Can we be over zealous in protecting tradition?

[JReducation]

There is a thread going on here that starts off reminding the readers that the Council of Trent forbade the vernacular. That’s an interesting academic discussion for those who love Church history, ecclesiology, or the study of law. But it won’t change the here and now and it’s an endless discussion.

There is something to be learned from such a discussion. The Council of Trent’s position on this subject was a matter of law, not revealed dogma or revealed moral law. The current pope (at whatever time in history) trumps every council, every pope, every encyclical and every canon law that came before him. He is bound only be revealed dogma and revealed moral law.

But what happens in these kinds of discussions is that people get so passionate about their position that they argue interminably. I see two possible dangers here.

First: One has to ask if one’s wasting the time that God has given us. There is so much that we can be doing for our family, parish, the poor, the greater community, to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing something that will not change can be a waste of God’s gift. The gift of time is a once in a lifetime gift. God does not offer it again. We’re not James Stewart and “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a movie, not real.

Second: Are we feeding our frustration and our anger? The devil loves to play havoc with our emotions. Our emotions are amoral. However, the devil can use them against us. Look at the many people who commit all kinds of sins driven by anger, frustration, passion, despair and so forth. To feed our negative emotions opens a door for the enemy of the soul.

My policy is to add whatever I can to the discussion, once I feel that I can add no more, I bail out or once I feel my blood pressure rising I also leave. To remain would be an excess of zeal. Excesses of zeal can be toxic to the soul.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Notice Adam is a witness to the exchange between the Serpent and Eve. Yet her protector doesn’t do anything to stop what is going on. He doesn’t try to drive the serpent away or call on the Lord for help.

.

I do not think Adam is Eve’s protector at that stage. There is nothing to protect her from. They are in Paradise. Nor is he a witness to the conversation with the Serpent.

I did go back and quickly look at the text. The Serpent’s conversation is with Eve. Adam is not present. Otherwise, the text would read read “the Serpent said to them”

Genesis 3:1

He said to the woman, "Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

Genesis 3:4

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die :

Only later:

Genesis 3:6

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise , she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat , and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat .

I thought Eve’s greater culpability for the Fall of man was the reason for her subservience to Adam and her having pain in childbirth. Adam is also accused, but not to the same degree. He has to labour for his bread to get it out of the ground; he/we won’t get it easily, as we did in Paradise. That’s it. No more free lunch. Which sounds facetious, but it means we work all our lives.

The Serpent tempted Eve and Eve then tempted Adam. Or is even that now revised post 1970? I’m genuinely confused.

 

[severus68]

I strongly recommend that you read the Eastern Fathers’ commentaries on the OT and NT. They deny this hypothesis completely. They pose that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT. The NT is about the perfection of charity. Laws were means not an end. The end of religion is charity, not adherence to laws. This is why St. Paul argues against the law. Because some people of his time had made the law as the definition of religion.

From the Fathers of the East, you should then move West to St. Anthony of Padua’s commentaries on the scriptures. St. Anthony points out that the fulfillment of the Gospel in Christian life is not about laws. We comply with laws, because of justice. We comply with justice, because human dignity demands it of us. Human dignity demands it of us, because God elevated human dignity when he became Incarnate out of pure love. Our sole motivation then should be love, not law. Law is a path, not an end.

No one made this more clear than St. Albert when he wrote the Rule of Carmel. It’s one page. But if you live according to the advice in that one page, you will be another John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila.

Speaking of Teresa of Avila, let us remember her sound advice. Beware of sour faced saints who go about preaching penance and repentance, but forget to teach love and gratitude.

I will do that. He’s a great disciple of St. Jose Maria Escriva.

**There is nothing in the present that is less important than what’s happening over in Rome. If that were so important, God would have placed us all there and not here, for God wants nothing more than for us to be saved. He would not deprive us of the opportunity. **

That’s not from St. Josep Maria, that’s from Br. Jay to his spiritual sons.

Great post Brother. I so enjoyed reading it.

 

[TimothyH]

From the Fathers of the East, you should then move West to St. Anthony of Padua’s commentaries on the scriptures. St. Anthony points out that the fulfillment of the Gospel in Christian life is not about laws. We comply with laws, because of justice. We comply with justice, because human dignity demands it of us. Human dignity demands it of us, because God elevated human dignity when he became Incarnate out of pure love. Our sole motivation then should be love, not law. Law is a path, not an end.

Rereading this thread and this to me is very wise and beautiful. Thank you for this, for the part about justice and dignity.

I think there is a false divide in our Church today - personal morality crowd vs. social justice crowd.

If you happen to read this and are up to it, I would be in your debt for a reference to a title, volume or website for the relevant commentary from St. Anthony of Padua,

-Tim-

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

I thought Eve’s greater culpability for the Fall of man was the reason for her subservience to Adam and her having pain in childbirth. Adam is also accused, but not to the same degree. He has to labour for his bread to get it out of the ground; he/we won’t get it easily, as we did in Paradise. That’s it. No more free lunch. Which sounds facetious, but it means we work all our lives.

The Serpent tempted Eve and Eve then tempted Adam. Or is even that now revised post 1970? I’m genuinely confused.

The two are one. God has made them that way.

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone;
…
21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and **be joined to **his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The unity of paradise disintegrates.

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
…
11And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12The man said, “**The woman **whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “**The serpent **deceived me, and I ate.”

The bliss of “we” turns into self-serving blame, judgment, culpability. They are now pointing fingers at one another. They no longer live as one but are stumbling over one another to cast blame and judgment. .

 

[JReducation]

Rereading this thread and this to me is very wise and beautiful. Thank you for this, for the part about justice and dignity.

I think there is a false divide in our Church today - personal morality crowd vs. social justice crowd.

If you happen to read this and are up to it, I would be in your debt for a reference to a title, volume or website for the relevant commentary from St. Anthony of Padua,

-Tim-

-Tim-

I don’t know if this is in English someplace. I’ve never seen it. It must exist. I just don’t know where. I read Italian fluently, so for me it’s not a problem. You may also read Latin. Google’s translations often suffer a little, but you can try it.

santantonio.org/portale/sermones/indice.asp?ln=IT&s=0&c=2&p=0

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t know if this is in English someplace. I’ve never seen it. It must exist. I just don’t know where. I read Italian fluently, so for me it’s not a problem. You may also read Latin. Google’s translations often suffer a little, but you can try it.

santantonio.org/portale/sermones/indice.asp?ln=IT&s=0&c=2&p=0

Thank you. Your having taken the time to respond means more to me than you know. I will search for it in English and report back if I find it.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Thank you. Your having taken the time to respond means more to me than you know. I will search for it in English and report back if I find it.

-Tim-

You’re welcome. I have the book, but it’s in Italian. That’s how I traced it on the Internet. I Googled the book of his sermons. His sermon for the Feast of the Birthday of Mary, which is coming up, is beautiful.

I was reading a few threads on TC that raised my red flags around this subject. There is a thread called “Tradition Alone” and another “Our Catholic Identity”. I believe I got that right.

In both threads, I see much of what I mean by an excess of zeal that can quickly take us south. In the one thread the OP makes an analogy. He says that “tradition alone” is just as bad as “sola scriptura”. This is actually very true, if we think about it calmly.

What has happened in that thread is that some people have started to defend themselves from the word “heretic”. I had to stop and reread the OP to make sure that I understood. It turned out that I did understand. It’s an analogy. It’s not saying that Traditionalists are heretics. But in their effort to protect their “traditionalism” if one can use that term, they have read into the analogy what was not said. That’s an excess of zeal. One must always protect the faith. Humility does not call us to be dumb. But one must protect the faith from what has been said, not from what one extrapolates. Extrapolations can be a good thing, if they are done calmly and without any passion. For example, we extrapolate when we do academic studies of the scriptures. But in those situations, we approach the scriptures with the coolness of a brain surgeon. If we approach it with the passion of a politician, we’re going to become defensive or offensive. An excess of zeal can lead to either.

In the other thread on Catholic identity, the OP makes a list of things that he feels are essential to Catholic identity. The hypothesis is right on the money. Catholics have lost their identity. The elements that he identifies as essential to Catholic identity are not enough. He goes into Latin, the TLM, the mass ad orientem, blessing oneself in public and I can’t recall what else.

He is so intense about these things that he has completely missed the fact that Catholics are anonymous in the market place. Catholic physicians are not speaking up for life. Catholic politicians are living in a compartmentalized world. They fail to approach moral issues with a Catholic point of reference. Catholic parents are raising a generation of entitled children who have no experience with sacrifice, austerity or sharing with those who have less. In fact, their experience is that parents exist to provide for them. This unravels the entire theology of marriage and parenthood.

In the same thread, the respondents simply tell the poster that he is despairing and that he needs to pray to the Holy Spirit. Praying to the Holy Spirit is definitely good advice. But to tell someone that they’re despairing and not point out what makes us different and what we need to improve on, is not helpful. It’s like the doctor who tells you that you’re sick and you need to do something about that bad cold.

This is yet another example of zeal in the wrong direction. We must always encourage others to pray. But we must also give them something to munch on. To believe that if the person prays everything will become clear is a myth. Christ said, “Go out and proclaim the Good News” and “Tell John that the blind see, the lame walk and the poor have the Gospel proclaimed to them”. He offers very concrete responses.

Go proclaim the Gospel. Don’t just tell people that they have to pray.

Go out and tell people what the Church has done and continues to do for the world. Don’t just tell them that they’re despairing. Despair will only be relieved with concrete evidence that the glass is half full and not half empty. It’s very easy to get into this pious mode and not be as concrete as Christ was.

If you’re wondering why is this in TC Forum, it’s because this is the tradition of the Church. The Church’s zeal is expressed through the here and now in very concrete ways. We tend to go for the other worldly.

The transcendent can only transcend when it’s grounded in the present moment. Trans = to move. But move from where to where? From here to eternity. We don’t begin with eternity. We begin with here and now.

This has been the faith and tradition of the Church since the Apostles. If you pay close attention to Paul’s letters, they always begin with an issue or situation in the Church to which he is writing. He takes his audience from the here and now into the eschaton.

 

[choliks]

You’re welcome. I have the book, but it’s in Italian. That’s how I traced it on the Internet. I Googled the book of his sermons. His sermon for the Feast of the Birthday of Mary, which is coming up, is beautiful.

I was reading a few threads on TC that raised my red flags around this subject. There is a thread called “Tradition Alone” and another “Our Catholic Identity”. I believe I got that right.

In both threads, I see much of what I mean by an excess of zeal that can quickly take us south. In the one thread the OP makes an analogy. He says that “tradition alone” is just as bad as “sola scriptura”. This is actually very true, if we think about it calmly.

What has happened in that thread is that some people have started to defend themselves from the word “heretic”. I had to stop and reread the OP to make sure that I understood. It turned out that I did understand. It’s an analogy. It’s not saying that Traditionalists are heretics. But in their effort to protect their “traditionalism” if one can use that term, they have read into the analogy what was not said. That’s an excess of zeal. One must always protect the faith. Humility does not call us to be dumb. But one must protect the faith from what has been said, not from what one extrapolates. Extrapolations can be a good thing, if they are done calmly and without any passion. For example, we extrapolate when we do academic studies of the scriptures. But in those situations, we approach the scriptures with the coolness of a brain surgeon. If we approach it with the passion of a politician, we’re going to become defensive or offensive. An excess of zeal can lead to either.

In the other thread on Catholic identity, the OP makes a list of things that he feels are essential to Catholic identity. The hypothesis is right on the money. Catholics have lost their identity. The elements that he identifies as essential to Catholic identity are not enough. He goes into Latin, the TLM, the mass ad orientem, blessing oneself in public and I can’t recall what else.

He is so intense about these things that he has completely missed the fact that Catholics are anonymous in the market place. Catholic physicians are not speaking up for life. Catholic politicians are living in a compartmentalized world. They fail to approach moral issues with a Catholic point of reference. Catholic parents are raising a generation of entitled children who have no experience with sacrifice, austerity or sharing with those who have less. In fact, their experience is that parents exist to provide for them. This unravels the entire theology of marriage and parenthood.

In the same thread, the respondents simply tell the poster that he is despairing and that he needs to pray to the Holy Spirit. Praying to the Holy Spirit is definitely good advice. But to tell someone that they’re despairing and not point out what makes us different and what we need to improve on, is not helpful. It’s like the doctor who tells you that you’re sick and you need to do something about that bad cold.

This is yet another example of zeal in the wrong direction. We must always encourage others to pray. But we must also give them something to munch on. To believe that if the person prays everything will become clear is a myth. Christ said, “Go out and proclaim the Good News” and “Tell John that the blind see, the lame walk and the poor have the Gospel proclaimed to them”. He offers very concrete responses.

Go proclaim the Gospel. Don’t just tell people that they have to pray.

Go out and tell people what the Church has done and continues to do for the world. Don’t just tell them that they’re despairing. Despair will only be relieved with concrete evidence that the glass is half full and not half empty. It’s very easy to get into this pious mode and not be as concrete as Christ was.

If you’re wondering why is this in TC Forum, it’s because this is the tradition of the Church. The Church’s zeal is expressed through the here and now in very concrete ways. We tend to go for the other worldly.

The transcendent can only transcend when it’s grounded in the present moment. Trans = to move. But move from where to where? From here to eternity. We don’t begin with eternity. We begin with here and now.

This has been the faith and tradition of the Church since the Apostles. If you pay close attention to Paul’s letters, they always begin with an issue or situation in the Church to which he is writing. He takes his audience from the here and now into the eschaton.

^ i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/choliks_a/facebook-like-icon_zps3c410036.png

 

[Rich_C]

The saints have often written that we can be overzealous about anything good, so in principle, yes. However, the Church today is hardly zealous about tradition at all, so this seems like a funny example to me.

 

[QuestingKnight]

11And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

This doesn’t contradict what I said. The serpent tempted Eve and she tempted Adam. Her punishment was thus greater. Without her tempting him Adam might not have eaten the apple. (That Eve was made from Adam’s rib or that they were man and wife had no bearing on the judgement.) I thought that was basic Christianity.

 

[JReducation]

The saints have often written that we can be overzealous about anything good, so in principle, yes. However, the Church today is hardly zealous about tradition at all, so this seems like a funny example to me.

I could have used anything as an example, but since this forum focuses on traditions and customs, I limited myself to tradition.

If it were a forum on social justice, I could pose the question using social justice instead of tradition.

 

[Rich_C]

I could have used anything as an example, but since this forum focuses on traditions and customs, I limited myself to tradition.

If it were a forum on social justice, I could pose the question using social justice instead of tradition.

How about St. Francis?

 

[simple_soul]

The saints have often written that we can be overzealous about anything good, so in principle, yes. However, the Church today is hardly zealous about tradition at all, so this seems like a funny example to me.

Personally I see the Churh being very zealous about some traditiins and Traditions it’s just that what the Church is zealous about does not fit into what some people would like to see the Church zealous about. I could be wrong but I beleive the point of Br. Kay’s thread is to question why some would be zealous about traditions that the Church is not zealous about and start being zealous about the traditions the Church is zealous about. Exspecially about the traditions that begin with a Capitol “T”. What I beleive what Brother is questioning is are we taking traditions the Church is not zealous about and ignoring the traditions the Church is zealous about because we want what we want and to heck with what the Church wants.

If I am wrong I pray the good Brother corrects me.

What I beleive is sad is how you seemed to coyly change the good Brother’s words from “over zealous” and equated it to being the same thing as having zeal that you do not believe the Church to have any of. The Church has zeal but I do not believe it could be said that the Church is over zealous. I do not see “being over zealous” and “having zeal” as being the same thing.

 

[JReducation]

Simple Soul comes close to what I’m thinking. Zeal is an essential part of anything we do. Zeal is not limited to faith. People can be zealous about a political ideology, etc.

There is zeal that adds nothing to our current situation. Pope Francis was speaking to the bishops of Latin America and he made some very important points on this subject. He told them that they were spending too much time and energy (zeal) on the inner workings of the Church such as what hymnal to use, whether to use guitar or organ; discussing why people don’t come to confession as often as they should; analyzing what should be the Church’s relation with other faiths and so forth.

He told them that while they’re so busy on these questions, the most important piece is not being addressed. He said, “I am firmly convinced that this is a period in history when God wants to show us His great mercy; but the people will never know it, if bishops, priests, religious and lay people are spending time discussing these other things and not taking advantage of God’s mercy and SHOWING God’s mercy to others, through their actions.”

When you stop and think about the great saints, at the end of the day, their lives are lessons in love and dependence on God. Some wrote great theological works, but that’s not their legacy. Their legacy is their relationship with God. Thomas Aquinas, on his deathbed, said about his Summa, “Straw, it’s all straw.” He knew that it was only God’s mercy that could save him, not all the theology and philosophy that he had put on paper. He was totally immersed in the present moment, not in some ivory tower spouting off theology.

All too often, people want the rest of us to embrace Thomistic systems, but the same people who push Thomism, know nothing about the interior life of the man named Thomas. His system without knowledge of his interior life is self-serving. On the other hand, when one lives and breaths the faith like Thomas, his systems cease to be self-serving and they become liberating.

 

[TimothyH]

This is yet another example of zeal in the wrong direction. We must always encourage others to pray. But we must also give them something to munch on. To believe that if the person prays everything will become clear is a myth. Christ said, “Go out and proclaim the Good News” and “Tell John that the blind see, the lame walk and the poor have the Gospel proclaimed to them”. He offers very concrete responses.

Go proclaim the Gospel. Don’t just tell people that they have to pray.

This has rattled around in my head all day.

-Tim-

 

[Rich_C]

What I beleive is sad is how you seemed to coyly change the good Brother’s words from “over zealous” and equated it to being the same thing as having zeal that you do not believe the Church to have any of. The Church has zeal but I do not believe it could be said that the Church is over zealous. I do not see “being over zealous” and “having zeal” as being the same thing.

You just misunderstood my post, that’s all.

All I meant was, the Church doesn’t have too much zeal for tradition at this point in history. If anything, I’d say it has too little. (I mean among its human members–not in its magesterial authority.) Therefore, I don’t understand why the good brother would single this example out when it’s not the problem.

It would be like saying, “are we too overzealous for the poor?” Well, it seems like we could be doing a lot more for the poor, so I’d say ‘no.’ We could be doing a lot more for tradition, so I would also say no for that.

 

[Rich_C]

Simple Soul comes close to what I’m thinking. Zeal is an essential part of anything we do. Zeal is not limited to faith. People can be zealous about a political ideology, etc.

There is zeal that adds nothing to our current situation…

Brother, I just kept part of your quote for brevity–not trying to take anything out of context.

It seems to me that what you’re trying to say is “Can we worry too much about what others are doing?”

That would seem to be a much more accurate title for this thread based on what I read to be your concerns.

I have to admit, I find the current title a little offensive–much like I imagine you would find it offensive if someone began a thread called “Can we be over zealous in following St. Francis.” Maybe we can (I don’t know), but it reads like a dig on someone else’s spirituality because it’s so clear that it’s addressing a false problem (like, in this other example, how could we say that St. Francis is overemphasized when clearly in the wider Church at large he is not a big deal to most people? I would say we should emphasize him even more, personally.)

I don’t know if that’s clear but I hope so.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I just kept part of your quote for brevity–not trying to take anything out of context.

It seems to me that what you’re trying to say is “Can we worry too much about what others are doing?”

That would seem to be a much more accurate title for this thread based on what I read to be your concerns.

I have to admit, I find the current title a little offensive–much like I imagine you would find it offensive if someone began a thread called “Can we be over zealous in following St. Francis.”

Yes, we can be overzealous in following St. Francis; but that’s another subject. People have been excommunicated for doing so too.

Rich: the term is very appropriate for this context. It is a term that has been in use in Spiritual Theology since the 15th century. It was first coined by Francisco de Osuna in The Third Spiritual Alphabet/. Francisco refers to those who having found a spiritual treasure become a nuisance, because they insist that it’s for everyone. As he says, “Some jewels only look good on certain ladies.”

It was later used by Ignatius of Loyola several times in his letters to his sons and letters between him and the bishops. He was defending his order from criticism. The Society of Jesus was under attack because it professed the same solemn vows as monks and friars. It derived the same spiritual graces from the vows available only to monks and friars, because they’re only available to those who profess solemn vows. He got the pope to give him and his successors autonomy from all Church authority except the pope, which was a privilege reserved only for monks and friars. However, the Jesuits were and continue to be exempt from all the obligations that bind monks and friars, except poverty, chastity and obedience to their conscience and to go where the pope sends them.

In light of this different order, there was much concern that the stability of religious life was in danger and that these Jesuits would be free to dissent without anyone to control them except the superior general to the extent that he wished to control them. The Church was fighting Protestantism. Ignatius’ response was that this was an excess of zeal. Those who opposed his new paradigm were so zealous about protecting what existed that they were imposing it on his order and trying to mold his vision. He recognized their good intentions and the problem they were causing his order.

Teresa of Avila would later use the same expression to describe those who embraced forms of penance that the Church law does not mandate, but they impose it on themselves as a law rather than a private option. Though many of these forms of penance and prayer were sanctioned by the Church, they were not required by the Church. This mindset that one should do the extra, even if the Church did not require it, Teresa referred to as an excessive zeal. Her concern was that such zeal could create conflicts that have the potential to divide people by creating camps, the potential to blind people to the fact that these are options and not laws, and to lead people on both sides to pass judgment on each other. In Teresa’s teachings, no one has the option to pass judgment. Such judgment is a sign of a beginner who has not overcome spiritual pride. She lived with this excessive zeal to protect the traditional as she struggled to explain her reform to her order and Church authorities.

John of the Cross used the term to refer to those who invested time and energy worrying about everyone else’s salvation. While he agreed that the salvation of souls is the mission of the Church, his ecclesiology was very different from our own. The first duty is to save one’s soul, then one’s spouse and one’s children. John couldn’t fathom that anyone with a family would have the energy or the time to focus on the neighbor beyond his family, other than for the corporal works of mercy. The rest was to be consigned to prayer and acts of reparation. Those who made it their mission to worry about the spiritual weaknesses of others he considered to be over zealous, because their intention was good, but their drive was questionable. Were they driven by pride? Were they driven by a wrongful understanding of the spiritual life? Were they driven by a desire to control? Were they driven obsession?

As an aside, here is a perfect example of what we mean when we say that the Church must speak to modern man in a language that he understands. Some people feel offended by this. Here is an expression that is part of classical spiritual theology and has been used in contexts that are very similar to our own today, but the writers explain it in language that we don’t use today. If I were to say everything that I said above in the language of Francisco de Osuna, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, it would not convey the same meaning. Their words, sentence structure and even their target audience were different. They contain great truth, but it has to be restated so that we don’t miss the message.

 

[Rich_C]

Good food for thought, brother. I may PM you later with some questions.