Friday, 18 December 2015

Fair Spring’s Look


Our Lady is Fair Spring. Concerning Her look it is written: "You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes" (Song 4:9). 

'Girl with Rabbits', Frederick Stuart Church, 1886.


My woods were barren
And all was dead and dry
Within,
With not a flower that could bloom,
Nor any green but only grey
And brown,
For all was dead and still,
And Spring she could not come,
And so I said: “My life is done.”

Then heart cold and numb
Began to beat at pace
Most slow,
And eyes that wept for none but me
Did tremble, swell and leak moist pools
Of seas;
For sorrow overwhelmed
My soul that spurned my love
And so I said: “Goodbye my dove.”

Whence cloud high above
Turned from grey to thick black
And rained,
Dousing my flesh and wetting all
Though I had light none to see near
Nor far;
But then it slowly ceased
To rain and cloud gave way
S’that I could see in light of day.

And yea trees did sway
With leaves most lush on arms
Once bear,
And all around me I saw life
And colour and sounds, strange and bright
And new;
And there she was my love:
Fair Spring in grotto’s nook
Who caused my soul to swoon and faint with single look.


30th August, 2015.

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

St. John of the Cross: Loving the Giver above the Gifts



A Brief Bio


St. John of the Cross
St. John of the Cross was born at Fontiveros in Spain in 1542. He was invested in the Carmelite habit in 1563, made his profession the year after, and was ordained a priest in 1567. In the same year he met St. Teresa of Avila who convinced John, who by now was thinking of leaving the Carmelites for the stricter Carthusians, to join her in a reform of the Carmelite Order. The following year after he completed his studies, he made the vows of the Reform and thus began the beginning of the rest of his life – a life marked by trials.

At one time he was imprisoned in a tiny cell in Toledo, by Carmelite friars who opposed the Reform. During his imprisonment he was subjected to weekly lashings, with scraps of slated fish, bread and water for rations. At times he was forced to eat like a dog on the floor in front of the community of friars where he would be verbally humiliated by the superiors under the pretext of disobedience, saying such things as: “Here is one who sought to teach before he learnt”. After nine months he managed to escape. According to tradition the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to him in a vision on the Feast of the Assumption, telling him that his trials would soon be over. A few days later she showed him a window by which he could make his escape. During the night he unhinged his cell door (loosened by Mary) and tying blankets together lowered himself outside the monastery window. Exhausted and fragile he managed to scale the tall monastery wall –also with the help of Mary it is said, where he took shelter in the nearby convent of the Reform. It was during his time in prison that he composed a large part of his most famous poem Spiritual Canticle, along with several other shorter poems.

Towards the end of his life, on the 1st of June 1591, despite being the co-founder of the Reform – by now known as the Discalced, ‘Barefooted’ Carmelites – he was stripped of all offices of authority at the communities Chapter. Within several weeks he fell ill with a severe fever, and despite the urgings of his companions he insisted to be transferred to the monastery at Ubeda; since the Prior of that monastery loathed him, and John could not turn down a certain cross which he knew would be his last. His final days in Ubeda, where he was confined to bed, were spent in agony and abjection, with the Prior persecuting him right until the end when at last the Prior begged St. John for forgiveness. Throughout his period of sickness several women fought over the rights to wash his bloody clothes and sheets, which they attest had no odor except that of the smell of roses. On December 14, 1591 he died of erysipelas, an acute infection of the skin and lymphatic system, at the age of 49.

He was canonised in 1726 and was proclaimed a Doctor (Teacher) of the Universal Church in 1926; receiving the title Doctor Mysticus ‘Mystic Doctor’, because of his expertise in treating of the subject of Mystical Theology. He is considered a master of Spanish literature, and was at once a poet, philosopher, theologian and spiritual director – a task which he continues to this day. His preeminent works include the Dark Night, often referred to as Dark Night of the Soul; Ascent of Mount Carmel, and the Spiritual Canticle.

What characterises St. John of the Cross is his ardent desire for union with God in the simplicity and poverty of a faith that seeks God for God’s Own sake. There is much we can learn from this Doctor of the Church, yet we will focus on one central theme that runs throughout the writings of this great Saint and forms a corner stone of his spirituality: loving God as opposed to loving the gifts of God.

Loving the Giver above the Gifts


In the spiritual life we can often fall into the trap of loving the gifts of God more than we love God the Giver. It is not possible to truly love God and to be attached and ‘in love’ with the gifts that He gives; since “no man can serve two masters” (Mt 6:24a). Thus at times we may become attached to consolations in prayer such as tingly sensations, feel good emotions, insights into mysteries of our faith, or even to comfortable and easy prayer sessions. The sign that we are in love with such consolations more than we are in love with God, is when we stop or slacken our prayers because we think we’re getting nothing out of it. What we should really be doing is praying regardless of how we feel, remaining indifferent to whether we feel warm and fuzzy or numb and tired; whether we are experiencing a flood of spiritual insights or are plagued by distractions and can’t concentrate; since prayer is about being with God and letting God be with us. It is not about having our senses caressed and minds pampered. As St. John of the Cross emphatically reiterates, prayer is about union with God, and to bring about this union God knows what is best – sometimes consolations, but sometimes dryness, tedium and seeming fruitlessness; and the saint teaches us that these latter experiences are in fact most profitable to our souls.

The One out of the Ten


In the Gospels we read of the account of ‘The Ten Lepers’. Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem when he meets ten lepers along the way. Jesus says to them:

“Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks… Then said Jesus, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.” (Lk 17:14-19).

One Leper Returns
In this situation we see that out of the ten who received the gift of healing only one turned back to give thanks to God. Thus out of all the ten only one loved the Giver more than the gift; and because of this gratitude the Lord – who will never have Himself outdone in generosity – says to the man “your faith has made you well”. Obviously he is not only speaking about physical healing, since each of the ten received that. But Jesus is speaking about spiritual healing – a gift He gave to this man alone. The gift was the ‘making well’ of the relationship between God and himself; the gift of having given pleasure to God; a gift only enjoyed by those who give simple and selfless thanksgiving.

The majority of Christians are like the nine ungrateful lepers: happily receiving gifts from God, but forgetful of giving thanks and perhaps even forgetful of the Giver Himself. Such gifts given by God directly and indirectly – which we often take for granted – include literally everything such as good health, the opportunity to suffer; sunshine and rain; a financial blessing; a good exam result, a family, friendships, creation, our own existence etc. In regards to all such gifts we are called to be like that one grateful man, so that in the midst of enjoying the gifts of God – we turn back to God, facing away from the gifts received and attentive only to the Giver.[1] Ironically it is when we give thanks to God as the Giver, focusing on Him as opposed to the gifts He gives, that God bestows more gifts on us, just as He did to that one healed leper. However the greatest of the gifts that God gives us we can focus on, and this Gift is at once the most sublime and the most allusive: it is the giving of God’s Self in the Person of Jesus, and His drawing us into a deeper union with Him. This is especially the case in the Sacraments, and particularly so in the Eucharist. Yet herein we are addressing those gifts which are other than God.

Spiritual Gluttony: Using God


Another error we might fall into is becoming spiritual gluttons who seek after ‘new spiritual experiences’ or spiritual novelties for their own sake or for our own sake. This might manifest by seeking after powerful worship music; wanting to have a vision of God, Mary or some saint or angel; wanting a more entertaining church service; attending spiritual conferences for the sake of ‘the next hit’; by seeking to tangibly feel God, as if the purpose of prayer is to emotionally experience God; or by seeking fancier and more polished liturgies – all under the pretext of “what can I get out of this?” There is nothing inherently wrong with these things, nor with experiencing God. But there is something wrong when we seek to tangibly experience God as opposed to simply seeking God for His Own sake – indifferent to whether ‘we feel Him’ or ‘think we are encountering him’. We must be confident in faith that He is always in our midst, with the sole aim of giving Him glory no matter how we feel and no matter what temptations of doubt may assail our minds.

A suitable analogy for spiritual gluttony would be to imagine a husband who loves the sexual experiences he has with his wife more than he loves his wife herself. In this instance the husband would be guilty of lust, since his wife has become an object for his own greedy pleasure. He has objectified her and has valued the gift of her body more than his wife as the unique woman that she is. There is nothing wrong with the sexual act in the bond of wedlock, in fact it is a gift given by God to be enjoyed in the bonds of wedlock, within the realm of the moral law. However there is something wrong when this gift of sexuality is esteemed more than relationship and personhood. It’s just as if we were to give a gift to someone only to have them run away with the gift in delight, without the slightest recognition and gratitude for who we are and for our bestowing the gift. This leads to one of the worst feelings of all: being used.

Medieval Choir
Sadly we often use God. Thus whilst worship music, charismatic praise, a sacred music choir, and fancy liturgies are good in and of themselves, since they are among the gifts that God has bestowed on us; it is a great imperfection to seek these things as ends in themselves. These things, like all the gifts God gives us, are supposed to be springboards from which we can praise God, and tools with which we can glorify him. Yet often we turn these things into idols, as though these things were God! Underlying this subtle spiritual idolatry is gluttony for spiritual experience. So that worship music becomes more about feeling an encounter with God instead of giving praise to God. Charismatic praise becomes more about feeling swept up in the Spirit, or receiving a word instead of glorifying God – since being swept up in the Spirit and receiving ‘a word’ should be left to God to happen if it happens. A sacred music choir becomes more about appeasing one’s musical sensibilities as opposed to being a tool for elevating people’s minds to God. And fancy liturgy becomes more about the smells, bells and whistles and ticking the checklist of liturgical norms as opposed to giving thanks to the Father with the Sacred Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. Not that the smells, bells and whistles, and meeting liturgical norms is a bad thing, for these are good in themselves; but rather that they are means to the end of praising God; they are not ends in themselves. When we turn such gifts as worship music, charismatic praise, a sacred music choir and fancy liturgies into idols by making them ends in themselves or into means to meet our own sensual appetites and ideas of ‘what ought to be done’, we are using God out of self-love, instead of using these ‘things’ to love Him.

Signs of an Imperfect and False Devotion


A sign that we are more in love with the gifts of God than God the giver, is if our devotion wanes when the tangible gifts of God are partly or wholly withdrawn. If our devotion is lessened in such circumstances than our devotion is imperfect, by which it means it is at least partly false. If our devotion at Mass is at least somewhat dependent upon how good the homily was, then our devotion is somewhat false.* If our devotion in prayer is at least somewhat dependent upon feeling emotionally pleasant, then our devotion is somewhat false. If our devotion in prayer is at least somewhat dependent upon how easy or how difficult things are going in our life, then our devotion is somewhat false.

Yet often God will use these things, such as homilies, feelings, and easiness or difficulties in our life to rekindle our hearts with a flame of devotion – imperfect yes, but it’s a start, and God has to start from somewhere. Thus perhaps we might have given up on prayer for a while, or have fallen short of what God is calling us to do; but then all of a sudden some cross comes along in our life and we’re back on our knees crying out to God with fervour. God even works through sin, so that at one instance we think we’re the bees knees and the cats pajamas, when all of a sudden we fall flat on our faces in sin and are exceedingly humbled, and we return to God repentant and with greater fervour than before – aware that whilst we might be the bee, He’s our knees; and whilst we might be the cat, He’s our pajamas.

In What a True and Perfect Devotion Consists


In contrast a true and perfect devotion, is a devotion that is constant and unwavering no matter what is happening in our immediate environment and in our lives. Keeping in mind that devotion is a free choice to desire God and a commitment to love God, it is not about feeling like one loves God – since feelings are deceptive and love is not a feeling but an act of the will. Thus we can practice true devotion to God even in the midst of emotional and physical suffering. By such true devotion we follow God and chase after union with Him no matter what gifts we feel God is or isn’t giving us. In fact according to John of the Cross’ schema, (for those in the state of grace) the times we feel that God has withdrawn his gifts from us are in fact the times in which God is bountifully lavishing us with gifts. Whilst those gifts that we can sense are less valuable and beneficial to our soul than the gifts which are purely spiritual – which we are not even or hardly aware of.

By true devotion we don’t care how good or bad the priest’s homily was at Mass; we may still prefer a good homily, but we’re not worried about it, we’re just attentive to what matters – loving God and preparing ourselves for Holy Communion. By true devotion we see God’s Will in whatever emotional state we find ourselves in during prayer – whether it’s an “I can’t wait to pray” emotional state, or an “O no, it’s prayer time” state, or a “Let’s get out of here” state; and whatever the state we claim God’s Divine Strength as our own and soldier on in prayer, even if it’s just being present to God. By true devotion we will be inspired to pray all of the time, always and everywhere, for everything and everybody; and as much as we can –out loud, mentally, silently and with a loving intention whilst engaged in our duties. By a true devotion our devotion will not depend on how easy or how difficult life is going, but both easiness and difficulties will be seen as opportunities to praise, love and thank God.

The Tangible Outer Husk and the Spiritual Inner Nectar


St. John of the Cross explains in what this true devotion consists. He writes:

True devotion must issue from the heart, and consists in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.[2]

In other words, what he is saying is that true devotion is an outpouring of love from the heart, and consists in a pure faith which is not dependent upon the outward and exterior forms of God’s gifts. The outward, visible and tangible aspect of God’s gifts, including the tangible aspect of experiencing God, is in fact “the outer husk” of God’s gifts, whilst the actual valuable and important aspect of God’s gifts is the inner fruit that is neither felt by the senses nor fully comprehended by the intellect.[3] This principle applies to all of God’s gifts both spiritual and material. Since even the gift of physical food, although its material ‘husk’ is essential to the sustaining of physical life, its most important aspect is the communicated goodness of God who provides for His creatures – hence we pray grace before meals to recognise this fact. As the Catechism states: “there is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.” (CCC 1670). Most importantly however this principle applies to the life of prayer; so that anything that we tangibly experience in prayer we must not become attached to, keeping in mind that such sensual things are but the superficial husks of God’s gifts compared to the hidden spiritual nectar of Gods very Self being infused into our souls – either with or without the accompaniment of such tangible husks.

The Importance of a Pure Faith


St. John's Diagram of the Ascent of Mt. Carmel
A persistent theme in the writings of John of the Cross is the notion of a pure faith which is necessary for a true and perfect devotion. With faith being “the assurance of things hoped for, [and] the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). Such a faith is necessary to hold fast to the Giver who gives Himself to us in, with and through His gifts. Neither visions, sermons, apparitions, music, locutions, tingly sensations, nor one’s own concepts and understandings of God and the mysteries of our faith, are pathways that lead to union with God. “Faith… alone” he says, “is the proximate and proportionate means whereby the soul is united with God.”[4] What he means by this is that faith is the pathway that leads to union with God, since Jesus is the Way, and we walk in Him by faith.

Everything else (yet visions and locutions should never be sought after) can serve as sign posts along the pathway of faith, encouraging us to walk on in faith. Yet if we’re not careful, we can turn these sign posts into butterflies that we chase and which lead us off the path of faith in God – which is a path where things are neither seen nor felt, and onto the path of faith in things seen, felt and fully understood. When we build our supposed faith and love of God upon the sand of a faith and love for tangible things, we are setting ourselves up for disaster. Since if a storm of some descript comes and invalidates or takes away the tangible things we have built our faith upon we will lose our faith in God. This has happened to many people. For although miracles, apparitions, and spiritual leaders can be good things, they are not God – and may prove quite the contrary. Thus our devotion should not be dependent upon these uncertain things. But instead our devotion should depend upon God and the Revelation of Christ as proclaimed by the Church. Using such things as private revelations, such as miracles and apparitions, to depend more on God and to penetrate deeper into Public Revelation. If we do all of this then our faith and love – our devotion, will be true and perfect.

The Darkness of Faith: The Safe, Sure and Secure Way


Drawing of the Crucifixion by John of the Cross
This is what John of the Cross means when he refers to the darkness and night of faith in God (here understood in a general sense) being the safe, sure and secure way that leads to union with God in the spiritual life. Since the soul who walks in a pure faith leans only on God and seeks only God, without being encumbered by sensible experiences or the lack thereof. Indeed how foolish it is to desire to see God in a vision, instead of desiring God Himself who need not be seen. It would be like someone who was engaged, and who desperately wanted to get married; and so they ask to be plugged into the matrix so that they could have an imaginary wife now, when they’re already engaged and just need to wait a few months until they’re married!

Similarly, our days on earth are days we must live in faith, which is to live in Mary beneath the shadow of the Cross. To live in pure faith we must never desire to literally and tangibly see or feel God in this life – we must be content to believe in that intimacy which is invisible and imperceptible. An eternal intimacy which need not wait until our death, but which we can enjoy now through faith by which we allow to take place within us the romance between each Person of the Trinity. When we get to heaven, then we will have all of eternity to behold Him face to face without any veils between us, and it is right and just to long for this glorious day. But for now “we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Cor 4:18).

Being Content with the ‘Empty Tomb’ of Faith


We’re not called to be like Thomas who sought out a tangible experience of God in the flesh of Jesus; nor to be like the other Apostles who didn’t believe the women’s account of the resurrection until they had tangibly experienced Jesus for themselves. But we’re called to be like the Apostle John who did not seek to tangibly experience Jesus, but who sought Jesus for His Own sake. Thus upon seeing the empty tomb John believed, and it was enough for him to know that Jesus was alive and still with him (Jn 20:8). Similarly we must be content with the ‘empty tomb’, which is a symbol of pure faith. We must be satisfied with seeing nothing, of feeling nothing, of hearing no mighty voice from above, nor of smelling any scent of roses. Like John the Beloved we must be content with the ‘empty tomb’ of faith, and believe wholeheartedly that God is with us, in us, and calling us to draw ever nearer to Him.

A Pure Faith: The Way to Love the Giver above the Gifts


This is the example that another John gives us, St. John of the Cross. We don’t need to tangibly experience God in order to experience God, we just need to believe. Nor should we chase after experiences of God, since we already possess God in our souls and need only swim deeper into Him – hence our motto should be: “The Lord is my shepherd there is nothing I shall want” (Ps 23:1). This is the same as saying: “The Lord is my God, and I need nothing else. I do not need visions, warm fuzzies, or grand insights, I only need God.” If God bestows such gifts on us, so be it and we shouldn't fear them, but we must never place our faith and love in these things as though they were God, we must continue along the bright and certain path of faith for the love of God. A way which only seems dark and obscure to our finite minds.

We do not want to be those of whom the Lord says: “Have you based your belief and love on Me because you have seen, felt, or heard me?” But we want to be those in the fullest sense of whom our Lord says: “Blessed are those who base their belief on Me, and love Me, because I Am Who I Am, not because they have seen, felt or heard me.”[5]

It seems appropriate to conclude with the words of St. John of the Cross from the Spiritual Canticle:

You will still urge and say, How is it, then, that I find Him not, nor feel Him, if He is within my soul? It is because He is hidden, and because you hide not yourself also that you may find Him and feel Him; for he that will seek that which is hidden must enter secretly into the secret place where it is hidden, and when he finds it, he is himself hidden like the object of his search. Seeing, then, that the Bridegroom whom you love is “the treasure hidden in the field” of your soul, for which the wise merchant gave all that he had, so you, if you will find Him, must forget all that is yours, withdraw from all created things, and hide yourself in the secret retreat of the spirit, shutting the door upon yourself — that is, denying your will in all things — and praying to your Father in secret. Then you, being hidden with Him, will be conscious of His presence in secret, and will love Him, possess Him in secret, and delight in Him in secret, in a way that no tongue or language can express. Courage, then, O soul most beautiful, you know now that your Beloved, Whom you desire, dwells hidden within your breast; strive, therefore, to be truly hidden with Him, and then you shall embrace Him, and be conscious of His presence with loving affection. (Stanza I, 11-12).


[1] In a special way however, in the Sacraments, the Giver and the Gift is one and the same, yet still we may become attached to the outward aspect of the gift of the Sacrament (i.e. the tangible aspect) and may be in need of being purified in this respect, so that we turn away from the consideration of signs as though they were ends in themselves, towards the consideration of the God who communicates Himself through such visible signs.

 * There is nothing necessarily wrong with changing the parish one attends if one prefers one priest and their preaching over another, provided its God’s Will and one’s motives are just. It is simply that imperfection lies is having one’s devotion dependent upon external things and other creatures, including on priests and their performance. In the same way its fine to kneel or sit when praying the Rosary, whatever makes it easier for one ‘to pray well’; yet it would be an imperfection if one’s devotion was dependent upon kneeling over sitting, or vice versa, as if devotion consisted in exterior acts and not principally in a loving heart. If one possessed true devotion, although they might prefer kneeling to sitting during the Rosary, or sitting to kneeling, really they don’t care, and if they had to adopt one position over the other (i.e. an injury) their heart would not be troubled, not their devotion harmed.
[2] John of the Cross, Dark Night, Book I, Chapter III, 1.
[3] John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book II, Chapter XVII, 5.
[4] John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book II, Chapter IX, 1.
[5] Drawing from the Gospel account when Thomas doubts: John 20:29.

Tuesday, 8 December 2015

Immaculate Conception



A brief article on the Immaculate Conception followed by a poem narrating upon this mystery of faith; drawing from Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

 Why the Immaculate Conception?...Why Not?


Detail of Mary as the Immaculate Conception, stained glass, late 1800's.
The Immaculate Conception is the mystery of faith that states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, because the Blood of Christ redeemed Her preveniently at the instant of Her conception. Hence for our Lady Her conception and Her sanctification were one single event; and this preservation from sin is the Fruit of Christ’s Redemption, and all other fruits of Christ’s saving Passion are blossoms extending forth from this most supple first fruit - since although Christ is the "first fruit" of Redemption, Mary in Christ is also a "first fruit" (see footnote).* Now that which is inferior depends on that which is superior, thus truly the inferior effect of Christ’s Passion of saving humanity from sin incurred, is dependent upon the superior effect of Christ’s Passion which saved Mary from incurring sin altogether. We might ask ourselves: ‘Why would God do this? Why would God preserve Mary from contracting original sin?’ Employing the argument of Blessed Duns Scotus we would reply: God could have brought about (1) that she was never in original sin; (2) that she was in original sin for only an instant, and (3) that she was in sin for a period of time, being purged at the last instant. The most excellent of these possibilities –that she was never in original sin – God would have wrought for Mary. For although God could have restrained the grace He worked on Mary, would He? Certainly not, because She was chosen from the beginning to be the Mother of the Word, and thus of God; and it was Her very own flesh, and Her flesh alone that formed the very flesh of the Word Incarnate; and so how could God allow that such flesh should be stained by original sin? How could God allow the very flesh which would form the human body of Christ to be tainted in any way? He could not, and perhaps there could have been a different way of God's becoming flesh but He chose the way of Mary; and thus by the merits of Christ’s Passion – not yet occurring in time but manifesting through eternity - God redeemed and sanctified Mary from the instant of Her conception – hence the Immaculate Conception.
 
Icon of the Visitation
Furthermore we consider John the Baptist who was sanctified in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary who was visiting greeted her (Lk 1:39-56). This John was the holiest among all those who belonged to the Old Covenant, but his dignity by grace is by no means superior to those who live in the Kingdom of God in New Covenant of the Holy Eucharist: since the Lord says: “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Lk 7:28). Then we consider Jeremiah the Prophet who was likewise miraculously sanctified in the womb, long before the time of John the Baptist. Wherefore in Scripture we read: “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer 1:5). Now if these men were sanctified, that is cleansed of original sin (always and only by the merits of Christ) prior to their birth, and prior to their rational competency, what then shall we say of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Shall she have been merely sanctified in the womb after having contracted original sin like these other holy men? Or would God not have worked an even greater wonder for the woman chosen to give human flesh to the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity? Certainly, and that He did; hence the Church in 1854 declared this truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception a dogma of the faith.[1]

The Immaculate Conception in the Writings of the Early Fathers



Yet the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not a novel teaching, it has always been a mystery of faith, but it was for some time a somewhat hidden one. The dogma is hidden in Scripture and traces its roots right back to the early Church, such as in the writings of the Early Fathers. For example St. Gregory of Nazianzen (329-390 A.D.) speaks of Mary as Prokathartheisa, which means ‘Prepurified One’, writing: “In every way He [Christ] became a man, save sin; for He has been conceived from a virgin, after she had been prepurified with respect to soul and body through the Holy Spirit (for it was necessary that His birth be honoured, and virginity prior to that)”.[2] St. Sophronius the Hagiopolite (560-638 A.D.) developed this handed down Patristic teaching by referring to Mary as being already “stainless” prior to Incarnation-event. He writes: “The Holy Spirit comes down upon you, the stainless woman; It is going to make you more pure…”[3] In a most wonderful manner St. John Damascene (676-749 A.D.) writes concerning the conception of Mary as follows:



And I have another theme higher and more divine; for nature is conquered by grace…so that the Theotokos virgin was about to be born from Anne. Nature didn’t dare to anticipate grace’s offspring, but remained fruitless, until grace [itself] produced fruit…O all-blessed loins of Joachim, from which the all-pure seed was sown.[4]



Here John Damascene refers to Mary’s conception as an occasion in which grace conquered nature, and in which grace worked before nature; whilst calling the very seed who was Mary - all-pure. It is clear that the Immaculate Conception is by no means a novel teaching, but a truth that has been hidden in the deposit of faith like an artifact in the sand, which across the ages has been slowly revealed by theological brushings.

The Immaculate Conception in Sacred Scripture


The truth of the Immaculate Conception is implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture. Citing the interpretations of the Early Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers Pope Pius IX in the Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ – in which  the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was officially proclaimed – writes:

 

This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges -- these the Fathers beheld in that ark of Noah, which was built by divine command and escaped entirely safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world; in the ladder which Jacob saw reaching from the earth to heaven, by whose rungs the angels of God ascended and descended, and on whose top the Lord himself leaned' [and] in that bush which Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, which was not consumed or injured in any way but grew green and blossomed beautifully…



Created Wisdom, a Spotless Mirror, and a Garden Enclosed
 
The Virgin and Child (in 'Hortus Conclusus'), Stefano da Verona, 1410.
Another Scriptural allusion to Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the verse from the Book of Wisdom that describes Mary as the created Wisdom – the Sophia – of God. On one level the Hebraic personification of Wisdom as a woman is an allegorical way of referring to the Holy Spirit – the Uncreated Wisdom of God, yet on another level it refers to Mary as the created Wisdom of God who is the Seat of Eternal Wisdom.[5] “For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.” (Wis 7:25-26). Mary is indeed “a spotless mirror” for no sin – neither original sin nor personal sin – has sullied her, since “nothing defiled gains entrance into her” so that as “a spotless mirror” she reflects perfectly the Eternal Light. This notion of Mary being immaculate – so that “nothing defiled” can gain “entrance into her” is emphasised in the Church Father's interpretation of the following verse from the Song of Songs as referring to Mary’s virginity and moral purity: “A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed.” (4:12). This notion of Mary being ‘locked’ and ‘sealed’ refers not only to Her Perpetual Virginity, but to Her immaculacy from all sin. Since Mary not only never opened Her human will to allow the defilement of sin to enter into her soul; but Her soul - by the grace of God - was never opened to original sin at all, and hence Mary in Her Immaculate Conception is “a garden locked” and “a fountain sealed”. In fact the Hebrew word used for “locked” or “sealed” in this verse (לוענ) is the only instance where this version of the word is used in the Scriptures; having the same numerical (absolute: 156) value as the word meaning 'the tent' or 'tabernacle' (דעומ להא). Thus why was Mary “sealed” and “locked” up? In other words, why did God cause Mary to be Immaculately Conceived? Because She was destined to be the Mother of God, that is, the Tabernacle and Tent for the Divine Presence of the Word.

The Pure Vessel Filled with Grace

A similar notion of purity being associated with ‘being sealed’ is alluded elsewhere in the Scriptures: “And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.” (Num 19:15). Yet Mary is the Immaculate Vessel of God which had the cover of God’s Light – His Will and His grace – over Her from the very instant of Her conception which shielded Her from the uncleanliness of sin. Not only this, but Mary was the Sacred Vessel which was ‘full of grace’ – that is, filled with God without ‘room’ or ‘space’ for the slightest trace of sin. “Hail full of grace” (Lk 1:28) said the Archangel Gabriel, so that it is as if he said: “Hail, Immaculate Conception, O Spotless Vessel in which all grace is found as though in a treasury!”

The Red Heifer

Inspection of the Red Heifer
A final Scriptural allusion to Mary and the Her Immaculate Conception that we will consider is the mystery of the red heifer – a female cow. In the Old Testament Law one was deemed ritually unclean when someone died in one’s tent or when one came into contact with a corpse. The prescribed custom to become ritually pure involved the slaughtering, and then burning of a red heifer, with its ashes mixed in clean spring water in a vessel. This mixture was then sprinkled on the subject by a ritually clean priest in order to make the defiled subject clean again. However the ritual would be void if the red heifer was blemished, since the requirements of the red heifer were as follows: “Tell the people of Israel to bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke has never come.” (Num 19:2). “According to a rabbinic tradition, Solomon sought to fathom the precise explanation of the law of the red heifer (Numbers 19) but finally had to admit: I said, ‘I will become wise’ – but it is beyond me. [Ecc 7:23]”[6] So that even Solomon failed to grasp the meaning of this decree. The famous twelfth century rabbi Maimonides (1135-1204 A.D.) wrote: “Nine red heifers have been sacrificed between the delivering of this precept and the desolation of the Second Temple…the tenth King Messiah himself shall sacrifice.” One level of interpretation, which certain Christians have enunciated, is that the law of the red heifer alludes to Jesus the sinless One, who by His sacrificial death on the Cross makes those who have come into contact with the death of sin and are thus morally impure – spiritually clean. Hence Christ as Priest and Victim is this tenth red heifer which He sacrificed on Calvary by sacrificing Himself. This is a true interpretation, however another level of interpretation, which addresses the reality of the red heifer being a female, is that the tenth red heifer and the mystery of the red heifer in general, is the Virgin Mary; who Christ as Priest spiritually sacrificed on the Altar of the Cross in a crucifixion of fire – of love. Since Salvation is Christ and comes from Christ who is the Redeemer, but it comes through Mary the Mystical Red Heifer, as Co-Redemptrix, who sacrificed Herself on Calvary -as a burnt offering of love -  with, in and through Christ.



The law of the red heifer refers also to the Immaculate Conception of Mary – since the red heifer had to “be without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke has never come”. “Without defect” refers to how Mary was complete, immaculate or perfect, since the corresponding Hebrew word (המָימִתְּ֭) is used elsewhere to mean ‘is perfect’ (Ps 19:7).  “No blemish” refers to how Mary was free from all sin, since sin detracts from one’s wholeness and integrity, as is garnered from the use of the corresponding Hebrew word which refers to blemishes such as being blind, mutilated, lame etc. (i.e. Lev 21:17). “Upon which a yoke has never come” specifically refers to how Mary was free from original sin, since the yoke is a symbol of labour and toil, which in a literal and metaphorical manner is the curse of original sin placed upon Adam and Eve at the Fall (Gen 3:16-19, the yoke of labour pains for the woman, and the yoke of physical labour for the man). Thus the fact that the red heifer had to never have had a yoked placed upon it, alludes to Mary being the one who was conceived without having the yoke of original sin placed upon Her. The Jewish tradition allows no more than one black or white hair to be found on the red heifer, which must be completely red, even its hoofs. Through this literal red heifer comes physical redemption from ritual uncleanliness. However the mystical Red Heifer who is Mary, was without a single hair – by which it is meant a single blemish – and this perfection was necessary because through this mystical Red Heifer  spiritual redemption comes. In fact the Jewish people await a literal red heifer that meets the prescribed requirements, and deem the red heifer as a necessary means to the physical redemption of ritual cleanness. In the same manner the spiritual Redemption won by Christ Jesus could only take place and be effected because the Red Heifer of the Virgin Mary met the requirement of being immaculate from the instant of her conception. Without this Red Heifer Jesus would not have been able to enter the world as a man and thus bring about the promised  Redemption – of course He could have, but He willed to come to earth in this fashion through a spotless woman - or rather, through the spotless woman. The fact that the red heifer had to be red all over alludes to how and why Mary was Immaculately Conceived: because She was redeemed and sanctified by the Blood of Christ through eternity, which completely covered and filled Her, from the first instance of Her creation in the womb of Anne.[7]

'I am the Immaculate Conception'


Our Lady appearing to St. Bernadette
Last of all we come to consider the words our Lady spoke to St. Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in France, in 1858 (four years after the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception). Asking the mysterious Lady for her name, Bernadette received the response: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. By this title our Lady does not say “I was immaculately conceived” but “I am the Immaculate Conception”. Thus not only was Mary immaculatey conceived, but She is the Immaculate Conception; and more specifically as St. Maximillian Kolbe came to understand: She is the created Immaculate Conception, whilst the Holy Spirit is the Uncreated Immaculate Conception. This is because the Holy Spirit is the uncreated fruit or the uncreated conception of the love between God the Father and God the Son. Whilst Mary is the created fruit and created conception of love between God the Father and God the Son; and between St. Joseph and Jesus in His humanity. Not only this, but Mary – and Jesus in His humanity (since the two cannot be divorced) or the Incarnation – is considered the first thought conceived by God outside of the Godhead; and God’s ‘thoughts’ being Purity itself thus renders it appropriate to say Mary is the Immaculate Conception. In the same manner of expression Jesus says of Himself: “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn 11:25). Conception is the beginning of life or the gateway of life, but it is not life itself or the origin of life per say.[8] Thus Mary as the Immaculate Conception is rightly the portal, doorway and gateway to Jesus who is the source and origin of Life, and is indeed Life itself. Thus when the Lord says: “Enter through the narrow gate” (Mt 7:13), He is really inviting us to enter into the mystery of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and into She who is the Immaculate Conception itself.



***




        In Eden’s garden

Where soil was moist from dew,

God did plant single crystal seed,



        Five and forty spans[i]

Deep, as spittle sacred;         

From which Adam’s gleaming face grew.



        Then from inside He

God took rib that was pearl,

From which Eve’s curves were created.



        Yet crystal and pearl                                                  10

Both lost their silky shine,

When around fruit, lip-clams did curl



        To taste sensual juice.

And enticed was her bite,

Since Eve, snake first deceived to dine.



        For that envious

Fiend who lost his silk glow

Wanted also man’s lamp of light



        To fall, crash and die.

Thus by swaying sweet Eve,                                      20

Adam swayed. Therefore both did blow



        Out that spark of life

Divine; which though was lost

By Eve – who first did dear God grieve –



       ‘Twas when Adam ceased

Stoking vigil fire

That love’s heat cooled to fiend’s dark frost;



        Which bit first Eve, who

First bit fruit; and then bit

He; so that all men in mire                                         30



        Did fall and did freeze

In four thousand year long

Winter; during which none could knit



        Warm silky-wool gown.

Thus all Adam’s tainted

Seed, that to soil black did belong, 


        Did shiver in cold,

For conceived mere rags wore.

Yet unwound was untainted



        Silken-wool -which was                                            40

Stored away since man’s fall-

When Adam New his thread let tore.



        For us wolves He let

Us shear from Him fleece pure;

When our sins His manhood did maul,



        With iron sharp teeth.

Thus what Adam’s fall lost,

New Adam’s rising did secure;



        And this pure silk wool

Is meant for all who’ll cast                                        50

Off their fig leaf of shame, for soft



        Smooth cloud of Holy

Ram, whose lofty raiment

Doth clothe those who drink from His flask



        Of blood sweet wine which

Cleanses stains and makes warm.

And this chosen flock did ferment



        Through their baptism

Of water then fire.

Yet all these redeemed were reborn                           60



        Not first, since nature

Doth require offspring

To spawn from parent’s love prior.



        And as in flesh all came

From first two human beings,

So from New Eve and Adam spring



        All children of God

Who are conceived and born

Anew in spirit. And She weans



        This Supernal Eve                                                     70

From breast, those whom are fit

To chew on heaven’s bread and corn.



        But from whence did She

This lovely Eve arise?

In blessed Anne’s womb She was knit,



        As sacred white pearl

Without first Adam’s stain,

Thus Her planting was true sunrise



        For a darkened world.

And what spared Her from grime                              80

Was the bubble of light that came



        To clad this Ewe when

At once She was conceived,

So that not at all was there time



        For pearl to be touched

By Adam’s sinful dross,

Which was tree of life’s ancient seed.



        And this ancient seed

Was also New Adam’s

Mystic rib plucked from side on cross.                                90



        With this fair dame named

‘Mother of all living’;

For through Ram She birthed blessed lambs,



        Since She is Pure Ewe[ii]

Whose fleece was doused with dew[iii]

Of the Eternal Thanksgiving



        Of Father and Son.

Indeed She was destined

To be Dew that wrapped Manna New.[iv]



        Since as this fine Dew                                                    100

She acts as bubble-shield

Which wraps each lamb predestined



        For Passover’s flame

Of God’s essence, as fine

Joseph’s wool coat that him concealed.



        ‘Twas Her role as Mum

Of all things that prompted

Her spotless entrance in time.



       Yet because the first

Thought God conceived in mind                               110

Outside of Himself resulted


          In the beauteous
Form and shape of Mary –

Which God then used for human kind



        And all creation,

As motive to create

And as blue print guide – it’s very



        True to say that She

The New Eve although called

‘Mother of all living’, also                                         120



        Goes by other name:

Which lips of creation

Venerate in refrain of laud:



        “Who is She the Dawn,

Whose beauty dazzles all?

Immaculate Conception.”

***




* First Fruit: Jesus is the first fruit of Redemption whence we read: "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." (1 Cor 15:20). Note the fact that the term uses is "first fruits" in the plural, not the singular "first fruit". Indeed the Greek word used is  'aparchē' which is sometimes translated in the plural (i.e. 1 Cor 15:16; Rev 14:4). The plural aspect alludes to the fact that although Christ is the First Fruits, Mary by effect of Her Immaculate Conception is a first fruit in, with and through Christ.

[1] There is a tradition that asserts that Saint Joseph was sanctified prenatally immediately after the moment of his conception; hence he contracted original sin but only for the briefest of moments according to this position. I strongly adhere to this position, for it is in accord with the dignity of Joseph who was chosen to be the Virginal Father of Jesus, a dignity surpassed by no other creature except that of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God.

[2] Gregory Nazianzen, In Theophania: Oration, 38 (PG, 325B 41-42).

[3] Sophronius, In Sacntissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem (PG 87.3, 3273D 43).

[4] Bonifatius Kotter 5, p. 170; (John Damascene, Oratio in nativitatem sanctae…, 2, II. 1-17).

[5] A Christological understanding of the feminine Wisdom mentioned in the Wisdom texts is one level of valid and necessary interpretation; yet to narrow one’s interpretation to this – to the exclusion of the Marian dimension – undercuts the literal fact that this allegory of Wisdom is feminine for a reason. Indeed it speaks of the Holy Spirit, but also of Mary in synergy or in union with the Holy Spirit – since concerning this Wisdom the author writes: “For in her there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted…” etc. (Wis 7:22) This indicates that this is speaking of someone who is created or else instead of saying “in her is a spirit that is…” it would say “She is a Spirit that is….”

[6] The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, Trans. & Comm. Daniel C. Matt, Footnote 305.

[7] In fact this redness also alludes to the ruddiness of hair possessed by Jesus and Mary, since such redness is a sign and symbol of the House and Davidic Line of Judah to which both belonged.

[8] In Genesis the opening word is Berishit (תישׂארב) which is translated as ‘In the beginning’ but literally means ‘In Beginning’. We can interpret this word to mean ‘In Immaculate Conception God created the heavens and the earth.’ Which would also mean: ‘In Mary God created the heavens and the earth.’ Since conception is the beginning of life, and the first letter of the word Berishit is Bet, which serves as a symbol for a house, House of God, or mother – ultimately, the Mother of God who is the House in whom the Most High dwells. The notion of God’s first thought outside of Himself being Mary and Her Immaculate Conception is supported by this very fact, that the first thought recorded in Scripture is ‘In Immaculate Conception’. The fact that Jesus says “I am the beginning and the end” derives from the fact of His human nature, concerning which it is written: “the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth… all things were created through him and for him” (Col 1:15b-16). Yet seeming as Jesus obtained His human nature in Mary, at once we can say Mary is the first-born of all creation in whom and for whom all things were created; since the first-born son and first born daughter cannot be separated – since concerning Jesus and Mary it is truly the case like no other, for they literally share the same flesh: that “they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt 19:6).


[i] Five and forty spans: Alluding to the numerical value (ordinal value) of the name ‘Adam’ in Hebrew ( ם א ד ) which bears further theological significance.

[ii] Pure Ewe: Mary is the Mother of the Lamb of God, hence we may allegorically refer to Mary the Ewe. Such an interpretation has explicit undercurrents with Rachel who is a type of our Lady, and Rachel’s name contains the same letters in the same order as the Hebrew word for ewe –a female sheep: לחֵרָ. This interpretation has long been held in the Church, for example the bishop Melito of Sardis around 170 A.D. refers to Mary in an apology to Marcus Aurelius, in the form of an Easter Homily, as “Mary, the fair ewe”. Within this poem although the concept of Mary being the Ewe in the sense of being the Mother of Christ is implicitly referenced; the mystery of Mary being the New Eve and thus the spouse of the New Adam is the main motif of this poem; hence Mary is referred to as the Ewe and Christ the Ram –which has strong biblical allusions (i.e. when Abraham sacrifices the ram with its horns caught in the bushes in the stead of Isaac (Gen 22:13); an allusion to the sacrifice of Christ the Ram on the Cross, who wore a crown of thorns).

[iii] Whose fleece was doused with dew: In Judges we read: “Then Gideon said to God, "If thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said, behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said." And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water.” (Jud 6:36-38). Gideon doesn’t trust God and so he asks for a further sign of having the fleece dry and only the ground all around it dry (Jud 6:39-40). The first instance of the sign of the fleece represents our Lady whose flesh was wet with the dew of God’s Purity; and this alludes to Her Immaculate Conception which was when this dew moistened Mary’s flesh –an occasion which was the Dawn of sanctity and redemption, hence the reference to “morning” in regards to the first fleece. The Immaculate Conception was truly the sign that God would deliver Israel from sin and death, and from the servility of the Law into the grace of adoption as ‘sons of God’. However the second instance of the sign of the fleece refers to us who are ‘dry’ and conceived in original sin, because we are only moistened with the sanctifying dew of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. Hence the reference to “night” in regards to this second sign, without the mention of morning.

[iv] To be Dew that wrapped Manna New: In Exodus we read how “in the morning dew lay round about the camp. And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground” (Ex 16:14) –that is manna. Hence the manna was coated and hidden beneath the veil of the dew, just as Christ Jesus the Bread of Life, the New Manna, was hidden and veiled by the dew of Mary, by the dew of Her Immaculate Womb.