Fridays with the Saints: Mary

August 8, 2008

Since the Assumption is coming up, and since I live in America, where the Protestant Reformation is strongest, I felt it necessary to quote some of the early Fathers on the Immaculate Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Here are the greatest hits, so to speak. Thank you to Catholic Answers for the quotes:

Irenaeus:

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus:

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker:

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

Peter of Alexandria:

“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305]).

“We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God” (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius:

“While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid., 14).

Cyril of Jerusalem:

“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (Catechetical Lectures 10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian:

“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God” (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius:

“The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Epiphanius of Salamis:

“Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan (Terry’s Patron Saint):

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (The Virgins 2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianzen:

“If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead” (Letter to Cledonius the Priest 101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome:

“As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing” (Against Rufinus 2:10 [A.D. 401]).

“Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God” (Commentaries on Isaiah 3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia:

“When, therefore, they ask, ‘Is Mary mother of man or Mother of God?’ we answer, ‘Both!’ The one by the very nature of what was done and the other by relation” (The Incarnation 15 [A.D. 405]).

Cyril of Alexandria:

“I have been amazed that some are utterly in doubt as to whether or not the holy Virgin is able to be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how should the holy Virgin who bore him not be the Mother of God?” (Letter to the Monks of Egypt 1 [A.D. 427]).

“This expression, however, ‘the Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14], can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin ‘the Mother of God,’ not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word, being personally united, is said to be born according to the flesh” (First Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

“And since the holy Virgin corporeally brought forth God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh” (Third Letter to Nestorius [A.D. 430]).

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]: let him be anathema” (ibid.).

John Cassian:

“Now, you heretic, you say (whoever you are who deny that God was born of the Virgin), that Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be called the Mother of God, but the Mother only of Christ and not of God—for no one, you say, gives birth to one older than herself. And concerning this utterly stupid argument . . . let us prove by divine testimonies both that Christ is God and that Mary is the Mother of God” (On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius 2:2 [A.D. 429]).

“You cannot then help admitting that the grace comes from God. It is God, then, who has given it. But it has been given by our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is God. But if he is God, as he certainly is, then she who bore God is the Mother of God” (ibid., 2:5).

Council of Ephesus:

“We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her” (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

Vincent of Lerins:

“Nestorius, whose disease is of an opposite kind, while pretending that he holds two distinct substances in Christ, brings in of a sudden two persons, and with unheard-of wickedness would have two sons of God, two Christs,—one, God, the other, man; one, begotten of his Father, the other, born of his mother. For which reason he maintains that Saint Mary ought to be called, not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ” (The Notebooks 12[35] [A.D. 434]).

Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus

Fridays with the Saints 6: The Pauline Year

July 24, 2008

As those of you who keep up with the Vatican know that Pope Benedict XVI has declared this to be the Pauline Year. You can read all about it at this site. There is also more information here. Or here. Or here, for a news brief about the year. Finally, you can visit the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which of course, has nothing concerning the Pauline Year.

I consider it interesting that the Pauline Year was declared right as I begin my blog, the purpose of which is to evangelize and encourage the faithful, detail my efforts (among the pagans, if you will, of Yale), and reach out to those who are not yet part of the Church. Just as interesting, is that I had originally considered St. Paul as a confirmation name (and decided upon Ambrose).

In a sense, it seems fitting to place this blog under the patronage of St. Paul the Apostle, and so I shall.

That being said, I am quoting the full passage provide for us from St. Paul in today’s Office of Readings (in the Liturgy of the Hours). I think he sufficiently summarizes his goal and mission, and provides for us the to true meaning of hope:

2 Corinthians, 4:5-18
“It is not ourselves we preach but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts, that we in turn might make known the glory of God shining on the face of Christ.

This treasure we possess in earthen vessels to make it clear that its surpassing power comes from God and not from us. We are afflicted in every way possible, but we are not crushed; full of doubts, we never despair. We are persecuted but never abandoned; we are struck down but never destroyed. Continually we carry about in our bodies the dying of Jesus, so that in our bodies the life of Jesus may also be revealed. While we live we are constantly being delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be revealed in our mortal flesh. Death is at work in us, but life in you.

We have that spirit of faith of which the Scripture says, “Because I believed, I spoke out.” We believe and so we speak, knowing that he who raised up the Lord Jesus will raise us up along with Jesus and place both us and you in his presence. Indeed, everything is ordered to your benefit, so that the grace bestowed in abundance may bring greater glory to God because they who give thanks are many.

We do not lose heart, because our inner being is renewed each day even though our body is begin destroyed at the same time. The present burden of our trial is light enough, and earns for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. We do not fix our gaze on what is seen but on what is unseen. What is seen is transitory; what is unseen lasts forever.”
-St. Paul

St. Paul, pray for us. Amen.

Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus

Friday’s with the Saints 5: The Liturgy of the Hours Edition

July 18, 2008

This edition of FWTS will be a little different.

I have wanted to pray the Liturgy of the Hours (LOTH) for quite a while now. I had made it a point of praying the Evening Prayer, or Vespers, througout Lent. Once Lent was over, my commitment to praying even this hour went south. I’ve always considered picking up the books “Christian Prayer,” or “Shorter Christian Prayer,” but always managed to convince myself that I wouldn’t keep it up, or that it wasn’t worth the effort.

Some of my desire to pray the hours comes from the movie Into Great Silence, and listening to the Night Prayer of the Cistercian Monks of Stift Heiligenkreuz. One can hear it in their chanting, and in their words. The LOTH is timeless; its our continuous (ceaseless) cycle of praise and worship to God. Somewhere in the world at this moment, a priest or religious is reciting one of the hours of the Liturgy. More, this is a cycle has seen the rise of kings, the fall of nations, and has faithfully marked the hours of each days, for hundreds of years. Its potency and power are remarkable.

Of course, praying the LOTH has always been assigned to religious and priests. Vatican II changed this by encouraging the lay faithful to pray the hours. Catholic publishers have made it much easier for lay faithful to pray the hours, not only by having the breviary in the vernacular, but by making it widely available to the lay faithful through the books mentioned above, as well as in the full four-volume set.

So it was little surprise to me when, while wandering through my local Catholic bookstore this past Monday, I found myself looking through the breviary (yet again). Finally, I just decided to pick up the volume for this part of liturgical time (Ordinary time). Once picking up a St. Joseph’s guide to praying the hours (namely, it gives page numbers for all the different prayers), I was off and away. So far, in the week I’ve spent with the breviary I have managed to keep up with most of the hours-Morning Prayer, the Office of Readings, Evening Prayer, and Night Prayer. I’ve even added Daytime Prayer.

Praying the liturgy has proven to be very helpful. In fact, I began today with quite a bit of annoyance, which I found was nearly gone by the time I was finished reading the Office of Readings. This makes sense; the LOTH is the office prayer of the Church (the only liturgy we can really conduct by ourselves, in fact). to summarize with Thomas Merton, who isn’t a saint but should be (in a long quote, but it really summarizes the power of the Liturgy of the Hours):

“I did not even reflect how the Breviary, the Canonical Office, was the most powerful and effective prayer I could possibly have chosen, since it is the prayer of the whole Church, and concentrates in itself all the power of the Church’s impetration, centered around the infinitely mighty Sacrifice of the Mass-the jewel of which the rest of the Liturgy is the setting: the soul which is the life of the whole Liturgy and of all the Sacramentals.”

“But yet I would be able, after not so many months, to realize what was there, in the peace and the strength that were growing in me through my constant immersion in this tremendous, unending cycle of prayer, ever renewing its vitality, its inexhaustible sweet energies, from hour to hours, from season to season in its returning round. And I, drawn into that atmosphere, into that deep, vast universal movement of vitalizing prayer, which is Christ praying in men to His Father, could not help but begin at last to live, and to know that I was alive.

1 Comment | Liturgy, Theology | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus

Fridays with the Saints 4

July 11, 2008

Because of our good Lord’s tender love to all those who shall be saved, he quickly comforts them saying, “The cause of all this pain is sin. But all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.” These words were said so kindly and without a hint of blame. So how unjust it would be for me to blame God for allowing my sin when he does not blame me for falling into it.
– Blessed Julian of Norwich

For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible,—even Jesus Christ our Lord.
–Saint Ignatius of Antioch

He who communicates most frequently will be freest from sin, and will make farthest progress in Divine Love.
–Saint Alphonsus Liguori

I’ve decided to look at sin briefly, and more specifically, our recourse from sin.

First, we should note, as St. Ignatius does, that there is a tendency for some people to profess Christianity, but who don’t practice with their bodies what they preach with their mouths. This goes back to our quote from St. Francis, that we should preach the Gospel at all times, using words when necessary. Of course, Francis wasn’t saying that words were unnecessary, but he realized how hollow words can become, when Christian action is missing.

To this end, just as some folks don’t live the Christian life, some people find ways to defer blame. There seem to be too many people who look at their lives, see the sins they commit frequently, and choose to blame God. “God,” they say, “you’re in control of my life, and yet see where you lead me? How can I not sin! Its your fault.” Of course, this is nonsense. God is Being, and sin is non-being. Sin is the result of a conscious choice on our end. Sin, rightly speaking, is our fault. The pain and suffering in the word, the hurt and frustration we experience, is a result of our own inward sinfulness, and the way that sinfulness has influenced the world. It started with Original Sin, and has worked its way down to us.

If our will is so sick, how do we fix it? As St. Ignatius states, we have recourse to the “Divine” Doctor. Christ, through his death and resurrection, becomes the physician who mends our broke will, who gives us strength and who grants us access to sanctification (through grace, by the Holy Spirit).

Our access to this grace and primary “medicine”, as St. Liguori states, is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. More than that, its through the Eucharist that we achieve the most intimate union with Christ. Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X encouraged daily Communion. Daily, or frequent, Communion requires constant vigilance over one’s actions and thoughts, and refines the conscience through examination. Frequent Communion also encourages frequent Confession. Freqeunt examination of conscience and Confession should open our eyes to the fact that we, and not God, are ultimately responsible for our sin.

Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus

Fridays with the Saints 3

July 3, 2008

This weeks installment of “FwtS” brings us to the Eucharist, and one quote that isn’t by a saint, per se. Its a long post, but hopefully a worthwhile one.

First, from John 6:

“48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
-Jesus

What is Jesus trying to say? I’ve read one interpretation that equates the “bread from heaven” symbolically. Namely, that what Jesus was trying to say is that those people who feed upon his teachings (and, you know, say that magic spell) will have eternal life, and that like the manna from heaven, its a gift from God. Of course, this makes more sense in terms of an actual meal. While the Jews ate the manna from Heaven, and died, so we who partake of the real manna from Heaven, i.e. the Eucharist, will live eternally. How? Those who take the Eucharist, generally speaking, are properly disposed towards God (i.e. via sanctifying grace). While the Jews ate the manna, they were still in sin, and thus sentenced to death.

Of course, the Eucharist and transubstantiation are later, Medieval developments of the “harlot” Catholic Church, right? The Early Church understood these things symbolically! Well…

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” — Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

Not enough?

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. – Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

While I will concede that transubstantiation was officially declared in the Middle Ages, it would seem that the essence of the Eucharist, that it is the Body and Blood, existed at this time, around 98AD. How could we conceptualize this? Well, FDR’s “Second New Deal” was instituted in 1935-1936. How effective has it been?

Several New Deal programs remain active with some still operating under the original names, including the: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Wikipedia

But come on, the names are the same, but the modern application is totally different!

Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8), 1938: established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours and a minimum wage of 40 cents/hour and outlawed most forms of child labor; still exists. (Wikipedia)

Its been 72 years since the New Deal. It was 65 years between Christ’s death, and Ignatius’ letter. Its very likely that he or his superiors had contact with one of the original Apostles, and their knowledge and application of Christ’s words directly influenced Ignatius’ own service. Notice, first of all, that the hierarchy existed even then. Notice, also, that only the hierarchy is allowed to “do” the Eucharist. Notice, also, the presence of altars in the early Church. Altars, generally speaking, are for sacrifices. Notice, also, how Ignatius addresses this (the flesh of our Lord, which suffered for our sins, and was raised up), which seems to suggest that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, made upon the altar, by a valid priest (or bishop). Notice, finally, how Ignatius equates the Body and Blood with the Eucharist in his repudiation of heretics (proto-Protestants?), without reducing it to symbolism. This argues, fairly convincingly, that the Early Church and the current Church are consistent. Further, it certainly calls into question the “Magic Prayer.” The Magic Prayer for salvation is a recent invention, whereas the Eucharist’s role in salvation is made clear in this letter (I won’t question 1910 years of validity).

In consideration of this, let me ask this question: if there is all of this evidence that the early Church, founded by the Apostles, celebrated the Eucharist in much the same fashion as we do today, does this mean the Apostles misunderstood Jesus? Does this mean the Holy Spirit led them astray? That the Church was founded upon misconceptions? Does this mean that it took 1600 years for someone to finally “realize” the real meaning of the text (even though we’ve had some of the most brilliant minds throughout history reading the same text and coming to one conclusion, which just happens to be the one that Ignatius and all Catholics share?). Has there been a new “revelation”? It might be interesting to note that Luther, the Reformer himself, kept two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. While he denied transubstantiation, he did recognize the Real Presence in the bread and wine. Try getting that at some churches.

Thus, it would seem that we should read our Bibles diligently, but our Church history (and Traditions) equally so.

1 Comment | Theology | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus

Fridays with the Saints 2 (the Monday edition)

June 30, 2008

Here are some words from the saints on evangelization:

In some causes silence is dangerous.
Saint Ambrose

Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.
St. Francis of Assisi

A thing is not necessarily true because badly uttered, nor false because spoken magnificently.
Saint Augustine

He is not wise to me who is wise in words only, but he who is wise in deeds.
Saint Gregory

There is a persistent string through this: that words are only so effective as deeds. It seems rather popular to accuse Catholics of having a works based concept of salvation. Many people would like to skew St. Francis’ words to indicate that we don’t have the necessary focus upon evangelization that our more Evangelical Protestant brethren do.

Granted, our view of salvation isn’t “magic-words” based. In this, I mean that Catholic conversion is a process of prayer, of learning, and of acceptance into the Church through her solemn rites. Catholics believe that the Church is the Body (and Bride) of Christ, and that the fullness of salvation comes from within the Church. We do not think that a prayer, said only once, is enough to eternally cover your salvation regardless of your behavior. Salvation can be lost, just as surely as it can be gained, through our own choices.

At the same time, to preach the Gospel involves both what we do, and what we say. As St. Ambrose states, sometimes to speak is painfully necessary, regardless of our eloquence. As St. Augustine would suggest, the truth of a claim is contained within the claim itself, and not in the eloquence of the person proclaiming it. Truth is self-evident.

However, just as you wouldn’t vote for a politician who preaches bipartisanship, but has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, neither would you believe the words of a Christian as he enters a brothel. If we really want to evangelize, we should be conscious to live the life (or try, at least) that we proclaim.

1 Comment | Misc., Theology | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus

Fridays with the Saints 1

June 20, 2008

Perhaps, as a Friday treat, I’ll make an attempt at a series that takes a topic, and includes the words of various Saints on that topic. Its a admirable idea, and hopefully, I can keep it up.

In any case, this first post will begin with Benedict Seraphim, who isn’t so much a saint as a blogger in the Orthodox tradition. Benedict Seraphim, of “This is Life!” has posted a wonderful exposition on prayer. The most poignant paragraph in this, I believe, is:

“But, I can certainly testify from personal experience, the pull of the gravity of fallenness and sin is relentless and does not let us go. Failure to always practice joy, to work moment-by-moment prayer, and to say “Thank you” in every circumstance will result not simply in the halt of forward progress, but in regression.”

Isn’t this the truth? Let’s see what some of the saints have to say on this:

“Many who confess their venial sins out of custom and concern for order but without thought of amendment remain burdened with them for their whole life and thus lose many spiritual benefits and advantages.”
Saint Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life

“Why should we defend ourselves when we are misunderstood and misjudged? Let us leave that aside. Let us not say anything. It is so sweet to let others judge us in any way they like. O blessed silence, which gives so much peace to the soul!” Saint Therese of Lisieux

“Whoever does not seek the cross of Christ doesn’t seek the glory of Christ.”
Saint John of the Cross

“Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” Saint Augustine

“Under the cross I have understood the destiny of God’s people; I believe that those who understand that all this is the cross of Christ ought to take it up themselves in the name of all the others.”
St. Edith Stein

“There is not in the world a kind of life more sweet and delightful, than that of a continual conversation with God. Those only can comprehend it who practice and experience it.” Brother Lawrence

Our lot on Earth, it would seem, is to suffer. I understand that seems fairly negative, but its true. When I meditate upon the Crown of Thorns, I always “see” the event: Jesus crowned and abused by drunken and violent Roman soldiers, who laugh at him and hail him as king. At this point, I consider the soldiers: why are they so violent? Is it because they perceive themselves as the true “kings” and “rulers” of the world?

At this point in Roman history, the Empire stretched from Spain to Israel. The Emperor in Rome was perched, however precarious, upon the pinnacle of Roman society. I’m sure the soldiers had to ask, “How can this broken old Jew presume to be like our mighty Emperor?” Little do they realize that the crown of thorns works both ways. Jesus’ crown was redemptive; it was another step upon the road to the Cross, and to our salvation. But the Emperor’s crown is also made of thorns. The history of the Emperors of Rome, and indeed of any man of significant power, demonstrates that crown bounds his life, and is just as much a death sentence, as it is a symbol of power. Whereas the death sentence upon Christ was both temporary and salvific, the death sentence upon the kings of the world is often lasting, to their own damnation (since, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely).

Which is why, when we consider those with significant power and money, we shouldn’t look at them as being “Cross-less.” In fact, their power and money binds them even more (as Saint Francis preached). Everyone on Earth carries their cross, and wrestles with their restless hearts. For those who can united their crosses to the Cross, and who continually seek the presence of God, this burden (which remains a burden, mind you), can become a joy.

1 Comment | Theology | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by T. Ambrose Nazianzus