Dark Night of the Soul?

[BarbaraTherese]

…and then there is Luke Chapter 10…

21 In that same hour, he rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy sight.

Education, being well read and not even experience are guarantees of infallibility in all matters…but sometimes and even often they can be spot on. To my mind such people are certainly worth a listen and to consider what is stated. Over and above that, St. Paul tells us that all knowledge is only partial, incomplete, and is destined to die, pass away, only Love is constant and eternal. That all human knowledge is destined to pass away gives food for thought. If St. Paul had said that human knowledge in its incompleteness is destined to be completed in Heaven, is another statement entirely. Interesting thought. We just may know far far less than we think we know.

Blessings all…Barb *

 

[JReducation]

Here’s where we differ, JR. You seem persistent in reiterating that only scholars have the capability of interpreting a person’s mystical experiences, and the person himself . . .

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the person who is the beneficiary can never understand what is happening. Often this is the case. That being said, you gave a very good example of the relationship between Peter of Alcantara and Teresa of Avila. Peter was a great resource for Teresa. No one argues about this.

*]is incapable, unless they have possess the tools: “philosophy, theology, liturgy, scripture, history, language, and the arts,”

These are requirements that the Church places on those who study mystical theology and spirituality. I’m not making an argument for or against. I’m just stating this is the required program of studies. It doesn’t bother me at all that others who have not gone through such programs minister in this area. Many people have a natural gift when it comes to understanding the spiritual life. They’re very intuitive and very holy.

*]is “far too simple to receive the grace of insight into these things,”

No one argues that it’s not simple. What Bonaventure taught and the Church accepted was that this kind of grace is not common. Therefore, people have to take a scholastic approach to it. Bonaventure never argued that this grace is not readily available. His position was that available and frequent are not the same thing. In fact he went into long writings to show how Francis of Assisi, many of the prophets, Paul and John the Evangelist were graced with mystical insight and experiences. He also pointed to the other Apostles, but less is known about them. They wrote less on these subjects.

*]is subject to the Church’s fear that these writings will be misunderstood and lead people into difficult psychological situations,

I didn’t make this policy or practice. This is the current practice in the Church, especially in theological training. Mystical theology is kept separate from the other branches of theology. It’s not the only area of theology that is kept separate. I was talking to a diocesan priest who was telling me that in most diocesan seminaries, mystical theology, canon law, and sacred scripture are covered in broad strokes, because they are too complex to include full programs of study in just four years along with the other areas of theology.

*]is not to desire or work towards this level of contemplative life.

I don’t mean this the way it sounds. What is taught in this area is that the Christian should focus on the life of virtue and let God’s grace operate as he wills. There are people who read Teresa of Avila and set out on a journey to experience the same things that she did. They skip over the fact that these were graces that she received resulting from a life of virtue, penance, prayer, and love of God and Church.

JR, your book learning leaves me scratching my head in disbelief with respect to all of these bulleted points. You may indeed state your scholarly opinion and cite your credentials to induce me to accept this as truth, but I cannot agree in any way with what you are presenting here.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to induce anyone to believe anything. Barbara Terese asked me a question about this topic, further back. I just wrote what has been written, said and practiced regarding this area of the spiritual life. I was just sharing information.

When I post on topics like this, I’m not really interested in persuading people to believe or disbelieve. I just share the information that’s available in different resources. Many people come at this from different angles. As long as they are not sinful or damaging to the person, I would never say they should not. I always advise caution in this area. But I don’t want anyone not study this area of our faith. On the contrary, it’s a beautiful area of our faith and one that more people should know about.

Nor will I debate it further, for I anticipate that it will not have a good outcome. And you may likely judge that I am a poor misguided rebellious soul who won’t listen to you. It makes little difference what you may believe of me, but I am intensely concerned for others who are reading your thesis.

Don’t think that way. I don’t judge people and I have no authority to expect people to agree with me or listen to me. I’m just a person like everyone else. I love sharing what I know; but I also think a lot about what others have to say in response, as long as we’re on topic and not attacking each other.

I’m remembering the dialogue between Francis and Dominic. Dominic proposed to Francis that they combine forces. Both were founding religious and secular orders of preachers and contemplatives. The two loved each other very much and were very good friends. But they never agreed on the meaning of preaching.

What I’ve learned from both of these great and holy men is that we can have more than one emphasis and viewpoint on any given reality in the Christian life. As long as all of those points of view and emphases are consistent with the faith of the Church, they will yield great graces for the Church. I’ve also believed that sanctity is not achieved by what we know, but by what we live.

If you have some different ideas and thoughts on anything that I share, I’m not bothered or turned off at all. I enjoy hearing what people have to say and sometimes, after thinking about it, I’ll say to myself, “Hmmm, never thought of it that way.”

I hope to see and hear more from many people on this subject. There are some very interesting experiences out there that people have had that are worth sharing.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

…and then there is Luke Chapter 10…
Education, being well read and not even experience are guarantees of infallibility in all matters…but sometimes and even often they can be spot on. To my mind such people are certainly worth a listen and to consider what is stated. Over and above that, St. Paul tells us that all knowledge is only partial, incomplete, and is destined to die, pass away, only Love is constant and eternal. That all human knowledge is destined to pass away gives food for thought. If St. Paul had said that human knowledge in its incompleteness is destined to be completed in Heaven*, is another statement entirely. Interesting thought. We just may know far far less than we think we know.

Blessings all…Barb

The Bold is mine

It is very true that human knowledge is very incomplete, especially when it comes to our understanding of God and his work in Salvation History. Nonetheless, the Church has traditionally depended on human knowledge to shed light on her understanding of revelation. There are two areas that she has used more than others: philosophy and the arts.

While St. Paul never says that human knowledge will be brought to full knowledge in eternity, the Church has traditionally believed this. Our Holy Father, Benedict XVI is a big believer and promoter of the unity between faith and reason. When he was in the USA he said that “you cannot have faith without reason and reason leads to faith.” Pope Benedict takes from Augustine and Bonaventure, that faith does not exist without reason, even when we are unaware of it.

He’s not talking about believing. He’s talking about understanding what we believe.

However, neither Pope Benedict nor any other scholar has ever said that human knowledge is ever complete. Far from it. We can only scratch the surfface. Only in Eternity will we fully know God and his truths.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[7_Sorrows]

I understand your sniping, 7 Sorrows, for it appears you are strongly related to Deborahaz. Very telling similarity about the timing, identical forum thread interests, written formatting, etc.

yes, you are right. we got together for a conspiracy.

 

[JReducation]

yes, you are right. we got together for a conspiracy.

Did I miss something?

JR

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Did I miss something?

JR

Yeah, you did, JR. You would need to go back to previous posts to catch it.

JR, I have just finished commenting on a long previous Post of yours and I am confident that you have probably addressed some of my questions and where I disagree in previous posts. Eventually I will catch up with things is my hope (the differing time zones can be problematic to me and others with my lonnnggg posts I am sure). I ask your pardon if I do go over matters you have already addressed. I see you have commented on one of my Posts…I dont think I will be able to get to it today (2.10pm here Sat. 27.9.08) but eventually I will.

Quoting JR
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4222323&postcount=124

1. May never interact with the laity directly (except Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration and Visitandines, some others that I don’t know).

Do you mean by “not interact with the laity” those contemplative strictly enclosed Orders that only allow family and friends to visit and say monthly. I have never came across this since the Orders implemented Vatican2, but then I realize that that does not mean that they do not exist.

1. They follow a Rule, not a constitution. The rules were written by: Carmel, Francis, Benedict, Basil and Augustine. The nuns cannot change them, nor can any bishop. Only the Pope can add to or delete any part of a rule.

This is new to me too JR. Can you explain for the the strict definition of:

• Rule
• Constitution
• Statute.
  I have never understood the strict definition.
  The Teresian Carmel (OCD) follow the Rule of St. Albert and St. Teresa of Avila wrote a constitution that reads like a Rule and I believe that this has been revised at least twice including by Vatican two.

1. May live in convents or in other forms of community, even alone, depends on the constitutions of the congregation

JR, I am not at all challenging you, rather asking you to help me understand. I have here a document put out by Vatican2 or after on “Fraternal Life in Community” (I can chase it up out of my library if you want more details but my library is a “find it” nightmare – but not impossible). In the document on fraternal life in community, it clearly states that religious life by definition is a communal life lived in community. Then I read in the CCC that religious life per se can be lived alone, and of course it can. I am just confused because of what the document states – it is a document from The Vatican.

1. Congregations do not follow a rule of life. The Sisters write their rule of life when they meet every six years and they can rewrite it as needed to meet the needs of the Church and the sisters.

I have addressed my confusion re the above in #20 above.

1. May own personal property unless the Congregation has a rule against it.

*I have never heard of this at least for those religious who live in community under a vow of Poverty. The vow of Poverty, incidentally, amuses me. Prior Vatican2 the only Orders I came into contact with were indeed expressing material poverty in many ways. Nowadays religious sisters and nuns who make a vow of Poverty are rich materially compared to certainly those considered on or below the Poverty line. We cannot afford vehicles and we cannot afford holidays, books, expensive label clothing etc. etc. All we can do is survive………few indeed have a real quality of life unless they have learned to have a quality of life that does not cost dollars. I understand that the ideal of the Vow of Poverty is spiritual poverty, but as I understand this, this spiritual poverty when vowed is also meant to be material poverty. *
I know that diocesan priests can have assets including liquid assets as they do not vow Poverty.

1. They have more autonomy than nuns. Congregations of Sisters can have Pontifical Right. This means that they can go anywhere in the world without the intervention of a bishop.

Am I correct in concluding from the above that you mean by “go anywhere” establish a foundation of their Order anywhere without Pontifical Right.

1. The local bishop may not interfere in their internal affairs or any ministry that he does not finance.

I have never heard of a bishop interfering in internal affairs because he finances them…………he can only interfere in a ministry of an Order which he finances? Am I correct?
.

Part Two coming up

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Part 2

Finally, there are levels to the mystical life. Not every mystic reaches the same levels, nor does everyone go through all the levels in the same sequence. Sometimes a person may skip one. For example, St. Francis of Assisi never went through a Dark Night of the Soul or a Dark Night of the Senses. Mystical theologians and his biographers believe that it was unnecessary for him to go through those experiences as he had reached perfection long before. Thus the only thing left for God to do for him was to transform his physical appearance into that of Christ. Therefore, two years prior to his death, Francis received the stigmata. He is the first known human being to have received the wounds of Christ. His had a particular quality that no one else’s has had. He had the five wounds: feet, side and hands. They bled constantly. They were in the exact place where Christ’s wounds had been. They had nails in them. St. Bonaventure describes them as similar to bone fragments that pierced the skin and came out on the other side with a hook, from reading Bonaventure’s description the shape sounds like that of a fishing hook so that it pricked Francis each time he moved, causing him great pain.

I agree with your first sentence above. The rest is fascinating information.

As you can see, the Trinity uses the soul at its discretion so that the journey is very similar for all, but not identical. There are different emphases in the life of different souls.

I think underlying criteria of the journey is very similar for all although perhaps not in the same sequence necessarily. The observable or the exterior phenomena or circumstances of a journey are as varied as the size of a snowdrop or precise colours in nature……….e.g. no colour green is precisely the same. Certainly in different souls there may be different emphasis on some matter.

This being said, this level of contemplative life is not for us to desire or work towards. If it is in God’s will for us, it will happen. What pertains to us is to seek to live according to the will of God by living the Gospel perfectly. This is what made Francis of Assisi the model for all saints. The Church proclaimed that he had achieved the perfection of the Gospel and thus was the perfect imitation of Christ and the Mirror of Perfection. The journey of the soul depends on how deeply we embrace the life of Christ as it is played out in the Gospel and how deeply we embrace Christ’s Church. For the true contemplative, the Gospel and the Church are inseparable.

I wont comment on the above. There is something niggling at me, but I am unable to identify what at this point.

The Dark Night of the Soul is the Trinity’s gift. It is the moment (in God’s time) when God stretches the faith of the soul by stripping it of all consolations and all mode of communication, expect total trust and surrender. That’s where the saying comes that a mystic is quiet. We’re not speaking about a literal silence, but an inability to use human language or human feelings to communicate with God, because he has experienced God outside of the realm of human abilities. He can only communicate with God by being just as the Trinity simply is.

I absolutely agree that Faith is central to the Dark Night of The Soul and I have heard it termed as The Dark Night of Faith. Something above the above niggling at me too, although in places I agree. Just cannot identify why something in the above does niggle. 2pm in the afternoon here on Saturday 27.9.08 and other things will soon call on me.

The Church considers the calling to be a nun, monk or friar “deeper” calling to live the Gospel than all other calls, because they make solemn vows and they are more intimately consecrated to God than other people as they are more segregated from the world than other people.

This use of higher, deeper etc. etc. confuses many Catholics. There is nothing higher than God’s Will and whatever it may be for a particular person or group etc. Certainly the religious life and the priesthood are confirmed by The Church ways of perfection, lifestyles that are specifically dedicated to attaining perfection with all assistance needed to arrive at that perfection willed by God for any one person within those states. To say that religious life, for example, is more perfect than married life is not correct to my mind. Nor is it, I think a right understanding. Married life can also be certainly a way of perfection equal to the religious state, depending on how a person may live their married life and intrinsic circumstances… There is nothing higher than God’s Will and in that is the higher and deeper call no matter what God’s Will may be and in God’s Will is every higher an deeper perfection, no matter what God’s Will may be
**
*Part 3 coming up *

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Part 3

Quoting Joysong
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4222815&postcount=126

Quoting JR:

St. Bonaventure once wrote an explanation for this policy. He said that simple people often receive the grace of insight into these things, but that this was not a common occurrence. Therefore, we have to make use of scholarly disciplines to acquire our insight into these Divine events. [Nonsense!] God has given us the tools to do so; therefore we should. That’s where philosophy, theology, liturgy, scripture, history, language, and the arts enter into the equation. These are the tools.

Quoting Joysong
Here’s where we differ, JR. You seem persistent in reiterating that only scholars have the capability of interpreting a person’s mystical experiences, and the person himself . . .
is incapable, unless they have possess the tools: “philosophy, theology, liturgy, scripture, history, language, and the arts,”
is “far too simple to receive the grace of insight into these things,”

is subject to the Church’s fear that these writings will be misunderstood and lead people into difficult psychological situations,
is not to desire or work towards this level of contemplative life.

This rather comes across to me too, I must admit JR. That the mystical and understanding and insight to it, is reserved for the educated and learned few and exclusively in the main (this is how I “receive” at times what you have written)

One thing that does grieve me in The Church is a certain real and active spiritual snobbery – of a distinct class consciousness in The Church dismissive of those in lower classes………and I am not directing that at you JR ……… it is my personal experience as a 63 year practicing loyal Catholic. I have never felt so small and of no consequence as when I contacted our Vocations Office on a certain matter………but the VO is not the only place and persons who have triggered a deep sense of inadequacy and of no consequence reactions. As if I had no right whatsoever to present myself due to my status and especially since I suffer mental illness. I am sorry to labour this point in so many threads I do post into, but it is a fact that really does grieve me.

Breathe easy JR and Carole and anyone patient enough and charitable enought to read this far…there is no Part 4 . All comments and challenges are most welcome! But please dont ‘hit below the belt’ – and I am trying to amend my behaviour too and sticking to the comments, and not get negatively personal. If questions or indeed challenges/disagreements I have raised have been already covered, I ask your pardon and just ignore these if they do appear in my Posts. I am yet to read what for me were last night’s Posts. 2.29pm here in South Aust. on Sat 27.9.08.

If anyone with computer knowledge has waded down to here, I have lost my formatting toolbar in Word………the toolbar with Bold, Italics, Change of Font in type and size etc. etc. Can anyone tell me how to get it back?

Blessings JR and Carole…Barb
Please note: I have typed all 3 posts of mine in this series into Word and then simply copied and pasted into here without a reread at all…just at the moment I dont have the time. Hence E&OE (errors and ommisions excepted)

 

[JReducation]

Yeah, you did, JR. You would need to go back to previous posts to catch it.

Someone filled in the blanks for me via PM. Thanks.

Do you mean by “not interact with the laity” those contemplative strictly enclosed Orders that only allow family and friends to visit and say monthly.

There are orders that still do not interact with the laity, except thoe who visit them such as: Camaldolese, Trappists, Cistercians, Carthusians, Carmelites, Poor Clares, Dominican nuns and some Benedictine nuns. The degree of separation for the laity is determined by the monastery itself. Each monastery votes on these things. Some are stricter than others. I know one Dominican monastery where the nuns do not leave even to attend the funerals of their parents. They never leave the monastery to visit their families and so forth.

This is new to me too JR. Can you explain for the the strict definition of:Rule, Constitution, Statute.

There are five rules in the Catholic Church: Carmelite, Benedictine, Basilian, Augustinian, and Franciscan. If memory serves me, they were written in this order. These rules may never be changed. They were written and approved by the Church to stand as they are. The only person who can change one of these rules is the Pope. The Rules are usually spiritual writings that outline the journey that the individual must follow to reach perfect union with God. They were written to bring men and women to God through a life of prayer and community. They never included specific ministry. Those who follow any of these rules engage in a variety ministries from contemplative prayer to service to the poor.

A constitution is a commentary on the rule. As time passes each religious family writes a constitution with a section that corresponds to a section of the rule. The constitution interprets the rule and its application for the circumstances in which the religious may find themelves. For example, the Franciscan Rule says that we must always embrace the Church and be submissive to the Pope, Bishops and Diocesan priests. As time passes, the question has come up how far must we obey and when may we disagree. Francis did not get specific in the rule. The constitutions explain this for us. In our case, we may never disobey unless the order is a sin, not even if the order may lead to sin may we disobey. That would be pure speculation. It has to be an order that is sinful.

A statute is just a chapter or verse in a constitution.

The Teresian Carmel (OCD) follow the Rule of St. Albert and St. Teresa of Avila wrote a constitution that reads like a Rule and I believe that this has been revised at least twice including by Vatican two.

Teresa wrote a commentary on how to live the rule of Carmel. That’s a constitution. That can be ammended and edited by the Carmelites. The Rule of St. Albert cannot. They must take it as it is. They can write constitutions that clarify questions or solve conflicts that arise out of the rule.

I have here a document put out by Vatican2 or after on “Fraternal Life in Community” In the document on fraternal life in community, it clearly states that religious life by definition is a communal life lived in community. Then I read in the CCC that religious life per se can be lived alone, and of course it can. I am just confused because of what the document states – it is a document from The Vatican.

When the Church uses the term community it does not mean that religious have to live in the same house. They form one family. They live by the same values, suppot each other, protect each other, take care of each other when they are sick or old, they share the same goal as established by either their founder or them in a general chapter where they all vote. It is preferable if they live in the same house. Some religious communities require that their members live together, but not all.

I have never heard of this at least for those religious who live in community under a vow of Poverty.

A vow of poverty means that the individual does not own anything. The community may own property. No single peerson owns it. When you move to another house, everything stays behind except your clothing and any tools necessary for your ministry.

I know that diocesan priests can have assets including liquid assets as they do not vow Poverty

Secular priests do not make a vow of poverty. They may own property as individuals. They may inherit money from their families and they keep any money they had before they became priests, unlike religious.

Am I correct in concluding from the above that you mean by “go anywhere” establish a foundation of their Order anywhere without Pontifical Right.

All that religious need is permission of the bishop to move into his diocese. That’s it. The rest is between themselves and their superior, except when they move into a diocese to work for a bishop, such as running a school or parish. Then contracts are drawn up.

I have never heard of a bishop interfering in internal affairs because he finances them…………he can only interfere in a ministry of an Order which he finances? Am I correct?

The bishop can only intefere in the ministry, if it’s diocesan. There have been attempts by bishops to tell religious how to live or how to dress. They have always lost the battle. The Vatican has always ruled against the bishops. The Vatican reserves that right to itself. That’s Pontifical Right.

JR

 

[JReducation]

=BarbaraTherese;

I think underlying criteria of the journey is very similar for all although perhaps not in the same sequence necessarily. The observable or the exterior phenomena or circumstances of a journey are as varied as the size of a snowdrop or precise colours in nature……….e.g. no colour green is precisely the same. Certainly in different souls there may be different emphasis on some matter.

Agreed

I absolutely agree that Faith is central to the Dark Night of The Soul and I have heard it termed as The Dark Night of Faith. Something above the above niggling at me too, although in places I agree. Just cannot identify why something in the above does niggle.

Just ask away. Someone will have an answer.

This use of higher, deeper etc. etc. confuses many Catholics. There is nothing higher than God’s Will and whatever it may be for a particular person or group etc. Certainly the religious life and the priesthood are confirmed by The Church ways of perfection, lifestyles that are specifically dedicated to attaining perfection with all assistance needed to arrive at that perfection willed by God for any one person within those states. To say that religious life, for example, is more perfect than married life is not correct to my mind. Nor is it, I think a right understanding. Married life can also be certainly a way of perfection equal to the religious state, depending on how a person may live their married life and intrinsic circumstances… There is nothing higher than God’s Will and in that is the higher and deeper call no matter what God’s Will may be and in God’s Will is every higher an deeper perfection, no matter what God’s Will may be

The position of the Church is that a person who responds to Chrit’s call to surrender everything for him, even the right to marriage, property, career, children, natural family, parents, friends, home, etc. has been called by Christ to a more intimate union with him than other Christians. This does not make the individual better than others. The call is what the Church considers to be of greater dedication and sacrifice. The Church takes this concept from the story of Martha and Mary in the Gospel when Jesus says to Martha that Mary has chosen the better part, because she has stopped everything to sit before the Lord. It also takes from St. Paul when he writes about the value of virginity over marriage. Finally, the Church is guided by the Fathers of the Church who wrote about the life dedicated solely to contemplate God, leaving behind all other natural rights that every human being has. The Church refers to the life of a nun, friar or monk as the Consecrated Life or as the Life Consecrated to the Perfection of Charity (Love). The priesthood does not fall under the category of consecrated life. Diocesan priests are not consecrated men. They remain part of the secular world.

Religious life is the most perfect form of life, but that does not mean that the individual religious is more perfect. He or she is still a sinner in need of conversion and redemption. The life that he or she has chosen is more perfect according to the Gospel, because it is the path that Mary chose as opposed to Martha’s or the path chosen by Paul and the other virgins of the early Church. It is also the path of life that Christ chose for himself. He chose to live a life completely dedicated to his Father, celibate, poor and obedient.

Hope this make sense.

JR

 

[JReducation]

=BarbaraTherese;4226819]Part 3

I must admit JR. That the mystical and understanding and insight to it, is reserved for the educated and learned few and exclusively in the main

This is not a moral or dogmatic development in the Church. The Church has always tried to protect people from being so absorbed by the external aspects of the mystical life, such as locutions, visions, states of ecstacies that they make these their goal.

The goal of every Christian is to imitate Christ to perfection. What God chooses to give in return is up to God. That’s what the Church is concerned about.

The Church realizes that the mystical life is extremely deep. Even though she believes and knows that some simple people have understood it and appreciated it, that is not always the case. Most people come to understand it by studying it. When the Church places the mystical and spiritual life into a discipline of its own, Mystical Theology, it is not spiritual snobbery. It is the Church’s attempt to provide proper understanding and education in an area of the Christian life that can be very difficult to understand simply because it was so difficult for the mystics to explain their experience.

There are three areas that the Church separates from the rest of religious studies: Mystical Theology, Canon Law and Sacred Scripture. Even in seminaries, this is too much material to include it all in a four-year program of studies.

One thing that does grieve me in The Church is a certain real and active spiritual snobbery – of a distinct class consciousness in The Church dismissive of those in lower classes………and I am not directing that at you JR ……… it is my personal experience as a 63 year practicing loyal Catholic.

One can’t deny that there are snobs within the Church as in any human organization. Unfortunately, this kind of snobbery has done much harm to people.

I always try to keep in mind that all human communities have sinned in some way or another.

The Church is spiritually perfect. She has everything that we need for our salvation. Those who work for her are another story. They are human.

That being said, the Church does have a hierarchical structure. There are ranks in the Church. That comes from her very essence. She is a royal people. When you have a royal system, you are going to have ranks. If we examine the Gospels we see it clearly. There were disciples and apostles. The Apostles were above the disciples. They governed, taught and sanctified. In the Acts of the Apostles we read about the selection of Stephen as the first deacon. The Apostles say that it is not right for them to wait on tables, they have more important things to do. What were they talking about? They were talking about preaching the Gospel at liturgy and distributing the Eucharist. They believed that they needed deacons to do this so they could be free to do other things that were very important for the life of the Church. Very early in the scripture we see the beginning of a hierarchy.

As I said above, Paul speaks about the value of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom. He discovers another form of life within the Church. As the Church progressed through those first 100 years many layers of hierarchy were revealed to the Apostles and established by them.

We have a Church that is stratified. But that is no excuse for a lack of kindness or humility. Selection for ministry or religioius life should be a humbling experience. One does not deserve it. It is a gift. Unfortunately, there are some people who forget this part. I wish it were not so, but unfortuantely there are those who live this way.

In our own community we have three orders. Francis founded an order for friars who are celibate and live in community, an order for cloistered nuns, and an order for secular men and women (celibate and married). The friars were a community of brothers.

With the passing of time many priests asked to join the brothers. They were welcomed with open arms. When the order was sent to the Americas and to Asia as missionaries, there was always a priest among them to celebrate the sacraments. Others were needed to replace them as they got old or sick. With the passing of time there were so many priests that they started to call themselvse Franciscan Fathers instead of Franciscan Friars (Latin) or Franciscan Brothers (English).

The laity picked up on this and continued the custom of deferring to the Brothers who were priests and not wanting the services of the other brothers who are not priests or those who belong to the secular order.

Today the Church insists that the Order recover its original charism and that it become a brotherhood again, that the number of priests be small and that the secular brothers and sisters be respected and treated as equals to the friars and the cloistered nuns. The entire Franciscan family wants to do this. We want to go back to the days when most of our friars were not priests, but only a few, when our nuns were cloistered, and our Secular Franciscans were married or celibate but lived the Francisan life in the world and were active in ministry, especially in parishes and to the poor. Now it’s the laity who won’t accept the return to tradition. The laity wants its priests and even gets angry when they can’t tell the difference between one Franciscan and another.

My point is that the snobbery goes both ways. It started with the clergy and now some lay people are the snobs who won’t accept anyone who is not a priest.

This leads to another kind of dark night of the soul, but not the kind that St. Teresa was talking about. This leads to a moral dark night, because these kinds of attitudes are unfair, uncharitable, and arrogant.

We have to join hands in prayer that we can overcome this and move on.

Hope this helps a little.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting JReducation:

The Bold is mine

Smiled at the above, JR. The nun that taught me used to say “you are bold as brass and as brazen as you are bold” I had no idea what she meant, but the tone told me to pull myself into line I know it has nothing to do with your comment above re the Bold text…oh dear at this point, I can’t think of something to complete the sentence happily

It is very true that human knowledge is very incomplete, especially when it comes to our understanding of God and his work in Salvation History. Nonetheless, the Church has traditionally depended on human knowledge to shed light on her understanding of revelation. There are two areas that she has used more than others: philosophy and the arts.

You may have missed my comment, easy to do in the books I have been writing into this thread , that I have great respect for learning and that learning and qualifications etc. are needed by those gifted to go the road…I’m not incidentally, but that is ok. One Body with many gifts. Sometimes I can understand a learned document if I apply (not always) and most often come away with great respect indeed for the author and the learning and the most interesting conclusions made.
My belief is that the biggest challenge to genius is to express the genius so even such as I can understand. Be that as it may, dialoge between the learned in the different sciences and at the scientific level of communication is very important including in The Church. I regard theology, philosphy etc. etc. all under the umbrella of “science”

and the arts

Taken from your quote immediately above. Excuse my ignorance please JR, but can you explain what you mean by “the arts”?

While St. Paul never says that human knowledge will be brought to full knowledge in eternity, the Church has traditionally believed this. Our Holy Father, Benedict XVI is a big believer and promoter of the unity between faith and reason. When he was in the USA he said that “you cannot have faith without reason and reason leads to faith.” Pope Benedict takes from Augustine and Bonaventure, that faith does not exist without reason, even when we are unaware of it.

I do know that many respected authorities in The Church do conclude that knowledge will be completed in Heaven. And who am I to disagree and in all truth, that is a most honest statement and no jest. Yet I have this notion, that when we get to Heaven, human knowledge will be material for the rubbish bin. Now that is not anything but the conclusion of me for myself. I am reminded of Thomas Aquinas who refused to speak in the late years of his life considering all he had written as nonsense or something like that. Rather what he has left us with has been a great gift to The Church. But still, such as I ask myself, did Thomas come to an understanding denied to the rest of us?

He’s not talking about believing. He’s talking about understanding what we believe.

Faith seeking understanding this side of Heaven that for sure is a big plus!!! But in Heaven, we will not need Faith. Only love is constant and eternal. Even understanding will be stunned into complete Silence.

However, neither Pope Benedict nor any other scholar has ever said that human knowledge is ever complete. Far from it. We can only scratch the surfface. Only in Eternity will we fully know God and his truths.

Again this is the reflection of a rank amateur and totally uneducated almost theologically mature aged woman who suffers Bipolar…my concept for myself is that we will never fully know God…not as He is in Himself, not even in Heaven. But I may well be wrong and that does not present problems to me…I am often wrong…sometimes right - good feeling to be right. Ego yells when I am wrong.

And very fraternally back to you also, JR, with my warm regards…Barb

 

[TOP]

About knowledge from St. Faustina’s diary.
At that moment, I had a deeper knowledge of the Three Divine Persons, whom we shall contemplate for all eternity and, after millions of years, shall discover that we have just barely begun our contemplation. 1439

 

[JReducation]

About knowledge from St. Faustina’s diary.
At that moment, I had a deeper knowledge of the Three Divine Persons, whom we shall contemplate for all eternity and, after millions of years, shall discover that we have just barely begun our contemplation. 1439

This is very similar to the reflections by St. Augustine on the Trinity as well.

JR

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting JR:

Someone filled in the blanks for me via PM. Thanks.

Will do!

There are orders that still do not interact with the laity, except thoe who visit them such as: Camaldolese, Trappists, Cistercians, Carthusians, Carmelites, Poor Clares, Dominican nuns and some Benedictine nuns. The degree of separation for the laity is determined by the monastery itself. Each monastery votes on these things. Some are stricter than others. I know one Dominican monastery where the nuns do not leave even to attend the funerals of their parents. They never leave the monastery to visit their families and so forth.

Much as I thought.

There are five rules in the Catholic Church: Carmelite, Benedictine, Basilian, Augustinian, and Franciscan. If memory serves me, they were written in this order. These rules may never be changed. They were written and approved by the Church to stand as they are. The only person who can change one of these rules is the Pope. The Rules are usually spiritual writings that outline the journey that the individual must follow to reach perfect union with God. They were written to bring men and women to God through a life of prayer and community. They never included specific ministry. Those who follow any of these rules engage in a variety ministries from contemplative prayer to service to the poor.

Again, much as I thought, but I have learnt something : Rule of St Albert was our first religious Rule. I thought it was St Basil who, rather, wrote after St Albert. Thank you!

A constitution is a commentary on the rule. As time passes each religious family writes a constitution with a section that corresponds to a section of the rule. The constitution interprets the rule and its application for the circumstances in which the religious may find themelves. For example, the Franciscan Rule says that we must always embrace the Church and be submissive to the Pope, Bishops and Diocesan priests. As time passes, the question has come up how far must we obey and when may we disagree. Francis did not get specific in the rule. The constitutions explain this for us. In our case, we may never disobey unless the order is a sin, not even if the order may lead to sin may we disobey. That would be pure speculation. It has to be an order that is sinful.

A statute is just a chapter or verse in a constitution.

Teresa wrote a commentary on how to live the rule of Carmel. That’s a constitution. That can be ammended and edited by the Carmelites. The Rule of St. Albert cannot. They must take it as it is. They can write constitutions that clarify questions or solve conflicts that arise out of the rule.

Thank you! I am going to copy past and keep in my documents. Its the first time I have been able to insight the distinctions. Thank you again:thumbsup:

When the Church uses the term community it does not mean that religious have to live in the same house. They form one family. They live by the same values, suppot each other, protect each other, take care of each other when they are sick or old, they share the same goal as established by either their founder or them in a general chapter where they all vote. It is preferable if they live in the same house. Some religious communities require that their members live together, but not all.

I went fishing in my so called library and came up with

Fraternal Life in Community
(Cong. for Institutes of Cons. Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) Rome 1994
Page 80 typing from the book. "Paragraph 65 "Men and women religious living alone - One of the realities encountered from time to time is that of men and women religious living alone. Common life in a house of the institute*** is essential for religious life***. "Religious should live in their own religious house, observing a common life. They should not live alone without serious reason, and should not do so if there is a community of their institue near."Ref: Essential Elements in the Church’s Teaching on Religious Life, SCRIS,1983 III 12
I found a link to an online text:
HERE

My understanding has been that to call a lifestyle religious life per se in accord with Church definition, it must be a life in common and lived in common, in community. Unless there are serious reasons why this cannot be. Obviously this must have changed and the Church definition given above no longer applies.

The bishop can only intefere in the ministry, if it’s diocesan. There have been attempts by bishops to tell religious how to live or how to dress. They have always lost the battle. The Vatican has always ruled against the bishops. The Vatican reserves that right to itself. That’s Pontifical Right.

Again, I was under the impression that if one was an institute of “diocesan right” under the authority of the Bishop, then he could dictate re how to live and how to dress, not specific details, what I mean is the Bishop approves the Rule, Constitution and Statutes, if any, and I was under the impression that an institute could write its own Rule altogether. Of course if the Rule is one of our traditional rules, then it is approved already and by The Vatican. Re dress, what I mean is that the Bishop, in diocesan right institutes (or whatever the term may be) can dicatate whether a habit is worn or whether it is not. Although, thinking about it, I am going to correct it and state that religious canonically vowed can always wear a habit if they choose. I suppose that the Bishop may have to approve it if it is their own design?

To my mind, it can come down to theological hair splitting that really can & often does leave me quite cold and sometimes even confused.

Regards, thank you for what you have shared- Barb

 

[Cinette]

I’m not sure if I’m depressed or if this is one of those “dark night of the soul” things. It might be a little of both because I’m going through a rough time in my life right now. In either case, I’m having a really hard time praying lately. It’s even more difficult when things get really bad/sad and I know I have to pray even harder. It’s like no matter how hard I try to concentrate on my rosaries they feel like empty words like nobody is listening. Any tips on how to jump-start myself out of this? It’s really very frustrating. Help…

I have just read your post and see there are 4 more pages and before I proceed I just HAVE to say this.

Why don’t you just Praise God. “Praise you Jesus, you are my Lord and Saviour!” Praise you Jesus, you are the King of Kings! Praise you Jesus, you are my Comforter, …you are my Joy!, …you are the Second Person of the blessed Trinity …you are the beginning and the end…you are all the I need and all that I want and so on…

It is said that Praise is the highest form of prayer.

I struggle with concentration myself. For example if I pray for A I find myself thinking of A - if I pray for Z I find myself thinking of Z. So I have to pray to the Lord to help me empty myself when I go into the Church for Mass. Maybe I should write it all down and just hold the paper on which it is written and tell God these are my intentions. I have thought of doing that.

I used to go to Adoration at 3 in the morning. I was always all alone during that hour and everyone else as well. We would only leave when the next person arrived. I recall that I would often leave the Chapel and look up at the stars and feel such joy and my eyes would be filled with tears. Almost every time!

I think you must persevere and that’s it! God knows your heart, he knows your intentions. What more can you do?

 

[Joysong]

If anyone with computer knowledge has waded down to here, I have lost my formatting toolbar in Word………the toolbar with Bold, Italics, Change of Font in type and size etc. etc. Can anyone tell me how to get it back?

Barb, have you tried a ‘system restore?’ This will put back all the files that were ok prior to when you noticed the problem. You can set the date for restoring to whenever you knew it worked well for you. This does not destroy any new added files that you may have saved, nor tamper with your emails, etc. Other than that, I don’t know of anything else, since I don’t use “Word.”

Carole

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Barb, have you tried a ‘system restore?’ This will put back all the files that were ok prior to when you noticed the problem. You can set the date for restoring to whenever you knew it worked well for you. This does not destroy any new added files that you may have saved, nor tamper with your emails, etc. Other than that, I don’t know of anything else, since I don’t use “Word.”

Carole

Thanks Carole…

Here’s another little gem I picked up somewhere from some book on mysticism sometime or other - it sticks in my mind like the “wordy mystic no mystic” quote I mentioned in another post…: “mystics often are eminently down to earth and practical”. …

I dont know why my toolbar disappeared seemingly for no reason, I just went to format something and it had vanished…I tired to bring it back by pressing this and that…nothing. So I shrugged and thought I just might have to do without the format bar until someone who knows computers came by. Then at some point, I looked up and it had re-appeared!!! Computers very often mystify me completely. I quite often use Word - I guess because I am so used to it. I may copy and paste a long post or even a couple of posts I need to reply to into Word to answer them. I really thought that Word could no longer mystify me!
W R O N G!!!
I dont like to fiddle too much on this computer, it is very old and I never really know what I am doing and am rather almost terrified of crashing the whole thing and never to be resusitated. Goodness knows how old it is, must be around 8 years or so I think and I have no idea why really it gives me no problems in the main for such an old and really well used electrical gadget.

But thank you very much for having a try! I am known to be a “technological dyslexic” - whatever that intrinsically means!!! …just modern day electricals dumb I would think, and I could not argue with that for sure. Oh and then there are other modern things like mobiles (you call them cell phones). I still have not worked out how to fully use the thing - it has a camera - nice I suppose if you know how to use the jolly thing! Also, I have struck up a conversation, or thought I did, with someone say on a bus and they ignore me. They have those plugs in their ears and music!!!
Re the toolbar vanishing, I was rather hoping there was a button I could push that would just bring it back.

Thank you again…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting on my Post (BarbaraTherese) in this Post:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4226797&postcount=145

JR:

Quote:
This being said, this level of contemplative life is not for us to desire or work towards. If it is in God’s will for us, it will happen. What pertains to us is to seek to live according to the will of God by living the Gospel perfectly. This is what made Francis of Assisi the model for all saints. The Church proclaimed that he had achieved the perfection of the Gospel and thus was the perfect imitation of Christ and the Mirror of Perfection. The journey of the soul depends on how deeply we embrace the life of Christ as it is played out in the Gospel and how deeply we embrace Christ’s Church. For the true contemplative, the Gospel and the Church are inseparable.

Barb replies*:*

I wont comment on the above. There is something niggling at me, but I am unable to identify what at this point.

In your quote above, JR, I have put in Bold what was niggling. By niggling I mean there is something not sitting right, but I cannot identify what it is. Having a reread tonight it is “he had achieved the perfection of The Gospel” is what would not sit right with me - can you tell me where this is stated, please, perhaps a link. “Achieved the perfection of The Gospel” needs really I think to have a reference as it is an awesome statement indeed. I can perhaps understand achieved the perfection of The Gospel as lived here on earth perhaps………….even that seems to me a very awesome statement. “Perfection of The Gospel” is an absolutely stunning thing to say to my mind and I don’t know how anyone could arrive at that on earth for sure. This is why, I would need a reference as to who said it and where, before I could accept it…and even with a Church authority as reference, it would not go down with me I am sorry - my mind just boggles at the statement totally and utterly and overwhelmingly…into disbelief of what you have said.

JR writes::

The Dark Night of the Soul is the Trinity’s gift. It is the moment (in God’s time) when God stretches the faith of the soul by stripping it of all consolations and all mode of communication, expect total trust and surrender. That’s where the saying comes that a mystic is quiet. We’re not speaking about a literal silence, but an inability to use human language or human feelings to communicate with God, because he has experienced God outside of the realm of human abilities**. He can only communicate with God by being just as the Trinity simply is. **

Barb replies
*

I absolutely agree that Faith is central to the Dark Night of The Soul and I have heard it termed as The Dark Night of Faith. Something above the above niggling at me too, although in places I agree. Just cannot identify why something in the above does niggle. 2pm in the afternoon here on Saturday 27.9.08 and other things will soon call on me.

*A re read tonight has clarified why I was “niggled” last night by your statement. The Bold above defies my understanding. “being just as the Trininty simply is”??? !? Again, my eyes nearly fell out my head when I read that and my mind was totally and utterly stunned…into disbelief at such a fantastic wild statement! *

*God’s Blessings, JR…regards…Barb *

 

[BarbaraTherese]

See this Post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4226950&postcount=148

Barb writes*:*

*This use of higher, deeper etc. etc. confuses many Catholics. There is nothing higher than God’s Will and whatever it may be for a particular person or group etc. Certainly the religious life and the priesthood are confirmed by The Church ways of perfection, lifestyles that are specifically dedicated to attaining perfection with all assistance needed to arrive at that perfection willed by God for any one person within those states. To say that religious life, for example, is more perfect than married life is not correct to my mind. Nor is it, I think a right understanding. Married life can also be certainly a way of perfection equal to the religious state, depending on how a person may live their married life and intrinsic circumstances… There is nothing higher than God’s Will and in that is the higher and deeper call no matter what God’s Will may be and in God’s Will is every higher an deeper perfection, no matter what God’s Will may be *

JR replies:

The position of the Church is that a person who responds to Chrit’s call to surrender everything for him, even the right to marriage, property, career, children, natural family, parents, friends, home, etc. has been called by Christ to a more intimate union with him than other Christians.

I cannot agree with this, again can you give reference details of where The Church says this. We are all called to Unity.

JR writes…This does not make the individual better than others. The call is what the Church considers to be of greater dedication and sacrifice. The Church takes this concept from the story of Martha and Mary in the Gospel when Jesus says to Martha that Mary has chosen the better part, because she has stopped everything to sit before the Lord.

Again, I cannot agree with the above. Mary has chosen the better part ……… contemplative listening to The Lord…………while Martha represents the active life (as opposed to Mary the contemplative). If I have to find the reference, then I will, but the mixture of the active and contemplative life is held to be (and by one of the Church Fathers if memory serves, which often it does not) the most perfect.

JR writes…It also takes from St. Paul when he writes about the value of virginity over marriage.

Can you give the reference please JR, for St. Paul’s statement above? Honestly, for the life of me I cannot see why virginity is more valuable than marriage. We can never forget that of ourselves we can do nothing………….in other words virginity and to preserve it is a Grace from God – no merit of mine were I a virgin. All these “betters”, “more perfect” etc etc do give a false and misleading and indeed, incorrect understanding. The Will of God is perfection, no matter what it may be. If God wills me to pick up garbage on a garbage truck every Monday and I do this to perfectly fulfill God’s Will in all things great and small…this is perfection.
In other words, if had preserved my virginity and it was not God’s Will for me, then my virginity is nothing.
Nothing is superior, nothing!!! …to the Will of God.

JR writes… Finally, the Church is guided by the Fathers of the Church who wrote about the life dedicated solely to contemplate God, leaving behind all other natural rights that every human being has. The Church refers to the life of a nun, friar or monk as the Consecrated Life or as the Life Consecrated to the Perfection of Charity (Love). The priesthood does not fall under the category of consecrated life. Diocesan priests are not consecrated men. They remain part of the secular world.

Again any virtues anyone at all displays in any state of life at all, are a gift of Grace………hence the only reason a nun, friar or monk, priest in religious orders, religious sister or brother and all our other fancy titles in The Church can live the life they do is because Grace is present and gifted to them to live the life and ‘give up’??? what they do and God’s Will for them… Hence all glory is to God, not to the nun, friar, monk etc. etc. etc. etc. nor the state in life.

Concluded next Post.
**