The Power of Metaphor
I was reading K-Lo's latest at NRO, and this line caught my eye.
But Catholic roots, smells and bells, and years of tradition and culture are, indeed, tangible, even if the Trinity isn't (save for a shamrock helper).
I'm not concerned for the moment with the article itself, I'm more concerned with the shamrock as Holy Trinity.
Searching my mind, this seems to be the dominant metaphor for the Trinity in Western Christendom. This isn't that significant in itself, but since I recently posted on Saint Spyridon I still have his metaphor of the Trinity in mind (the brick).
These competing metaphors have, I think, shaped the way Orthodox and Catholics approach the Trinity and may have some bearing on the Filioque controversy.
The shamrock metaphor shows that, though the shamrock is one, it is comprised of three distinct leaves. The trouble with the shamrock, though, is telling the leaves apart. They're identical to each other, and thus only distinguishable through their relationships (leaf x is between leaves y and z, for instance).
I think this might have motivated the Western mind to try to approach the Trinity through the relationship between the Three Persons. When I've read up on the subject and talked to Catholics about the Filioque, I always hear that it was necessary to relate the Son to the Holy Spirit to complete the understanding of the Trinity. Somehow, it was incomplete for the Son to relate to the Father and for the Holy Spirit to relate to the Father, and no more.
Now take Saint Spyridon's approach. The brick represents the unity of the Trinity, but it is comprised of three distinct parts: earth, fire, and water. Each element is distinguishable from the other because of the role that is plays in the brick (fire is what dries the brick, water moistens the earth, earth provides the base). Similarly, Orthodox view the Three Persons of the Trinity teleologically rather than relationally (the Father is the Source of the Godhead and of all, the Son is the Redeemer of all mankind, the Holy Spirit is the Perfector that bestows Grace on creation). Christ's Baptism, the only time we so splendidly see all Three Persons of the Trinity together, illustrates this wonderfully. The Father booms forth from the Heavens, sublime. The Son prepares his evangelically work, which will culminate in Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Holy Spirit gently descends onto the Son's head and effects the purity that baptism brings.
Notice that this underscores my objection to the Filioque. God the Father is the Source of Godhead. The presence of such a source underscores the unity of the Trinity, as One Person is responsible for generation. That's why saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is ridiculous. That confuses the role that each person plays in our spiritual lives. Also, it demeans the Holy Spirit, because suddenly both the Father and the Son play a generative role, while the Holy Spirit does not. This tears apart the fabric of a united Trinity and Godhead rather than better explain it.
I have no problem with saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son and from the Father (as this reinforced both the Son's role of Redeemer and the Father's role of Source), but that's not what the Filioque is saying.
I needed to type that out before I get further wrapped up in studying for a pretty tough final tomorrow. Prayers would be greatly appreciated.