"And thy own soul a sword shall pierce" are words spoken by Simeon to Our Blessed Mother when she presented her first-born in the Temple, in accordance with the Law of Moses.
It is traditional to reflect on the Sorrows of Mary in the month of September. To this end, in the following posts I offer the words of the French scholar and preacher Bossuet, taken from his Elevation* on the Presentation of the Child Jesus in the Temple. I have added my own (fairly literal) translation and occasional notes on Scriptural references.
*élévation: THÉOLOGIE. Mouvement de l’âme vers Dieu ; prière qui favorise et traduit ce mouvement. Elevation: theology. A movement of the soul towards God; a prayer that favours and translates this movement.
Laudetur Jesus Christus et Maria Immaculata.
 |
| The Presentation in the Temple. J-J Tissot. |
XIVe ÉLÉVATION.
Contradictions des chrétiens mêmes contre Jésus-Christ, sur sa personne.
The Fourteenth Elevation
A sign of contradiction even for Christians, on the person of Jesus Christ
Je frémis, je sèche, Seigneur, je suis saisi de frayeur et d'étonnement; mon cœur se pâme , se flétrit, quand je vous vois en butte aux contradictions, non-seulement des infidèles, mais encore de ceux qui se disent vos disciples. Et premièrement, quelles contradictions sur votre personne ! Vous êtes tellement Dieu qu'on ne peut croire que vous soyez homme : vous êtes tellement homme, qu'on ne peut croire que vous soyez Dieu. Les uns ont dit : « Le Verbe est en Dieu ; » mais ce n'est rien de substantiel ni de subsistant : il est en Dieu comme notre pensée est en nous : en ce sens il est Dieu comme la pensée est notre aine. Car qu'est-ce que la pensée, sinon notre âme en tant qu'elle pense? Non, disent les autres : on voit trop que le Verbe est quelque chose qui subsiste : c'est un fils ; c'est une personne : qui ne le voit pas par toutes les actions et toutes les choses qu'on lui attribue? Mais aussi ne doit-on pas croire que cet homme qui est né de Marie, sans être rien autre chose, est cette personne qu'on nomme le Fils de Dieu? Quoi! il n'est pas devant Marie, lui qui dit qu'il est « devant Abraham ? » lui qui « était au commencement ? » Vous vous trompez, il est évident, dit Arius, qu'il est devant que le monde fût : c'est dès lors une personne subsistante ; mais inférieure à Dieu, faite du néant comme le sont les créatures, quoique plus excellente. Tiré du néant? cela ne se peut : lui « par qui tout a été tiré du néant . » Comment donc est-il fils? Un fils n'est-il pas produit de la substance de son père, et de même nature que lui? Le Fils de Dieu sera-t-il moins fils, et Dieu sera-t-il moins père que les hommes ne le sont? Il serait donc fils par adoption comme nous? Et comment avec cela « être fils unique, qui est dans le sein du Père ? » Arius, vous avez tort, dit Nestorius : Le Fils de Dieu est Dieu comme lui ; mais aussi ne peut-il pas en même temps être fait homme? Il habite en l'homme comme Dieu habite dans un temple par grâce; et si le Fils de Dieu est fils par nature, l'homme qu'il s'est uni par sa grâce ne l'est que par adoption.
I tremble, I know not what to say, O Lord, I am seized with fear and astonishment ; my heart swoons and I feel weak when I see you become a sign of contradiction, not only for those without faith but also for those who call themselves your disciples. Firstly, consider the contradictions about your person! You are God to such an extent that they cannot believe you could be a man; you are a man in such a way that they cannot believe you might be God. Some say "the Word was with God;"[1] but he is nothing substantial nor subsisting; he is in God as our thought is in us; in this sense he is God like a thought is for us. For what is a thought, other than our soul in as much as the soul is thinking thoughts? But no, say others: it is plain to see that the Word is something which subsists; he is a son; he is a person: who does not see this in all the actions and all the things that are attributed to him? And aren't we obliged to believe that this man who was born of Mary, without being anything else, is is person who is called the Son of God? What! Is he not before Mary, he who says that he is " before Abraham?"[2] - he "who was in the beginning?"[3] You are in error, it is evident, said Arius, that he is before the world was; he is accordingly a subsisting person, but lower than God, made from nothing just like all creatures, but more excellent. Made from nothing? That is not possible for him " through whom all was created from nothing."[4] How then is he a son? For is not a son a product of the substance of his father, and of the same nature as him? Would the Son of God be less of a son, and would God be less of a father than men are? Would he then be a son by adoption as we are? And that being the case, how could he be "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father?" Arius, you are in error, said Nestorius: the Son of God is God like him; but could he not also at the same time be made man? He dwells in man as God dwells in a temple through grace; and if the Son is a son by nature, the man to whom he has united himself through his grace is a man only by adoption.
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.[Joan.i.1]
[2] Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. Dixit eis Jesus : Amen, amen dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum.[Joan.viii.58] move
[3] The same was in the beginning with God. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.[Joan.i.2]
[4] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt : et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.[Joan.i.2]
[5] No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Deum nemo vidit umquam : unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit.[Joan.i.18]
On s'oppose à cette perverse doctrine : on dit à Nestorius : Vous séparez trop : il faut unir jusqu'à tout confondre, et faire de deux natures une nature. Hélas! quand finiront ces contentions? Pouvez-vous croire, disent ceux-ci, qu'un Dieu puisse en effet se rabaisser jusqu'à être effectivement homme? La chair n'est pas digne de lui : il n'en a point, si ce n'est une fantastique et imaginaire. Imaginaire ! dit l'autre; et comment donc a-t-on dit : « Le Verbe a été fait chair , » en définissant l'incarnation par l'endroit que vous rebutez? Il a une chair, et l'incarnation n'est pas une tromperie. Mais le Verbe lui tient lieu d'âme : ou bien, si vous voulez lui donner une âme, donnons-lui celle des bêtes quelle qu'elle soit; mais ne lui donnons point celle des hommes. Le Verbe est son âme encore un coup : ou du moins il est son intelligence : il veut par sa volonté, et il ne peut en avoir d'autre. Est-ce tout enfin ? Oui c'est tout : car on a tout contesté, le corps, l’âme, les opérations intellectuelles; et toutes les contradictions sont épuisées. Jésus est donc « en butte aux contradictions » de ceux qui se disent ses disciples! Car, disent-ils, le moyen de comprendre cela et cela? Mais Jésus avait prévenu les contradictions par une seule parole : « Dieu a tant aimé le monde, qu'il lui a donné son Fils unique .»
Others reject this perverse teaching: they say to Nestorius: You take separation too far: you should join things into a unity, and make of two natures but one nature. Alas! When will these contentions cease? Can you believe, say some, that a God can in reality so lower himself as to become, effectively, a man? Flesh is not worthy of him; he does not have flesh, except in a fantastical and imaginary sense. Imaginary? Says another; and so how has it been written: "and was made flesh,"[1] defining the incarnation there where you rebut it? He has flesh, and incarnation is not a delusion. But the Word had for him the place of a soul; or even, if you want to attribute to a soul to him, give him whatever soul that the beasts have; but do not give him a human soul. The Word is his soul; or at least it is his intelligence; he will through his own will, and he cannot have any other. And is that finally everything? Yes it is everything; for everything has been questioned: body, soul, and intellectual operations; and all contradictions have been exhausted. Jesus is therefore "a sign which shall be contradicted" by those who call themselves his disciples! For, they say, how to understand this and that? But Jesus had anticipated these contradictions through one single utterance: " For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son;"[2]
[1] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis : et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis.[Joan.i.14]
[2] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret : ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam.[Joan.iii.16]
Pour tout entendre, il ne faut qu'entendre son amour. « Dieu a tant aimé le momie. » Un amour incompréhensible produit des effets qui le sont aussi. Vous demandez des pourquoi à Dieu? Pourquoi un Dieu se faire homme! Jésus-Christ vous dit ce pourquoi. « Dieu a tant aimé le monde. » Tenez-vous-en là : les hommes ingrats ne veulent pas croire que Dieu les aime autant qu'il fait. Mais le disciple bien-aimé résout leurs doutes, en disant : « Nous avons cru à l'amour que Dieu a pour nous . » Dieu a tant aimé le monde : et que reste-t-il après cela, sinon de croire à l'amour pour croire à tous les mystères ?
To understand all, we have only to understand His love. "God so loved the world." A love which is incomprehensible produces effects which are also incomprehensible. Why do you ask so many why-questions of God? Why would God become man! Jesus Christ answers this question."God so loved the world." Hold fast to this; ungrateful men do not wish to believe that God loves them so much. But the beloved disciple removes their doubts, when he says: "And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us."[1] God so loved the world, and what is there left after that, except to believe in this love, in order to believe in all the mysteries?
[1] And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him. Et nos cognovimus, et credidimus caritati, quam habet Deus in nobis. Deus caritas est : et qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. [I Joan. iv. 16]
Esprits aussi insensibles à l'amour divin, que vous êtes d'ailleurs présomptueux. Le mystère de l'Eucharistie vous rebute? Pourquoi nous donner sa chair et s'unir à nous corps à corps pour s'y unir esprit à esprit? « Dieu a tant aimé le monde, » dit Jésus : et saint Jean répond pour nous tous : « Nous avons cru à l'amour que Dieu a eu pour nous. » Mais il est incompréhensible : c'est pour cela que je veux le croire et m'y abîmer : il n'en est que plus digne de Dieu. Après cela il ne faut plus disputer, mais aimer ; et après que Jésus a dit : « Dieu a tant aimé le monde, » il ne fau-droit plus que dire : Le monde racheté a tant aimé Dieu.
O ye spirits, as insensitive to divine love as you are full of presumption besides! You find the mystery of the Eucharist off-putting? Why would He give His flesh and unite himself with us body to body in order to unite himself spirit to spirit? "God so loved the world," says Jesus. Saint John replies on behalf of us all: "And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us." But this is incomprehensible; it is for this reason that I want to believe it and contemplate its depths; there is nothing more worthy of God. After this, there is no more room for disputes, but only for love; and in reply to the words of Jesus: "God so loved the world," all that should be said is: "The redeemed world so loves God."
No comments:
Post a Comment