A nice civil discussion of things we share in common

[Jeanette_L]

In speaking of our ability to identify with Mary, we must separate the two experiencess. An inability to connect with Mary, especially for a convert to the Catholic faith is not so much a spiritual experience, but a psychological reality.

It is difficult to connect with someone who has not been part of your spiritual heritage. It is like marrying a widow who has children. Intellectually you accept them as yours too, but it takes time and patience to make the emotional connection. It will come as long as the mind gives assent.

The same applies to our psychological connection to Mary and the saints. As long as our will gives assent, the actual grace will work gradually and thoroughly within us.

Pray for me.

Fraternally,

JR

Makes perfect sense. Thank you.

 

[mullenpm]

JR, how absolutely wonderful!!!

Thank you.:harp: :hug3:

 

[JReducation]

We’ve been speaking about Mary on this thread and on its mother thread too. One of the most important points that I want to bring to everyone’s attention is that we cannot speak about Mary without speaking about the Eucharist, because they are inseparable.

What does this mean from a standpoint of orthodox theology?

Well, to put it simply, as Joann said, “Mary is the Theotokos.” Our Greek Christian ancestors referred to her as the God-Bearer. She is the first tabernacle. She is the first to receive the body and blood of Christ. She is the one through whom the Word of God becomes flesh and blood. None of this is through Mary’s power or authority. It all happens by the will of the Father and through the power of the Holy Spirit. Lest anyone get confused and believe that we are giving Mary divine attributes, we’re not. She is the first beneficiary of the physical presence of Christ. The action is still divine, not human.

But when we look at what happens, we see the foreshadowing of the Eucharist. Look carefully at the Eucharistic Prayer. We pray to the Father that he will send down his spirit so that the bread and wine before the priest may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is a Trinitarian cooperation that is necessary for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of the Second Person of the Trinity. However, without the words of the priest, who is human, this would never be possible.

Now, let’s look back at what we said about Mary in the second paragraph. Again we see this Trinitarian cooperation or cooperation between the three persons of the Most Holy Trinity. It is the will of the Father, the action of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of the Son. But it would not have happened without the human word of Mary, “Be it done to me according to your will.”

So now that we have established this parallelism between the Eucharist and the Incarnation, how do we pull it all together?

From a purely mystical perspective, because I’m not a liturgist I can’t say what words would be right or wrong, I leave that up to liturgists to figure out, but from a purely mystical perspective we pull it together through a prayerful attitude when approaching the Eucharist.

What does that mean? It means that I must approach the Eucharist with the same detachment as Mary. I must present myself before God and say “Be it done to me according to your will.” I must surrender my life to him. The one thing that mother and son had in common is that both surrendered their wills and lives to the Father. Jesus says the same detachment as his mother had said at the annunciation. In the Garden of Gethsemane he prayed, “Not my will, but thy will be done,” They both live by a fiat.

We see that Mother and Son are united in their will to do the will of the Father. There is a communion of wills between the Son and the Mother. We must enter into this communion of wills, if we are to receive the full benefit of the Eucharist. Otherwise, the grace will be there available to us and go unused.

I can’t recall in which one of Mary’s apparitions she wore many jewels on her hands. Deacon Ed B brought this to our attention. The jewels represented the graces that God makes available to us that go unclaimed by us.

Unless we have a communion of wills with Christ, as Mary did, there are graces that will go unclaimed, even when receiving the Eucharist. We will still receive Christ and all of the actual and sanctifying grace that he brings to us, but will we be properly disposed to receive them if we are not in communion with his will? We may be in a physical communion with Christ, but something is lacking on our part, our disposition to surrender our lives to the Father. This is true regardless of the form of the mass, OF or EF. The communion of wills that existed between the Mother and the Son must be present in our heart and mind, before we receive the Eucharist. Mary and Jesus willed to please the Father, before they embarked on their path to Calvary, so too must we prepare our hearts and soul before approaching the Eucharist.

Pray for me that I may always be willing to accept what God gives and surrender to him what he takes.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eelpis]

Sinlessness doesn’t mean immunity from suffering. A holy person once said that because Mary was immaculate she was more susceptible to suffering and to the malice of sin. Sin is what dulls our hearts and make them hardened. Mary never experienced that dullness. That’s why she suffered more than any other human, not from any sin of her own but from our sins.

 

[KitWhite]

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

 

[JReducation]

Sinlessness doesn’t mean immunity from suffering. A holy person once said that because Mary was immaculate she was more susceptible to suffering and to the malice of sin. Sin is what dulls our hearts and make them hardened. Mary never experienced that dullness. That’s why she suffered more than any other human, not from any sin of her own but from our sins.

Mary’s suffering was that of a mother, not that of a sinner. There is a major difference here to which the great Spanish Mystics attest to. Her soul did not need to be purified by suffering. She was the mother of humanity and as such she unites the maternal suffering that she experiences at the sight of her son on the cross to his suffering in order to fulfil the Father’s will, the redemption of humanity.

As Blessed Duns Scotus assures us, Mary was impervious to the sufferings caused by sin. While it is true that the death of her son was for the redemption of sinners, the immediate cause of her suffering was her son’s sufferings. Humanity’s sin was the remote cause of her suffering.

There is a difference in mystical theology between immediate and remote cause. Even in Christ’s death, sin was not the immediate cause of his suffering. The immediate cause of his suffering was his will to do the Father’s will. The remote cause was the sin of Adam. It was the will of the Father that the Son should suffer to bring all things into one with him. Christ and Mary suffer to fulfil the will of the Father, whose will was to save humanity from sin.

Since there is a communion of wills between the Mother and the Son, they both desire to fulfil the Father’s will, to suffer for the salvation of man. But man’s sin has no power over Mary, as it had no power of Christ. Christ was victorious over sin. To believe that sin directly caused Mary suffering would imply that she came into direct contact with sin, which was impossible for the Immaculate Conception. She who knows no sin, cannot directly suffer from what she doesn’t know.

How Mary can be susceptible to the malice of sin make no sense, since she is full of grace. It is possible to believe that she may have been tempted by sin, for her own son was tempted. But like her son, she was protected by grace. The angel greets her by her title, Full of Grace. In Hebrew, to be filled with grace is to be filled with Divine life.

I can’t understand what this person may have meant by saying that she is susceptible to sin when she had a share in Divine life within her, prior to the conception of Jesus. Perhaps this person is using the term with a different nuance than that of the great Mystics and Doctors of the Church.

Duns Scotus proved once and for all, that Mary was free from sin and from all its effects. What remained was her free will, which she united to the will of her son. One thing is true in this case, the immediate and the remote cause cannot be separated. It was the Father’s will that this suffering take place for the redemption of sinful man. Mary’s suffering is not caused by her, nor does she have any role in its origin. Like her son, she is a spotless victim. But perhaps the holy person to whom you refer is thinking of the relationship between the remote and the immediate cause of the suffering of Mary and her Son.

To state is simply, man’s sins require justification through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. The sacrifice of the Lamb, was a cause for much suffering to both Mother and Son. In that sense, they are innocent victims of sin.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eelpis]

Thanks JR

I think he meant it in analogy to the malice of sin that is an offense againt God. God is not hurt by sins but offended. The sinner tries to kill God (if it were possible.) I never said she was susceptible to sin. Her being immaculate made her more susceptible to suffering from the consequences of the sins of others.

Whatever he meant I think I got the point.

 

[KitWhite]

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; **And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. **

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I am wondering if we’re not blending situations that are different.

1. Mary was alone and missing consolation, but it was human consolation, not spiritual consolation.

In Mystical Theology, the Spanish Mystics (Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross) speak to us about consolation, but they are speaking about spiritual consolation, which was always available to Mary, because she was the Immaculate Conception. Mary’s soul did not need to be purified or to purge itself. Therefore, there was no need to go through spiritual dryness or a dark night of the soul.

During spiritual consolation the soul experiences God’s closeness through the senses. It feels God’s presence. God never deprived Mary of this experience, for she was without sin.

Do you have a source for that statement?

Jesus Himself - who also never sinned - was deprived of spiritual consolation on the Cross. In The Mystical City of God, it says he suspended all consolations during the cricifixion, which is one of the reason he cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me” - in order to express his “feeling” of being abandoned by God due to the lack of any consolation.

Lack of spiritual consolations is a time for merit. Although Mary had no sins to attone for, she was able to merit. Therefore, it makes sense that God would deprive her of spiritual consolations so that she could obtain additional meritcs.

But my question is: Where did you get the idea that Mary never lost spiritual consolations?

 

[catharina]

Mary’s suffering was that of a mother, not that of a sinner. There is a major difference here to which the great Spanish Mystics attest to. Her soul did not need to be purified by suffering. She was the mother of humanity and as such she unites the maternal suffering that she experiences at the sight of her son on the cross to his suffering in order to fulfil the Father’s will, the redemption of humanity.
Fraternally,

JR

JR - thanks for making this distinction so beautifully.

 

[catharina]

Do you have a source for that statement?

Jesus Himself - who also never sinned - was deprived of spiritual consolation on the Cross. In The Mystical City of God, it says he suspended all consolations during the cricifixion, which is one of the reason he cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me” - in order to express his “feeling” of being abandoned by God due to the lack of any consolation.

Lack of spiritual consolations is a time for merit. Although Mary had no sins to attone for, she was able to merit. Therefore, it makes sense that God would deprive her of spiritual consolations so that she could obtain additional meritcs.

But my question is: Where did you get the idea that Mary never lost spiritual consolations?

In reference to JR’s statement: I gave it a lot of thought last night and again, this morning. Maybe JR is saying this (I’m sure he’ll explain for himself). When we suffer do we, at times, reach the edge of the abyss, wondering - will God help me through this? where is God for me now? – This is a type of spiritual suffering that edges toward despair and I do think that Mary was spared that particular torment. I think it’s reasonable to say that she KNEW always that hope in God’s promises never fails, that God would somehow restore all things. I think that she knew that in a way that was fully real - so that even in her maternal torment and the devastation of human separation from her Son, she KNEW in her soul that all would be restored in the fullness of time as God promises. I’m saying that my meditation has made it seem quite real to me that Mary could not have suffered a dark night of the soul - and maybe JR is saying that. While her suffering as mother of the Lord is beyond our imaginings, it seems logical that such suffering was not compounded by any doubt of God’s love. That’s my OPINION.

 

[catharina]

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

Yes, I recognize the reference to Scripture. You’re saying this in reference to what?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

In reference to JR’s statement: I gave it a lot of thought last night and again, this morning. Maybe JR is saying this (I’m sure he’ll explain for himself). When we suffer do we, at times, reach the edge of the abyss, wondering - will God help me through this? where is God for me now? – This is a type of spiritual suffering that edges toward despair and I do think that Mary was spared that particular torment.

I would say she simply did not have that reaction. What you described (despair) would be the subjective response that an indivudal might have to a particularly difficult trial. That response, however, would be wrong and boarder on sinful - since despair is a sin against the theological virture of hope. Mary would have always responded perfectly to the sufferings she went through - whether spiritual or temporal.

Therefore, we it would be incorrect reasoning to conclude that, since some people may despair with certain sufferings, that Mary would have been preserved from such sufferings so that she would not despair. Remember, despair is the subjective response of the individual - and the response in and of itself would be at best wrong, and probably sinful. Mary would not have had such a response regardless of what suffering she endured.

I think it’s reasonable to say that she KNEW always that hope in God’s promises never fails, that God would somehow restore all things. I think that she knew that in a way that was fully real - so that even in her maternal torment and the devastation of human separation from her Son, she KNEW in her soul that all would be restored in the fullness of time as God promises.

That’s right because she retained her faith and hope, which prevents despair. But Mary’s faith and hope were so perfect that she also would not have depaired due to suffering “dryness”, or a lack of spiritual consolations.

I’m saying that my meditation has made it seem quite real to me that Mary could not have suffered a dark night of the soul - and maybe JR is saying that. While her suffering as mother of the Lord is beyond our imaginings, it seems logical that such suffering was not compounded by any doubt of God’s love. That’s my OPINION.

I don’t know if Mary’s lack of spiritual consolation would be considered a “dark night of the soul” in the same sense that it would be for us… Maybe it would, but I’m not sure since she was conceived without sin and never committed any personal sins.

I’m about 99% sure that *The Mystical City of God *by Ven Mary of Agreda, which is a 4 volume revelation of the life of Mary ta a Spanish nun (and which has been highly praised by numerous Popes), teaches that she was deprived of all spiritual consolations during our Lord’s Passion. I’ll look into it later to find out.

 

[catharina]

I would say she simply did not have that reaction. What you described (despair) would be the subjective response that an indivudal might have to a particularly difficult trial. That response, however, would be wrong and boarder on sinful - since despair is a sin against the theological virture of hope. Mary would have always responded perfectly to the sufferings she went through - whether spiritual or temporal.

Therefore, we it would be incorrect reasoning to conclude that, since some people may despair with certain sufferings, that Mary would have been preserved from such sufferings so that she would not despair. Remember, despair is the subjective response of the individual - and the response in and of itself would be at best wrong, and probably sinful. Mary would not have had such a response regardless of what suffering she endured.

That’s right because she retained her faith and hope, which prevents despair. But Mary’s faith and hope were so perfect that she also would not have depaired due to suffering “dryness”, or a lack of spiritual consolations.

I don’t know if Mary’s lack of spiritual consolation would be considered a “dark night of the soul” in the same sense that it would be for us… Maybe it would, but I’m not sure since she was conceived without sin and never committed any personal sins.

I’m about 99% sure that *The Mystical City of God *by Ven Mary of Agreda, which is a 4 volume revelation of the life of Mary ta a Spanish nun (and which has been highly praised by numerous Popes), teaches that she was deprived of all spiritual consolations during our Lord’s Passion. I’ll look into it later to find out.

Thanks for your response. Let me make it very clear that I never said (not have I ever thought) that Mary was inclined to despair, it being indeed sinful. What I said was this ------When we suffer do we, at times, reach the edge of the abyss, wondering - will God help me through this? where is God for me now? – This is a type of spiritual suffering that edges toward despair and I do think that Mary was spared that particular torment. ------

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Was it just me, or did anyone else have trouble getting back on this morning.?

In one of JR’s posts on this thread he gave an excellent description of the “Dark Night of the Soul”. This has been described to me by spiritual directors as an extremely arid time, where one feels starved for the consolation and love of God and feels abandoned. It at the same time is a period of tremendous spiritual growth wherein the soul makes an intellectual decision that regardless of feeling, the love of and for God will remain and the soul continues to seek God. In counseling we tell people that love is not a feeling, but a decision. This reflects perfectly the action of a soul mired in the dark night. Theologically, I do not know if our Blessed Mother experienced this. I would have to say she did not as she was without sin and “full of grace” Without original sin, she would have possessed the preternatural gifts which included an intimate relationship with God.

If we want to wonder and meditate about what she really did for us with her fiat, stop and think of where and in what condition we would be, if she had said no, instead of “Thy will be done”.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[catharina]

Was it just me, or did anyone else have trouble getting back on this morning.?

In one of JR’s posts on this thread he gave an excellent description of the “Dark Night of the Soul”. This has been described to me by spiritual directors as an extremely arid time, where one feels starved for the consolation and love of God and feels abandoned. It at the same time is a period of tremendous spiritual growth wherein the soul makes an intellectual decision that regardless of feeling, the love of and for God will remain and the soul continues to seek God. In counseling we tell people that love is not a feeling, but a decision. This reflects perfectly the action of a soul mired in the dark night. Theologically, I do not know if our Blessed Mother experienced this. I would have to say she did not as she was without sin and “full of grace” Without original sin, she would have possessed the preternatural gifts which included an intimate relationship with God.

If we want to wonder and meditate about what she really did for us with her fiat, stop and think of where and in what condition we would be, if she had said no, instead of “Thy will be done”.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

PRECISELY! As I so often say to your posts. Now re CA, it lost power this a.m. and required manual restoration. Note is posted in final forum (staff? tech?).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Theologically, I do not know if our Blessed Mother experienced this. I would have to say she did not as she was without sin and “full of grace” Without original sin, she would have possessed the preternatural gifts which included an intimate relationship with God.

I’m not sure what preturnatural gift you are referring to that would prevent spiritual dryness, or lack of spiritual consolations, but, like you, I also wondered her being conceived without sin would prevent her from experiencing the same effects of a dark night of the soul as a “normal” person (one who was conceived in sin).

I have experienced passive purifications which I thought was a dark night of the soul since it is similar, only not as intense or long lasting. When I experienced this, the awareness of my sinfullness kind of crushed me down. The light of God’s nearness made my sinfulness almost unbearable.

Since Mary had no sin, a “passive purification” would have not produced a similar effect. If God drew closer to her, she would have simply loved God more, instead of having an awareness of sin increase.

Thinking along those lines, I would venture to guess that any “dark night” experienced by the Blessed Mother would simply be a privation of spiritual consolations, and not a dark night, in the same way that St. John of the Cross explains it.

 

[JReducation]

Hi Pax

I tried to respond this morning, but something went wrong with the system and BOOM CAF was gone!

I’m not sure what preturnatural gift you are referring to that would prevent spiritual dryness, or lack of spiritual consolations, but, like you, I also wondered her being conceived without sin would prevent her from experiencing the same effects of a dark night of the soul as a “normal” person (one who was conceived in sin).

When you navigate the Mystics and you observe what they say as it regards the desert experience. There are two experiences that are similar, but essentially different. By essentially, I mean different in essence.

There is a stage through which the soul must go to reach the Mystical Union or Mystical Marriage of which St. Catherine of Siena describes. This process is necessary to purify the soul and draw it closer to the Divine. If we apply the logic of Duns Scotus, this process would not be necessary for Mary. She was created perfect, no original sin and no personal sin. Therefore, she was already united with the Divine.

The scriptures give us insight into this union through the salutation of the angel. “Hail Full of Grace” is a title and a description. Mary was already a Mystic. She had already achieved perfect union with the Divine. She was filled with the Divine life at her conception.

Now, there is another experience that is similar but it is not intended to purify, but an act of communion between the soul and the saving action of Christ. Logic can best describe it as deep interior pain and suffering, not as a punishment, but as a unity of love. Mary and Christ both experience this deep pain at Calvary; but it’s a prouct of love, not sin.

This is probably what Mary Ageda is referring to in her book Mystical City. I would mention one caution when reading this book. Though the book has the imprimatur, because it contains no doctrinal error, it remains the private revelation of Mary Ageda. It has not yet been accepted as a theological work for the universal Church as have the writings of other Doctors, Mystics and saints: Benedict, Augustine, Francis, Thomas, Teresa, Therese, Catherine, John and so forth. It is good spiritual reading. I read it too. But it is not a theological treatise.

Mary and Jesus need not experience a Dark Night. This does not mean that they were exempt from suffering. Their suffering was the product of the communion between them and the Father’s will that the Son surrender his life on the cross for the redemption of the world.

Did Jesus and Mary experience temptation to despair or other sins? The scriptures tell us that Jesus did. It is also conceivable that Mary did too. However, this is not the same as being subject to sin. What they were subject to was to temptation, not sin.

Finally, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned that Mary Ageda speaks of Christ’s calling out “My God my God why have you forsaken me.”

There are two events happening here.

1. Christ is beginning to recite Psalm 22 which begins as a cry to God and concludes praising God. It is David’s Psalm of the innocent victim. David shows how the victim begins in great agony and concludes with great joy.
2. The other event is Christ is fullfilling the prophecies. The prophet had said that the Jewish Messiah was to be a son of David. It’s like the game sherades (sp?). Through his agony on the cross, Christ continues to preach and to give indicators or clues that he is the promised Messiah, he is the son of David.

In the same manner he says “I thirst”. This fulfills another prophecy. The Son of David would experience a thirst for souls and be given vinegar to drink.

Christ’s spiritual consolations are not suspended. As we have seen in the theology of Mercy of which St. Faustina wrote and the Church confirmed to be consistent with the doctrine of Mercy, God’s mercy is always available and with that grace, all the consolations that come with it. The Logos is Mercy incarnate. Therefore, he cannot deprive himself of the consolation of mercy, because he cannot separate his human and divine natures. They co-exist in one person.

The human nature of Christ experiences great pain and suffering. But being perfect, he does not experience abandonment. The same applies to two other people in the scriptures: Mary and John the Baptist. We often forget that John was born without original sin. Those who are filled with God’s Divine life cannot experience abandonment. They can experience great sadness and even fear, as we see in Christ’s agony in the garden. He is afraid, he is not abandoned. They are consoled by their assent to the Will of God.

I hope this helps.

Continue to pray for me.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[mark_a]

The one thread that was engaging in a civil and stimulating discussion was closed just when the discussion was getting really good (Healing the Chasm…). The thread was doing what it intended to do because everyone on the thread was discussing commonalities and working out differences, so I do not understand why it was closed and other more divisive threads with arguing in every post was left open. Was it perhaps because the discussion moved from one point to another? Isn’t that what a good discussion does? Maybe the good work started on that thread can continue on this with a more general title.

One of my favorite commonalities among (most) Christians is the doctrine (dogma) of the Trinity.

Left to my own understanding of scripture,I would surely find one of the heresies much easier to believe.

How could the Church that gives us the Trinity be wrong about contraception?

 

[eelpis]

Thanks JR

I think he meant it in analogy to the malice of sin that is an offense against God. God is not hurt by sins but offended. The sinner tries to kill God (if it were possible.) I never said she was susceptible to sin. Her being immaculate made her more susceptible to suffering from the consequences of the sins of others.

Whatever he meant I think I got the point.