In some denominations the Sunday after Pentecost is celebrated as Trinity Sunday
Despite the title, Good Infection, from a chapter in Mere Christianity, this 14 minute doodle-video is a masterful explanation of The Trinity.
PS. I highly recommend subscribing to the C.S.Lewis Doodles channel on YouTube.
When it comes to the Trinity, I can’t not think of Donall and Conall:
As they suggest, any sentence that begins with “the Trinity is like” will probably end in heresy.
But I recall a rather unfortunate experience of a couple of years back. I was in South Korea on the US Army base at Camp Humphreys, and lacking ready transportation other than my feet, went to the “liturgical” (i.e., Lutheran–or at least the liturgy itself was Lutheran) chapel service there. As it happens, it was Trinity Sunday, which I knew only because the chaplain said so (the Presbyterians to which I belong generally eschew the church calendar, claiming that the Lord’s Day is the only holy day).
The unfortunate part was that, after explaining that it was Trinity Sunday, he then proceed to explain that the Trinity is complicated, and attempting to explain it is fraught with peril (both true enough as far as they go)–and then said he’d avoid the subject entirely, and preached on a different matter. Seems to me that, if the subject is as difficult as he said (and I largely agree there–after all, it took the church 300+ years to sort it out), he rather owed it to his congregation to explain it to them.
Unfortunately, the “official” explanation of the Trinity referred to in the Donall and Conall video is from the Athanasian Creed, which is also considered “heretical” by the Eastern Orthodox Church because it includes the infamous “filioque”, i.e. that the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son, rather than simply from the Father, as stated in the Nicene Creed. The “filioque” was added to the Creed in the Western churches later.
In Lewis’s explanation of the Trinity, it seems that he “proceeds” (pun?) from the assumption of the “filioque”. I can’t help but wonder if he was even aware of this critical divisive theological issue between the Eastern and Western churches. In the introduction to “Mere Christianity” Lewis writes that he sent a copy of Book II for comment to four clergymen – Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic (but not to an Orthodox clergyman). He then writes: “I did not have the remaining books similarly ‘vetted’ because in them, though differences might arise between Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.” His explanation of the Trinity comes in Book IV, of course. There he writes (as also reflected in the “C,S. Lewis Doodle”): “The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person”, which seems to be an assumption of the “filioque”. Maybe it would have been better for Lewis to avoid trying to explain the Trinity?
Dimitry
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)
Dimitry asks: “Maybe it would have been better for Lewis to avoid trying to explain the Trinity?”
Well, duh, since there is no such thing anywhere in Scripture as “the Trinity” so “explaining” it is impossible. And it even worse to use it as a test of faith, with or without accompanying anathemas and Inquisitions.
Even though all long-timers here know how I view all creeds as worse than useless if they include condemnations and judgements (I am so going to miss the Golden Dragon weighing in on this!), I actually agree more with the Nicene sentiment that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.”
As many of you will remember, I appreciate Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who described one creator-god, Father of all things, and described “the Son” and “the Spirit” as his “two arms” by which he acts within Creation. This is extremely simple a conception (and scriptural), and preserves the teaching that there is one God, who is all in all.
The only conceivable objection to this is that people will propose that this is problematic as to the existence/role of the Son and Spirit “before Creation.” That is easily answered: there is no “before.” God is eternal, and is a Creator — he was never “not a Creator.”
This is the idea that Lewis was trying to preserve when supporting the conception of the Son as “eternally proceeding” from the Father, and the Spirit as “eternally proceeding” from the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. It’s not as elegant as what Irenaeus proposed, and it isn’t because Lewis did not (it seems to me) view the Creation itself as having no beginning or end. God is all in all. He is not ultimately separate from his Creation: “in him we live and move and have our being.”
Sincerely,
Michael, denizen of the Oregon Coast and Lord High Heretic of SpareOom (by appointment of the Golden Dragon himself)
Would the Eastern Orthodox Church consider the portion they quoted to be heretical? Unless I’m mistaken, it does not include the filioque–though Donall and Conall are creations of “Lutheran Satire”, which you could reasonably expect to hold to the Western creeds. But as to Lewis, I like you suspect he may not have been familiar with the dividing line here.
If by this you mean simply that the word doesn’t appear in Scripture, you’re of course correct, but this is as irrelevant as it is correct. But minimally (and leaving aside the question of the filioque), the teaching of the Trinity includes that:
…and each of these is clearly and repeatedly stated in scripture.
Although the word “filioque” as such is not found in the Athanasian Creed, here is the English translation of the passage which seems to indicate that meaning: “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding”.
Dimitry
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)
Yes, insofar as I understand the EO objection, I’d agree that this statement would also be problematic in that context. But I don’t think the video quoted this.
(one rewatch later)
No, it didn’t. Patrick quoted “that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confusing the Persons, nor dividing the substance.” Following which, he paraphrased the next two sentences, which read (per Wikipedia), “For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.” (which, insofar as I understand the EO position, shouldn’t be problematic either).
So, while the Athanasian Creed does state that the Spirit is “of” the Father and the Son, and thus would be understandably objectionable to the EO faith, this video doesn’t get that specific, and thus doesn’t seem like it should be a problem.