Jesus is my mother-a testimony

[Gwendolyn]

http://www.lospequenos.org/PepperIssues/Jan2004Pepper.pdf

That article is GREAT! Thanks for posting it, it explains things perfectly.

 

[kisstheson]

yet there's tons of scriptures which speak of God's motherly attributes. Jesus treated me like a mother. Why do you people want me to deny that? I won't never, ever. Christ is not a goddess. he's a man who treated me like a mother.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Don't bother reading saint mechthild of magdeburg, John of the cross, richard rolle, song of solomon....

..St Teresa of Avila, Blessed Angela, and MANY more others!!

I think they mean my fiction stories.

It's starting to get nasty around here again.

yea

Well, he's Orthodox, so he probably won't (No offense meant, Tonks!) By virtue of being Orthodox, obviously he'd disagree (sometimes rather heartily) with Catholic saints.

I agree with Orthodox Saints though

are Orthodox Saints more Catholic than Catholic Saints are Orthodox? hahaha...

 

[CathNancy]

Amy no one here is telling you to deny that Jesus treated you like a mother the objection is that you stated in your OP that Jesus was your mother. Jesus is male, as you yourself have said, and when He taught us to pray He said that God is our Father. Does this mean that Jesus does not have the traits of a mother? Of course not, just as all men have it within themselves to be nurturing, loving fathers, so too does Jesus. God made us male and female in His likeness. The problems begin to occur when others decide that God can be referred to as Our Mother rather than Our Father. It is not up to us to define who God is, God reveals to us who He is. I know that you do not adopt the stance of many femanists who call for women's ordination, the Bible written in gender neutral language or confuse Jesus for anything other than male. All I am saying is that we need to be careful of how we word what we say so that we do not lead others into error, that what they read our posts to say is not what we meant to say. I don't think that you meant to advocate goddess worship, but to the uninformed, your words may give them the idea that Jesus is not really male.

If you have problems with what I am saying, please let me know and I will try and clarify.

Peace and all good,
Nancy

 

[kisstheson]

The whole discussion upsets me greatly. all I know is I call Jesus my mother even though he is a man. he's the only mother that I ever had. I know he doesn't get all twisted up and angry when I think of him in that way. In fact he speaks to my heart and tells me not to be concerned about what others think.

So I won't be. If people want to think i'm some sort of new age goddess worshipper feminists so be it.

I love Jesus who treats me like a mother. Thank you Jesus for being the parents that I never had. my father and my mother.

 

[CathNancy]

Amy if I have upset you I am sorry. I was trying to show you what the objection is when Jesus is referred to as their mother. Of course Jesus is like a mother to you and as you yourself said also a father to you since your father was not always there for you either. There is a difference between saying Jesus is your mother and saying Jesus is like a mother to you. All I ask is that you try and see the difference.

I do not want to upset you further, so this is all I will say on the subject.

I hope that you know that you are very special to me and it was never my intent to bring you any pain.

Peace and all good,
Nancy

 

[JoabAnias]

yet there's tons of scriptures which speak of God's motherly attributes. Jesus treated me like a mother. Why do you people want me to deny that? I won't never, ever. Christ is not a goddess. he's a man who treated me like a mother.

Do you feel that article is saying you should deny your story?

I think your story is great and don't think you should deny any part of it because it is who you are. Jesus may be leading us to a fuller understanding of the subject as a whole.

The gender of God issue is a deeper/broader subject than our own experiences which is important too, thats all. All that subject entails isn't meant to make anyone feel judged.

 

[benedictaoo]

That article is GREAT! Thanks for posting it, it explains things perfectly.

It puts that Julian Norwich writer into perfect context.

 

[Tonks]

Well, he's Orthodox, so he probably won't (No offense meant, Tonks!) By virtue of being Orthodox, obviously he'd disagree (sometimes rather heartily) with Catholic saints.

You must be new...but no offense taken.

Speaking diplomatically (and of John of the Cross, specifically) you'll find that many Orthodox will use John of the Cross as a stepping stone to "discuss" Therese of Lisieux (for whom there is zero affection).

I'm *somewhat* sympathetic to John of the Cross though find the off the wall allegory and romantic imagery to be a bit much. There is certainly a place for mysticism in Catholicism - I always preferred the ascetic to the contemplative type.

However, when one reads beyond some of the more flowery language JotC does drive home a fairly important message - that of not being getting caught up in spiritual "experiences" but to focus on striving towards true union with God. Of course, the Orthodox would say that the Catholic concept of "union" =! "theosis" but that is a discussion for another time.

For a contemporary expression of expressing the "erotic" within the context of Catholic theology I would suggest reading JPII's Theology of the Body and how it aims to reclaim and transform eros.

Regarding the (mentioned above) Song of Songs - if we're sticking with John of the Cross - don't read The Spiritual Canticle as if it is some 16th century erotic Spanish poem...rather with the view as did Oriegn, Gregory of Nyssa, (or countless Western writers) as an allegorical expression of the relationship between Christ and His Church. BXVI's Deus Caritas Est also addresses the SoS specifically in the context of Catholic spirituality.

 

[Davidnic]

Also a good reading of Song of Songs is The Cantata of Love

Good book...really delves into the Early Church Fathers. Side note...Tonks, do you think some of the mystical writings of the Catholic Church in the 16th century and such were negatively influenced culturally by the Spanish erotic romanticism of the time? It is kind of off topic but your comments made me think deeper on the correlation. The majority of mystics of the time were Spanish and inner locutions are often interpreted through a cultural view. At the same time it is considered a revival period of Carmelites that is given great reverence by the Church.

 

[benedictaoo]

You must be new...but no offense taken.

Speaking diplomatically (and of John of the Cross, specifically) you'll find that many Orthodox will use John of the Cross as a stepping stone to "discuss" Therese of Lisieux (for whom there is zero affection).

I'm *somewhat* sympathetic to John of the Cross though find the off the wall allegory and romantic imagery to be a bit much. There is certainly a place for mysticism in Catholicism - I always preferred the ascetic to the contemplative type.

However, when one reads beyond some of the more flowery language JotC does drive home a fairly important message - that of not being getting caught up in spiritual "experiences" but to focus on striving towards true union with God. Of course, the Orthodox would say that the Catholic concept of "union" =! "theosis" but that is a discussion for another time.

For a contemporary expression of expressing the "erotic" within the context of Catholic theology I would suggest reading JPII's Theology of the Body and how it aims to reclaim and transform eros.

Regarding the (mentioned above) Song of Songs - if we're sticking with John of the Cross - don't read The Spiritual Canticle as if it is some 16th century erotic Spanish poem...rather with the view as did Oriegn, Gregory of Nyssa, (or countless Western writers) as an allegorical expression of the relationship between Christ and His Church. BXVI's Deus Caritas Est also addresses the SoS specifically in the context of Catholic spirituality.

You mean St. Theressa of Avila?

What on earth could St. Theresa of Lisieux ever have done to make y'all not like her?

 

[Tonks]

whoops. mistyped my thereses.

[eta] tis what happens when you type before coffee

 

[Davidnic]

Theresa of Avila came to my mind a few times in this thread. Divine intimacy, bridal mysticism and all. And Bernini's sculpture. It is true that Spanish and Italian mystics have had an occasionally eroticised mysticism. Occasionally clashes I would think with a more ascetic monastic mysticism. Unless I am wrong, and Tonks can correct me, visions, locutions and mystical ecstasies and such are often seen as distractions to prayer by Eastern Orthodox mystics. That is of course a generalization. And there is a history of that kind of thing...but it is all very very...strictly examined.

 

[isabella1]

Also a good reading of Song of Songs is The Cantata of Love

Good book...really delves into the Early Church Fathers. Side note...Tonks, do you think some of the mystical writings of the Catholic Church in the 16th century and such were negatively influenced culturally by the Spanish erotic romanticism of the time? It is kind of off topic but your comments made me think deeper on the correlation. The majority of mystics of the time were Spanish and inner locutions are often interpreted through a cultural view. At the same time it is considered a revival period of Carmelites that is given great reverence by the Church.

I know this is off topic but I wanted to give the link to the thread that you gave that teaching David on the Song of Songs. http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7254270&page=5

 

[Amylisa]

You mean St. Theressa of Avila?

What on earth could St. Theresa of Lisieux ever have done to make y'all not like her?

That's what I was wondering too! In my area, most Catholic churches have a statue of Therese of Lisieux in the sanctuary. Her "Story of A Soul" was the first Catholic book I ever read (besides the Bible).
I would say she was instrumental in my becoming a Catholic, and she is my confirmation saint.

 

[Amylisa]

This type of theology is truly bizarre - particularly coupled with some of the other threads started which were nothing but rank eroticism cloaked in "personal testimony" or whatever.

Don't bother reading saint mechthild of magdeburg, John of the cross, richard rolle, song of solomon....

True that!

One thing that I think most men don't fully understand is that any expression of physical love, for a woman, is far more than merely "erotic". Sorry I am having trouble putting this into words.

For a woman, physical love is far more connected to the heart and to the soul. Whereas for men perhpas it could be just "rank eroticism." For a woman it is more a matter of deep and personal connection.

Not trying to insult the men around here! It's just that I can see how a guy could read certain things here and jump straight to the erotic aspect, missing the way a woman might look at things, the intent of the heart.

Just want to say i am happy to see this thread turning more into true discussion of topics rather than arguing.

I never knew the Orthodox don't really like Catholic saints. I have to say I know Nothing about Orthodox belief.

 

[Tonks]

One thing that I think most men don't fully understand is that any expression of physical love, for a woman, is far more than merely "erotic". Sorry I am having trouble putting this into words.

For a woman, physical love is far more connected to the heart and to the soul. Whereas for men perhpas it could be just "rank eroticism." For a woman it is more a matter of deep and personal connection.

What an absurd pair of statements.

Please, continue to speak for the men around here.

 

[Amylisa]

As I said, I wasn't trying to insult any men around here. Really!

Guess you took offense anyway, sorry.
I stand by what I said. I said it could be interpreted as rank eroticism by men. Doesn't mean every man. Why do you think these statements are absurd? You didn't give a reason.

I said this because I've heard such things from any number of guys. I've heard it discussed (and it wasn't a heavy-duty serious discussion, just talking) by men, I've heard various people make this observation. So I am just expressing my opinion.

Just saying if this is true of a given man, it could affect how he might interpret writings such as what we've all been discussing. Whether it's KTS or Teresa of Avila. If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn't, don't! Not really a big deal.

More on topic: The church approved Avila's writings so that's good enough for me. From what I have read about her life, she doubted her own visions and inner locutions for quite awhile! It wasn't easy for her. She had to be encouraged to share it. In her own lifetime she was villified by many. Seems to be a recurring theme! Such is the world we live in.

 

[Miss Shelby]

What an absurd pair of statements.

Please, continue to speak for the men around here.

All the rest of the women are speaking when they shouldn't so why shouldn't she?

 

[Davidnic]

More on topic: The church approved Avila's writings so that's good enough for me. From what I have read about her life, she doubted her own visions and inner locutions for quite awhile! It wasn't easy for her. She had to be encouraged to share it. In her own lifetime she was villified by many. Seems to be a recurring theme! Such is the world we live in.

True. Many mystics were very doubtful and frightened by their own visions. And extreme form of that is the example of I think it was Saint John of the Cross. He was once asked to give his opinion of a visionary. He saw the person and asked: "Are you the young lady who our Lord speaks to?" The woman answered immediately and enthusiastically that indeed she was. He told her it was good to meet her and left. He reported she was either lying or delusional.

Now, I am sure the attitude went a long way beyond the simple admitting of the fact of the visions. But the fact remains most visionaries/mystics are vilified and/or reluctant in their lifetimes.

In fact many works from mystics are known only after their death from private journals. In their life they do not or rarely speak of it since the insights were private in nature and purpose.

That is why we must always be careful with mystical writings. My problem in this thread is not with the advice of caution...but the manner of how it is given and presented on the whole.