Reflections on the Trinity

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Now and forever. Amen.

Well, I've completed my posts on the Code of Chivalry. Who knows, maybe I'll revisit them some day. For now, though, I'm going to turn to something more theological--the Trinity. Now, these are just going to be my own reflections on the Doctrine of the Trinity, and if you find it helpful, then great! If not, well, that's okay too.

So, we have this apparent contradiction in Scripture. God is said, very clearly, to be the One God. And yet, in the person of Jesus, we have this conundrum. He very clearly claims to be the God of Israel, and at the same time prays to the God of Israel, His Father in heaven. Likewise, the other person we read about, this Spirit of God, is also very clearly another person that has identification with the God of Israel. So, there's this apparent contradiction. God is one, but we observe three persons in Scripture identified as this One God.

After wrestling with this paradox for a few centuries, the Church clarifies precisely what is going on here. She teaches that God is one in being, and three in person. No, I'm not going to try to clarify this by analogy, because invariably analogies about the Trinity end up being fundamentally heretical, usually taking the forms of modalism or partialism, or perhaps something else. So, in the interest of not being labelled a heretic, I will not consider this in the form of an analogy, and hopefully, I won't end up saying something heretical anyway.

Six Questions

When we think about a creature (so, getting away from the Trinity question for now), we can generally as five questions about it. What is it? Where is it? When is it? How is it? And why is it? All other questions we might ask about it are actually just variations of these four. "What" questions are questions about substances or essences. "Where" questions are about locations or presences. "When" questions are time or sequence. "How" questions are about agency or modes. And "why" questions are about purposes or directions.

There is a sixth question that may be asked of creatures, but only of a subset of creatures. In other words, this question can't be asked of all creatures, but only of some (namely, humans and angels). This question is "who is it?" And this kind of question is about personality or identity.

The first five questions we may ask about a thing are questions of being. Every being is a particular substance, in a particular place, in a particular time, in a particular way, and for a particular purpose. And every being has substance, location, sequence, order and purpose. However, not every being has personhood. This means that there are at least five essential aspects of being, but that personhood is not one of them, otherwise all beings would have it. In other words, there is a particular distinction between being, as such, and personhood. I'm going to write a post about the Hypostatic Union another time that I hope will demonstrate this point further.

So, because we have this distinction between being and personhood, we may have (that is to say, it is possible) a difference in quantity between the two. But, this is only really possible for a being or person that is actually infinite, without an real limits. Think about it, if you have two people who are actually infinite in being, what difference, in being, would there be between the two? There would be no difference, otherwise either or both of them wouldn't actually be infinite, one possessing some quality that the other lacks. And since that being is itself actually infinite, it is therefore all-encompassing, and must necessarily encompass the being of the other person wholly and completely, otherwise, again, its being would not actually be infinite. So, from that simple thought experiment, you can see that it is possible to have a multiplicity of persons and a singular being when we're talking about true limitlessness.

I hope that, with this, I've established at least the real possibility of this Trinitarian Doctrine. I think I will leave it at this for now. Perhaps I will reflect more on the personalities of the Three Persons in a future entry.

Thanks for reading!

The Code of Chivalry: To Live by Honour and for Glory

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Now and forever. Amen.

And so we come to the final rule of the Code of Chivalry, which I have purposely left out of order. This is rule number six, and it is to live by honour and for glory. Now, I deliberately left this one for last because it is different than the rest in that it is both a summary of the rest, and it gives the reason for the rest.

There are two phrases in this rule: to live by honour, and to live for glory. The first, to live by honour, gives us the central theme to all the rest of the rules: honour. All of these rules are about honour, and how one behaves in an honourable manner. The second, to live for glory, gives us the reason we should live by honour. This is the "why," the reason for the code in the first place. But this reason, glory, may not be what you have in mind. I'll explain, but first let's talk about honour.

To Live By Honour

From the rules of the code, as we have examined them, we should arrive at an understanding of what honour is to the knight. Today, we might think of honour in a variety of ways, including recognition you receive from peers, or perhaps a code of ethics, a certain rule of action one might live by, heck, it's what we call our judges. To the knight, honour was about three things specifically, which govern all these actions, each of which can be reduced to one fundamental reality: relationship.

Honour was all about relationship. Namely, it was about three kinds of relationships: our relationship to God, our relationship to our fellow man, and our relationship to ourselves. It is these three spheres that the Code of Chivalry covers.

To fear God, and maintain His Church, these show us how to behave honourably toward God.

To serve the liege lord in valour and faith, to protect the weak and defenceless, to give succor to widows and orphans, to refrain from the wanton giving of offence, to fight for the welfare of all, to obey those placed in authority, to guard the honour of fellow knights, to respect the honour of women, never to refuse a challenge from an equal, and never to turn the back upon a foe, these show us how to behave honourably toward our fellow man.

To despise pecuniary reward, to eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit, to keep faith, at all times to speak the truth, and to persevere to the end in any enterprise begun, these show us how to maintain an honourable integrity within ourselves.

I say again, honour was all about relationships, and the Chivalric Code was all about helping the knight to behave honourably, to keep good relationships, and maintaining the integrity of the trust that is fundamental to these relationships.

To Live For Glory

So the question then because, why? Why should the knight care about honour? Why should he care about keeping these relationships? Especially for a knight in the midst of war, why should he care about maintaining relationships? Most of the people he's going to war with are going to be dead soon, anyway. He doesn't know the enemy, their women and children, why shouldn't he just take as he pleases?

The reason is glory. What? Yes, glory. The reason we might have a problem with this is that our understanding of glory isn't what it used to be. When we think of glory, we think of acclamation, of public recognition of excellence. We have visions of being remembered with admiration for generations to come. So, to think about living honourably as a way to glory seems backward, especially when we reflect on the fact that several of the rules of this Code require humility. The pursuit of glory seems to be anything but humble.

In fact, the above understanding is actually the definition of something else that we call vainglory. Today, it seems, we have confused true glory with vainglory. Okay, so if the way we think about glory isn't what it used to be, then what did it used to be? Remembering, once again, that we're talking about Christendom here, we should look for a Christo-centric explanation. Hence, I turn in the direction of the Bible.

In Scripture, we find four uses of the word glory, all of which relate to each other. They are:

1. A visible, physical phenomenon, often called brightness, as in the case of Jesus' Transfiguration, whereat the glory of His divinity shone forth, what the Jews called the Shekhinah.
2. Praise rendered to God in acknowledgement of his Majesty and perfection, as seen in Apocalypse 4:11, for example.
3. A judgement of personal worth, as seen in John 5:44.
4. It is a reference to the soul's eschatological union with God, as in Romans 8:18.

St. Augustine defines glory, as a reality that runs through each of the above, as clara notitia cum laude, or "brilliant celebrity with praise."

The Shekhinah is interpreted as the praise of the Divine manifested through nature itself, whereas glory in the second sense is the praise we offer to each other. Glory in the third sense is praise we offer to each other. But this kind of glory, if it is to be true glory, must be praise we give one another for the majesty of God that we perceive in each other. As to the eschatological union we will have with God, this glory is the eternal praise that arises from within, for the glory of God that dwells within us.

So glory is that effulgent joy that manifests itself as praise for the goodness of God. This is why the knight must live for glory, not for his own glory, but for God's. And even if there was an interest in one's own glory, if it be true glory, it would be for the likeness to God that the knight manifests in his actions.

That is to say, because there is a deep union between sainthood and God's own goodness, personal glory has an identification with the glory of the Divine, insofar as the holiness of God dwells within the person. So for the knight to live by honour, and for glory, it is to act honourably so that at once one might give praise to God through good action, and that the holiness of God might come to dwell within, and finally that the goodness of God might shine forth through the person as a beacon to others.

In other words, this Chivalric Code was a guide for the knight to attain sainthood within his specific vocation in life: knighthood.

(For further reading on the Church's doctrine on glory: Glory.)

Praise God!

Thanks for reading!

The Code of Chivalry: Never Refuse a Challenge, Never Turn Your Back

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Now and Forever. Amen.

I have to say, my friends, that the last two rules listed in the Song of Roland were perhaps the two more interesting rules for me. These are never to refuse a challenge from an equal, and never to turn the back upon a foe. Now, at first glance, these seem like pretty straight forward, even obvious rules that an intelligent and capable knight would live by. In fact, more than any other rule, these look like the kind of rules you'd expect to see on a list of rules about how to be a good knight.

Ah, but looks are often deceiving, aren't they? Consider the tone of these rules so far, what theme do we see repeated throughout: relationship, trust, going out of oneself to think about and act for the good sake of the other. How do these two rules continue to carry these themes forward?

Never to Refuse a Challenge from an Equal

When first confronted with this idea, you might be tempted, as I was, to think this is all about machismo and bravado; the Knight is out to prove his worth. The truth is that this goes much deeper than that, and the way we know this is by the phrase "from an equal." If this were all about machismo, the rule would just be "never refuse a challenge," and leave it at that, but it doesn't. We have this phrase from an equal attached to the end of it, and that changes everything.

First of all, in order to keep this rule, a knight has to know who an equal is. This means that he must be very aware of his own abilities. And not just in combat, but in anything. So, first of all, this rule requires humility; it requires the knight to know who his superiors are, and who his inferiors are, not by social status, but by ability. This isn't about chest-puffery at all.

The second thing this phrase tells us is that there are times a knight ought to refuse a challenge: namely, from someone who isn't an equal. We could all guess why a knight would refuse a challenge from someone who is his superior: he could come to harm, or at least be humiliated. Not only this, but by refusing such a challenge, the knight clearly acknowledges his challenger's superiority. If done publicly, that's a notable thing, both for yourself, and the challenger. The challenger gains a reputation of excellence, and you gain a reputation of good prudential judgement.

And we could probably also guess why he'd refuse a challenge from an inferior: he could cause serious harm, or at the very least humiliate his opponent. Of course, the difficulty with this is that you might gain a reputation of pride, thinking yourself better. So, the handling of it should have been done with tact, with the refusal being a challenge to the challenger to improve his skill before making the same challenge again.

But this rule prescribes something peculiar. Sure, you can refuse challenges from people who are not your equal, but the rules says to never refuse a challenge from one who is an equal. Why? I think the reason has to do with these other scenarios: of refusing a challenge from someone who is not an equal. If you refuse a challenge, what does that say? It says you don't think you're on equal footing. The implication being that the challenger is either better or worse than you are. And since the challenger doesn't know certainly which you believe it to be, it may well be taken as a social slight against him. That creates, or advances bad blood.

However, if you accept the challenge, that would be seen as an honorable gesture. It means you recognize your opponent's ability, and that being understood by the challenger, fosters good relations. Even if this person is an enemy, honoring them in such a way is like extending an olive branch.

So even in such affairs as these, the knight bears social responsibility, and must continue to think beyond himself.

Never to Turn the Back Upon a Foe

Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "okay yeah, I can see that last one, but how does this rule have anything to do with anything other than protecting yourself? Or trust for that matter?" Good question. I had to ask it, myself. For all appearances, this is simply a pragmatic rule. It's really just a good idea if you don't want to get stabbed in the back.

You have to remember, though, that this is Christian Europe, and these rules were highly endorsed by the Church. So you have to think, there must be a Christian character to even this. Well there is, and I'm going to try to make it clear, but it's going to require me to remember all the way back to high school, to one homily that one of the priests there gave.

So what Fr. David told us was that in Jesus' time, the Aramaic word that we translate as "hate" literally means to "turn one's back on." So, for example, when we read about Jesus teaching that we must hate our father and our mother, what He's talking about here is turning away from them, and toward the Lord. And this is how the Jews then understood what it was to love and to hate something: to turn one's face toward, or to turn one's back toward.

There are dozens of Scripture passages that speak about facing the Lord, speaking face to face with God, turning toward Him, seeking His face (1 Chronicles 16:11, for example). And what do these mean? They refer to the love that one has for God. To hate God is to turn one's back on Him, to turn away from His face, and away from His Law.

But why is it seen this way? It's because it is through the face, the eyes in particular, that we recognize the personhood of another. It is a particularly personal action, looking someone in the eyes. So what is it, then, to turn one's back on an enemy? It is an act meant to dishonor them. Not only does it imply they aren't a threat, but the act itself is a denial of the dignity they possess as persons created in God's image. It is a hateful act.

And, of course, what are we commanded to do, by our very Lord, Jesus Christ? To love even our enemies. Why? Because they possess the dignity of being created in the very image of God. Facing one's enemy isn't about oneself, about conquering one's own fears as an act of empowerment. It's about the enemy, and honoring them by facing them as men who deserve respect. It's about being obedient to our Lord who commanded that we do this thing; love them.