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 thepositive 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 gave 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 many 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."
 

Interior Life Page 2

 home | Our Lady | back | next