A nice civil discussion of things we share in common

[Pax_et_Caritas]

JR, do you have any sources to back up what you are saying. For example, you wrote this:
JR:

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. … 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.

A few times you’ve refered to certain mystics as your sourse, but I’ve read those same mystics and I don’t recal seeing what you wrote. I am also about 99% sure I have read the contrary. So my question is, where did you read that and can you provide a source?
JR:

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.

Yes, I understand that and realize that this stage was unecessry for the Blessed Mother. That’s why I mentioned a few posts earlier that I don’t think she would have experienced a “dark night” in the same way that a sinner would. Lack of spiritual consolations, or dryness, is not the same as a dark night.
JR:

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.”

Christ’s spiritual consolations are not suspended.

Not according to Ven. Mary of Agreda. In her work she explicitly states that our Lord suspended all interior spiritual consolations during His Passion, in order to bring about an even greater degree of suffering. If you want me to find the quote I will.

Where have you read that Jesus never suspended His interior consolations?

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.

So, are you claiming that Our Lord did not suspend spiritual consolations based on the above reasoning? If so, it doesn’t work. Just because mercy is always available, and with it grace, it does not follow that all who possess grace always have consolations. We see this with ourselves when we are in the state of grace, yet experience dryness.

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.

Again, that doesn’t follow. It does not follow that the union of the Divine and Human nature would prevent our Lord from suspending spiritual consolations. There is nothing that would prevent Jesus - who is God - from suspending any spiritual consolations on the cross in order to increase His sufferings for us.

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 the “sense”, or “feeling”, of abandonment as a test, or as a chance to gain merit by remaining faithful during this trial even as they are not actually abandoned.

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.

True, a person in the state of grace has not been abaondoned by God, but they can “feel” as though they have, and thus “experience” abandoment on that level: that is, on the levels of the feelings, not in reality.

Again, do you have any quotes to back up what you are saying? I ask that because I have read a lot of errors in the past in your posts. You’ve presented things as true that I knew for certain were erroneous. Therefore, in this case, since I am not 100% sure, I am asking for a quote to support what you are saying.

So, any quotes would help. I’ll look for and provide the quote from The Mystical City of God to support what I was said above.

 

[catharina]

JR, Again, do you have any quotes to back up what you are saying? I ask that because I have read a lot of errors in the past in your posts. You’ve presented things as true that I knew for certain were erroneous.

Yet don’t these sentences seem to stand as a rather baseless accusation?

 

[eelpis]

Hi Pax

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

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

The holy person who told me about the sufferings of Mary, he is a discalced Carmelite. Maybe the spirituality of Franciscans and of the Carmelites are different in regard to the Blessed Virgin, I know they regard Her as their sister.

The Blessed Mother is not far away from us, as St Therese of the Child Jesus said. She’s more a Mother than a Queen. She also said that " I’m not afraid of the splendour of your exalted glory, I’ve suffered in common with you and now, in your knee Mary, I want to sing of why I love you. In the Gospel I see you suffering and human…If a mother wants to draw a child near to her she has to cry with it. In this exile , oh mother, how many tears did you not shed to draw me near to you."

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

JR:

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.”

Christ’s spiritual consolations are not suspended.

I found the quote I was referring to. It is in Volume 3, page 477 of the Mystical City of God, by Ven. Mary of Agreda. The quote takes place when Jesus arrives in the Garden of Olives.

Mystical City of God: “From that moment He suspended and restrained whatever consolation or relief would otherwise overflow from the impassible to the passable part of his being, so that in this dereliction his passion and sufferings might reach the highest degree possible. The eternal Father granted and approved this total sacrifice of the sacred humanity. This prayer was as it were the floodgate through which the rivers of his suffering were to find entrance like the resistless onslaught of the ocean, as was foretold by David (Ps 26, 2). And immediately He began to be sorrowful and feel the anguish of his soul and therefore said to the Apostles: “My soul is sorrowful unto death” (Mk 14,34).” END.

I just located another quote from the same Mystic that says Mary also suspended spiritual consolations. It is in the same chapter on page 486.

**Mystical City of God: **“Let us now return to the Cenacle, where the Queen of heaven had retired with the holy women of her company… Secluding herself with these three [women] as her more intimate companions, she begged the eternal Father to suspend in her all human alleviation and comfort, both in the sensitive and in the spiritual part of her being, so that nothing might hinder her from suffering the highest degree in union with her divine son… This petition was granted by the blessed Trinity…”.

The following is written in the front of the book:

APPROBATIONS

The first Pope officially to take notice of “Ciudad de Dios” (Mystical City of God) was Pope Innocent XI, who on July 3, 1686, in repsonse to a series of virulent attacks and machinations of some members of the Sorbonne, known to be Jansenists, issued a breve permitting the publication and reading of the “Ciudad de Dios.” Similar decrees were afterward issued by Popes Alexander VIII, Clement IX, and Benedict XIII. These decress were followed by two decress of the Congregation of Rites, approved by Bendict XIV and Clement XIV, in which the authencity of “Ciudad de Dios” as extant and written by the Venerable Servant of God, Mary of Jesus, is officially established. The great Pope Benedict XIII, when he was archbishop of Benevent, used these revelations as material for a series of sermons on the Blessed Virgin. On Sept. 26, 1713, the bishop of Ceneda, Italy, objecting to the publication of the “City of God,” was peremptorily ordered by the Holy Office to withdraw his objections as interfering with the decree of pope Innocent XI for the universal Church.

The process of canonization of Mary of Agreda was promoted by the Spanish bishops and other eminent men of the Church soon after her death in 1666. It has resulted so far in securing her the title of Venerabilis, thus clearing the way to her beatification, for which, let us hope, God will soon raise a promoter among the many pious and eminent men who hold in esteem her writings and have learned of her holy life and of the miracles wrought at her tomb.

The Redemptorist Fathers published a new German translation in 1885, which was approved and highly recommended by the Bishop of Ratisbon in the following terms:

“We take pleasure in giving our episcopal approbation to the annotated translation of the Spanish original “Ciudad de Dios” of Mary of Jesus and recommend this book, which will surely edify all readers and be the occasion of great spiritual blessings.”

Ratisbon, September 29, 1885

+Ignatius, Bishop of Ratisbon.

.

 

[JReducation]

I found the quote I was referring to. It is in Volume 3, page 477 of the Mystical City of God, by Ven. Mary of Agreda. The quote takes place when Jesus arrives in the Garden of Olives.

Mystical City of God: “From that moment He suspended and restrained whatever consolation or relief would otherwise overflow from the impassible to the passable part of his being, so that in this dereliction his passion and sufferings might reach the highest degree possible. The eternal Father granted and approved this total sacrifice of the sacred humanity. This prayer was as it were the floodgate through which the rivers of his suffering were to find entrance like the resistless onslaught of the ocean, as was foretold by David (Ps 26, 2). And immediately He began to be sorrowful and feel the anguish of his soul and therefore said to the Apostles: “My soul is sorrowful unto death” (Mk 14,34).” END.

I just located another quote from the same Mystic that says Mary also suspended spiritual consolations. It is in the same chapter on page 486.

**Mystical City of God: **“Let us now return to the Cenacle, where the Queen of heaven had retired with the holy women of her company… Secluding herself with these three [women] as her more intimate companions, she begged the eternal Father to suspend in her all human alleviation and comfort, both in the sensitive and in the spiritual part of her being, so that nothing might hinder her from suffering the highest degree in union with her divine son… This petition was granted by the blessed Trinity…”.

The following is written in the front of the book:

.

Let’s work backward. The approval of the book for the general public has never been in question. As I said above, there is no contradition between its content and the teachings of the Church. Therefore, it can be used as material for meditation, homilies, retreats and so forth.

What the book is not is a theological treatise as The Ascent to Mt. Carmel, to give an example. There are many writings of saints and mystics that are approved for public use and considered to be inspirational. This does not mean that the content is theology. The content is of a personal nature. I’ll give you a good example. Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light is a public work that the Church approves for spiritual reading and even for pastoral use, such a homilies and retreats. In fact, it was used in her cause for beatification. But until the Church declares her writings to be theology, they remain spiritual writings and a private experience worthy of study and reflection.

Now, let me answer your other request. You asked for a passage or citation. I can’t give you one, because I don’t know of one. What I am sharing with you is the logical conclusions at which we arrived in our own studies regardig Mary while we were stuying Mystical Theology. In other words, it’s a conclusion that comes from a process of study. For example, your spiritual director or your theology professor may often give you a summary statement that results from studying many sources and putting them together to arrive at that statement. A homilist often does the same. Ask Deacon Ed B. He’s a preacher.

There are many things that we believe that are the conclusion of logic, based on a survey of a great deal of material. Now, even with the Church, Popes have often drawn conclusions after consideration of many sources. Their statements are no less valid, because they cannot be cited. The validity of a statement relies on two things.

1. Is it based on Catholic belief?
2. Does it contract dogma or morals?

What I’m sharing with you is based on Catholic belief. This belief is the product of prayer and many sources, not a single source.

That being said, what I share with you has no authority. It is the product of my studies when I was in graduate school. I am not a theologian. That’s not what I do. I do ministry.

Finally, I read Agreda’s work. And the statement that she makes is not a theological statement. It’s part of the revelations that she had. That being said, it can be explained theologically without conflict with the Spanish Mystics’ definition of consolation and desolation.

It is possible for God to allow himself not to experience the consolations of the senses. Observe how she says it.

“He suspended and restrained whatever consolation or relief would otherwise overflow from the impassible to the passable part of his being,”

The first part implies that there is a conscious act of the will. Christ is not deprived of consolation. He wills not to experience it. He suspends it.

The second part, the suspension is only applicable to the human (the passable) nature. In his Divine nature, all mercy, all grace and all consolation continues to exist.

Regarding Mary she says the same thing. “she begged the eternal Father to suspend in her all human alleviation and comfort” Nothing is taken from her. She gives it of her own free will.

We have to remember, that this is a private revelation. What we need to take away from this is the spirituality. We do not have historical proof that any of this happened. Nonetheless, there is nothing here that is in conflict with our faith in Christ or his Mother. The real message here is that the Lord and his Blessed Mother completely detach themselves of any consolation for the salvation of man. The message is the detachment of the cross that all of us are called to live.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

The holy person who told me about the sufferings of Mary, he is a discalced Carmelite. Maybe the spirituality of Franciscans and of the Carmelites are different in regard to the Blessed Virgin, I know they regard Her as their sister.

The Blessed Mother is not far away from us, as St Therese of the Child Jesus said. She’s more a Mother than a Queen. She also said that " I’m not afraid of the splendour of your exalted glory, I’ve suffered in common with you and now, in your knee Mary, I want to sing of why I love you. In the Gospel I see you suffering and human…If a mother wants to draw a child near to her she has to cry with it. In this exile , oh mother, how many tears did you not shed to draw me near to you."

This is perfectly correct. We can take this to the bank, because Therese is a Doctor of the Church and an approved Mystical Theologian.

We just have to make sure that we understand what Therese is talking about. There are layers of theology here, like an onion.

Fraternally,

JR

PS. By the way, Francis of Assisi approaches Mary as Queen, not sister. Though we recognize that we are all children of the Father. But the Franciscan focus is on Mary the Queen of Angels and the Immaculate Conception. She is patroness of the three orders under the title of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Let’s work backward. The approval of the book for the general public has never been in question. As I said above, there is no contradition between its content and the teachings of the Church. Therefore, it can be used as material for meditation, homilies, retreats and so forth.

What the book is not is a theological treatise as The Ascent to Mt. Carmel, to give an example.

There are many writings of saints and mystics that are approved for public use and considered to be inspirational. This does not mean that the content is theology. The content is of a personal nature. I’ll give you a good example. Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light is a public work that the Church approves for spiritual reading and even for pastoral use, such a homilies and retreats. In fact, it was used in her cause for beatification. But until the Church declares her writings to be theology, they remain spiritual writings and a private experience worthy of study and reflection.

Now, let me answer your other request. **You asked for a passage or citation. I can’t give you one, because I don’t know of one. **What I am sharing with you is the logical conclusions at which we arrived in our own studies regardig Mary while we were studying Mystical Theology.

OK, so you attempt to undermine the authority of the book by saying it is not a theologocal treatise, then admit that your contrary position is based on nothing more than your own conclusions?

You said it is not a theological book. The only reason I can think of for your saying that is to imply that the theology contained within the book may well be erroneous. **But, if the Mystical City of God had any theological errors it would not have received the approvals that it did. **The fact that it did receive such approvals - **a time when the Church was very strict in what it approved **- shows that the theology contained within it was not considered to be in any way erroneous.

Yet what is written in the book is contrary to what you arrived at by your own reasoning. You argued that Jesus and Mary always experienced consolations. I questioned that statement, and provided an authoritative quote that states the contrary.

Therefore, if there is a contradiction between your reasoning and a teaching contained in a book that has received the explicit approval by Popes, which of the two do you think we should give more credit to?

In fact, it would seem to me to show a great deal of pride on your part if you continue to hold fast to a conclusion you arrived at all by yourself, when it is contrary to what is contained in the approved book in question. We are not bound to hold to what is contained in a private revelation, that is true, but since this one has received such approval from Popes, it would seem to me to be prideful for you to hold to your contrary opinion.

I have no problem with having a discussion about certain points that we have reasoned to, but we must be very humble when we are discussing things that are not Church teaching - ideas that we have arrived at on our own. We are very much subject to error and false conclusions when we rely on our reason alone.

Yet that is not how you argued. You did not simply say that this was your opinion. You implied that you derived it from the Mystics, and you even argued in favor of it as if it was a fact.
JR:

In other words, it’s a conclusion that comes from a process of study. For example, your spiritual director or your theology professor may often give you a summary statement that results from studying many sources and putting them together to arrive at that statement. A homilist often does the same. Ask Deacon Ed B. He’s a preacher.

Again, I have no problem with drawing conclusions based on our reason, but you argued as if what you said was a fact. Since your conclusion was contrary to what I have actually read from approved sources, I asked for your source for the information you claimed. We now know that your source was yourself. You completely made it up and argued it as a fact.
JR:

There are many things that we believe that are the conclusion of logic, based on a survey of a great deal of material. Now, even with the Church, Popes have often drawn conclusions after consideration of many sources. Their statements are no less valid, because they cannot be cited. The validity of a statement relies on two things.

1. Is it based on Catholic belief?
2. Does it contract dogma or morals?

What I’m sharing with you is based on Catholic belief. This belief is the product of prayer and many sources, not a single source.

I’d be happy to discuss your reasoning that led you to the belief that you have.
JR:

That being said, what I share with you has no authority. It is the product of my studies when I was in graduate school.

Were you a Catholic in graduate school?
JR:

Finally, I read Agreda’s work. And the statement that she makes is not a theological statement. It’s part of the revelations that she had. That being said, it can be explained theologically without conflict with the Spanish Mystics’ definition of consolation and desolation.

Of course it can, or it probably would not have received the approval that it did. But remember, what she wrote did contradict what you were saying.
JR:

It is possible for God to allow himself not to experience the consolations of the senses. Observe how she says it.

“He suspended and restrained whatever consolation or relief would otherwise overflow from the impassible to the passable part of his being,”

The first part implies that there is a conscious act of the will. Christ is not deprived of consolation. He wills not to experience it. He suspends it.

Right, and that is exactly what I was saying all along: That Christ suspended the consolations in order to suffer more. You disagreed with me when I said that.
JR:

The second part, the suspension is only applicable to the human (the passable) nature. In his Divine nature, all mercy, all grace and all consolation continues to exist.

Consolations are things that are “felt” (maybe not the best word) interiorly. Christ suspended these consolations, and thus did not feel them.
JR:

Regarding Mary she says the same thing. “she begged the eternal Father to suspend in her all human alleviation and comfort” Nothing is taken from her. She gives it of her own free will

Right, she gave it up of her own free will. But if you remember, you said that she always experienced consolations. I said she didn’t. I made my statement based on teachings of approved sources. Your teaching came from yourself.

You arrived at your conclusion through a process of reasoning. Again, I have no problem with that. But now you seem to be reversing your position when you learned that Mary gave up the consolations of her own free will. This shows us how careful we should be when we come up with things all by ourselves, rather than relying on approved sources to guide us. One minor fact changed everything.

That one fact (that Mary gave up spiritual consolations of her free will caused your theory to fall apart. Did you not think of that point? Again, this shows why we must be careful on holding to fast to our own opinions.

Or, did you not give up your opinion? Do you still hold that Mary and Jesus always experience consolations, and only conceding that their being deprived of consolations of their own free will does not contradict the Mystics you’ve read - the ones whose teachings helped you to arrive at your conclusion?

If the later is your position, how can you still justify it? After all, if you now concede that giving up consolations of their own free will does not contradict what the Mystics wrote; and if you were initially basing your opinion/belief that Mary and Jesus always experienced consolations on what the Mystics taught, how can your opinion still hold? After all, you said that your reasoning was based on what the Mystics taught. But now you realize that what the Mystics taught do not necessarily affirm your conclusion. In fact, you admit that the contrary of you position is in line with what the Mystics taught.

I guess my final question is: Have you reversed your original position, and if not, why?

 

[Joannm]

I also had trouble this morning. I wrote this long post and when I went to send it, it took a long time the the screen went blank. I don’t know if I can reproduce what I wrote this morning or even recall the context. It had something to do with Mary and the liturgy and Mary being the new Eve, but for the life of me I can’t remember what I wrote. I spent the day preparing for our trip to California Sunday morning. We are going to our daughter’s graduation with her MA in Oriental Medicine. As I like to say, now she can stick it to people legally (well not until she passes her boards). I have never been to Southern California so I am looking forward to it. So far we have planned the San Diego Zoo, the Cathedral of Our Lady of the the Angels, and the mission church that our parish church was modeled after in Oceanside Ca. I am also going to go visit some people I know who minister in a Franciscan parish in Huntington Beach. I am looking forward to a week of fun, sun and being with our daughter whom we have not seen since Christmas.

If I can remember what I wrote this morning I will post it before I go to bed.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

P&C - the simple thing you are missing, at least as I see it, in what JR is saying is that with Jesus having two natures, the divine and human, while certain things can be suspended in the human nature, of necessity, those that are of God, exist as part of the divine nature and cannot be suspended. i.e., while they existed in the Divine nature, the humanness of Jesus, on the cross, did not feel them and was deprived of them, which intensified his human suffering.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

P&C - the simple thing you are missing, at least as I see it, in what JR is saying is that with Jesus having two natures, the divine and human, while certain things can be suspended in the human nature, of necessity, those that are of God, exist as part of the divine nature and cannot be suspended. i.e., while they existed in the Divine nature, the humanness of Jesus, on the cross, did not feel them and was deprived of them, which intensified his human suffering.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Yes, I understand that. Nothing was suspended in His Divine Nature. But when we speak of consolations, these are things that are felt (again, probably not the best word) in our human nature. These consolations were completely suspended in such a way that Jesus Christ - as mas - did not experience them. The Second Person of the Trinity remained unchanged, but Jesus Christ on the Cross did not experience any consolations.

But there is another point: JR also argued that Mary always experienced consolations. Now, Mary is not God. She is not a Divine Person, and only possesses the Divine nature as we do - by participation as an adopted child through grace. Yet JR also reason that she always experienced consolations.

 

[JReducation]

OK, so you attempt to undermine the authority of the book by saying it is not a theologocal treatise, then admit that your contrary position is based on nothing more than your own conclusions?

You said it is not a theological book. The only reason I can think of for your saying that is to imply that the theology contained within the book may well be erroneous. **But, if the Mystical City of God had any theological errors it would not have received the approvals that it did. **The fact that it did receive such approvals - **a time when the Church was very strict in what it approved **- shows that the theology contained within it was not considered to be in any way erroneous.

Yet what is written in the book is contrary to what you arrived at by your own reasoning. You argued that Jesus and Mary always experienced consolations. I questioned that statement, and provided an authoritative quote that states the contrary.

Therefore, if there is a contradiction between your reasoning and a teaching contained in a book that has received the explicit approval by Popes, which of the two do you think we should give more credit to?

In fact, it would seem to me to show a great deal of pride on your part if you continue to hold fast to a conclusion you arrived at all by yourself, when it is contrary to what is contained in the approved book in question. We are not bound to hold to what is contained in a private revelation, that is true, but since this one has received such approval from Popes, it would seem to me to be prideful for you to hold to your contrary opinion.

I have no problem with having a discussion about certain points that we have reasoned to, but we must be very humble when we are discussing things that are not Church teaching - ideas that we have arrived at on our own. We are very much subject to error and false conclusions when we rely on our reason alone.

Yet that is not how you argued. You did not simply say that this was your opinion. You implied that you derived it from the Mystics, and you even argued in favor of it as if it was a fact.

Again, I have no problem with drawing conclusions based on our reason, but you argued as if what you said was a fact. Since your conclusion was contrary to what I have actually read from approved sources, I asked for your source for the information you claimed. We now know that your source was yourself. You completely made it up and argued it as a fact.

I’d be happy to discuss your reasoning that led you to the belief that you have.

Were you a Catholic in graduate school?

Of course it can, or it probably would not have received the approval that it did. But remember, what she wrote did contradict what you were saying.

Right, and that is exactly what I was saying all along: That Christ suspended the consolations in order to suffer more. You disagreed with me when I said that.

Consolations are things that are “felt” (maybe not the best word) interiorly. Christ suspended these consolations, and thus did not feel them.

Right, she gave it up of her own free will. But if you remember, you said that she always experienced consolations. I said she didn’t. I made my statement based on teachings of approved sources. Your teaching came from yourself.

You arrived at your conclusion through a process of reasoning. Again, I have no problem with that. But now you seem to be reversing your position when you learned that Mary gave up the consolations of her own free will. This shows us how careful we should be when we come up with things all by ourselves, rather than relying on approved sources to guide us. One minor fact changed everything.

That one fact (that Mary gave up spiritual consolations of her free will caused your theory to fall apart. Did you not think of that point? Again, this shows why we must be careful on holding to fast to our own opinions.

Or, did you not give up your opinion? Do you still hold that Mary and Jesus always experience consolations, and only conceding that their being deprived of consolations of their own free will does not contradict the Mystics you’ve read - the ones whose teachings helped you to arrive at your conclusion?

If the later is your position, how can you still justify it? After all, if you now concede that giving up consolations of their own free will does not contradict what the Mystics wrote; and if you were initially basing your opinion/belief that Mary and Jesus always experienced consolations on what the Mystics taught, how can your opinion still hold? After all, you said that your reasoning was based on what the Mystics taught. But now you realize that what the Mystics taught do not necessarily affirm your conclusion. In fact, you admit that the contrary of you position is in line with what the Mystics taught.

I guess my final question is: Have you reversed your original position, and if not, why?

The only thing I’m going to say is that the fact that a writing is approved for the use of the faithful, does not make it a theological treatise. This is what I said before and I sustain that.

There is a difference between reading a book such as this for one’s spiritual enrichment and reading it to DO theology. The objectives are different as are the methodology.

If you have a problem with this, I’m sorry. I can’t help you.

Please continue to pray for me as I will for you.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Yes, I understand that. Nothing was suspended in His Divine Nature. But when we speak of consolations, these are things that are felt (again, probably not the best word) in our human nature. These consolations were completely suspended in such a way that Jesus Christ - as mas - did not experience them. The Second Person of the Trinity remained unchanged, but Jesus Christ on the Cross did not experience any consolations.

But there is another point: JR also argued that Mary always experienced consolations. Now, Mary is not God. She is not a Divine Person, and only possesses the Divine nature as we do - by participation as an adopted child through grace. Yet JR also reason that she always experienced consolations.

I don’t know if consolations is the correct word. She was the only person who never had original sin. As such, she possessed the preternatural gifts, which included close intimate union with God. Those who had original sin, Adam and Eve and their descendants lost these gifts and death entered the world. Death is the only thing that Mary experienced, because not being greater than her son, who died for us. she also experienced it , but was assumed into heaven and as Jesus, did not undergo corruption. Her relationship with God was and is so far above ours that we can only hypothesize on many of the facets of that relationship as having original sin, it is beyond our complete understanding.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The only thing I’m going to say is that the fact that a writing is approved for the use of the faithful, does not make it a theological treatise. This is what I said before and I sustain that.

There is a difference between reading a book such as this for one’s spiritual enrichment and reading it to DO theology. The objectives are different as are the methodology.

If you have a problem with this, I’m sorry. I can’t help you.

Please continue to pray for me as I will for you.

Fraternally,

JR

So, the fact that your opinion is contrary to what is contained in an approved source, and not taught in any source that you know of, does not cause you to questions your reasoning?

Humility is one of the greatest virtues. Holding fast to your opinion on such a point - when the opinion is not derived from any sourse other than yourself - does not show much humility.

“Pride goeth before the fall” and we are all subject to pride. Therefore, let us pray for each other that we do not give into pride.

It is also a fact that one error leads to others. That is why it is best to only hold fast to what the Church teaches, or what approved sources teach. Our own opinions are very much subject to error. Let us not forget that.

I’m not judging you , but I am warning you, as I do myself: we must be very careful with pride. It is our biggest enemy. God will be much more pleased with us if we have the humility to set aside our own opinins when we learrn that they are contrary to what approved sources teach (and not found in any approved sources). And let us not forget that one error - although it may seem small - can very easily lead to another and another and another.

Therefore, let us not allow pride in our own reasining lead us into error. Rather, let us take the path of humility when we realize that our reasoning has led us to conclude contrary to what approved sources have taught.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So, the fact that your opinion is contrary to what is contained in an approved source, and not taught in any source that you know of, does not cause you to questions your reasoning?

Humility is one of the greatest virtues. Holding fast to your opinion on such a point - when the opinion is not derived from any sourse other than yourself - does not show much humility.

“Pride goeth before the fall” and we are all subject to pride. Therefore, let us pray for each other that we do not give into pride.

It is also a fact that one error leads to others. That is why it is best to only hold fast to what the Church teaches, or what approved sources teach. Our own opinions are very much subject to error. Let us not forget that.

I’m not judging you , but I am warning you, as I do myself: we must be very careful with pride. It is our biggest enemy. God will be much more pleased with us if we have the humility to set aside our own opinins when we learrn that they are contrary to what approved sources teach (and not found in any approved sources). And let us not forget that one error - although it may seem small - can very easily lead to another and another and another.

Therefore, let us not allow pride in our own reasining lead us into error. Rather, let us take the path of humility when we realize that our reasoning has led us to conclude contrary to what approved sources have taught.

I think these statements are totally out of bounds, and are riddled with the faults that you are accusing him of. There is a difference between theology and spiritual reading. This is what he is saying and all he is saying. Much of what is in spiritual reading is reflective of that saints inner disposition which I think we all agree is not infallible. That which is taught by the Church is. That is where your difference lies. And no, neither of us is saying we are the Church, only members of it, as are you. . We, like you are fallible, sinful humans.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[catharina]

OK, so you attempt to undermine the authority of the book by saying it is not a theologocal treatise, then admit that your contrary position is based on nothing more than your own conclusions?

You said it is not a theological book. The only reason I can think of for your saying that is to imply that the theology contained within the book may well be erroneous. **But, if the Mystical City of God had any theological errors it would not have received the approvals that it did. **The fact that it did receive such approvals - **a time when the Church was very strict in what it approved **- shows that the theology contained within it was not considered to be in any way erroneous.

**The book is approved as an accurate translation of what one individual reported as her private revelations. That’s all it is - and we are not obliged to accept it or support. It is not a presentation of formal theology approved the Church. **

,

We now know that your source was yourself. You completely made it up and argued it as a fact. Who’s to say that JR’'s private conclusions are not as valid as yours? You’re attempting to support a private revelation as theology. It is not theology.

Were you a Catholic in graduate school? Wow.

Of course it can, or it probably would not have received the approval that it did. But remember, what she wrote did contradict what you were saying.

Right, and that is exactly what I was saying all along: That Christ suspended the consolations in order to suffer more. Your saying that is supported by a private revelation. That’s no support in terms of theology.

Consolations are things that are “felt” (maybe not the best word) interiorly. Christ suspended these consolations, and thus did not feel them.

Right, she gave it up of her own free will. But if you remember, you said that she always experienced consolations. I said she didn’t. I made my statement based on teachings of approved sources. It seems you made your statement based on the private revelations of another individual. Did I miss something? Your teaching came from yourself. Apparently, so did yours.

You arrived at your conclusion through a process of reasoning. Again, I have no problem with that. But now you seem to be reversing your position when you learned that Mary gave up the consolations of her own free will. This shows us how careful we should be when we come up with things all by ourselves, rather than relying on approved sources to guide us. One minor fact changed everything. I saw no reversal of his position. He was willing to say if such and such is truth - according to this private revelation - then this and that can be held as so according to the teachings of theology.

That one fact (that Mary gave up spiritual consolations of her free will caused your theory to fall apart. Did you not think of that point? Again, this shows why we must be careful on holding to fast to our own opinions. Again, I saw no reversal of his position. He was willing to say if such and such is truth - according to this private revelation - then this and that can be held as so according to the teachings of theology.
Or, did you not give up your opinion? Do you still hold that Mary and Jesus always experience consolations, and only conceding that their being deprived of consolations of their own free will does not contradict the Mystics you’ve read - the ones whose teachings helped you to arrive at your conclusion?

If the later is your position, how can you still justify it? After all, if you now concede that giving up consolations of their own free will does not contradict what the Mystics wrote; and if you were initially basing your opinion/belief that Mary and Jesus always experienced consolations on what the Mystics taught, how can your opinion still hold? After all, you said that your reasoning was based on what the Mystics taught. But now you realize that what the Mystics taught do not necessarily affirm your conclusion. In fact, you admit that the contrary of you position is in line with what the Mystics taught.

I guess my final question is: Have you reversed your original position, and if not, why?

It seems you are pursuing some circular thinking. Why? Rhetorical question, of course.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I don’t know if consolations is the correct word. She was the only person who never had original sin. As such, she possessed the preternatural gifts, which included close intimate union with God. Those who had original sin, Adam and Eve and their descendants lost these gifts and death entered the world. Death is the only thing that Mary experienced, because not being greater than her son, who died for us. she also experienced it , but was assumed into heaven and as Jesus, did not undergo corruption. Her relationship with God was and is so far above ours that we can only hypothesize on many of the facets of that relationship as having original sin, it is beyond our complete understanding.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

But JR also argued that John the Baptist was also preserved from certain desolations.
JR:

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.

Also, I don’t think any of the preturnatural gifts would have prevented the Blessed Mother from giving up all spiritual consolations. In other words, I don’t think the presense of those four gifts would be incompatible with a lack of spiritual consolation.

Lastly, I don’t know which of the four preturnatual gifts you are referring to that would have prevented her from not experiencing consolations.

The four preturnatural gifts that Adam and Eve had were 1.) bodily immortality, 2.) immunity from sickness and death, 3.) infused knowledge and 4.) integrity.

Maybe you know something I don’t, but I am not sure which of those gifts guaranteed continual spiritual consolations?

 

[catharina]

I think these statements are totally out of bounds, and are riddled with the faults that you are accusing him of. There is a difference between theology and spiritual reading. This is what he is saying and all he is saying. Much of what is in spiritual reading is reflective of that saints inner disposition which I think we all agree is not infallible. That which is taught by the Church is. That is where your difference lies. And no, neither of us is saying we are the Church, only members of it, as are you. . We, like you are fallible, sinful humans.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you so much, Deacon Ed. The tone is so disheartening.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I think these statements are totally out of bounds, and are riddled with the faults that you are accusing him of. There is a difference between theology and spiritual reading. This is what he is saying and all he is saying. Much of what is in spiritual reading is reflective of that saints inner disposition which I think we all agree is not infallible. That which is taught by the Church is. That is where your difference lies. And no, neither of us is saying we are the Church, only members of it, as are you. . We, like you are fallible, sinful humans.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Right, that is why we should not hold to strongly to our opinion - much less present them as the truth - when it is on contradiction to what approved sources teach.

 

[catharina]

Right, that is why we should not hold to strongly to our opinion - much less present them as the truth - when it is on contradiction to what approved sources teach.

A book of private revelation teaches private revelation.
No one can demand that another accept it a a valid teaching.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

JR,

This will be the forth time I have asked this question. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but at least tell me you would rather not say. How long have you been a Catholic?