I came across this explanation a few days ago and have been puzzling over it. The author is credentialed as a conservative Catholic. But, having pondered this explanation of the priest’s role in Mass, I’ve concluded that is a bizarre mythology that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. The following quote comes from: “And Judas Went and Hanged Himself” http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/zmirak/2002/zmirak05-30-02.htm Is this writer doing a good job of explaining dogma? Is he nuts? Am I dead wrong? >>>>> The priest acts in the person of Christ. Christ acts as high priest, and offers himself as victim to God the Father, in expiation for the sins of man. In the person of the priest, Christ weds himself to the congregation, which stands for the Church, Christ’s mystical Bride. Just as the priest’s sacrificial role in the New Testament theology is a direct outgrowth—down to many of the rituals and prayers used—of the High Priest’s Temple ritual in Judaism, so this matrimonial theology grows directly out of the Old Testament understanding of the Jewish people as wedded to Yahweh. (See the Song of Songs and Hoseafor lovely, poetic meditations on this theme in the Hebrew Bible.)

This is why the Church can never ordain women priests. Even in the world, in which every major gentile religion—from which most of the new Christians came—employed priestesses or temple prostitutes, the Church resisted massive cultural pressure to employ women as sacred intermediaries.

And Church resists the same pressure now. You see, priestesses have never served the same role as priests—just as a bride never fills the same role as a groom. In every pagan religion in which they served, priestesses served as the female presence that was united—usually erotically—to a distant, masculine god. Or she served to incarnate, temporarily, a chthonic, impersonal, the Jewish-Christian God is utterly different. While he stands above the universe he created and maintains, he also chooses to enter it, to unite himself to it—to the Jews, in the people of Israel, to Christians in the Church, his mystical Bride. So the Church cannot employ priestesses—she has replaced the priestess. Instead of marrying a temple prostitute who stands for the worshippers, we believe that God marries the Church as a whole, and each soul in particular. The priest stands in for Christ, does his work on the altar, enacting this mystical union each time he says the Mass.<<<<<

-- Walter (duck@marvy.com), June 07, 2002

Answers

I read the article. What part or parts of it are you having problems with? It seems very solid to me. In sum, he says that the priest acts in the person of Christ at Mass (as in all the Sacraments), and that the Church can never ordain women.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), June 07, 2002.

This is true. The priest acts in the person of Christ (The Groom - Biblically), and ministerst to the Church (The Bride - Biblically). Since the priest is acting as the groom for the Church, then this possition cannot be filled by a woman. If this were the case then the Church would automatically have to accept same sex marriages. This cannot be so, because when man and women come together as one, a third is created. Biblically "this is why a MAN leaves his mother and father and clings to his WIFE..." In the second coming of Christ we (the Church) will be celebrating our wedding with Christ. The Popes "theology of the Body" does a wonderful job of explaining how our earthly marriages are a forshadowing of what our heavenly marriage will be like. Christopher West talks on the "theology of the Body" here.

Here are some more explenations that were posted on earlier threads. Link1 Link2 Link3

Hope this helps, Walter.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 07, 2002.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I must leave my desk for several days and hope to rejoin this conversation. To be frank, I think I am having a crisis of Faith just now. News reports of police searching for bodies of missing children at the property of (former) Fr. Stephen Kiesle, well, he was a boyhood friend at St Cyprian's in Long Beach, CA. And I am shaken. There are some pretty nasty opinions offered in this forum and I don't want to open myself up to a lot of s_& abuse today. But honestly, every day things just get wierder and worshiping becomes harder....

-- Walter (duck@marvy.com), June 07, 2002.

Walt, You have my sympathies. This scandal has hit close to my wife's childhood parish and on the otherside of the country where I grew up and again where my parents attend church.

Mybe it would help if you remember that just because someone presents an argument of "marriage theology", it doesn't make it Gospel. In the case that you have brought up, the train of logic follows that there shouldn't be any men in the congregation that has become "The Bride". An equal line of logic would conclude that God is Woman because the men of the congregation are married to her. It makes no sense to normal people, it isn't dogma, it is not relevant. Those who contend otherwise drive wedges between Catholics and should be told to shut up.

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhen@hotmail.com), June 07, 2002.

Bob

Again you are showing your warped mind and pure ignorance.

Walter has come here for support and you come in a slam him with stupid salnts of yours of the kind the evil one would employ. If you cannot say anything decent, then I will ask you to please keep ypour mouth shut. Now buzz of jerk.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 07, 2002.

Walter

Please don't lose faith now. What another does should not affect you. Your former friend is a troubled man and the papers also should never call him a priest as he was defrocked many years ago.

I will pray for you to overcome your ordeal and hope that you see healing from GOD soon.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 07, 2002.

Moderator!! Please delete the post above, before Walter really has a crisis of faith (due to the heretical tactics of Bob).

Bob,

If you don't like the explenation for priest not being women, because it isn't in scripture, then please try to understand this: The authority given to Peter (and therefore the Pope), as well as the Church's Magesterium IS Scriptural! And our current Pope, and all Popes since the very begining have not permitted women to be ordained. And as Scripture (the Word of God) commands us to adhere to the authority of the Pope, we must obey this.

Furthermore, the fact that you base your assertion on the foundation that this is not Scriptural only serves to highlight your ignorance to the Catholic Faith, which bases its teachings and beliefs in Scripture and Tradition (writen and oral).

Walter, I hope that you take this to heart. Our Catholic faith is True. And many in the Catholic Church have been hit hard by the current issues, even our dear Priests (the real ones). Though the peope inside the Church are only human and will sin, the Church herself will not falter! "death will not prevail over her". Have faith and hope, and know that this will not kill the Church, but only make her stronger.

May God touch your heart and strengthen your faith in Him. Padre Pio, Pray for us. Amen.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 07, 2002.

Bob,

Here is some information that I think would be worthwhile for anyone who doubts the Church's teaching on women priest to read.

Pope Paul VI, on November 30, 1975, in a letter to Archbishop Coggan of Canterbury said: "Your Grace is of course well aware of the Catholic Church's position on this question. She holds that it is NOT admissible to ordain WOMEN to the priesthood, for very FUNDAMENTAL reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the SACRED SCRIPTURES of Christ choosing His Apostles only from among men; the CONSTANT practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has CONSISTENTLY held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for His Church."

See full text here.

This doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is sexist. There are an infinate amount of roles that women play in our Church, just not the role of priest! If the Church was sexist, one might think we would try to minimize Mary, the MOTHER of God, which we obviously do not.

I hope this helps you in your search for truth.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 07, 2002.

Thank you to both Jakes for admirably defending the true beliefs of the Catholic Church, as well as for reminding us that we cannot decide whether or not to be practicing Catholics based on the good or bad behavior of individual member (clergy, religious, or laity).

Walter, you can depend on what the Jakes told you. Unfortunately, I have noticed that we cannot depend on what Bob Hennessy has posted, on various threads (including this one), at this forum.

As to the quotation you gave in your original message ... I ask you to read the following paragraphs from Pope John Paul II's 1988 Apostolic Letter "On the Dignity and Vocation of Woman." I think that you will see that what you quoted meshes well with what the pope wrote:

"25. ... If God's love for the human person, for the Chosen People of Israel, is presented by the Prophets as the love of the bridegroom for the bride, such an analogy expresses the 'spousal' quality and the divine and non-human character of God's love: 'For your Maker is your husband ... the God of the whole earth he is called' (Is 54:5). The same can also be said of the spousal love of Christ the Redeemer: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son' (Jn 3:16). It is a matter, therefore, of God's love expressed by means of the Redemption accomplished by Christ. According to Saint Paul's Letter [to the Ephesians], this love is 'like' the spousal love of human spouses, but naturally it is not 'the same.' For the analogy implies a likeness, while at the same time leaving ample room for nonlikeness. This is easily seen in regard to the person of the 'bride.' According to the Letter to the Ephesians, the bride is the Church, just as for the Prophets the bride was Israel. She is therefore a collective subject and not an individual person. This collective subject is the People of God, a community made up of many persons, both women and men. 'Christ has loved the Church' precisely as a community, as the People of God. At the same time, in this Church, which in the same passage is also called his 'body' (cf. Eph 5:23), he has loved every individual person. For Christ has redeemed all without exception, every man and woman. It is precisely this love of God which is expressed in the Redemption; the spousal character of this love reaches completion in the history of humanity and of the world.

"Christ has entered this history and remains in it as the Bridegroom who 'has given himself.' 'To give' means 'to become a sincere gift' in the most complete and radical way: 'Greater love has no man than this' (Jn 15:13). According to this conception, all human beings -- both women and men -- are called through the Church, to be the 'Bride' of Christ, the Redeemer of the world. In this way 'being the bride,' and thus the 'feminine' element, becomes a symbol of all that is 'human,' according to the words of Paul: 'There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3:28).

"From a linguistic viewpoint we can say that the analogy of spousal love found in the Letter to the Ephesians links what is 'masculine' to what is 'feminine,' since, as members of the Church, men too are included in the concept of 'Bride.' This should not surprise us, for Saint Paul, in order to express his mission in Christ and in the Church, speaks of the 'little children with whom he is again in travail' (cf. Gal 4:19). In the sphere of what is 'human' - of what is humanly personal - 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are distinct, yet at the same time they complete and explain each other. This is also present in the great analogy of the 'Bride' in the Letter to the Ephesians. In the Church every human being - male and female - is the 'Bride,' in that he or she accepts the gift of the love of Christ the Redeemer, and seeks to respond to it with the gift of his or her own person.

"Christ is the Bridegroom. This expresses the truth about the love of God who 'first loved us' (cf. 1 Jn 4:19) and who, with the gift generated by this spousal love for man, has exceeded all human expectations: 'He loved them to the end' (Jn 13:1). The Bridegroom - the Son consubstantial with the Father as God - became the son of Mary; he became the 'son of man,' true man, a male. The symbol of the Bridegroom is masculine. This masculine symbol represents the human aspect of the divine love which God has for Israel, for the Church, and for all people. Meditating on what the Gospels say about Christ's attitude towards women, we can conclude that as a man, a son of Israel, he revealed the dignity of the 'daughters of Abraham' (cf. Lk 13:16), the dignity belonging to women from the very 'beginning' on an equal footing with men. At the same time Christ emphasized the originality which distinguishes women from men, all the richness lavished upon women in the mystery of creation. Christ's attitude towards women serves as a model of what the Letter to the Ephesians expresses with the concept of 'bridegroom.' Precisely because Christ's divine love is the love of a Bridegroom, it is the model and pattern of all human love, men's love in particular.

"26. Against the broad background of the 'great mystery' expressed in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, it is possible to understand adequately the calling of the 'Twelve.' In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behaviour, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ's way of acting. 'Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men' (Mt 22:16). These words fully characterize Jesus of Nazareth's behaviour. Here one also finds an explanation for the calling of the 'Twelve.' They are with Christ at the Last Supper. They alone receive the sacramental charge, 'Do this in remembrance of me' (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), which is joined to the institution of the Eucharist. On Easter Sunday night they receive the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins: 'Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained' (Jn 20:23).

"We find ourselves at the very heart of the Paschal Mystery, which completely reveals the spousal love of God. Christ is the Bridegroom because 'he has given himself:' his body has been 'given,' his blood has been 'poured out' (cf. Lk 22:19-20). In this way 'he loved them to the end' (Jn 13:1). The 'sincere gift' contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross gives definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of God's love. As the Redeemer of the world, Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride. The Eucharist makes present and realizes anew in a sacramental manner the redemptive act of Christ, who 'creates' the Church, his body. Christ is united with this 'body' as the bridegroom with the bride. All this is contained in the Letter to the Ephesians. The perennial 'unity of the two' that exists between man and woman from the very 'beginning' is introduced into this 'great mystery' of Christ and of the Church.

"Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is 'feminine' and what is 'masculine.' It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts 'in persona Christi,' is performed by a man. ..."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Dear Walter,
It's understandable that many are having their faith in the Church shaken. You aren't alone.

There are some pretty nasty opinions offered in this forum and I don't want to open myself up to a lot of s_& abuse today. But honestly, every day things just get wierder and worshiping becomes harder.
-- Walter (duck@marvy.com)

No one can possibly NOT feel negative and thoroughly ashamed, when the very sacristy of our community is desecrated and kids are having their spiritual direction perverted and destroyed.

In the case of truly fervent Catholics there's added also our sorrow for a betrayal of God Himself which so many priests have DARED to allow themselves.

If a human being, however innocent or blameless is offended, together with his friends and family; let's face now,(as Catholics) the stench that arises into the presence of GOD, who is All-Holy. It's infinitely MORE alarming for us. More so than it could be to the unbelievers and agnostics. They have no consciousness of an outraged God, and we do!

Yet; I must declare as a catholic, my faith in His word. Jesus Christ not only foresaw these awful days in His faithful Church. He stated clearly that they ''must needs come.'' He knew the faith of many would dissolve and die; because the world presents great challenges to a Christian. Only the very FAITHFUL will be saved during these trials.

Just as children are deflowered and hurt, the Church is shamed and despised. By those who had no love for her to begin with; and by many who thought they were among the faithful. Yet, the moment of truth arrives, and they are hurting their Church even further, in adding their own rejection. Christ had foreknowledge of how weak many would prove. I have to urge you, Walter; and many of my other brethren. Be of good heart. better times are coming. These are storms; just like the one on the Lake; when Our Lord slept in that stern; and the bark of Peter was on the verge of sinking. Then his followers called out in PANIC to Him, saying: ''Lord! Don't you see we are perishing?''

Jesus arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: ''Peace, be still.'' And the wind fell and there came a great calm. ''Why are you fearful,'' He asked. ''Are you still without faith?''

''And they feared exceedingly and said to one another ''Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?'' (Mark 4, :38-40)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 08, 2002.

Walter, here... I'm back at my desk again. Thanks to each of you who took the time to write, but for my part, if I stay on this path of inquiry, I risk my soul.

I don't know why so many of us are compelled to make these analogies about brides and bridegroom's bodies. I had a pretty good Catholic school education but we never covered that section of the book. I'm content to let my Church make it's rules about who can be ordained. But spare me this circle-wank metaphore about bride's/groom's bodies. If being a Catholic means you have to learn and support that,... we're sunk.

-- Walter (duck@marvy.com), June 11, 2002.

Walter,

Welcome back!

Actually I also went to Catholic grammar school and was taught nothing of bride's and bride grooms, and I made it through public high school and the university without hearing of it either. But I believe that is because this is a very deep aspect of our faith that requires one first to understand God and his plan for human life (and afterlife), which cannot be taught to 6,7 or 8th graders (or to some highschoolers and college kids for that matter) who lack the foundation to understand.

Also, noteworthy is the fact that Pope John Paul II just recently wrote his "Theology of the Body", and a lot of this bride/bridegroom stuff is just being tapped. In actuality, as God reveals his plan to us through the Holy Church, we are coming to realize that Marriage is even more than we bargained for. I think I am safe in saying that "analogy" and "metaphor" should be taken out of your statement. It should be "realities" of bride and bridegrooms bodies. We TRULY reflect Gods plan for Christ and his Church! And in the most purist form, our marriage act leading to an orgasm is but a shadow (a sneak preview) of our marriage in Heaven and the orgasm of all orgasms when we see God face to face! Our view of marriage, sex, and orgasms has been so corrupted that this diamond in the rough is just recently being viewed in its most pure and natural light as a representation (a sign if you will) of our eternal life! Christopher West gives an excellent talk on “the Theology of the Body” and I would recommend looking his site up on the net. It is linked somewhere on another thread.

And as the relationship between our Earthly marriages and our Heavenly marriages are more clearly revealed, the role of the male priest becomes even more significant. Therefore, you stated, “If being a Catholic means you have to learn and support that,... we're sunk.”, on the contrary this bride / bridegroom reality is what may just keep us floating.

I truly hope this helps, Walter. And I will continue to pray for you during your struggle. Hey, don’t forget to pray on this coming Sunday. Padre Pio will be canonized a Saint. He is a very powerful intercessor, and will most definitely hear your plea and direct it to God.

I am no theologian, so don’t just take my word for it Walter. Please, if anyone finds something wrong with what I said, let it be known. Or if anyone just wants to help out and add.

Thanks.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 11, 2002.

The first pope to take the name "John Paul" took a completely different stance. John Paul I said, "... it would do well for us to remember that God is not just a Father, but also our divine Mother." If John Paul I had survived, we'd all be tapping into that metaphore.

I don't want to be rude to anyone here. You have treated my inquiry with more intelligence and dignity than I expected, given the routine bickering that usually passes for discussion here. Don't you think that our Church would do well to back off the sexual metaphores?

You made the point that some concepts require a more mature mind than those found in a Catholic high school. True enough. But Jesus taught at a very basic level that can be grasped by the uneducated, even the simple minded. The high minded tended to get shot down by J.C.

-- Walter (duck@marvy.com), June 11, 2002.

I don't really think it has to do with high minded thinking, just correct thinking (which requires a pure and simple mind). Jesus Christ didn't put down the educated, he put down the self-righteous (those who may have been educated or not - yet put themselves above others). We have been conditioned to look at the roles of women, sex, marriage, our bodies, and much more in such a distorted way that simple minded and highly educated persons are both prone to make the same mistakes. A truly pure minded person may indeed be simple minded and grasp this reality: That Marriage on earth reflects our Marriage in Heaven, and that includes the masculine and feminine role. One other point, when we are raised from the dead on the last day, our eternal souls will be reunited with our (to-be) eternal bodies, but the bodies will still reflect our manhood or womanhood. If there was no gender role in heaven, then wouldn't our new bodies at the 2nd coming of Christ be gender exclusive? Just a thought.

Also, John Paul did not take a "completely different stance". Ask any of the other Popes the same thing and they will tell you the same! God is a Spiritual Being and therefore has no physically masculine characteristics, although He does carry certain Spiritually masculine traits which we use to define Him as He. In fact even in Scripture it say something about Gods Motherlike nature. This is not a "metaphor". It is a reality that has already been "tapped". Yet even YOU as a masculine person physically and spiritually have a motherly nature, and if called to act as such, you could take on a motherly role (that is a feminine role - like caring, tender, etc). John Paul is not saying that God IS feminine, or that He is our Mother. Rather, not to think of Him as only Father figure (strong, demanding, the punisher type), even though He IS a masculine God.

Beside for that, our priests represent Christ the Son, not God the Father. And therefore, although God can act as Father or Mother, Christ Jesus was MAN! So, I'm not sure how this effects the arguments posted prior.

I hope this helps.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 12, 2002.

Dear Jake:
I think your 2nd-to last post didn't serve a good purpose. You can be forgiven, because you're young and haven't really had time to meditate these mysteries. By inserting those orgasmic characteristics to spiritual relations in the Mystical identities of the Church and her Bridegroom, you ''freeze the blood'' of our soul's understanding.

Give God's grace a chance. You are too anxious after the ''mood'', and forget the sanctity of a marriage.

One of the most enduring and loving characteristics of holy matrimony is complete privacy and reticence. Good brides don't discuss sexual details. No husband shares the intimacy of his love for his wife with others.

Neither is our Lord and Saviour with His Bride to become a ''party'' discussion. We have enough of these farces in the junk magazines at every supermarket checkout.

Every ideal and expression of our faith is directed to HOLINESS as the norm. We speak of God and His grace, of Jesus and the Church, with only the greatest reverence.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 12, 2002.

Hi Walter, I've enjoyed your remarks and want to congratulate you on having kept this thread on an intelligent level. The bickering nabobs are moving in now, but it's been great.

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhenn@hhotmail.com), June 12, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), June 12, 2002.

Bob

Stop patting your prideful self so much. you are starting to bloody all of the website.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.

Walter, you wrote: "The first pope to take the name 'John Paul' took a completely different stance. John Paul I said, '... it would do well for us to remember that God is not just a Father, but also our divine Mother.' If John Paul I had survived, we'd all be tapping into that metaphore."

You are apparently depending on a bad source of information. I have the writings of Pope John Paul I, and he did not make the statement that you "quoted." Moreover, he was a normal, orthodox bishop and pope, showing no signs at all of bringing on a revolution in Catholic doctrine or practices.

Stick around, Walter. You can learn a lot here, from active conversation and from the archives of old threads.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

I recall John Paul I saying this to an audience of young people. It was televised and, to my recollection, he spoke in English.

More to the point, JPI spoke to the nature of God as one who had the full qualities of a Creator. He had the ability to teach of God as Father/Mother/Creator and not get hung up on Male/Female gender definitions. Some in this group will get hysterical if God is described as other than a "Father/Son gender, so I guess this will be the end of our discussion. But in truth, I appreciate JPI's statement that God is also "Mother" as a breath of fresh air in a topic that otherwise is as stifling as a panel discussion among gender feminists.

-- Walter (duck@marvy.com), June 13, 2002.

Walter, you put between quotation marks -- as though it were a direct, documented quote -- some words you think you saw/heard the pope say 24 years ago?
I'm sorry, but I can't even remember what someone said 24 hours ago, so I suggest that you be a bit more realistic and at least not use quotation marks.

Your memory is playing a trick on you. If any pope ever referred to God and motherhood together, he would not speak of a "divine Mother." He would probably only speak in the context of one of these passages from Isaiah and Matthew:
"Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these mayforget, yet I will not forget you."
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Hang in there. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

Dear Walter:
Who told you God has a nature? God has ''qualities'' you say?

Hysterical? You flatter yourself, to expect Catholics to be so worked up over your

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.

--Worked up over your spiritual meanderings. OK; God has NO nature. He is God, ineffable and eternally Other. Nature is His creation. Holy is the best way to name Him. All-Holy.

He has no ''qualities''; His attributes are called infinite perfections.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.

Gene, you stated, "God has NO nature."

You must be thinking of something else that God does not have.
He definitely has a "nature," and it is called a "divine nature."

Here are two of the fifteen references to "divine nature" found in the new Catechism:

259. "Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known both what is proper to the divine persons, and their one divine nature. Hence the whole Christian life is a communion with each of the divine Persons, without in any way separating them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him. [Cf. Jn 6:44; Rom 8:14.]"

51. "'It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.'[DV 2; cf. Eph 1:9; Eph 2:18; 2 Pet 1:4.]"

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.