Points to Ponder:
Thirty-seven years of teaching have taught me that convincing arguments will only carry the assent of those willing to accept the conclusion drawn. Numerous are those who will never be convinced because their will stands in the way: The conclusion is not to their taste...It is sadly true that false arguments will "convince" those who welcome their conclusion. [Alice von Hildebrand]
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER VII
Of imperfections with respect to spiritual envy and sloth.
WITH respect likewise to the other two vices, which are spiritual envy and sloth, these beginners fail not to have many imperfections. For, with respect to envy, many of them are wont to experience movements of displeasure at the spiritual good of others, which cause them a certain sensible grief at being outstripped upon this road, so that they would prefer not to hear others praised; for they become displeased at others' virtues and sometimes they cannot refrain from contradicting what is said in praise of them, depreciating it as far as they can; and their annoyance thereat grows because the same is not said of them, for they would fain be preferred in everything.
All this is clean contrary to charity, which, as Saint Paul says, rejoices in goodness.[1] And, if charity has any envy, it is a holy envy, comprising grief at not having the virtues of others, yet also joy because others have them, and delight when others outstrip us in the service of God, wherein we ourselves are so remiss.
With respect also to spiritual sloth, beginners are apt to be irked by the things that are most spiritual, from which they flee because these things are incompatible with sensible pleasure. For, as they are so much accustomed to sweetness in spiritual things, they are wearied by things in which they find no sweetness.
If once they failed to find in prayer the satisfaction which their taste required (and after all it is well that God should take it from them to prove them), they would prefer not to return to it: sometimes they leave it; at other times they continue it unwillingly.
And thus because of this sloth they abandon the way of perfection (which is the way of the negation of their will and pleasure for God's sake) for the pleasure and sweetness of their own will, which they aim at satisfying in this way rather than the will of God.
Though the above is quite applicable viz. the liturgy to those who received the bulk of the commentary in the section on spiritual gluttony, at the same time, it is also in some ways applicable to your weblog host too.
And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that that wherein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that, on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied.
Thus they measure God by themselves and not themselves by God, acting quite contrarily to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same should gain it; and he who should desire to gain it, the same should lose it.[St. Matthew xvi, 25.]
The above paragraphs outline what is is probably among the biggest indictments of false "traditionalism" there is: the spiritual dereliction of viewing what they desire as what God wants and find[ing] it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. This writer has in mind in particular a certain friend who refuses to accommodate his will to that of God - one who attends liturgy with an priest whose only evidence of proper faculties is what the priest himself *says* he has. The quip about being an honest man with the folowup line "if you do not believe me just ask me" comes to mind here.
These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who are softly nurtured and who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delights of the spirit.
See my previous comments for the above paragraph and the one that follows.
The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for, as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which, says Christ, is the way of life.[St. Matthew vii, 14.]
Let it suffice here to have described these imperfections, among the many to be found in the lives of those that are in this first state of beginners, so that it may be seen how greatly they need God to set them in the state of proficients. This He does by bringing them into the dark night whereof we now speak; wherein He weans them from the breasts of these sweetnesses and pleasures, gives them pure aridities and inward darkness, takes from them all these irrelevances and puerilities, and by very different means causes them to win the virtues.
For, however assiduously the beginner practises the mortification in himself of all these actions and passions of his, he can never completely succeed--very far from it--until God shall work it in him passively by means of the purgation of the said night. Of this I would fain speak in some way that may be profitable; may God, then, be pleased to give me His Divine light, because this is very needful in a night that is so dark and a matter that is so difficult to describe and to expound.
The line, then, is:
In a dark night.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] 1 Corinthians xiii, 6. The Saint here cites the sense, not the letter, of the epistle.
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER VII
Of imperfections with respect to spiritual envy and sloth.
WITH respect likewise to the other two vices, which are spiritual envy and sloth, these beginners fail not to have many imperfections. For, with respect to envy, many of them are wont to experience movements of displeasure at the spiritual good of others, which cause them a certain sensible grief at being outstripped upon this road, so that they would prefer not to hear others praised; for they become displeased at others' virtues and sometimes they cannot refrain from contradicting what is said in praise of them, depreciating it as far as they can; and their annoyance thereat grows because the same is not said of them, for they would fain be preferred in everything.
All this is clean contrary to charity, which, as Saint Paul says, rejoices in goodness.[1] And, if charity has any envy, it is a holy envy, comprising grief at not having the virtues of others, yet also joy because others have them, and delight when others outstrip us in the service of God, wherein we ourselves are so remiss.
With respect also to spiritual sloth, beginners are apt to be irked by the things that are most spiritual, from which they flee because these things are incompatible with sensible pleasure. For, as they are so much accustomed to sweetness in spiritual things, they are wearied by things in which they find no sweetness.
If once they failed to find in prayer the satisfaction which their taste required (and after all it is well that God should take it from them to prove them), they would prefer not to return to it: sometimes they leave it; at other times they continue it unwillingly.
And thus because of this sloth they abandon the way of perfection (which is the way of the negation of their will and pleasure for God's sake) for the pleasure and sweetness of their own will, which they aim at satisfying in this way rather than the will of God.
Though the above is quite applicable viz. the liturgy to those who received the bulk of the commentary in the section on spiritual gluttony, at the same time, it is also in some ways applicable to your weblog host too.
And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that that wherein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that, on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied.
Thus they measure God by themselves and not themselves by God, acting quite contrarily to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same should gain it; and he who should desire to gain it, the same should lose it.[St. Matthew xvi, 25.]
The above paragraphs outline what is is probably among the biggest indictments of false "traditionalism" there is: the spiritual dereliction of viewing what they desire as what God wants and find[ing] it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. This writer has in mind in particular a certain friend who refuses to accommodate his will to that of God - one who attends liturgy with an priest whose only evidence of proper faculties is what the priest himself *says* he has. The quip about being an honest man with the folowup line "if you do not believe me just ask me" comes to mind here.
These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who are softly nurtured and who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delights of the spirit.
See my previous comments for the above paragraph and the one that follows.
The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for, as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which, says Christ, is the way of life.[St. Matthew vii, 14.]
Let it suffice here to have described these imperfections, among the many to be found in the lives of those that are in this first state of beginners, so that it may be seen how greatly they need God to set them in the state of proficients. This He does by bringing them into the dark night whereof we now speak; wherein He weans them from the breasts of these sweetnesses and pleasures, gives them pure aridities and inward darkness, takes from them all these irrelevances and puerilities, and by very different means causes them to win the virtues.
For, however assiduously the beginner practises the mortification in himself of all these actions and passions of his, he can never completely succeed--very far from it--until God shall work it in him passively by means of the purgation of the said night. Of this I would fain speak in some way that may be profitable; may God, then, be pleased to give me His Divine light, because this is very needful in a night that is so dark and a matter that is so difficult to describe and to expound.
The line, then, is:
In a dark night.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] 1 Corinthians xiii, 6. The Saint here cites the sense, not the letter, of the epistle.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
which art movement are you?
this quiz was made by Caitlin
You should know something about this, it's the Renaissance! As for style, "...artists studied the natural world, perfecting their understanding of such subjects as anatomy and perspective." (artcyclopedia.com.) They loved science-y things and labored for perfection and harmonious beauty, a goal with which you sympathize. You're probably pretty smart, too. Anal-retentive much? Famous Renaissancers (lots!): Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, and You.
Of course they have to mention three artists who were Renaissanceers. (Ironic really since I am probably among the worst artists of all time.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)