THE CROSS’
CRUCIFORMITY
The
paradigmatic and programmatic outline of this commentary is the configuration
of Christ’s cross of crucifixion. This cross contains three different, disparate
beams. The upright and vertical beam points to heaven’s immutable eternity
beyond earth’s time and temporality; the horizontal cross beam spans the entire
history of mankind living on earth in its pilgrimage to heaven; the
intersection of the two beams forms the cross’ cruciformity. In this
cruciformity there is the march of a Christian’s eschatological salvation
history toward heaven alongside the march of secular history toward its
doomsday. These three beams with each’s special orientation engage three
separate and disparate orders inherent in the Christian’s life. The vertical
order is ontological-metaphysical; the horizontal order is
phenomenological-paraphysical; the cruciform intersection of these two orders
integrates and reconciles together the two previous orders. The vertical order
entails a logic that is orthodox; the horizontal entails an order that is one
of paradox; and the cruciform order entails a logic that is heterodox engaging
both previous orders simultaneously. The logic proper to the vertical order is
the logic of analogy; that of the horizontal involves the logic of typology and
catalogy; the cruciform order inculcates both of the two previous logical
formats by way of dialogue.
Thus, the vertical order
has a terminology peculiar to its own logic. It employs such general metaphysical
terms as intellectual, intelligibility, orthodox, fundamental, truth, obvious,
transcendent, existing and existence, literal, categorical, objectivity,
essence and essential, etc.. The horizontal order has a disparate paraphysical more
specialized terminology such as experiential, unintelligible, paradox, prototypical,
supplemental, provable, devious, immanent, resisting, metaphorical,
story-telling, subjectivity. The knowledge peculiar to the vertical order is
that of insightful knowing by essence, intelligence, presence such that when a
person bites into an apple and tastes its sweetness, the intellect discerns and
discriminates that sweetness is an incidental quality of the apple but not the
apple in its very essence. The knowledge peculiar to the horizontal order is
that of knowing by appearance not essence; by intuiting, congruent, compatible
and incongruent, incompatible associations while remaining ignorant of their
nature; by absence rather than by presence when one observes the TV screen’s
electronic depiction of an apple rather than the apple itself.
When these two disparate
orders of knowing are dialogically reconciled there results a knowledge which
engages both disparate orders heterodoxically. In this case, the same human
person is privy to both the apple’s essence objectively and to its mere
appearance subjectively. The very same person simultaneously objectively
understands this essence and remains subjectively ignorant of it; he fundamentally
knows the apple in its essence and supplementally remains ignorant of this
essence and is conversant merely with its appearance. In the one case, it is
the real apple that is really present to the knower and in the other case, this
real apple is absent and only its appearance is known. When the apple in its
physical substance is knowingly present, it is obviously present; when the apple’s
non-substantive corpuscular characteristics are the object of knowledge, it is
deviously present. The orthodox knowledge transcends the knower and attains to
the reality itself of the apple while the paradoxical knowledge remains
immanent within the knower and fails to attain to the reality itself of the
apple. The orthodox knowledge attains to the very existence of the apple where
the paradoxical subjective knowledge resists such an attainment. The
terminology of the orthodox is to be taken literally (as is) while that of the
paradoxical knowing is to be taken metaphorically (as if). Finally, the
orthodox knowing is dogmatically immutable and definitive whereas the
paradoxical knowing is mutably (viz., historically) transient, transitional,
and only captured descriptively; not definitively.
There is a remarkable
difference between the mystic’s objective and his subjective encounters with
God. Objectively, it is the very reality of God that is personally encountered.
In this encounter God remains unambiguously distinct from the mystic himself in
God’s majestic and eternal grandeur. This God remains objectively the very same
reality that others personally encounter and speak of. Subjectively, it is the
mystic’s own divine transformation that is personably experienced. In this
superhumanizing and superhumane transformation, the mystic experiences himself
infused and transfused with God’s very own divinity. This experience of God differs remarkably from
one stage of experience to another and from one person to the other.
There is in this
threefold cruciform dialogical engagement a Trinitarian anthropology. The vertical
order is directed toward God-the-Father. The horizontal order is orientated
toward God-the-Son. The cruciform order itself is enveloped with the Father and
Son’s Holy Spirit. That is, the Father initiates, the Son consummates, and the
Holy Spirit integrates. That is, the vertical order is that of the Father’s
creative initiation and paternal providence over the human person. The
horizontal order is that of the Son’s sacrificial re-creation and redemption of
the human person’s fall from the Father’s graciousness. The cruciform order
itself is that of the Holy Spirit’s integrity and integration reconciling the
vertical and horizontal orders with each other. Objectively to the mystic God
is always present while subjectively God is always absent.
Vertically and hierarchically this order is
based on the underlying holistic metaphysical principle that the holistic whole
exceeds its constitutive parts. Thus, the human person, as an existing entity
within the universe of reality, is naturally constituted of the substantive
principles of matter (viz., body) and spirit (viz., the soul). This is enunciated by stating that “man is a
body; man is a soul.” In this statement, man is holistically both a body and
soul; but not reducibly so. That is, the human person as a man is not partially
a body and partially a soul. The whole of man-as-such is body and the whole of
man-as-such is soul. Considered holistically, the constitutive principles
constitute one and the same integral whole. Considered constitutively, they
remain distinct within the same integral holistic whole.
Within this hierarchical
order of the cross’s vertical beam, the human person is a homo sapiens that is a creature of God and is ordered to God as
causally issuing from God and predestined in his finality to be directed toward
God. In this order, the human person is fundamentally a unique, intelligent,
free, sovereign unsubstitutable responsible being whose destiny is immortal and
whose intelligible horizon and freedom penetrates into the realm of eternity,
the realm of the immutable and the ideal; the realm of God’s divine existence.
Within the historical
order of the cross’s horizontal beam, this order is based on the underlying
epistemological and phenomenological principle that the piecemeal whole is
reducible to its component parts. This quasi whole is perforce always a
mathematical whole. Thus, if we again consider the reality, the human person,
as constituted microscopically, his bio-chemical constitution comes to the
forefront. In this dimensional framework, his biological make-up consists of his
major physiological systemic organisms (viz., heart, lungs, kidneys,
intestines, brain, etc.) These organisms themselves are each, in turn,
reducible to their sub component parts.
Thus, there is no more to the heart’s
organism than its physiological organic parts and to its blood’s make-up its reductive
chemical components which, in turn, may be further reduced to molecular
particles and, still further, to atomic and sub-atomic components. Briefly,
there is no enduring holistic heart-as-such entity as there is an ontological enduring
entity, man-as-such. Rather, there is only a functional heart enterprise
facilitating the blood’s circulation. There is no heart-as-such remaining
identically one and the same organism throughout its lifetime. It continues to
processively undergo its own re or degeneration through its lifetime. One
cannot declare that every physiological part of the heart organism is the heart
itself as can be stated that every substantive component of man-as-such is
holistically man itself. Every part of the heart organism is only a segmented
part of the heart. The human person’s organic heart may technically be replaced
with an alternative heart. But, man-as-such, constituting the very objective
nature of each human person cannot be in any way substituted; it is essential
to the human person’s constitution.
Here in the horizontal order we deal with
mathematical paraphysical piecemeal enterprising functional wholes and not any metaphysical
entitative holistic wholes. It is the same entity man-as-such that constitutes
the human person ontologically throughout a person’s entire existence. The same
human person phenomenologically considered is an enterprise which continues to
processively mutate throughout a person’s historical life-time on earth.
Similarly, with the human person’s every other bio-chemical and socio-political
organistic make-up in the subjective order of the human person’s epistemological
and phenomenological constitution.
Within this historical order of the cross’s
horizontal beam, the human person is a homo
laborens. In this respect, the human person takes the initiative in
advancing his own self-humanization and self-cultivation. Here the human person
is not objectively theocentrically ordered but subjectively anthropocentrically
self-orientated. There is no causality in this order; there is only a push-pull
influence of the human person’s self-humanizing willful self-control that is
devoid of purpose and finality. In this self-orientation the human person is
entirely self-serving in pursuit of his own overriding self-centered self-interest.
In this order the human person is supplementally an anonymous, autonomous
(viz., self-sufficient), mindful substitutable self-controllable self-centered dichotomous
social personality processively evolving through a temporary mutating span of
space-time that is doomed to extinction.
The cross’s cruciformity
includes the joining of the vertical and horizontal beams together to form a
cross. Within this juncture of the cross’s cruciformity, the two separate and
disparate hierarchical and horizontal orders are integrated and reconciled with
each other within the Paschal Mystery of Christ’s crucifixion. Within this
cruciform order itself, the human person through Christ’s mediation as
God/Superman becomes an integral and integrated homo sapiens and a homo
laborens. On the one hand the human person can ponder wisely, unerringly,
and effortlessly the fundamental truths of all reality without toil and labor. On
the other hand, he must toil laboriously and productively with much effort to
civilize his sociability with selves other than his own self and to safeguard
himself by cultivating his environment to serve his basic needs. Paradoxically,
he is unable here to ponder wisely on the ultimate purpose and meaning of the
product of his effort and toil. In this cruciform order integrating and
reconciling the former two orders (viz., heaven’s immutable eternity with
earth’s historical transitoriness, the human person becomes homo oecumenicus, the ecumenical human
person.
The human person’s task
here is to engage both beams simultaneously without confusing the two together
nor forfeiting what is peculiar and proper to each while integrating each with
the other in a complementary fashion. This integration and reconciliation
demands that the human person, on the one hand, recognize his own personhood in
its essence as that of an immortal enduring unsubstitutable sovereign dynamic entity;
this is an objective approach. On the other hand, the same human person must
recognize his own personhood in its appearance as a mortal transitional
substitutable enterprising synergetic dichotomous personality, subjectively
speaking. In this same objective, subjective opposition, the human person
understands intelligently and objectively the universe of God’s creation within
which he is a creature while simultaneously remaining subjectively ignorant of
the world of his own self-cultivation and self-humanization in which he resides
within a provincial civilized culture. God’s creation is known as a stable and
an enduring presence whereas the world of man’s own involvement lacks such
stability and presence. It is the same tree that one might visit 50 years later
but never the same city which one would visit within the same span of time. The
original city is absent 50 years later. It is objectively the very same person
that one visits 50 years later but subjectively a considerably different
personality; the earlier personality is absent.
The fundamental
hierarchical order is orthodox; the same person remains identical within his
own personhood. The supplemental historical order is one of paradox; the
personality continues to evolve within the same personhood. The personhood’s natural
perduring identity is intelligibly recognizable, objectively speaking; whereas
the same personhood’s subjective evolving sociable personality is not
recognizable, subjectively speaking. How can one recognize in a person’s mature
personality his earlier youthful personality? This objective-subjective
differentiation cannot be said of the tree or the brute animal which have no
subjective self-conscious awareness. This can only be said of the human person.
Thus, the very same person in his very personhood is both objectively present
and subjectively absent to himself. Objectively, I am always the same person
throughout all of my historical development but subjectively I am never quite
the same personality. Objectively, I enjoy an ontological immortal status while
subjectively I am always phenomenologically in process. Fundamentally I remain
identical with my own being whereas supplementally I continue to evolve re/de/generatively
from one processive stage to another.
Objectively speaking,
the truth of the human person considered as a man-as-such is invariable. No
human person throughout all of creation is other by nature than a man-as-such
constituted of body/soul substantive principles. Subjectively speaking, there
is no such invariable truth regarding the human person’s self-cultivated
personality. There is only a theoretical mental conjecture and corresponding empirical
proof regarding the human person’s self-cultivated enterprising personality and
make-up. The make-up of the human person considered objectively is obvious
inasmuch as he is what he is naturally and cannot be otherwise according to the
principle of identity. The same human person’s make-up considered subjectively
is devious inasmuch as culturally and processively he is not what he purports
to be and purports what he is not. For example, within his subjective
personality the human person considered in terms of the mind’s intimacy he is
psychic but not somatic; conversely, considered in terms of the body’s
sensitivity he is somatic but not psychic.
Further, considered
objectively, the human person is continuous with the universe of creation as an
entity within it. In this manner the human person is known transcendentally as
a reality among realities. Considered subjectively, the human person is
self-enclosed within the immanence of his own selfhood. Situated within this
immanence he learns of everything from the perspective of his own dichotomous ego
as that which radiates from and remains immanent within this egological hub.
The objective order is one of existence in
which the human person’s very existence depends on a universal reality, God,
transcendent to him. The subjective horizontal order is one of resistance in
which the human person’s self-serving will is the nuclear core and bastion of all
resistance in the world of man’s own self-humanization and self-cultivation.
There is no cultivation and civilization without forceful and self-centered
willful intervention. Where existence is the hallmark of the vertical order,
resistance is the horizontal order’s hallmark. A tree resists being reduced to
lumber; it must be forcibly and willfully cut down, hewn, and fashioned into
lumber. In the final analysis, the human person’s self-centered will must
paradoxically be forcibly overcome regarding its own selfish resistance to
becoming civilized and artfully cultivated to become productively proficient in
conjunction with selves other than its own self.
The cruciform integral order is one of
consistency. Within this order the human person is engaged in reconciling his
objective moral responsible personhood with his subjective amoral (i.e.,
technical) accountable personality. Objectively, the human person operates
intentionally (i.e., purposefully), energetically and spontaneously through the
sentient and soulful faculties with which he is naturally endowed. These
operations are directed toward an immortal transhistorical communal destiny
which is identical for every individual human person. Subjectively, the same
human person in virtue of his transcendent personhood functions synergetically,
autonomously (i.e., self-servingly and socially), and motivationally through
psychosomatic facilities which are productively and socially self-cultivated. These
functions are orientated toward the human person’s temporary social welfare and
safeguard throughout his mortal duration.
This integral cruciform
order of reconciliation must both uphold the fundamental order of existence
fundamentally and the supplemental order of resistance supplementally. When this
fundamental/supplemental ordering is sustained, the two disparate orders
complement each other. That is, the vertical communal immortal moral order of
family existence that transcends transhistorically all phases, stages, and
spans of the human person’s historical resistance holds a fundamental primary priority. On the other hand, the horizontal
social transitional and mortal technical order of resistant sociability
historically unfolding and evolving periodically and chronologically holds its
own supplemental subsidiary priority.
When these two orders remain thus mutually and reciprocally ordered they
complement each other and become consistent with each other.
It is of utmost
importance to recognize that these two disparate orders cannot be completely
reconciled with each other simply naturally and humanistically. This can only
be brought about supernaturally in the objective order and superhumanistically
in the subjective order. Without the order of grace, the human person cannot
attain to his universal destiny: union with the Trinitarian family and Godhead.
Further, without Christ’s cross of crucifixion, the human person cannot attain
to his authentic eschatological (i.e., transhistorical) self-fulfillment. This
self-fulfillment entails a violent sacrificial submission of the person’s
willful resistant selfhood converted to a willful self-donation and surrender
to Christ’s very own volunteer Self-surrender of His own crucified Selfless
Selfhood graciously and benevolently offered to substitute for the human
person’s reluctant self.
Vertical:
intellectual-intelligible-orthodox-fundamental-truthful-obvious-transcendent-existing-literal-categorical-objective
Horizontal: experiential-unintelligible-paradox-supplemental-provable-devious-immanent-resisting-metaphorical-story--subjectivity
Vertical: knowing by
essence…intelligence…presence….biting into the apple…tasting its very
essence…it is sweet
Horizontal: knowing only by
appearance…ignorance…absence…watching the TV apple…only its appearance…it is
not an apple
Cruciform intersection of the
two: essence & appearance---intelligence &
ignorance---heterodox---fundamental & supplemental---presence &
absence---truthful & provable---obvious & devious---transcendent &
immanent---existence & resistance---literal & metaphorical---dogmatic
& historical
THE TRUTH WILL SET
YOU FREE
Here
we will conduct a dialogue engaging the vertical with the horizontal order of
the cross’ cruciformity. This dialogue will recognize that the analogical logic
inherent in the ontological order is to be retained ontologically whereas the
typological logic pertinent to the phenomenological order will remain
phenomenologically. This is the most
vital part of this dialogue. The logic inherent in each order must be respected
and not diminished in finding a dialogical reconciliation between the two. The
same terminology at times may be deployed in both orders. The meanings of these
terms so employed are not univocal; they become equivocal. The equivocal terms
are not reducible to each other nor educible from each other; they remain
equivocal. The meaning of these terms is to be ascertained within the logic of
the order within which they are deployed.
The
vertical cross beam is fundamental, natural, and theocentric in the universal order
of creation issuing from God. The horizontal cross beam is supplemental,
cultural, and anthropocentric in the order of the human person’s worldly
self-cultivation and self-humanization. The disparity between these two orders
will be indicated throughout this dialogue. In the personalism advocated and
propounded by Pope John Paul II, the human person is the key to understanding
the reconciliation between these two orders. It is the same human person as an
incommunicable (i.e., inalienable), induplicable, subsistent sovereign free and intelligent substrate
that is by nature objectively, dynamically, and spontaneously cognizant and
free. At the same time, this very same person subjectively within the subjectivity
of this same personhood cultivates and develops a self-serving autonomous
(i.e., social) alienable selfhood with its own distinctive self-motivated
knowing and freedom. By nature the human person is one in the immortal transhistorical
community of individual human persons. By culture the human person is
interpersonally an associate with other selves within the subjectivity of his
selfhood in dys/functional worlds subject to historical transition.
One
can only love what one first knows. This is fundamental. The intellect’s
knowledge of the Truth fundamentally precedes the Will’s freedom to love. However,
the intellect cannot fully know the Truth if the will does not love and
treasure it beyond every other love. The will’s Freedom supplementally precedes
Truth supplementally. The Truth of the intellect precedes the will’s Freedom
fundamentally while the will’s Freedom to love freely precedes supplementally
the intellect’s knowledge of the Truth. The intellect’s Truth is intelligible
but not experiential while the will’s Freedom is experiential but
unintelligible.
It is reasonable for the
intellect to truthfully govern the will’s freedom to choose what truthfully
exists and is worthy of the will’s love.
It is unreasonable for the will
to necessarily love the Truth lovingly, honorably, and preciously since the
will is willfully free to love whatever it wills to love and to treasure.
When the fundamental Truth
precedes the will’s Freedom fundamentally and directs and governs it
conscionably…
When the supplemental Freedom of
the will precedes the Truth supplementally and freely embraces it
whole-heartedly…
The two complement each other
integrally; each in solidarity and accord with each other.
The intellect’s
reasonable Truthfulness regarding what really exists honorably prevails while
the will’s unreasonable Freedom regarding its willful freedom to resist what
actually exists also freely prevails.
Verse 1:
Objectively: God in His very
divine essence is present (by grace) but hidden by transcendence. Intellectual
faith
Subjectively: God is felt
experientially as absent. Memorial hope.
Objectively: God is not reducible
to one’s subjective experience of Him,
Subjectively: A devotional
experience of God is not an intellectual beatifying vision of Him as He really
exists.
Objectively: God in His
Trinitarian Godhead abides in the soul through sanctifying and actual GRACE
Subjectively: One’s experience
must also be hidden in God and not manifest within one’s feelings & musings
Objectively: God will be known
perfectly only in the next life
Subjectively: One cannot in this
life experience God perfectly present but only in the next life.
Objectively: God is to be sought
through faith which transcends human understanding
Subjectively: God is to sought
prayerfully in a sacrificial love that sacrifices one’s pious sensitive
feelings and one’s pious intimate musings of Him (i.e., religious consolations,
exultations, and delights of Him.
Objectively: God is ineffable and
beyond the reach of one’s natural intelligence; faith is darkness.
Subjectively: One must live in
hope humbly suffering the lack of any experiential enjoyable feeling or
inspirational musing of God and from God.
Objectively: God cannot be
totally possessed as is the case with an apple that can be totally consumed.
Subjectively: God can only be
possessed by a love that sacrifices self-love for God is more precious than
one’s self
Objectively: God is truly
sacramentally present in the soul…the body is the Holy Spirit’s tabernacle.
Subjectively: The mystic remains
restless and moans in his awareness that he aches for God who continues to
remain absent and beyond his grasp. God is the most precious object of the
mystic’s reverent attention; his Beloved.
Objectively: The mystic believes
through faith God’s divine personal sacramental presence.
Subjectively: by
self-mortification and self-denial the mystic is attached to God alone in
poverty of spirit. So intensive is this divine attachment that the mystic moans
and groans in feeling and gauging his own bleak emptiness. At the same time this
prayerful sighing, moaning, and groaning occurs because he continues to hope to
enjoy God blissfully.
Objectively: God is like a deer
who lives alone apart from and beyond the universe of creation.
Subjectively: God touches the
mystic’s pious feelings an arouses his affection only to depart and vanish and
leave the mystic smitten with his love but completely unable to find the God of
his pious and reverent affection.
Objectively: God seems to be like
the fleet and graceful deer that refuses to be captured
Subjectively: the mystic is
severely wounded by the intense sensitized glorious feeling of God’s splendor
and the profound intimate serenity of God’s eternal immutability. But, these
wonderful experiences of God leave the mystic’s heart teasingly inflamed and
the mystic’s mind helplessly inspired with God’s grandeur. This love is a
gaping and incurable wound whose cure is God alone who seemingly refuses to
cure this wound He has inflicted on the mystic.
Objectively: God is like the
fleeting deer that refuses to be captured.
Subjectively: the mystic is so
helplessly wounded by the exalted experience of God’s divine loveliness that he
is severely and intensively tortured by this love itself which leaves him
helplessly pining and aching for his Beloved whom he is completely unable to
reach out and embrace.
Objectively: God is ineffably
transcendent to all of creation.
Subjectively: the exquisite
religious pious divine and sublime touches (i.e., sensitized emotional feelings
and intimate serene devotional musings) which the mystic experiences of God’s
sublimity and loveliness only serve to painfully awaken the mystic to his own
abject misery in failing to perfectly embrace God without any further delay.
The
upshot of this is the mystic’s realization that he has through this experience
of divine love detached himself completely from the secular world’s securities
and friendships as well as from his own self-centered satisfactions and
justifications only to be denied the very Beloved to whom he has become completely
attached. He now recognizes himself to be in a “no man’s land;” he is neither
in heaven’s divine delights nor on earth with its secular diversions.
The
mystic endures excruciating suffering in his helplessness to fully embrace his
Beloved to whom he is so vehemently attached that he has become completely
self-detached from everything that is not God, including detached from his own
selfhood. The Dark Night of the Soul.
Verse 2: The bride is sick, suffers, and dies in
the intellect, memory, and will.
The intellect: because lacking in
the beatific vision
The memory: because of the
prospect of not merely living but also dying without God
The will: because she does not
possess God
Verse 3: seek God through her own
efforts of moral discipline and ascetic self-denial and penance
Strive to contend vigorously
against the world’s lures & mockery; the flesh’s weakness , and the devil
by prayer & mortification
Verse 4: The bride seeks God in
His creation of the heavens and of earth. They cannot substitute for God
Himself.
Verse 5: The many natural
beautiful wonders of creation are merely traces of His greatness and beauty.
God is more directly discovered in the mystery of Christ’s Incarnation and
Paschal Mystery.
Verse 6: All these marvelous and
wonderful traces of God’s Beauty only increase the bride’s love for God and her
restlessness and sorrow in not fully possessing God above and beyond His
creation.
Verse 7: The bride is dying of
love and languishing because this love remains unfulfilled and cannot be
satisfied with mere messengers of God. These messengers only intensify this
love and increase the bride’s longing and aching.
Verse 8: While the mystic remains
alive in the body, he is dead in his spirit since the most precious object in
his life, his love for God, remains beyond his possession. Where your treasure
is, there also is your heart.
THE CROSS’
CRUCIFORMITY
Vertical:
intellectual-intelligible-orthodox-fundamental-truthful-obvious-transcendent-existing-literal-categorical
Horizontal: experiential-unintelligible-paradox-supplemental-provable-devious-immanent-resisting-metaphorical-story
Vertical: knowing by
essence…intelligence…presence….biting into the apple…tasting its very
essence…it is sweet
Horizontal: knowing only by
appearance…ignorance…absence…watching the TV apple…only its appearance…it is
not an apple
Cruciform intersection of the
two: essence & appearance---intelligence &
ignorance---heterodox---fundamental & supplemental---presence &
absence---truthful & provable---obvious & devious---transcendent &
immanent---existence & resistance---literal & metaphorical---dogmatic
& historical
THE TRUTH WILL SET
YOU FREE
One can only love what one first
knows. This is fundamental. The intellect’s knowledge of the Truth
fundamentally precedes the Will’s freedom to love.
However, the intellect cannot fully
know the Truth if the will does not love and treasure it beyond every other
love. The will’s Freedom supplementally precedes Truth supplementally.
The Truth of the intellect
precedes the will’s Freedom fundamentally while the will’s Freedom to love freely
precedes supplementally the intellect’s knowledge the Truth.
The intellect’s Truth is
intelligible but not experiential while the will’s Freedom is experiential but
unintelligible.
It is reasonable for the
intellect to truthfully govern the will’s freedom to choose what truthfully
exists and is worthy of the will’s love.
It is unreasonable for the will
to necessarily love the Truth lovingly, honorably, and preciously since the
will is willfully free to love whatever it wills to love and to treasure.
When the fundamental Truth
precedes the will’s Freedom fundamentally and directs and governs it
conscionably…
When the supplemental Freedom of
the will precedes the Truth supplementally and freely embraces it
whole-heartedly…
The two complement each other
integrally; each in solidarity and accord with each other.
The intellect’s reasonable
Truthfulness regarding what really exists honorably prevails while the will’s
unreasonable Freedom regarding its willful freedom to resist to what actually
exists also freely prevails.
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST! NOW & FOREVER!
BLESSED BE MARY! NOW
& FOREVER!
HONORED BE ST.
JOSEPH! NOW & FOREVER!