Hi Becky –
I’ve been away from these forums for quite some time and just came upon your thread and PM earlier today.
The short answer to your question is “I don’t know” . . . I haven’t read his book.
That having been said, I have come upon several works over the years that try and explain these things in a way that doesn’t necessarily “fit” the more classic, Carmelite descriptions you provide. For example, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard a theologian describe the unitive way as beginning with the onset of the mystical graces of infused contemplation (St. Teresa’s 4th mansion) much like how you say Fr. Groeshcel describes.
So while I can’t speak to Fathers book, I can briefly mention another work that “seems” to speak from the same point of view. It’s “Prayer” by Hans Urs von Balthasar. Here’s just one example of the type of things he says that sound similar to the point of view you present as representative of Fr. Groeshcel’s thinking:
The cross has significance at all times and at every period of our lives.
We would be wise, therefore, to avoid setting up rigid laws regulating the sequence, the succession of contemplative states – laws which would in any case have only a very general application.
Therefore, as we have already mentioned, the three-state structure of the via purgative-illuminativa-unitiva must only be used with great care. There is no intrinsic contradiction in a Christian being led along paths of sublime union and blissful, nuptial experience of God, and finally dying in what to him feels like God-forsakenness: this could in fact be one of the highest forms of union with the Lord, who ended his earthly existence in a night of the senses and of the spirit.
Now, where does one even begin with all this? Von Balthasar was admittedly one of the greatest spiritual minds of the 20th century; however much of this would “seem” to appear to be at odds with some of the most basic tenents of St. John of the Cross. And to your point he would appear to be placing both the night of sense and spirit in the unitive way, at least in some cases.
While certainly we should not be rigid – the progression of the prayer states of St. Teresa and prayer stages of St. John by their own admission don’t necessarily occur in a linear manner. And certainly we can say Christ died in a state of nakedness of both sense and spirit – a profound “feeling of God-forsakenness.” However, St. John’s nights are really about purification – something Christ obviously did not need. And if we read St. John closely, the “feeling of God-forsakenness” can be characteristic of either night but, in itself, does not comprise the night. Again, what St. John is most concerned about is the personal transformations that occur through the various trials and sufferings we endure through the dark fire of contemplation.
My personal opinion is that Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange (in the link you provided) had a much better explanation to the dilemma of this quote from von Balthasar. He explains that what St. John of the Cross is really teaching is that the trials and sufferings of the night occur in a cyclical and repetitive manner – beginning exteriorly (senses) and becoming progressively more interior (spirit). And central to St. John’s entire teaching is that these nights should be viewed as transitional turning points - the night of sense marking the passage from the purgative to illuminative way and the night of spirit signaling the entrance to the unitive way.
And for some very special souls the cycle of suffering does not end with the onset of the unitive way which sometimes comes across in mystical writings as a state of perpetual bliss and constant heart felt communication with each Person of the Trinity (think Br. Lawrence). Rather, Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange introduces a third night that St. John speaks of in the latter stanzas of “Spiritual Canticle but does not give an actual name.
In “Three Ages” Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange provides an entire chapter on St. Paul of the Cross and his experience of the reparative night. Interestingly, and perhaps useful to the quote from von Balthasar, Father describes how this third night can be mistaken for the night of sense! While by almost any traditional description, St. Paul of the Cross endured the nights of sense and spirit early in his life and had long lived in what could be described as the unitive way. Now, at the end of his life, he found himself struggling mightily with temptations of impatience – a vice typically purified in the first night.
Long story short, the purpose of this third night is that it is redemptive – no longer for the purification of self but for the good of souls. His teaching does much to explain the cyclic sufferings of many saints especially, imo, St. Therese of Liseaux who’s night of sense has been described as her Christmas conversion, night of spirit as her uncle’s denial of permission for entrance into Carmel and reparative night as the trial of faith she endured in her last days. On-going suffering to be sure – and progressively more interior and redemptive over time. But, in classic Carmelite teaching, very different nights occurring at different times in her life each leading her to a deeper stage of union with Christ.
Not sure if any of this helps . . . and no doubt I’m just rambling.
But hopefully it explains how different theologians can interpret St. John of the Cross in very different ways.
Dave
