ALMOST THE SQUARE ROOT OF INFINITY

For many thoughtful people hovering on the edges of faith, the Trinity is a stumbling-block. For both Jews and Muslims, it comes perilously close to polytheism. For the philosophic psychologist Jung it was a sign of incompleteness, in the Catholic Church suitably completed by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Even for many of the faithful, it is a puzzlement elevated to a mystery. So it is worth thinking about. 

St Athanasius, that uncompromising Church Father whose Creed is printed in the Book of Common Prayer as the Quicunque Vult, wrote a magnificent letter in which he explains the Trinity. Here are two excerpts:

“We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being. It is a wholly creative and energising reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word [the Son] and in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Accordingly, in the Church, one God is preached, one God who is above all things and through all things and in all things. God is above all things as Father, for he is principle and source; he is through all things through the Word; and he is in all things in the Holy Spirit.”

“Even the gifts that the Spirit dispenses to individuals are given by the Father through the Word. For all that belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son, and so the graces given by the Son in the Spirit are true gifts of the Father. Similarly, when the Spirit dwells in us, the Word who bestows the Spirit is in us too, and the Father is present in the Word. This is the meaning of the text: My Father and I will come to him and make our home with him. For where the light is, there also is the radiance; and where the radiance is, there too are its power and its resplendent grace.” (Letter to Serapion)

I find this admirably clear and wholly convincing. What is still difficult, once one has absorbed it, is the complementary understanding of the Unity. Once one has grasped the identity and the relation of the three Persons of the Trinity, one wrestles with the fact that “they are” One God. In Athanasius’ explanation of the Unity, God as above all things as their principle and source and Creator is understandable. God as in all things as the indwelling Holy Spirit also makes sense. Where it becomes harder is when A. sees God being through all things as the Word, or the Son. What, here, does “through” mean? I think that it becomes easier if we change the verb. God does all things as the Source and Creator of them; He does them through (dia, per, via) the Word; and He does them in the Spirit. This leads us back to the Gospel of St John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” And, as Athanasius reminds us elsewhere, Jesus also says, “Who has seen me has seen the Father.”

In the full sense all this is of course well beyond our complete understanding. We see very much as in a glass, darkly. Our window is grubby, and our binoculars ill-focused. But we can get something of a sense of this vast core of our faith. Pater (non) e(s)t Filius (non) e(s)t Spiritus Sanctus. Its dazzling strangeness reminds me of what Tertullian (or someone close to him) wrote of the death and resurrection of the Son of God: et mortuus est dei filius: [prorsus] credibile est, quia ineptum est. et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile. “The Son of God died: this is utterly believable because it is improper. And having been buried, He rose again: this must be true (is certain), because it is impossible.” 

 

WHEN SHUTTERS CREAK AND WINDOWS STICK

                                            

The theme of this week, in both Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, seems to be openness to the loving approach of God. I find this particularly opportune, as it has been cropping up in my own meditation for some time now. An analogy occurs to me which, like all analogies, is fallible but still apt and instructive. Even as a child, I always found wonderful the fact that we are surrounded by invisible radio waves and that we have but to turn on a radio for all these programmes to become real, audible and (usually) intelligible. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is like this. Perhaps we are surrounded by Him at all times and have but to turn on (it's instructive that in French the word for "to turn on" is "to open") something in our heart to receive Him: His programme, His teaching, His support, His love. Completely different from "seeking God".

Spiritus Sanctus has always been my instinctive favourite person of the Trinity. But it is curious to see how He is spoken of in the New Testament. In both the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit is somewhere between a He and an It, not quite a person, rather a force: very specific, circumscribed, almost concrete. Yeshua or one of the Apostles breathes on you and you receive the spiritus -- which, after all, is pneuma, ruach: breath, wind, or spirit. And receiving that spirit, that force, enables you to do things impossible before: preach the Word to hostile and sometimes lethal audiences, tread on serpents and drink poison without coming to harm. May the Force be with you -- in you, indeed.

For the true understanding of the Holy Ghost as a person we have Athanasius and the Cappdocian Fathers -- Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianze -- to thank. I used to think that the Athanasian Creed, as printed in the Book of Common Prayer, was a rebarbative and most unattractive text; later I discovered how much serious and magnificent thought and devotion it contains. And the three Cappadocians richly repay far more attention that we are wont to give them. Here is a typically gorgeous passage from Gregory of Nazianzus:

Look at these facts: Christ is born, the Holy Spirit is His Forerunner. Christ is baptized, the Spirit bears witness to this ... Christ works miracles, the Spirit accompanies them. Christ ascends, the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power? What titles appertaining to God do not apply also to Him, except for Unbegotten and Begotten? I tremble when I think of such an abundance of titles, and how many Names they blaspheme, those who revolt against the Spirit!

I have always found it difficult -- and have written so here before -- to assimilate the currently-common idea that the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. It is a tempting thought in some ways, but a love that is a relationship cannot, surely, be a Person? The idea stems, I imagine, from the Filioque clause, which holds that "the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son" and not, as in Orthodox Christianity, from the Father alone. The Orthodox consider that as a result Western Christianity underestimates the Spirit; and I wonder if they may not be right. 

If it is the Holy Spirit that surrounds us and seeks us, we should do well to ask Him to open our shutters, our windows and our doors so that we may receive Him -- a paradox, but such opening is not something we can do by ourselves. And there is no contradiction there with, say, Holman Hunt's painting of Jesus standing at the door and knocking, for the Spirit and the Son, and the Father, are one God, and when one knocks, the Trinity knocks. Let us open: a little chink will do. Give the Spirit an inch, He will take a mile. Maranatha!

WHEN THE SAINTS GO MARCHING IN

Hallowe'en is catching on even in France. I suspect that 90% of those who celebrate it have no idea of its context nor of the feast of which it is the even. Mind you, few know much about its background either: the Wikipedia article on it is long and most informative. Still, I thought it would be good to have a little post on All Saints' Day, as a counterweight to all that cobwebs 'n candy.

People who like to read are divided into two kinds: readers of fiction and readers of non-fiction. For the latter – often those engaged in business or other ‘prosaic’ occupations – the favourite kinds of reading are history and biography. History has the pleasure of narrative with the assurance that this story ‘really happened’ and is thus not a flight of fancy or of mendacity; biography, often the lives of great men and women, has the virtue of inspiring admiration and emulation.

For readers of biography, the saints of the Church are a special case. One finds among them few entrepreneurs or scientists, and not many military heroes. However, there are no milquetoasts or marshmallows either. There are Martyrs: those who have suffered and died for the faith, from the victims of lions and gladiators in the Roman arenas to Maximilian Kolbe in Auschwitz. There are Confessors: those who have proclaimed the faith and worked tirelessly for it, and/or have lived signally holy lives, from the earliest hermits in the desert to the twentieth-century St Faustina Kowalska in Poland. There are Doctors: those who have applied their intelligence and learning to the faith and thus light the way for the rest of us, from St Athanasius to St Thérèse of Lisieux. There are the Evangelists, like St Francis Xavier, who brought the faith to far corners of the world. And there are the saints of Charity, like St Vincent de Paul and Mother Teresa, who have worked tirelessly for the poorest and most forgotten of humanity. Reading the lives of all these, and the works some of them have written, is indeed a journey of admiration and if inspiration: we learn courage, intentness, commitment, meditation, prayer, steadfastness and a vastness of faith that most of us sadly lack.

A particular case is that of the Saints Unknown. The Church allows for this: there are those whose faith shines, but shines in a small or remote context where it is not noticed by those who could bring it to the attention of the Church as a whole. Some of us have known people like this, and our lives have been genuinely blessed by the privilege and the joy. I find it pleasing that the category is recognised: there are so many flowers in so many fields, after all.

The Feast of All Saints celebrates and commemorates all those, famous, known, and unknown, who have been received in Heaven and there rejoice in the Presence of God. It is a joyful feast: meditating on all these extraordinary characters, one can almost feel caught up by them into a faint but joyous echo of Heaven here on earth. In one sense, it should be a permanent feast: the doctrine of the Communion of Saints recognises that we, the faithful of the Church Militant here in earth, are in communion with the Saints of the Church Triumphant. Catholics pray to them, as do some Anglicans; other Anglicans venerate them without asking them to intercede for us. But either way, we can derive strength and support from their courage, their commitment and their discernment. 

I can understand but deplore the representations of Heaven and its saints in most of the Last Judgement paintings. Hell is graphically and hideously imagined; Heaven has serried ranks of boring and bored-looking ecclesiastics. Of course, the experience of Heaven must be ineffable, and hard to picture; but surely something better could have been achieved? Heaven, if it is anything, is more beautiful than beauty, more joyful than joy, more glorious than glory, and more loving than love. The angels are its denizens; the saints its welcome immigrants. What joy, if this were our future. Imagine . . .

I can recommend the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, in paperback, as an inexpensive source of pleasurable study on the subject.