← Diary Entry Iannuzzi Citations →
This page has three parts: Independent Biblical Identification, Cross-Entry Synthesis, and Observation Notes.
13-1921-10-09 Biblical Resonance Analysis
Volume 13 — October 9, 1921 “In the last Supper Jesus gave Luisa the place of honor between Himself and John. He gave Himself as food to all, in order to receive food from all. The will of man is that which makes him more like His Creator. The human will is the depository of all the works of man.”
STAGE ONE — Independent Biblical Identification
This entry unfolds in five distinct conceptual movements: the Last Supper as an omnitemporal gathering of the whole human family; the Passover lamb as the symbol of Christ’s total self-giving; the bilateral economy of Eucharistic exchange; the will as formal cause and moral determinant of all human works; and the will as the primary site of the imago Dei, appointed queen of the whole person and fortress whose surrender is total surrender.
The Last Supper as Omnitemporal Gathering / Luisa Called by Name
“My daughter, while I was having supper with my disciples, I was surrounded not only by them, but by the whole human family. I had all creatures near Me, one by one; I knew them all, and I called them by name. I also called you, and I gave you the place of honor between Me and John, constituting you the little secretary of my Will.”
The disclosure that the Last Supper encompassed not merely the Twelve but every creature — known individually by name — positions the Supper as an ontologically omnitemporal event rather than a bounded historical occasion. The whole human family is present simultaneously, each one called. Luisa is elevated to a place between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple and constituted “little secretary of my Will” — a role of custodianship over the fullest form of divine self-disclosure.
John 15:15 — “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant doesn’t know what his lord does. But I have called you friends, for everything that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you.” The passage governing the intimacy of being called by name at the Supper: to be named and placed is to be elevated to the friendship-disclosure level where the master’s inner life is no longer hidden. Luisa’s constitution as “little secretary of my Will” is the apex form of this Johannine disclosure-friendship — not merely receiving revelation but custodying it. Direct doctrinal parallel
John 10:3 — “The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.” The Good Shepherd’s knowledge of each creature individually — calling by name is not a generic address but a precise, personal act of recognition and claim. The omnitemporal Supper extends this Good Shepherd intimacy to the whole human family simultaneously. Direct doctrinal parallel
Isaiah 43:1 — “But now the LORD who created you, Jacob, and he who formed you, Israel, says: “Don’t be afraid, for I have redeemed you. I have called you by your name. You are mine.” The covenantal form of the personal call: naming is simultaneously claiming. The Last Supper’s universal calling-by-name is therefore a covenantal act of redemptive ownership performed over every creature — the Passover-liberation logic extended to all humanity. Direct doctrinal parallel
Revelation 2:17 The promise of “a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it” articulates the eschatological depth of the personal name: known to God alone, unique to each soul, disclosed only in the intimacy of the final gift. The Last Supper’s calling by name is a proleptic enactment of this eschatological intimacy — the final name anticipated in the first summons. Typological
The Passover Lamb: Sacrifice as Complete Self-Giving
“And as I divided the lamb, in offering it to my Apostles, I gave it to all and to each one. That lamb, bled dry, roasted, cut to pieces, spoke about Me; it was the symbol of my Life and of how I was to reduce Myself for Love of all.”
Exodus 12:3-8, 12:46 The Passover lamb prescription — the lamb eaten in full by the whole household, not a bone broken, bled out, roasted entire — is the specific type invoked by the diary’s language (“bled dry, roasted, cut to pieces”). The lamb’s communal consumption (“given to all and to each one”) mirrors Exodus 12’s requirement that the household consume it completely: nothing left over, every member fed. The Passover is not a private sacrifice; it is a household meal that is also a communal act of liberation. Typological
1 Corinthians 5:7 — “Purge out the old yeast, that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed in our place.” Paul’s explicit identification of Christ as the paschal victim makes the diary’s invocation of the Passover lamb the natural Pauline hermeneutic for the Passion as total self-giving. The diary confirms this: “everything I did, said and suffered was converted by my Love into food for man.” Direct doctrinal parallel / typological
Isaiah 53:7 — “He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he didn’t open his mouth. As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he didn’t open his mouth.” The Suffering Servant as the prophetic figure of the lamb “bled dry, roasted, cut to pieces.” The diary says the lamb “spoke about Me” — Isaiah 53 is precisely the text in which the lamb’s silent, total self-surrender is the speech that cannot be spoken by any other voice. Typological
John 1:29 — “The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” The Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb brings together the Passover type and the Suffering Servant figure in a single person. The lamb “speaking about Me” is this convergence made explicit: every detail of the Exodus rite is a word about Christ. Christological / typological
Revelation 5:6, 5:12 — “the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, … “Worthy is the Lamb who has been killed to receive the power, wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing!” The eternally slain Lamb before the throne of Revelation — the Passover sacrifice persisting in the eternal order, not merely historical. This supports the diary’s omnitemporality: the Supper gathers all creatures because the Lamb’s act of self-giving stands perpetually present before the Father, never exhausted. Christological / Trinitarian
The Bilateral Economy: Jesus as Food / Wanting Food in Return
“I wanted to give it to all as delicious food, which represented my Passion, because everything I did, said and suffered was converted by my Love into food for man. But do you know why I called everyone and gave the lamb to all? Because I too wanted food from them. I wanted everything they would do to be food for Me.”
“It is not on bread alone that one can live, but on everything to which my Will gives virtue of making one live. If bread nourishes man, it is because I want it so. Now, whatever the creature disposes with her will to make of her work — that is the form which it assumes.”
The entry presents a remarkably structured bilateral economy: Jesus converts his entire life, Passion, and death into food for man, and simultaneously desires the creature’s works as food for himself. The exchange is not merely metaphorical but structural: the same will-orientation that makes a work food for God also makes the soul capable of receiving the nourishment Christ offers.
John 6:51-55 — “I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews therefore contended with one another, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus therefore said to them, “Most certainly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you don’t have life in yourselves. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The foundational Eucharistic text — Christ as the living bread. The diary entry extends this: not only is the Eucharist itself food, but everything Christ “did, said and suffered was converted by my Love into food.” The Eucharist is the concentrated sacramental form of a total nourishment spanning the whole of Christ’s existence. Direct doctrinal parallel
Deuteronomy 8:3 / Matthew 4:4 — “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Jesus quotes this scripture against the temptation in the desert; in the diary he explicitly transcends his own prior citation: “It is not on bread alone that one can live, but on everything to which my Will gives virtue of making one live.” The Divine Will is posited as the ultimate source of all life-giving power, the ground that makes even the Word itself effective. The Luisian elevation passes through the Deuteronomic manna → the Matthean Word → the Divine Will as the principle giving virtue to all nourishment at every level. Direct doctrinal parallel
John 4:34 — “Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” This passage creates a precise structural chiasm with the diary text. Jesus’ own food was doing the Father’s will; now Jesus tells Luisa he wants the creature’s will-acts as his food. What the Father’s will was to the Son — the sustaining nourishment of his entire earthly life — the creature’s will-conformity can become to the Trinity. The bilateral feeding dynamic finds its Christological ground here. Direct doctrinal parallel
Revelation 3:20 — “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me.” The mutual eating — Christ and the soul at the same table sharing the same food — is not imagery but structural reality. The meal is never unidirectional: Christ who gives himself as food is also the one who desires to eat with the soul, and the mutual banquet requires both parties. Direct doctrinal parallel
Song of Songs 5:1 — “I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride. I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. Friends Eat, friends! Drink, yes, drink abundantly, beloved.” The mutual banquet of the Spouse — the Bridegroom both giving and receiving at the same table. “I too wanted food from them” finds its affective and nuptial register here: the desire to be nourished by the beloved is intrinsic to love. Affective/meditative
Proverbs 9:1-5 — “Wisdom has built her house. … She has also set her table. She has sent out her maidens. She cries from the highest places of the city: … “Come, eat some of my bread, Drink some of the wine which I have mixed!” Divine Wisdom’s universal banquet — the invitation extended to all, from every direction. The Last Supper’s universal gathering (“the whole human family”) echoes Wisdom’s universal invitation; Christ as divine Wisdom offers himself as nourishment to all without exception. Typological
The Will as Formal Cause of Works: Food or Knife
“Whatever the creature disposes with her will to make of her work — that is the form which it assumes. If with her work she wants to form food for Me, she forms food for Me; if Love, she gives Me Love; if reparation, she forms reparation. And if in her will she wants to offend Me, she makes of her work the knife to wound Me, and maybe even to kill Me.”
The claim here is precisely formal-causal in the Aristotelian-Thomistic sense: the will is the formal principle that shapes the ontological character of every act. The same external action can be food for God, love, reparation, or the knife that wounds him — the external character of the work is morally secondary; the will’s orientation is primary and determinative.
Matthew 5:28 — “but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Jesus’ radicalization of the moral law places the will as the seat of moral quality prior to any external act. The will’s determination of the act’s form precedes and supersedes the visible character of the work. Direct doctrinal parallel
Luke 6:45 — “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings out that which is good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings out that which is evil, for out of the abundance of the heart, his mouth speaks.” The heart/will as the treasury from which all moral outputs flow — the character of the treasury determines the character of everything it produces, just as the will’s orientation determines whether the work is food or knife. Direct doctrinal parallel
1 Samuel 16:7 — “But the LORD said to Samuel, “Don’t look on his face, or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for I don’t see as man sees. For man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” The divine criterion is always the interior orientation — the same external work can appear identical while its moral form, as constituted by the will, is entirely different. Direct doctrinal parallel
Colossians 3:17 — “Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” The will’s universal-scope orientation: the “whatever you do” catches every external act and submits it to the interior principle of the name of Christ — which is precisely the formal cause that converts the work into food rather than knife. Direct doctrinal parallel
1 Corinthians 10:31 — “Whether therefore you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The same universal-scope orientation — the will’s directedness to God’s glory as the formal principle that transforms every act into an act of worship. The comprehensiveness of “whatever you do” reflects the comprehensiveness of the will’s determinative power: no act falls outside its reach. Direct doctrinal parallel
Romans 14:23 — “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because it isn’t of faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin.” The converse principle: the will’s disorientation from God is sufficient to make any act sinful regardless of external appearance. The food/knife binary finds its Pauline articulation here. Direct doctrinal parallel
The Will as Image of God: Seat of Immensity, Power, and the Unconquerable Fortress
“The will of man is that which makes him more like His Creator. In the human will I placed part of my Immensity and of my Power, and giving it the place of honor, I constituted it queen of the whole of man and depository of all of his works.”
“Not even one thought will be lost. What she cannot do with her eyes, with her mouth, with her works, she can do with her will — in one instant she can will a thousand goods and a thousand evils. The will makes her thought fly up to Heaven, to the farthest places and deep into the abysses.”
“This is why, among all things, I want the will of man: because if I have this, I have everything — the fortress is conquered.”
The entry’s anthropological climax: the will is not merely a faculty of moral choice but the faculty most constitutive of the divine image, endowed with a participation in divine Immensity and Power, appointed queen of the whole person, and therefore the single faculty whose surrender constitutes total surrender. The will is the fortress — whoever holds it holds everything.
Genesis 1:26-27 — “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.” The foundational imago Dei text — the diary entry identifies the will as the specific faculty through which this image is constituted and most perfectly realized. Direct doctrinal parallel
Psalm 8:3-6 — “what is man, that you think of him? … For you have made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You make him ruler over the works of your hands.” The paradox of human insignificance and divinely-given dignity — the will endowed with divine Immensity and Power is precisely the faculty through which the creature is crowned and through which dominion is exercised. Direct doctrinal parallel
Psalm 82:6 — “I said, “You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High.” The declaration of human dignity as participation in the divine. The will’s partial endowment with divine Immensity and Power is the anthropological ground for this Psalm’s bold assertion: the creature’s will-capacity approximates the divine prerogative of self-determination in a way no other creature’s faculty does. Direct doctrinal parallel
Sirach 17:1-8 — “The Lord created human beings out of earth… He endowed them with strength like his own, and made them in his own image… He filled them with knowledge and understanding, and showed them good and evil.” This deuterocanonical elaboration of the imago Dei is the most comprehensive Old Testament anthropology of human endowment — it explicitly articulates the creature’s endowment with strength resembling God’s own, directly corresponding to the diary’s claim that God placed “part of my Immensity and of my Power” in the human will. Direct doctrinal parallel
Romans 8:29 — “For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” The image-restoration arc — the imago Dei as the telos toward which grace works. The will as the seat of the image is also the seat of its restoration; conformity to Christ is the fullness of what was deposited in the will at creation. Direct doctrinal parallel
2 Corinthians 3:18 — “But we all, with unveiled face seeing the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.” The progressive actualization of the will’s image-capacity through transformation into the divine likeness — the DW intensifies and accelerates this process by directly engaging the will at its deepest level. Direct doctrinal parallel
Proverbs 4:23 — “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it is the wellspring of life.” The will/heart as the guarded depository from which all life flows — the urgency of the vigilance corresponds to the diary’s emphasis: this is the faculty that determines everything, contains everything, and whose orientation shapes the whole of the person. Direct doctrinal parallel
Psalm 139:1-10 — “For the Chief Musician. A Psalm by David. LORD, you have searched me, and you know me. You know my sitting down and my rising up. You perceive my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in behind and before. You laid your hand on me. This knowledge is beyond me. It’s lofty. I can’t attain it. Where could I go from your Spirit? Or where could I flee from your presence? If I ascend up into heaven, you are there. If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there! If I take the wings of the dawn, and settle in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold me.” The will’s range in the diary — “makes her thought fly up to Heaven, to the farthest places and deep into the abysses” — is precisely the vertical and horizontal scope of this Psalm. Every point the will can reach, God already inhabits; the will’s omnidirectional range is the creature’s participation in the omnipresence that already fills all those spaces. Affective/meditative
Matthew 6:19-21 (translation pending) — “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth… but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven… For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The will as treasury: its orientation determines whether what is deposited in it constitutes heavenly or earthly treasure. The “depository of all his works” is a treasury, and the will’s directedness determines the value of everything deposited. Direct doctrinal parallel
Hebrews 4:12-13 — “the word of God … discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. There is no creature that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.” The divine knowledge of the will’s complete contents — “not even one thought will be lost.” The will functions as an exhaustive record of all that passes through the person, and nothing deposited there escapes the divine sight. Direct doctrinal parallel
Proverbs 21:1 — “The king’s heart is in the LORD’s hand like the watercourses. He turns it wherever he desires.” The will under divine governance — the fortress-logic concentrated: the king’s will is the governance-point of the whole kingdom. Once God holds the will, he holds everything. The “fortress is conquered” is the outcome of this total governance. Direct doctrinal parallel
Luke 2:19, 2:51 — “But Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart. … and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.” Mary’s interior will/heart as the paradigm of the faithful will-as-depository — the one who receives every divine act, holds it securely, and returns nothing to loss. “Not even one thought will be lost” finds in Mary its living model. Affective/meditative
STAGE TWO — Comparison with Hogan’s Commentary
CORRESPONDENCES
John 15:15 — Both identified for the calling-by-name / constitution of Luisa as secretary. Hogan uses it for the personal intimacy of the call; Stage One develops it for the disclosure-friendship logic governing the “little secretary” elevation and the custodianship of revelation.
Exodus 12 — Both identified for the Passover lamb symbol. Hogan cites it straightforwardly as the typological ground; Stage One extends to the structural parallels (not a bone broken; universal consumption).
Deuteronomy 8:3 / Matthew 4:4 — Both identified for the “not on bread alone” passage and its Luisian elevation. Hogan draws out the progressive-entry logic explicitly: “we haven’t entered into the half of it… step by step, sip by sip.” Stage One: notes the three-stage elevation from Deuteronomic manna → Matthean Word → Divine Will as the ultimate life-giving principle.
Romans 8:29 — Both identified for the will-as-image-of-God movement. Hogan cites it for “we are images of God / we are the only creatures given free will.” Stage One: uses it for the image-restoration arc and the telos of conformity to Christ.
Psalm 8 — Both identified for the will’s dignity and the paradox of human endowment. Hogan reads the “little less than a god” line as the ground for understanding why human beings think themselves creators. Stage One: focuses on the “crowned with glory and honor / given dominion” dimension as the specific register of the will’s endowment with divine Immensity and Power.
Psalm 82:6 — Both identified. See citation correction note below.
DEVIATIONS
Isaiah 43:1 (Stage One) vs. Isaiah 43:7 and 45:4 (Hogan) — for the calling-by-name movement. Stage One cites Isaiah 43:1 (“I have called you by name, you are mine”) — emphasizing the covenantal ownership dimension of the naming act. Hogan cites Isaiah 43:7 (“everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory”) — emphasizing that the calling is purposive, oriented toward God’s glory — and Isaiah 45:4 (“I call you by your name, though you do not know me”) — emphasizing the gratuity of the call extended to one who did not previously know the caller. The three passages together constitute a complete covenantal picture: 43:1 = name-as-claim; 43:7 = name-as-glory-purpose; 45:4 = name-as-gratuity. Stage One and Hogan are not competing but supply complementary angles that together form the full theology of the naming.
ADDITIONS — MINE
- Revelation 2:17 — eschatological personal name on the white stone; the Last Supper’s calling by name as proleptic enactment of the eschatological gift of intimate identity
- 1 Corinthians 5:7 — Paul’s explicit identification of Christ as the Passover lamb; direct doctrinal ground for the Passover typology
- Isaiah 53:7 — Suffering Servant as the silent lamb led to slaughter; the prophetic figure the diary invokes when it says the lamb “spoke about Me”
- John 1:29 — Lamb of God; convergence of Passover type and Suffering Servant figure in Christ’s person
- Revelation 5:6, 5:12 — eternally slain Lamb; omnitemporality of the sacrifice as theological ground for the omnitemporality of the Supper
- John 6:51-55 — living bread / the Eucharistic text proper; the diary’s expansion of nourishment to encompass all of Christ’s existence
- John 4:34 — Jesus’ food = doing the Father’s will; creates the structural chiasm with the diary’s bilateral feeding claim
- Revelation 3:20 — mutual eating / Christ and the soul at the same table; the meal as structurally bilateral
- Song of Songs 5:1 — mutual banquet of the Spouse; the nuptial register of the desire to receive as well as give
- Proverbs 9:1-5 — Wisdom’s universal banquet invitation; the Last Supper’s universal scope as Wisdom’s feast
- Matthew 5:28 — will as the seat of moral quality prior to external act; radicalization of the moral law
- Luke 6:45 — heart as treasury producing good or evil; the moral-formal causality of the will
- 1 Samuel 16:7 — God looks on the heart; the divine criterion as interior orientation
- Colossians 3:17 — “whatever you do in word or deed” under the will’s orientation to Christ
- 1 Corinthians 10:31 — “whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”; universal scope of the will’s formal determination
- Romans 14:23 — whatever does not proceed from faith is sin; the converse of the food-or-knife principle
- Genesis 1:26-27 — imago Dei foundation; will as the specific faculty of the divine image
- Sirach 17:1-8 — most comprehensive OT imago Dei anthropology; explicit endowment with divine strength closely paralleling the diary’s “part of my Immensity and of my Power”
- 2 Corinthians 3:18 — transformation into the same image from glory to glory; progressive actualization of the will’s image-capacity
- Proverbs 4:23 — keep the heart with all vigilance; from it flow the springs of life
- Matthew 6:19-21 — treasures in heaven / where your heart is; the will’s orientation determining the value of its deposits
- Luke 2:19/51 — Mary’s interior treasury as the paradigm of the will as faithful depository
- Psalm 139:1-10 — the will’s range from heaven to abyss; participation in divine omnipresence
- Hebrews 4:12-13 — divine discernment of thoughts and intentions; nothing in the will hidden
- Proverbs 21:1 — king’s heart in God’s hand; the will as governance-point of the whole person
- Matthew 12:35 — good treasure brings forth good / evil treasure brings forth evil
ADDITIONS — HERS
Isaiah 43:7 and 45:4 — the purposive and gratuitous dimensions of the calling by name. Stage One captured the ownership dimension (43:1) but missed that Hogan’s two citations complete the triad: named for glory (43:7) and named despite not knowing the caller (45:4). Together the three passages give the full theology of the personal call.
St. Thérèse of Lisieux illustration — Hogan uses Thérèse as an illustration of the will acting where physical limitation prevents external action: the cloistered missionary who willed everything she could not do. This is the “hidden life of Christ in Nazareth” paradigm applied to the will’s unbounded range. Implicit scriptural background: Colossians 3:3 (“your life is hidden with Christ in God”); Matthew 6:3-4 (hidden acts known only to the Father); Luke 2:51-52 (Jesus submitting to the hidden life in Nazareth, growing in wisdom and stature).
Communism / Twelve Apostles contrast — Hogan uses the will’s world-historical power illustrated negatively (two men in a flat plotting the enslavement of humanity) and positively (twelve apparently powerless men transforming the world for Christ). The negative illustration: Revelation 13:7 (the beast’s authority over every tribe and nation); Daniel 7:7 (the devouring fourth beast). The positive: Acts 2:1-4 (the Spirit-filled Twelve); Acts 4:13 (“they had been with Jesus”).
Will’s expansibility through DW acts — Hogan notes that the more the soul acts in the Divine Will, “the more he expands the soul so that it can do more, receive more, experience more.” This forward bridge to higher-volume content has implicit scriptural background at Psalm 119:32 (“I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart”) and Isaiah 54:2-3 (“enlarge the place of your tent… for you will spread abroad”).
Mass as participation in the Last Supper — Hogan’s opening pastoral comment: “Every time we go to mass, we’re there at the last supper. We’re present.” This is the liturgical-sacramental dimension of the entry’s omnitemporal claim, with 1 Corinthians 11:26 (“as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”) as its scriptural ground.
VIP / SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Hogan designates a VIP explicitly: “Now you need to put a VIP on that.” The designated passage is the diary’s concluding statement:
“This is why, among all things, I want the will of man: because if I have this, I have everything — the fortress is conquered.”
Hogan’s framing of the designation: “That’s why surrendering to the divine will is the big, big issue for us. It is where the struggle is at.” The VIP marks this as the entry’s theological apex — not the omnitemporal Supper, not the Passover typology, not even the imago Dei teaching, but this single claim: the will is the faculty whose surrender is total surrender. Every other movement in the entry converges here.
STAGE TWO SYNTHESIS
The combined findings identify four interlocking biblical traditions governing this entry. The Passover-to-Eucharist typological arc (Exodus 12 → Isaiah 53 → 1 Corinthians 5:7 → John 6 → Revelation 5) provides the sacrificial architecture; the bilateral-feeding tradition (John 4:34; Revelation 3:20; Song of Songs 5:1) provides the relational structure within which nourishment flows in both directions; the imago Dei anthropological arc (Genesis 1:26-27 → Sirach 17 → Psalm 8 → Psalm 82:6 → Romans 8:29 → 2 Corinthians 3:18) grounds the will’s dignity and defines what is at stake in its surrender; and the wisdom-treasury tradition (Proverbs 4:23/9:1-5/21:1; Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 6:45) articulates the will as the treasury-and-fortress from which all else flows. Hogan strengthens the purposive and gratuitous dimensions of the personal call (Isaiah 43:7/45:4) and the hidden-life Nazareth framework. The VIP falls on the entry’s structural conclusion: every other arc — Passover nourishment, bilateral exchange, imago Dei dignity, treasury security — converges in the single claim that the will is the fortress whose conquest is total surrender.
Cross-Entry Synthesis
Volume 13 — October 9, 1921 “In the last Supper Jesus gave Luisa the place of honor between Himself and John. He gave Himself as food to all, in order to receive food from all. The will of man is that which makes him more like His Creator. The human will is the depository of all the works of man.”
The Last Supper as Omnitemporal Gathering / Luisa Called by Name
“My daughter, while I was having supper with my disciples, I was surrounded not only by them, but by the whole human family. I had all creatures near Me, one by one; I knew them all, and I called them by name. I also called you, and I gave you the place of honor between Me and John, constituting you the little secretary of my Will.”
Stage One and Hogan converge on John 15:15 as the governing anchor for the calling-by-name movement. Both read the passage as establishing the friendship-disclosure register: to be called by name and placed at table is to be elevated to the level where the master’s inner life is disclosed. Where they diverge is instructive. Stage One extends the calling-by-name logic through Isaiah 43:1 (“I have called you by name, you are mine”), drawing out the covenantal ownership dimension — the act of naming is simultaneously an act of claiming. Hogan supplies Isaiah 43:7 (“whom I created for my glory”) and 45:4 (“I call you by your name, though you do not know me”), adding the purposive and gratuitous dimensions respectively. Together, the three Isaiah passages form a complete covenantal picture: name-as-claim (43:1), name-as-glory-purpose (43:7), name-as-gratuity (45:4). No single angle alone captures the full weight of the Last Supper’s universal calling.
The placement of Luisa “between Me and John” is theologically precise. John is the Beloved Disciple, the Apostle of Love, the one who reclined on Jesus’ breast; Luisa is the “little secretary of my Will.” The positioning locates the Will-disclosure in intimate proximity to the Love-disclosure: not replacing it but exceeding it in a specific direction. This corresponds to the Volume 2 summary statement that “Divine will and love is the summary of the 36 volumes” — the Will is the further articulation of what Love already is.
Revelation 2:17’s “new name… that no one knows except the one who receives it” is not paralleled in Hogan but opens an eschatological dimension: the Last Supper’s calling by name is not merely a historical or even omnitemporal act but a proleptic enactment of the final intimacy, the ultimate personhood disclosed in the gift of the secret name. The Supper gathers all creatures because it is, in its deepest structure, the eschatological gathering anticipated in time.
The Passover Lamb: Sacrifice as Complete Self-Giving
“That lamb, bled dry, roasted, cut to pieces, spoke about Me; it was the symbol of my Life and of how I was to reduce Myself for Love of all.”
Hogan anchors the Passover lamb typology in Exodus 12, as does Stage One. The difference is in the extension: Stage One traces the typological arc through Isaiah 53:7, 1 Corinthians 5:7, John 1:29, and Revelation 5:6/12 — from the Exodus rite through the Servant-figure through Paul’s explicit identification through the eternally-present Lamb of Revelation. This arc reveals that the diary’s invocation of the Passover lamb is not a single typological point but the activation of the entire sacrificial trajectory running from Exodus to the eschaton.
The Revelation 5 addition carries particular weight in the Luisian context. The slain Lamb standing before the throne — the sacrifice eternally present, never exhausted — is the theological ground for the entry’s omnitemporality: the Last Supper gathers all creatures because the Lamb’s act of self-giving stands perpetually before the Father, encompassing all of history simultaneously. The diary’s “I gave it to all and to each one” is not a distributional statement about physical bread but an ontological statement about the Lamb whose sacrifice is structurally available to every soul across all time.
The phrase “spoke about Me” deserves particular attention. The lamb does not merely represent Christ; it speaks — it is a word about him. This corresponds to the next movement’s elevation of Deuteronomy 8:3: just as the physical manna was a word about the Word, the Passover lamb is a word about the Lamb. The typological relation is not static representation but living speech.
The Bilateral Economy: Jesus as Food / Wanting Food in Return
“I wanted to give it to all as delicious food, which represented my Passion, because everything I did, said and suffered was converted by my Love into food for man… Because I too wanted food from them.”
“It is not on bread alone that one can live, but on everything to which my Will gives virtue of making one live.”
Stage One and Hogan converge on Deuteronomy 8:3/Matthew 4:4 and identify the same Luisian elevation. Hogan draws out its pastoral consequence: “we haven’t entered into the half of it… step by step, sip by sip.” Stage One adds the structural point: the elevation is three-tiered (manna → Word → Divine Will), each level grounding the one below. The Divine Will is not an alternative to the Word but the source-principle that gives the Word its life-giving power.
Stage One’s John 4:34 is not addressed by Hogan but generates the entry’s most precise structural observation. Jesus told the disciples, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me” — the Father’s will was Jesus’ own sustaining nourishment throughout his earthly life. Now Jesus tells Luisa he wants the creature’s will-acts as his food. The chiasm is exact: Father’s will was to the Son what creature’s will can be to God. The bilateral feeding dynamic is not a devotional metaphor but a structural repetition of the Trinitarian economy within the creature-God relationship. The creature who feeds God does so precisely by mirroring the Son’s receptivity to the Father.
Revelation 3:20 (“I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me”) and Song of Songs 5:1 (“eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love”) together establish the bilateral banquet as a permanent structural reality, not a conditional or temporary arrangement. The mutuality is intrinsic to the economy of love: the one who gives himself as food desires to receive food in return, and this desire is not neediness but the structure of love’s self-communication.
Hogan’s pastoral note on the universality of the Eucharistic gathering — “every time we go to mass, we’re there at the last supper; we’re present” — identifies 1 Corinthians 11:26 as the implicit ground: the Eucharistic proclamation of the Lord’s death “until he comes” is the liturgical enactment of the omnitemporal Supper the diary describes. The Mass is the formal participation of the community in what the diary discloses as the universal structure of the Last Supper.
The Will as Formal Cause of Works: Food or Knife
“Whatever the creature disposes with her will to make of her work — that is the form which it assumes. If with her work she wants to form food for Me, she forms food for Me; if Love, she gives Me Love; if reparation, she forms reparation. And if in her will she wants to offend Me, she makes of her work the knife to wound Me, and maybe even to kill Me.”
This movement receives no explicit scriptural citations from Hogan, who instead focuses on the practical-spiritual consequence: “we decide in our human will that this is going to be a human act or it’s going to be an act in the divine will. It’s up to us.” Hogan’s pastoral emphasis on the act of decision — the moment of will-orientation that determines the form — is the existential complement to Stage One’s doctrinal analysis of formal causality.
Stage One’s cluster of citations (Matthew 5:28; Luke 6:45; 1 Samuel 16:7; Colossians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 14:23) reveals that this teaching is the culmination of a sustained biblical tradition running from the Deuteronomic internalization of the law through Christ’s radicalization in the Sermon on the Mount through Paul’s universal-scope ethical formulas. The innovation in the diary text is not the principle — that the will’s orientation determines the act’s moral form — but the application to the divine economy: the will does not merely determine whether an act is virtuous or sinful in the creaturely register; it determines whether the act nourishes God or wounds him. The stakes are elevated from moral anthropology to relational theology.
Romans 14:23 (“whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”) and the positive formulas of Colossians 3:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:31 (“whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” / “do all to the glory of God”) constitute the Pauline expression of the food-or-knife binary. The “whatever” in both cases is absolute: no act falls outside the will’s formal determination. The diary text extends the same absolute scope: not some works but every work assumes the form the will disposes for it.
The Will as Image of God: Seat of Immensity, Power, and the Unconquerable Fortress
“The will of man is that which makes him more like His Creator. In the human will I placed part of my Immensity and of my Power, and giving it the place of honor, I constituted it queen of the whole of man and depository of all of his works.”
“This is why, among all things, I want the will of man: because if I have this, I have everything — the fortress is conquered.”
The entry’s theological apex. Stage One and Hogan converge on Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 8, Psalm 82:6, and Romans 8:29. Where they diverge is in depth of treatment. Hogan dwells pastorally on the paradox that human beings — endowed with this divine-imago faculty — nonetheless think themselves gods and worship their own creativity. The corrective is Psalm 8’s “what is man that you are mindful of him”: the will’s endowment with divine Immensity and Power is entirely a gift, not an independent possession, and its appropriate response is humility rather than self-deification.
Stage One adds Sirach 17:1-8 and 2 Corinthians 3:18. Sirach 17 is the most comprehensive Old Testament anthropology of the divine endowment, explicitly stating that God “endowed them with strength like his own, and made them in his own image” — the closest scriptural parallel to the diary’s specific claim that God placed “part of my Immensity and of my Power” in the human will. The two passages illuminate the same content from different angles: Sirach 17 discloses the endowment at creation; 2 Corinthians 3:18 discloses its progressive actualization through transformation “from one degree of glory to another.” The will was endowed with the image at the first moment; it is being transformed into that image’s fullness through the Spirit.
The will-as-depository movement (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 6:19-21; Hebrews 4:12-13; Psalm 139:1-10; Luke 2:19/51) is not covered by Hogan but is integral to the movement’s conclusion. The will holds everything — “not even one thought will be lost” — and its range is unlimited: heaven, the farthest places, the deepest abysses. Psalm 139 provides the vertical and horizontal coordinates: every point the will can reach, God already inhabits. The will’s omnidirectional range is the creature’s participation in the divine omnipresence that already fills those spaces. Luke 2:19/51 discloses Mary as the paradigm of the will as faithful depository: she “treasured up all these things in her heart,” returning nothing to loss. The will that acts as Mary’s heart acted — keeping every divine act secured — is the will that most fully realizes its appointed function.
Hogan’s Thérèse of Lisieux illustration (“she might be prevented from working, from seeing, from speaking, but she can do all this in her will”) activates Colossians 3:3 (“your life is hidden with Christ in God”) and Luke 2:51-52 (the hidden life in Nazareth) as the scriptural ground for the will’s capacity to accomplish in the interior order what physical limitation prevents in the exterior. This is Hogan at her most theologically precise: the hidden life of Nazareth is not a period of inactivity but the paradigm of the will doing everything — the will that has surrendered to the DW accomplishes the whole apostolic work through interior orientation. The apparent impotence of the cloistered life is the form of the will’s unlimited range.
The VIP is placed by Hogan on the fortress passage: “This is why, among all things, I want the will of man: because if I have this, I have everything — the fortress is conquered.” The biblical resonances across Stage One and Hogan converge to explain why this passage carries special weight. The fortress is the final military metaphor for what all prior images — treasury, chest, queen, depository — have been describing from different angles. Whoever conquers the fortress commands the territory; whoever holds the will holds the whole person. Proverbs 21:1 (“the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will”) is the most concentrated scriptural parallel: the governance of the will is the governance of everything the will governs. Since the will governs “the whole of man” — as the diary states explicitly — its surrender to God is total surrender, not surrender of a part.
Hogan’s illustration of the will’s world-historical power — the contrast between two men plotting Communism and twelve apparently powerless men transforming the world for Christ — draws Acts 2 and 4:13 as the positive anchor. The apostolic transformation of the world was accomplished by twelve wills surrendered to the Spirit. The “fortress is conquered” is not only the individual soul’s surrender but the principle governing history: the will is the single faculty whose surrender or resistance determines everything, in the individual soul and in human civilization alike.
Synthesis Conclusion
Dominant biblical imagination: The entry is governed by the Eucharistic-typological imagination (Passover → Supper → eternal Lamb) interpenetrated by the imago Dei tradition (Genesis 1:26-27 → Sirach 17 → Psalm 8 → Romans 8:29 → 2 Corinthians 3:18). These two traditions are not parallel but convergent: the imago Dei is located in the will, the will’s proper exercise is the bilateral exchange of nourishment with God, and the Eucharistic economy is the formal institution of that exchange.
Most load-bearing scriptural traditions:
The Johannine bilateral-feeding tradition (John 4:34; John 6:51-55; Revelation 3:20) carries the most structural weight: John 4:34’s chiasm (Father’s will = Son’s food :: creature’s will = God’s food) discloses the entry’s deepest theological logic. The creature is invited to reproduce, within the creaturely order, the same receptivity-and-nourishment that characterizes the Son’s relationship to the Father. The bilateral economy of the Supper is a participation in the Trinitarian economy.
The imago Dei anthropological tradition (Genesis 1:26-27; Sirach 17:1-8; Psalm 8; 2 Corinthians 3:18) is the ground on which the fortress-logic rests. The will is the site of the image because the will is the faculty most resembling the divine prerogative of self-determination. It is therefore the faculty whose surrender reconstitutes the image most completely — not by destroying the will’s dignity but by restoring it to its proper orientation.
Three findings of greatest theological significance:
First: the Luisian elevation in Deuteronomy 8:3/Matthew 4:4 — “not on bread alone but on everything to which my Will gives virtue of making one live” — positions the Divine Will as the source-principle giving life-giving power to the Word itself, not merely an extension of the Word-principle. This represents a doctrinal elevation that explains the Luisian theology’s claim that living in the DW exceeds all prior forms of sanctity: the DW is not a higher degree of union with the Word but the ground of the Word’s own efficacy.
Second: John 4:34’s structural chiasm positions the creature’s will-acts as the analogue, within the creature-God relationship, of what the Father’s will was to the Son during the Incarnation. This is not an affective or devotional identification but a structural one: the creature who feeds God with her will-acts participates in the same Trinitarian economy that sustained the Son throughout his earthly life.
Third: the VIP fortress passage, read through Proverbs 21:1 and the full imago Dei tradition, discloses the will as the single faculty whose surrender is simultaneously the surrender of the image to its archetype, the surrender of the treasury to its Lord, and the surrender of the fortress to its King. The fortress-conquest is not the will’s destruction but its fulfillment: the will was constituted queen “of the whole of man” precisely so that, when surrendered, it would bring all of man with it into the Divine Will.
Observation Notes
See this note in volume context →
13-1921-10-09
VIP designation — TBD sequential (fortress-conquered): Hogan places a VIP on the diary’s concluding statement: “This is why, among all things, I want the will of man: because if I have this, I have everything — the fortress is conquered.” Her framing: “That’s why surrendering to the divine will is the big, big issue for us. It is where the struggle is at.” The VIP marks this as the entry’s theological apex — the convergence point toward which the omnitemporal Supper, the Passover typology, the bilateral feeding economy, and the imago Dei anthropology all build. Every other movement in the entry exists to establish why the will is the single faculty whose surrender is total surrender.
RSD-1 new register — Eucharistic-mutual-feeding: The Last Supper as the formal bilateral feeding event provides a new RSD-1 register: Jesus converts everything he “did, said and suffered” into food for man, and simultaneously desires the creature’s works as food for himself — “I too wanted food from them.” This is the most structurally complete RSD-1 form in the corpus: not the mutual indwelling of wills or the joint-assailment of the Father, but the literal bilateral nourishment at the table where both parties simultaneously give and receive. John 4:34 provides the Christological ground: what the Father’s will was to the Son (sustaining food), the creature’s will-acts can be to God.
WDC-1 new register — food-or-knife: The will’s orientation as the formal cause determining whether any work becomes food for God or a knife to wound him provides a new WDC-1 register: “whatever the creature disposes with her will to make of her work — that is the form which it assumes.” Prior WDC-1 forms distinguished DW-acts from human acts in terms of origin and quality; this form identifies the discernment-moment as the formal-causal event that shapes the entire ontological character of the act. The same external work can be food, love, reparation, or a mortal wound depending solely on the will’s orientation. This is the most operationally precise WDC-1 form: not a criterion applied after the fact but the act of formation itself.
IDR-1 new register — will-as-imago-Dei-seat / fortress-surrender-as-total-restoration: “The will of man is that which makes him more like His Creator. In the human will I placed part of my Immensity and of my Power.” The will is identified as the primary faculty constituting the imago Dei — the seat of the divine image — making its surrender simultaneously the fullest form of image-restoration. Since the will is queen of the whole person and depository of all works, its conquest by God (the fortress-conquered) is the recapitulation of the whole imago into its archetype. This forms a consecutive IDR-1 diptych with October 6 (one-single-point / total-faculty transformation): October 6 showed how goodwill drags all faculties to a single point of light, reversing sin’s total darkening; October 9 identifies the will as the specific faculty that constitutes the imago and whose surrender therefore determines the direction of that total transformation. Sirach 17:1-8 (“He endowed them with strength like his own, and made them in his own image”) is the governing deuterocanonical anchor.
VSC-1 candidate — creature’s will-acts as food for Christ: “I wanted everything they would do to be food for Me. I wanted the food of their love, of their works, of their words — of everything.” The creature’s will-directed works constituting genuine sustenance for Christ is a strong VSC-1 candidate: the causality runs not only from Christ to creature (his sacrifice as food for all) but from creature to Christ (her will-directed acts as food for him). Added to the unsequenced VSC-1 candidate pool.