Corporal mortification

[Mt_28_19_20]

I too have a sneaking suspicion that young Matt yonder is either not Catholic or not one who’s had an enormous amount of eduction in the Faith.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that - that’s what places like CAF are here for!

Well, I’m not as young as once was, though I regularly sign my posts Michael and not Matt. That is not really important, what is more important is that you had a sneaking suspicion that I am either not Catholic or not had an enormous amount of education in the Faith. What in my posts leads you to such a suspicion, and what led you to voice the opinion?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

To be sure there are, but they aren’t effective for all people or all thoughts either. And St Francis, for example, was so humble that he considered himself unworthy to be a priest and handle the Eucharist, and refused to become one.

And considering that it’s one’s immortal soul that is at stake, it may be better to risk possible harm through pride (though remember these saints had spiritual directors to advise them as to their practices as well) than to indulge a mortally sinful thought.

This was in response to my words “Seems like there are more humble and quiet ways to avoid or halt an impure thought.”

There are many humble and quiet ways to void or halt impure thouhts, and can be tailored to an individual. So how can one say “but they aren’t effective for all people or all thoughts either.”

St Francis was so humble that we know of how humble he was, and what he refused to become because of humility? A servant of the Church, a priest? Yet he could throw himself on a rose bush? Why do something that could be considered excessive, especially if one is humble, and that others would come to know about? Why not do something without bringing it to anyone’s attention except for God?

“considering that it’s one’s immortal soul that is at stake, it may be better to risk possible harm through pride…” sorry, don’t see how one has to risk harm through pride, the end does not justify the means, the means are important

Michael

 

[Caesar]

Well, I’m not as young as once was, though I regularly sign my posts Michael and not Matt. That is not really important, what is more important is that you had a sneaking suspicion that I am either not Catholic or not had an enormous amount of education in the Faith. What in my posts leads you to such a suspicion, and what led you to voice the opinion?

Michael

Because a) your basing too much on Sacred Scripture over the Tradition of the Church as a whole, b) you insist on denouncing an ancient and important practice, and c) you seem content with calling into question various Saints and Apparitions based on your own opinions of the previously mentioned practice.

Something about you screams protestant whether you mean it or not.

 

[LilyM]

This was in response to my words “Seems like there are more humble and quiet ways to avoid or halt an impure thought.”

There are many humble and quiet ways to void or halt impure thouhts, and can be tailored to an individual. So how can one say “but they aren’t effective for all people or all thoughts either.”

St Francis was so humble that we know of how humble he was, and what he refused to become because of humility? A servant of the Church, a priest? Yet he could throw himself on a rose bush? Why do something that could be considered excessive, especially if one is humble, and that others would come to know about? Why not do something without bringing it to anyone’s attention except for God?

“considering that it’s one’s immortal soul that is at stake, it may be better to risk possible harm through pride…” sorry, don’t see how one has to risk harm through pride, the end does not justify the means, the means are important

Michael

OI yoi yoi!

We know about St Francis because his friends and colleagues spoke and wrote about him after his death - including things they observed that he did in private, not knowing that he was seen or noticed and that he certainly never made public or did in public.

It’s not like he EVER did anything to deliberately draw admiration upon himself. Many of them at the time would’ve had your reaction to him, and not seen anything admirable in throwing yourself in a rose bush to ward off sinful thoughts. So clearly he did it from inner conviction rather than a desire for admiration.

And very simply - how do you know that your so-called quiet humble methods (not to imply that Francis’ method was anything apart from quiet and humble, I mean it’s not like he habitually did such things in the middle of the town square or anything) weren’t already tried and found ineffective by him?

That’s what people normally do don’t they, try less strenuous means to accomplish a goal and only take more drastic action if less drastic methods fail?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

OI yoi yoi!

We know about St Francis because his friends and colleagues spoke and wrote about him after his death - including things they observed that he did in private, not knowing that he was seen or noticed and that he certainly never made public or did in public.

It’s not like he EVER did anything to deliberately draw admiration upon himself. Many of them at the time would’ve had your reaction to him, and not seen anything admirable in throwing yourself in a rose bush to ward off sinful thoughts. So clearly he did it from inner conviction rather than a desire for admiration.

And very simply - how do you know that your so-called quiet humble methods (not to imply that Francis’ method was anything apart from quiet and humble, I mean it’s not like he habitually did such things in the middle of the town square or anything) weren’t already tried and found ineffective by him?

That’s what people normally do don’t they, try less strenuous means to accomplish a goal and only take more drastic action if less drastic methods fail?

“including things they observed that he did in private” Is it private if observed by others?

“your reaction to him” Note I am not presuming anything about his faith and character in general. Only questioning the wisdom and humility of what was implied/stated in this thread, that he would throw himself on a rose bush to avoid impure thoughts. Interesting, the very act of questioning and stating that I myself disagree, and ask for someone who may have more insight than I to explain, has resulted in atleast three fellow “Catholics” to question whether I am Catholic. Which would suggest that I bore false witness as to being Catholic.

“And very simply - how do you know that your so-called quiet humble methods (not to imply that Francis’ method was anything apart from quiet and humble, I mean it’s not like he habitually did such things in the middle of the town square or anything) weren’t already tried and found ineffective by him?”
First, I have not assumed that he did or did not try other methods. Second, what is the point of saying “so-called quiet humble methods”? One might see that as questioning the teaching in Matthew 6.

“That’s what people normally do don’t they, try less strenuous means to accomplish a goal and only take more drastic action if less drastic methods fail?”
One could just as well reason that praying in secret with humility is the more strenous means, than outward acts which others observe.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Because a) your basing too much on Sacred Scripture over the Tradition of the Church as a whole, b) you insist on denouncing an ancient and important practice, and c) you seem content with calling into question various Saints and Apparitions based on your own opinions of the previously mentioned practice.

Something about you screams protestant whether you mean it or not.

No, I am not basing too much on Sacred Scripture over the Traditon of the Church. Utilizing Sacred Scripture does not in itself demean Church Tradtion. Can I assume that you do not have a good explanation for throwing oneself on a rose bush, and other self-imposed physical infliction causing harm to one’s body, except to cite anedoctal examples of individuals, without any Scriptural arguement, or official Church document? I am not talking about prayer, fasting, alsmgiving, etc; I am talking deliberate self-inflicted physical harm to one’s body, such as using a cord to the point of drawing blood/significant tissue damage.

“you insist on denouncing an ancient and important practice,”
I said someone may have more understanding than I, and asked for an explanation, with Sacred Scripture holding it’s proper usefulness (not at the exclusion of Tradition, AND not anecdotal stories of individuals instead of Scripture. I never denounced prayer, fasting, almsgiving, merely stated I disagree with what I view as excessive physical mortification (throwing oneself on a rose bush, cords to the point to drawing blood). Disagreeing, not understanding, asking for a REASONABLE explanation from others who may be more enlightened is not equivalent to denouncing.

“you seem content with calling into question various Saints and Apparitions based on your own opinions of the previously mentioned practice.”
I am not questioning various saints in general, just specific acts that are attributed to them. My opinions are formed from reading Scripture and the Catechism, and other resources/influences. Please give me an explanation for throwing oneself on a rose bush from Church documents and Scripture, instead of relying on the acts attributed to various saints and apparitions. Show me the foundation, give a good defense. Not, so and so, whom we respect did it…understanding
Col 1:9-10 “For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;”

Michael

 

[the_phoenix]

Note I am not presuming anything about his faith and character in general. Only questioning the wisdom and humility of what was implied/stated in this thread, that he would throw himself on a rose bush to avoid impure thoughts. Interesting, the very act of questioning and stating that I myself disagree, and ask for someone who may have more insight than I to explain, has resulted in atleast three fellow “Catholics” to question whether I am Catholic. Which would suggest that I bore false witness as to being Catholic.

Michael

Please allow me to set the record straight … and then I will add a comment which is actually on the topic of this thread, because I actually was thinking about the concept of penance today while commuting and praying the Rosary (I’ve said two for you now, Michael, btw … and thank you for your prayers … today was one of the best days I’ve had in a long time, and it could well be that the extra prayers made that difference!)

The reason why I questioned your identity as a Catholic was not based merely on your questioning of St. Francis’s throwing himself onto a rose bush to counter impure thoughts, but was instead based on my observations of all of the posts I had seen you write in both this thread and the “Surge in Vocations” thread. IMHO, the opinions you were expressing, and the manner in which you were expressing them, struck me as being classically Protestant. Specifically, I asked whether you might be Baptist because among the only two people I’ve met on the internet who’ve used Bible verses for either their forum user name or their e-mail address, one was quite a strong Baptist … who during an e-mail discussion on religion with me acted incredibly similar to how I had observed you act … and the other was Protestant, though at this point I don’t recall a particular denomination.

I asked, because not everyone on the internet is who they claim to be, and you responded. Thank you for responding, and please forgive me for asking.

Now on to my thoughts about corporal mortification today while driving home from work. There’s a similar current thread on this topic here at CAF where people were bringing up the irony of how it is socially acceptable (and even thought cool) to self-mutilate through body piercings, and fast in order to lose weight in the hopes of improving your appearance … and I would add, abstain from meat because you’re a vegetarian who thinks eating meat is murder … but if you do things such as go without an aspirin to offer up headache pain for the conversion of sinners, or fast and abstain during Lent, people think you’re weird and will even laugh about it publicly.

I also remembered the Third Secret of Fatima, where an angel brandishing a sword cried out three times “Penance! Penance! Penance!” … to emphasize the dire situation of the world and what we can, and very much SHOULD, do to help.

we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’

Above quote taken from the following website:

marianland.com/thirdsecret-text.html

~~ the phoenix

 

[LilyM]

No, I am not basing too much on Sacred Scripture over the Traditon of the Church. Utilizing Sacred Scripture does not in itself demean Church Tradtion. Can I assume that you do not have a good explanation for throwing oneself on a rose bush, and other self-imposed physical infliction causing harm to one’s body, except to cite anedoctal examples of individuals, without any Scriptural arguement, or official Church document?
Michael

First of all I DID give you a scripture - the verse from St Paul which you so lightly dismissed. It suggests that he physically punished his own body, suggests it ***incredibly ***strongly, especially when you look at the various translations - ‘beat’, ‘hit’, ‘chastise’ ‘pummel’ etc. That sounds like corporal mortification to me. It’s a fairly obvious, logical and well-founded interpretation of this verse - so it is for you to prove that I’m way off base with it. You haven’t done so.

Secondly - in Catholic doctrine, as you should be aware, tradition and teaching don’t really have to be proven from or crossreferenced directly to scripture at all. If you are Catholic then you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption - all of which have some scriptural support but are much better supported by tradition.

Heck, Sunday worship, a keystone of our faith, isn’t mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible!!! I defy you to find any verse that says ‘they met on Sunday to break bread’.

Thirdly - you don’t appear to know anything about what the canonisation of a person as a saint actually means. It’s an infallible (therefore must be believed by you) declaration by the Pope that a person is currently in heaven AND that that they are rolemodels of Catholic piety and their lives (in as far as they are sinless of course) are worthy of emulation.

With Saints John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila among others, the Popes have gone even further - they are declared Doctors of the Church. Look up that term and its significance. It’s a further infallible declaration that their piety and validity as rolemodels for the faithful is ABOVE even that of your average Saint.

So yes, when you question the example of the Saints and Doctors which the infallible teaching authority (Magisterium) of the church have set before us for the express purpose of modelling ourselves on them, then you do indeed give me pause to wonder if you are really Catholic or truly well-educated in your faith.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

First of all I DID give you a scripture - the verse from St Paul which you so lightly dismissed. It suggests that he physically punished his own body, suggests it ***incredibly ***strongly, especially when you look at the various translations - ‘beat’, ‘hit’, ‘chastise’ ‘pummel’ etc. That sounds like corporal mortification to me. It’s a fairly obvious, logical and well-founded interpretation of this verse - so it is for you to prove that I’m way off base with it. You haven’t done so.

Secondly - in Catholic doctrine, as you should be aware, tradition and teaching don’t really have to be proven from or crossreferenced directly to scripture at all. If you are Catholic then you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption - all of which have some scriptural support but are much better supported by tradition.

Heck, Sunday worship, a keystone of our faith, isn’t mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible!!! I defy you to find any verse that says ‘they met on Sunday to break bread’.

Thirdly - you don’t appear to know anything about what the canonisation of a person as a saint actually means. It’s an infallible (therefore must be believed by you) declaration by the Pope that a person is currently in heaven AND that that they are rolemodels of Catholic piety and their lives (in as far as they are sinless of course) are worthy of emulation.

With Saints John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila among others, the Popes have gone even further - they are declared Doctors of the Church. Look up that term and its significance. It’s a further infallible declaration that their piety and validity as rolemodels for the faithful is ABOVE even that of your average Saint.

So yes, when you question the example of the Saints and Doctors which the infallible teaching authority (Magisterium) of the church have set before us for the express purpose of modelling ourselves on them, then you do indeed give me pause to wonder if you are really Catholic or truly well-educated in your faith.

Yes, you did give a Scripture verse which I thanked you for and did not dismiss lightly. I did ask to consider it in context of an earlier chapter from the book you referenced. That is why my post with “Can I assume that you do not have a good explanation…” was addressed to Caesar, whom I do not recall has relied on any Scripture in this discussion. It is interesting how apparently sparse reliance on Scripture, and the heavy reliance on this or that saint.

Your mention of various translations is thought provoking, though not in itself convincing. What to me would be more convincing is taking the verse in context of surrounding verses.

“So yes, when you question the example of the Saints and Doctors which the infallible teaching authority (Magisterium) of the church have set before us for the express purpose of modelling ourselves on them, then you do indeed give me pause to wonder if you are really Catholic or truly well-educated in your faith” ???
Listen, the saints sinned, we all sin. Even the Pope goes to regular confession. So not everything the saints say, do, or think should be automatically assumed as holy. Might even be seen as saint worship, which would give us Catholics a bad name, and hinder other Christians from embracing the truths of the Catholic Church. So disagreeing with extreme self-inflicted corporatal mortification, AND asking for someone who may have more insight for a good explanation, is not disagreeing with the teaching authority ot the Church. REMEMBER that the infallability applies to faith and morals. So, please show me the official Church teaching condoning self-inflicted corporal mortification such as throwing oneself on a rose bush, or using cords for the purpose of damaging flesh and causing significant bleeding.

Yes, teaching do not have to be proven from Scripture, there should be no apparent contradiction.

Being a saint, a remodel, in heaven, DOES NOT mean we are to mimic everything they did blindly. Are we to mimic Peter’s denial of Jesus three times despite having been warned, despite being the first to confess Jesus, and having seen the transfiguration.

Who are you to question my Catholic faith?

Michael

 

[LilyM]

It is interesting how apparently sparse reliance on Scripture, and the heavy reliance on this or that saint.

Listen, the saints sinned, we all sin. Even the Pope goes to regular confession. So not everything the saints say, do, or think should be automatically assumed as holy.

Point being, yes, the saints sinned and failed at times, some of them grievously. These sins are mentioned (very often in the very writings of those selfsame saints or records of their doings and sayings) AS being sins. Saints, particularly Doctors of the Church, are really big on self-analysis and often leave copious writings.

Augustine frankly discusses his adherence to a heretical group and his sexual sins, condeming these behaviours and showing how he overcame them. Peter’s denial of Christ is recorded, as is his repentance and reform.

Someone who dies in unrepentant grave or mortal sin doesn’t become a saint, it’s that simple. I don’t think one ever comes across, in the writings of St Catherine of Siena, St Teresa, St John of the Cross, or St Josemaria Escriva (another noted mortifier of his own flesh) a single word wishing that they hadn’t indulged in the corporal mortification that they and others saw as helping them come closer to Christ. St Josemaria, I believe, fairly strongly advocated it for others as well as himself.

They all died, in as far as one can ascertain, believing in the merits of these practices, and they all likewise, as the Church has declared, died in the odour of sanctity and approved of God. Now it doesn’t take a lot of complicated guesswork to figure out that if their practice of corporal mortification was particularly repugnant to God it is highly unlikely that he would even allow them into heaven or perform the necessary miracles for their canonisation. And if it was at all repugnant to the Church the Church certainly wouldn’t set them up as rolemodels for us to follow - not with such an obvious and grievous lifelong flaw in their character.

AND asking for someone who may have more insight for a good explanation, is not disagreeing with the teaching authority ot the Church. REMEMBER that the infallability applies to faith and morals. So, please show me the official Church teaching condoning self-inflicted corporal mortification such as throwing oneself on a rose bush, or using cords for the purpose of damaging flesh and causing significant bleeding.

Being a saint, a remodel, in heaven, DOES NOT mean we are to mimic everything they did blindly. Are we to mimic Peter’s denial of Jesus three times despite having been warned, despite being the first to confess Jesus, and having seen the transfiguration.

On the contrary. The aim of every faithful Catholic is to be a saint, these people are examples of how to achieve sanctity. They are indeed there for us to follow - not blindly as you say. But certainly those practices which neither their own God-given consciences nor the Church condemn CAN be, after careful consideration, followed if one wishes to do so. And are in fact held up to us as DESIRABLE to follow, if we are able as well as inclined to do so, and do so as they did under strict supervision and instruction.

The infallible teaching authority of the church tells us exactly so about the saints. The fact is that saint after saint and Doctor after Doctor of the Church practiced corporal mortification. In this you are hearing the same declaration from the church hundreds of times over - one for each of these saints - which is that each one of these people who unrepentantly practiced and advocated corporal mortification to their dying days are saintly imitators of Christ and their example in this regard IS worthy to be followed by US. How is that not sufficiently expressive of the Church’s approval of the practice for you?

Yes, teaching do not have to be proven from Scripture, there should be no apparent contradiction.

Nor is there in this case - we have at least one verse that directly approves it. You say it’s not in context, whatever that means, but a lot of us don’t see any apparent contradiction.

Who are you to question my Catholic faith?

Michael

It’s not your faith I question, not in the slightest. I believe you are entirely sincere. I just don’t think you fully grasp the church’s teaching on saints and, as I said before, on what the canonisation of a person really means.

 

[mercygate]

Hey y’all,
What does the Church teach about corporal mortification? It seems many saints have practiced some sort of mortification, but I don’t think God wants us to seek out pain.
Thanks,
Spirithound

Corporal mortification is not, in its essence or purpose, about pain. It is about subordinating the will of the flesh to the rational soul. For some people, at some points in their lives, physical means may assist this and can be a form of praying with the flesh.

Sometimes pain may be a concomitant. A smoker, for example, who wishes to rid himself of this dangerous addiction might experience great pain in trying to quit. A dieter might experience pain or discomfort in losing the 50 pounds that he has acquired through his own overeating, but neither one is “seeking pain.” Both are attempting to achieve a higher goal of better health (and concomitantly, one might add: spiritual health as well). The fact that we do not seek pain does not mean that we should never experience any.

For spiritual faults that may not be so obvious to the rest of the world, corporal mortifications, applied under obedience and without inflicting injury can be a useful way for SOME people, at SOME times in their lives to join flesh and bone with the intent of the spirit and the will of God.

It’s not for everybody. If you’re asking with a negative conclusion already drawn, it is probably not for you: at least not now.

In my experience, people who are innately hostile to the idea are not good candidates for it. Those who are authentically drawn to it will seek the counsel of their spiritual director and will follow his/her counsel in the matter because the first point of mortification is obedience to legitimate authority legitimately exercised.

Corporal penance, outside the prescripts of a religious institute, which oblige the members to perform them, tends to be extremely personal and individualized. Often nobody other than the person engaging in it (and his spiritual director) will ever understand what good it is doing. That is why these discussions are so often de-railed. It’s nobody’s business but the penitent’s. It is not meant to be public or publicly discussed.
I would like to see more people “mortifying” themselves by practicing NFP than taking the discipline 3 times a week. Now THAT would be SOMETHING!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Corporal mortification is not, in its essence or purpose, about pain. It is about subordinating the will of the flesh to the rational soul. For some people, at some points in their lives, physical means may assist this and can be a form of praying with the flesh.

Sometimes pain may be a concomitant. A smoker, for example, who wishes to rid himself of this dangerous addiction might experience great pain in trying to quit. A dieter might experience pain or discomfort in losing the 50 pounds that he has acquired through his own overeating, but neither one is “seeking pain.” Both are attempting to achieve a higher goal of better health (and concomitantly, one might add: spiritual health as well). The fact that we do not seek pain does not mean that we should never experience any.

For spiritual faults that may not be so obvious to the rest of the world, corporal mortifications, applied under obedience and without inflicting injury can be a useful way for SOME people, at SOME times in their lives to join flesh and bone with the intent of the spirit and the will of God.

Very well said. Of note are:

“Sometimes pain may be a concomitant.”
Running’s primary purpose is not for pain, which may be concomitant. Running a long distance to warn others of impending danger may end up being physically painful, yet experiencing pain is not the motivating purpose to run. To purposefully inflict injury while running may be contrary to the original purpose of running.

“applied under obedience and without inflicting injury can be a useful way”
If someone would develop an abscess from sporotrichosis (if I remember correctly, an infection from a fungus found on rose bush thorns), after throwing themselves on a rose bush to ward off impure thoughts, just how wise would they be. I have yet to hear anyone tell a loved one/friend/family member to throw themselves on a rose bush. And if they did it to someone, would probably be arrest for assault or child abuse. If a friend of mine did this, I would question their sanity. Do any of these in St Francis’ order perform this act on a regular basis, or recomment this to others?

Michael

 

[Caesar]

Yes, you did give a Scripture verse which I thanked you for and did not dismiss lightly. I did ask to consider it in context of an earlier chapter from the book you referenced. That is why my post with “Can I assume that you do not have a good explanation…” was addressed to Caesar, whom I do not recall has relied on any Scripture in this discussion. It is interesting how apparently sparse reliance on Scripture, and the heavy reliance on this or that saint.

Fine.

Scripture

But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway
I Cor. 9:27

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church
Col 1:24

From the Church (recent quotations and documents)

*But the faithful must also be encouraged to do outward acts of penance, both to keep their bodies under the strict control of reason and faith, and to make amends for their own and other people’s sins… St. Augustine issued the same insistent warning: “It is not enough for a man to change his ways for the better and to give up the practice of evil, unless by painful penance, sorrowing humility, the sacrifice of a contrite heart and the giving of alms he makes amends to God for all that he has done wrong.” …But besides bearing in a Christian spirit the inescapable annoyances and sufferings of this life, the faithful ought also take the initiative in doing voluntary acts of penance and offering them to God… Since, therefore, Christ has suffered in the flesh," it is only fitting that we be “armed with the same intent.” It is right, too, to seek example and inspiration from the great saints of the Church. Pure as they were, they inflicted such mortifications upon themselves as to leave us almost aghast with admiration. And as we contemplate their saintly heroism, shall not we be moved by God’s grace to impose on ourselves some voluntary sufferings and deprivations, we whose consciences are perhaps weighed down by so heavy a burden of guilt? *

• B. John XXIII (Paenitentiam Agere)

The necessity of mortification of the flesh stands clearly revealed if we consider the fragility of our nature, in which, since Adam’s sin, flesh and spirit have contrasting desires. This exercise of bodily mortification — far removed from any form of stoicism — does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which the Son of God deigned to assume. On the contrary, mortification aims at the ‘liberation’ of man.

• V. Paul VI

…

 

[Caesar]

Christ did not conceal from his listeners the need for suffering. He said very clearly: "If any man would come after me… let him take up his cross daily, and before his disciples he placed demands of a moral nature that can only be fulfilled on condition that they should “deny themselves”. The way that leads to the Kingdom of heaven is “hard and narrow”, and Christ contrasts it to the “wide and easy” way that “leads to destruction.” Christ does not explain in the abstract the reasons for suffering, but he states: “Follow me!”. Come! Take part through your suffering in this work of saving the world, a salvation achieved through my suffering! Through my Cross. Gradually, as the individual takes up his cross, spiritually uniting himself to the Cross of Christ, the salvific meaning of suffering is revealed before him. …It is then that man finds in his suffering interior peace and even spiritual joy.

• John Paul II (Salvifici Doloris)

When we know that the way of love — this exodus, this going out of oneself — is the true way by which man becomes human, then we also understand that suffering is the process through which we mature. Anyone who has inwardly accepted suffering becomes more mature and more understanding of others, becomes more human.Anyone who has consistently avoided suffering does not understand other people; he becomes hard and selfish. Love itself is a passion, something we endure. In love I experience first a happiness, a general feeling of happiness. Yet, on the other hand, I am taken out of my comfortable tranquility and have to let myself be reshaped. If we say that suffering is the inner side of love, we then also understand by it is so important to learn how to suffer — and why, conversely, the avoidance of suffering renders someone unfit to cope with life.

• HH Benedict XVI

In sinking to the depths he rose to the heights. Now he has radically fulfilled the commandment of love, he has completed the offering of himself, and in this way he is now the revelation of the true God, the God who is love. Now we know who God is. Now we know what true kingship is. Jesus prays Psalm 22, which begins with the words: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Ps 22:2). He takes to himself the whole suffering people of Israel, all of suffering humanity, the drama of God’s darkness, and he makes God present in the very place where he seems definitively vanquished and absent. The Cross of Jesus is a cosmic event. The world is darkened, when the Son of God is given up to death. The earth trembles. And on the Cross, the Church of the Gentiles is born. The Roman centurion understands this, and acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God. From the Cross he triumphs * ever anew.– HH Benedict XVI

The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle. Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes

• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2015

Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance

• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1430

There is a reason why Scripture should be left to the priests and religious. Without having the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church as a guide we interpret the Scriptures ourselves and question the Faith based on those interpretations.

It is better, therefore that the ordinary Catholic should instead meditate on the Lives of the Saints, for it is through these holy men and women that the teachings of Our Lord are personified. As Catholics, we should always try to imitate the life of Christ by imitating the lives of those whom He has chosen to guide us- the Saints.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance

• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1430

Note the first aim is not outward works, but conversion of heart, interior conversion, without this the others remain sterile. Sackcloth and ashes, fasting, and other appropriate mortifiction does not condone imappropriate mortification. And we are called to discern the difference, according to our conscience, as it continues to be formed by grace of God. I in no way claim to be a saint, and wonder how it is God gives the grace to overcome impure thoughts without throwing myself in a rose bush, or resorting to injurying my body. If we can’t exercise control of our thoughts, what good is the exterior act. God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

There is a reason why Scripture should be left to the priests and religious. Without having the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church as a guide we interpret the Scriptures ourselves and question the Faith based on those interpretations.

Utter nonsense. All Catholics should learn from Scripture as guided by the Catechism. Leaving Scripture to the priests and religious? The Catechism and Scripture do not teach that, and has the potential to having blind followers. What good is that for their faith? Each individual will be accountable for their faith, and we are all exhorted to know God through the study of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Caesar]

Note the first aim is not outward works, but conversion of heart, interior conversion, without this the others remain sterile. Sackcloth and ashes, fasting, and other appropriate mortifiction does not condone imappropriate mortification. And we are called to discern the difference, according to our conscience, as it continues to be formed by grace of God. I in no way claim to be a saint, and wonder how it is God gives the grace to overcome impure thoughts without throwing myself in a rose bush, or resorting to injurying my body. If we can’t exercise control of our thoughts, what good is the exterior act. God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

Michael

But we can control our thoughts and actions through proper mortification, just as the saints did. The Saints did not perform these acts as an exterior example of their piety- for they, of course, had other exterior examples through which people can see the teachings of Our Lord. Rather, they mortified the flesh as interior purification. To purify their souls and unite themselves with Christ through the subjugation of the weak flesh. This is in accordance with Sacred Tradition, both Apostolic and Scriptural, various disciplines that have evolved and grown throughout the history of the Church, the lives of the Saints and other devout people, and the writings (and actions) of the hierarchy, past and present.

 

[Caesar]

Utter nonsense. All Catholics should learn from Scripture as guided by the Catechism. Leaving Scripture to the priests and religious? The Catechism and Scripture do not teach that, and has the potential to having blind followers. What good is that for their faith? Each individual will be accountable for their faith, and we are all exhorted to know God through the study of Sacred Scripture.

But personal study of Sacred Scripture without the teachings of the Church as a guide create personal interpretations and then we are no better then the protestants. The teachings of the Church should be enough to live by without having to resort to scripture to form your own opinions.

Christ is found through the teachings of the Church, which are always compatible with Sacred Scripture, and the examples shown in the lives of His Saints.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Hey y’all,
What does the Church teach about corporal mortification? It seems many saints have practiced some sort of mortification, but I don’t think God wants us to seek out pain.
Thanks,
Spirithound

I am curious, those who emphasize corporal mortification, and appear to defend more than fasting, prayers, and almsgiving, and apparently include throwing oneself on a rose bush as consistent with what God asks of His faithful:
When is the last time you threw yourself on a rose bush? In a winter jacket, or bathing attire?
When is the last time you stuck yourself with a pin to avoid impure thoughts? Do you stick yourself with a pin more than once, and thus more effectively avoid impure thoughts?
Do those who do not resort to self-inflicted damage/injury to the body, do you see them as less holy, or less disciplined?
Does disciplining the body, subjecting the body, imply self-control, temperance, perseverence? Or are these insufficient without self-inflicted bodily injury. What did Paul mean in 1 Cor 9, taken in context with the rest of the letter, and with Scripture as a whole. Where are specific examples in Scripture of self-inflicted bodily injury?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

But personal study of Sacred Scripture without the teachings of the Church as a guide create personal interpretations and then we are no better then the protestants. The teachings of the Church should be enough to live by without having to resort to scripture to form your own opinions.

Christ is found through the teachings of the Church, which are always compatible with Sacred Scripture, and the examples shown in the lives of His Saints.

Who is promoting person study of Sacred Scripture outside the teachings of the Church? I have not done so. And, Sacred Scripture tells us in 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” so should we not understand the teachings of the Church in light and context of Sacred Scripture? Not one over the other, both in harmony.

Now, where does the Church officially teach throwing oneself on a rose bush, or self-inflicting physical? Or following the examples of individuals, whether they by canonized saints, or righteous Catholics we know, without understanding our faith from the official teachings and Sacred Scripture, so as to avoid over extrapolating the wording of teachings?

Michael