The Interior Life Of Our Lady
Page Two of Two
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.
Web: http://www.ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ewtn.com
Reproduced with permission.