What does this sentence mean?

[reb108]

I am reading, Saints of the American Wilderness (around 1645 New York, Quebec region) by John A. O’Brien and a Father Lalemant says this, about the Jesuit Father Jogues: “After he has rendered an account of his embassy, he (Jogues) thought of nothing else but of undertaking a second voyage so that he might return thither, and especially befor the winter. For he could not endure the thought of being longer absent from his spouse of blood.”

What does that mean, “his spouse of blood?” Nothing in the preceding or next paragraph explains this. I know that a nun considers herself a spouse of Jesus. Hopefully someone can explain this to me.

 

[Bonnie]

Spouse of Blood - that would make a great title for a zombie movie!

Seriously, it refers to Exodus 4:25. There’s an old thread here on that verse that I don’t know how to link to properly. If you google “spouse of blood” you’ll find it.

 

[Robertanthony]

David, a man after God’s own heart, had hundreds of women to choose from, courtesans, whores if you will, why would God deny another of his beloved child the benefit of one woman?

 

[on_the_hill]

I googled it and this was the top result:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=338612

Ironically.

 

[odile53]

Knowing much of the story of the North American martyrs, they were evangelizing and ministering to the Haudenossaune, or Iroquois, a confederation of native nations known for their warlike tendencies. The Iroquois have frequently been referred to as the “Romans of the New World.” Although the natives more or less listened politely for the most part, at least at first, without necessarily believing in the Gospel, these early Jesuits were not meeting with much success, and a crop failure was the final straw among the Iroquois, who were known for torturing their captives and then killing them. They blamed the crop failure on the Jesuit influence. And like the Romans, they could be pretty creative about how gruesome they could act. I’ll spare you the gory details.

Knowing who he would be facing, it is entirely possible that the “spouse of blood” reference indicated that St. Isaac Jogues knew that he faced almost certain martyrdom at their hands, and thus, union with Christ. He had been among them before, and he knew full well what he was walking (or sailing) back into.

By the way, I am (on my mother’s side, it is a matrilineal society,) Seneca, Bear Clan, one of the Haudenossaune nations. My family has been Catholic since the time of the Blackrobes.

 

[on_the_hill]

By the way, I am (on my mother’s side, it is a matrilineal society,) Seneca, Bear Clan, one of the Haudenossaune nations. My family has been Catholic since the time of the Blackrobes.

I assume the Blackrobes were missionaries from way back when. Did your ancestors suffer for their conversion?

 

[reb108]

I assume the Blackrobes were missionaries from way back when.

The movie, Black Robe" does an excellent job at putting this piece of history on the big screen. I watched it on my computer via Amazon Instant Videos ($2.99)

 

[CaptFun]

I don’t know how it relates to St. Isaac Jogues, but “spouse of blood” is in the Bible.

Shortly after Moses speaks to the burning bush and has his marching orders from God, he sets out for Egypt with his wife Zipporah and infant son Gershon.

God “was ready to kill him” because he did not circumcise his son on the eighth day, per the covenant with Abraham. (Remember this when discussions about NOT baptizing infants comes up!).

As Moses is dying (or in trouble) Zipporah circumcises the child, wipes some of the blood on Moses and says to him " … you are a spouse of blood to me …" (a lot of trouble … and now you’ve made me shed my son’s blood?)

Perhaps the Indians wanted the sacraments from Fr. Isaac and it was a trial for him to go or not to go? Or it was risky with tribal wars going on? I do know that some French Missionaries (including Jogues I think) were martyred by hostile tribes.

 

[reb108]

I don’t know how it relates to St. Isaac Jogues, but “spouse of blood” is in the Bible.

Shortly after Moses speaks to the burning bush and has his marching orders from God, he sets out for Egypt with his wife Zipporah and infant son Gershon.

God “was ready to kill him” because he did not circumcise his son on the eighth day, per the covenant with Abraham. (Remember this when discussions about NOT baptizing infants comes up!).

As Moses is dying (or in trouble) Zipporah circumcises the child, wipes some of the blood on Moses and says to him " … you are a spouse of blood to me …" (a lot of trouble … and now you’ve made me shed my son’s blood?)

Perhaps the Indians wanted the sacraments from Fr. Isaac and it was a trial for him to go or not to go? Or it was risky with tribal wars going on? I do know that some French Missionaries (including Jogues I think) were martyred by hostile tribes.

CaptFun, Thank you for taking time to help answer my question. BTW, If you haven’t read, Saints of the American Wilderness by John A. O’Brien, I bet you would really enjoy it. For me, the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s that saw Spanish and French priests enter into Mexico, Canada and California speaks volumes about both the quality of those men (that today I dare say don’t even exist) and also about a period where the history of Catholicism really comes alive for me. About these priest: I guess, today, armed with our smart phones and computers we feel pretty intelligent. Without any of this to lean on, way back then these men were just plain smart and tough as nails. They spoke multiple languages including Latin; when they finally got to their destinations, they knew how to construct buildings and as I saw in California, beautiful churches. They knew how to grow food for themselves and hundreds of others. They could make furniture. They got on tiny little ships that bobbed and weaved themselves in horrid conditions across oceans. Then arriving on land, walked thousands of miles, slept on the ground, ate corn paste, fried leaches, and somehow managed to stay alive after infections, wounds, sickness, frostbite, etc. There were no doctors, stores, and often no roads. After they arrived in Mexico and New Mexico, apparitions appeared, bi-locations appeared: Guadalupe and and Sor Maria from her convent in Spain. Without their intervention, history and the world as we know it would probably be much different. After Guadalupe, millions of Mexicans accepted Christ, while previous to this, converts were not so many. I wonder how many Catholics know that Sor Maria de Jesus de Agreda appeared to the Indians around San Angelo, Texas in the early 1600s. (Fedewa, Marilyn H.: “Maria of Agreda: Mystical Lady in Blue”) You can go to San Angelo and see Fort Concho that was built to save the settlers from the savage Indians back in the 1800s, but 200 years earlier, 60,000 Indians had been baptized by two Catholic priest, sent there from their New Mexico mission. So as I say, this is amazing history and at least for me has made me the Catholic that I am today.

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun, Thank you for taking time to help answer my question. BTW, If you haven’t read, Saints of the American Wilderness by John A. O’Brien, I bet you would really enjoy it. For me, the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s that saw Spanish and French priests enter into Mexico, Canada and California speaks volumes about both the quality of those men (that today I dare say don’t even exist) and also about a period where the history of Catholicism really comes alive for me. About these priest: I guess, today, armed with our smart phones and computers we feel pretty intelligent. Without any of this to lean on, way back then these men were just plain smart and tough as nails. They spoke multiple languages including Latin; when they finally got to their destinations, they knew how to construct buildings and as I saw in California, beautiful churches. They knew how to grow food for themselves and hundreds of others. They could make furniture. They got on tiny little ships that bobbed and weaved themselves in horrid conditions across oceans. Then arriving on land, walked thousands of miles, slept on the ground, ate corn paste, fried leaches, and somehow managed to stay alive after infections, wounds, sickness, frostbite, etc. There were no doctors, stores, and often no roads. After they arrived in Mexico and New Mexico, apparitions appeared, bi-locations appeared: Guadalupe and and Sor Maria from her convent in Spain. Without their intervention, history and the world as we know it would probably be much different. After Guadalupe, millions of Mexicans accepted Christ, while previous to this, converts were not so many. I wonder how many Catholics know that Sor Maria de Jesus de Agreda appeared to the Indians around San Angelo, Texas in the early 1600s. (Fedewa, Marilyn H.: “Maria of Agreda: Mystical Lady in Blue”) You can go to San Angelo and see Fort Concho that was built to save the settlers from the savage Indians back in the 1800s, but 200 years earlier, 60,000 Indians had been baptized by two Catholic priest, sent there from their New Mexico mission. So as I say, this is amazing history and at least for me has made me the Catholic that I am today.

Thank you reb, I am so advised and may add this to my to-do and reading list.

I am reminded too of the sacrifices of** Fr. Jacques Marquette** (priest, missionary and explorer - whom I studied in my Chicago area Catholic grade school as part of the history of the area),**** Louis Joliet**** (Catholic layman and assistant to Marquette);** Fr. Junipero Serra** who left everything to evangelize poor tribes in California with the Good News, and trudged the length of California on a BAD foot, establishing missions (and trade and a great advance in civilization, health, and peace between peoples) never resting upon what he’d done. And his mission settlements became many of the great cities of California - which is why they are all named for angels and saints (and the Eucharist).

You might enjoy the 1991 movie Black Robe. Which should have gotten oscars (but I suspect it was “too Catholic” or too pro-Catholic … for Hollywood which had fashionably set itself against such anachronisms as thinking well of “missionaries”).

youtube.com/watch?v=eKt-RcFuSUM < young priest turns the other cheek while confronted by hostile “witch doctor” (or whatever Mastagoit IS).

youtube.com/watch?v=PvvSfmF8ZSM < The full movie.

AS the boy scouts, who have long tried to build such men out of young men, and are now under fire by destructive lawyers who are trying to destroy or subvert the volunteer organization … and I thought a certain comment of yours was similar to this scout value I post:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd....0x480/532510_386260804829029_1604263321_n.jpg

OOPS! I see you are way ahead of me per the Black Robe. I will leave the links up for others interested. :thumbsup:

 

[CaptFun]

On the subject of men we owe a lot to, this tribute to the OT heroes and martyrs and the early Christians that emulated their sacrifices:

Hebrews 11:32

What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,

33

who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions,

34

put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders.

35

Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.

36

Others endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment.

37

They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword’s point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented.

38

***The world was not worthy of them. ***They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth.

39

Yet all these, though approved because of their faith, did not receive what had been promised.

40

God had foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made perfect. 9

 

[reb108]

On the subject of men we owe a lot to, this tribute to the OT heroes and martyrs and the early Christians that emulated their sacrifices:

Where or how did/does the aspiration to physically die for Christ come about? Is death more of a virtue than a lifetime of loving devotional service. I know that both St. Francis and Father Gabriel Lalemant fostered this desire. I don’t understand it. I would think that a lifetime of service would far surpass the short-lived life of a martyr. Or, is it that in God’s eyes, legions of souls are won by this one act vs. the results of a lifetime of loving devotional service? I found this: “the more the suffering the bigger the results” a frequent theme in St. Faustina’s Diary. But I am just not sure. I mean, if unavoidable death comes from doing one’s duty, I can understand that. But to seek it out and pray for it to happen, this confuses me.