Julian of Norwich

[simple_soul]

I believe the position of Theilhard De Chardin, in that man evolved biologically, up until about 10,000 years ago. Then, man began to evolve intellectually and spiritually.

The last part is my point here.

When we look back and quote the saints understanding of hell like St Thomas Aquinas, we have to keep in mind the time he lived in.

The Church back then had no problem sending heretics to hell burning them at the stake and that lasted right through to St Thomas Moore who sent four or six heretics to eternal damnation.

But I believe as Theilhard believed, man is evolving spiritually and still is.

Our Lord is continuing to reveal Himself and his revelation is one of mercy.

St Faustina’s told us of Jesus Divine Mercy, and now we observe Divine Mercy Sunday, following Easter Sunday. Do we believe in the mercy of Jesus ? We can only if we love Jesus and come to Him with open minds and hearts.

Julian of Norwich was evolved spiritually, not because of her own doing, but what God revealed to her.

We’re just now grasping that revelation she received.

Jim

I’m kind of just grasping at things or thoughts floating around in my head so please bear with me when I say this but I believe it is our understanding of God’s Justice that is what is holding us back from understanding her or from being able to see what was revealed to her.
Or, as in my case, seeing the paradox of it all more clearly.
I asked a question on a different thread and never got an answer but with the revelations of St. Faustina there is the revelation that after this period of God’s Mercy then will come God’s Justice. My question was what is God’s Justice? Maybe understanding better or more clearly what His Justice is will help us? Or maybe it will help me understand or see better what the paradox is that Christofirst mentioned in his/her posts earlier.

 

[simple_soul]

Saint Thomas Aquinas, I think it was, tried to resolve the problem of hell by proposing that we in heaven would be happy to see those in hell, knowing they got their just deserts. In that case, maybe the “great deed” Julian alludes to is that I will lose all compassion for my fellow human beings, good or bad… but I certainly hope not! And hope is the real issue here. If you do not see a paradox where hell is concered, then good for you, and I wouldn’t try to change your outlook to satisfy anyone else’s point of view. However, I do see a paradox, and it is made abundantly clear to me whenever the hell promoters here remind us about how full hell is going to be.

Pope St. John Paul II gave an observation that helps me in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (with my comments in parentheses):

"The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Mikhail Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar," (thank you, Holy Father, for allowing that there is a problem with hell!) ** “In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of a “final apocatastasis,” according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell.”** (and no one here is denying that) “But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel, He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard.” ** (that last sentence bears constant repeating!) “This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man.” (hence, it is a paradox) ** “The silence of the Church is therefore the only appropriate position for the Christian faith.” (Amen!) ** “Even when Jesus says of Judas the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born,” (Mt 26:24) His words do not allude for certain to eternal punishment.”** (and if there is hope for Judas, there is hope for all of us!)

Pope John Paul then seems to attempt to resolve the paradox himself with an allusion to purgatory, using it to perhaps reconcile both the demands of justice and the reality of God’s eternal love and mercy.

"The Holy Scriptures include the concept of the purifying fire. The Eastern Church adopted it because it was biblical, while not receiving the Catholic doctrine on purgatory… God makes man pass through such an interior purgatory of his sensual and spiritual nature in order to bring him into union with Himself. Here we do not find ourselves before a mere tribunal. We present ourselves before the power of Love itself. * Before all else, it is Love that judges*. God, who is Love, judges through love. Love that demands purification, before man can be made ready for that union with God which is his ultimate vocation and destiny. Perhaps this is enough."

Was our Holy Father proposing here that more will pass through purgatory to heaven than will end up in hell? I hope so!

Christofirst,I so want to respond to this post of yours but just don’t know were to begin. Don’t have time right now either but just wanted to thank you for sharing.

 

[claymcdermott]

The reason the pro-Hell guys are concerned that you might be denying Hell, is because some people are getting kinda close to denying the idea of any truth at all.

Julian of Norwich was ahead of her time. Why? Because she agrees with me. Why do you agree with her? She was ahead of her time.

Good and evil are not dates on a calendar. If Man is evolving spiritually, then we may well evolve all the way to devils at the rate we’re going. Saying that we have evolved past our ancestors’ way of thinking is chronological snobbery. If you disagree with a dead guy (especially a genius like Aquinas), don’t be lazy; actually argue against him. I may not agree with him, but I don’t dismiss him as unevolved (Especially because, even if he was, that wouldn’t affect whether the things he said were true or not. Genitive fallacy).

The fact that he is dead and you are living as a reason for your way’s superiority is a terrifying thought.

Besides, the idea that man is evolving spiritually would imply that man’s beliefs have progressed in a more or less linear fashion over the years in all places. Contra Comte et al. this is not anywhere near true, including in the West. Even if it were true in the West, it is certainly not the case elsewhere, and what you have said would require the belief that Westerners are more evolved than people in the third world, which is again terrifying.

But to the point: It is ahistorical to claim Julian of Norwich was a Universalist, especially because no one in her time and place was, and the idea she would have gone universalist spontaneously is unlikely. Nowhere does she say that she believes that no can go to Hell. Reason? She didn’t have the belief: “No one can go to Hell.” She might have been unsure about whether anyone would, but we can find no concrete opinions on the subject from her, probably because she didn’t have any.

I could say some of the same thing about Margery Kempe, also not a heretic, but that’s another day.

 

[simple_soul]

The reason the pro-Hell guys are concerned that you might be denying Hell, is because some people are getting kinda close to denying the idea of any truth at all.

Julian of Norwich was ahead of her time. Why? Because she agrees with me. Why do you agree with her? She was ahead of her time.

Good and evil are not dates on a calendar. If Man is evolving spiritually, then we may well evolve all the way to devils at the rate we’re going. Saying that we have evolved past our ancestors’ way of thinking is chronological snobbery. If you disagree with a dead guy (especially a genius like Aquinas), don’t be lazy; actually argue against him. I may not agree with him, but I don’t dismiss him as unevolved (Especially because, even if he was, that wouldn’t affect whether the things he said were true or not. Genitive fallacy).

The fact that he is dead and you are living as a reason for your way’s superiority is a terrifying thought.

Besides, the idea that man is evolving spiritually would imply that man’s beliefs have progressed in a more or less linear fashion over the years in all places. Contra Comte et al. this is not anywhere near true, including in the West. Even if it were true in the West, it is certainly not the case elsewhere, and what you have said would require the belief that Westerners are more evolved than people in the third world, which is again terrifying.

But to the point: It is ahistorical to claim Julian of Norwich was a Universalist, especially because no one in her time and place was, and the idea she would have gone universalist spontaneously is unlikely. Nowhere does she say that she believes that no can go to Hell. Reason? She didn’t have the belief: “No one can go to Hell.” She might have been unsure about whether anyone would, but we can find no concrete opinions on the subject from her, probably because she didn’t have any.

I could say some of the same thing about Margery Kempe, also not a heretic, but that’s another day.

I just want to address you saying it is terrifying to think some one is more evolved than you. I can attest to knowing quite a few people who are more evolved than me, mentally, psychologically, physically, spiritually and academically and I can attest to the fact that you do not need to be terrified of the fact. Remember St. John Paul II’s words; do not be afraid."

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Lets keep in mind that Julian of Norwich was not preaching universalism, i.e. all souls are going to heaven.

Her statement, “all manner of things will be well,” is saying that those who put their love and trust in God, all manner of things will be well.

Again, here’s what Pope Benedict XVI said about Julian of Norwich, December 1, 2010.

I would like to emphasize another point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites the words of Julian of Norwich when it explains the viewpoint of the Catholic faith on an argument that never ceases to be a provocation to all believers (cf. nn. 304-313, 314).

If God is supremely good and wise, why do evil and the suffering of innocents exist? And the Saints themselves asked this very question. Illumined by faith, they give an answer that opens our hearts to trust and hope: in the mysterious designs of Providence, God can draw a greater good even from evil, as Julian of Norwich wrote: “Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly hold me in the Faith … and that … I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in … that ‘all manner of thing shall be well”’ (The Revelations of Divine Love, Chapter 32).

Yes, dear brothers and sisters, God’s promises are ever greater than our expectations. If we present to God, to his immense love, the purest and deepest desires of our heart, we shall never be disappointed. “And all will be well”, “all manner of things shall be well”: this is the final message that Julian of Norwich transmits to us and that I am also proposing to you today. Many thanks.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20101201.html

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From the CCC

313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."180 The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181

St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."182

Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that 'all manner [of] thing shall be well.'"183

The Church holds a special place for Julian of Norwich to have included her statement in the Catechism, even though she has not be canonized.

Jim

 

[claymcdermott]

simplesoul, the reason I used the word “terrified” is because I thought “morally outraged” might be more inflammatory even though that is closer to what I meant. Although, maybe you should be a little more concerned when rhetoric like what was actually said (which has virtually no correlation to the colloquial use of the word you are talking about) is used.

Second, your examples are not more evolved than you in the sense Chardin meant it - they are just better than you. They are not better than you because in the future everyone will be more like them, and people in poor dirty countries are different from them. They are better than you because they are better at those things. Also, how would you know if they were more evolved psychologically? You can look into the future and see that people will b closer to them psychologically than they are to you? Also, and especially physically, how do you know how humans will evolve over the course of the coming millennia so that they will be more like people you know and not you?

You are using the term colloquially - we were not.

Third, you are* intentionally* misrepresenting what I said to accuse me of pride: I never once said it was terrifying to think someone was more evolved than me. I said it was terrifying to think someone who lived today in a Western country (which includes, hey, me!) was more evolved than other people because they lived in the past or currently live in poor countries. I was saying the* exact opposite* of what you imply, as you knew.

But now we are off topic. I and the person who posted that thing about Chardin are in agreement that Julian was not a heretic.

 

[simple_soul]

simplesoul, the reason I used the word “terrified” is because I thought “morally outraged” might be more inflammatory even though that is closer to what I meant. Although, maybe you should be a little more concerned when rhetoric like what was actually said (which has virtually no correlation to the colloquial use of the word you are talking about) is used.

Second, your examples are not more evolved than you in the sense Chardin meant it - they are just better than you. They are not better than you because in the future everyone will be more like them, and people in poor dirty countries are different from them. They are better than you because they are better at those things. Also, how would you know if they were more evolved psychologically? You can look into the future and see that people will b closer to them psychologically than they are to you? Also, and especially physically, how do you know how humans will evolve over the course of the coming millennia so that they will be more like people you know and not you?

You are using the term colloquially - we were not.

Third, you are* intentionally* misrepresenting what I said to accuse me of pride: I never once said it was terrifying to think someone was more evolved than me. I said it was terrifying to think someone who lived today in a Western country (which includes, hey, me!) was more evolved than other people because they lived in the past or currently live in poor countries. I was saying the* exact opposite* of what you imply, as you knew.

But now we are off topic. I and the person who posted that thing about Chardin are in agreement that Julian was not a heretic.

Clay, if I twisted around what you said in any way shape or form it was not intentional and if I did that and am using terms differently than you are then I guess that would make sense why you would believe I am doing it intentionally. Believe me, I do not know or understand the distinction or difference in using the words you are trying to explain to me so I’ll have to think about it for a while. I thought I was just taking what you said quite literally and at face value so I guess any other meaning you had behind it I did not grasp or get it or if I did and then twisted what you said like you are claiming then I did it with out realizing it. If I did do something wong I apologize for it but please beleive me I did not do it intentionally.

 

[claymcdermott]

I apologize. I overreacted. God bless you.

 

[simple_soul]

I apologize. I overreacted. God bless you.

This is very gracious and kind of you. Thank you. I still don’t quite understand what went wrong but am being lead to believe I was reacting to what you had just said too and that may be why I did not totally get what you were saying. I do apologize for it.