Unity of the Divine and Sacred Hearts

Photo: Alexei Boitsov

God the Almighty Father leads us to Jesus Christ in the same manner that Christ leads us to the Father. The Savior said, “Everyone whom the Father gives Me will come to Me” (Jn 6:37) and “No one can come to Me unless drawn by the Father who sent Me” (Jn 6:44). Thus, not only does Christ lead us without fail to the Almighty Father, but for those who might go directly to the Father Himself, they will inevitably be led back by the Father to His Son so that they can be raised up: “Those whom You took from the world to give Me. They were Yours and You gave them to Me” (Jn 17:6) and “No one can come to the Father except through Me” (Jn 14:6).

This process of return occurs because we cannot be in the Divine Heart of the Father without being at the same time in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The core of the Father’s Divine Heart is one with the Son’s Sacred Heart in and through the unity of the Holy Spirit: “The Father and I are one,” said Christ (Jn 10:30), and “the Father is in Me and I am in the Father” (Jn 10:38, 14:11); “Father, You are in Me and I am in You” (Jn 17:21). It is precisely to reconcile us with the Heavenly Father and reopen up the path to deification that Christ became man over 2000 years ago. This is illustrated in the Gospel of John, whereby Christ points us toward and shows us the Face and Will of the Eternal Father (Jn 12:44-50).

 

Advertisements

Is lucidity fantasy or commencement of deification? Christianity v. psychology

Photo: Alexei Boitsov

Some writers have defined lucidity as following fantasy and being a natural continuation of it, within the purported psychological framework of Lacan’s initial meaning of the sinthome. This was apparently done in an attempt to downplay or completely change the real significance of lucidity; willfully or otherwise. However, such an assertion by the said writers is not true because fantasy and lucidity belong to two different orders – realms, levels – of functioning, in relation both to the nature and the abilities of common man.

Fantasy, on the one hand, belongs to Lacan’s order of the Imaginary, which is one of the psychological orders. It originates from man. No true insight or understanding are present in fantasy, otherwise it would not be fantasy in the first instance. Lucidity, on the other hand, belongs to the order, the realm, of the Spirit, which is the supernatural order (not to be confused with the preternatural order). It originates from God the Holy Spirit and is a gift of grace. Lucidity carries within it both true insight – clarity of vision – and understanding.

As the supernatural order is, by its very character, a higher order than the psychological order, it can subsume the latter within it, if and when necessary, but not vice versa. One cannot, therefore, traverse fantasy qua fantasy, to reach lucidity in a natural manner. Moreover, it is well-known in the apophatic via negativa of Eastern Christianity (as opposed to the cataphatic via positiva of Western Christianity) that when lucidity is present, fantasy is absent because it is no longer needed. But how, then, does all this happen and what does it really mean?  Continue reading “Is lucidity fantasy or commencement of deification? Christianity v. psychology”

A propos du Nom du Père de Jacques Lacan: Christianity v. psychology

god-the-father-1779-by-pompeo-girolamo-batoniMany have often claimed that the difference between Freud’s neurotic symptom and Lacan’s sinthome, in those who have traversed fantasy, is nothing more than lucidity and assent. However, is such a claim really true?

Freud considered the neurotic symptom an unwelcome act or acts that were, at the least, useless in the life of an individual and, at the most, harmful. The symptom was a substitute for instinctual satisfaction that had been repressed and claimed considerable psychic energy from the individual in its formation, manifestation, and maintenance. Lacan initially considered the sinthome to be the symptom, spelled out in its original form. However, he later redefined the sinthome as the fourth ring of the Borromean knot, and which held together the three orders of the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic that formed the structure both of the world and of the individual. The sinthome came to be largely regarded as the paternal metaphor – the nom du père [name of the father] or noms du père [names of the father] that replaced the father of Freud’s Oedipus complex, with the sinthome par excellence being the Nom du Père – the Name of the (Eternal) Father. But was God the Father no more than a symptom or a metaphor for Lacan – as so many desire Him to be, to this day?  Continue reading “A propos du Nom du Père de Jacques Lacan: Christianity v. psychology”

Was Christ a narcissist or not? Christianity v. psychology

Jesus ChristUsing Christ as the epitome of the martyr, some have attempted to define the Christian martyr as a first-class egotistical, fanatical narcissist for whom nothing else counts except the unbrokenness – the unfragmented purity and integrity, if you will – of the self-image. This attitude and disposition was termed “extraordinary.” The Christian martyr was also defined as starving of all natural desire, to attain this unattainable fantasy-based goal.

In the attempt, however, to explain the martyrdom of Christ’s human nature from within such a weak – starving – purported viewpoint of psychology, these writers failed, intentionally or otherwise, to consider five basic facts (four of them spiritual) that cannot be reduced to mere psychologizations. These facts are that

  1. Christ was the only-begotten Son of God (the Father);
  2. The difference between image and likeness in the nature of mankind;
  3. The ontology of the extraordinary;
  4. The natural desires experienced by Christ the Man; and
  5. The real reason He died on the Cross.

Specifically, Christ was not just a Man, but also the Son of God the Eternal Father. As such, unlike the rest of mankind (common man), Christ did not have just a human nature and a human will, but also a divine nature and the Divine Will. Although He deliberately divested Himself of His divine nature at the very instance of His human conception.  Continue reading “Was Christ a narcissist or not? Christianity v. psychology”