"loving" Vs "being In Love With" Jesus?

[MithLuin]

Yes, St. Augustine said, [size=4]"[font=arial, sans-serif]You have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee." And Pascal described the 'God-shaped hole' as something in us that can't be filled by the finite. [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif]I doubt the love we have for God (and the love He has for us) could ever adequately be compared to other loves. [/font][/size]

Edited January 2, 2012 by MithLuin

[Cherie]

I would be very curious to see these Protestant articles! What they say is definitely not the Catholic thought or perspective on the issue! I admit, I'm a bit surprised that some Protestants would be so far off base on this, but then again, I don't have a Protestant background, so maybe it's a common perspective for them. I wonder why they think that way?

[MarysLittleFlower]

thank you for the replies! I will write a more detailed reply a little later cause I need to think about everything.

God bless!

[MarysLittleFlower]

[quote name='Sister Marie' timestamp='1325475613' post='2361481']
You seem to really get to the heart of the matter MarysLittleFlower! This really is a question about chastity and what it truly means. It is so much more than not having sex or getting married... which most of you already know! A lot of my formation, both formal and informal, was focused on the idea that chastity is the way of loving that both opens oneself to all and preserves an area for Christ alone to fill.

First, in religious life, we are called to love Christ above all others. Because He is not physically present here as a husband would be - our relationship with Him is different but it is not a substitute for marriage. Instead of preserving ourselves in a monogamous relationship, we reserve a part of ourselves for Him alone. There is a certain spot within our hearts... we know it exists when we feel alone, when we are in solitude, when we are completely abandoned... that is the place that we have held for Him. The most intimate union comes to us in the most empty part of ourselves... at our most vulnerable and most honest and authentic place. That spot does not negate the natural desire for marriage and children but is an opening which allows us to both sacrifice a good for a better - for our vocation and our salvation. It is an emptiness for God. It is the place in which we are redeemed and sent forth to become like Him and to be sent out to announce Him.

We open ourselves... our vulnerable, sinful, and insecure selves to becoming a place for the world to live. In chastity, we love all with an all embracing, self sacrificing and redeeming love. Hopefully, that love takes root in our very being and allows us to freely sacrifice the want of one person and children for the good of loving Him and sacrificing for the needs of the world around us.

I don't know that I knew all of this when I was discerning but I found it to echo within my heart as I learned in my formation. It is a perspective that must echo within your heart and a discipline that must make room for emptiness and sacrifice... and for the joyous fruit of that! It isn't all self denial... there is much joy and surprise at the fruit that comes from giving for Christ.
[/quote]

Sister Marie, thank you for sharing this and it makes a lot of sense to me! I like how you said that chastity is a way of loving and it helps us to love all for the sake of Christ, and for Him to fill that part of our hearts.

The only thing that I'm wondering about, is about making the sacrifice of having a family and marriage... for me, the idea of giving up my present family, and even my plans in the world or possessions, and the idea of never having children (biologically, though there is spiritual motherhood as I understand) - seems like a harder sacrifice than giving up the idea of a spouse. I don't know if this is a red flag in my discernment.. but although I do see marriage as something holy, and although at times I do want to marry or be in a relationship that leads to marriage - if I come closer to Christ, that sort of disappears. However I dont know if it's supposed to be that way. Is a natural desire for marriage supposed to always be there? I guess this is one of the things that made me have the question I asked in this thread.

thanks again, God bless!

[MarysLittleFlower]

[quote name='LaPetiteSoeur' timestamp='1325475791' post='2361482']
In my Ethics class (in a Franciscan-run Catholic high school), the professor (he had a doctorate in theology from Angelicum in Rome), said that the only way to love God was to love others. If we love God, we are putting Him on the human level, and He's so much more than that. God loves each of us unconditionally (agape) and by loving our brothers and sisters--be they our spouses, family, or those we serve as religious--(philia), we show our love to God.

I hope that makes sense. Sometimes when discussing theological things I get all turned around and knotted up!
[/quote]

I agree that if we love God we need to love others, and that we can show love for God by loving others.. I also agree that this is important and I wouldn't argue what the professor said however then I remember what some of the Saints talked about, and they did seem to talk a lot about loving Christ directly, as well? I do think that both are important.. I don't know.. they even talked about ideas like bringing consolation to Him as He is alone in the Tabernacle, and other ideas that do seem 'human' but Jesus does have a human nature still ? I liked those ideas, though I don't know enough theology to comment. My understanding is that it is accepted by the Church.. do you have any thoughts on this?

Edited January 3, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1325555409' post='2362028']
I would be very curious to see these Protestant articles! What they say is definitely not the Catholic thought or perspective on the issue! I admit, I'm a bit surprised that some Protestants would be so far off base on this, but then again, I don't have a Protestant background, so maybe it's a common perspective for them. I wonder why they think that way?
[/quote]

I know several Protestants who don't have a problem with this at all, so I think it's not all Protestants, - it varies... there are many Protestant worship songs that talk about being in love with Jesus. The articles I found were written by the Protestants who do disagree with this sort of imagery. I think they were mostly criticizing the song lyrics used in today's evangelical churches... another argument they use is that it's not Biblical, and another is that we should go beyond being "in love with" Jesus and actually loving Him. Of course, with the last point, I agree - as I agree with Rich Mullins when he said that we should truly love God not just be "infatuated". Another criticism found in the articles is that we shouldn't look at Jesus as a "boyfriend", etc, and of course that's limiting Him and it's not how the Catholic Saints spoke of Him...... maybe the reason why this comes up is because of the language that is used in some evangelical songs. In the writings of the Catholic Saints who spoke of Christ as their "Beloved", it doesn't come across that way at all, it's deeper and it's never forgotten that we should really love God in a true "agape" selfless way.

If you are interested, here are a couple of the articles...
[url="http://twog.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/i-am-not-in-love-with-jesus/"]http://twog.wordpres...ove-with-jesus/[/url]
[url="http://www.internetmonk.com/articles/I/inlove.html"]http://www.internetm...s/I/inlove.html[/url] (about the second one, I think it goes more into the theological points... I do think the perspective is maybe more Protestant than Catholic. Even though the blog is called "internet monk", - I read on the website that the author was Protestant: [url="http://www.internetmonk.com/michael-spencers-bio"]http://www.internetm...el-spencers-bio[/url] I do like how he tried going deeper into his faith and wanted more historical Christianity than the evangelical movement. Regarding this particular article, it does seem to show a more Protestant understanding, also in parts he critiques what is particular to evangelical worship and it doesn't really apply to Catholic spirituality as much).

Edited January 3, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

(Sorry another post lol)

I linked this article above.. [url="http://twog.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/i-am-not-in-love-with-jesus/"]http://twog.wordpres...ove-with-jesus/[/url]
I was wondering what you all think of it. I don't mean the worship songs, since they are evangelical songs mostly. I mean the whole point of view that he's describing.

What caused me to be confused is this.. in this blog post, and in the comments section, - it says that being "In love with Jesus" is something - impure, sexual, etc. I know if someone actually has impure thoughts about Our Lord, that's a temptation. But can a person still be "in love with" Jesus but in a pure chaste way?? Or is it as they say in this article? This actually really confused me... now when I feel like I love God, I can't figure out if I should feel that way or not. How do we tell if it's appropriate or something is wrong? If there's nothing impure, but we do experience 'consolations' (to use the spiritual term) thinking about Christ or being near Him, or if we want to just be near Him or hug Him or talk to Him - is that wrong and is it still pure? what if we feel something emotionally? is our love for God not supposed to be emotional at all and shouldn't relate to Christ's human nature? Sorry if this question is so direct. I dont know how else to put it. I am really determined to live chastely and also I want my relationship with Christ to be pure and loving. I know the devil can tempt to impure thoughts and unfortunately I know that from experience. But if there's nothing impure in our thoughts or feelings, but our love for Christ is still something that sort of feels like "being in love", - is this incorrect like the article says?

Hopefully this makes sense! I wanted to ask here cause I know there are people here who are more formed spiritually than myself.

Edited January 3, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[AccountDeleted]

I think when we start worrying about 'how' we love Jesus, then we are just letting the Devil get in the way. Just love Him. If you feel romantic love, feel it as long as it lasts. If you feel devotional love, feel that. If you feel like His sister, feel that. If you feel like his spouse, feel that. Everything changes as we deepen and mature in our faith. To spend all our time worrying means that we aren't spending that time loving.

Can our passions get involved? Sure, even St John of the Cross said that. And St Teresa said that even though her ecstasies weren't physical, they did affect the body as well - because we are human beings! Not robots.

But if we accept whatever graces God gives us we can allow Him to shape and guide our love for Him. Many of the saints started out with a very immature romantic love, but from their lives, we can see that this matured over time to the point where they were able to respond to whatever He gave them with a deep and abiding trust in Him.

The last thing we need is scruples about 'how' we love Him. We just need to love Him.

[MithLuin]

Fair enough. And if we are stagnating or straying from how we 'should' be doing things, then it's up to our spiritual director to call us on that and to challenge us to grow.

For instance, if the reason we think of Jesus as our brother is because we are afraid of intimacy with him, or allowing him more fully into our lives...then, yes, maybe that needs to change. But that doesn't mean it's bad to see Jesus as our brother! It means, like anything, we can have human failings that are getting in the way.

Of course, I chose that example because a priest called me on that once.


And in the interest of full disclosure...I should point out that Rich Mullins was Protestant (though very enamored of St. Francis of Assisi), and gave those remarks at a concert in Texas.

[SNJM]

I think there are many different levels and stages of "love" and I am not sure any of us can define it for someone else, let alone ourselves. Sometimes "love" might feel romantic, and this can happen in any relationship, and often times it passes. Sometimes people "jump the gun" and act on their romantic feelings, only to find later that it was a "passing fancy". I have learned, within my own life and spiritual work, that our current society is often very determined to come up with a "name" or a "label" for everything we feel/experience. Sometimes love cannot be defined, though we know it is there. My two cents.

[heather]

This is 8 yrs late but be careful, I tried loving Jesus my own way, as my Husband. When I fell madly in love with Jesus, I met Him in spirit. He knocked and I opened the door. 

After some time, I began having dreams telling me not to and this was not Jesus but the enemy. I had so much opposition to loving Him as a husband but I held on until I had to let go after I had a very serious spiritual chastisement happen to me.

As a Christian Mystic, I was convinced this divine love was ok but afterwards, there's a feeling that relating to Him this way is of the flesh and I must let go of  the old man, even though it's not lust-driven but true love. 

Now I don't know Who is Who because after I reconnected with God again as lover of my soul, another God voice came and told me not to.  And since then I have seen the demonic realm as well as the good times with Him. 

 Sooooo.... Who is Who? I'm not crazy. These are supernatural experiences. But there is only ONE true God.

Jesus will spit the lukewarm out of His mouth, but to be on fire for Him can be heartbreaking, when doubt enters the picture... and if you are sane, it will.

Has anyone had any opposition in their romantic love for Jesus or was it only me?
 

[Nunsuch]

You just posted the identical query elsewhere. You are not going to get anything else by reviving a thread that is over 8 years old. Seriously, this forum is really not the place for the kind of advice that we all think you need!

[Guest]

Agape rather than Eros, although I think agape love can contain something of the other types of love.  Until and if one experiences that state of human existence that asks total unconditional (agape) love of The Beloved - wherein love is purified.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-does-the-church-define-love

 

On 1/4/2012 at 11:18 AM, AccountDeleted said:

I think when we start worrying about 'how' we love Jesus, then we are just letting the Devil get in the way. Just love Him. If you feel romantic love, feel it as long as it lasts. If you feel devotional love, feel that. If you feel like His sister, feel that. If you feel like his spouse, feel that. Everything changes as we deepen and mature in our faith. To spend all our time worrying means that we aren't spending that time loving.

Can our passions get involved? Sure, even St John of the Cross said that. And St Teresa said that even though her ecstasies weren't physical, they did affect the body as well - because we are human beings! Not robots.

But if we accept whatever graces God gives us we can allow Him to shape and guide our love for Him. Many of the saints started out with a very immature romantic love, but from their lives, we can see that this matured over time to the point where they were able to respond to whatever He gave them with a deep and abiding trust in Him.

The last thing we need is scruples about 'how' we love Him. We just need to love Him.

Well said

[Feankie]

Okay, this is getting strange! Heather, you don't need to post your inquiry in 2 different  topic sections of the Vocation Station. I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but I have an inkling.  It is not appropriate and the answers are not to be found here, rather they should be explored with a competent counselor.