Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Use this thread for comments as you read or that don't fit anywhere else.

"But God, to Whom nothing is secret, looks upon this with horror," this being the vice of self-reliance. This clashed for me after spending so much time focusing on the parable of the Prodigal Son.

John wrote: ""But God, to Whom nothing is secret, looks upon this with horror," this being the vice of self-reliance. This clashed for me after spending so much time focusing on the parable of the Prodigal Son."

Yes, this way of speaking clashed for me too.

Where is this quote? I can't find it in my edition. Perhaps we are reading different translations.

Second paragraph in chapter 2. My translation is different:

"This fault is one which is not easy to discover, yet it is very offensive in the sight of God."

In Italian it says "Questo 'e difetto assai difficile a conoscersi, e dispiace molto agli occhi di Dio", which literally says "This defect is quite difficult to discover, and is very displeasing to the eyes of God".

Looking at the rest of Chapter 2 in the original and both English translations, I find mine keeps closer to the original Italian than John's. My ebook is from Scriptoria Books, using a 1868 London edition.

It is also interesting that in Italian, Scupoli is addressing the reader as "figliuola" (my daughter -or more precisely "my little daughter"). There is no such address in my English book.

Mariangel wrote: "Second paragraph in chapter 2. My translation is different:

"This fault is one which is not easy to discover, yet it is very offensive in the sight of God."

In Italian it says "Questo 'e difetto..."


Interesting. I have the William Lester and Robert Paul Mohan translation. That is a very different meaning. Lester and Mohan can be said not to have just translated the book but to have interpreted it. I think I will put this aside and order the version you have Mariangel. Does yours say who the translators are?

John wrote: "Interesting. I have the William Lester and Robert Paul Mohan translation. That is a very different meaning. Lester and Mohan can be said not to have just translated the book but to have interpreted it. I think I will put this aside and order the version you have Mariangel. Does yours say who the translators are?"

I have the same edition as Mariangel. It does not say who the translator is. The 1868 edition was edited by Parker & Co. Oxford London and doesn't mention translators either (it can be found in Google Books). However, in the book page of Scriptoria Books it mentions that this is the Rivingtons translation (see ). The ebook version costs $2.99.

Besides The Spiritual Combat (66 chapters) my edition also contains The Supplement to the Spiritual Combat (another 38 chapters) and Of Interior Peace or the Path of Paradise.

In the back cover of my edition it mentions that Scupoli wrote this book at the request of an unknown "sister of Christ" who asked for his advice, who obviously was the "figliuola" of the Italian edition, removed in the English editions.

For those who can read Italian, the original text of Scupoli's book can be found here:

This version does not contain the supplement.

In chapter 48 there are a couple of things that I've found difficult to accept and even a little jarring:

Whilst turning to God the Father, consider two things; first, His delight in beholding from all eternity Mary, before He had drawn her out of nothingness.

My problem here is with the word before. God's eternity is not before our time. It's outside our time. As St. Augustin said, in The City of God (XI-VI): The world was not made in time, but with time. In other words, time is a property of creation, God is outside [our] time. Therefore the phrase before the beginning of time is empty, makes no sense.

A little later, Scupoli says: Begin by raising your thoughts above all created things; go back into the eternity which preceded all creation, enter into the mind of God, and see what delight He took in the thought of the Virgin Mary;

Here I object to the word preceded for the same reason explained before. On the other hand, I don't think we can enter into the mind of God at all.

We must distinguish clearly between two different concepts: eternal, a word that we can define just in a negative way, by saying that it means "outside time", and everlasting, which means a limitless time. The first to distinguish clearly both concepts was Boethius, in his book The Consolation of Philosophy.

The book The Everlasting Man by Chesterton, which we read in November, has in its title one of these two words. The book has been translated into Spanish as El hombre eterno, which is a clear mis-translation, in view of what I have just said.

I have another problem with this chapter, but I'll handle it in another comment.

In the same chapter (48) it says the following:

Then turn to God the Son, and remind Him of the virginal womb in which He was borne for nine months, of the adoration which, after He was born, the Blessed Virgin paid Him... of the pain and anguish she endured for His sake throughout His Life, and at His Death. By these memories you will bring to bear a sweet pressure upon the Divine Son...

I dont' find this acceptable. Bearing pressure on God the Son by "reminding" Him of His mother? I don't think this is the proper way to do it.

In fact, I confess I have done it. But I soon came to the conclusion that this way of addressing Christ is not correct.

On the one hand, I don't think God is subject to sentiments similar as ours and can be moved to listen to our prayers just because we try to manipulate His feelings.

On the other hand, I don't think the objective of prayer is to "remind" God of anything. God doesn't need to be reminded. The real objective is to remind us. As C.S. Lewis said: Prayer does not change God, it changes me!

Reading this, Manuel, it occurs to me that some of Mary's Seven Sorrows (I have a particular devotion to that alternate rosary) namely the Prophesy of Simeon, and the Loss of Jesus in the Temple, correspond to two of the Joyful Mysteries, the Presentation and the Finding. Interesting thought: each of the sorrows is prefaced with : "Merciful Mother, remind us always of the sorrows of your son Jesus."

Thanks so much, Madeleine, for that insight. I’ve lately turned to thoughts of our Sorrowful Mother as the aggravations of aging multiply.

I well understand those aggravations! If I've learned anything in 75 years, it's the futility of trying to be happy, the necessity of gratitude, and the cultivation of those holy moments of grace that make it possible to find joy. I often wonder what Mary did in those years after Pentecost. She isn't given any attention in the Acts, but there must be some early writings that tell us. I see her as mothering the early disciples, perhaps.

I have seen her in just such a comforting role, as well.

I have just finished The Spiritual Combat. I still have about 95 extra pages to read, with the appendixes included in my edition.

Manuel wrote: "I have just finished The Spiritual Combat. I still have about 95 extra pages to read, with the appendixes included in my edition."

I now have the edition recommended by Mariangel and it is going much better. I should finish this month. My edition also has a significant amount of supplemental material - 60 pages worth. I will read it, but won't finish this month. My copy of Four Witnesses is promised to arrive today, and I need to get far enough into that to generate some discussion questions.

I have noticed several places along the way where Scupoli claims we must hate ourselves. I think this is error, and very different from mistrusting oneself. Am I to hate what God loves? I must hate sin, and I should probably hate that my nature is fallen making it much too easy to sin and all too difficult to walk in virtue. But hate myself? On what basis? It can't be that I am inherently evil, for I am assured God loves me and surely God doesn't love evil.