From The Soul of the Apostolate

A list of truths from this phenomenal book. The finding of this book seems timely to me. This priest's writings remind me of Brother Lawrence, and de Caussade. My few comments are in blue.

Without embarking upon a study of asceticism, let us at least remind the reader that EVERYONE is obliged to accept the following principles as absolutely certain, and base his inner life upon them.

FIRST TRUTH. Supernatural life is the life of Jesus Christ Himself in my soul, by Faith, Hope, and Charity; for Jesus is the meritorious, exemplary, and final cause of sanctifying grace, and, as Word, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, He is its efficient cause in our souls.

The presence of Our Lord by this supernatural life is not the real presence proper to Holy Communion, but a presence of vital action like that of the action of the head or heart upon the members of the body. This action lies deep within us, and God ordinarily hides it from the soul in order to increase the merit of our faith. And so, as a rule, my natural faculties have no feeling of this action going on within me, which, however, I am formally obliged to believe by faith. This action is divine, yet it does not interfere with my free will, and makes use of all secondary causes, events, persons, and things, to teach me the will of God and to offer me an opportunity of acquiring or increasing my share in the divine life.

This life, begun in Baptism by the state of grace, perfected at Confirmation, recovered by Penance and enriched by the Holy Eucharist, is my Christian life.

SECOND TRUTH. By this life, Jesus Christ imparts to me His Spirit. In this way, He becomes the principle of a superior activity which raises me up, provided I do not obstruct it, to think, judge, love, will, suffer, labor with Him, by Him, in Him, and like Him. My outward acts become the manifestations of this life of Jesus in me. And thus I tend to realize the ideal of the INTERIOR LIFE that was formulated by St. Paul when he said: “I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

Christian life, piety, interior life, sanctity: in all these we find no essential difference. They are only different degrees of one and the same love. They are the half-light, the dawning, the rising, and the zenith of the same sun.

Whenever the expression “interior life” is used in this book, the reference is not so much to habitual interior life, which we may call the “principal” or “capital” of the divine life deposited in us, by sanctifying grace, as to the actual interior life, which invests this capital and puts it to work in the activity of our soul, and in our fidelity to actual graces.

Thus I can define it as the state of activity of a soul which strives against its natural inclinations in order to REGULATE them, and endeavors to acquire the HABIT of judging and directing its movements IN ALL THINGS according to the light of the Gospel and the example of Our Lord.

Hence: a twofold movement. By the first, the soul withdraws from all that is opposed to the supernatural life in created things, and seeks at all times to be recollected: aversio a creaturis. By the second, the soul tends upwards to God, and unites itself with Him: conversio ad Deum.

The soul wishes in this way to be faithful to the grace which Our Lord offers to it at every moment. In a word, it lives, united to Jesus, and carries out in actuality the principle: “He that liveth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit.

Qui manet in Me et Ego in eo, hic fert fructum tum (Joan. 15:5).

THIRD TRUTH. I would be depriving myself of one of the most effective means of acquiring this interior life if I failed to strive after a precise and certain faith in the active presence of Jesus within me, and if I did not try to make this presence within me, not merely a living, but an extremely vital reality, and one which penetrated more and more into all the life of my faculties. When Jesus, in this manner, becomes my light, my ideal, my counsel, my support, my refuge, my strength, my healer, my consolation, my joy, my love, in a word, my life, I shall acquire all the virtues. Then alone will I be able to utter, with sincerity, the wonderful prayer of St. Bonaventure which the Church gives me for my thanksgiving after Mass: Transfige dulcissime Domine Jesu.

FOURTH TRUTH. In proportion to the intensity of my love for God, my supernatural life may increase at every moment by a new infusion of the grace of the active presence of Jesus in me; an infusion produced:

1. By each meritorious act (virtue, work, suffering under all its varying forms, such as privation of creatures, physical or moral pain, humiliation, self-denial; prayer, Mass, acts of devotion to Our Lady, etc.).

2. By the Sacraments especially the Eucharist.

It is certain, then (and here is a consequence that overwhelms me with its sublimity and its depth, but above all, fills me with courage and with joy), it is certain that, by every event, person or thing, Thou, Jesus, Thou Thyself, dost present Thyself, objectively, to me, at every instant of the day. Thou dost hide Thy wisdom and Thy love beneath these appearances and dost request my co-operation to increase Thy life in myself.

O my soul, at every instant Jesus presents Himself to you by the GRACE OF THE PRESENT MOMENT—every time there is a prayer to say, a Mass to celebrate or to hear, reading to be done, or acts of patience, of zeal, of renunciation, of struggle, confidence, or love to be produced. Would you dare look the other way, or try to avoid His gaze?

FIFTH TRUTH. The triple concupiscence caused by original sin and increased by every one of my actual sins establishes elements of death that militate against the life of Jesus in me. Now in exact proportion as these elements develop in me, they diminish the exercise of that life. Alas! They may even go so far as to destroy it outright.

In case you do not know what triple concupiscence is, this term means that since Adam's sin, we all have a weakness and tendency towards sin in three ways. These are the desire for things of the earth, such as worldly status, money, and so on connected to the sin of greed; the preoccupation and seeking of the pleasures of the senses, such as falling into the sins of lust and gluttony; and the gross overexertion of our free will, self-will and rebellion, even when we choose something unreasonable.

The harmony found in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, "original justice", as the CCC notes, was marred forever through Original Sin.

Nevertheless, inclinations and feelings contrary to that life, and temptations, even violent and prolonged can do it no harm whatever as long as my will resists them. And then (what a consoling truth!) like any other elements in the spiritual combat, they serve only to augment that life, in proportion to my own zeal.

SIXTH TRUTH. If I am not faithful in the use of certain means, my intelligence will become blind and my will too weak to co-operate with Jesus in the increase, or even in the maintenance of His life in me. And the result will be a progressive diminution of that life: I shall find myself slipping into tepidity of the will.

In the long perfection series, I have written about this clouding of the intellect and loss of discernment.

This tepidity is clearly distinct from the dryness and even disgust which fervent souls experience in spite of themselves. For in that case, no sooner are the venial faults that escape us, through weakness committed, than we fight back, and detest them, and consequently show no evidence of tepidity of the will.

Asking for the grace to see one's venial sins immediately forms a good prayer and creates a habit of instant reflection.

But the soul that is poisoned with this kind of tepidity manifests two opposing wills: one good, the other bad. One hot, the other cold. On one hand, it wants salvation, and therefore it avoids evident mortal sin; on the other hand it does not want what is demanded by the love of God. On the contrary, it wants all the comforts of a free and easy life, and that is why it allows itself to commit deliberate venial sins.

God does not want any of us to be sinning in a venial decision. The deliberate ones need to go, and then, the Holy Spirit begins working on the knee-jerk, automatic ones, which are the hardest to fight.

When this tepidity is not resisted, the very fact goes to show that there is in the soul a partial, though not total, bad will. That is to say, one part of the will says to God: “On such and such a point I do not want to cease displeasing You.” (Father Desurmount, C.SS.R., Retour Continuel a Dieu.)

Through dissipation, cowardice, self-delusion, or blindness, I tend to compromise with venial sin. But therefore my whole salvation is in danger, since I am paving the way to mortal sin.

Self-delusion may be connected to pride, and in the Dark Night, God chips away at this sin.

Were I to have the misfortune to fall into this tepidity (and a fortiori if I were to go lower still), I would have to make every effort to get out of it. 1) I would have to revive the fear of God in my soul by imagining myself, as vividly as possible, face to face with my last end, with death, with the judgment of God, with hell, eternity, sin, and so forth. 2) And to revive compunction by the sweet science of Thy wounds, O my merciful Redeemer. Going, in spirit, to Calvary, I would throw myself down at Thy holy feet and let Thy living Blood run down upon my head and heart to wash away my blindness, melt the ice in my soul, and drive away the torpor of my will.

Meditating on the Four Last Things helps tremendously.

SEVENTH TRUTH. I must seriously fear that I do not have the degree of interior life that Jesus demands of me:

I cannot emphasize the importance of this section enough. 

1.If I cease to increase my thirst to live in Jesus, that thirst which gives me both the desire to please God in all things, and the fear of displeasing Him in any way whatever. But I necessarily cease to increase this thirst if I no longer make use of the means for doing so: morning mental-prayer, Mass, Sacraments, and Office, general and particular examinations of conscience, and spiritual reading; or if, while not altogether abandoning them, I draw no profit from them, through my own fault.

2.If I do not have that minimum of recollection which will allow me, during my work, to watch over my heart and keep it pure and generous enough not to silence the voice of Our Lord when He warns me of the elements of death, as soon as they show themselves, and urges me to fight them. Now I cannot possibly retain this minimum if I make no use of the means that will secure it: liturgical life, aspirations, especially in the form of supplication, spiritual communion, practice of the presence of God, and so on.

A minimum of recollection must become a habit. and, again, asking God for the grace of the instant recognition of sin. The next paragraph should put fear into one's heart and mind, as it is so easy to be trapped in self-delusion. 

Without this, my life will soon be crawling with venial sins, perhaps without my being aware of it, self-delusion will throw up the smoke screen of a seeming piety that is more speculative than practical, or of my ambition for good works, to hide this state from me, or even to conceal a condition more appalling still! And yet my blindness will be imputed to me as sin since, by failing to foster the recollection indispensable to it, I shall have fomented and encouraged its very cause.

EIGHTH TRUTH. My interior life will be no better than my custody of my heart. “Before all things keep a guard over thy heart, for from it springs forth life.”

Omni custodia serva cor tuum, quia ex ipso vita procedit (Prov. 4:23).

How true this is....where you heart is so is your treasure. Is it food, money, status, another person? Again, pray to God and you guardian angel to show you the truth of habitual idolatry; even if it seems relatively unimportant--anything can become an idol.

This custody of the heart is simply a HABITUAL or at least frequent anxiety to preserve all my acts, as they arise, from everything that might spoil their motive or their execution.

It is a peaceful, unexcited anxiety, without any trace of strain, yet powerful because it is based on childlike confidence in God.

It is the work of the heart and the will, rather than of the mind, which has to remain free to carry out its duties. Far from being an impediment to activity, the custody of the heart perfects it, by ordering it to the Spirit of God, and adjusting it to the duties of our state of life.

Now, this may confuse some of my regular readers, who have read many posts on the heart-head dilemma. We can always turn to reason for help against inordinate desires, or even too strong of a love. Our reason must control, always, the heart, contrary to popular songs, writings, even some sermons. Once we have purity of heart, we can trust the desires, and we then can discern what is from God and what is not from God, but from ourselves.

It is an exercise that can be carried on at any hour. It is a quick glance, from the heart, over present actions and a peaceful attention to all the various phases of an action, as we perform it. It is carrying out exactly the precept, “Age quod agis.” The soul, like an alert sentry, keeps watch over every movement of its heart, over everything that is going on within it: all its impressions, intentions, passions, inclinations; in a word, all its interior and exterior acts, all its thoughts, words, and deeds.

Custody of the heart demands a certain amount of recollection: there is no place for it in a soul given to dissipation.

I recollect during conversations, in Church, in a car, like Sam-I -Am, reflecting everywhere. This becomes a constant habit if one prays for the grace and cooperates with that grace.

A paraphrase:  Would you reflect with a mouse? Would you reflect in a house? Would you reflect in a box? Would you reflect with a fox? Would you? Could you? In a car? And so forth.....

By frequently following this practice, we will gradually acquire the habit of it.

Quo vadam et ad quid? Where am I going and why? What would Jesus do? How would He act in my place? What advice would He give me? What does He want from me, at this moment? Such are the questions that spring up spontaneously in the soul that is hungry for interior life.

This works.

For the soul that goes to Jesus through Mary, this custody of the heart takes on a still more affectionate quality, and recourse to this dear Mother becomes a continual need for his heart.

NINTH TRUTH. Jesus Christ reigns in a soul that aspires to imitate Him seriously, wholly, lovingly. This imitation has two degrees: 1) The soul strives to become indifferent to creatures, considered in themselves whether they suit its tastes or not. Following the example of Jesus, it seeks no other rule, in this, but the will of God: “I came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”

Descendi de coelo non ut faciam voluntatem meam sed ejus qui misit me (Joan. 6:38).

Complete objectivity, complete detachment...

2) The soul shows more readiness in doing things that are contrary to its nature, and repugnant to it. And thus it carries out the agendo contra that St. Ignatius speaks of in his famous meditation on the reign of Christ. It is acting against natural inclination in order to tend, by preference, to what imitates the poverty of the Savior, and His love for sufferings and humiliations. “For Christ did not please Himself.”

Christus non sibi placuit (Rom. 15:3).

This is huge...we all need to stop pleasing ourselves and concentrate on pleasing God alone. Especially, because of recent events, this has become extremely important.

Following the expression of St. Paul, the soul then truly knows our Lord: “You have learned Christ.”

Didicistis Christum (Eph. 4:20).

In this next paragraph, Father describes the Illuminative State perfectly.

TENTH TRUTH. No matter what my condition may be, if I am only willing to pray and become faithful to grace, Jesus offers me every means of returning to an inner life that will restore to me my intimacy with Him, and will enable me to develop His life in myself. And then, as this life gains ground within me, my soul will not cease to possess joy, even in the thick of trials, and the words of Isaias will be fulfilled in me: “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall speedily arise, and thy justice shall go before thy face, and the glory of the Lord shall gather thee up. Thou shalt call, and the Lord shall hear, thou shalt cry and He shall say:

‘Here I am.’ And the Lord will give thee rest continually, and will fill thy soul with brightness and will deliver thy bones, and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a fountain of water whose waters do not fail.”

Is. 58:8, 9, 11.

ELEVENTH TRUTH. If God calls me to apply my activity not only to my own sanctification, but also to good works, I must establish this firm conviction, before everything else, in my mind: Jesus has got to be, and wishes to be, the life of these works.

My efforts, by themselves, are nothing, absolutely nothing. “Without Me you can do nothing.”

Sine me nihil potestis facere (Joan. 15:5).

They will only be useful, and blessed by God, if by means of a genuine interior life I unite them constantly to the life-giving action of Jesus. But then they will become all-powerful: “I can do all things in Him who strengtheneth me.”

Again, look at the many posts on humility and merit. Good works follow the workings of perfection.

Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat (Phil. 4:13).

But should they spring from pride and self-satisfaction, from confidence in my own talents, from the desire to shine, they will be rejected by God: for would it not be a sacrilegious madness for me to steal, from God, a little of His glory in order to decorate and beautify myself?

Daily, one must demand from one's self truth. 

This conviction, far from robbing me of all initiative, will be my strength. And it will make me really feel the need to pray that I may obtain humility, which is such a treasure for my soul, since it is a guarantee of God’s help and of success in my labors.

Key is humility. More comments here later....am off to a busybakson.

Once I am really convinced of the importance of this principle, I will make a serious examination of myself, when I am on retreat, to find out: 1) if my conviction of the nothingness of my own activity, left to itself, and of its power when united to that of Jesus, is not getting a little tarnished; 2) if I am ruthless in stamping out all self-satisfaction and vanity, all self-admiration in my apostolate; 3) if I continue unwaveringly to distrust myself; 4) and if I am praying to God to preserve me from pride, which is the first and foremost obstacle to His assistance.

This Credo of the interior life, once it has become for my soul the whole foundation of its existence, guarantees to it, even here below, a participation in the joys of heaven.

The interior life is the life of the elect.

It fits in with the end God had in view when He created us.

Ad contemplandum quippe Creatorem suum homo conditus fuerat ut ejus speciem quaereret atque in soliditate amoris illius habitaret (St. Gregory the Great, Moralia, viii, 12).

It answers the end of the Incarnation: “God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we may live by Him.”

Filium suum unigenitum Deus misit in mundum ut vivamus per eum (1 Joan. 4:9).

It is a state of complete happiness: “The end of human creatures is union with God; and in this their happiness consists.”

Finis humanae creaturae est adhaerere Deo: in hoc enim felicitas ejus consistit (St. Thomas Aquinas).

In this happiness, if thorns are seen from the outside, yet roses bloom within: but with the joys of the world it is just the reverse. “How pitiable they are, the poor people out in the world,” the Cure of Ars used to say, “they wear, over their shoulders, a mantle lined with thorns; they cannot make a move without being pierced. But true Christians have a mantle lined with soft fur.” Crucem vident, unuctionem non vident.

They see the cross, but do not see the consolations. (Said by St. Bernard, of those who took scandal at the austerity of the Cistercian life).

Heavenly state! The soul becomes a living heaven.

Semper memineris Dei, et coelum mens tua evadit. (St. Ephrem). Ever be mindful of God, and your mind will become His heaven.

Mens animae paradisus est, in qua, dum coelestia meditatur quasi in paradiso voluptatis delectatur (Hugh of St. Victor). The mind is the paradise of the soul, wherein, while it meditates upon heavenly things, it rejoices as though in a paradise of delights.

Then, like St. Margaret Mary, it can sing:

Je possède en tout temps et je porte en tout lieu
Et le Dieu de mon coeur et le Coeur de mon Dieu.

(I ever possess, and take with me everywhere, the God of my heart and the Heart of my God.) It is the beginning of eternal bliss, Inchoatio quaedam beatitudinis.

St. Thomas Aquinas. 2a 2ae, q. 180, a. 4.

Grace is the seed of Heaven.

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Two

Heroes of the Synod

A slave can decide to run away from his master. Free will is free. And, supernatural grace informs the will.

That so many liberals deny free will shows that they are Semis. They also believe that naturally one can merit grace or do good works.

These ideas have been solidly condemned by the Church. In the Council of Trent, we see clearly the doctrine that Original Sin did not abolish free will. That we are made in the image and likeness of God is partly the reason why we have free will. We are made in the image and likeness of God also in our intellect, our reason.

In Original Sin, as St. Bernard states, we kept the image but lost the likeness, which is sanctifying grace.

To become depraved, through continual choosing sin, a man can become more animal like, and give his will over to demonic influences, infecting the will and the intellect. If one follows certain evil paths long enough, one could become completely enthralled by Satan, but one maintains free will.

But, the will is dependent on grace. Without grace, the will cannot choose good.

The confusion in the Synod fathers who maintain that there must be some good in gay relationships, going back to the reason for these posts, to show the Semis influence in the Synod, is a denial, again, of both prevenient and sanctifying graces.

When one is living in sin, one can do no supernatural works, none. This is the long teaching of the Church and highly logical. Such an idea provides a slam-dunk for gradualism, in that one must decide, make that metanoia choice to cooperate with prevenient grace in order to become holy.

Remember my posts on conversion.

Moving back to the idea of supernatural acts, one can see that without a life of grace, there is no merit, no good.

One cannot merit heaven through acts of nature, natural virtues do not bring merit which is why the Fathers of the Church insisted that pagans cannot merit heaven through natural goodness.

All merit comes from God through grace.

The will decides to cooperate or not. I hope readers can see who confused some of those who have prepare the documents are concerning good works and salvation.

We are only saved in Christ and not through good works. Thus, those who are living in sin cannot merit heaven.

As St. Augustine states over and over, all good acts come from grace. And, grace does not give us merely the potential for doing good works, but God's grace "does" the good works.

Now, one of the problems with those who have muddied the Synod waters is that they do not understand or believe in efficacious grace. God gives us all sufficient grace for conversion.

He gives us efficacious grace in the sacraments, that which makes one holy. Through grace, the will is moved to more and more holiness, seeking perfection, seeking union with God.  But, first we are justified in Christ through sanctifying grace, which is not actual grace. Here is Garrigou-Lagrange with a reminder of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent leaves no room for doubt on this point. Denzinger in hisEnchiridion sums up the definitions and declarations of the Church very correctly in the formula: “Habitual or sanctifying grace is distinct from actual grace (nos. 1064 ff .); it is an infused, inherent quality of the soul, by which man is formally justified (nos. 483, 792, 795, 799 ff., 809, 821, 898, 1042, 1063 ff.), is regenerated (nos. 102, 186), abides in Christ (nos. 197, 698), puts on a new man (no. 792), and becomes an heir to eternal life (nos. 792,799 ff .). Chapter 12.

Garrigou-Lagrange gives us Scriptural references to efficacious grace. Here are some from the same chapter and book as the previous quotation in Part One..

In the New Testament, too, we find: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Therefore grace is not rendered efficacious through our consent; rather, on the contrary, without the grace of Christ we do not consent to the good conducive to salvation. “My sheep hear My voice . . . and I give them life everlasting and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father” (ibid., 10:27-29). That is to say, the souls of the just are in the hand of God, nor can the world with all its temptations nor the demon snatch the elect from the hand of God. Cf. St. Thomas’ commentary on this passage.  It reiterates the words of St. Paul: “Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or famine . . . or the sword?. . . But in all these things we overcome, because of [or through] Him that hath loved us. . . . For I am sure that neither death nor life . . . nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35-39). St. Thomas comments here that either St. Paul is speaking in the person of the predestinate or, if of himself personally, then it was thanks to a special revelation. Elsewhere St. Paul writes: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5). If we are not sufficient to think anything conducive to salvation of ourselves, with still greater reason is this true of giving our consent, which is primary in the role of salvation. Again, “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . . All things are naked and open to His eyes” (Heb. 4:12 f.). Cf. St. Thomas’ commentary: “The word of God is said to be effectual on account of the very great power and infinite effective force which it possesses. For by it are all things made: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were established’ (Ps. 32:6). . . . It effects in the innermost being of things . . . all our works . . . In the order of causes it is to be observed that a prior cause always acts more intimately than a subsequent cause.”

In Rom. 9:14-16 we read: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice in God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (cf. Exod. 33:19)1 To the Philippians, St. Paul writes: “With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will” (2:13); hence the soul should fear sin or separation from God, the author of salvation; cf. St. Thomas’ commentary.

But, we see also the problem with some of the Synod fathers not understanding that there is no middle ground between sin and life in God, between the refusal of grace and the acceptance of grace.

In addition, and I blame the seminaries for not teaching Thomas Aquinas or Augustine all these years since the 1950s, there is great confusion concerning graces which are sufficient for salvation and those which are efficacious in making one holy. There is also confusion as to the reliance of the will on efficacious grace. Grace first, will second....is a good measure of the true arguments.

It seems to me that some of the cardinals make no distinctions between living in and living out of grace. They seem to blur the idea of metanoia, of conversion, making it a long process, which the Church has never taught. The long process is that of perfection, of getting rid of sin and the tendencies to sin, not the original acceptance of faith and salvation. This is the part efficacious grace plays in one's life. One begins to see this through prayer, meditation and contemplation.

Why this confusion?

It seems to me that three heresies are informing these cardinals interpretations.

First, Pelagianism, second, Semi-Pelagianism, and third, Jansenism.

These heresies all hold deep contradictions regarding sin and free will, grace and predestination.

Now, because the Pope is Jesuit and because the Jesuits from day one of the ideas of Molina have accepted Molinism, I must address that in a post, but before I examine that, I shall share more bits from Garrigou-Lagrange's book Grace.

to be continued...

Thoughts on Pelagianism

Thinking and talking about St. Thomas a Becket yesterday brought up some interesting ideas through a friend of mine. St. Thomas Becket was killed partly because he had rightly insisted on a priest getting an ecclesial trial for a serious crime, and in the meantime, the king's man, a knight, killed the priest, which is still grounds for excommunication.

The priest should have gone on trial by the Church and then by the secular state. Church first, State second.

Thomas Becket was standing up for the rights of the Church regarding clergy over the State interference. That the priest was wrong is clear in history, but there were procedures, which meant that the State honored the Church's judiciary. Canon law first, secular law second--or, better, that the secular law would reflect canon law.

As it should.

When any secular state takes power away from the Church, that state is not honoring the way God wants His Church to be protected. It is the duty of every state to protect the one, true, holy, and apostolic Church. Of course, the secularists deny this and so want "equality" and not merely tolerance.

There is a difference.

That the Church and the State would have found the priest guilty and that he would have been executed is sure.

These thoughts bring me to the problem of Pelagianism and universalism-the belief that all men are saved.

First of all, King Henry did something outside of Church law. By taking law into his own hands and not deferring to the Church, he showed that his view was like that of the Pelagians, that is, that one can achieve heaven, eternal life, sanctity on one's own efforts, with good works, and not with grace. The Church teaches that not only is grace necessary for salvation, that is, the need for the Redemptive action of Christ, which gives us grace through Him, but that grace helps us avoid future sins.

When both Original Sin is denied, and when grace is seen as unnecessary,  this leads to an idea that everyone may be saved without Christ.

In fact, the Church condemns the idea that we can do good works without grace.

Pelagians deny free will as well. This is popular in our day and age of over-psychoanalyzing sin to the point where no one is guilty of choosing evil, which we are.

Those who believe or have some type of fairy-tale idea that all men, women and children go to heaven forget all the above points.

Original Sin is a reality and it darkens our intellect, makes us more vulnerable to sin, and robs us of eternal life.

This is why Christ came, to free us from Original Sin, and the great icon of this is the Harrowing of Hell-to which we refer in the Creed.

Back to Becket...

The saint realized that one cannot contravene Church teaching for the sake of a good end, or in the case of excommunicating those bishops who did not follow proper order in the coronation of Henry's son, not following Church procedure but giving in to the king.

Only the Archbishop of Canterbury could give the right of coronation, which was and still is a religious duty and rite, not merely secular, at least in Catholic countries. Roger de Pont L'Évêque, the archbishop of York, Gilbert Foliot, the bishop of London, and Josceline de Bohon were excommunicated for going over the Archbishop's authority to give the oath of coronation.

Again, we see an interpretation of Church law and practice being flaunted by those who wanted to undermine the power of Becket and therefore place the Church under State control. What King Henry II could not do, Henry VIII succeeded in doing and bringing disgrace, terror and murder into the realm.

If there is no grace needed for good works, one can be saved outside the Church. Not so...

If there is no Original Sin, all people are saved. Not so.

There is a place for those who are not saved in and through Christ and His Church and that is hell. People want a generalized type of mercy without justice. Becket was standing up for real justice, which could include mercy, regarding the criminal priest. 

Without justice, there can be no mercy, and people continue to sin, expecting no consequences. Pelagians today, as in centuries past, undermine the authority of the Church, not only with regard to the sacred teachings from Scripture, which the Church preserves, but regarding temporal punishment due to sin, not only a Scriptural truth, but one clearly defined in the teachings of the Church.

The universalists want everyone to be saved, thus falling into the Pelagianist denial of free will and grace. One cannot gain heaven without grace and freely choosing to follow Christ. That God brings some people into heaven through the merits of the Catholic Church is a truism, explained here under the label of merit.

But, as Pelagius denied the need for Christ's Redemptive work on the Cross, so to do those modern universalists. If all men, women and children go to heaven, why bother to evangelize anyone, which is a command of Christ, God Himself?

Pelagians want salvation without the Church, without the sacraments, without grace. They want the so-called good works done by a person to bring one to heaven.

Just as the knight thought he was doing a good by killing a criminal priest, so the Pelagians confuse means and end. 

to be continued....

Synchronicity, Perfection Series VIII Part XXVII The Old and The New Law

Just the other day, I was meditating on the life of David, who is one of my favorite persons in the Old Testament. His heart, it is said, was like unto God's, full of love.

My thoughts centered on the fact that after God disciplined David for killing Uriah, by taking away the baby of Bathsheba, David was still allowed to keep his soul-mate, after a series of serious sins.

God forgave murder, adultery, lying, arrogance, and most likely, pride. David obviously was playing God by taking Uriah's wife and killing him.

Yet, as Raissa points out in my reading of her today, God was "displeased" with David, forgave him and let him keep Bathsheba and the kingdom of Jerusalem.

Raissa notes several points with regard to this mystery which I merely was pondering a few days ago.

One, God's mercies are clear in the Old Testament.

Two, the Old Testament is written after the facts of history and with a perspective of God's mercy.

Three, the law of the Old Testament is NOT as severe as that of the New. (We have Christ Incarnated, the Church, the sacraments, grace in abundance, 2,000 years of teaching and so on, I add.)

That we are held to a higher level of expectations becomes a revelation like a strong light in our lives. One must, as I wrote yesterday as well, move away from even venial sin, not merely the gross sins of St. David. We are called to put on the Mind of Christ. And, we have all we need from baptism and the other sacraments in order to do this.

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/12/perfection-series-viii-part-xxii-venial.html

Raissa goes on to say that when our time in the Church is written, (and I am not sure it will be), our time will be seen as a time of great mercies.

to be continued....

Part XXVI of Perfection Series XIII Darcy, Maritain, Eliza, Raissa

Because I love the works of Jane Austen so much, having read the novels many times over, taught a few, and watching the movies and series several times as well, I have come to some conclusions for the approach a Catholic could take towards her work. I want to examine in a short space ideals of marriage in order for readers to understand the type of unity which is necessary for our times.

First of all, Austen was a master at understanding human nature, both in the apprehension of virtues and vices. She was a keen observer of people. She was also raised in a religious atmosphere, wherein character formation would have been part of the training of a young person.

She, no doubt, learned the Anglican version of virtues early on, with a strong sense of the necessity for virtue not only for the individual, but for society, and by extension, the nation.

Second, her world was not so circumscribed that she did not come into contact with the less scrupulous. Her "villains" and those exhibiting such weaknesses of the flesh as fornication, adultery, gambling and abuse of alcohol, as well as the evil of greed, are in each book. That vices affect families and bring down the ruin of society Austen makes clear.

Third, she was also aware of the failings of those great families and "houses" which should have produced leaders, but merely, more and more, were producing greed and corruption. This view is most obvious in Mansfield Park and in Sense and Sensibility. The upper classes were decaying, and London, according to Austen, seethed with sin and provided a corrupting influence, which reached out into the old country houses, like an octopus with giant tentacles.

But, what I want to examine is the view of God in Austen's marriages in her society, briefly, of course, as this is a blog post and not a dissertation.

I have found it interesting that Austen holds marriage as the key to a good society. Really good marriages keep the life of virtue alive and provide stability to the nation as a whole. This is in keeping with Catholic Church teaching, and Anglican teaching at the time of Austen's writing.

Divorce is despicable in her books, and being single not a good place of protection for a female.

However, I am more interested in the fact that because of her Protestant upbringing, Austen had to place virtue in marriage and in specific "houses". In other words, virtue training for children, and character formation would be limited to one's choice of mate and for honorable, church-going families. It is clear that Austen was aware that not all marriages not made in heaven, but founded on lust and folly, as especially seen in Pride and Prejudice, wherein Mr.and Mrs. Bennet do not have a holy marriage, and of course, neither do Lydia and Wickham.

This theme is also seen in Persuasion, where Mrs. Clay and Mr. William Eliot join in an unholy union. Mrs. Clay is a social climber and Mr. Eliot seems to want to be perverse and deceitful in several areas, as seen in his financial dealings with Mrs. Smith's husband.



Another unholy marriage is depicted between the clergyman Mr. Elton, in Emma, (the clergyman being another social climber), who marries for money to the horrid Augusta Hawkins, whose name always reminds me of pirates. And, in Mansfield Park, we see the result of a marriage made for money merely and not love or respect, ending in adultery and shame, in comparison to Fanny and Edmund's good marriage.

Back to the main point....

The trouble with Jane Austen's world is that there is no place for a single person to find God or for the development of saintliness in marriage. It seems that marriage is the only place where people can truly find love and fulfillment. The ideal of Catholic spirituality depending on one's total focusing on God as an individual is never emphasized or even hinted at except in the virtuous single lives of such as Elinor Dashwood, or Anne Eliot, who eventually gets married, or Jane Bennet, who is obviously naturally, if not supernaturally "good". Does holy love only exist in special, unique marriages?

My answer, as a Catholic, is "no".

The most "holy" character is my favorite, Fanny Price, in Mansfield Park, which modern interpretations in film miss entirely as a model of virtue and humility. The humble Fanny is the center of calm and honesty in the book and she represents the old ways which use to be found in the great houses of England. Fanny is the heart of Mansfield Park, the great house crumbling from vice on the inside, even as one brought in from the outside.

Outside of finding love in marriage, there is little deep love in Austen. Now, one may say, that is not the point of her books, but I think it is. For the Protestant, celibacy is not a virtue or a truly noble way of life. All the clergymen in Austen must get married, and in fact, Austen sees that clergymen could be a source of gossip and temptation to unwed women unless they marry, and so on.

The Anglican stance against celibacy and chastity have pride of place in Austen. The family is all, and love between husband and wife the greatest good in a society. That this is true for Catholics, is also clear, but I think we have a deeper understanding of the sacrament and the ideal relationship between a husband and a wife. Catholics know that God must be the center of an ideal marriage, not society or class structure, or even romance involving hearts and minds.

Now, I do not need a novelist to be a theologian or even a saint, but I think that the popularity of Austen in the past thirty years has something to do with the denigration of celibacy and chastity.

There still is, especially in American society, a strong belief that a woman or man cannot possibly be happy and fulfilled outside of a sexual relationship.

Here, on the other hand, is Raissa on marriage. I want to highlight three points.

",,,,(marriage) this sacrament is for temporal humanity and for the perfecting of the species."

First, we see in this line that perfection is part of marriage, in that the husband and wife should perfect each other and train their children in the virtues, forming character, which carries down in posterity and into society.

Second, she writes this:

"But does there then remain nothing for heaven of the union of a husband and wife, faithful to each other until death?---What remains is friendship may have created of purely spiritual union between them, of similarity of soul, of equality of merits, perhaps, in a life in which everything has been in common."

I want to unpack this statement and expand on it. As readers know from one of my earliest posts, the Maritains made a commitment of celibacy in their marriage in order to become more perfect in serving the world through Jacques' ministry of philosophy and Raissa's call to intense prayer.

One can see this here if one missed it.
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/11/without-contemplatives-there-can-be-no.html

Here, again, is the line I want to examine.

What remains is friendship may have created of purely spiritual union between them, of similarity of soul, of equality of merits, perhaps, in a life in which everything has been in common."

But, the friendship idea is one part of the multi-faceted description of marriage in that short statement of Raissa's above. Friendship in the Lord, an ideal which I have cherished since my twenties, is a particular grace of intense love totally built on love for God first. The love one has for God spills out into friendship, which sometimes leads to marriage and great intimacy, and sometimes not.

Raissa and Jacques experienced this, and Eliza Bennet expresses this need, but one does not see it in the book as it unfolds. One only sees the romantic attraction and some meeting of the minds and hearts, but not the meeting of the souls.

This friendship, as Raissa knows, must be a spiritual union. Now, I think Austen was hinting at this by having some of her heroines marry clergyman, such as Elinor Dashwood marrying Edward Ferrars, and Fanny Price marrying Edmund Bertram. Of course, we all know that Austen herself was in love, at one time, with a clergyman. The Anglican cleric is a symbol of virtuous continuity, stability and religion in Austen.

These characters represent a spiritual life, but one does not see it in the novels as a truly spiritual friendship, as noted by Raissa. That Austen sees that Fanny and Edmund, and Elinor and Edward have similarities of souls is a good. But, the description of those friendships do not go far enough for the Catholic reader, especially for young men and women who want to understand marriage.

Raissa means a profound union of holiness while on earth, a striving for perfection on the part of both husband and wife. This ideal has been lost among Catholics. How often have I heard people say, "Oh, if he just finds a religious, good woman to marry, he will convert", or be saved.

This is simply day-dreaming and putting the onus of becoming holy on one person, possibly leading to an unhappy, unequally yoked union. Similarity of souls means that both parties want to become saints, not merely one dragging the other along into heaven.

The next point is what Raissa terms "equality of merits". Now, I do not think see means equality of talents or gifts, such as intellectual or physical gifts at this point in the sentence.

What she means is "spiritual merits", again, pointing to the fact that both husband and wife desire God first and virtue over anything else.

Merit in Catholic terminology, which I have written about on this blog, is defined and described in the CCC, which I reproduce again here. Before one reads this, may I state that in marriage, the couple works with grace, with the understanding that they are both children of God, brother and sister in Christ, working with God in order to bring each other to heaven.

God initiates merit, but in cooperating with grace, these gifts become part of who each person is, a question of being and not just action. Therefore, in a good marriage, there is an equality of merit, again, an "equal yoking" between the two souls who are becoming one. St. Therese, the Little Flower, is quoted at the end of this section of the CCC, but I shall save that quotation until the end of this post.


III. MERIT

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.⁵⁹

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.


2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."⁶⁰ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.⁶¹ "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."⁶²
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

In a truly holy marriage, the couple grows together, as one, in grace and merit. We see this in the lives of Blessed Louis and Zelie Martin, and most likely, when Blessed Karl's wife, Zita, is made blessed, in their relationship, as man and wife, under terrible circumstances.

The last point of Raissa's in this short quotation, is that the husband and wife, in order to reach a state of spiritual friendship, should have shared everything in common. By this she would mean intellectual capacities, philosophy of life, spirituality, prayer life, and vision. This type of union would lend itself to great holiness. It is harder and harder in our society to find this type of compatibility, which was taken for granted even when I was a young person.

Jane Austen was an Anglican and she never married. Raissa was a Catholic and was married, albeit in an unusual union. One must see that the emphasis on the outward life, the forms of religion, and the fact that Anglicanism was and still is the national religion of England, and therefore, in Austen's world the soul of the national character, varies from the emphasis on the inward life of Raissa and Jacques, which formed the core of their marriage.

As Catholics, and I address those who are not yet married, this deep union of souls is one which will lead the two to God, and allow for both to walk on the way to perfection.

That some reach perfection because of the lack of this friendship is the Lord is all too tragic and too common among Catholics.

Raissa and Jacques did not live in the stable times of Jane Austen. They lived through two world wars, and the terrible onslaught of communism, Nazism and all the forms of modernism against the Church they loved so much.



We are in their world, not Austen's world, which, although changing because of the industrial revolution and the migration to the cities, still had the stability of agricultural life and the big house families.

I suggest that our models for marriages are not Darcy and Liz, or Marianne and Brandon, but Raissa and Jacques, Karl and Zita, Louis and Zelie, truly a challenge for us today.

Here is the promised quotation, from a celibate saint, Therese, who, like Bernard of Clairvaux, could be called a "saint of love".

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.⁶³

Perfection Series VIII Part XXII The Only Way Forward

When one follows God into the path of perfection, one must be prepared for suffering. Jacques Maritain had to realize this about his wife and let her go the way God was calling her.

Thankfully, he understood the way. But, how many of us who are called to this deep suffering, the death of self, the death of the ego, are not supported by those around us? In fact, some of us who have been called into this purgation are left behind by family who do not understand the way, parents, sibling, spouses.

Raissa's purging of the ego and her corresponding purity of heart and mind fed the active missionary activity of Jacques in the world. He was told by his wife's spiritual director to let her suffer. And, Jacques came to know that Raissa was given to God, sacrificed to God directly and not to him.

This oblation created great power in Maritain's life and work. One of the most obvious fruits of Raissa's suffering were the great number of converts which came out of their friends and acquaintances-a veritable list of conversions fills the pages of her diary.

This suffering is the only way forward. The interior trials of Raissa must be seen as the primary walk to perfection. If none of us were sinners, this suffering would not be necessary-but the suffering goes beyond one's self and one becomes joined with Christ in His Passion. The life which suffers becomes a life of blessing for others as well as for one's self.

This is a mystery. Raissa explains that the merits of the Church must be won by those in the Church. That all Catholics are called to suffer in order to bring others to God, others who may not be in the Church but gain grace through the merits of the Church is acknowledge by her-hence, the converts.

Raissa asks the same question I have in this past week. Why are there not more saints in the Church if God is giving these great graces to all? One reason is that when the suffering increases, people back off and stop desiring perfection. Another reason is distraction by the things of this world.

Raissa notes that the elect, those in the Church, are "separated people", but how many today no longer want to be separate, what to be different?

One must desire the one way forward and keep to the road. That Jacques was generous enough to allow God to love his wife in this way must be a lesson to all married Catholics, and to those in families who seem not to understand this way of perfection. So many people who watch those who suffer want them to "snap out of it" and get going with some type of visible happiness. This is not always the case.

Those in great suffering need to be allowed to suffer, but with protection and with the means of grace, such as daily Mass and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Monstrance. Without those anchors, the suffering person would float off into real death. And, God does not want the person to die until He calls them to that last state of union.

to be continued....