In reading O’Neill, I was struck, and a bit confused, by his continued use of the term Pattern, particularly in the beginning of the work. Instances of use begin with this definition: “This supreme harmony of the Blessed Trinity is the Pattern, glimpsed by Moses, to which all must conform” (9). Other examples include: “The passion and resurrection in their integral reality…would be impressing on the Christian the Pattern of submission to the Blessed Trinity” (61). And again, “It is man who must conform himself to the heavenly Pattern” (9).
Now prima facie, the term seems quite clear. The use of Pattern is evidently referring to the model the Christian ought to use as a framework for entering into the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection.
This model is, ultimately, obedience. O’Neill makes clear that in the Old Law did not allow for a complete submission to the Divine will, because, simply, it didn’t ask it of the person. “But just as the Law was an external one only, warning the people of their duties but not itself strengthening their wills to obey it, so the official worship, being part of the Law, could not itself satisfy the demands of God, nor could its priests enter truly into the presence of God” (5). In other words, “The Law and the liturgy it prescribed did not of themselves or necessarily imply the submission of man’s will” (5). Without the ability to offer “the substance of realities” as the Letter to the Hebrews mentions, neither can the Law and its liturgy create the conditions in which complete obedience to the Divine will is assumed, albeit still needed.
With the New Law, with Christ’s incarnation, the restoration of the image of the Blessed Trinity in the lives of men occured. Christ’s taking on flesh was done “that by his eaerthly life he might through his obedience reimpress on humanity the Pattern of submission to the divine will…” (9). No man could reimpress this model since “the sons of Adam had renounced their right to enter the sanctuary…” (9). His complete submission to the divine will is revealed in that “Christ had to suffer death; only after this could he be raised up in body to the right hand of the Father…” (15). The master-form, as O’Neill calls is, is Christ’s entire earthly existence, the totality of which have universal signifiacne, but which culminates in the Pattern of his death and resurrection.
The multiple uses of the word Pattern, to refer to both the Paschal sacrifice and the harmony of the Blessed Trinity, indicate the nature of the harmonious relationship in the Blessed Trinity. The relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is that of complete obedience to each, the “master-Pattern.” Christ’s death and resurrection is the full revelation of the love of the Trinity on display for mankind. It is God’s love for God, God obedient to God.
So why Pattern? I like to think that there is a reason that O’Neill chose this word among others. Instead of simply the “model” or “template” or even simply the “virtue” of obedience, Pattern, used as a proper noun, hearkens two particular connotations.
The first is the use of the word pattern within craftsmanship, particular stitching or needle-work. The pattern is both something decorative and beautiful, but also is the form of the thing. There is both an ornamental nature to it – something beautiful for beauty’s sake – and yet also expressing substance. It is inimitable, but not robotic. It requires delicacy, care, and in the case of something like needlework and stitching, complete submission to the pattern itself. In fact, to form a pattern one must submit oneself to the pattern’s formal cause – the essence of the pattern. In a similar way, in order to enter into the divine life and love of the Trinity, one cannot choose the means by which that life is entered. The essence of the Pattern of obedience, Christ’s obedience, is itself the thing which is impressed upon the person. And yet, it is not something coercive, but pleasing to the eye, though difficult, and (if we carry the analogy through, the person being the fabric), painful as the needle of obedience and sacrifice pierces the flesh of the fabric. Gertrude Schnackenerg’s “Supernatural Love” comes to mind.
Perhaps this is a too deep look at the nature of needlework…
The second connotation is one of etymological relations. The word pattern bears close proximity, and was used interchangeably for a time, with the word Patron. Patron means model among other things, but also means Master. The Pattern is more than a idyllic template or something that prescribes procedural steps. It is itself the thing that we seek. The means are the end.
Although this was more than likely not thought of by O’Neill, and I tend to get swept up in semantics, the word Pattern has both an aesthetic and formal meaning that provide, I think, real depth to an understanding of our entry into Heaven. We must enter into the Pattern, as Christ revealed to us on the Cross and in the Garden outside of the Tomb. This Pattern is not simply juridical, but makes the thing upon which the Pattern is impressed, the person, beautiful. And when the canvas of the human heart submits to the form of the Pattern it becomes an re-presentation of the Pattern – the harmonious relationship that is the Trinity.