I don't think Gabrielle will mind if I use her last question to start a new discussion here. It's worth a whole new post -
kt, a couple of things I'd like to ask you. I was wondering if you could explain a little bit about the spirit being vivisected from the soul, and also, is it possible to share with us a little more about the imagery and implications of the word "revenants" in your poem?
Let me start with "revenants," as that is the easier of the two ;-)
The lines preceding are so dense, and they really need to be understood before we get to that particular word.
By cerement the conflagration’s fueled,
what light exposes, heat will cauterize.
Then healed, branded, by the King bejeweled,
freed, enslaved, like revenants we rise.
This fire through which we must pass is a kind of death, a death to self, and it is fueled by all the wrappings and trappings of the "old man" which we are shedding. The light of this Fire reveals to us our weakness, woundedness, sinfulness, and at the same time this woundedness is being healed. It is painful, but there is no other way. This, of course, is a reference to the dark night.
Once we have passed through this Flame, we are "healed" (of our woundedness and sin), "branded" (as belonging to Christ in an unmistakable and indelible way), "bejeweled" (as Christ adorns His spouse with every virtue and grace), "freed" (of our sin and woundedness), "enslaved" (to Love, as our wills are no longer our own and we belong wholly to Him), and we return to life wholly transformed, wholly spiritual.
We have gone through this total self-emptying, this kenosis, this death, and we rise from the ashes (like the Phoenix), aflame and renewed.
As for vivisecting...
On one level, we can say that this little death feels as if the soul is being wrenched from the spirit, or as if there is a "disconnect" between the mind and the soul. The dark night is a painful separating of self from self, of the selfward self from the true self.
But there is a d & m in this topic, and I would like to explore this idea with you - that the human person is a trichotomy of body - soul - spirit, much like the universe is space - matter - time. I would reference St. Paul and Edith Stein here (and perhaps I will add some links when I have a longer minute), but I'm hoping someone more astute than I (Father? Deacon? We need some help here.) can give a better theological explanation. I've said too much already.
kt, a couple of things I'd like to ask you. I was wondering if you could explain a little bit about the spirit being vivisected from the soul, and also, is it possible to share with us a little more about the imagery and implications of the word "revenants" in your poem?
Let me start with "revenants," as that is the easier of the two ;-)
The lines preceding are so dense, and they really need to be understood before we get to that particular word.
By cerement the conflagration’s fueled,
what light exposes, heat will cauterize.
Then healed, branded, by the King bejeweled,
freed, enslaved, like revenants we rise.
This fire through which we must pass is a kind of death, a death to self, and it is fueled by all the wrappings and trappings of the "old man" which we are shedding. The light of this Fire reveals to us our weakness, woundedness, sinfulness, and at the same time this woundedness is being healed. It is painful, but there is no other way. This, of course, is a reference to the dark night.Once we have passed through this Flame, we are "healed" (of our woundedness and sin), "branded" (as belonging to Christ in an unmistakable and indelible way), "bejeweled" (as Christ adorns His spouse with every virtue and grace), "freed" (of our sin and woundedness), "enslaved" (to Love, as our wills are no longer our own and we belong wholly to Him), and we return to life wholly transformed, wholly spiritual.
We have gone through this total self-emptying, this kenosis, this death, and we rise from the ashes (like the Phoenix), aflame and renewed.
As for vivisecting...
On one level, we can say that this little death feels as if the soul is being wrenched from the spirit, or as if there is a "disconnect" between the mind and the soul. The dark night is a painful separating of self from self, of the selfward self from the true self.
But there is a d & m in this topic, and I would like to explore this idea with you - that the human person is a trichotomy of body - soul - spirit, much like the universe is space - matter - time. I would reference St. Paul and Edith Stein here (and perhaps I will add some links when I have a longer minute), but I'm hoping someone more astute than I (Father? Deacon? We need some help here.) can give a better theological explanation. I've said too much already.
posted by KathrynTherese at 12:24 PM
57 Comments:
H whispers, "If this is going to be a Thomist discussion, I'll need a bit more cheesecake, please.."
Lady K hears H whisper and motions for another dessert cart.
And a bottle of port.
Then she grins contentedly, puts her hands together and says, barely audibly, "Now we're ready to get serious."
I'll be back later...gotta go get some tiramisu and profiteroles. We're going to need it for stamina.
I'll be back later as well. I feel myself slipping into the 4th dimension.
Slipping into the 4th dimension? Let's not allow that to scare us away from grasping ontology by the horns and wrestling with it...
Even if those horns are... hypercubic (or, better yet, pentachoronic)?
Now you'll keep Google busy with something more meaningful than its usual "Britney Spears" search :-)
The 5th Dimension was ok, tho'--didn't they sing 'Aquarius'? Oh haha, look whom I'm asking-- youngsters!
Ah, yes, I've wrestled with ontology before, once with a young Protestant fella. He darn near convinced me I was a cat. I may have to sit this one out.
Well, here is the situation as I see it. KT is sipping her port, and God bless her, patiently waiting for some semblance of an intelligent conversation to begin. Honora is gazing out the nearest window, with dreamy memories of flowerpower and the sweet face and voice of Marilyn McCoo. Forget me not took one sip of icewater and has fled to Rome. I can't stay in the cloakroom much longer, under the pretext of looking for kleenex and my pocket-dictionary; they're beginning to think I'm casing the joint.
Having said that, perhaps I could start the ball rolling, although probably not in any direction that KT was hoping for...
I can't really enter into any "Thomist" discussion, at least not at this point, but just to say that any discussion of body/spirit/soul or matter/space/time leads me to reflect on any and all things triune, which then leads me directly to the Holy Trinity, and the wonder of the mysteries therein. The Three in One, the Persons as Individuals, and their relationships to and with Each Other. And once I start reflecting on the Trinity, I am pretty much lost to everything else...
Gabrielle, I can't get the silly grin off my face. You've put a giggle in my soul with that description of the players here.
Honora, repeat after me: I am not a cat, I am not a cat.
FMN, if you've fled to Rome, it had better be to fetch some real food (soul-food, that is).
Now, to the matter at hand. I can barely pray a Gloria without becoming lost in that mystery myself, but if I do violence to myself, we can stay focused here. We'll have to get a lot holier and purer before the shepherds start wondering if our huts are on fire (that's a Franciscan reference, for you Carmel lovers), but we will tackle this to the best of our very limited abilities. Don't be afraid to fling something at us; everything is ground for discussion.
The inner life of the Trinity is a mystery we cannot grasp, but one we can certainly explore. This trichotomy is hard for us to get our minds around. But isn't all of creation God's revelation of Himself? And as that is the case, doesn't it make sense that so many things reflect that Trinitarian Communion?
The universe is space/time/matter. All three are inter-unified, interdependent. Things are not part space, part time, part matter, but all three at once; all three elements are required.
Space is three-dimensional.
Time is past/present/future.
Matter is unseen energy, various levels of motion, and is experienced in various phenomena.
And St Paul tells us we are body/soul/spirit (see 1 Thess 5:23). Edith Stein was concerned about the development of the whole person - body/soul/spirit. In this she saw a reflection of the Trinity as 'inner word,' 'source of life,' and 'selfless flow of spirit.'
We seem to ourselves to be physical beings animated by the Source of life, yet with powers of our own.
Ok, now, jump in, tiramisu or no...
A completely anonymous commentor stops grooming herself, stretches, yawns, and jumps right in..
My first personal thoughts of the Trinity came as I looked from my husband to our first babe. He and I, separate yet one, loved each other so much, that love itself was an entity, and love (life) sprang from love. I loved him, he loved me, we were a we, and so was she. Family. Separate, yet one.
My second thought of the Trinity came not long ago, tho' I hadn't thought of it as a Trinitarian poem at the time. Whether a visual thought, I don't know, but by the power of love, I was inside someone where it was all dark, warm, soft, safe and ultra-alive.. and it was our joyous secret. Again, the love between him and me, a third entity in itself, was what blessed the one he was smiling at. I couldn't help thinking of Adam.. perhaps he had carried Eve within him, and Eve carried a child within her. Three separate individuals, but one in being.
I would try to tie that into Edith Stein's "'inner word,' 'source of life,' and 'selfless flow of spirit,'" but I'm workin' on a new nap.
(I do think that every bit of true love, which is 'yes,' casts a Trinitarian shadow of Light.)
kt, if we look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (365-368), we see that it uses the same reference to St. Paul as you did, but states that Paul's use of the two words spirit and soul "does not introduce a duality into the soul." It seems to me, from what I have read elsewhere as well, that the Catholic Church is steadfast in maintaining that we are a dichotomy of body and soul/spirit (these two words being interchangeable), rather than a trichotomy of body, soul and spirit. That being said, and I say this next part very gingerly, what I have experienced in contemplative prayer suggests a trichotomy. So, I don't know where to go from there, except to say that perhaps we are a dichotomy with a Divine Spark, which makes us think we're a trichotomy? Oh dear. Heading back to the cloakroom now as swiftly as possible.
This is very similar to the dichotomy argument I gave the Protestant lad's trichotomy thoughts. After 3 hours of our plumbing and mining, he was leaning toward dichotomy, and I toward trichotomy!
Love,
H(yancinth Bucket)
kt, impressed that Gabrielle has pulled out the authoritative text of the Church, nods approvingly. But insists on playing 'devil's advocate.'
My kids are around and making noise and interrupting, so this will not be entirely coherent, but as we've set out the port and pastries and are ready for a d&m, I'd like to keep the discussion rolling. So here goes my distracted attempt at a re-launch -
"Body" is obvious. We are physical beings.
"Soul" is also fairly clear. We are spiritual beings and the Catechism tells us the soul signifies the 'spiritual principle' in man. It goes on to say that St. Paul's statement "does not introduce a duality into the soul." Surely, we agree with this - the soul is one, not two parts.
But the Catechism DOES say that "the spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the HEART, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God." Could this not be considered the third "part" of our trichotomy?
Is the mind the body? Of course not. Is the mind the soul? No, even though the faculties of the soul (memory and imagination, intellect, especially) are also faculties of the mind. And the mind is affected by the body's biochemistry. So it seems to be part of both, in a sense.
We might also consider this - is a person's holiness mitigated by his weakness of mind? No. Geniuses are not holier than the simplest among us (this gives us all hope, eh?). Nor does a psychological weakness prevent us from soaring to God. Even psychologically/emotionally weak individuals can reach great heights of holiness. This seems to indicate that the MIND or the HEART is somehow separate from the soul, though intimately connected to it.
You will often see the 'Theology of the Body' promoted as Pope John Paul II's "integrated vision of the human person - body, soul, and spirit." I already made mention of Edith Stein's similar vision, and her concern of the nurturing of all three.
Because we are physical beings, spiritual beings, and also PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL beings. And maybe these are clearer terms to use than the original. Maybe we should use the words body - soul - mind (but then we begin to sound like New Agers, and we are NOT going that route!). We won't get confused by those terms, will we?
I am stalling around for someone wiser than I to step in and shed light for us (I am groping, as you all are - I do not have the definitive answers, as if you had any doubt) but the particular person I have in mind is busy for the next few days. But perhaps he will help us yet. Meanwhile, we can keep nibbling and declaring NESCIO.
For reference, I offer this tidbit from JPII's Theology of the Body (this from one of the Wednesday audiences):
"This system of forces will undergo a radical change in the resurrection. Paul's words, which explicitly suggest this, cannot however be understood or interpreted in the spirit of dualistic anthropology, (1) which we will try to show in the continuation of our analysis. In fact, it will be suitable to dedicate yet another reflection to the anthropology of the resurrection in the light of the First Letter to the Corinthians.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE
1. "Paul takes absolutely no account of the Greek dichotomy between 'soul and body'.... The Apostle resorts to a kind of trichotomy in which the totality of man is body, soul and spirit.... All these terms are alive and the division itself has no fixed limit. He insists on the fact that body and soul are capable of being 'pneumatic,' spiritual" (B. Rigaux, Dieu l'a ressuscité. Exégèse et Théologie biblique [Gembloux: Duculot, 1973], pp. 406-408)."
Well, shoot. I wanted to play the role of the devil's advocate...and bringing the "heart" into it, well, that's a whole different ball game! But kt, you say, "surely we agree that the soul is one, not two parts". This, to me, is not self-evident. Even St. Teresa, a Doctor of the Church, and a Doctor of the Church "on prayer" wasn't comfortable trying to explain it. She spoke of "a higher part of the soul", etc., and experienced confusion in this area herself. In any case, I do like reflecting on what you're saying, and appreciate these links and sources you're providing. This is an area that I've been quietly reflecting on for quite a few years, and so even if I cannot add much to the discussion from a theological viewpoint, I appreciate the discussion!
I always thought Teresa's comment on the "higher part of the soul" referred to the will as being somewhat independent of the intellect and the memory. In other words, you can be loving God even while your intellect is busy or your memory darkened or some such.
But I dunno....
NESCIO
FMN, back from a whirlwind tour, rather than pilgrimage to Rome, dips her toe in the pool, and seeing that the water is warm enough, decides to jump in, even though she has nothing theological to offer...
I wanted to post a comment a few days ago, but for one reason or another it didn't work out. It was, very simply stated: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".
I've been thinking of a couple of things I heard about the Trinity a few years ago. They're too long to tell here and overly simplistic (they were used at catechism), but here they are: 1) After a long discussion about the nature of the mineral world, and the animal world, the priest spoke about the human world and the attributes of humanity, concluding that there are 6 billion people who possess the attributes of human nature. Then he took the discussion a level higher and spoke about the attributes of divine nature, stating very simply that there are three Persons who possess these attributes.
2) The trinity is similar to the power generators used to illuminate carnival stands. God is the generator, Jesus is the the light bulb and the Holy Spirit is the electricity that passes from the generator to the light bulb.
My next comment will be about the difference between the soul and the self.
Time to get out of the pool, my hands are all wrinkled from being in the water too long...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This is taken from "The Soul Friend, Spiritual Direction with Adults Abused as Children". (by Karen Ander Francis)Published by Innerwork Resources, 2001.
Some interesting concepts are expressed in this book and maybe they tie in with something? Here goes, diving in...hope it's not a belly flop...
"The soul is the core of aliveness that animates each human being. It carries the eternal memory of who we are (identity) and why we are here (destiny). Soul bridges the known and the unknown, holding the truth of inner authority and connecting inner divinity with daily life. The soul is the true nature of each individual, communicating interior reality to the conscious mind through images, symbols, dreams and metaphor. The soul's way of knowing is intuitive, and the true self desires relationships that are mutually satisfying and interdependent-beneficial to all involved. Congruence is essential to the soul and it takes risks in order to be authentic. The life of the soul is revealed in compassion.
In contrast, the self (sometimes the false self in the case of trauma victims), or the personality, communicates primarily through reason and logic. It relies on external information to affirm what is real and true. As you might imagine the soul and the ego can be frequently at odds, especially when change is about to occur. As the soul (matures) the person becomes more self reflective and genuine. At the same time the influence of the false self diminishes, permitting a healthy ego to emerge.
The more a person remembers who she is and why she is here, the more her inner and outer life match. As the soul becomes the primary agent for action, daily life is enlivened by integrity and authenticity, grounded in the truth. Meanwhile the healthy ego takes on the role of assistant who gives order to life."
Holy mackerel, you folks have been busy! Wonderful! And hey, welcome back from Rome, little FMN!! We missed you.
I, too, will await more finely split hairs, but I was just thinking of what Christ said were the two greatest commandments. The first one He mentions may be more revealing than at first pondering of it. (Even if I read something 1000 times for 30 years, I can be stuck at my "first" pondering.)
1 Lk 10
27 He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.
2 Mt 22
37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
3 Mk 12
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.
Love,
H
OOps, sorry -- that preceding "1" "2" and "3" are the numbers of the search results, not chapters.
H
FMN, other possible problems with the book you mention notwithstanding, the quote does highlight that there are, beyond our physical existence, elements of ourselves that are not always "in sync." The soul, being spiritual, can only be satisfied with truth and love. The mind can be at odds with the soul (in which case it is referred to in that text as the "false self" because it is not in line with truth) or can be brought into alignment with it. The mind uses logic and reason as its primary ways of knowing, whereas the soul, according to this, knows intuitively.
There is enough truth in these to say that they could be used to support the idea that the truth is inscribed in our very beings, the natural law written on our hearts. Our conscience knows right from wrong and knows there is something beyond the physical. We bring our minds to bear on this truth within us, and sometimes get it right and sometimes not. Without having the Truth revealed to us, we might be worshipping the sun and sacrificing each other to the gods we believe make things go.
This just confirms for me that we are body, soul, and ...more.
Honora has cited the precise verses I had in mind. Christ Himself suggested there is more to us than body and soul. We are heart and mind, which confirm the soul's movements to our consciousness, feed the soul, and yet are moved by the movements of grace within the soul as well.
If we are to love God with our whole heart, and whole soul, and with all our strength, and with all our mind... well, Christ didn't leave anything for us, did He? If we hear the word "strength" as meaning our bodies, and the word "soul" as meaning, well, our souls, and our "heart" as our will (because love is in the will, emotional involvement notwithstanding, though this is a wonderful addition when we are allowed to experience it), that still leaves our "mind," which somehow bridges all of these, informs these, makes sense of these, and is yet not any of these.
Which brings us back to the terms I suggested last: body, soul, mind/heart.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are integrated beings - that all these facets must be brought together and focused in the same direction before we can be interiorly free. As long as any part of us is reaching for something other than Love, we are not yet whole and free (though we may be "saved").
kt smiles expectantly around the room, confident that the Holy Spirit will stir to sense the meager ingredients offered for this intellectual stew, remembering Christ's promise to show up wherever two or three gather in His Name. And in the presence of Incarnate Truth, even this impoverished but well-intentioned group will learn something worth knowing.
yes, KT, I agree that there are other possible problems with the book I quote, but the point was the integration of all the facets.
You say "Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are integrated beings", but maybe you meant that we should ideally be integrated beings. In reality, the facets of the body/soul/mind-heart are usually not integrated. When they are, when we are "true to our souls" we can rise above ourselves and be truly free and there is no doubt that we are reaching for love (sanctity).
However, for me the greatest source of hope is that we ARE saved even though we don't make the grade...
I don't think the will is in the heart. I think the heart is empathy and compassion, (not sentimentalism, which comes and goes with a blink of an eye and a teardrop shed). It means sharing in His passion, and in particular sharing it with His little ones who are suffering, because that is where He is. And it means "filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions..."
I'm not sure where we're trying to go.. but I recall husband's exceedingly devout Aunt Jean. It was one of the saddest days for us when she forgot what the Eucharist is, and tried to put it into her purse "for later". This woman had absolutely lived for the Lord,her whole life was given to Him and to others.
Here she was, now, quite dis-integrated. Her strength was gone, her will was gone, and her mind was all but gone. What did that leave which might know the Lord? Her soul only. Like Lazarus' (which was where?) when it was called back and re-integrated with his body and mind. A mystery He owns.
I think I just went off on a tangent.
No, not a tangent, Honora. You've concretely illustrated the point I tried to make earlier - that the soul is NOT the mind, but the mind does have a connection with the soul. But if the mind does not work, is the soul less holy? No. Aunt Jean did not lose her holiness when she stopped understanding.
As for whether the will is the heart, or the heart is compassion, or feelings have any part, or whether the overflowing abundance of God makes us feel His consolations (all questions prompted by fmn's insightful disagreement), I do not know.
Is compassion less compassionate if it does not FEEL? And if compassion is still compassion if there is no emotional element, isn't it just LOVE at work? In which case, the will (wherein love resides, though it does not remain within its borders, and is not FELT there) is in the heart.
Still playing devil's advocate. I do not have an answer key, class.
Good point, KT. But is the soul of a mentally deranged murderer any less holy than that of a sweet old lady with alzhiemer's but who has been very religious all her life?
I just thought I'd throw that in...what I really want to say is another word on compassion...Compassion MUST feel, if it is truly compassion. In modern italian, the verb"compatire" means to "pity or sympathize" , but "compassione" , the noun, takes on a fuller meaning of "to suffer with" (from Latin com- + pati to bear, suffer with). I may be splitting hairs but it seems to be the difference between "feeling sorry for someone" and "rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty for someone's sake". And even here, although you use your mind and heart together to make the decision, if you stop to give your rational mind a moment to take over, it would hold you back, wouldn't it?
Humanity is incredible, isn't it?
Compassion (com passion) means to "suffer with," right? I suffered with my mother for decades, on call daily, and at times felt nothing but a drive to escape into life.
No doubt our poor Jesus felt the same way a time or two (not to even mention my poor husband and kids), but "Yes," always got in the way.
Love has a life of its own. God proved it once again through Noah.
Yes, Honora, this is what I meant - that to "suffer with" does not necessarily involve "feeling for" someone, in an emotional sense. It means loving them, suffering with them, reaching out to them, even when we do not feel particularly sympathetic. Our feelings cannot remain involved over long periods of time. Our bodies grow weary, our minds grow weary, but love keeps giving in spite of our weariness.
If your compassionate heart has impelled you to join Mother Teresa's sisters in Tijuana, you are undoubtedly filled with love that has some emotional component. But on your 1568th day in the dusty heat treating ornery addicts, you may not be buoyed up by your emotions. But that does not mean you want to leave. You remain and you keep giving because you still love.
I am belaboring a point because my body is weary and my mind is weary...
Back to the point. Which was... what? Lady K briefly considers making use of Gabrielles's 'I'm still in the coatroom looking for Kleenex' ruse while she re-engages her gray matter with some salient point. But no. Her m.o. has always been to plow forward, so forward she plows, reaching decisively for some of those profiteroles fmn brought from Rome. Then she clears her throat and grins contentedly.
Yes, the point we are probing (and we should not push a point from the sharp end, but here we are) is whether we are more than body and soul, and if so, what is that elusive third element? Is it the mind? Is it the heart? Is it our emotional self? Is it our psychological self? Is it our reason and logic?
We seem to agree that the body-soul dichotomy falls a bit short of explaining us to ourselves. But is the answer in a Pauline trichotomy? Or is it only in allowing for the different powers of the soul?
Perhaps we need more research and references. And if my eastern Father might venture into this pastry party, he might suggest a direction (I'm sure the direction would be EAST, but I mean specific Eastern Fathers perhaps). And if Fr. Anonymous Caterpillar finds a minute or ten to get through all this preliminary, he might also put us all in our places. A few other wise ones have stuck their noses in the door here, and I hope that the Spirit will move them to share their thoughts with us.
Otherwise, we are left to ourselves; I am enjoying thinking out loud with you all, and I could continue this indefinitely, but if there is something authoritative out there, I would like to get my mind around it. Our minds chew better when they have something to bite onto, eh?
Oh, and I forgot -
What about Hebrews 4:12?
Who remembers their Plato? Wasn't there something about the soul being an intermediary between the purely physical body and the purely spiritual mind? Not that Plato was right, but I've got that nagging the back of my brain...
What is the "thing" that differentiates us from our dogs? That is the "third element" of our trichotomy, I think.
Dogs have bodies. Dogs have souls. What don't dogs have?
And is Mary's Magnificat, in which she says that her "soul" magnifies the Lord and her "spirit" rejoices in God her Savior only some Hebraistic semantic?
kt is wondering what is inside these profiteroles anyway...
Well, we seem to be thinking with the best thinkers anyway. I tripped over this at
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/scaldecott16.htm :
A trinitarian anthropology can also help to illuminate our understanding of the human person. Henri de Lubac has traced the rise and fall in Christian tradition of the idea that man is composed not simply of body and soul, but of body, soul and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23) . Of course, in much of the tradition the soul and spirit are treated as one, yet traces of the distinction remain, whether in St Teresa's reference to the 'spirit of the soul' or (arguably) in St Thomas's intellectus agens. It is certainly present in The Philokalia, where the Eastern Fathers contrast the nous dwelling in the depths of the soul with the dianoia or discursive reason. Jean Borella also writes of this topic of the 'human ternary', making clear its roots in the Old Testament. For the philosopher who became John Paul II, the 'third' in question seems to be that 'reflexive' consciousness by which we experience the drama of human existence as acting persons.
The spirit is the 'place' within us where we receive the kiss of life from our Creator (Gen. 2:7), and where God makes his throne in the saints. Thus when St Paul appeals to the Romans (Rom. 12:1-2) to present their bodies as a living sacrifice in 'spiritual worship' (logike latreia), he immediately continues: 'Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind [nous], that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.' Paul implies that the 'logic' of Christian worship – a logic of self-sacrifice that conforms us to the will of God – corresponds to a new intelligence.
As a natural faculty, even before it is 'supernaturalized' by the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit at baptism, the spiritual intellect or apex mentis is the organ of metaphysics. It is recognized in all religious traditions, and the knowledge of universals which it gives (however distorted and confused after the Fall) is part of the common heritage of humanity. This is the faculty which perceives all things as symbolic in their very nature; that is, as expressing the attributes of God. Thus Hans Urs von Balthasar writes: "The whole world of images that surrounds us is a single field of significations. Every flower we see is an expression, every landscape has its significance, every human or animal face speaks its wordless language. It would be utterly futile to attempt a transposition of this language into concepts…. This expressive language is addressed primarily, not to conceptual thought, but to the kind of intelligence that perceptively reads the gestalt of things."
Whatever name we give it ('intellect', 'imagination' or 'heart'), what Balthasar has in mind here is a faculty that transcends yet at the same time unifies feeling and thought, body and soul, sensation and rationality. It is the kind of intelligence that sees the meaning in things, that reads them as symbols – symbols, not of something else, but of themselves as they stand in God. Thus in the spiritual intelligence of man, being is unveiled in its true nature as a gift bearing within it the love of the Giver. Ultimately things – just as truly as persons – can be truly known only through love. In other words, a thing can be known only when it draws us out of ourselves, when we grasp it in its otherness from ourselves, in the meaning which it possesses as beauty, uniting truth and goodness. This kind of knowledge is justly called sobria ebrietas ('drunken' sobriety) because it is ecstatic, rapturous, although at the same time measured, ordered, dignified. It is an encounter with the Other which takes the heart out of itself and places it in another centre, which is ultimately the very centre of being, where all things are received from God.
There's something to chew on...
I think I don't need a definitive answer for anything.. I just need Olive Eyes near, and in every meanwhile, others'. And the ocean.
But in keeping with this mystery which may be a matter of semantics, What is it that bilocates? Not the mind, not the body, and not the soul.. or is it?
Gosh, I always miss all the fun when I'm at work...
I know it's late, but can I just think out loud (so to speak) before I go to bed. That Divine Spark I mentioned in an earlier comment is still on my mind. It seems to me that perhaps all this has something to do with the created part of us versus the uncreated.
Our soul, if I understand correctly, is "created"; it is created at the moment of conception. The Divine Spark, the Indwelling, is God, the Holy Trinity, uncreated. And so is it not this uncreated part of us, which we cannot grasp, that makes us feel we are a trichotomy? Is it not this Divine Indwelling that is that "third" essence which operates within us?
I've been thinking about the way all of this might relate to spiritual states as well as to degrees of contemplation:
1)Purgative/body/created/matter/theoria physike/natural contemplation
2)Illuminative/soul/created/space/ oikonomia/contemplation of the logoi of things
3)unitive/Divine Indwelling/uncreated/time/theologia/contemplation of the Trinity without form or image.
Every which way I go about this, I end up with the Holy Trinity. So could it not be the Holy Trinity itself which completes us as triune beings?
When mentioned this way, Gabrielle -- purgative, illuminative, and unitive -- I'm put in mind of confession, absolution, and reconciliation.
And your "Is it not this Divine Indwelling that is that 'third' essence which operates within us?"
makes sense: God made us in His image and likeness
This has also come to mind - that Jesus, while on earth, was fully human and fully divine. Jesus took on our human nature in the Incarnation, therefore, prior to that, he was Divine only.
In the Holy Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus fully: body, blood, soul and divinity. So since the Catholic church tells us that man is a dichotomy, Jesus' human nature must consist of (body & blood) and (soul). That leaves only the Divine. We are made in His image, (body & blood) and (soul) plus divinity (Divine Indwelling, the Spark of the Divine).
More threes.
Luke 2:51 - "He grew in wisdom, and age, and grace..."
The "three conversions" of the spiritual life.
The three elements necessary for a valid sacrament (matter, form, intention).
Three forms of penance (prayer, fasting, almsgiving).
Three elements necessary to Confession (Catechism 1491: The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest's absolution. The penitent's acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.).
In each of these, there seems to be a physical element, a spiritual element, and an element involving the will (or our conscious intentions or choice).
So, we are physical created beings, animated by a spiritual created element, and filled with the Divine Presence?
And our reflexive nature is able to know this Presence and bring Its Truth to bear on the actions and intentions of our mind and body?
How else could we live for love, die for love, love beyond death?
Hi Theresa. It's funny how differently folks come up. I came from the time when children themselves were to be more seen than heard, while their far more important souls were Heard (if they were in a state of grace) but not seen. That came alongside the (pre-Dianetics) "You're awful!" programming, and it was all before and beside the losses and illnesses of life that came regularly. When we look at the suffering needs in our Books of Intentions of lifelong Catholics, we see clearly that there isn't simply a letting go of self as an Rx, least of all as an easy Rx.. everything of us is involved, so everything must be healed. Only the Divine Mercy sees all of what is what, and rights it in His time, and just as in the Bible, some preparaton is needed.
And if the years of suffering and healing and conversion has brought us, lament by lament, gasp by gasp, amputation by amputation, to where we opt to love with all our everything and ask Him for that gift -- which glorifies His sacrifice -- it is all worth it.
If we could self-heal or self-sanctify, there'd be no martyrs' blood. But perhaps I misunderstand what you've said.
Peter denied Christ three times. Jesus asked him three times "do you love me?"
When you "suffer with" someone you are not only helping them carry their cross. In a certain sense their cross becomes yours, (as if your own isn't heavy enough). When I say that compassion MUST feel, I'm not talking about sentimentalism.
To me, the opposite of compassion is indifference. H, I don't think you were indifferent to your mother's needs even if you might have wanted to escape. The cyrenean didn't want to get involved, he was obliged to. He suffered with Christ, which meant he consquently had his own suffering to deal with. I do believe he felt a few lashes of the whips as he helped Jesus drag the cross up to Golgotha. I don't think he did it initially out of love, but maybe as they went along, he had a change of heart.
Kt, profiteroles are a round cream puff filled with whipped cream and covered with chocolate....mmmmmmmmm
By the way, a portion of profiteroles is rigorously three per serving...maybe because they are absolutely heavenly?
And there are three scoops of raisins in a package of Kellogg's Raisin Bran. It must mean something. Surely.
No, I'm wrong. It's two scoops. Two scoops. There you go.
kt, one eyebrow raised, wonders anew WHAT is in those profiteroles? Surely, they are the cause of this shenanigans... Or maybe the tiramisu is overloaded with liquer?
Tess, I might caution you to pause before indulging in the pastries. They seem to have made us all wonky here...
Seriously, this discussion is edifying and fascinating, though we all readily admit that the answers are beyond our immediate grasp. Still, it is worth our energies, and I am still pondering, in between teaching and meal prep and laundry.
Tess has brought me back full circle, to the very reason I first began to question the nature of man, whether dichotomy or trichotomy - it was when I began to write the Suffering book and wondered how it is that some people become whole and free, and others find it impossible to reach that place.
But perhaps this is a whole new discussion, and should not be pursued further here, for fear of dragging this combox past 100 comments, which would be overwhelming. Who is willing to rephrase the question to take the discussion off into a slightly new direction, but one which will continue to probe the nature of our being?
Even the Pope is chiming in on this discussion ;-)
Did any of you hear this from his Wednesday audience?
"Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Today, as in the two preceding catecheses, we again speak of St. Paul and his thought. We are before a giant, not only at the level of the concrete apostolate, but also at the level of theological doctrine, extraordinarily profound and stimulating. After having meditated on the last occasion on what Paul wrote about the central place that Jesus Christ occupies in our life of faith, let us see today what he tells us about the Holy Spirit and his presence in us, as in this also the Apostle has something very important to teach us.
We know what St. Luke tells us about the Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles, on describing the event of Pentecost. The Pentecostal Spirit imprints a vigorous drive to assume the commitment of the mission to witness the Gospel on the paths of the world. In fact, the book of the Acts of the Apostles recounts a whole series of missions carried out by the apostles, first in Samaria, then in the strip of the coast of Palestine, as I already recalled in a previous Wednesday meeting.
However, in his letters St. Paul also speaks to us of the Spirit from another point of view. He does not limit himself to illustrate only the dynamic and operative dimension of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, but also analyzes his presence in the life of the Christian, whose identity is marked by him. That is, Paul reflects on the Spirit showing his influence not only on the Christian's action but over his very being. In fact, he says that the Spirit of God dwells in us (cf. Romans 8:9; 2 Corinthians 3:16) and that "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Galatians 4:6).
For Paul, therefore, the Spirit penetrates our most intimate personal depths. In this connection, these words have a relevant meaning: "For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death. ... For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, 'Abba, Father!'" (Romans 8:2,15), given that we are children, we can call God "Father."
We can see, therefore, that the Christian, even before acting, already possesses a rich and fecund interiority, which has been given to him in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, an interiority that introduces him in an objective and original relationship of being a child of God. Our great dignity consists in this: We are not only images but children of God. And this constitutes an invitation to live our filiation, to be ever more conscious that we are adoptive children in the great family of God. It is an invitation to transform this objective gift into a subjective reality, determinant for our way of thinking, for our acting, for our being. God considers us his children, as he has raised us to a similar, though not equal, dignity to that of Jesus himself, the only one who is fully true Son. In him we are given or restored the filial condition and trusting freedom in our relationship with the Father.
In this way we discover that for the Christian the Spirit is no longer the "Spirit of God," as is usually said in the Old Testament and as Christian language repeats (cf. Genesis 41:38; Exodus 31:3; 1 Corinthians 2:11.12; Philippians 3:3; etc.). And he is not just a "Holy Spirit," understood generically according to the manner of expression of the Old Testament (cf. Isaiah 63:10,11; Psalm 51:13), and of Judaism itself in its writings (Qumran, rabbinism).
Proper to the Christian faith is the confession of a participation of this Spirit in the Risen Lord, who himself has become the "life-giving Spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45). Precisely for this reason St. Paul speaks directly of the "Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9), of the "Spirit of his Son" (Galatians 4:6) or of the "Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:19). It seems as if he wished to say that not only God the Father is visible in the Son (cf. John 14:9), but also the Spirit of God is expressed in the life and action of the crucified and risen Lord.
Paul also teaches us another important thing. He says that there can be no authentic prayer without the presence of the Spirit in us. In fact, he writes: "In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God's will" (Romans 8:26-27).
It is as if saying that the Holy Spirit, namely, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, becomes the soul of our soul, the most secret part of our being, from which rises incessantly to God a movement of prayer, of which we cannot even specify the terms. The Spirit, in fact, ever awake in us, makes up for our deficiencies and offers the Father our adoration, along with our most profound aspirations. Obviously this calls for a level of great vital communion with the Spirit. It is an invitation to be ever more sensitive, more attentive to this presence of the Spirit in us, to transform it into prayer, to experience this presence and to learn in this way to pray, to speak with the Father as children in the Holy Spirit.
There is, moreover, another typical aspect of the Spirit that St. Paul has taught us: his relationship with love. The Apostle writes thus: "Hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us" (Romans 5:5). In my encyclical letter, "Deus Caritas Est," I quoted a highly eloquent phrase of St. Augustine: "If you see charity, you see the Trinity" (No. 19), and then I explained: "The Spirit […] is that interior power which harmonizes their [believers'] hearts with Christ's heart and moves them to love their brethren as Christ loved them" (ibid.).
The Spirit places us in the very rhythm of divine life, which is a life of love, making us participate personally in the relations that exist between the Father and the Son. It is highly significant that Paul, when he enumerates the different elements of the fruits of the Spirit, mentions love first: " the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace," etc. (Galatians 5:22). And, given that by definition love unifies, the Spirit is above all creator of communion within the Christian community, as we say at the beginning of the Mass with an expression of St. Paul "... the communion of the Holy Spirit [namely, that by which he acts] be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:13).
However, moreover, it is also true that the Spirit stimulates us to engage in relationships of charity with all people. In this way, when we love we make room for the Spirit, we allow him to express himself in fullness. Thus we understand the reason why Paul unites these two exhortations on the same page of the Letter to the Romans: "Be fervent in spirit" and "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" (Romans 12:11,17).
Finally, according to St. Paul, the Spirit is a generous pledge which God himself has given us ahead of time and at the same time guarantee of our future inheritance (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14). Thus let us learn from Paul that the action of the Spirit orients our life toward the great values of love, joy, communion and hope. It is for us to experience this every day, seconding the interior suggestions of the Spirit, helped in discernment by the illuminating guidance of the Apostle."
That's not the point of this discussion, but surely if whether we were dichotomy or trichomoty was important for our salvation, the Church would've made that clear.
One may safely joke about one's self, but making an inclusive crack in nearly every post about our alleged inability to think, especially without a priest around, is not the best way to "discuss" things, Kathryn. All of us have kids around, are surrounded by noise, have 100 things going on, as well as work -- but we honestly and heavily contributed in goodwill, and I found most of it stunning. Thank you, ladies.
Peace.
It IS stunning, Honora. Did I offend in some way? Forgive me if so. My suggestion that we might benefit from more input (not necessarily ecclesiastical, but that would be good) sprang only from the fact that we are generously pondering profound things, and that if greater minds than ours have already done so, it would be helpful to tap into their thoughts, only I am not sure where to look. Hence, if my more knowledgeable friends could point us in the right direction, I'd be grateful.
I have never doubted any of our abilities to think. But my own expression (especially of things metaphysical, which requires a certain precision) does get muddled with small people talking to me while I attempt to type :-/
And if you are referring to my poke at the profiteroles making us wonky, that was more regarding my slamming out five comments in 30 minutes, and the idea that profiteroles are eaten in threes because they're heavenly, and the Raisin Bran comment, which had me laughing out loud.
Rest assured, if I did not believe I was sharing this space with people whose hearts and minds I respect deeply, I'd have quit this LOOOONG ago.
That said, you are right that it is not necessary for our salvation to know whether we are dichotomy or trichotomy. All that is necessary is love.
And the only reason I love this conversation is because I love the people here. So I hope we can remain together here a bit longer.
I often wonder about spontaneous commenting and the "art" of blogging itself. In writing these comments or posts, we are exposing a part of ourselves, and it is usually done on the spur of the moment, with a zillion other things going on. We may not realize that what we are writing might be misunderstood and that the use of one term rather than another might give the reader a whole different impression. When you commented about problems regarding the book I quoted I thought to myself "so, it's not written by a Catholic. Does that matter? When a Catholic organization comes up with a book about spiritual healing from childhood sexual abuse, I'll quote that!" But it really didn't matter because I'm mature enough to discern what is useful and edifying, even if it were to come from budhism or islamic sources, because truth is truth.
A few weeks ago when I received a letter from a woman who had been abused by her father when she was little. I answered with what I thought was a beautiful letter- so filled with love and hope that it practically floated. She wrote back saying that my letter only made her feel frustrated and angry because she was in the pits of desperation and it was of no use to her. That episode reminded me that I need to be careful, and I felt hurt by her reaction, but I honestly can't blame her. When I re-read the letter I realized that I must have come across as a know it all, as someone who was looking down on her. That's not the case, but that's what she must have felt and I'm sorry it happened...
Ladies, we don't really know each other, we can't mediate our words with facial expression or tone of voice so we have to admit and keep in mind that that is one of the limits of this medium.
So let's move forward and take things one comment at a time...:-)
Now pass the profiteroles please...
With her brow furrowed in the deep lines of thought and empathy that are becoming permanent and often make her children wonder if she is angry, kt considers the discussion over the last 24 hours and wonders if she is just a blustering idiot. But no matter; she is among good people who will forgive her idiocy, and who are willing to plow forward with her regardless of how hard she inadvertantly steps on their toes. So she passes the profiteroles to fmn, takes a new breath and proceeds.
fmn, thanx for sharing that story about the letter; this has happened to me as well. All we can do is what seems best, and if we are well-intentioned, we can only hope that God will use us to reach others. But if our words fall short or we do not accurately express what we feel, what more can we expect? We are limited and easily misunderstood. We can only hope to remain sincere and generous even though we sometimes trip, and even spill port on someone's good blouse. (H, can I offer you this Tide pen, to try to remove that spill?)
And you are right, truth is truth, and the quote you shared was true(and honestly, I only made reference to the presence of some difficulties in that book so that others would not think we were endorsing its message in its entirety, which has happened in the past).
Knowing the goodwill of these good people, I'm confident we can continue the conversation and continue to learn something from one another.
Now where were we?....
:-) Ready when you are...
It was really nice to carry the discussion's thoughts around with me, to let it flower and open, to contemplate Him more widely. But in my presence online, I am trying to live deeply within what still exists in real time, which I must make a return to, considering that eyes and arms are involved which works so much better --for me and all who encounter me, there.
God bless, and may you all soar.
Well, I really appreciate discussions like this in general, and certainly this one in particular, having been wondering about this very thing for quite a few years now. I truly feel blessed to have found you all, because I respect your opinions, and certainly wouldn't hesitate to ask any of you about anything that was unclear to me. I know if you didn't know, you would say so, and that in itself inspires confidence. So thank you all.
In answer to one of Honora's questions earlier, I remember hearing that one time, when asked what bilocation was, Padré Pio responded, "It is a prolongation of the personality." I've never forgotten that. I've never understood it, but I've never forgotten it...
"a prolongation of personality."
That is a fascinating phrase.
Thanks Tess
I've been in contact with this woman over the last few months. She has responded that way more than once. She disappears for a while and then she comes back-. My responses have always been the same (I re-read them just over the past couple of days) even though they were written in different moments and situations. It has helped me realize that there is a certain consistency in what I believe, how I believe and how I express this belief. It's amazing considering that for a very long time I had turned my back on God. In fact I now realize that I would never be able to formulate any other reply to a letter of desperation. The reader may accept or not, but it is a seed. It was planted in her years ago in baptism. I just watered it a little, but it may even be too late.
All of this comes from my personal experience of abuse and the spiritual, psychological and emotional path that I have walked (stumbled on, fallen from, dragged myself back to, etc) through the years.
My dream as an adolescent was to somehow help someone who has been through the same ordeal, but these things take a long time. In my own small way I believe I am being led to a more concrete way of doing this, and maybe one day my dream will come true.
Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence!
Post a Comment
<< Home