The Interior Life of Our Lady

by Fr. William Most

Left-wingers are not always inclined to accept teachings of the
Church, and especially not to believe just because the
providentially protected Church says it is true. Yet they often
insist others should accept their own notions.

The Epistle to the Hebrews in 10.7 tells us that "On entering into
the world, He said: 'Behold, I come to do your will, O God.'"
Clearly, in order to say this He had to be conscious of Himself.
The Church has taught repeatedly that from the first moment of
conception, His human mind saw the vision of God, in which all
knowledge is present. In fact, Pius XII, in his great Encyclical
on the Mystical Body said that as a result of that vision, He knew
each member of His Mystical Body individually, and as clearly as a
mother knows her son on her lap.

Yet this teaching is almost everywhere denied and contradicted.
Instead, He is accused of not even knowing who He was until
various points in His Human life, He is even accused of some
superstition. It is asked how we can know if He *thought* heaven
is above the clouds: Did He share our sophistication on the point?

The implication is of course that His Mother did not know much
about him. The question is even raised; if she knew she had
conceived virginal, would not she have told him, and so He would
not have been so ignorant? This even implies a doubt about the
virginal conception.

So we must ask: Just what did she really know about Him and when?
We are going to explore that Scripturally. We will also try to
penetrate her interior life.

The key is found with remarkable ease. As soon as the archangel
told her that her Son would reign over the house of Jacob forever
-- at once, not just she who was full of grace, but almost any
ordinary Jew would know: He will be the Messiah!

At once there would begin to flood into her mind all the
scriptural prophecies about the Messiah. And in pondering in her
heart even more would come to mind.

How much would she be able to understand? The not too sharp
scholars now say that we cannot get much out of those prophecies
without hindsight - without seeing them fulfilled in Christ. Yet
we have the means of knowing what the ancient Jews understood, and
understood without hindsight - they hated Him!

We can know these things thanks to the Targums, which of course
were composed without hindsight.

It is really strange how our modern commentaries on the prophecies
ignore the Targums, even the New Jerome Commentary which includes
a rather good essay on the Targums, yet in dealing with the
individual prophecies not once uses them. So it is shocking but
true that ancient and modern Jews saw and see more than do so many
Catholic scholars.

Now the Targums are very old Aramaic versions of the Old Testament
-- mostly rather free -- and so they show how the texts were
understood. But when? How early? One of the best of modern Jewish
scholars, Jacob Neusner, in his work <Messiah in Context> made a
survey of all Jewish writings from after the fall of Jerusalem in
70 AD. up to and including the Babylonian Talmud -probably written
500-600 AD. He found something very surprising: up to the Talmud
there was hardly any interest in the Messiah; within it, interest
returns, but it speaks of only one major note: He is of the line
of David.

In contrast, the section in the Targums on the prophecies find the
Messiah in so very many places. It is obvious: they hardly could
have been written during literally centuries when there was
virtually no interest in the Messiah. So they must date, at least
in oral form, to before 70 AD. Some would put the first beginnings
in the scene in the book of Nehemiah where Ezra read the Law to
the people, and had Levites among them explain it.

What did the Levites do? Some think they translated into Aramaic,
since during the exile many Jews had switched to Aramaic. Others
think they gave explanations, which would be the start of the
Targums. Whatever be the truth, we know the Targums were on hand
at least by the time of Christ.

Would Our Lady have heard the Targums? Of course, they were read
in the synagogues. But even without that: if the stiff-necked Jews
could see so much, of course the one full of grace would see that
and much more.

Now modern scholars have a hard time with Gen 3.15, "Enmity
between you and the woman." Some foolishly say it just means that
women do not like snakes!

But the Targums knew it referred to the Messiah. True, they did
cloud it with a bit of allegory, but they surely knew it spoke of
the Messiah, and therefore of His Mother. (This is true
independently of what we think of Jerome's version: she shall
crush your head).

No, three of four Targums speak similarly. Here are the words of
Targum Neophyte: "And it shall be: when the sons of the woman
observe the Torah and fulfill the commandments, they will aim to
strike you [serpent] on the head and kill you. And when the sons
of the woman forsake the precepts of the Torah and will not keep
the commandments of the Law you will aim at and wound him at his
heel and make him ill [the son of the woman] For her son, however,
there will be a remedy, but for you, serpent, there will be no
remedy. They will make peace in the future in the day of King
Messiah."

In spite of the small cloud from the allegory, it is clear that
there will be a victory by the son of the woman. But she, seeing
this, could not help seeing that if Gen 3.15. spoke of the
Messiah: she was to be His Mother. And even though some moderns
think there is only a draw, no victory, the Targum saw the
victory. So He would be the victor, and she in that way was to
share in the victory. - If we may anticipate a bit: later on Pius
XII, in <Munificentissimus Deus>, would see her obedient suffering
was so great and close that the Pope spoke of a "work in common"
with that Son, so much so that since His suffering brought Him
glorification in resurrection and ascension, then the "work in
common "had to bring her the glorification of the Assumption." It
was the Holy Spirit who later brought the Church to see this
fullness: hardly would He, her Spouse, who made her full of grace,
omit to bring her to see the same evident truth: He, obedient even
to death, death on a cross; she, obedient to what she knew was the
positive will of the Father, not only not crying out, but
positively willing, with a heart wounded by love for Him, that He
should die, die then, die so horribly. Any soul, when it knows the
positive will of God, is required to positively will the same.

What was to be the nature of the victory? Obedience, by Him who on
entering into this world had said: "Behold I come to do your will,
O God." That work in common would outweigh and cancel out the
disobedience of Adam and Eve and of all their offspring.

Her fiat, just given, would inaugurate the obedience. Or rather,
it would merge with His obedience already offered, "Behold I come
to do your will O God."

Pope Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception said that the
"unspeakable God [ineffabilins deus] heaped her up with such an
abundance of every grace that "none greater under God can be
thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it." So not even the
highest seraphim who in Isaiah's vision never cease saying "Holy,
Holy, Holy" could grasp her holiness.

Naturally, then, we ask if she had at least at times the beatific
vision?

Some reason: It is often said: Moses had that vision-- so she must
have had it too. Now in chapter 33 of Exodus we read that God used
to speak with Moses "face to face". At first sight this seems to
mean Moses had that beatific vision. But then, a few lines lower
in the same chapter, Moses asked God to see His face. God
explained it was impossible, but that He would hide Moses in the
cleft of the rock, and then shade him until His glory passed. So
the words earlier saying Moses spoke to God "face to face" would
not really mean a direct vision, but only that God would converse
back and forth with Moses as with a present friend.

But St. Paul in 2 Cor 12 said he was taken up to the third heaven
and heard unspeakable words [arrheta rhemata], that no one may
speak or is able to speak [exon -can mean "is permitted" or, "is
able"]. That expression has several possible meanings. First it
might merely mean he was forbidden to speak- exon can have that
meaning. Or it could mean there are no words to express it.

When we use words, e.g. red, green, blue, they are understood at
once: both of us have a common experience. But the same words to a
colorblind man would not mean much. Similarly with the highest
reaches of infused contemplation, there are no words that are
known to both speaker and hearer. Hence Paul might have been
unable to find words. So too, her grace from the inexpressible God
is inexpressible.

St. John of the Cross helps us now: "God alone moves the powers of
those souls. . . to those deeds which are suitable according to
the ordinance of God, and they cannot be moved to others. . . .
Such were the actions of the most glorious Virgin, Our Lady, who,
being elevated from the beginning [of her life] to this lofty
state, never had the form of any creature impressed on her, but
was always moved by the Holy Spirit" (Ascent 3.2, 19 and Living
Flame 1.4; 1.9; 2, 34).

So she began at a point higher than that at which other souls
leave off at the culmination of a life of holiness. She "never had
the form of any creature impressed on her. . . . " -- to see this
we review the three levels of guides a soul may follow in making
decisions. First and lowest, it follows the whim of the moment.
Aristotle in Ethics 1.5 says this is a life fit for cattle -- they
always do just what they feel like doing. On the second level the
soul follows reason, which in practice will usually be aided by
actual grace. On this level the typical pattern is discursive,
from step to step. Thus I might say to myself: I see I have
sinned, I need penance. But what penance? How much have I sinned?
what will fit with the duties of my state in life?

In this way the soul comes to a decision step by step. But on the
third level, that on which the Gifts of the Holy Spirit operate -
and they do more than just give guidance -- the answer is as it
were dropped ready-made into the soul. There are no steps. Hence
if later someone asked: why do you want this?, the soul would have
to say I do not know I just know it is right.

Of course in this the soul could be deceived. But the Holy Spirit
protects: -- first, this sort of guidance comes only when the soul
is well advanced. Second, ordinarily this guidance leaves the soul
somewhat short of certain: a sign to consult a director or
superior. Only in rare cases, when needed, will certitude be given
at once.

We saw that St. John of the Cross said that never was the form of
any creature imprinted upon her. When we are led to act on either
the first or second levels described above, the image or form of
something good to do is impressed on our minds. This goodness
attracts us. But in Our Lady, far up on the third level, such was
not the case: it was not a created form that attracted her, but
simply the movement of the Holy Spirit. Hence her perfect
responsiveness to the Spirit, who is often called her Spouse.

When a soul reaches the higher levels of the purgative way, there
comes a point of total aridity (one of the three signs given by
St. John of the Cross of the coming of infused contemplation): It
finds no pleasure in earthly or in spiritual things. Thus God
brings it to the point at which no form of any creature imprints
itself on it. Our Lady was at the highest level reached by the
highest Saints at the end of their ascent. She came even to the
edge of the abyss of the divinity as it were, and peered into that
abyss. Not even a positive imperfection could impress itself on
her so as to move it. There would be grace under God capable of
preventing that -so she had it, else her grace would not be so
great that none greater under God can be thought of.

St. Gregory of Nyssa pictures Moses as is were rising through the
mist that covered Sinai to the point where "the true vision of the
One we seek. . . consists in not seeing: for the One Sought is
beyond all knowledge". Moses had then a certain contact with God.
Philo, followed by the Rabbis, says Moses after his first
encounter with God, no longer had sex with his wife.

We ask: did she know her Son was divine? Yes.

First she almost certainly perceived that from her inexpressible
contact with the divinity, not a few Saints have been able to
perceive the Presence in the Tabernacle. This does not prove she
could perceive it, but makes it most highly likely with her grace
such that "none greater under God can be thought of."

So did she know she was Mother of God? As soon as the archangel
told her that her Son would reign forever she knew He was Messiah;
but further, the angel said she would conceive when the Holy
Spirit would overshadow her. Now that was the word used at the end
of the Book of Exodus for the Divine Presence filling the ancient
temple in the days of the desert wanderings. And further "for this
reason" [dio] He would be called Son of God.

That was not just the ordinary reason Jews could be called son of
God - This was absolutely unique, given because He would be
conceived when the Divine Presence would fill her.

Further Isaiah 9.5-6, which the Targum recognizes as Messianic,
calls Him, "God the mighty", in Hebrew El gibbor.

O course the Jews would have trouble with El-gibbor. They never
rendered it God-hero, as did NAB. They found other ways to dodge.
They might twist the sentence structure, so to say His name has
been called Messiah by the mighty God. Such a twist is quite easy
with the Targum, and H.J. Levey did just this in <The Messiah, An
Aramaic Interpretation>. But J. F. Stenning of Oxford refused the
twist, so that in his version of the Targum, the Messiah is indeed
called El gibbor. But Our Lady would have no need of such
twisting: she simply knew that He was God the Mighty.

There is further help from other OT passages. Thus In Ps 80.15-18
God is asked to visit this vine, and he stock which your right
hand has planted, upon the son of man whom you have strengthened
for yourself." Levey comments here that "The Targum takes the
Messiah to be the son of God." Of course he rejects that, and adds
that later rabbis: "carefully steer clear of any messianic
interpretation" by the Targum. --But our Lady would not steer
clear: gladly she would she accept it.

Psalm 45.7-8 is often said by modern commentators to be a song for
a royal marriage- but the Targum saw it was messianic. In it we
read: "Your throne O God, is ever and ever." Levey notes that
Hebrew melech used several times here refers to God.

Ezekiel 34.11: God Himself said: "For thus says the Lord God:
Behold I, I will search out my sheep and seek them out." We notice
the repeated "I", which seems to stress the thought that God
Himself would come. But in verse 23 of the same chapter: "I will
set one shepherd over them, my servant David." So the Targum
Jonathan does treat the psalm as messianic. Of course this is far
from clear, but there could be an implication that the Messiah,
called here "my servant David" would be God Himself.

Jeremiah 23.3: God said: "And I myself shall gather the remnant of
my sheep from all the lands to which I have driven them." But in
verse 5: "I will raise up for David a righteous branch." That word
"branch" is often taken by the Targums to indicate the Messiah.
Hence Targum Jonathan on verse 5 does use "a righteous Messiah"
instead of "branch ". Then, surprisingly, in verse 6: "And this is
the name which He shall call him: "the Lord is our righteousness."
In the later Midrash, Lamentations Rabbah 1.51 we read: "What is
the name of the King Messiah? R. Abba b. Kahana said: 'His name is
'the Lord'". In the Hebrew text of that passage, the word for Lord
is Yahweh! It is astounding to find a later rabbi doing such a
thing. (c. f. Levey, op. cit., p. 70).

Jeremiah 30.11: "For I am with you - oracle of Yahweh - to save
you." The Targum clearly calls this passage messianic. Levey
notices this, and comments: "in v. 11 the apparent
anthropomorphism of God being with Israel, in the physical sense
is softened by the use of the word Memra" - Memra is a puzzling
word in the Targums, which seems in general to refer to the
complex interplay between God's constancy and the fickleness of
His people - but at times, it seems to mean God Himself. (On Memra
cf. Bruce Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, Glazier, 1987, p. lvi).

With such a cloud of witnesses, -to borrow words from Hebrews -how
could she possibly have not understood His divinity! And if Moses
from one contact with God give up even lawful sex, what was her
perception of and reverence with that Divine Presence within her
for nine continuous months!

She understood His Holiness most fully, while most fully seeing
the goodness of God. Hence there was in her mind no clash when she
heard from Isaiah 53 that He would suffer --and she with Him.
Stiff-necked Jews could not see how the Messiah could suffer and
die and yet reign forever. This is one reason why the Targum, on
Isaiah 53 sadly distorted the meek lamb into an arrogant
conqueror. Major Jewish scholars of today admit such distortion
was practiced, e.g. Jacob Neusner, Samson Levey and H. J. Schoeps.
Later Jews, seeing the Christian use of Isaiah 53, tried to speak
instead of atonement by the binding of Isaac.

But her mind, illumined by the inexpressible God, could see. She
knew that God Himself said through Amos the prophet. (3.6): "Is
there an evil in the city which the Lord has not done?" And after
a great defeat by the Philistines in 1 Samuel 4.3 the Jews asked:
"Why did the Lord strike us today before the face of the
Philistines?" Her Son was later to say: When you pray, pray in
secret." And yet: "Let your light shine before men, so they may
see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven."

What others may have grasped poorly if at all, she would take in
as it were intuitively, in the mystery of God.

For God is supremely One: - our minds as it were draw distinctions
in Him: but all His attributes in Him are one. So even mercy and
justice, which to us seem opposite, are the same in Him.

Yet we may say that He is, in a way most basically, Love. For Love
wills good to the other for the other's sake. It is Love that
constitutes the Most Holy Trinity: The Father wills the good of
divine nature to the Son: that constitutes the Son. Together They
will divine nature to the Spirit: thus He is constituted.

God who is Love created not as though needing anything, but to
have someone to receive, wrote St. Irenaeus (4.24.14). Yet, so
that the giving may be effective, there is need of openness: God's
commands tell how to be open.

They do Him no good, but they tell us how to be open --and this
simultaneously provides for universal goodness, in itself. The
Holiness of God wills that goodness in itself, and for our sake.
Hence if anything has damaged that universal order of goodness --
His Holiness wants full holiness restored, for the sake of
goodness in itself, and for our sake.

A very helpful comparison is provided by Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar
(c. 170 AD in Tosephta Kiddushin 1.14): "He [a sinner] has
committed a transgression - woe to him: he has tipped the scales
to the side of debt [hobah] for himself and for the world?" (Cf.
Paul VI. Indulgeniarum doctrina). The sinner takes from one pan of
the two-pan scales something he has no right to take: the scales
are out of balance. It is the Holiness of God that wants it
rebalanced.

If the sinner stole property, he begins to rebalance by giving it
back. If he stole a pleasure, he begins to rebalance by giving up
a pleasure of comparable weight. But he only begins to rebalance,
for the imbalance from even one mortal sin is infinite. Hence IF
the Father willed perfect balance - He was not so obliged - He
could have sent His Son, to be born in a palace, never to suffer
or die, to ascend in glory forever. The mere fact of the
incarnation was of infinite value, both as to merit, and as to
satisfaction.

So now we get a clue to the policy of the Father: As long as there
was any way to make it richer. He would not stop with anything
short of that. Hence He really went to infinity beyond infinity!
For the incarnation in a palace would have been infinite, without
the infinite value of the stable and the cross. The Greek Fathers
bring this out with their teaching on Physical-Mystical
Solidarity. (Cf. Lumen gentium 61)

Incidentally, we can begin now to see how mercy and justice are
the same: -the sinner gets more and more blind, going down as it
were in a spiral. He has earned his blindness: in justice. But as
his understanding of divine things diminishes, his responsibility
at he time of acting is diminished: - which is mercy. . . . .

Small wonder then - in view of this policy - that the Father chose
to do still more: to add the finite, but immeasurable contribution
of the obedient suffering of the Mother of that Son. For her
dignity as Mother of God was as Pius XI said, quasi- infinite.
Further, the worth of all she did during the hidden life was
immeasurable, coming from one of holiness\love beyond the ability
of anyone but God to comprehend!

How much did she know in advance of His suffering? Isaiah said His
appearance was marred, not like other men-- we think of Pilate's
Ecce homo! He would be the man of sorrows and acquainted with
grief. The chastisement that makes us whole was upon Him, and by
His stripes we are healed. -- This of course does not mean that
the Good Father literally punished His innocent Son! How
abhorrent! Rather he was giving up far more than all sinners had
wrongfully taken, He was rebalancing, balancing the order of
goodness--- we recall the two-pan scales of Rabbi Simeon ben
Eleazar. - So it did please the Lord to crush Him. He was cut off
from the land of the living.

And yet, verses 10-11 say that if He gives His life for the many,
He will see his descendants in length of days, -- no small hint,
for those who can see, of His subsequent resurrection and
glorification.

If we move on to other prophecies, real if obscure at the time, we
see remarkable things which she, full of grace would not have
missed: Zech 13.7 wrote: "Awake O Sword against my Shepherd and
the sheep of the flock will be scattered." Jesus Himself explained
this of Himself in Mt 26.31 and 56. Continuing with the image of
the shepherd, Zech 11.12-13 said: speaking to those who rejected
the Good Shepherd: "If it is good in your eyes, give me my price
[for my service]. And they weighed out 30 pieces of silver."

Then the Lord added: "Throw it to the potter. And they bought for
it the Potter's field."

Even more mysteriously Zechariah said in 12.10: "They shall look
on ME whom they have pierced, and mourn for HIM as for an only
child." Modern versions, not facing the sense, change ME to HIM.
But really it is God the Messiah who speaks, and then shifts to
the more usual Him in the same line. John 19.37 and Apoc 1.7 make
the sense clear for those who need help.

More painful clarity came from Psalm 22.16-18 part of which Jesus
Himself recited on the cross: "Dogs surround me, a circle of evil
doers are about me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. . .
for my vesture they cast lots." From the same Psalm Jesus recited
v. 1: "My God, why have your forsaken me?" As explained, He always
knew His unity with the Father --I and the Father are one. --But
in the area of His being below the high point of the soul, there
was a wasteland: He no longer could FEEL the presence of the
Father! Imagine her desolation in all this!

In her Magnificat she says all generations will call me blessed. .
He had looked on the lowliness of His handmaid. Many have taken
lowliness to mean humility. but that is not so: she is echoing the
canticle of Anna- and besides, the claim to be humble would be a
problem.

So we must ask; what is humility? How could she be humble, knowing
herself without sin, and being so close to God? First of all,
humility is truth: it requires a soul to know itself in itself, in
relation to God, in relation to others. All this must be done with
full sincerity: one must not subconsciously take any degree of
credit for oneself.

So if man saints have said dreadful things about themselves, it
was merely true. They were not supposed to deceive themselves--
until the next life when they could admit, with the whole Church
that they were wonderful.

St. Paul helps much. Of course she had not read his Epistles, but
probably knew him personally. And for certain she knew more
broadly by the truths taught by St. Paul, who told the Corinthians
(i. 4.7): "What have you that you have not received? And if you
have received it: why boast as if you had not received it?" In
other words: Every bit of good that you are, or have or do, is
simply God's gift to you. "Without me you can do nothing" as her
Son was to say later.

What a staggering thought? She is so holy that no one but God can
comprehend it -- yet every bit of goodness that she is or has or
does is purely the gift of the Inexpressible God!

To press on more deeply, as St. Paul also wrote (2 Cor 3.5--
following the definition of the Second Council of Orange); "We are
not sufficient to think anything of ourselves as from ourselves --
our sufficiency is from God." So we cannot even get a good thought
unless God gives it to us!

So to move on more deeply, St. Paul also said (Phil. 2.13): "Work
out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who
works in you both the will and the doing." "Those first words
about fear and trembling are usually misunderstood - they do not
mean: Be trembling, you might go to hell. The sense, as we shall
see. is quite different, but tremendously impressive. The real
sense, as we see from other uses is merely "with great respect".

The real meaning of the next words is much more impressive -so
much so that the versions always soften it. But if we follow
against the II Council of Orange it reads: "It is God who works --
produces - in you both the will and the doing." This means,
shockingly, that we cannot make a good decision on our own-it is
God who causes it in us!

How then are we free, if we cannot even get a good thought on our
own, or make a good act of will? And yet it not only happens to be
true --it could not be otherwise. Suppose the sense were that God
merely helps us to make an act of will. . . Then basically the
good act would be mine, with God merely a helper! But that would
be the Pelagian heresy. Yet St. Paul is right: if there were any
bit of good in my acts that I would not receive from God, Paul
could not say: What is there that you have not received"?

So the truth is true, devastatingly true: Even when I get a good
thought, or make a good decision, it is God who causes them! What
have you that you have not received? Without me you can do
nothing!

Still, we know that in some way when a grace comes to me, I decide
if it will come in vain. (2 Cor 6.10;) "we urge you not to receive
the grace of God in vain." So it does, then, depend on me whether
or not it comes in vain, fruitlessly.

HOW can this be? We see great mystery before us: We are utterly
powerless, yet we control all.

There is a way to reconcile these truths. Did Our Lady see it? or
did she just accept as it were intuitively, the way we saw before
when we read "Is there any evil in the city that the Lord has not
done?"

We are not sure in just what way she understood, yet she surely
did.

Dare we make the attempt? The Church has given us just one bit of
the solution: we are not entirely passive under grace. For the
rest, we are on our own. Two rival schools of theology, the
"Thomists" and the Molinists tried for 10 years, beginning in 597,
to gain papal endorsement, but failed.

Yet let us try, and in so doing cling as tightly as possible to
the words of St. Paul. . . For the real reason those long early
attempts failed is that both sides neglected the setting or
context of the words of Scripture.

An actual grace comes -- to lead me and enable me to do a
particular good thing here and now. First it puts the good thought
into my mind: 2 Cor 3.5. Then, almost automatically it makes me
well-disposed or friendly. -- At this point could I say: I hereby
decide to accept this grace? No. that would violate Phil 12.13:
"It is God who works in you the will." Of course a decision not to
block would be a good decision- and so ruled out by Phil 2.13.

What is left? I could merely not block that grace, non-resist it.
Then the grace would continue on its course, and work in me both
the will and the doing.

But I would not be entirely passive. The Council of Trent: says I
am not merely passive. So in the second phase I am cooperating
with grace but that is only by means of the power then being given
by the grace.

So grace is all-powerful. I merely do not block it. Then every bit
of good that I am and have and do is simply God's gift to me!
There is nothing that I have not received!

Am I then nothing? No, but I can do nothing without Him.

To face and accept this at every level of my being is what
humility wants.

Of myself, I am nothing. Yet I am wonderful, for grace makes me an
adopted child of the Father, even sharing in the divine nature.

Turning to Our Lady, these same truths hold: she is nothing of
herself, but He who is Mighty has done great things for her, so
great that only God Himself can comprehend them. Earlier we said
that humility requires that we accept the truth about ourselves at
every level of our being. There is such a thing as a subconscious
motive. We might compare it to a submarine, which does its best
work when it is not seen or perceived in any way.

For example, if I were still living in a college dormitory, and
the announcement was made that Thursday night there would be a
collection for some charity. After thinking it over, might decide
to give the collector $50. My motive might be purely 100% charity.
But it could also be part vanity, in any ratio. My motive could be
pleasure at thinking of the big congratulations from the
collector--or, alternatively, I could be patting myself on the
back.

How would these things affect the value of my good work? Clearly
something done out of 100% charity would be worth more than
something done out of only 40%.

Could there be some sin from subconscious vanity? Yes, but only if
the soul in some way perceives it is there and allows it.

But in some cases that happens. Think of a college student in the
days when there was not so much openness about sex. He was taking
an introductory biology course, and early in the semester did just
enough work to get by. But then they come to the chapter on sex,
and he says to himself: I really should be working. So he reads
the whole chapter eagerly, gets other works from the library too.

Clearly there are submarines at work. To be clear, there are three
motives: 1) the solid desire for study - but the first part of the
semester shows it is not very powerful. 2) Mere curiosity about
such a subject, if that did not involve proximate danger of
consent, the fault could be only venial, if there would be some
excess. 3) bootlegging sexual kicks. Clearly he might reach a
point at which he almost says to himself; I suspect I am kidding
myself. The submarines are beginning to surface. Various degrees
of sin, even mortal, could be at hand - only God can assess the
degree of the sin in a concrete case.

So the Pharisee in the temple had said: O God I give you thanks.
Yet or even in a partly conscious way he would know he was
deceiving himself. Hence Our Lord gave him an F on his report
card.

We all have such submarines -some resulting only in a loss of
spiritual credit; others bringing even outright sin.

The oracle of Delhi in ancient Greece had the motto: gnothi sauton
- get to know yourself. If I seem to myself to have no sins yet I
can find there may be these faults. For real spiritual growth it
is necessary to bring the subs to the surface. Only than can we
work on them. Here is something to do on a retreat!

Our Lady of course had no such submarines. She had nothing to
hide, hid nothing. She was so entirely empty of self that she
could serve as a channel of all graces.

We know of course that Our Lady was and is full of grace. Of
course, we know this most forcefully from the words of the solemn
document in which Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception, which
we have often quoted: - her holiness even at the start was so
great that "none greater under God can be thought of, and no one
but God can comprehend it!"

What of the translations often found today which merely say: Hail
favored one. Are they correct philologically - for we know from
Pius IX that these expressions all fall far short of the reality.

The fact that "full of grace" is found in official documents of
the Church shows merely that they are following the Vulgate, which
the Council of Trent declared authentic, i. e, correct. Yet the
Council did not intend to settle all critical problems of text.

Without doubting in the least the teaching of Pius IX, we can
still ask about the linguistic picture. St. Luke wrote
kecharitomene. [a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo]
In secular Greek charis meant charm, that which attracts favor. It
was used to translate Old Testament Hebrew hen which first meant a
favorable attitude of God to us, then the expression of that
favor, then what He gives as a result of that favor, namely hokmah
or beraka, wisdom or blessing. (Oo verbs means to put someone in
the state expressed by the root, which here is charis.) The word
was not used broadly like NT charis which came to mean any gift
from God to us. The net result was that charis could mean either
favor or grace.

But now, a thing often overlooked: if God merely sat there and
gave nothing but a smile, favor, then the human would do the good
by his own power - which would be Pelagianism. So when we
translate favor, we must keep this in mind, and usually would do
better to translate grace. So then charitoo will mean to put into
grace.

Further, in English we may use a noun to mark a person as the
ultimate in his class. Kecharitomene is used here as her personal
name. So just as Mr. Tennis is the ultimate in the category of
tennis, --therefore she would be "Miss Grace", much the same as
full of grace. . . .

But when we call her full of grace, the question must arise: Did
she never make any further progress? for it is a general principle
that a soul should go back or forward. The trouble is with the
image, which seems to be a container into which we pour a liquid.
But that is not the real situation. . . Grace is not like a
physical liquid. Sanctifying Grace means the transformation of the
soul by the prince of the divinity making it capable of the face
to face vision of God in the next life. But again we must be
careful. God does not have a face, and the soul does not have
eyes. So what is it really? When in 1 Cor 13.12 St. Paul says we
will see face to face he means that we will see Him as directly as
I can see you. Now I do not take you into my head, I take an
image, that works well enough-- But with seeing God--No image
could represent God or tell us what He is like. So it means: there
is no image in that vision: God Himself joins Himself directly to
that soul, without even an image in between! Now to know Him this
way requires divine nature. So in 1 John 3.2: "When He appears we
shall be like Him, for we shall know Him as He is" -that is
directly, without any image. In this sense Jesus said: (Mt 11.17)
"No one knows the Father but the Son, and no one knows the Son
except the Father."

All this difficult language means simply: to know God in the same
way (directly) in which He knows Himself, requires that being to
be partly divine, sharing in the divine nature. But that is what
we have by grace, that radical ability, which will bring it about
that when He appears we will be like him, -knowing without an
image--for we shall see Him as He is!

We will see Him in the same way as He sees the Father, and so will
be part divine. But not in the same degree, totally- - then we
would be identified with God. So of course Our Lady did not become
God, yet incredibly sharing in the divine nature, so much so that
none greater under God can be thought of and no one but God can
comprehend it! But the possible growth is without limit, is
infinite. So even though her holiness at the start was so great
that only God can comprehend it--God could comprehend more than
she did at any given point: her capacity could and did increase.
Yes, she did perceive the creatures about her --but they never
moved her, so as to imprint their form on her.

Yet her humility did not allow onlookers to see what was within
her soul. For example, during her travel to see Elizabeth she
would seem like a very good but ordinary person to those with her.
When she came to Elizabeth the Holy Spirit surely told her
pondering heart her in the words of Malachi 3.1: "Behold, I send
my messenger before me, who will prepare my way before me. "Later
Jews transformed these words into the promise that God would send
His angel before Israel during the wandering. But she knew the
true sense. In fact, even modern scholars know that it is God
Himself who speaks in Mal 3.1.

While with Elizabeth, they must have taken pleasure in praising
God, "For He who is mighty has done great things for me."

The greater love, the greater dignity, the greater the increase.
Now since to love is to will what God wills, the more intensely
her will adhered to His, the greater her capacity for increase.
Her dignity was as Pius XI said, a "quasi-infinite dignity." But
her adherence to the will of God was magnificent, and all the more
when to adhere was enormously difficult. She needed, we might say,
to "hold on in the dark" many times over.

If the soul of John was sanctified at the first coming of the
Mother of God, may we not expect that John's soul would as time
went on grow even more in holiness, being made ready to have no
form of creatures imprinted on it, when early in life he fled to
the desert to escape creatures and find God.

Sanctifying grace then, is the transformation of the soul by the
Divine Presence within it. We of course do not speak now of the
Divine Presence that would overshadow her, though it would be that
same Divine Spirit of which her Son would say: "If any man loves
me, we will come to him and take up our abode within him"(Jn.
14.23). Abode of course is not a physical presence, for Spirit
does not take up space. It means that the Spirit produces effects
in the soul: the effect is the transformation, making it part
divine, and giving it the ability to see Him face to face in the
future. . . Increase in sanctifying grace then means increase in
ability to see face to face, that is without even an image in
between, the soul and the inexpressible God. Since that Presence
is infinite, the possible growth of the soul to take it in is
without limit.

Long before Gabriel came to her, there had been widespread,
intense expectation that the time for the Messiah was at hand. And
with good reason: The dying Jacob in Egypt had made a prophecy
about his son Judah (Gen 49.10): "The scepter shall not depart
from Judah. . . until Shiloh comes" Modern Catholic scholars
usually mistranslate, not seeing that Shiloh meant the Messiah -
they fuss about a grammatical point, that Shiloh is grammatically
feminine, whereas the verb with it is masculine. They should have
seen that such irregularities at times come elsewhere in the OT.
But more importantly the sense should have made it clear; and
still more: the ancient Jews saw it, and wrote it in their
commentaries. A great modern Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, in his
<Messiah in Context> (p. 242) translated, with the rabbis: "until
the Messiah comes". And then Neusner asks: What else could it be
but the Messiah? --A Jewish scholar easily saw what Catholics are
too blind to see! What a picture!

But Our Lady was not blind she saw clearly what it meant, and so
many Jews did likewise, for they were expecting the Messiah soon.
The reason was easy: -Jacob's prophecy then was being fulfilled to
the letter: at that time for the first time a ruler from the tribe
of Judah had failed to come: in 40 B. C. Rome made Herod a
Tetrarch, and then soon, also king.

Was Herod a Jew? In a way, for he refused to eat pork and greatly
enlarged the temple. But Emperor Augustus is reported to have
quipped that he would rather be Herod's pig than his son. And for
sure, Herod was not of the tribe of Judah. He was half Idumean,
half Arab!

So the signs were up for all to read --all but those who today are
blind. But Our Lady was not blind: she certainly saw that the time
was at hand. And yet, knowing that, she had made some sort of
promise of virginity when most Jewish women were praying they
might bear the Messiah!

Were promises of virginity common then? Not at all. What could
have induced Our Lady to be willing to give up the golden
opportunity? We already saw the answer some time earlier. St. John
of the Cross tells us that never did the form of any creature
imprint itself on her; she was always led by the Holy Spirit!

Did she understand then that the Divine Presence to come upon her
was not merely a power (ruach) that comes from God to work His
will? Or did she understand it as a Divine Person? The language of
the Angel would not necessarily show another Divine Person -- that
the use of the same word as that for the Presence filling the
tabernacle would most easily be taken to mean the Divine Person.

Then, since she already knew, as we saw above, that her Son was to
be a Divine Person - and now she heard of a Third Divine Person --
what a trial of faith! We so easily mouth the words: Three Divine
Persons - one God. We are used to the thought, without of course
understanding. But it burst upon her completely new.

We may be tempted to say: She could see, and did not have to just
believe. Yes, she saw one thing, had to believe a much more
incomprehensible thing. For all Jews had had it hammered into
them: that God is One! Yes, only magnificent faith --moved in her
by that same Spirit -could and did inspire her to believe!

Moved by that same Spirit, she did not hurry to tell the
authorities in Jerusalem that the Messiah was at hand. Even,
Joseph - it was necessary for God to send an angel to inform
Joseph not to put her away.

The text of Is. 7-14 was not as clear as possible. Isaiah said:
Behold the almah shall conceive. Isaiah could have written
betulah. Vatican II in <Lumen gentium> 55 showed doubt about how
much Isaiah himself may have understood here. Speaking of this
text and Genesis 3.15, L.G. 55 wrote: "These primeval documents,
as they are read in the Church and understood in the light of
later and full revelation, gradually bring before us the figure of
the Mother of the Redeemer. She in this light is already
prophetically foreshadowed in the promise given to our first
parents, fallen into sin, of a Redeemer (Cf. Gen 3.15, cf. Is. 7-
14)."

So we cannot be sure what Isaiah meant by almah - did he mean
virgin, or young woman? For the whole setting in which Isaiah
spoke was ambiguous. A sign to Achaz seven centuries later would
not be much of a sign. Yet the image of the child in 9.5-6 (same
child) is much too grandiose for Hezekiah son of Achaz.

But Our Lady needed no question: She could see and feel the
prophecy being fulfilled in herself.

After that point in time, on the one hand, she knew His divinity
and probably even sensed it in a way, yet the feelings she had
would be just those of any ordinary mother-to-be. Hence the
beginning of the clash between what her senses told her, when she
held Him as a child, and what her faith told her.

Except that when the time for birth came, she felt no labor pains.
As the oldest creeds tell us, she was aeiparthenos: ever virgin.
The General Council of Chalcedon in 451 wrote; "He sealed her
womb." Leo the Great in his Tome (DS 291) wrote; "with her
virginity intact, she brought forth, just as she had conceived
with her virginity intact". Vatican II in LG. 57 "Her union with
her Son. . . was manifest, . . . when she joyfully showed her
first born, who did not diminish, but consecrated her virginal
integrity, to the shepherds and the Magi."

There are two special points to notice in these words of L.G. 57:
First, it speaks of her virginal integrity - a clearly physical
term. No mere symbolism of holiness could account for it.
Secondly, the Council spoke with no hesitation, in a matter of
fact way, of the shepherds and the Magi. In L.G. 55 it had
inserted a precautionary cf. before Gen 3.15 and Isaiah 7.14., to
avoid guaranteeing the application of these words in the minds of
the original human author. So the shepherds and the Magi were
real, not just symbolic! There are indeed symbolic expressions in
Scripture, there are also different patterns writing, called
literary genres. Vatican II On Divine Revelation 10 summed up the
matter neatly: Whatever is asserted by the human wrier is asserted
by the Holy Spirit. Remarkably, in the case of the shepherds and
the Magi, L.G. 57 does tell us that the Human writer and therefore
the Holy Spirit asserts these things to be historical. Sometimes
human study can tell us which is which. But often it is only the
providentially protected Church that can assure us. Without that
Church, human imagination often runs wild. This it is that one
time scholars said the infancy Gospels were just midrash. Newer
studies, tell us there is no such genre as midrash. And the Church
tells us that these reports are historical.

Many of the reasons given by human imagination against the
historicity of the infancy Gospels are simply foolish. They try to
say that both Mt and Luke must not be historical because in Luke
the birth is in a stable, but in Matthew the Magi find the Holy
Family in a house. How inane! Would Joseph stay long in the stable
and not rent a house? The Magi came sometime after Jesus' birth,
probably a year after the birth. - Herod thought it might be as
much as two years.

Again, it is even suggested, contrary to the Gospel and to the
prophecy of Micah that Jesus was born in Nazareth, on the plea
that the sequence of events of the two Gospels is convoluted. Not
at all. There was ample time after His presentation. Luke after
that speaks of a return to Nazareth, he mentions that return next.
But compendious narratives are not rare. Leftists normally suppose
two meetings of the Council of Apostles telescoped into one -
since Paul does not speak against food sacrificed to idols in 1
Cor -a thing the Letter of Acts 15 prohibited. They do not notice
that the Letter was addressed only to the gentiles of Syria and
Cilicia. So it held there -- did not hold outside, just as the
Vatican today can address a directive only to one episcopal
conference. Again, in Isaiah 37, Sennacherib returns after the
failed siege, and is killed by his sons-- an event of long after
that return. And there are many other instances. . .

What of the people who heard from the Shepherds and Magi? In time
they would forget, especially since there were no follow-up
wonders in the hidden life. There are various reports of wonders
even today - we have a plethora of alleged reports of apparitions.
Many pay little attention to them.

There was only one objection that even seemed solid - that of the
star and the census. But here there is new research by E. L.
Martin, <The Star that Astonished the World.> Since it depends on
astronomical study it has won acceptance by over 600 of the
planetariums in the United States and Europe. They have changed
their presentations on the star to match Martin's work. Briefly,
he has shown clearly that only one eclipse of the moon will fit
the Scriptural data --that of Jan 10, 1 BC Josephus reports Herod
died shortly after such an eclipse. Other eclipses during those
years all meet with insuperable obstacles. So Jesus as born in
September of 3 B. C. Quirinius was governing, nor governor,
according to Luke's Greek. The real governor had to go to Rome for
festivities for the following Feb. 5. Sailing on the Mediterranean
stopped during the winter. The census (apographe) was a
registration to take an oath of allegiance to Augustus - as we
learn from an inscription from Paphlagonia of 3 BC., corroborated
by texts of ancient historians. (Secondary calculations in
Martin's work seem to show the Magi came in December of 2 B.C).

Classicists have welcomed the new work, since it solves some
insuperable problems in the chronology of secular events. Only
Scriptural scholars have largely ignored it - it does not fit with
favorite preconceptions of theirs. . . .

Of course our Lady could not and did not and could not forget: the
great events - she continued pondering them in her heart - not
that she did not understand, but to more deeply realize and take
them into her heart. For there is a great difference between
notional and realized knowledge. We have notional knowledge of
things we hear of in passing, e.g. in a news report of famine. But
if we went to the famine area and saw people dying, and got hungry
ourselves - then the knowledge is realized, and is a powerful
driving force within the soul.

Did these events dispense her from the need of believing what she
could not yet see? On the contrary, they raised a huge problem for
her - a difficulty of holding on as it were in the dark - a thing
she was to experience far more acutely later on. We spoke of
holding on in the dark, since God often puts souls into situations
where it seems not just difficult, but impossible to believe -- we
think of Abraham who had to believe he would be the father of a
great nation through Isaac, and Abraham was told to kill Isaac in
sacrifice -- or the difficulty for all the chosen people, of
believing God rewards and punishes justly, when the only opening
they saw for such retribution was in the present life, not yet
having learned that He does that in the life to come -- or the
difficulty Jesus put before His followers of believing they had to
eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Why does God at times put people in such straits? It is not that
He is not loving, or that it does Him any good - but that souls
can profit immensely in such situations. For there is only one
free thing within us: our freewill. If we could make that will
match fully the will of God in all things -there is nothing more
to do, that is perfection. And so it is not difficulty as such,
but holding on when it seems impossible.

At once with His birth the difficulty became acute: on the one
hand her faith told her He was and is divine - on the other hand
her senses constantly reported the opposite - this feels just like
any ordinary baby, even has normal baby needs.

And such was the case not just briefly, but for years on end. The
angels' song was beautiful, but its impression on her senses was
very short-lived - Her feelings from touching and handling Him
went on and on.

Some appointed as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist report
they find it a trial on their faith - the host feels like nothing
special at all.

This clash was so strong that late when He began to show His
power, the people of Nazareth could not understand it at all. He
was always just an ordinary boy.

In just 8 days came the time to begin to shed His blood in
circumcision: an ordinary child in this feels pain, but not the
way Jesus did, with his full reflex consciousness. Of course it
hurt her to see Him hurt. As Hebrews says sums up the thought of
the Old Testament: "Without the shedding of blood there is no
remission." As the suffering of a Divine Person made man, this
pain was of infinite merit, infinite satisfaction, even if He had
not gone on to further sufferings. Her obedient acceptance of this
was similarly of immeasurable merit.

Far greater was the pain of the presentation in the temple. The
ritual seemed to be a buying back of Jesus from the service of the
Father - it was really the external renewal of the offering He had
made on entering into the world: "Behold I come to do your will, O
God." Thus was fulfilled he prophecy of Haggai (2.9): "Great will
be the glory of this new house, greater than that of the former."
and of Malachi 3.1: "And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come
to His temple."

This was truly the offertory of the Great Sacrifice. She echoed
His offering in the renewal of her fiat. Both She and He knew what
it really meant.

Both could have claimed exemption from the rite. But just as later
He was to tell the Baptist who was reluctant to baptism Him: "It
is good to fulfill everything that is righteous". So He would not
claim exemption from the many things humanity normally would have
to endure. In Philippians 2 "He emptied Himself, taking on the
form of a slave."

She too on this same occasion underwent ritual purification from
His birth! --What a reverse! She had given birth to Him who was to
take away the sins of the world. Yet just as He willed to fulfill
all righteousness, so she too willed it for Him and for herself.
Simeon foretold the wound, which she already knew too well. This
would make he pain more acute.

After this presentation they went down to Nazareth and lived an
ordinary family life -- to show how greatly the Father loves the
family. Sirach 3 presents a beautiful picture - God puts the
father in honor over His children, and confirms a mother's
authority. This obedience atones for sin. The reason is that sin
is disobedience: obedience can rebalance the account for
disobedience. This is not a legalistic attitude - it shows the
Father's love for all that is good in itself.

The Eastern Fathers especially, as we saw above, stressed that
even the mere fact of the incarnation, without added suffering,
was infinitely redemptive, infinitely. Clearly then this extension
into 30 years of hidden life was redemptive, it was atoning for
sins as Sirach said. LG 56 said that from the start, she dedicated
herself to the Person and work of her Son. Hence LG 61 spelled
out: what Pius XII said in <Munificentissimus Deus> that she was
"always sharing His lot." - In conceiving Christ, in bringing Him
forth, in nourishing Him, in presenting Him in the Temple, in
suffering with her Son as He died on the cross, she cooperated in
the work of the Savior. . in an altogether singular way, by
obedience, faith, hope and burning love, to restore supernatural
life to souls." Of Him LG 3 had written: "by obedience He brought
about redemption." It was obedience, in which she shared, that
gave all its value to His suffering -- without obedience it would
have been merely a tragedy, not a redemption.

Because of this natural continuity of thought we passed at once
from the presentation to the hidden life -- even as St. Luke's
account did.

But now we must go back and add what St. Matthew had narrated at
once: on the coming of the Magi. We already saw above the results
of new research on the date.

The Magi were a distinguished clan in Media, noted for knowledge
of astronomy - and as usual in that day, of astrology. But was not
astrology that led the Magi to Him. Without claiming to be certain
of the identity of the star, we must mention that a special sign
in the sky of June 17, 2 BC--most likely a conjunction of Jupiter
and Venus, which had not happened for centuries before, nor would
occur again for more centuries. On Sept 11, Jupiter the King
planet was also approaching Regulus, the king star within the
Constellation of Leo the Lion. There were three conjunctions of
Jupiter and Regulus: Aug 12, 3 BC, Feb 17, 2 BC and May 8/9 2 BC.
Now Leo stood for Judah, according to Gen 49.10 in which Judah was
called a lion and from Judah there was always to be a ruler until
the time of the Messiah. Regulus was the dominant star within Leo.
Prophecies of the Messiah were widely known, and the Magi, being
astronomers would readily read the signs of the above
conjunctions.

As for the star stopping over Bethlehem -- planets move some
distance, then they turn the corner, and start back. This seems
like a stop.

We do not know how many Magi came, nor whether or not they were
kings. They were the first gentiles to come to Jesus --and so
stand for the fact that He - and she too - will to save all: Cf.
Rom. 3.29.

After their return from Egypt, they settled in the small town of
Nazareth from where Our Lady had come. It was on a hillside, 1150'
above sea level, 15 miles from the Sea of Galilee and 2 miles
south of Sepphoris, a metropolitan Greek city, long of political
importance. It is likely Jesus went there at times. There followed
uneventful years until His loss and finding in the temple.

However there is a legend, expressed in the Perpetual Help
picture, of a special event: two angels appeared to Jesus, showing
Him the instruments of His passion. In childlike fright He clung
to His Mother, who comforted Him like a Mother.

There are two rather different interpretations possible for what
follows. We will consider them one at a time.

The picture itself cannot be traced back farther than the 13th
century. The origin of the legend is lost in the mists of time. We
are not sure the vision ever happened. But we are entirely certain
from the teaching of the Church that from the first instant of
conception the human soul of Jesus saw the vision of God, in which
He would also see His passion in all its dreadful detail. For
certain this caused Him great distress, all His life long. On two
occasions He, as it were, allowed us to see inside Himself. In
Luke 12.50 He said: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how
am I straitened [in tight distress] until it be accomplished." In
John 12.27 only a few days before His death, He broke into a
discourse to the crowd to exclaim: "Now my heart is troubled. What
shall I say? Father, save me from this hour!"

Long running worry can as it were wear the skin thin - imagine the
effect on Jesus of literally a lifetime of stress, so that he
said: 'How am I straitened until it be accomplished."

In long protracted worry it often happens that the mind or soul
sees the trouble coming back to mind, in waves -- this vision
could reflect that point. Such a wave could strike especially in a
child. So the distress envisioned in the picture was real, and
came not just on one occasion, but was a constant stress and
strain.

More than once she may have sensed His distress when a child and
asked: "Son what is bothering You?" - Even though she really knew.
Even without the teaching of the Church, she could know that He
had that vision. For any soul will have that vision if it is not
only in grace, but if the divinity joins itself to it directly,
without even an image in between. Now this not only happened to be
the case in Jesus - it could not have been otherwise. For not only
His human mind, but His whole humanity was joined directly to the
divine without any image in the unity of the one Person.

Our Lady did not have that vision of God, but yet through the
prophecies, which we reviewed above, she knew, knew far more than
was comfortable to know and the sword foretold by Simeon would
increase her distress. And we should mention also that it is not
rare for some persons especially mothers -- by a sort of extra-
sensory perception know the distress of her sons at the time it
happens, even often they know it in advance.

And she, even more from the messianic prophecies, must have looked
often at His little hands and said to herself: These must be
pierced and torn.

We must ask: How could His soul have the vision of God, which is
blessed, and yet how could He suffer? The answer is that we have
many levels of operations in body and soul. We think of a 25,000
foot mountain. On some days the peak will stick out through
clouds, into sunshine, while all the lower slopes are in turmoil.
Similarly He could have that serenity on what St. Francis de Sales
calls the fine point of the soul, while there was great distress
below -especially on the cross. How could He fear, since He knew
His own resurrection, but that knowledge would not keep the nails
from hurting -- and it is natural for an unprotected humanity to
shrink from terrible suffering.

There is a parallel in ordinary souls, even that of Our Lady. She
did not have that vision, but she did have that peace which no man
can take from you, which let St. Paul says; "Always rejoice." The
lower slopes of her being could suffer so much but Her union with
God, which we tried somewhat to picture earlier, was always there
without shadow.

If someone worries, is he/she lacking in trust in God? Not
necessarily. For example, if he is waiting for a report from the
Doctor to tell if he has terminal cancer, he may be uneasy. God
has not promised that no one will get terminal cancer. Trust in
God helps to calm one. But on the lower slopes there may be real
worry. St. Paul says the whole Christian life consists in being
like Christ. In Romans 8.17: "We are heirs of God, coheirs with
Christ - provided we suffer with Him so we may also be glorified
with Him." So worry taken properly can be a means of likeness to
Jesus and to His Mother.

The above interpretation is rather appealing. The second takes
into account the strange fact that in the Gospels He does not show
warmth to her, e.g., at Cana, and when He asked: "Who is my
Mother"? Without any special apparition He would still feel
distress from the vision of God in His human soul which showed Him
His coming sufferings. Distress could still come in waves as we
saw above, and that would be specially difficult for a humanity at
a tender age. And she, in this second interpretation, would still,
as we deduced above, be apt to sense His distress as specially
acute at times. But He would simply not tell her of His distress
from the knowledge He had through the vision of God. She would not
tell Him of her feelings, out of delicate consideration for Him,
as she was following the form the Holy Spirit imprinted on her at
the very moment.

If we follow this pattern of interpretation, we would say that the
vision in the picture never happened just as it is shown in the
painting. But we would not say that He did not experience great
stress throughout all His lifetime at the dread prospect of such
sufferings to come. When we foresee some terrible thing as
possibly coming, we can take refuge in the thought that "perhaps
it will not come, or will not be so bad." He could not use that
refuge for, we might say that the vision of God is merciless: He
knew infallibly what was to come, in all its sorry detail. And the
waves of images would still be possible for Him, and at a tender
age might make the more impact on His human tolerance. He could
have accepted her help as He did that of the comforting angel in
Gethsemani. And the deductions on her understanding of His state
which we saw above retain all their validity and force. She would
not comment to Him on what she saw and surmised about that
particular moment when a strong wave would strike.

When He was 12 there came a strange event. This child, who had
always been so obedient and compliant allowed His parents to
suffer great grief from losing Him. Jewish men, starting at age 13
were obliged to go to Jerusalem for 3 events: Passover, Pentecost
and Tabernacles. It was common for them to come at age 12 too, to
get accustomed to obeying the law, which did not oblige them
strictly until age 13. Today many Jews observe Bar Mitzvah -son of
the commandment - ceremonies at 13. But that would not have been
the case with Jesus, who was only 12. And it is not clear how
early such a ceremony had developed by His day. Women were not
obliged to make the trips, and if Our Lady had had other younger
children she would hardly have come at all at that point.
Neighboring mothers would have rebuked her had she done that.

Men might readily come into the areas where the doctors of the law
disputed to listen, ask questions, and answer. Things were done in
question and answer form.

Men and women traveled separately. Caravans might be over 100,000
persons. A boy of 12 might have considerable freedom in moving
about. Jesus showed special abilities. Is it possible that He
could have worked in many messianic prophecies? But He wanted a
gradual revelation of Himself.

His reply to them when they found Him is remarkable: "Did you not
know I had to be in the things of my Father --or in my Father's
house? The Greek is ambiguous; the former view is the more likely.

The Gospel says they did not understand. But they surely knew-- as
we have abundantly shown above-- who He was. So it means they did
not understand - the abrupt shift from His usual compliant way of
acting.

In being cryptic He would be following the pattern often seen in
the Scriptures, on which we remarked in passing before, in which
God puts persons into difficult straits, where they must as it
were hold on in the dark-- must continue to believe even when that
seems impossible. It is not difficulty as such that is valuable --
it is the fact that then if it soul does not fail, it must hold on
to the will God with very special force. That means greater
attachment to the will of God, and so, an increase in the capacity
of seeing God face to face for all eternity. So this trial was an
act of love on His part to her. At least with pondering in her
heart she would understand, yet it was a difficult trial, by which
her fullness, already incomprehensible to us, could grow still
further.

Then He went down to Nazareth and was subject to them! The
sacrifice of our will and independence is more difficult than
merely giving up a pleasure or a possession. He and she both could
have claimed exemption but did not. Both emptied themselves. "It
is good to fulfill everything that is right," as He would say
before being baptized by John. This was the upside down family, in
which the greatest obeyed he least. And one such act of obedience
by the God-man was more than enough to redeem many worlds - it was
infinite in worth. Her obedience because of her incomprehensible
dignity and love was of incomprehensible worth.

Not long after His baptism by John in which He accepted to be seen
as a sinner, "to fulfill all that is right" His Mother and He were
invited to a wedding at Cana. The exact location of Cana is
unclear today. There are two possible sites, one 4 miles NE of
Nazareth, the other 9 miles North. The second seems more likely.
The Council of Trent defined that Jesus made matrimony a
sacrament-- we are not sure if it was on this occasion or later
on. Weddings then lasted a week, and numerous people, even those
traveling, might come in. So it could have been that a new large
group arrived when the wine was already a bit low. Then she, in a
truly feminine way, did not ask, but hinted: "They have no wine."

Here is another case of holding on in the dark. His words "What is
it to me and to you" commonly have a tone of rejection elsewhere
in the OT. But she definitely understood, for she confidently told
the waiters to do whatever He might order.

He replies: "My hour has not yet come." Some today think He meant
the hour of His death and glorification. More likely. He means the
time set to begin working miracles-- for it was clearly His policy
not to reveal Himself fully at once. Yet at her request He did
advance the hour - a clear indication of her influence with Him.

Now there were six stone jars there, rather large, for ritual
purifications. Each would hold 15 to 25 gallons. He changed all
that water into fine quality wine, So that the head waiter
remarked that usually the best wine is served first. Of course
this miracle caused much talk, yet it would be soon forgotten,
even as the Jews quickly forgot the wonders at the time of the
Exodus.

Was it difficult for her to hear the word woman? That word was
really an honorable title, though not warm. Further, many scholars
today point out that the same word is used at four major place: in
Gen 3.15, at Cana, at the Cross, and in Jn Apoc 12. The use of
woman then might be merely editorial, to link together these four
major scenes. John Paul II agreed with this view, in <Redemptoris
mater.>

And her influence or intercession was not long remembered either.
That is the way she wanted it. because of the forms being
impressed on her soul by the Holy Spirit, even as He had led her
to silence after he virginal conception.

And that modest pattern held all through His public life, even
when the crowds acclaimed Him. It was only when the darkness of
that last hour had come that she emerged from the shadows to
bravely and obediently take her place with Him at the cross.

In the interval, she doubtless quietly joined the group of devout
women who ministered to His temporal needs during His public life.

At some point, probably early in His public life He was preaching
so intently to the crowds that He did not take time to eat. Then
as Mark 3.20 - 35 reports, the "hoi par' autou" thought him insane
(exeste), and went out to take him by force (kratesai). Presently
we must consider who was within that group. In the very next line
Scribes from Jerusalem charged He was casting out devils by the
devil. He answered them at some length, and said they were
committing an unforgivable sin, then next at verse 31 we read that
His Mother and brothers came to a crowd where He was preaching.
Instead of introducing her He said: Who is my Mother? Whoever does
the will of God is Mother and brother to me."

Here really was a time for her to hold on in the dark - it seemed
like not only a rejection, but public rejection. Yet she
understood, and made no murmur.

To begin to understand the incident we begin by noting that there
are three segments in the passage: 1) some about Him think Him
insane; 2) the Scribes charge He casts out Satan by Satan; 3) His
Mother and Brothers come to see Him.

Form and Redaction criticism as all admit today, has shown that a
passage may be made up of originally independent units. Is that
the case here? We cannot be sure-- but the second segment is
really introduced abruptly and then is left off abruptly. Hence it
is not at once obvious that His Mother was among the group in
segment one, as several commentators have said, including NJBC.
One recent writer churlishly said that she was "outside the sphere
of salvation!

But suppose that she was actually in the first group. Would it
have to mean she did not believe in Him? Of course not. Even an
ordinary mother will stand up for her son, when he is accused,
even if the charge is just. These commentators make her less than
an ordinary mother, and put her on the road to hell! So even if
she was in the first group she could easily have gone along to try
to hold them down.

But even more basically, these charges amount to a claim that Mark
contradicts Luke - for all admit that Luke presents her as the
first believer. Further, those who speak that way like to claim
they are just following Vatican II. But that Council in <Dei
verbum> ## 11 -12 insists that God is the Author of all of
Scripture - and so does not contradict Himself. And we must
consider the whole picture of Scripture and the analogy of faith.
Further, Vatican II in <Lumen gentium> #58, explains this passage,
and the related Luke 11.27-28 as something other than rejection.
Jesus was teaching dramatically that if we compare two forms of
greatness -- Divine Motherhood (a "quasi infinite dignity"
according to Pius XI) and hearing the word of God and keeping it -
- the second is greater than the first. But of course, she was at
the peak in both categories. She would understand this even in the
darkness, with pondering in Her heart.

In passing, whether she was present for segment 2 or merely heard
about it- she could see the venomous hatred of the Scribes. The
reason their sin could not be forgiven was their hardness, so
great that it was inconceivable that they would ever repent. So
very early she could see the venom developing against Him, and
could follow, to His death: Isaiah 53 and the other prophecies
that were being fulfilled.

Another occasion of rejection came when He visited Nazareth, but
it was not rejection by His Mother. A proverb was cited that no
prophet is accepted among his own. Matthew's version says a
prophet is not accepted in his own oikia, his household. But again
it does not include her. It must have pained her to see the
rejection.

Right around that time - if we take Mark's chronological sequence,
it came right after the unforgivable sin of the scribes, He turned
to parables. This timing agrees with His general policy of gradual
self-revelation. In Mark, He may have taught clearly at first, but
then in view of their lack of faith He turned to parables: "So
that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not
understand."- the line, quoted substantially, comes from the
inaugural vision of Isaiah 6. The three Synoptics cite it in
various forms, substantially with the purpose wording: "In order
that. . . . " NJBC argues from the Greek conjunction hina to give
a purpose translation. But the writer seems not to know the
changes in Koine Greek as compared to 5th century B. C. Athenian,
where it would be purpose. The word hina occurs more than once in
citing fulfillment of prophecies. But at least at times, the
purpose version is simply silly: Can we imagine the soldiers
casting lots for his garments, for the purpose of fulfilling
prophecy!

First of all, the conjunction hina in Koine Greek has picked up
the possible meaning of result instead of purpose. So the soldiers
cast lots, and as a result, the prophecy was fulfilled.

Secondly, Hebrew often attributes to the direct action of God
things He only permits.

But there is a better way to explain this difficult text. 1 John
4.8 says God is love. "It does not say He has love, but is love.
He is identified with each of His attributes.

But now we see something astounding: God is mercy, He is justice -
- so in Him mercy and justice are identified! And we might add;
Holiness and justice too are identified with each other: - God in
His holiness wants the objective order rebalanced when it gets out
of line. Justice is theory satisfied.

We can at least begin to see how this is true in the case of the
parables.

Let us think of a man who has never been drunk before, but tonight
he gets very drunk. Next morning he will have guilt feelings, for
this is the first time. Then there is in him a clash between his
actions and his moral beliefs. Our nature abhors such clashes, and
so in time something must give. Either he will stop getting drunk,
so his actions line up with his beliefs. Or the opposite. He has
begun to go down on a spiral, if he continues getting drunk, he
will gradually pull his moral beliefs into line with his actions.
In other words, he is getting more and more blind - and not only
that one moral belief, but other moral beliefs, and even his
doctrinal beliefs may be affected. The fact that he is becoming
more blind is justice, he has earned it. But it is also mercy; For
the more clearly a man knows divine truths at the time of acting,
the greater his responsibility. So in one and the same action
there is both mercy and justice.

Soon she would see tragically an instance of the effects of the
evil spiral. Towards the end of His public life, Mark 10.32 says
He steadfastly walked ahead of His companions toward Jerusalem
where He knew what awaited Him. His followers trailed behind,
afraid-- and with reason, for they had long seen the
incomprehensible malice of His enemies growing and resolving to
destroy Him. She could see all these things, and knew as well it
was part of the fulfillment of Isaiah 53. Yet in virtue of her
fiat, given at the start, she positively willed what the Father
willed.

She rejoiced at the raising of Lazarus, but grieved at the final
hardness of His enemies who, according to John 12.11, with
incredible blindness were plotting to kill Lazarus - as though He
would not still have the power to bring Lazarus back.

Again she was glad to see His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on
the first Palm Sunday, while grieving and marveling at the
fickleness of the crowd who in just a few days would change
Hosanna to; "Crucify Him"! In all these things, her fiat
continued.

She was not there for the Last Supper, not invited, since there He
intended to ordain His Apostles priests: "Do this in memory of me"
in a rite she was not to carry out, though her dignity as Mother
of God was immeasurably above that of the Pope and Apostles, while
still higher than all these was hearing the word of God (LG. 56)
and keeping it, as she as faithfully doing, by her fiat.

But how she must have marveled - for she knew He would celebrate
that Passover, and knew that He had promised the Eucharist in John
6 even His body and blood, while well aware of so many sacrileges
to which He would be subject in the future because of that
commitment. She knew, and quietly said her: Fiat. She knew He
would do this, even though this incredible display of love came
precisely at the point where humanity was about to do its worst
against Him-- He chose that point to establish this strictly
miraculous means of getting close to them, to us.

She knew what He was about to do, as we said, by His promise of
the Eucharist, and determination to celebrate the Passover. And
she would know too by a sort of Mother's empathy or extrasensory
perception, which understood what His love was about to do, and to
suffer. Still her fiat continued.

He is said to have told St. Margaret Mary that the worst pain was
that of rejection by those whom He so loved. If someone jostles me
rudely in a crowd, that hurts, but what if he deliberately pushed
me, or wanted to kill me, and to kill in the most painful manner
he could devise!

She understood this rejection and yet continued her Fiat.

When He went to Gethsemani she knew -- He often did go there, and
she knew His interior. There, as Mark reports, He even became
afraid -- for an unprotected humanity could not but shrink back
from such pain (and He had long before emptied Himself leaving His
humanity unprotected) He had to face not only hideous pain, but
still more terrible rejection -- preferring a murderous thief,
Barabbas, to Him.

Many men have gone through the night before such a death without
breaking down - but He knew it all for His whole lifetime, knew
what He was to make up for, all sins of all times cam before Him.
We repeat what we said earlier; it was NOT that the Father was in
a terrible rage and going to punish Him - Oh, no it was Holiness
that wanted Him to give up, in pain, immeasurably more than all
sinners of all times had taken from one pan of the two pan scales.

He had sought for a little comfort from the Apostles - who merely
went to sleep! And so He really sweat blood. Medically this is
called hematidrosis - which comes when the interior tension is so
severe that the capillaries adjacent to these openings discharged
their red tide that way.

Again, she must have felt this by a sort of empathy or ESP., and
continued to say: Fiat.

All Jerusalem must have been buzzing with reports right back on
His trial before the "high priests". They finally got Him! How
will they destroy Him? She would listen, she knew by Isaiah and by
empathy as well, but yet: fiat.

Pilate, in spite of the merciless denials of today, said he found
no fault in Him-- and he really tried, weakly, to get Him free.
Jewish law ordered no more than 40 blows, and even then stopped at
39 as a precaution. The Romans had no such limit, and really, it
must have been the devil in the soldiers' arms. The beatings were
savage. Some men died from them alone. But He held out, wanting
the greater pain. And she in the crowd knew, and perhaps heard the
cracks of the lashes. Yet did not withdraw her fiat.

After that, the spectacle He gave then was such that hard Pilate
could say: Look, the man! She looked, in horror yet continued to
say: Fiat. John Paul II in his <Redemptoris Mater> said this in
Him and in her was the greatest self-emptying in all of history.
For in unison with Him, she continued: Not my will, but yours be
done.

And then she heard, as He felt it, the hammer blows driving the
nails into His flesh. A barbarous torture -- no animal ever
treated another animal this way, nor would any decent man so treat
a dog. And yet His enemies would gloat: He saved others, Himself
He cannot save! Rightly did Psalm 22, which He soon began to
recite, say: "Many bulls encompass me. . . like a ravening and
roaring lion." What greater rejection could be pictured, and from
those He loved with an infinite love. Yet in obedience, she was
called on to positively will what the Father willed, that He die,
die then, die so horribly! And this in a clash with her love for
Him, which was so great that "none greater under God can be
thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it." We cited Pius
IX speaking about her initial holiness - which in practice is the
same as love. Hence her love, and therefore her suffering, was
beyond the ability of anyone but God to comprehend! But still:
Fiat.

Obedience it was that gave the value to His sacrifice -- without
it it would have been a tragedy, not redemption. From Isaiah 29.13
we hear God saying; "This people honors me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from me." So there are two elements in
sacrifice - the outward sign, (the physical separation of body and
blood) -- and the interior disposition: obedience.

Her obedience fused with His - for there were not two sacrifices,
one infinite, the other finite. No, there is just the one great
sacrifice, getting its value from obedience, in which she joined.
As LG. 61 said "she cooperated in the work of the Savior by
obedience."

Another aspect or way of looking at the great sacrifice is the
fact that it was the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah 31.31. In a
covenant, the essential condition is obedience - His, to which
hers was joined.

Near the end, He began to recite Psalm 22; "My God, why have you
forsaken me?" Pope John Paul II beautifully explained these words,
in a General Audience of Nov. 30, 1988, about the "abandonment" of
Jesus on the Cross [emphasis added]: "In fact, if Jesus feels
abandoned by the Father, He knows, however that that is not really
so. He Himself said: 'I and the Father are one.' (Jn 10:30), and
speaking of His future Passion He said: 'I am not alone, for the
Father is with me' (Jn 16:32). Dominant in His mind Jesus has the
clear vision of God and the certainty of His union with the
Father. But in the sphere bordering on the senses, and therefore
more subject to the impressions, emotions, and influences of the
internal and external experiences of pain, Jesus' human soul is
reduced to a wasteland, and He no longer feels the presence of the
Father.

After this, He exclaimed: "It is finished" --I have obeyed, even
to the end, to the completion of all that you commanded me to do.
He had given up far more than all sinners had wrongly taken from
the one pan of the scales. And she, suffering with Him, repeated
interiorly her fiat. No wonder John Paul II could write in
<Redemptoris Mater> that her obedience was the counterpoise to the
disobedience of Eve, and of all. St. Irenaeus cited in L.G. 56,
was right in writing: "By her obedience, she became a cause of
salvation for herself and for the world."

When He handed His soul to the Father, all His suffering was over,
over forever. Hers was not. She still was immersed in immeasurable
grief, even though she alone of all, even the Apostles, believed
with absolute firmness that He would rise on the third day.
Perhaps that is why the Gospels do not record any appearance to
her after the resurrection: her faith needed no reviving --and the
lack of a visit would be an occasion of immeasurable growth by
holding on in the dark while saying: Fiat.

Jesus and Mary are beyond suffering now. How then can they appear
tearful and speaking of their suffering, and saying it is hard to
hold back the hand of God from striking? This is another case of
anthromorphism. For example Genesis says God told Abraham He
needed to go down to see if Sodom was really so wicked. Of course
He always knew. This is a human way of speaking. So these tearful
apparitions do not express suffering now, but in the past. And the
Holiness of God still abhors sins. They also mean that sins today
are part of the cause of that suffering. She or He pleads for
rebalancing - penance so the Holiness of God may not need to
strike the world. He to wants to hold back in the hope of saving
more souls: CF Wisdom 12.8-10.

Even today she says fiat. For Jesus before He died entrusted her
to John. In the early 200s Origen said that at the cross she
became spiritual mother of all of us. Vatican II in LG. 61 agreed:
"in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in
the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by
obedience [fiat], faith, hope and burning love, to restore
supernatural life to souls. As a result, she is our Mother in the
order of grace."

. . . . . . . . . . We notice those words, "as a result ". That
is, she is our Mother by fulfilling the two roles of a Mother.
First, she shared in bringing new life into being -- the life of
souls. Second she takes care of that life, so long as she is
willing, able and needed. Our Lady of course is always willing and
able to care for us, and always able. Pope Benedict XV called her
"suppliant omnipotence" for by asking she can bring about anything
that God can do by His inherent power.

In time we largely outgrow the need of our earthly Mothers -- not
so our need of our Lady. Our need of her will cease only when no
further graces are needed, for all come through her, since at the
cross she shared in earning all graces.

If we suffer for someone, then - since to love is to will good to
another for the other's sake -- our love for that one grows, as we
do good to the suffering one. What is her love for us? It was at
such incomprehensible cost of suffering that she shared in
bringing supernatural life to our souls.

The mere fact that she shared in earning all graces justifies
saying that all come through her. But, does she need to ask each
grace as each of us asks her help? She could actually do that. For
any soul in that blessed vision sees all that pertains to it--- we
all pertain to her, and her grace, her ability to see is in
proportion to her love, so great that "none greater under God can
be thought of, and no one but God comprehend it."

Vatican II in LG. 62, right after the words we just quoted, added:
"This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without
interruption, from the consent [fiat] which she gave at the
Annunciation, even to the eternal consummation of all the elect."

Her fiat continues too in every Mass. Vatican II, On Liturgy #10,
said the Mass is the renewal of the New Covenant. She took so
great a part in the making of that new covenant. Clearly, she must
have a similar part in the renewal. The Council of Trent said the
Mass is the same as Calvary, "only the manner of offering being
different". As we saw above, a sacrifice has two parts: outward
sign, interior dispositions. In the Mass the outward sign is the
same as on Holy Thursday, the seeming separation of body and blood
in the two species. But that body and blood came from her. The
interior is obedience -- His obedience, with which He died. It
continues, is not repeated, in every Mass. Her obedience from
heaven is the same as that with which she died. Her fiat still
continues. So Pope John Paul II spoke well when in his Angelus
Homily of Feb. 12, 1984, he said: "Mary is present in the memorial
- the liturgical action - because she was present at the saving
event. She is at every altar. . . . "

It follows that the more fully we are united with her Fiat at the
Mass, the more fully are we united with Him.

What of the period -- we know not its length- between His death
and her assumption? Certainly she desired to see Him. In ordinary
souls there is a difference, even at times a conflict between
natural and supernatural love. But in her, natural love of a
Mother for Son merged, was identified with her spiritual love.
Even at the start of her life, as we tried to glimpse at the
outset of this study, she as it were was permitted to gaze into
the abyss that God is. That penetration grew and grew, especially
in times of holding on in the dark, in times of suffering. What
must it have been in this period? Again, as Pius IX said, her
holiness/love was so great even at the start of life that "none
greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can
comprehend it" This would pull her powerfully in the direction of
seeing Him. Yet not in such a way as to involve any lack of
acceptance of His will. She still lived by her fiat, and for all
eternity says fiat.

When finally the blessed day came when she could cross over the
edge into the abyss itself- with or without experiencing bodily
death we know not. But she did make that passage, and was welcomed
by Him in His glorified body and personally led to her throne
beside Him forever.

All of this love of Him did not take away at all from her love for
us - they merged, for He loved and loves us immeasurably. Within
that she could accept suffering that was beyond our comprehension.

Yet even that suffering while still in this life did not take away
anything from the peace that ever reigned on the fine point of her
soul, even as it was in His case when His soul otherwise was a
wasteland, as John Paul II, while on the point of His soul there
was eternal peace, absolute union: "I and the Father are one".

At our end, if we have been faithful, she will -- either while we
are still in this life or just beyond it- - part the veil. Then we
shall finally see her and Him with no admixture of suffering,
forever, for we shall come before the throne where the One who
sits there wipes away all tears from every eye, saying: Behold, I
make all things new. (Apoc. 21.5).

Although the chief blessedness lies in the vision of God Himself,
yet Pius XII wrote well when he said: "Surely, in the face of His
own Mother, God has gathered together all the splendors of His
divine artistry. . . . You know, beloved sons and daughters how
easily human beauty enraptures and exalts a kind heart. What would
it ever do before the beauty of Mary! That is why Dante saw in
Paradise, in the midst of "more than a million rejoicing angels a
beauty smiling - what joy! - it was in the eyes of all the other
Saints "-- Mary!

Will this vision ever become dull? No. She is as it were merged
with the vision of God. Even in this life some special souls have
contacted her as if one with God in infused contemplation. We can
never exhaust this vision, for it is infinite, and we are finite.
And there is no more time, with restless movement from future to
present to past. We simply ARE, participating in the changeless
now of God Himself!

Copyright (c) 1997 EWTN Online Services.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.