Question: I was thinking of when Therese talked to one of her novices and she felt as if Therese was reading her soul… this made me think of a question: – the spirit has the 3 faculties: memory, intellect and will, but does it also have emotions and imaginations? Or the capacity for it? Therese was able to perceive something spiritual without her knowing because of her degree of union, right?
Answer: We can say that St. John of the Cross defines the upper part of the rational soul as being mind, memory and will. The rational soul also has other faculties, like the imagination, inner senses etc. and the upper part of the soul, the rational soul, is conscious (self-aware) and active, that is, has the capacity, using free will, to act, think, remember, and to will).
For St. John of the Cross, the spirit is part of the soul but is different from the conscious active rational soul.
The spirit is the corner stone of St. John of the Cross’ teaching. It is vital and without it all his doctrine would literally fall apart. Failing to understand this jeopardises the understanding of all his work. Does he pause and give us a clear round and complete definition of what the spirit is? Is he himself referring to another author who has defined it? The answer to these questions is negative. Although the spirit exists clearly in the spiritual living tradition of the Church, in the theological tradition (“noûs” in Greek, “mens” in latin), he does not quote a specific author. (For more on the spirit see this article)
The more we study his doctrine the more we understand better what the spirit is in his eyes and the more we can appreciate the importance of the place the spirit has in his teaching. In general terms, we can say that in all his works (the four books he wrote) he was given a special and immense grace for all the Church to benefit from, a grace to understand the spirit and to describe what is happening to it and in it. Not through a vision, but because of his philosophical training in metaphysics, and added to that a special light he received allowed him to “see” or understand what is happening in the spirit, despite the fact that it is totally ineffable (beyond perception) by definition as we will see.
We can gather the definition, however, from a long and thorough exposure to his writings and doctrine. This definition could unfold as follows: the spirit is part of the rational soul. The spirit is the same mind, memory and will of the rational soul, but has a different capacity and qualities. The spirit comprises mind, memory and will only. It is above perception and receptive. When we say “receptive”, and we mean “not active”, what does “receptive” mean? The active mind for instance (rational soul) uses created notions or thoughts in order to function, in order to “think”. What the active and conscious mind of the rational soul perceives, and processes is a created entity, a thought. In this sense the active mind, which is in the soul, “sees” thoughts, or “species impressed” which are created beings the mind can perceive, and which can be impressed onto the active conscious mind.
This. however, is not the case of the spirit since the spirit deals with the very nature of God. Here there are no intermediates – like for the case of the active mind in the rational soul – between God and the spirit, God does not use created notions in order to communicate with the spirit. God communicates himself directly with the spirit, He pours himself into the spirit and transforms it into Himself, by participation, directly. This means that, despite – as we always say – the fact that the spirit is part of the soul, it is as if its nature is different, more refined so to speak, which allows it (more so when it is fully purified) to deal directly with God’s being and God’s operations (internal and external (See St. Thomas Aquinas, the Missions of the Trinity, in Summa Theologica, I. Q. 43).
After having explained the rational soul and the spirit, let me answer the initial part of your question: can we attribute other faculties to the spirit, such as emotions and imaginations?
It is important to see that to include in the spirit other faculties such as emotions and imaginations is a contradiction in terms. It would simply imply that the spirit is of a different nature than what it is. It would imply that the spirit deals with created beings, receives them, interacts with them, for an emotion and an image are created beings.
Some might argue that St. John of the Cross talks about “senses” of the higher faculties in his book the Living Flame. He seems to say that the spirit or the rational part of the soul has “senses” or “feelings”, as in the third stanza when he says:
“O lamps of fire!
in whose splendours
the deep caverns of feeling,
once obscure and blind,
now give forth, so rarely, so exquisitely,
both warmth and light to their Beloved.“
As you see in bold in the text, he says: “the deep caverns of feeling” (Es. “las profundas cavernas del sentido“). (“Sentido” can be also translated as “sense”, singular not plural). But the proper understanding of what these deep caverns of the sense mean, and their relationship with the conscious soul, is something that requires a proper reading of his entire works to avoid misinterpretations and deviations. In fact, once we take into consideration all his teaching, we discover that the expression is devoid of what we understand about emotions/feelings or senses or imagination. Using “sentido” here has to be understood without separating it from “deep caverns” and also from all the rest of his theology. It is a form of speech.
As you can gather, to say that the spirit can sense or imagine is like saying a hand can see. A hand grasps, an eye sees. What the spirit gathers, what falls in the spirit is the very nature of God, nothing less. And the very nature of God is spirit, it is not matter it is not created, it is not an image or an emotion. Nothing else than God transforms and fills the spirit. In this sense, the spirit cannot feel or imagine. To feel is to have physical senses which can receive a physical input. The same for the imagination: in order to “see” an image, one needs the rational conscious part of the soul. God is not material and God is not an image. His very nature transcends these created things.
Think of the faculty as a container, like a pan. The faculty is capable of containing this object (an image or an emotion). This means that there is a similarity between the container and the object contained. Here an image or an emotion. But an image or an emotion is something created and very “small” compared to the very nature of God, while the spirit is capable of containing God Himself. So, if you say that the spirit can contain an image or an emotion it is like saying: an immense pan is compatible with crumbs whereas it is definitely not, it is not adapted to them at all. The spirit by definition has the capacity to deal directly with the VERY NATURE of God. Nothing less. Just think about it: – what would the spirit then be in this case? – Incredible! Of incredible beauty! But do not try to imagine the beauty. That would be the product of our imagination, while the spirit deals directly with the very nature of God: UNCREATED. You are mixing created with uncreated.
Also, one might object through mentioning the doctrine of the spiritual senses of the Fathers of the Church. In fact, they talked about the development in the new man in us of new “spiritual senses”, a spiritual hearing (in Lectio Divina), a spiritual seeing (low or beginners’ forms of “contemplation”), etc. But these inputs fall into the soul, not into the spirit.
Even in the soul, in the rational soul, we can’t “mix” the rational faculties with the lower faculties, i.e. the “passions” as classic philosophy calls them.
Even God himself when He is presented in the Bible as having feelings or emotions or using images, is referred to as being anthropomorphic, which means using a human way to express something which is otherwise beyond our comprehension. But it goes deeper. It is also something divine. When God is described as exhibiting wrath, it indicates something very deep in Him, but not comparable with human wrath or vengeance or jealousy. The biblical texts themselves open the way to the deeper understanding.
So, before even talking about the spirit, if we talk about the rational soul, or the three rational faculties, we cannot mix them up with the emotions even if our human experience seems to infer the opposite.
Now, if we talk about God himself, as mentioned above, we do not have emotions and imaginings. St. John of the Cross goes even further, describing in the Spiritual Canticle (SCA 30,7) the person after union, saying that he or she is not moved like before (emotions wise); he compares the experience to that of the angels: they know something is painful but they do not have feelings/emotions. They have compassion, but in a different way.
“For the grandeur and stability of the soul in this estate are so complete that, if formerly there reached the soul the waters of any grief soever, even those of its own sins or of the sins of some other person, which is what spiritual persons habitually feel the most, now, although it still realises their importance, they cause it neither pain nor sorrow ; and it no longer feels compassion, though it performs the works of compassion and has the perfection thereof; for in this estate the soul has no longer that part of its virtues which was weak, but there remains to it that which was strong, constant and perfect in them; for in this transformation of love the soul is made like to the angels, who apprehend perfectly things that are grievous, without feeling grief, and perform works of mercy and compassion without feeling compassion; although occasionally and in occasional matters God acts differently toward the soul, granting it to feel sorrow and allowing it to suffer, that it may grow in merit, even as He did with the Virgin Mother and with S. Paul; but this estate does not carry this condition necessarily.” (SCA 29,7, Allison Peers)
I know all this entire description of the state of union can seem too alien to us normal humans, but I prefer to stick to this.
I know also that today’s theology is not capable of understanding and therefore accepting these views. We live in an age where the very nature of God is seen as capable of emotions, can suffer, etc… I am not talking about Christ who is God, who suffers and has emotions. I am talking about the very nature of God.
But the paradox lies here, revealed to us by Jesus in the Gospel: God, the very nature of God, is not alien to ours. It is just infinitely more refined so to speak; I dare to say: God is more human. “If you who are humans when your child asks you for food you give him bread and not a snake, how much more will God give you good things”!! Everything lies in our correct understanding of the expression “much more”. In this sense God is infinitely more humane than us, infinitely humbler than us, more loving than us, more good and kind than us. His holiness, or his very uncreated nature does not mean that He is alien… indeed the face of God revealed by Jesus shocked his contemporaries.
The Unity of the Human Being
Objection: Some might argue that since the spirit, the soul and the body have the same substratum, because of the unity of the substratum which holds them all together and unites them, there is like it is like having a “phreatic table” where deep down they all communicate, and therefore because of the unity of the human being, what happens in the spirit is somehow communicated to the soul and to the body. I have to say that this objection is a strong one. This could explain what Therese says during her trial of faith, what St. Teresa of Avila says in the two comparisons she uses to explain the difference between the soul and the spirit in the seventh mansion (see below), and also can shed a light on the Lord’s Passion where He is God, where his human spirit is united to his very divine nature and therefore “beatific” while in his body and soul He is suffering the most horrendous passion. Therese says that despite her trial, despite suffering in her body (illness) and in her soul (darkened), she still experiences a very deep peace. But she insists: it is very deep down! She means, it is not something that one feels on the surface of emotions. How then is this peace “felt”? because of the unique substratum of the human person? Is this compatible with Therese’s adamant affirmation that she does not have any other knowledge or information than the normal one we get from our senses (see below)?
Therese says: “Our Lord in the Garden of Olives enjoyed all the delights of the Trinity, and yet his agony was no less cruel. It’s a mystery, but I assure you that I understand something of it by what I experience myself.” (Yellow Notebook, 6 July §4)
She also says: “I always remain deep down in a deep peace that nothing can disturb.” (Yellow Notebook 14 July §9) “Aren’t you surprised, my dear Mother, at the way I suffer? …Finally, I have a great peace at the bottom.” (27 August §3)
Here is how St. Teresa of Avila tries to describe for the first time the difference between soul and spirit. Note that she uses a synonymous expression to spirit when she says: “centre of the being”.
“10 Returning to what I was saying, it must not be thought that the faculties and senses and passions are always in this state of peace, though the soul [the spirit] itself is. In the other Mansions there are always times of conflict and trial and weariness, but they are not of such a kind as to rob the soul of its peace and stability — at least, not as a rule. This “centre” of our soul, or “spirit,” is something so difficult to describe, and indeed to believe, that I think, sisters, as I am so bad at explaining myself, I will not subject you to the temptation of disbelieving what I say, for it is difficult to understand how the soul can have trials and afflictions and yet be in peace. I want to put before you one or two comparisons: God grant they may be of some value, but, if they are not, I know that what I have said is the truth.
[First Comparison]
11 A king is living in His palace: many wars are waged in his kingdom and many other distressing things happen there, but he remains where he is despite them all. So it is here: although in the other Mansions there are many disturbances and poisonous creatures, and the noise of all this can be heard, nobody enters this Mansion and forces the soul to leave it; and, although the things which the soul hears cause it some distress, they are not of a kind to disturb it or to take away its peace, for the passions are already vanquished, and thus are afraid to enter there because to do so would only exhaust them further.
[Second Comparison]
Our whole body may be in pain, yet if our head is sound the fact that the body is in pain will not cause it to ache as well.
These comparisons make me smile and I do not like them at all, but I know no others. Think what you will; what I have said is the truth.” (Interior Castle, 7M2,10-11)
As one can see, she smiles (laughs) at the comparisons because of their incapacity to explain all aspects of the reality of the spirit and its mysterious relationship with the soul, and we can add: the profound unity of the whole human being.
When the Veil becomes Opaque
To offer a final point which really helps clarify the distinction between the soul and the spirit and helps us also understand the Lord’s Passion and Therese’s Trial (see below), I would like to mention the issue of the “veil” between the spirit and the soul in one who is united to the Lord.
Let us take a closer look at the diagram above. Let us focus on the area between the soul and the spirit. The spirit here is united with God, and as we can see it is represented as a dark sphere. It, in fact, represents the union of the spirit in the upper part of the soul with God. This is so because the spirit in the person united with God is transformed by God just as the log is transformed by the fire, to the point that we find difficulty in distinguishing between the fire and God. St. John of the Cross says that the person is participating in God’s life and that the person’s spirit is God “by participation”. God only is God “by nature”.
To show the radical difference between what occurs in the spirit and what occurs in the soul, in the drawing I have drawn a “veil”. It is a form of speech, and in this case is a way to draw the difference between them. The veil is often translucent. Not in the sense that it allows the same divine light to move on into the soul but allows it to be “refracted” from the divine thus becoming created. This for instance makes Therese say before her trial: “I used to enjoy the light of faith.” Again, it is a “refraction” of the uncreated life, since it becomes a created light in the soul.
Now, during the Lord’s Passion, or during Therese’s trial, or during the fifty years of Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s suffering of the absence of the Lord, we can say that this “veil” becomes “opaque”. By saying this we mean that there is no refraction whatsoever between the spirit and the soul. Nothing moves or is refracted from the spirit to the soul. Does this mean that a person united to the Lord ceases to be united when the veil becomes opaque? Does this mean in the case of the Lord’s Passion that there is a change in his human nature and the way it is united to his divine nature in the unity of the Divine Person? No, anthropologically nothing changes, but only the “veil” becomes opaque so to speak.
Why am I taking this example? I am using it as a reverse reasoning in order to show the clear distinction – in a person united with Jesus – between the spirit and the soul.
Of course, these are immense subjects, and they deserve more in-depth treatment.
See also the following articles:
- “Spirit” or “Heart” in Spiritual Theology
- The Tripartite Biblical Vision of Man: A Key to Christian Life, by Mgr Arthur Calkins.
- Tripartite Biblical Anthropology Illustrated by a Few Saints, by Mgr Arthur Calkins.
- “Tipartite Anthropology”, in “Theology in History” by Henri de Lubac, Ignatius Press, 1996.
Question: Now, let me address the second aspect of your question the one regarding Thérèse directly: “This morning I was thinking of when Therese talked to one of her novices and she felt as if Therese was reading her soul… this made me think of a question- the spirit has the 3 faculties: memory, intellect and will, but does it also have emotions and imaginations? Or the capacity for it? Therese was able to perceive something spiritual without her knowing because of her degree of union, right?”
Answer:
First, let us hear the story from Therese’s mouth:
“Often the novices say to me: ‘You have an answer for everything; I believed I would embarrass you this time. Where do you go to get everything you say`?” There are those who are simple enough to believe I can read their soul because it has happened that I anticipated them by saying what they were thinking. One night, one of my companions made a resolution to hide something from me which was causing her much suffering. I met her in the morning and there was joy in her face when she was speaking to me. Without responding to what she was saying, I said to her with great conviction: “You are sad about something.”; If I had made the moon fall at her feet. She could not have looked at me with greater surprise. Her astonishment was so great that it even took hold of me, and for an instant I was seized with a supernatural fright. I was really sure I didn’t have the gift of reading souls, and this surprised me all the more because I had been so right. I felt that God was very close, and that, without realising it, I had spoken words, as does a child, which came not from me but from Him.” (MsC 26r°)
I need to repeat what Therese said, because you seem to depart from it. She said that she was “not aware” of anything as she says: “without realising it”. And elsewhere she says that all that she has knowledge of is what comes from normal sense/perception. Here is the quote:
“… So you have no intuition of the day of your death?
– Ah! my Mother, intuitions! If you only knew how poor I am! I know nothing but what you know; I guess nothing except by what I see and feel. But my soul despite its darkness is in amazing peace.” (Yellow Notebook, 24.9.10)
So, she really did not know anything and was not aware of anything. So, how come she was able to say something, as if she knew? Who knew? How did it happen?
In your question you insist on saying that somehow, she perceived something. True that you add: “without her knowing”, but you went to her spirit to fathom this out. First as I explained above, there is no such thing as “perceiving”, “feeling”, “sensing” in the spirit. You tend to think the opposite. You want to imagine that somehow, she still knew. In her spirit. Why? Therese says that she did not know!
You seem to convey the following reasoning (correct me if I am wrong): “The degree of union makes the spirit united with God, and therefore the spirit knows what God knows. The degree of union “separates” so to speak her spirit from her conscious soul, therefore, mysteriously, because of the unity of spirit, soul and body in the person (spirit, soul, body) this knowledge goes from the spirit to the soul.” This is what you seem to say. It is a strong objection!
I reply saying that: God can make us know whatever He wants us to know, when He wants to and in the way He wants to. Who can stop Him? St. John of the Cross in the first part of the fourth stanza of the Living Flame (“How gently and lovingly you wake in my heart, where in secret you dwell alone“) says that there are different types ways to know creatures, one coming from below (from Creatures to God (see Romans 1)) and one from God where we have a share of what He knows and sees about Creatures, this understanding emanating from above. So, this last way (higher than any other knowledge, because it is a share in God’s own knowledge when He creates and keeps his Creatures in being) could be seen as a form of knowledge or prophecy in the widest sense of the word. Is this what Therese is talking about? Therese clearly rejects the holiness which brings with it “a spirit of prophecy” so to speak. So, this is to be excluded, especially as we see that Therese was shocked and surprised by the reaction of the nun.
So, the question remains: how did she know? She says: she did not consciously know from any other source. This is what humanly occurred to her. Spontaneously, as a result of normal (not conscious) holiness. Is the Holy Spirit guiding her conscious life (soul and body)? Yes, but is she aware of it? Emphatically not. Is she “canonising” her acts as coming from the Holy Spirit? Not at all. With all her being she rejected all forms of perceptions of God.
“Sr. Marie of the Sacred Heart told her that the Angels would come at her death, to accompany Our Lord, that she would see them resplendent with light and beauty.
… All these images do me no good, I can only feed on the truth. That’s why I never wanted visions. One cannot see on earth, Heaven, the angels as they are. I prefer to wait until after my death.” (Yellow Notebook, 5.8.4)
As mentioned above, she said clearly: what I perceive is what you perceive. And that was said at the end of her life, revealing a very high degree of holiness. She never leaned on any perception that can be normally perceived by each one of us.
St. John of the Cross is very adamant about inviting us not to try to guess or seek any “spiritual” information about persons or facts. It is a clear deviation from the true and pure spirit of faith. And the devil will never fail to interfere in the case if we lean on such “revelations” or knowledge coming from a supernatural / spiritual source (see Ascent Book II).
Some might also argue that Therese was capable of perceiving the state of her novice because of the spiritual bond that Therese had with her novice. The answer to this is that what is at stake in the teaching Therese is giving us here, is the usual state of holiness and how life looks like to a holy person in general, regardless of who we are dealing with.
To sum it up then, I think that she does not want us to “play” with or lean on any other source of information other than what we see and perceive with our sense. She does not bring any additional interpretation to what she sees (Note: this is very anti-charismatic so to speak, since charismatics usually understand the spirit of prophecy mentioned in St. Paul in a different way). In fact, she is very much in line with St. John of the Cross (see all his teaching in Ascent Book II).
The Truest Holiness
It is clear from Therese’s life, from what she says in her autobiography, that she was seeking holiness. Not a half-hearted holiness, not an ordinary holiness; she wanted to be a great saint. We can see it in this paragraph:
“One day, Léonie, thinking she was too old to play with dolls, came to find us both with a basket filled with dresses and pretty pieces intended to make others; on top lay her doll. “Here my little sisters, she tells us, choose, I give you all that.” Celine stretched out her hand and took a small bundle of braids that she liked. After a moment of reflection, I put out my hand in my turn, saying: “I choose everything!” and I took the basket without further ceremony; the witnesses of the scene found the thing very fair, Céline herself did not think of complaining about it (besides she had no shortage of toys, her godfather showered her with gifts and Louise found a way to get her everything she needed or she wanted). This little trait of my childhood is the summary of my whole life; later when perfection appeared to me, I understood that to become a saint one had to suffer a lot, always seek the most perfect and forget oneself; I understood that there were many degrees in perfection and that each soul was free to respond to Our Lord’s advances, to do little or a lot for Him, in a word to choose between the sacrifices He asks. So like in the days of my early childhood, I cried out, “My God, ‘I choose everything.’ I don’t want to be a half saint, I’m not afraid to suffer for you, I’m only afraid of one thing which is to keep my will, take it, because ‘I choose everything” what/that you want !…’” (Ms A 10r°-v°)
Thérèse wanted to be a great saint no doubt about this. The holiness Therese wants will not appear to mortal eyes. Becoming a great saint does not mean that it will be visible to the eyes of others.
“It is true that in reading certain chivalrous tales, I did not always feel at the first moment the truth of life; but soon the good Lord made me feel that the true glory is that which will last forever and that to achieve it, it was not necessary to do dazzling works but to hide and practise virtue so that the left hand does not know what the right is doing… It was thus that when reading the accounts of the patriotic actions of French heroines, in particular those of the Venerable Joan of Arc, I had a great desire to imitate them, I seemed to feel within me the same ardour with which they were animated, the same Heavenly inspiration. So I received a grace that I have always considered one of the greatest in my life, because at that age I did not receive lights like I am flooded with now. I thought that I was born for glory, and seeking the means to achieve it, the Good Lord inspired me with the feelings that I have just written. He also made me understand that my own glory would not appear to mortal eyes, that it would consist in becoming a great Saint!!!… This desire could seem rash if one considers how weak and imperfect I was and how much I still am after seven years spent in religion, however I still feel the same audacious confidence to become a great Saint, because I do not count on my merits having none, but I hope in Him who is Virtue, Holiness itself. It is He alone who, contenting himself with my weak efforts, will raise me to Himselfand, covering me with his infinite merits, will make me Saint. I did not think then that it was necessary to suffer a lot to reach holiness, the Good Lord did not take long to show it to me by sending me the trials that I told above…” (MsA 31v°-32°r)
She maintains her audacity of wanting to become a great saint because she counts on God’s holiness. What does it mean to be “covered with God’s infinite merits”, what does it imply? The description seems too easy and can also mislead us. How does God make us saints? How do saints live, feel and see? The following text sheds an interesting light on our question:
Therese is not only a great saint but a secure guide to holiness. But what type of holiness is she promoting? What type of holiness did she live? Not a shiny one. Not necessarily a holiness the person herself is aware of.
She understood from her youth that her holiness would be “ordinary”, in the sense of behaving in a common normal manner a hidden holiness if you prefer. When after her death they announced to the nuns of her monastery that they were starting the process of her canonisation, a nun said: ‘Sister Therese? A Saint? She didn’t do anything (extraordinary or noticeable)!’ I think that this reaction would have pleased Therese enormously.
She sought holiness. She is a real guide to holiness. But what is holiness for her? What is true holiness? What does it look like? We need to know this, we need to know where we are heading. Holiness – and it is a journey – says Therese is to have Jesus so much present in her that He lives and acts through her. Spontaneously. Almost “naturally”. Of course it takes a journey of growth to reach this quality or type of union with Jesus.
“Now, my dear Mother, what remains for me to say to you? Ah! I thought I had finished but I have not yet told you anything about my happiness in having known our Blessed Mother Geneviève… This is an invaluable grace; well, the Good Lord who had already granted me so much, wanted me to live with a Saint, not inimitable, but a Saint sanctified by hidden and ordinary virtues… More than once I received great consolations from her, especially on a Sunday. Going as usual to pay him a short visit, I found two Sisters with Mother Geneviève; I looked at her with a smile and was about to leave since there can’t be three of us with a patient, but she, looking at me with an inspired air, said to me: “Wait, my little girl, I’m just going to tell you a little word. Every time you come, you ask me to give you a spiritual bouquet, well, today I’m going to give you this: Serve God with peace and joy, remember, my child, that our God, he is the God of peace. After having simply thanked her, I left moved to tears and convinced that the Good Lord had revealed to her the state of my soul; that day I was extremely tried, almost sad, in a night such that I no longer knew if I was loved by the Good Lord, but the joy and the consolation that I felt, you can guess them, my dear Mother!. .. The following Sunday, I wanted to know what revelation Mother Geneviève had had; she assured me that she had not received any, so my admiration was even greater, seeing to what an eminent degree Jesus lived in her and made her act and speak. Ah! this holiness seems to me the truest, the holiest and it is this that I desire because there is no illusion there...” (MsA 78r°)
“the truest”, “the holiest” holiness…. Euphoric expressions, in the mouth of one of the greatest saints – Pius XI considered her as the greatest saint of modern times.
The more eminent holiness is, the less the holy person perceives extra-ordinary things. The person is so united to Jesus that He lives and acts through the person. But the person is not aware of it, on the contrary, as Therese says it, the person can feel a great poverty, not having lights or knowledge or extra support from God. As she puts it, God gives her minute by minute just what she needs. Therese is like a little child, carried by God. What she gets she gives. She doesn’t store anything. Who can bear such poverty and find peace?
The holy person is not aware of his or her own behaviour, but paradoxically it is for Therese the sign of not only holiness but of an eminent holiness. St. John of the Cross recommends to spiritual persons to adhere to reason. “Be attentive to your reason (Es. : “entra en cuenta con tu razón” comply with your reason / come to terms with your reason) in order to do what it tells you concerning the way to God. It will be more valuable before your God than all the works you perform without this attentiveness and all the spiritual delights you seek.” (Sayings 40) What a paradox: one thinks that holiness and being spiritual mean getting “prophetic” lights and information regarding fact, events and persons, but the truth is quite the opposite. And St. John of the Cross is warning us not to deviate from this, i.e. not to seek revelations or knowledge from a supernatural source (see Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book II). When we see such descriptions of holiness as those of Therese and St. John of the Cross, we find that they are very far from the popular descriptions of the saints and far from what we usually imagine and expect. Going toward holiness is accepting an ever-increasing poverty in spirit, an acceptance and even more a love of such poverty, a great abandonment / entrustment into God’s hands.
So growing in holiness is allowing Jesus to live in us more and more, and to act through us. It is to be united with Jesus. Accepting the work of the Holy Spirit who removes all the obstacles between Jesus and us, all the attachments, not only emotional attachments, but also, the attachment to the “I”. The Holy Spirit’s work is to help us hear Jesus’ Words, receive them, be transformed by them, so that Jesus can grow in us until He reaches his height. In this way He can live lives in us in his fullness and can act acts through us.
How Does Jesus and the Holy Spirit Live and Guide the Person?
Before union, the person still has distinct knowledges which falls into the conscious soul (mind, memory and will) “the more nearly the memory attains to union with God, the more do distinct kinds of knowledge become perfected within it, until it loses them entirely — namely, when it attains to the state of union in perfection.” (Ascent of Mount Carmel, III,8) This observation is really very interesting. Before union one might perceive, but once union is attained, there is not perception: “it loses them entirely” (“perderlas del todo”). The paradox here is that the person united with Jesus has less perception than in the previous stages! Still, the actions of the person are divine, i.e. moved or led by the Holy Spirit.
“Hence it comes to pass that the operations of the soul in union are of the Divine Spirit and are Divine. And hence it comes that the actions of such souls are only those that are seemly and reasonable, and not those that are ill-beseeming. For the Spirit of God teaches them that which they ought to know, and causes them to be ignorant of that which it behoves them not to know, and to remember that which they have to remember, with or without forms, and to forget that which they should forget; and it makes them love that which they have to love, and not to love that which is not in God.” (Ascent of Mount Carmel III,9) But the person is unaware of this.