A-19 Question 3. Confusion of terminology in regards to the persons in the Holy Trinity. In your earlier writings, as observed in the Notification there was some confusion of terminology regarding the persons of the Holy Trinity. We are sure that you subscribe to the teaching of your church. Do you think you could help us clarify these expressions? When dealing with matters of faith would it not be useful to follow the official terminology of standard catechisms to avoid confusion in the mind of the readers of TLIG? In view of this I would try my best to explain the dilemma of language, reminding you that I am not a theologian who could express herself in a technical manner or receive words from above in an official terminology. It is clear that our Lord has expressed Himself in the manner that I would understand by adapting Himself to reach me. He does not speak to me either in a scholastic theology, but then neither did He when on earth, when He said: “The Father and I are One,” (Jn 10:30) nor that of St. Paul when he wrote: “the Lord is the Spirit” (II Co 3:17). To Bernadette of Lourdes, Mary spoke in the local dialect, which was not good French. Even in the inspired books of Scripture, I have learnt that there is a noticeable difference between the refined Greek of St. Luke, and the simple language of St. Mark. St. Catherine of Siena, in her Dialogue, once explained: “You are my Creator, Eternal Trinity, and I am your creature. You have made of me a new creation in the blood of Your Son.”14 To call Christ the Son of the Trinity sounds heterodox but we take this part as far as possible in a good sense… So it is perfectly normal if Christ uses my level of vocabulary in the beginning rather than the language of a theologian. I sometimes expressed words out of my personal experience of God, and uttered what I had felt in the terms that come to me spontaneously without much critical reflection on how this will sound to others, or whether it might be misunderstood. To articulate divine mysteries was hard enough for me, even more of how one should express these divine mysteries that would be fitting with the traditional language. Theologians, on the contrary, use a vocabulary that has been carefully refined by many centuries of discussion. I do not know exactly which parts of the earlier writings the question is referring to, but I could imagine it deals with Christ being called “Father”. Christ is the Son of the Father. In these parts of the revelation the writings do not refer in an ontological or doctrinal way to the person of Christ. Rather, it is affectionate and paternal language, the same language, Jesus used to his disciples: “My children…” (Jn 13:33). Already Isaiah described the Messiah as the “Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Eternal Father” (Is 9:5). From the very beginning I never mixed up the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christ’s presence (attitude) with me was with fatherly affection. When in a passage I called Jesus “Father” it was because of the fatherly way He spoke to me. It was like those instances when fathers are explaining and teaching certain things to their children with patience and love for their growth and development. Here is one example of Christ’s words: “Grow in spirit Vassula, grow, for your task is to deliver all the messages given by Me and My Father. Wisdom will instruct you.” I then answer: “Yes Father!” Jesus replies: “How beautiful to hear you call Me ‘Father’! I longed to hear from your lips this word: ‘Father’” (16.02.1987). In the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus it calls Jesus: “Father of the world to come”. The Sequence for the Mass of Pentecost names the Holy Spirit, “Father of the poor”. I chose St. Symeon, a theologian and saint very dear and important to my Orthodox tradition, in order to give you some more similarities. This is what he says: “For those who have been weaned, He (Christ) plays the role of a loving Father who watches over His children’s growth and development” (Theological Ethical Orations 4. 269-270). 14 St. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogo della Divina Providenza, no. 167. This passage is cited by the Roman Breviary in the second reading for April 29th.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ2Mzg=