Three things no. 3

1. I skipped last week’s three things, because I wrote this post about forgetting as doctrinal development instead. That post actually started out as a three things post, before I realized I should really just make it its own post. I’m hoping this continues to happen: the three things format leads to more posts.

2. On The Lamp’s blog, Peter Hitchens reflects on the apple tree as a symbol for Christ. He is interested in the convergence of Christ crucified on a tree & the apple tree as an explosion of life & fruitfulness. The early Franciscans I study are also interested in using the apple tree for christological thinking, but for them they focus on grafting as an aid in understanding the union of two natures in one hypostasis. Here’s an excerpt from the Summa halensis, translated by my colleague Oleg Bychkov & Lydia Schumacher:

An example of the second type of union is when a branch of a pear tree is united to an apple—or some other—tree, on to which it is grafted: indeed, in this case both natures—namely, pear & apple—remain intact, & apples never become pears, nor vice versa—and yet no third entity results from this union—such as a tree that is neither a pear tree nor an apple tree—but one emerges out of the other, namely, a pear tree out of an apple tree, because as a result of the grafting, the dominant [entity] compels the other to unite with itself, so that it grows out of it, but is not it. … However, the union where one comes out of the other, as in the example of grafting, takes place in one hypostasis, in such a way that there is one hypostasis of two natures there. Hence, when one grafts a pear branch on to an apple tree stump & they are united through this grafting, the [grafting] results in one hypostasis—that is, one tree—comprising both pear & apple, which have two completely different natures. In this case we have something that is one in hypostasis, not one in nature.

3. I saw Les Misérables in Rochester last night. I’ve been thinking about Les Mis since I saw the film adaptation in 2012,¹ especially its study of justice & mercy in society, represented above all, of course, in the parallel trajectories of Javert & Valjean. What distinguishes these two characters is their different responses to being shown mercy. Valjean’s recognizes the Bishop’s act of mercy utterly exceeds what he deserves; such a gratuitous act of mercy can only be received in gratitude by committing his life to showing mercy to others: to Fantine, to Cosette, to Marius, even to Javert himself. Javert’s understanding of justice leaves no room for the asymmetry of mercy: when he is shown mercy by someone he considers utterly beneath him, the result can only be his own self-destruction.