Despise self

[Pitcharan]

Recall Job 42:6 “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”.

In “The Imitation of Christ”, Thomas Kempis also wrote: “The more the flesh is distressed by affliction, so much the more is the spirit strengthened by inward grace”

St. Francis of Assisi, demonstrated the practice of this virtue.

Though my vileness is constantly before me and I have been trying very hard to practice the above, I see little or no progress. Can someone guide me please.

Regards
Pitcharan

 

[Berean2]

Recall Job 42:6 “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”.

In “The Imitation of Christ”, Thomas Kempis also wrote: “The more the flesh is distressed by affliction, so much the more is the spirit strengthened by inward grace”

St. Francis of Assisi, demonstrated the practice of this virtue.

Though my vileness is constantly before me and I have been trying very hard to practice the above, I see little or no progress. Can someone guide me please.

Pitch, it’s certainly commendable to try to put to death the sin in us, but remember that “the flesh” is not the physical body, but the fallen nature. Look here @ this list of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5) and note carefully how most of them have to do with the mind/affections, rather than with the body per se (I have highlighted the ones that are body-related):

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.(“impurity” and “sensuality” could either be in the mind or practices of the body).

Now, in light of that passage, listen to what Colossians 2 tells us about this question of yours:

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind [did you get that? asceticism & obsession with angels/visions are SENSUOUS!!!],* and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.*

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” = asceticism] (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human [notice: not from God]* precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh *[alternate reading is even more stinging: “are of no value, serving only to indulge the flesh”].

 

[Pitcharan]

Pitch, it’s certainly commendable to try to put to death the sin in us, but remember that “the flesh” is not the physical body, but the fallen nature. Look here @ this list of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5) and note carefully how most of them have to do with the mind/affections, rather than with the body per se (I have highlighted the ones that are body-related):

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.(“impurity” and “sensuality” could either be in the mind or practices of the body).

Now, in light of that passage, listen to what Colossians 2 tells us about this question of yours:

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind [did you get that? asceticism & obsession with angels/visions are SENSUOUS!!!],* and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.*

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” = asceticism] (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human [notice: not from God]* precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance* of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh [alternate reading is even more stinging: “are of no value, serving only to indulge the flesh”].

Thank you very much Berean, I could not have got better guidance. I feel elated and hopeful.

Though I have never been attracted to ascetism and do not fully agree with St. Francis of Assisi’s methods, I am convinced about the need to die to the flesh.

But the trouble is, every time I feel that I am nearing the goal, I face a volcanic reaction from the almost dead flesh.

The only solace that keeps me going is regular fortaste of the kingdom offered by God and though my progress is extremely slow, the degree of frustration is gradually waning.

But the goal seems still very far. Will I reach it in the land of the living?

 

[Berean2]

Thank you very much Berean, I could not have got better guidance. I feel elated and hopeful.

Though I have never been attracted to ascetism and do not fully agree with St. Francis of Assisi’s methods, I am convinced about the need to die to the flesh.

But the trouble is, every time I feel that I am nearing the goal, I face a volcanic reaction from the almost dead flesh.

The only solace that keeps me going is regular fortaste of the kingdom offered by God and though my progress is extremely slow, the degree of frustration is gradually waning.

But the goal seems still very far. Will I reach it in the land of the living?

Pitch, I’m glad His Word helped some. Review Romans 7, as well: Paul still struggled with the old man inside, and in another book of the N.T. (I think it was Corinthians), he even referred to himself as the chief of sinners. Our progress is 2 steps forward, one step back, but that’s why Jesus’ imputed righteousness is so crucial: He perfectly fulfilled all the requirements of God, and that is credited to us when we believe on Christ.

 

[Berean2]

PS: The “self” is part of you, your essence, if you will. What we are to despise is not our essence (after all, we’re created in His image!), but rather the distortion of His image in us, the deformation of the self because of vandalism stemming from the sin nature. You despise the sin in yourself, but that is not a matter of despising yourself. Does that make sense? (Note for example in that Romans 7 passage, Paul doesn’t despise himself; he despises his inability to totally rid himself of the sin that besets him.)

 

[Pitcharan]

PS: The “self” is part of you, your essence, if you will. What we are to despise is not our essence (after all, we’re created in His image!), but rather the distortion of His image in us, the deformation of the self because of vandalism stemming from the sin nature. You despise the sin in yourself, but that is not a matter of despising yourself. Does that make sense? (Note for example in that Romans 7 passage, Paul doesn’t despise himself; he despises his inability to totally rid himself of the sin that besets him.)

What a relieving eyeopener!

I have already reached half-way in that I despise my sinful inclinations.

Now, putting to death these natures, is alone to be accomplished.

God bless you.

 

[Sirach2]

Though I have never been attracted to ascetism and do not fully agree with St. Francis of Assisi’s methods, I am convinced about the need to die to the flesh.

St. Teresa of Avila’s life was just shown Saturday evening on EWTN, and what struck me was her very real common sense about mortification. She was conversing with the Princess of Eboli who said she would begin a very harsh regimen of crucifying the flesh. St. Teresa replied that this was very unwise and that she herself had practiced this with detrimental results. Our saint forbade excessive asceticism and aptly named it a temptation.

Earlier in one of your posts, you wrote that you and your wife have agreed to be celibate. If this is your understanding of asceticism and not a decision made for medical reasons, you may be already misunderstanding the lawful use of created goods that God bestowed on us. The good use of our senses properly directed to God is a wonderful practice that glorifies Him. This is the supreme goal behind any means we take to mortify excessive or inordinate use of them.

Simply glancing over a few of your posts, I have the sense that you may be misguided in your pursuit, and I would suggest you see a spiritual director in this regard. Some of God’s servants will undertake penances on behalf of sinners to obtain for them the grace of conversion - a very sublime motive, but there again, if the penances are extreme, it is best to have permission from one’s director.

 

[stteresasgirl]

Totally agree on the need for a spiritual director in regards to these matters.

 

[Pitcharan]

…
Earlier in one of your posts, you wrote that you and your wife have agreed to be celibate. If this is your understanding of asceticism and not a decision made for medical reasons, you may be already misunderstanding the lawful use of created goods that God bestowed on us. The good use of our senses properly directed to God is a wonderful practice that glorifies Him. This is the supreme goal behind any means we take to mortify excessive or inordinate use of them.

Simply glancing over a few of your posts, I have the sense that you may be misguided in your pursuit, and I would suggest you see a spiritual director in this regard. Some of God’s servants will undertake penances on behalf of sinners to obtain for them the grace of conversion - a very sublime motive, but there again, if the penances are extreme, it is best to have permission from one’s director.

I thank you for your keen interest in my spiritual progress. God bless you.

In an earlier post, I did mention that both me and my wife are ready for celibacy. It was not out of any ascetic interest, but only to fulfill the requirements for becoming permanent deacon.

By the grace of God, I have never been impressed with making penances and my firm belief is accept the crosses given by God and never design your own cross.

I respect your suggestion to see a spiritual director. But I believe that I now have more than one excellent director. Thanks to CAF.

 

[Sirach2]

In an earlier post, I did mention that both me and my wife are ready for celibacy. It was not out of any ascetic interest, but only to fulfill the requirements for becoming permanent deacon.

This is quite a concern, for I cannot fathom our Church requiring celibacy of their “married” permanent deacons. It doesn’t make a bit of sense to me, so I looked on the internet for backup. No wonder you are having problems disciplining the flesh in efforts to set aside a truly blessed gift of relations with your wife.
Please seek another opinion, for the one I found below contradicts your view, and applies only to the unmarried candidate.

If the candidate is not married at the time of ordination, he must accept celibacy as a permanent state of life. If, after ordination, the married deacon’s wife predeceases him, he promises not to remarry and that he will live the celibate life.

catholicchurchnh.org/vocations/permanent-diaconate/becoming-a-permanent-deacon/

I respect your suggestion to see a spiritual director. But I believe that I now have more than one excellent director. Thanks to CAF.

Do you mean that your spiritual directors are the posters on CAF? Or did you seek a priest as a result of someone on CAF advising you to do so?

 

[Pitcharan]

…Please seek another opinion, for the one I found below contradicts your view, and applies only to the unmarried candidate.

Can you tell me what is the rule for married candidates with living wives? I learnt that they should accept celibacy and their wives should accord concurrence

Do you mean that your spiritual directors are the posters on CAF? Or did you seek a priest as a result of someone on CAF advising you to do so?

I meant the former; by the gift of discerment I find some who excellently meet the requirement. I already have unlimited access to priests, theologians and spirirtual directors and fortunate to have three major seminaries within 1 - 4 hours drive and even consult them sometimes.

 

[Sirach2]

I contacted a friend who felt called to the diaconate and he may be able to confirm that celibacy is NOT a requirement for the vocation if one is married. Hopefully he will respond soon.

Meanwhile, since you have three major seminaries nearby, why not contact them and find out what the requirements are, before you launch on such a strict regimen that is not demanded by the church?

 

[Monica4316]

Pitch, it’s certainly commendable to try to put to death the sin in us, but remember that “the flesh” is not the physical body, but the fallen nature. Look here @ this list of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5) and note carefully how most of them have to do with the mind/affections, rather than with the body per se (I have highlighted the ones that are body-related):

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.(“impurity” and “sensuality” could either be in the mind or practices of the body).

Now, in light of that passage, listen to what Colossians 2 tells us about this question of yours:

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind [did you get that? asceticism & obsession with angels/visions are SENSUOUS!!!],* and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.*

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” = asceticism] (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human [notice: not from God]* precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance* of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh [alternate reading is even more stinging: “are of no value, serving only to indulge the flesh”].

I think what Paul is talking about here is that often ascetisicm leads to pride. There are Saints who were able to do it correctly, in a very humble way, and not excessively, and under the guidance of a spiritual director. Then it wasn’t “of the flesh”, but of obedience. But if a person wants to do some sort of mortification excessively and not under obedience to the Church (for example, fasting on Fridays is under obedience) - that likely comes from pride and only increases sin, and is therefore “of the flesh”.

23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship,** their false humility **and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Also, when taken in context, this passages seems to be written about following the old Law…

**16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. **

But this doesn’t mean that we should simply do whatever we feel like and indulge in everything like the world does. We should try to be humble and not have self love.

 

[ncjohn]

In an earlier post, I did mention that both me and my wife are ready for celibacy. It was not out of any ascetic interest, but only to fulfill the requirements for becoming permanent deacon.

Having been part of the discernment process for the permanent diaconate, though my discernment was that it was not my calling, I can tell you that Sirach2 is correct that celibacy is not a requirement for a married man within the diaconate. In fact, the Church feels quite the opposite unless a couple mutually desires celibacy for some other reason.

The conjugal relationship is an integral part of the married state and to eliminate it without a specific desire of both parties would put undue strain on the marriage. The sanctity and stability of the marriage comes first in any discernment to the diaconate, with the wife usually having “veto power” to stop the process if anything appeared to have potential for interfering with the marriage, and anything that would negatively affect the marriage would be an indication that the calling is not truly present.

Your willingness to undertake celibacy is certainly commendable but there is definitely no requirement, or even a preference, for such denial.

Those considering the discernment process typically go through some kind of informational session prior to even being invited to the discernment process, as one is not automatically accepted into even the discernment stage. Those kinds of questions are dealt with early on, along with many other considerations to help one be at peace in considering whether to even apply to discernment.

Peace be with you!

 

[Pitcharan]

I think what Paul is talking about here is that often ascetisicm leads to pride. There are Saints who were able to do it correctly, in a very humble way, and not excessively, and under the guidance of a spiritual director. Then it wasn’t “of the flesh”, but of obedience. But if a person wants to do some sort of mortification excessively and not under obedience to the Church (for example, fasting on Fridays is under obedience) - that likely comes from pride and only increases sin, and is therefore “of the flesh”.

23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship,** their false humility **and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Also, when taken in context, this passages seems to be written about following the old Law…

**16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. **

But this doesn’t mean that we should simply do whatever we feel like and indulge in everything like the world does. We should try to be humble and not have self love.

Dear Monica,
my thinking is no different. I never advocated ascetism. Dying to the flesh has nothing to do with ascetism. Only sinners and carnal creatures like me can appreciate the need to crucify the sinful tendencies of the flesh. For you it is a virtue for us it is a dire need.

Regards
Pitcharan

 

[Pitcharan]

I contacted a friend who felt called to the diaconate and he may be able to confirm that celibacy is NOT a requirement for the vocation if one is married. Hopefully he will respond soon.

Meanwhile, since you have three major seminaries nearby, why not contact them and find out what the requirements are, before you launch on such a strict regimen that is not demanded by the church?

Thank you very much Sirach and ncjohn. I did contact my seminary friends even before coming to CAF. At the very outset they told me:

• It is possible to be considered for this vocation only where there is a shortage of priests and here they are abundant.
• The first requirement was verifying my vocation if any
• If bachelor no marriage after becoming deacon.
• If widower no re-marriage after becoming deacon
• If married and wife alive, unlikely to be considered. Rare case possible if prepared to remain celibate and consent from wife accepting this

Till I fulfil the most basic requirement of true vocation, I need not worry about the other conditions. I will be in touch with ncjohn (I guess he is the friend you mentioned). Thanks a lot for your encouraging guidance.

Warm regards
Pitcharan

P.S. I still feel that in my case, celibacy is a dire need and not a strict regimen dangerous to try. It is my own opinion and I learn sometimes by experimenting. Don’t be perturbed; as I have a full time Spiritual Director in Imitation of Christ

 

[Pitcharan]

Having been part of the discernment process for the permanent diaconate, though my discernment was that it was not my calling, I can tell you that Sirach2 is correct that celibacy is not a requirement for a married man within the diaconate. In fact, the Church feels quite the opposite unless a couple mutually desires celibacy for some other reason.

The conjugal relationship is an integral part of the married state and to eliminate it without a specific desire of both parties would put undue strain on the marriage. The sanctity and stability of the marriage comes first in any discernment to the diaconate, with the wife usually having “veto power” to stop the process if anything appeared to have potential for interfering with the marriage, and anything that would negatively affect the marriage would be an indication that the calling is not truly present.

Your willingness to undertake celibacy is certainly commendable but there is definitely no requirement, or even a preference, for such denial.

Those considering the discernment process typically go through some kind of informational session prior to even being invited to the discernment process, as one is not automatically accepted into even the discernment stage. Those kinds of questions are dealt with early on, along with many other considerations to help one be at peace in considering whether to even apply to discernment.

Peace be with you!

Thank you very much NCJohn. I will get in touch with for proceeding further. And do see my reply post to Sirach2 in the link below. Thanks and regards. Pitcharan.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6813104#post6813104