Some correspondence; expresses some current thoughts:
I always find your comments to be insightful and helpful. Thank you.
I'll be especially interested in your current masterpiece, the one you are working on now, and of which persons which will be discussed--the more contemporary mystics.
I don't always agree with some that people say are mystics, as there are many factors that comprise a mystic be he/she of any Christian faith and otherwise. Of course, you and I are Christians and Catholics so that is the area of focus. I was born into Protestant background and upbringing but born this way, and I had come upon David. Knowles' book titled, I think, What is Mysticism, to be the closest to my lived experience now of nearly 71 years, to connect the dots. I know many consider some saints, even recent ones, to be mystics, whereas I would not. They may be great contemplatives and persons advanced in prayer, and have had a mystical experience or even a couple or so, but there are various factors, as you know, that comprise the category or term "mystic".
Mystic and mysticism are becoming rather catch-all terms and sought after, assumed or given labels, that of vacuuming in those who technically or even essentially are not; so people yet have confusion per if one or persons can "become a mystic". No, but anyone can become a contemplative. Karl Rahner confused the two or also that of being a spiritual person with his relativizing mysticism "for the masses" and in everyday mysticism, or stating "In the days haead, you will either be a mystic (one who has experienced God for real) or nothing at all." One who has experienced God for real, for one thing, is not necessarily a mystic. That is not valid criteria for who is or who is not a mystic.
Rahner and growing number of others who are not mystics, approach mysticism and mystics as if something or a spiritual state or status that can be achieved, not something that one is born with, that is given by God and implanted into a soul prior to birth and complicit with that soul's God-given mission in life. I'm always amazed at those who are not, expounding as if experts on something they are not. It is like those who are not Catholics expounding on Catholicism, negatively, or about the Mass, negatively, when they have never been in a Mass or if have, not without strong bias in place.
As for mystics and their God-given missions in life they vary. Again, the living out of a mystic's mission varies. There can be not just one mission, but a series that unfolds in a mystics' life. Often it involves suffering. As Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich explained in her writings, God always has mystics in every generation, and souls are chosen to be mystics to be born as other mystics on earth are dying. Most mystics are not known, or if known not by many and not a cause celebre in the Catholic Church while alive or after death. Of course, not all mystics are Catholics, but many mystics are or find their way into the Catholic Church, East or West.
I'll be, again, very eager to read your book on the contemporary mystics you've studied. Will be fascinating as your entire life and studies and writings are vitally of interest and benefit to all! My take is from my lived perspective and life.
Currently I've been considering the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, as example of recent Feast day. Someone suggested when I mentioned the veneration plus the title of the Feast Day, that the literal chair actually meant the chairman aspect of Peter's position as leader, but the word chairman came into use in early 18th c. The chair that had been thought sat upon by St. Peter was gifted in mid-800's by a royalty as a politically astute gift. It has been brought out from its glass enclosure to be venerated off and on.
The "Feast" day began as a celebration in early 4th c. to commemorate Peter's first sermon in Rome, and another celebration was held to commemorate Peter's preaching in Antioch. John XXIII did away with both Feasts, and I wonder if it had to do with the scientific tests about that time which proved that the chair was from 6th or later century so nothing Peter sat upon nor was his. Later both Feasts were combined for Feb. 22 date, and Benedict XVI placed on calendar as optional.
I've been fascinated with how humankind has added and created over the centuries, what such as Jesus nor Peter would have wanted to begin with--humility alone a reason. But I wonder why the Feast is not called The Feast of St. Peter Preaching in Rome and Antioch, or The Feast of St. Peter's Preaching, as that was the origin of it--people in 4th c. wanting to commemorate Peter's first sermon preached in Rome, and a bit later those of Antioch of course wanted the fact that he also preached in Antioch to be commemorated, as well. That Jesus chose Peter to be leader of the Apostles does not seem anything of which Peter would want special recognition. Jesus choosing him as leader might have been due to his being older than the other men, or Jesus noting he had leadership qualities, or that the men looked to Peter for guidance as their elder more experienced in life.
The chair itself is rather embarrassing--as it ends up being not at all Peter's nor ever touched by him--and though it has carvings of Peter and the Disciples, is more a museum piece and not a religious icon, or shouldn't be, regardless. Jesus never taught us to venerate icons, and God certainly did not like that practice.
Anyway, I'm striving to consider facts and truth, and to pray and place the truths beside His Living Word, and then consider what is of our human nature and has been. Then consider these with examples from the Old Testament and how God reacted, as well as what ought I be venerating and celebrating. I think celebrating St Peter's first sermon in Rome and his sermons in Antioch are marvelous to celebrate--and as reminders that I should be silently in thought, prayer, writing, or also verbally and in actions: preaching Christ. Fulfill the Great Commission is Jesus' command meant for all of us throughout Christendom and beyond, in all ages.
I'd love that chair to be sold and the monies given to people in Nigeria or pay hospital bills or some such direct good to the poor, wouldn't you? I think Jesus and Peter both would be delighted. The chair in his glass case is but a beautiful, very old chair. I'd love the Feast name to be changed to his preaching sermons--great reminder to us to preach even in smiling at people with our eyes since we still wear masks.
My dreaming does not make it so. There could be someone right now at the Vatican kneeling in front. of that chair. My task is to figure what I can do for Jesus (and even Peter, too, such as imitate his humility and know he was loved despite denying Jesus--something very human which can happen in so many little ways repeatedly in such as my own life), and then be or do it. Smile for Jesus; how often does He see us smiling when we pray? Usually I am upset or suffering, not smiling. When I used to be able to go to Mass, I'd smile at Him in the Tabernacle because I realized He looked out and saw nothing but glum, serious, sad faces staring at Him in the Tabernacle.
Even glum and serous, I can try to remember to smile for and at Jesus. Since He is in me always, I can smile within. This is possible. His tabernacle is my heart, the Mass within, imprinted as well: His Real Presence. He is in us and we are in Him; Jesus says so in His Living Word. Just as it is possible, also, to seek Christ and HIs Church--and consider what is His Church and not what is not.
God Bless His Real Presence in us!
Love in His Love!
No comments:
Post a Comment