indicate differences in relational origin, all three Persons are fully and indivisibly one God.

For Gregory, the question of how to reconcile divine unity with personal distinction is not to be reduced to technical formulas; rather, it emerges from the lived, contemplative experience. He practiced and preached this mystery, inviting his hearers to embrace it without demanding exhaustive explanation. In other words, the revealed reality, the fact of the Father’s unbegotten nature and the eternal generation of the Son, is the truth that commands our worship and adoration, beyond any technical dissection. This interpretation see’s Gregory’s mystical approach, as an emphasizing the revealed reality of the Father as the eternal source, and I sense him acknowledging paradox to maintain divine unity, consciously resisting any overly technical, mathematical categorization through terms like “cause” and “principle.” This is in contradistinction to some of his interpreters who practically see the opposite and ignore what I see in him. But his orations do in fact invite us to worship the ineffable mystery of the Triune God, not a comprehensible monad over it all.

The Father as the Eternal Source

For Gregory, the Father’s unbegotten nature is the foundational reality of the divine order. In one of his seminal passages, he declares:

“Neither should we posit three first principles if we want to avoid the polytheism of the Greeks, nor a single one, Judaic in its narrowness as well as grudging and ineffectual, whether by positing a self-absorbing deity or by disallowing their natures and stripping them of Godhead … Likewise, we should not claim that the Son is unbegotten, for the Father is one; nor the Holy Spirit is Son, for the Only-Begotten Son is … But for now, we ask you to teach us to see just this much, that unity is worshipped in Trinity and Trinity in unity, both its union and its distinction miraculous.” — Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 25,” Select Orations, New Advent
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm; accessed March 30, 2025)

This declaration establishes that the Father is uniquely “unbegotten” – existing without an external source. He is the singular principle (archē) of the divine life, and from Him the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. Gregory warns that positing multiple independent principles would either lead to polytheism or diminish the mystery. Rather than reducing the mystery to a mere logical division, he invites his hearers to recognize that the Father’s unique role secures the unity of the Godhead, in virtue of revelation and insight not for the sake of the philosophy but in spite of it.

Distinction Without Division

Gregory’s theology maintains a careful balance: although there is a clear relational distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these differences do not fracture the one divine nature. In a celebrated meditation he states:

“…a nature that is in internal agreement with itself, is ever the same, ever perfect, without quality or quantity, independent of time, uncreated, incomprehensible, never self-deficient, nor ever so to be, lives and life, lights and light, goods and good, glories and glory, true and the truth, and the ‘Spirit of truth,’ holies and holiness itself; each one God, if contemplated separately, because the mind can divide the indivisible; the three God, if contemplated collectively, because their activity and nature are the same…” — Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 23:11,” trans. Martha Vinson, Select Orations, New Advent
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm; accessed March 30, 2025)

This passage reveals Gregory’s awareness that human language may “divide the indivisible” for clarity, yet the divine nature remains undivided and perfect. The relational terms “unbegotten,” “begotten,” and “proceeding” are used to express the modes in which the one divine essence is manifested. For Gregory, these distinctions serve to reveal God’s inner life and are not intended to imply any inherent inequality.

Relational Ordering, Not Hierarchical Subordination

As I mentioned earlier, some modern readings have interpreted Gregory as establishing a strict, almost mathematical division between “cause” and “principle.” (They shall not be named here.) However, Gregory himself offers a different emphasis. He exhorts:

“Do you hear mention of a begetting? Do not trouble yourself about how it occurs…” — Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, New Advent
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm; accessed March 30, 2025)

Here, Gregory makes it clear that the details of divine generation are not meant for exhaustive technical analysis. The Father’s role as the eternal source functions kind of like a self ordering principle that explains how the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Yet, this does not imply that the Son or the Spirit are less divine or derivative in any sense. Instead, it is the very mystery of their eternal relational dynamics that secures the unity of the Godhead. Gregory’s language is pastoral and mystical: the revealed “that” (the reality of the Father’s unbegotten nature) is what matters, not an endless “why” of mechanism.

The Unity Expressed in Worship

Gregory’s teaching on divine monarchy is inseparable from the practice of worship (and sacrament[1]). In Oration 6 he calls:

“Worshipping Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; knowing the Father in the Son, the Son in the Spirit…” — Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 6,” Select Orations, New Advent
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm; accessed March 30, 2025)

This liturgical summons shows that the correct confession of the Trinity is not an abstract theoretical exercise but a lived, experiential reality. The participation of the liturgy of the oration is underplayed context to his work in history. The mystery of the Father’s unbegottenness and the Son’s begottenness is meant to lead believers into a posture of awe and reverence. In communal worship, the distinct roles of generation and procession are embraced as part of the ineffable mystery that unites the three Persons in one divine essence, or else our communion in the host is at jeopardy too.[2]

The Limits of Human Reason

Gregory is deeply aware of the limits of human understanding when confronted with divine mysteries. He cautions:

“Do not trouble yourself about how [the divine generation] occurs…” — Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, New Advent
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm; accessed March 30, 2025)

For Gregory, the fact of the Father’s unbegotten nature and the eternal generation of the Son are the primary revelations. Attempting to dissect the “how” would diminish the mystery and detract from our adoration of the ineffable God. In my reading his apophatic language is a deliberate choice to preserve the sacred mystery rather than reduce it to technical details.

Gregory of Nazianzus offers a vision of the divine monarchy that is at once intellectually profound and spiritually enriching. His teaching affirms that the Father, as the unbegotten and eternal source, is the singular principle from which the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. Though the distinctions of begottenness and procession indicate differences in relational origin, they do not fracture the indivisible divine essence; instead, they reveal the mystery of a Trinity that is one in essence and coequal in glory. For Gregory the Father’s role as the unbegotten source is not a sequential cause–effect relationship but an eternal grounding that is pre-ontological; it is the very manner in which the one divine nature is eternally shared, making the relational connection ontologically equivalent and preserving the full, coequal unity of the Godhead. Gregory’s use of paradoxical like thought often, as evidenced when he states that “the mind can divide the indivisible,” and his admonition, “Do not trouble yourself about how [the divine generation] occurs…,” underscore his conviction that the revealed reality is what matters. Gregory’s teaching thus calls us to embrace the mystery with worshipful adoration, recognizing that the fullness of God is beyond the confines of technical speculation. His approach is not a blueprint for abstract metaphysical analysis but a profound, poetic invitation to enter into the mystery of the Triune God—a mystery that is both one in unity and three in personal distinction.

C. Augustine and Conciliar Affirmations

The conviction that the Father is the sole, unoriginated source of divine life is not my own innovation but is deeply rooted in a long line of authoritative patristic and conciliar affirmations. In his seminal work On the Trinity, St. Augustine of Hippo portrays the Father as the fountain from which all divinity flows: “God the Father is the fountain of all divinity, and from Him the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed.”³

Augustine’s metaphor of the Father as a fountain captures the dynamic and generative nature of the divine source. Unlike a static principle, the fountain imagery illustrates that the Father’s role is not fixed; rather, he actively and continually bestows divine life. This continuous outpouring, like that of an ever-flowing fountain, signifies that the divine life is not a one-time event but an eternal, self-donative process. Augustine’s depiction stresses that the Father’s unoriginated nature enables him to pour forth divine life, which is received fully and abundantly by both the Son and the Holy Spirit.[3]

This patristic heritage reaches its doctrinal climax in the authoritative formulations of the ecumenical councils. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) explicitly affirms:

“The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father alone; and the Holy Spirit is from both equally.”⁴

Furthermore the Council of Florence (1439) reinforces the same truth by declaring:

“The Holy Spirit proceeds from both [the Father and the Son] as from one principle and a single spiration and is true God.”⁵

The Council of Florence’s formulation addresses longstanding theological controversies, particularly those arising from differing Eastern and Western perspectives on the procession of the Spirit. By asserting that the Spirit proceeds “from both [the Father and the Son] as from one principle and a single spiration,” the Council emphasizes that, despite the relational language used to describe the Spirit’s origin, there is no division in the divine essence. The phrase “one principle” signifies that the Spirit’s generation is ultimately rooted in a single, unified source, namely the Father’s unique, unoriginated nature, while “a single spiration” underscores the unity and indivisibility of the process itself. This formulation was designed to safeguard the oneness and simplicity of God. Although the Spirit is relationally connected to both the Father and the Son, the decree makes it clear that this dual reference does not lead to any fragmentation of the divine nature. Instead, it preserves the full divinity of the Spirit and affirms that the Spirit is true God. This is critical for maintaining orthodox Trinitarian doctrine because even though the Spirit is generated in relation to both the Father and the Son, the underlying unity of the Godhead remains intact.

D. Linguistic and Philosophical Clarity

For a robust theological formulation linguistic precision is essential. G. W. H. Lampe’s study of patristic Greek shows that the term μοναρχία specifically denotes “sole rule” or “monarchy,” thereby capturing the unique, unoriginated status of the Father.⁶ This lexical clarification reinforces the idea that the Father’s role is singular and foundational.

In addition Thomas Aquinas offers an invaluable philosophical distinction between the terms “cause” (aitia) and “principle” (principium). Aquinas explains: “The Greeks use ’cause’ (aitia) and ‘principle’ (principium) indifferently for God; but the Latin doctors do not use ’cause’ (for the Father), only ‘principle.’ The reason is that principle is a wider term than cause, and the more special terms we avoid in God, since they can imply creaturely modes. The term cause, in our usage, implies a diversity of substance and a dependence of one on another, which is not implied by principle.”⁷

This distinction is critical because it safeguards the integrity of divine simplicity. By using the term “principle” rather than “cause” we affirm that the relational distinctions within the Trinity are not akin to the cause-and-effect relationships found in created beings. Rather, they denote eternal modes of origin that do not imply any division or hierarchy within the one divine nature.

There is a possibility that some may perceive Aquinas’s use of the term “principle” to support the monarchy of the Father as incompatible with the Cappadocian tradition. This potential misunderstanding often arises from a failure to appreciate the distinct linguistic and philosophical frameworks each tradition employs. For the Cappadocians—especially as seen in the work of Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus—the emphasis is on expressing the mystery of the Trinity without reducing it to simple cause and effect relations. They stress that the relational distinctions among the Persons (unbegotten for the Father, begotten for the Son, and proceeding for the Holy Spirit) are intrinsic to the divine essence. These distinctions are not understood as sequential or hierarchical but as eternal modes of origin that safeguard the unity of God. Their terminology and analogies aim to preserve the incommunicable oneness of the divine nature while maintaining a dynamic relational structure.

In contrast, Thomas Aquinas, writing in a more scholastic and Aristotelian context, offers a careful linguistic distinction between “cause” (aitia) and “principle” (principium). Aquinas notes that although the Greeks use both terms interchangeably for God, Latin theologians prefer “principle” for the Father in order to avoid implying that the divine Persons are produced by an external, sequential causal process. In Aquinas’s framework the Father’s role as “principle” is meant to express that the source of divine life is not a temporal cause-and-effect relationship but an eternal and necessary grounding of all being. In other words, Aquinas is not proposing a temporal emanation. He is emphasizing an eternal, unoriginated source that underpins the dynamic self-donation within the Godhead.

Some critics might mistakenly read Aquinas’s language as suggesting a sequential causality or a hierarchy that could seem at odds with the Cappadocian insistence on the equality and unity of the divine nature (or visa versa). However, when understood in context, Aquinas’s distinction is precisely designed to avoid such implications. Both Aquinas and the Cappadocians affirm that the relational distinctions within the Trinity do not lead to any division in substance or inferiority. Instead, they articulate different aspects of the same mystery: the one divine essence is eternally and relationally shared among the three coequal Persons.

These patristic, conciliar, and philosophical affirmations collectively uphold the traditional doctrine: the Father’s monarchy as the sole unoriginated source provides the foundation for the eternal relational self-donation within the Trinity. This foundational truth is preserved without compromising the full divinity, equality, or consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, it’s collective, or rather a perfect communion, like starting with the term “Father” implies such too.

III. Relational Distinctions Without Subordination

A. Relational Origin and Equality

A central tenet of my Principle of Relationality is that the distinctions among the Persons of the Trinity arise solely from their modes of origin. The terms used—unbegotten for the Father, begotten for the Son, and proceeding for the Holy Spirit—are relational descriptors that articulate how the divine self-gift is expressed without implying any difference in substance, dignity, or power. Each Person, though distinct in relational terms, fully possesses the one divine nature.

Gregory of Nazianzus provides an eloquent illustration of this truth. He explains that while the divine nature is indivisible, our finite minds may divide it conceptually when contemplating the distinct expressions of the Godhead:

“A nature that is in internal agreement with itself, is ever the same, ever perfect, without quality or quantity, independent of time, uncreated, incomprehensible, never self-deficient, nor ever so to be, lives and life, lights and light, goods and good, glories and glory, true and the truth, and the ‘Spirit of truth,’ holies and holiness itself; each one God, if contemplated separately, because the mind can divide the indivisible; the three God, if contemplated collectively, because their activity and nature are the same…”⁸

This passage highlights that any distinction among the Persons is purely conceptual—a reflection of their relational origin rather than a fragmentation of the divine essence. In my theological vision the Father’s role as the origin does not confer any superior status in the divine essence; it simply indicates his unique relational position.

St. Hilary of Poitiers further clarifies this point by stating: “By the authority of the Giver, the Father is greater; nevertheless the Son is not less, to whom oneness of nature is given.”⁹

Hilary’s assertion is paradoxical yet profound. Although the Father is the source this does not render the Son inferior. The relational ordering is purely descriptive of the eternal process within the Godhead and does not affect the equal status of the divine Persons.

Tertullian reinforces this non-hierarchical understanding when he writes: “The Father has the Son as His own, and does nothing without Him; yet there is not another God, for the Son is of the Father’s substance.”¹⁰

Tertullian’s words ensure that while the Father’s role as source is acknowledged the Son remains fully divine, sharing entirely in the divine essence. Such relational distinctions, far from dividing the Godhead, serve only to articulate its internal dynamics of self-donative love.

Moreover contemporary theologian John Milbank has remarked: “‘That’ is always prior to ‘why’; ‘That’ is the real ‘why’.”¹¹ Milbank’s observation underscores that the fundamental givenness of God’s relational nature—the “that”—precedes any secondary explanations about how these relations operate (the “why”). This insight supports the view that the relational distinctions are ontologically primary, affirming the intrinsic unity of the Godhead.

The Athanasian Creed, an unequivocal statement of orthodox Trinitarian faith, summarizes this balance perfectly: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, without confusing the Persons or dividing the substance; the whole three Persons are coeternal and coequal; none is before or after, none is greater or less.”¹²

The Creed’s language leaves no room for any hierarchy within the Trinity. It affirms that while the relational distinctions—such as begetting and procession—differentiate the Persons, they do so without affecting the co-equality of the divine nature.

B. Unity and Distinction Clarified by Nyssa and Basil

The Cappadocian Fathers offer further elucidation on the relationship between unity and distinction. St. Gregory of Nyssa states:

“When we acknowledge such a distinction in the case of the Holy Trinity, as to believe that one Person is the Cause and another is of the Cause, we can no longer be accused of polytheism; the idea of cause differentiates the Persons, declaring that one (the Father) exists without cause and another (the Son) is of the Cause; and since the divine nature is unchangeable and undivided, for these reasons we declare the Godhead to be one and God to be one.”¹³

Nyssa’s reflection makes clear that the relational language—”cause” and “of the cause”—serves only to describe the manner in which the one divine nature is expressed among the Persons. It does not imply any division or inferiority; rather, it confirms that the divine essence is wholly shared and utterly unified.

St. Basil of Caesarea, in his treatise on the Holy Spirit, underscores this point with striking clarity: “We do not count by way of addition, nor do we say first, second, third as ranks, for we have never heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God in God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not split the theology into a divided plurality because one Form of the Godhead is beheld in the Father and in the Son.”¹⁴ Basil’s teaching affirms that the relational distinctions, while real and significant, do not result in any numerical or hierarchical division within the Godhead. Instead, they serve to express the mystery of the eternal, indivisible unity of divine life, which is fully shared by the three Persons.

This is all to say, the unity of the Godhead is maintained because the distinctions among the Persons are strictly relational; that is, they represent differences of origin rather than differences of substance or dignity. Each Person fully and entirely participates in the one divine essence, preserving both unity and diversity simultaneously.

IV. Dynamic Self-Donation and Divine Simplicity

Traditional formulations of divine simplicity have often been understood as representing a static, unchanging oneness. In contrast I propose that divine simplicity is best understood dynamically as an eternal, continuous act of self-donation. Under this view the divine essence is not inert but vibrantly active, existing solely as a gift that is continually given and received within the Godhead.

Augustine of Hippo provides a foundational image for this dynamic conception. He famously writes: “God the Father is the fountain of all divinity, and from Him the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed.”³

The imagery of a fountain is particularly effective here; it suggests not only the origin of all life but also an ongoing, overflowing generosity. The Father’s role as the unoriginated source is not a one-time event but an eternal action, a continuous outpouring of divine life that sustains the entire Trinity.

This dynamic understanding of divine simplicity is further supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms the intimate mutual indwelling of the Persons:

“Because of that unity of the divine nature, the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”¹⁵

The language of “wholly in” conveys the idea of perichoresis, or mutual indwelling, which is central to my Principle of Relationality. In this vision divine simplicity is not an abstract monism but a dynamic communion wherein the one divine essence is fully shared by each Person through a continuous act of self-donation. No Person remains isolated; rather each one expresses and receives the fullness of the divine life in an eternal relational exchange.

Aquinas’s affirmation that God is “actus purus” (pure act) further reinforces this dynamic view. In his Summa Theologica Aquinas argues that in God there is no potentiality, only complete actuality. For me this means that divine simplicity is not a static state but an ever-actualizing reality, constantly expressed through the self-donative relations of the Trinity. As Aquinas explains: “The Greeks use ’cause’ (aitia) and ‘principle’ (principium) indifferently for God; but the Latin doctors do not use ’cause’ (for the Father), only ‘principle.’ … the term cause, in our usage, implies a diversity of substance and a dependence of one on another, which is not implied by principle.”⁷ This insight ensures that while the relational distinctions are real, they do not detract from the complete and perfect simplicity of God. Instead, they reveal that the divine essence is continuously actualized through the relational self-gift, a dynamic unbroken flow of divine love.

Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology of givenness further enriches this understanding by asserting that being is essentially characterized by unconditional giving. Marion contends that true revelation is found not in abstract definitions but in the experiential encounter with the gift of God. In this light the dynamic self-donation of the Trinity becomes the ultimate expression of divine simplicity; God is not a static substance but a living gift that is eternally given in relationship. This perspective invites us to see the mystery of the Trinity as a mystery of love, wherein the Father’s unoriginated self-gift flows without cessation to the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Here, I find the innovative philosophical approach of Jiri Benovsky helpful to solidify this dynamic view. Benovsky argues that certain relational categories are ontologically primitive rather than derivative. Applying this insight I contend that the relational distinctions—unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding—are not secondary features imposed on a pre-existing substance; rather they are fundamental aspects of the divine essence itself. As I have explained on elswhere on my website regarding Jiri Benovsky, “Primitives are what I call problem-solvers. A problem-solver is a primitive that is there to solve a problem.” This assertion underscores the idea that the primitives posited by various metaphysical theories, although differing in content, function in the same capacity to resolve key explanatory challenges such as the problem of attribute agreement.

In the context of Trinitarian theology this means that the very distinctions between the Persons of the Godhead are best understood as the necessary, primitive means by which the one divine essence is expressed in three ways. By treating these distinctions as ontologically primitive any apparent tension between the unity of divine simplicity and the diversity of relational modes is dissolved. Rather than viewing the relational differences as superimposed or accidental, we recognize them as the fundamental, irreducible elements that make the dynamic self-donation of the Trinity intelligible.

Thus, the dynamic self-donation of the Trinity becomes an intrinsic quality of God’s being—a quality that is both immutable in its perfection and active in its eternal self-gift. In this light the relational distinctions are not ad hoc additions but the very means by which the full divine life is continuously actualized, supporting a robust understanding of revelation where what is given in God’s relational nature (the “that”) is more fundamental than any secondary explanation (the “why”). This insight leads us to appreciate that the revelation of the divine is found in the self-donative act of God, a revelation that is as foundational as it is transformative.

My approach ultimately treats donation and gift as primitive; that is, as fundamental modes of self-donation that are pre-ontological. By drawing on insights from Marion and Benovsky, I see these relational acts as intrinsic rather than as merely sequential cause–effect events, while still remaining in dialogue with Aquinas’s more realist perspective. In this view, the eternal sharing of the one divine nature is not a process that unfolds over time but the very manner in which being is grounded. This relational connection is ontologically equivalent in its realization among the Persons, preserving the full, coequal unity of the Godhead.

Where earlier we noted that Gregory saw mystery in these pre-ontological terms, I, on the other hand, perceive clarity. In this way, I sense that Gregory and I are expressing two sides of the same mystery. He views the Persons as inexhaustible, and I see them as fully given, so that their capacity to communicate is itself inexhaustible. In other words, while he speaks of the monarchy of the Father, I understand it as the monarchy of the Trinity, with the Father’s unoriginated nature serving as the source from which the entire relational self-donation flows and embraces, not as an emanation, but so that the Trinity may be all in all. I believe that we both see that the Father does not send merely to have something returned literally, but to be embraced and reciprocated; nevertheless, his is always greater.

V. Integration of Classical and Modern Insights

My theological approach is distinguished by its creative synthesis of classical doctrinal affirmations with contemporary philosophical insights. In my view a robust Trinitarian theology must not only be faithful to the patristic and conciliar tradition but also be capable of engaging with modern metaphysical and phenomenological perspectives. The integration of these insights results in a nuanced framework that upholds orthodox Trinitarian doctrine while providing fresh avenues for understanding the relational dynamics of God.

St. Hilary of Poitiers, for instance, offers an elegant formulation of the relational ordering within the Godhead. He writes:

“By the authority of the Giver, the Father is greater; nevertheless the Son is not less, to whom oneness of nature is given.”⁹

Hilary’s statement encapsulates the essential paradox of Trinitarian theology. Although the Father holds relational primacy as the source, this does not imply any reduction in the fullness of the divine nature in the Son. My own Principle of Relationality draws directly from this insight, emphasizing that the distinctions among the Persons are purely a matter of relational origin and do not affect the co-equality of their divine substance.

Tertullian contributes to this dialogue with equal significance. He declares:

“The Father has the Son as His own, and does nothing without Him; yet there is not another God, for the Son is of the Father’s substance.”¹⁰

Tertullian’s language reinforces the idea that the Father’s role as the unoriginated source does not diminish the divine status of the Son. Instead it affirms that the Son shares entirely in the divine essence, with the relational distinction serving solely to articulate the manner in which that essence is shared. This classical testimony supports my contention that relational distinctions within the Trinity are descriptive rather than hierarchical.

Contemporary reflections such as those offered by John Milbank also provide valuable support for this view. Milbank asserts: “That is always prior to why; that is the real why[4].”¹¹

Milbank’s observation emphasizes that the fundamental givenness of God’s relational nature—the “that”—is the true ontological foundation of the Trinity. In my framework this insight underlines that the relational distinctions among the Persons are primary; they are the means by which the one divine essence is made manifest rather than a series of hierarchical levels. The fundamental revelation of God is encountered in this self-donative act, and any further explanation (the “why”) is secondary to the basic reality of God’s relational gift.

This ontological primacy is succinctly crystallized in the Athanasian Creed, a cornerstone of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine:

“We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, without confusing the Persons or dividing the substance; the whole three Persons are coeternal and coequal; none is before or after, none is greater or less.”¹²

The Creed’s unequivocal language affirms that while the relational distinctions of begetting and procession differentiate the Persons, they do so without affecting the co-equality of the divine nature. This classical statement of faith is foundational to my understanding of the Trinity and is fully integrated into the Principle of Relationality.

St. Gregory of Nyssa contributes further to this synthesis by offering a clear statement on relational causality:

Nyssa’s careful articulation ensures that the language of causality does not imply any division of the divine essence but rather expresses the relational order inherent in the Godhead. This understanding is vital for my theology, which maintains that the Father’s unoriginated role is the only true distinction among the Persons without compromising their equality.

St. Basil of Caesarea further clarifies these relational distinctions. In his treatise on the Holy Spirit he asserts:

“We do not count by way of addition, nor do we say first, second, third as ranks, for we have never heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God in God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not split the theology into a divided plurality because one Form of the Godhead is beheld in the Father and in the Son.”¹⁴

Basil’s testimony reinforces the idea that while the relational distinctions are real and significant, they do not result in any numerical or hierarchical division within the Godhead. Instead they serve to express the mystery of the eternal, indivisible unity of divine life, which is fully shared by the three Persons.

Thus by synthesizing classical and modern insights it becomes clear that the unity of the Godhead is maintained because the distinctions among the Persons are strictly relational, that is, differences of origin rather than differences of substance or dignity. Each Person fully participates in the one divine essence, preserving both unity and diversity simultaneously.

VI. Synthesis and Conclusion

In synthesizing these insights my Principle of Relationality presents a robust resolution to the enduring theological challenge: How can the unity of the one God be preserved alongside the distinct, co-equal Persons of the Trinity without implying any subordination? The answer lies in understanding divine simplicity not as a static, abstract oneness but as a dynamic, relational communion: a continuous, eternal act of self-donation.

The monarchy of the Father, far from being an assertion of hierarchical domination, is the very relational foundation of the Trinity. It designates the Father as the unique, unoriginated source (archē) of divine life from which the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. However, this role as source does not imply any diminution in the divine status of the Son or the Holy Spirit; rather it is the manner in which the one divine essence is eternally expressed and shared among the Persons.

As Augustine eloquently states:

“God the Father is the fountain of all divinity, and from Him the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed.”³

This image of the Father as an unending fountain of divine life encapsulates the essence of dynamic self-donation. The continuous outpouring of divine love ensures that all three Persons are fully imbued with the one undivided divine essence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reinforces this mutual indwelling:

Divine simplicity is fully realized through the perpetual, reciprocal self-gift within the Godhead. Relational distinctions such as begetting and procession are simply the means by which the eternal self-donation is articulated. They do not create any hierarchical ordering or imply any inequality in divine substance or glory.

Gregory of Nazianzus captures the paradox beautifully when he reminds us:

“Neither should we posit three first principles if we want to avoid the polytheism of the Greeks, nor a single one; unity is worshipped in Trinity and Trinity in unity, both its union and its distinction miraculous.” In his mystical reflection Gregory emphasizes that the unity of the Godhead is inseparable from its relational distinctions. The dynamic interplay of self-donation is the very expression of divine unity, a mystery that invites us not to dissect its internal workings but to worship its ineffable beauty.

This synthesis, drawing from the profound insights of the Church Fathers, the authoritative formulations of the ecumenical councils, and the contributions of modern philosophers, culminates in a vision that is both deeply faithful to the Catholic theological tradition and creatively engaged with contemporary thought. By reinterpreting divine simplicity as dynamic, relational communion, my theology demonstrates that the one unity of God is not compromised by the distinct relational modes of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Instead these modes are the very means by which the divine essence is fully actualized and eternally shared.

The Principle of Relationality affirms that God’s unity is entirely preserved through the eternal self-donation that flows from the Father as the unoriginated source to the Son who is begotten and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds. This dynamic model of divine simplicity reveals that the relational distinctions within the Trinity do not imply any subordination or inequality. On the contrary they express the fullness of the one divine nature in three co-equal Persons who are united in an eternal, mutual communion of love.

God is not merely an abstract oneness but living relational reality fully that, a mystery in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are eternally and dynamically united in self-donative love. As Gregory of Nazianzus advises with humble reverence:

“Do not trouble yourself about how [begetting] occurs…”¹ᵃ

This exhortation serves as a gentle reminder that the mystery of the Trinity transcends our limited human understanding. Our task is to approach this mystery with worshipful adoration, trusting that the eternal self-donation within the Godhead fully preserves both divine unity and the distinctiveness of each Person.

Ultimately, the relational ontology I propose is not a departure from orthodox Trinitarian doctrine but rather a deepening of it; a synthesis that integrates classical insight with modern philosophical innovation. It demonstrates that the one unity of God is realized through an eternal, dynamic act of self-donation, ensuring that the Father’s monarchy serves as the relational fountainhead of divine life without implying any subordination. In this way the mystery of the Trinity is celebrated in its fullness: a mystery of one undivided essence expressed in three distinct, co-equal Persons who are united forever in an unending communion of divine love.

End notes for sources to the quotes

Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 25,” in Select Orations, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894), 23:11. Available online at New Advent.
John of Damascus, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” Book I, Chapter 8, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S.D.F. Salmond (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899). Available online at New Advent.
Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity, Book XV, Chapter 26, trans. Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Available online at New Advent.
Fourth Lateran Council, “Constitution on the Catholic Faith,” Canon 2, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 230.
Council of Florence, “Laetentur Caeli,” Session 6 (July 6, 1439), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 527.
G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), s.v. “μοναρχία.”
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q.33, a.1, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947). Available online at New Advent.
Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 23:11,” in Select Orations, trans. Martha Vinson (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003).
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book IX, Section 56, trans. E. W. Watson and L. Pullan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899). Available online at New Advent.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapters 4–5, trans. Peter Holmes, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885). Available online at New Advent.
John Milbank, as cited in contemporary theological discussions on revelation and the Trinity (referenced in Catholic dialogues exploring relational ontology).
“Athanasian Creed,” in The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), 66–71. Available online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Gregory of Nyssa, “On Not Three Gods,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893), 331–336. Available online at New Advent.
Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 18, trans. Blomfield Jackson, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895). Available online at New Advent.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), para. 255. Available online at Vatican.va.
Gregory of Nazianzus, “Oration 29 (Third Theological Oration),” Section 8, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894). Available online at New Advent.
For additional reference on the mystical phrasing of Gregory of Nazianzus, see his “Exhortation on Divine Generation,” as cited in various editions of his orations.

Bibliography

Athanasian Creed. In The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff, 66–71. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877.

Augustine of Hippo. On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.

Basil of Caesarea. On the Holy Spirit. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895. Available online at New Advent.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 2000. Available online at Vatican.va.

Council of Florence. “Laetentur Caeli.” Session 6 (July 6, 1439). In Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1. Edited by Norman P. Tanner. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990, 523–528.

Fourth Lateran Council. “Constitution on the Catholic Faith.” In Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1. Edited by Norman P. Tanner. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990, 230–233.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Select Orations. Translated by Martha Vinson. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

Gregory of Nazianzus. “Orations.” Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.

Gregory of Nyssa. “On Not Three Gods.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 331–336. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893. Available online at New Advent.

Hilary of Poitiers. On the Trinity. Translated by E.W. Watson and L. Pullan. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899. Available online at New Advent.

Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

Milbank, John. As cited in contemporary theological discussions on revelation and the Trinity. Referenced in Catholic dialogues exploring relational ontology.

Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Peter Holmes. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Available online at New Advent.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.

John of Damascus. “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” Translated by S.D.F. Salmond. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899. Available online at New Advent.

Gregory of Nazianzus. “Oration 29 (Third Theological Oration).” Section 8, In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894. Available online at New Advent.

[1] XXVIII. This, then, is my position with regard to these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me; to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers not long departed showed. Let him not see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture says, nor the glory of its brightness, who is otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of the times, at one time being of one mind and of another at another time, and thinking unsoundly in the highest matters. For if He is not to be worshipped, how can He deify me by Baptism? But if He is to be worshipped, surely He is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of adoration He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our New Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from Whom it is derived. CHURCH FATHERS: Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31) (Gregory Nazianzen)

[2] Historians are often not explicit enough, but tradition has it that many of Nazianzus’ Trinitarian orations are in fact homilies, meaning they were delivered in the context of liturgy and sacrament. The high point of this religious practice in Gregory’s day would have been participation in the Eucharist, for example. This context is taken for granted but is largely unknown to non-liturgical sects or to non-apostolic, orthodox practitioners of Christian faith practices.

[3] St. John of Damascus further affirms this orthodox understanding with a concise formulation of the Godhead: “We confess that God is one in essence and three in persons. We confess that the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeding.” This succinct statement asserts that while there is one divine essence, the relational distinctions—unbegotten for the Father, begotten for the Son, and proceeding for the Holy Spirit—mark the eternal modes of origin within the Trinity.

[4] In a discussion with Milbank on Twitter he gave us this powerful insight on life and revelation, which I find insightful in this context too.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply