Rorate Caeli

Love for the Invisible

Deus, qui diligentibus te bona invisibilia præparasti: infunde cordibus nostris tui amoris affectum; ut te in omnibus et super omnia diligentes, promissiones tuas, quæ omne desiderium superant, consequamur. (Collect for the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost: "O God, who hast prepared invisible good things for those that love Thee: pour forth into our hearts an affectionate love for Thee: that loving Thee in all things, and above all things, we may come to the enjoyment of thy promises, which are above whatever we can desire.")

[I]t is the Church's Divinity that accounts for her passion for God. To her as to none else on earth is the very face of God revealed as the Absolute and Final Beauty that lies beyond the limits of all Creation. She in her Divinity enjoys it may be said, even in her sojourn on earth, that very Beatific Vision that enraptured always the Sacred Humanity of Jesus Christ. With all the company of heaven then, with Mary Immaculate, with the Seraphim and with the glorified saints of God, she endures, seeing Him Who is invisible. Even while the eyes of her humanity are held, while her human members walk by faith and not by sight, she, in her Divinity, which is the guaranteed Presence of Jesus Christ in her midst, already dwells in heavenly places and is already come to Mount Zion and the City of the living God and to God Himself, Who is the Light in which all fair things are seen to be fair.

Is it any wonder then that, now and again, some chosen child of hers catches a mirrored glimpse of what she herself beholds with unveiled face; that some Catholic soul, now and again, chosen and called by God to this amazing privilege, should suddenly perceive, as never before, that God is the one and only Absolute Beauty, and that, compared with the contemplation of this Beauty—which contemplation is, after all, the final life of Eternity to which every redeemed soul shall come—all the activities of earthly life are nothing; and that, in her passion for this adorable God, she should run into a secret room and shut the door and pray to her Father Who is in secret, and so remain praying, a hidden channel of life to the whole of that Body of which she is a member, an intercessor for the whole of that Society of which she is one unit? There in silence, then, she sits at Jesus' feet and listens to the Voice which is as the sound of many waters; in the whiteness of her cell watches Him Whose Face is as a Flame of Fire, and in austerity and fasting tastes and finds that the Lord is gracious.

Of course this is but madness and folly to those who know God only in His Creation, who imagine Him merely as the Soul of the World and the Vitality of Created Life. To such as these earth is His highest Heaven and the beauty of the world the noblest vision that can be conceived. Yet to that soul that is Catholic, who understands that the Eternal Throne is indeed above the stars and that the Transcendence of God is as fully a truth as His Immanence—that God in Himself, apart from all that He has made, is all-fair and all-sufficient in His own Beauty—to such a soul as this, if called to such a life, there is no need that the Church should declare explicitly that the Contemplative Life is the highest. She knows it already.
The First Great Commandment of the Law, then, is inevitably followed by the Second, and the Catholic interpretation of the Second is thought by the world, which understands neither, to be as extravagant as her interpretation of the First.

For this Divine Church that knows God is also a Human Society that dwells among men, and since she in herself unites Divinity and Humanity, she cannot rest until she has united them everywhere else.

For, as she turns her eyes from God to men, she sees there immortal souls, made in the image of God and made for Him and Him alone, seeking to satisfy themselves with Creation instead of with the Creator. She hears how the world preaches the sanctity of the temperament, and the holiness of the individual point of view, as if there were no Transcendent God at all and no objective external Revelation ever made by Him. She sees how men, instead of seeking to conform themselves to God's Revelation of Himself, attempt rather to conform such fragments of that Revelation as have reached them to their own points of view; she listens to talk about "aspects of truth" and "schools of thought" and the "values of experience" as if God had never spoken either in the thunders of Sinai or the still voice of Galilee.

Is it any wonder, then, that her Proselytism appears to such a world as extravagant as her Contemplation, her passion for men as unreasonable as her passion for God, when that world sees her bring herself from her cloisters and her secret places to proclaim as with a trumpet those demands of God which He has made known, those Laws which He has promulgated, and those rewards which He has promised? For how can she do otherwise who has looked on the all-glorious Face of God and then on the vacant and complacent faces of men—she who knows God's infinite capacity for satisfying men and men's all but infinite incapacity for seeking God—when she sees some poor soul shutting herself up indeed within the deadly and chilly walls of her own "temperament" and "individual point of view," when earth and heaven and the Lord of them both is waiting for her outside?

The Church, then, is too much interested in men and too much absorbed in God. Of course she is too much interested and too much absorbed, for she alone knows the value and capacity of both; she who is herself both Divine and Human. For Religion, to her, is not an elegant accomplishment or a graceful philosophy or a pleasing scheme of conjectures. It is the fiery bond between God and man, neither of whom can be satisfied without the other, the One in virtue of His Love and the other in virtue of his createdness. She alone, then, understands and reconciles the tremendous Paradox of the Law that is Old as well as New. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart … and thy neighbour as thyself .
Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson
Paradoxes of Catholicism (1913)

[Image: F. de Zurbarán, La niñez de la Virgen, The State Hermitage, Saint Petersburg]
[Recess continues...]


  1. Anonymous5:09 AM

    God is a Thou, not a You. Please remove this offensive translation of the Latin or just leave the Latin alone. Thank you, however, for pointing to the reason we do not want vernacualr translations from the priest. They will start with sacral English but they will lead inexorably to the Blue Jeans Bible.


  2. Gratias5:10 AM

    Love creation and the Creator. What I find useful is to pray the Apostle's creed daily. It is all there.

  3. Fine, PKTP... There you have it... It is clear that "thou" was historically much less respectful/formal than "ye/you", and I have already stated this often here, but I am too tired for this, and am quite glad to indulge your "Early modern English as liturgical language" obsession. After the prescheduled post for the commemoration of an event tomorrow, I will be off for a week, so please behave.

  4. Anonymous10:04 AM

    This is simply beautiful. Thank you so much New Catholic. You give us so many good things. Have a good holiday! Prayers for you and all at Rorate Caeli.


  5. Lee Terry Lovelock-Jemmott12:48 PM

    It is true @ P.K.T.P. that New Catholic has it correct. 'Thou' was the commoner but 'informal and somewhat loving' form of 'you'. You has traditionally been used because we refer to those higher than us in places of majesty in the plural , not the singular. Modern day comparisons we have is the use of the Royal 'We' when the Pope is speaking or writing documents. It's funny however that in Dutch, they do use 'thou' (Gij)to refer to the Lord but the English have always used the plurals. By the way, I am all for bringing back all the proper conjugations of verbal forms of 'you','to be' and ' to have'.

  6. I am going to A TLM today, which I usually don't do, and I really appreciate this post.

  7. Anonymous4:23 PM

    Dear N.C.:

    I never tire of explaining that this is incorrect. The T. forms are prronous of respect (not affection) in a specialised form of liturgical English. Read Kathleen Wales's thorough explanation of this in Liturgica Linguistica. Unfortunately, no amount of correction on the matter will ever do, it seems. This is because the origin of liturgical English is very complicated and because the liturgical form is distinct from Biblical English (as well as dialectal usage), thanks to a reversion of Wyclif in 1382 to a form that was otherwise obsolete in his own day. Anyway, liturgical use of T. forms is distinct from that of dialectal English and must not be confused with it.


  8. The language of this collect is Latin. If it is translated correctly, it does not matter if it is translated in English, in "Liturgical English", in "Liturgical Nahuatl", or in "Liturgical Samoan".

  9. "I will be off for a week, so please behave."

    "They will start with sacral English but they will lead inexorably to the Blue Jeans Bible."

    LOL at both of your wits! Glad to know there are some brain cells left out there!

    That aside, beautiful post!

  10. Anonymous10:38 PM

    I think that I might one day write out a good explanation of where liturgical English came from and then paste it over and over again. It does matter.

    Sciolist liberals appeared on the scene in the 1960s and used a pretence to intellectual eminence to trick the pious into believing a song and dance. The idea was that the T pronouns correspond to German du. This is false in liturgical English although not in other uses.

    The origin of liturgtical English is historical circumsance, not linguistic precision. In 1382, Wyclif wanted to replace Latin with the vernacular but he needed a sacral form of English to convey the notion that we speak to God differently. He therefore reverted to ORIGINAL usage from early Middle English, in which the T. pronouncs were used in the singular number (in four cases of O.E.); the Y, for the plural cases from O.E. This was from a time when there was no separate affective pronoun: T. forms were singular for all uses; Y forms for plural.

    Later Bibles restored affective usage but, in the mean time, Wyclif's version spawned a new usage. People came to associate the T. forms as pronouns of respect because they were used with this connotation in the English Pater and other well-known prayers from his 1382 Bible. As a result, both in translations of Latin texts and in prayers for private use, the T. forms developed as signs of respect and NOT affection.

    Meanwhile, Biblical usage restored the dialectal differences that had developed in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern period. The result was an inconsistency, in which 'thou' is affective in Biblical readings but deferential in prayer. Hence our Lord, speaking down to the good thief, says 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.' In contrast, the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, in prayer, is referred up to as a Thou in the Lord's Prayer. This means that, in the Anglican public prayer, the T. forms are used differently in the lections than they are in the rest of the Mass.

    Dialectial ane poetical and Biblical English therefore use the T forms to refer to a social equal or inferior or to show affection but NOT in liturgical usage.

    In English tradition, the T. forms are used in the singular number in prayer (Anglican Church), translations of the liturgy (Catholic and Eastern churches) and for devotions and private prayer. The plural has Y.: O Blessed Lady and all the angels, may You comort me ...."

    In the Anglican Liturgy, the Dominus vobiscum is answered by "And with thy spirit". The "thy" here is NOT affective: it is a way for the congregation to speak up in respect to the celebrant, just as we always speak up to God the Father (Who is God but not man) by calling Him 'Thou' in the Lord's Prayer. One does not use an affective form ever to address the heavenly Father, the Emperor of Creation.

    A translation of a prayer from Latin which has God as a 'You' is an error; it is a mistranslation. We mark it wrong. By rule, then, we use the T. forms to refer to God, our Lady, an angel, a saint, in private prayer and translation of liturgical prayers. This is how we show respect to God and it is entrenched in tradition. To depart from it has the effect of disparaging our Lady or God or an angel or saint. That's the real reaon liberals forced the change.


  11. Anonymous12:10 AM

    I think that this is one of the most beautiful posts I have ever read on this site! It makes me even more grateful for the great privilege of being Catholic. God has provided so well for us! I just wish everyone in the world would examine the extraordinary claims of the Catholic Faith and join themselves to that Church which is clearly God's plan for the salvation of every human creature. A Loyal Reader


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!