Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 398 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 395 Guest(s) Baidu, Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
Livestream: Twenty-sevent...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
9 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 37
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
9 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 77
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:26 AM
» Replies: 35
» Views: 3,177
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 64
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:58 AM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 972
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 73
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 87
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 101
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
11-21-2024, 03:25 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 2,072
|
The Catholic Trumpet: ‘We...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
11-21-2024, 08:32 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 103
|
|
|
Feast of the Epiphany |
Posted by: Stone - 01-06-2021, 07:25 AM - Forum: Christmas
- Replies (10)
|
|
INSTRUCTION ON THE FEAST OF EPIPHANY
Taken from Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays throughout the Ecclesiastical Year, 1880
What festival is this?
This festival is set apart to solemnly commemorate the coming of the three wise men from the East, guided by a miraculous star which appeared to them, and directed them to Bethlehem, where they found Christ in the stable; here they honored and adored Him and offered gifts to Him.
Why is this day called Epiphania Domini, or Apparition of the Lord?
Because the Church wishes to bring before our mind the three great events in the life of Christ, when He made known to man His divinity: the coming of the wise men from the East, through whom He revealed Himself to the Gentiles as the Son of God; His baptism, on which occasion His Divinity was made known to the Jews, and His first miracle at the marriage of Cana, by which He revealed Himself to His disciples.
In the INTROIT of the Mass the Church sings today with joy: Behold the Lord the Ruler is come; and the kingdom is in his hand, and power and dominion (Mal. 3). Give to the king thy judgment, O God; and to the king's son thy justice (Ps. 71:1). Glory be to the Father.
COLLECT God, Who on this day by the leading of a star didst reveal Thine only-begotten Son to the Gentiles; mercifully grant, that we who know Thee now by faith may be brought to contemplate the beauty of Thy majesty. Through our Lord.
EPISTLE (Is. 60:1-6). Arise, be enlightened, O Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee, For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and a mist the peoples; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round about, and see; all these are gathered together, they are come to thee: thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the Gentiles shall come to thee. The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Madian and Epha; all they from Saba shall come, bringing gold and frankincense, and showing forth praise to the Lord.
EXPLANATION The Prophet Isaias, in this epistle, predicts that the light of the Lord, which is Christ, will rise over Jerusalem, the prototype of the Church, and that the Gentiles who knew nothing of the true God, would come to walk in that light which Christ, by His doctrine and holy life, would cause to shine, and that numberless nations, from all parts of the world, would assemble as her children to adore the one true God. The fulfillment of this prophecy commenced with the adoration of the Magi, who are to be regarded as the first Christian converts of the Gentiles; the Church, therefore, very properly celebrates this day with great solemnity. We ought also to share in the joy of the Church, because our ancestors were Gentiles, and like the three wise men were called to the true faith. Let us exclaim with Isaias: Give praise, O ye heavens, and rejoice, O earth, ye mountains give praise with jubilation: because the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy on his poor ones (Is. 49:13).
GOSPEL (Mt. 2:1-12). When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying: Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and are come to adore him. And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And assembling together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ should be born. But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda; for so it is written by the prophet: And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come forth the ruler that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of them the time of the star which appeared to them; and sending them into Bethlehem, said: Go and diligently inquire after the child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I also may come and adore him. Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. And seeing the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother and falling down they adored him. And opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their own country.
What caused the three kings to undertake so tedious a journey?
A star which God permitted to appear in their land, at the sight of which they were inwardly enlightened, so that they at once recognized its signification. Let us learn from these kings who so readily responded to the inspiration of God, by immediately undertaking so difficult a journey, to follow without delay the promptings of divine grace, and from their zeal, and the fearlessness with which they asked Herod where the Messiah would be found, we should learn to seek and practice, without fear of men, whatever is necessary for our salvation.
Why did Herod fear, and all Jerusalem with him?
Because Herod, a proud, imperious, cruel, and therefore jealous king, was afraid, when he heard of a new-born king, that he would be deprived of his throne, and punished for his vices. A bad conscience is always ill at ease, and has no peace. There is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord God (Is. 57:21). Jerusalem, that is, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, feared because many of them were attached to Herod, and others, especially the chief priests and the scribes, feared they would be punished for their secret crimes, when the Messiah would come, of whom they knew that He shall judge the poor with justice, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked (Is. 11:4).
Why did Herod assemble the chief priests and the scribes?
Partly to find from them where the Messiah was to be born, partly and principally because God so directed it, that Herod and the chief priests, knowing the time and place of the Messiah's birth, would have no excuse for their infidelity. In the same way God often makes known to us, in the clearest manner the most wholesome truths, yet we heed them as little as did the Jews who had sufficient knowledge of the Messiah, indeed, even showed the way to the three kings, but made no use of it for themselves, and were therefore cast away.
Why did Herod say he wished to adore the child?
This he did out of wicked hypocrisy and dissimulation. He had no other intention than to put Jesus to death, and therefore affected piety to find out exactly the time and place of His birth. Thus do those murderers of souls who desire the fall of the innocent; they do not let their evil intentions be made known at once, and so they put on sheep's clothing, feign piety and devotion, until they creep into the heart from which, by flattery and irony about religion and virtue, and by presents, they expel shame, the fear of God, and thus murder the soul.
Why did the kings fall down and adore Christ?
Because by the light of faith they saw in the Infant at Bethlehem God Himself, and, notwithstanding the poverty of His surroundings, recognized in Him the expected Messiah, the new-born king of the Jews, and by prostrating themselves before Him paid Him the homage of their country.
Why did the kings offer gold, frankincense and myrrh?
Because it was the ancient Eastern custom, never to appear without presents before a prince or king, and the three kings, as the holy Fathers universally teach, enlightened by the Holy Ghost, desired by their presents to honor Christ as God, as king, and as man. Of this the venerable Bede writes: "The first of the kings, named Melchior, offered gold to Christ the Lord and king; the second, named Caspar, frankincense to the divinity of Christ; and the third, Balthassar, myrrh, by which was expressed that Christ, the Son of man, must die."
How can we bring similar offerings to Christ?
We offer gold to Him, when we love Him with our whole heart, and out of love to Him, present Him our will by perfect obedience and continual self-denial, as our will is our most precious treasure. We also offer Him gold when we assist the poor by alms given in His name. We offer Him frankincense when we devoutly and ardently pray to Him, especially when we meditate upon His omnipotence, love, goodness, justice and mercy. We offer Him myrrh when we avoid carnal desires, mortify our evil inclinations and passions, and strive for purity of body and soul.
Why did the kings return by another way to their own country?
This they did by command of God. From the example of the three wise men we should learn to obey God rather than man, that we must be obedient to His directions, even if we do not understand them; so the three kings obeyed, although they may not have understood why God commanded them to flee from Herod. After we have found God we should walk in the path of virtue, and not return to our old sinful ways. "Our fatherland is paradise, heaven," writes St. Gregory. "We have departed from it by pride, disobedience, abuse of the senses, therefore it is needed that we return to it by obedience, contempt of the world, and by taming the desires of the flesh; thus we return to our own country by another road. By forbidden pleasures we have forfeited the joys of paradise, by penance we must regain them."
ASPIRATION Give me, O divine Savior, the faith of those Eastern kings. Enlighten my understanding with the light which enlightened them, and move my heart, that I may in future follow this light, and sincerely seek Thee who hast first sought me. Grant also, that I may really find Thee, with the wise men may adore Thee in spirit and in truth, and bring to Thee the gold of love, the frankincense of prayer, and the myrrh of penance and mortification, that, having here offered Thee the sacrifice of my faith, I may adore Thee in Thy eternal glory. Amen.
|
|
|
Morning Offering for the Salvation of Aborted Infants |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 01-05-2021, 11:56 PM - Forum: Prayers and Devotionals
- No Replies
|
|
MORNING OFFERING FOR THE
SALVATION OF ABORTED INFANTS
Lord Jesus, through the hands of Thy Blessed Mother,
I offer Thee all my thoughts, words and actions this day
for all the intentions of Thy Most Sacred Heart. Especially,
I offer Thee all the acts of faith in Thee and Thy Love that
I perform, in order to obtain from Thy Sacred Heart the
grace of Baptism for all the innocent babies who will be
murdered by abortion today. Because their own fathers and
mothers will violently refuse them life, and thus refuse to
stand before Thee as guarantors of their babies' faith in Thee,
accept me as the spiritual father/mother of those babies. And,
within the divine economy of Thy Mystical Body, accept me as
guarantor of those babies' desire to be with Thee forever.
So that, having been killed most cruelly, they may be admitted
to Thy presence as sinless martyrs to the truth of Thy Love and
Thy Salvation. I ask this for Thy Holy Name's sake. Amen.
by Father Malachi Martin
|
|
|
Homily on Marriage by St. John Chrysostom |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 01-05-2021, 11:53 PM - Forum: Doctors of the Church
- No Replies
|
|
Homily on Marriage
By St. John Chrysostom
A certain wise man, when enumerating which blessings are the most important included “a wife and husband who live in harmony (Sir. 25:1). In another place he emphasized this: “A friend or a companion never meets one amiss, but a wife with her husband is better than both.” (Sir. 40:23). From the beginning God in His providence has planned this union of man and woman, and has spoken of the two as one: male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27), and there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). There is no relationship between human beings so close as that of husband and wife, if they are united as they ought to be. When blessed David was mourning for Jonathan, who was of one soul with him, what comparison did he use to describe the loftiness of their love? Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women (II Sam. 1:26).
The power of this love is truly stronger than any passion; other desires may be strong, but this one alone never fades.
This love (eros) is deeply planted within our inmost being. Unnoticed by us, it attracts the bodies of men and women to each other, because in the beginning woman came forth from man, and from man and woman other men and women proceed. Can you see now how close this union is, and how God providentially created it from a single nature? He permitted Adam to marry Eve, who was more than sister or daughter; she was his own flesh! God caused the entire human race to proceed from this one point of origin. He did not, on the one hand, fashion woman independently from man,otherwise man would think of her as essentially different from himself. Nor did He enable woman to bear children without man; if this were the case she would be self-sufficient. Instead, just as the branches of a tree proceed from a single trunk, He made the one man Adam to be the origin of all mankind, both male and female, and made it impossible for men and women to be self-sufficient. Later, He forbade men to marry their sisters or daughters, so that our love would not be limited to members of our families, and withdrawn from the rest of the human race. All of this is implied in Christ’s words: He who made them from the beginning made them male and female (Matt. 19:4).
The love of husband and wife is the force that welds society together. Men will take up arms and even sacrifice their lives for the sake of this love. St. Paul would not speak so earnestly about this subject without serious reason; why else would he say, Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord? Because when harmony prevails, the children are raised well, the household is kept in order, and neighbors, friends and relatives praise the result. Great benefits, both for families and states, are thus produced. When it is otherwise however, everything is thrown into confusion and turned upside down. When the generals of an army are at peace with each other, everything proceeds in an orderly fashion, and when they are not, everything is in disarray. It is the same here. For the sake of harmony, then, he said, Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord ….
Let us assume, then, that the husband is to occupy the place of the head, and the wife that of the body, and listen to what “headship” means: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and He is the Savior of the Body. There fore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be subject to their own husbands in everything. Notice that after saying the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, he immediately says that the Church is His Body, and He is Himself its Savior. It is the head that upholds the well-being of the body. In his other epistles Paul has already laid the foundations of marital love, and has assigned to husband and wife each his proper place: to the husband one of leader and provider, and to the wife one of submission. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ–and the Church, remember, consists of both husbands and wives—so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands as to God.
You have heard how important obedience is; you have praised and marveled at Paul, how he welds our whole life together, as we would expect from an admirable and spiritual man. You have done well. But now listen to what else he requires from you; he has not finished with his example. Husbands, he says, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. You have seen the amount of obedience necessary; now hear about the amount of love necessary. Do you want your wife to be obedient to you, as the Church is to Christ? Then be responsible for the same providential care of her, as Christ is for the Church. And even if it becomes necessary for you to give your life for her, yes, and even to endure and undergo suffering of any kind, do not refuse. Even though you undergo all this, you will never have done anything equal to what Christ has done. You are sacrificing yourself for someone to whom you are already joined, but He offered Himself up for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way, then, as He honored her by putting at His feet one who turned her back on Him, who hated, rejected, and disdained Him as tie accomplished this not with threats, or violence, or terror, or anything else like that, but through His untiring love; so also you should behave toward your wife. Even if you see her belittling you, or despising and mocking you, still you will be able to subject her to yourself, through affection, kindness, and your great regard for her. There is no influence more powerful than the bond of love, especially for husband and wife. A servant can
be taught submission through fear; but even he, if provoked too much, will soon seek his escape. But one’s partner for life, the mother of one’s children, the source of one’s every joy, should never be fettered with fear and threats, but with love and patience. What kind of marriage can there be when the wife is afraid of her husband? What sort of satisfaction could a husband himself have, if he lives with his wife as if she were a slave, and not with a woman by her own free will? Suffer anything for her sake, but never disgrace her, for Christ never did this with the Church. /…/
Paul has precisely described for husband and wife what is fitting behavior for each: she should reverence him as the head and he should love her as his body. But how is this behavior achieved? That it must be is clear; now I will tell you how. It will be achieved if we are detached from money, if we strive above everything for virtue, if we keep the fear of God before our eyes. What Paul says to servants in the next chapter applies to us as well, …knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same again from the Lord (Eph. 6:8). Love her not so much for her own sake, but for Christ’s sake. That is why he says, be subject…as to the Lord. Do everything for the Lord’s sake, in a spirit of obedience to Him. These words should be enough to convince us to avoid quarrels and disagreements. No husband should believe any accusation he hears from a third party about his wife, and vice versa; nor should a wife unreasonably monitor her husband’s comings and going, provided that he has always shown himself to be above suspicion. And what if you devote the day to your work and your friends, and the evening to your wife; but she is still not satisfied, but is jealous for more of your time? Don’t be annoyed by her complaints; she loves you, she is not behaving absurdly–her complaints come from her fervent affection for you, and from fear. Yes, she is afraid that her marriage bed will be stolen, that someone will deprive her of her greatest blessing, that someone will take from her him who is her head.
A wife should never nag her husband: “You lazy coward, you have no ambition! Look at our relatives and neighbors; they have plenty of money. Their wives have far more than I do.” Let no wife say any such thing; she is her husband’s body, and it is not for her to dictate to her head, but to submit and obey. “But why should she endure poverty?” some will ask. If she is poor, let her console herself by thinking of those who are much poorer still. If she really loved her husband, she would never speak to him like that, but would value having him close to her more than all the gold in the world…. Furnish your house neatly and soberly. If the bridegroom shows his wife that he takes no pleasure in worldly excess, and will not stand for it, their marriage will remain free from the evil influences that are so popular these days. Let them shun the immodest music and dancing that are currently so fashionable.
I am aware that many people think me ridiculous for giving such advice; but if you listen to me, you will understand the advantages of a sober lifestyle more and more as time goes on. You will no longer laugh at me, but will laugh instead at the way people live now like silly children or drunken men. What is our duty, then? Remove from your lives shameful, immodest, and Satanic music, and don’t associate with people who enjoy such profligate entertainment. When your bride sees your manner of life, she will say to herself, “Wonderful! What a wise man my husband is! He regards this passing life as nothing; he has married me to be a good mother for his children and a prudent manager of his household.” Will this sort of life be distasteful for a young bride? Only perhaps for the shortest time, and soon she will discover how delightful it is to live this way.
She will retain her modesty if you retain yours. Don’t engage in idle conversations; it never profits anyone to talk too much. Whenever you give your wife advice, always begin by telling her how much you love her. Nothing will persuade her so well to admit the wisdom of your words as her assurance that you are speaking to her with sincere affection. Tell her that you are convinced that money is not important, that only thieves thirst for it constantly, that you love her more than gold; and indeed an intelligent, discreet and pious young woman is worth more than all the money in the world. Show her that you value her company, and prefer being at home to being out. Esteem her in the presence of your friends and children. Pray together at home and go to Church; when you come back home, let each ask the other the meaning of the readings and the prayers. If you are overtaken by poverty, remember Peter and Paul, who were more honored than kings or rich men, though they spent their lives in hunger and thirst.
Remind one another that nothing in life is to be feared, except offending God. If your marriage is like this, your perfection will rival the holiest of monks.
If we seek the things that are perfect, the secondary things will follow. The Lord says, Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you (Matt. 6:33).
What sort of person do you think the children of such parents will be? What kind of person are all the others who associate with them? Will they not eventually be the recipients of countless blessings as well? For generally the children acquire the character of their parents, are formed in the mold .of their parents’ temperament, love the same things their parents love, talk in the same fashion, and work for the same ends. If we order our lives in this way and diligently study the Scriptures, we will find lessons to guide us in everything we need!
A selection from On Marriage and Family Life by St. John Chrysostom
|
|
|
Time is a Treasure by St. Alphonsus Liguori |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 01-05-2021, 11:44 PM - Forum: Doctors of the Church
- No Replies
|
|
TIME IS A TREASURE
St. Alphonsus on the Value of Time
Selections from The Way of Salvation and of Perfection, pp. 53-55;
and from Preparation for Death, pp. 122.125.
If God calls you today to do good, do it; for tomorrow it my happen that for you time will be no more, or that God will call you no more. Selections from two of the saint's meditations on the value of time:
Time is a treasure of inestimable value, because in every moment of time we may gain an increase of grace and eternal glory. In hell the lost souls are tormented with the thought, and bitterly lament, that now there is no more time for them in which to rescue themselves by repentance from eternal misery. What would they give but for one hour of time to save themselves by an act of true sorrow from destruction! In heaven there is no grief, but if the blessed could grieve, they would do so for having lost so much time during life, in which they might have acquired greater glory, and because time is now no longer theirs.
A deceased Benedictine nun appeared in glory to a certain person, and said that she was perfectly happy, but that if she could desire anything, it would be to return to life, and to suffer pains and privations in order to merit an increase of glory. She added, that, for the glory which corresponds to a single Ave Maria, she would be content to endure till the day of judgment the painful illness which caused her death.
Time is a treasure which is found only in this life; it is not found in the next, either in hell or in heaven. The very pagans knew the value of time. Seneca said that no price is an equivalent for it. But the saints have understood its value still better. According to St. Bernadine of Siena, a moment of time is of as much value as God; because in each moment a man can, by acts of contrition or of love, acquire the grace of God and eternal glory.
I give thee thanks O God for giving me time to bewail my sins! And to make amends by my love for the offenses I have committed against thee.
Nothing is so precious as time; and yet how comes it that nothing is so little valued? Men will spend hours in jesting, or standing at a window or in the middle of the road, to see what passes; and if you ask them what they are doing, they will tell you they are passing away the time. O time, now so much despised! Thou will be of all things else the most valued by such persons when death shall have surprised them. What will they then be willing to give for one hour of so much lost time. But time will remain no longer for them when it is said to each of them, “Go forth, Christian soul, out of this world.”
My brother, how do you spend your time? Why do you always defer till tomorrow what you can do today? Remember that the time which is past is no longer yours; the future is not under your control; you have only the present for the performance of good works. “Why, O miserable man,” says St. Bernard, “do you presume on the future, as if the Father had placed time in your power?” St. Augustine asks: “How can you, who are not sure of an hour, promise yourself tomorrow?” “If then,” says St. Teresa, “you are not prepared for death today, tremble lest you die an unhappy death.”
Walk whilst you have the light [John 12: 35]. The time of death is the time of night when nothing can any longer be seen, nor anything be accomplished. The night cometh in which no man can work [John 9:4]. Hence the holy spirit admonishes us to walk in the way of the Lord, whilst we have the light and the day before us. Can we reflect that the time is near approaching in which the cause of our eternal salvation is to be decided, and still squander away time? Let us not delay, but immediately put our accounts in order, because when we least think of it, Jesus Christ will come to judge us. At what hour ye think not, the Son of man will come [Luke 12:40].
On the day of judgment, Jesus Christ will demand an account of every idle word. All the time that is not spent for God is lost time. “Believe,” says St. Bernard, “that you have lost all the time in which you have not thought of God.” Hence, the Holy Ghost says, “Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly, for neither work nor reason shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening” [Eccles. 9:10]. The Venerable Sister Jane of the Most Holy Trinity, of the Order of St. Teresa, used to say that, in the lives of the saints, there is no tomorrow. Tomorrow is found in the lives of sinners, who always say: hereafter, hereafter; and in this state they continue till death. Behold, now is the acceptable time [2 Cor. 6:2]. If today you should hear His voice, harden not your hearts [Ps. 4:8]. If God calls you today to do good, do it; for tomorrow it my happen that for you time will be no more, or that God will call you no more.
Hasten then, my Jesus, hasten to pardon me. And shall I delay? Shall I delay until I am cast into that eternal prison, where with the rest of the condemned souls, I must forever lament, saying “The summer is past, and we are not saved [Jer. 8:20]. No my Lord, I will no longer resist thy loving invitations. I desire never more to offend thee, but to forever love thee. I ask two graces: give me perseverance in Thy grace, give my Thy love; and then do with me what Thou pleasest. O Mary refuge of sinners, in thee do I place my confidence. Most Holy Mary my mother, obtain for me the grace always to recommend myself to God, and to ask him for perseverance and for his holy love.
|
|
|
How to Arrive at the Perfect Love of Jesus |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 01-05-2021, 11:41 PM - Forum: Doctors of the Church
- No Replies
|
|
HOW TO ARRIVE AT THE PERFECT LOVE OF JESUS
From the Introduction by St. Alphonsus Liguori to his book The Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ.
The lover of souls, our most loving Redeemer, declared that he had no other motive in coming down upon earth to become man than to enkindle in the hearts of men the fire of his holy love: I am come to cast fire on earth; and what will I but that it be kindled? [Luke 12:49.] And, oh, what beautiful flames of love has he not enkindled in so many souls, especially by the pains that he chose to suffer in his death, in order to prove to us the immeasurable love which he still bears to us!
Oh, how many souls, happy in the wounds of Jesus, as in the burning furnaces of love, have been so inflamed with his love that they have not refused to consecrate to him their goods, their lives, and their whole selves, surmounting with great courage all the difficulties which they had to encounter in the observance of the divine law, for the love of that Lord who, being God, chose to suffer so much for love of them!
Wherefore St. Augustine, all inflamed with love at the sight of Jesus nailed on the cross, prayed thus sweetly: “Imprint, O Lord, Thy wounds in my heart, that I may read therein suffering and love: suffering, that I may endure for Thee all suffering; love, that I may despise for Thee all love.” “ Write,” he said, “my most loving Savior, write on my heart Thy wounds, in order that I may always behold therein Thy sufferings and Thy love. Yes, because having before my eyes the great sufferings that Thou, my God, didst endure for me, I may bear in silence all the sufferings that it may fall to my lot to endure; and at the sight of the love which Thou didst exhibit for me on the cross, I may never love or be able to love any other than Thee.”
Who, then, can ever complain that he suffers wrongfully, when he considers Jesus, who was bruised for our sins? [Isa 53:5.] Who can refuse to obey, on account of some inconvenience, when Jesus became obedient unto death? [Phil 2:8.] Who can refuse ignominies, when they behold Jesus treated as a fool, as a mock king, as a disorderly person, struck, spit upon his face, and suspended upon an infamous gibbet?
Who could love any other object besides Jesus when they see him dying in the midst of so many sufferings and insults, in order to captivate our love? A certain devout solitary prayed to God to teach him what he could do in order to love him perfectly. Our Lord revealed to him that there was no more efficient way to arrive at the perfect love of him than to meditate constantly on his Passion.
St. Teresa lamented and complained of certain books which had taught her to leave off meditating on the Passion of Christ, because this might be an impediment to the contemplation of his divinity; and the saint exclaimed, “O Lord of my soul, O my Jesus crucified, my treasure! I never remember this opinion without thinking that I have been guilty of great treachery. And is it possible that Thou, my Lord, couldst be an obstacle to me in the way of a greater good? Whence, then, do all good things come to me, but from thee?” And she then added, “I have seen that, in order to please God, and to induce him to grant us great graces, he wills that they should all pass through the hands of his most sacred humanity, in which his divine majesty declared that he took pleasure.”
For this reason, Father Balthasar Alvarez said that ignorance of the treasures that we possess in Jesus was the ruin of Christians; and therefore his most favorite and usual meditation was on the Passion of Jesus Christ. He meditated especially on three of the sufferings of Jesus – his poverty, contempt, and pain; and he exhorted his penitents to meditate frequently on the Passion of our Redeemer, telling them that they should not consider that they had done anything at all, until they had arrived at retaining Jesus crucified continually present in their hearts.
“He who desires,” says St. Bonaventure, “to go on advancing from virtue to virtue, from grace to grace, should meditate continually on the Passion of Jesus.” And he adds that “there is no practice more profitable for the entire sanctification of the soul than the frequent meditation on the sufferings of Jesus Christ.”
St. Augustine also said that a single tear shed at the remembrance of the Passion of Jesus is worth more than a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or a year of fasting on bread on water. Yes, because it was for this end that our Savior suffered so much, in order that we should think of his sufferings; because if we think on them it is impossible not to be inflamed with divine love: The charity of Christ presseth us, says St. Paul [2 Cor. 5: 14.] Jesus is loved by few because few consider the pains he suffered for us; but he that frequently considers them cannot live without loving Jesus. “The charity of Christ presseth us.” He will feel so constrained by his love that he will not find it possible to refrain from loving a God so full of love, who has suffered so much to make us love him.
Therefore the Apostle said that he desired to know nothing but Jesus, and Jesus crucified; that is, the love that he has shown us on the cross: I judged not myself to know anything among you but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified [1 Cor 2:2]. And, in truth, from what books can we better learn the science of the saints – that is the science of loving God – than from Jesus crucified?
St. Thomas Aquinas was one day paying a visit to St. Bonaventure, and asked him from what book he had drawn all the beautiful lessons he had written. St. Bonaventure showed him the image of the Crucified, which was completely blackened by all the kisses that he had given it, and said, “This is my book whence I receive everything that I write; and it has taught me whatever little I know.”
In short, all the saints have learned the art of loving God from the study of the crucifix. Brother John of Alvernia, every time that he beheld Jesus wounded, could not restrain his tears. Brother James of Tuderto, when he heard the Passion of our Redeemer read, not only wept bitterly, but broke into loud sobs, overcome with the love with which he was inflamed toward his beloved Lord.
It was this sweet study of the crucifix which made St. Francis become a great seraph. He wept so continually in meditating on the sufferings of Jesus Christ, that he almost entirely lost his sight. On one occasion, being found crying out and weeping, he was asked what was the matter with him. “What ails me?” answered the saint. “I weep over the sorrows and insults inflicted on my Lord; and my sorrow is increased when I think of those ungrateful men who do not love him, but live without any thought of him.” Every time that he heard the bleating of a lamb, he felt himself touched with compassion at the thought of the death of Jesus, the Immaculate Lamb, drained of every drop of blood upon the cross for the sins of the world. And therefore this loving saint could find no subject on which he exhorted his brethren with greater eagerness than the constant remembrance of the Passion of Jesus.
This, then is the book – Jesus crucified – which, if we constantly read it, will teach us, on the one hand, to have a lively fear of sin, and, on the other hand, will inflame us with love for a God so full of love for us; while we read in these wounds the great malice of sin, which reduced a God to suffer so bitter a death in order to satisfy the divine justice, and the love which our Savior has shown us in choosing to suffer so much in order to prove to us how much he loved us.
Let us beseech the divine Mother Mary to obtain for us from her Son the grace that we also may enter into these furnaces of love, in which so many loving hearts are consumed, in order that, our earthly affections being there burned away, we also may burn with those blessed flames, which render souls holy on earth and blessed in heaven. Amen.
|
|
|
February 6th - St. Titus and St. Dorothy |
Posted by: Elizabeth - 01-05-2021, 03:18 PM - Forum: February
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Titus
Bishop
(† Towards the end of the first century)
Saint Titus was a Greek-speaking convert from paganism and a disciple of Saint Paul, one of the chosen companions of the Apostle on his journey to the Council of Jerusalem. He became his fellow-laborer in many apostolic missions. From the Second Epistle which Saint Paul sent by the hand of Titus to the Corinthians, we gain an insight into the disciple's character as a peacemaker and an administrator, and understand the strong affection which his master bore him.
Titus had been commissioned to carry out a twofold office needing much firmness, discretion, and charity. He was to be the bearer of a severe rebuke to the Corinthians, who were harboring a scandal and were wavering in their faith; and at the same time he was directed to put their charity to the test by calling upon them for abundant alms for the church at Jerusalem. Saint Paul at Troas was anxiously awaiting the result. He writes, I had no peace of mind at Troas, because I did not find there Titus, my brother. (II Cor. 2:13) And he set sail for Macedonia. Here at last Titus brought the good news; his success had been complete. He reported the sorrow, the zeal, the generosity of the Corinthians, and the Apostle was filled with joy, and sent his faithful messenger back to them with the letter of comfort from which we have quoted.
Titus was finally left as a bishop on the Island of Crete, where Saint Paul addressed to him the epistle which bears his name. We see from Saint Paul's Epistle to Titus that this cherished disciple had organized the Christian community, and was engaged in correcting abuses and establishing a clergy. We do not know the history of the final years of Saint Titus from Scripture, only that he was in Dalmatia a short time before the martyrdom of Saint Paul. (Epistle to Timothy 4:10) Writers on Church history state that he died on Crete. His relics are conserved at Venice in the cathedral church of Saint Mark.
The mission of Titus to Corinth shows us how well the disciple had learned the spirit of his master. He knew how to be firm and to inspire respect. The Corinthians, we are told, received him with fear and trembling. He was patient and painstaking. Saint Paul gave thanks to God, who had put such solicitude for them in the heart of Titus. And these gifts were enhanced by a quickness to detect and elicit all the good in others, and by a joyousness which overflowed upon the spirit of Saint Paul himself, who abundantly rejoiced in the joy of Titus. (II Cor. 2:13)
Saint Dorothy
Virgin and Martyr
(† 304)
Saint Dorothy was a young virgin celebrated already in Caesarea of Cappadocia, where she lived, for her angelic virtue. Her parents are believed to have been martyred before her in the Diocletian persecution; thus, when the Governor Sapricius came to Caesarea and called her to appear before him, he sent this child of martyrs to the eternal home where they were waiting for her.
She explained that the God she adored was majestic — above all emperors, who were mortal, and their gods, none of whom created either heaven or earth. She was stretched upon the rack, and offered honors if she would consent to sacrifice, or death if she refused. And they waited. She asked why they delayed to torture her; they were expecting she might cede out of fright. She said to them, Do what you have to do, that I may see the One for whose love I fear neither death nor torments, Jesus Christ. She was asked, Where is this Christ? and she replied: As Almighty He is everywhere, but for weak human reason we say that the Son of God has ascended into heaven, to be seated at the right hand of the Almighty Father. It is He who invites us to the garden of His delights, where at all times the trees are covered with fruits, the lilies are perpetually white, the roses ever in their freshness. If you believe me, you too will search for the true liberty, and will labor to earn entry into the garden of God's delights. She was then placed in the custody of two women who had fallen away from the faith, in the hope that they might pervert her; but the fire of her own heart rekindled the flame in theirs, and led them back to Christ.
When she was set once more on the rack, Sapricius himself was amazed at the heavenly expression on her face, and asked her the cause of her joy. Because, she said, I have brought back two souls to Christ, and because I shall soon be in heaven rejoicing with the Angels. Her joy grew as she was buffeted in the face and her sides were burned with plates of red-hot iron. Blessed art Thou, she cried, when she was sentenced to be beheaded, Blessed art Thou, O Lover of souls, who call me to paradise, and invite me to Thy nuptial chamber!
Saint Dorothy suffered in mid-winter, and on the road to her execution a lawyer called Theophilus, who had grown accustomed to calumniating and persecuting the Christians, asked her, in mockery, to send him apples or roses from the garden of her Spouse. The Saint promised to grant his request. Just before she died, a little child stood by her side bearing three apples and three roses. She told him to take them to Theophilus, and to tell him it was the present he sought from the garden of her Spouse. Saint Dorothy had gone to heaven, and Theophilus was still making merry over his challenge to her, when the child entered his room. He recognized that the fruit and flowers were of no earthly growth, and that the child was an Angel in disguise. He was converted to the faith, and then shared in the martyrdom of Saint Dorothy.
|
|
|
February 5th - St. Agatha and The Holy Martyrs of Japan |
Posted by: Elizabeth - 01-05-2021, 03:14 PM - Forum: February
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Agatha
Virgin and Martyr
(† 251)
Saint Agatha was born in Sicily of rich and noble parents, a child of benediction from the first, for she was promised to her parents before her birth, and consecrated from her earliest infancy to God. In the midst of dangers and temptations she served Christ in purity of body and soul, and she died for love of chastity. Quintanus, who governed Sicily under the Emperor Decius, had heard the rumor of her beauty and wealth, and he made the laws against the Christians a pretext for summoning her from Palermo to Catania, where he was at the time. O Jesus Christ! she cried, as she set out on this dreaded journey, all that I am is Thine; preserve me against the tyrant.
And Our Lord did indeed preserve one who had given herself so utterly to Him. He kept her pure and undefiled while she was imprisoned for a whole month under charge of an evil woman. He gave her strength to reply to the offer of her life and safety, if she would but consent to sacrifice to the gods, Christ alone is my salvation! When Quintanus turned from passion to cruelty, and cut off her breasts, Our Lord sent the Prince of the Apostles to heal her. She told the elderly gentleman who appeared to her that she was Christian and desired no treatment, for her Lord could cure her by a single word. He smiled, identified himself as Saint Peter, and said: It is in His name that you will be healed. And when he disappeared, she saw that her wounds were healed and her flesh made whole. But when she was rolled naked upon potsherds, she asked that her torments might be ended. Her Lord heard her prayer and took her to Himself.
Saint Agatha gave herself without reserve to Jesus Christ; she followed Him in virginal purity, and then depended upon Him for protection. And to this day Christ has shown His tender regard for the very body of Saint Agatha. Again and again, during the eruptions of Mount Etna, the people of Catania have exposed her veil for public veneration, and found safety by this means. In modern times, on opening the tomb in which her body lies waiting for the resurrection, they beheld the skin still entire, and experienced the sweet fragrance which issued from this temple of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Martyrs of Japan
(† 1597)
When Saint Francis Xavier came to Japan, this empire was totally plunged in paganism; forty years later, there were more than two hundred thousand Christians, most of them animated with all the fervor of the primitive Church. The jealous demon soon raised up a persecution; a confraternity of martyrdom was at once formed, the object of which was to die for Christ. The pursuits were terrible but only served to bring into light the marvels of the holy Faith. The first martyrs were twenty-six in number: six Franciscans, three Jesuits and seventeen lay Christians, among whom were three young altar boys who had joined the confraternity.
A pious Jesuit, crucified, made a touching sermon from the heights of his glorious pulpit, to the pagans surrounding him: At the point where you see me now, he said, I do not think any of you could believe me capable of betraying the truth. Now I declare to you, there is no other means of salvation but the Christian religion! I forgive the authors of my death, I beg them to receive Baptism.
Louis, a child of eleven, when he reached the site of execution asked which cross was his; he ran to it with a joy which touched all the spectators. His face shone with a heavenly radiance as he was dying. Anthony, thirteen years old, was begged by his parents not to die so young, to wait until he was older to confess his faith. He replied: Do not expose our holy faith to contempt and the mockery of the pagans. When he was offered riches by the magistrate, he said, I scorn your promises and life itself. The cross is what I desire for love of Jesus, who chose to die on a cross to save us. Then he bade farewell to his parents and promised to pray for them in heaven. A thirteen-year-old named Anthony, from his cross sang the Psalm Laudate, pueri, Dominum, Children, praise the Lord, — and was pierced through the heart when he reached the Gloria Patri.
All of Japan became as it were a sea of the blood of some two million martyrs, according to estimates made. Finally in 1848, France overcame the terrible prejudices against Catholicism which its enemies had sown in Japan, in order to obtain commercial privileges, and was admitted and allowed to practice its religion freely.
Pius IX canonized these heroes of the Faith on June 8, 1862, amid a great concourse of bishops from all parts of the world.
|
|
|
Fr. Peter Scott: On Protestant Baptisms |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 12:03 PM - Forum: Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - January 2010
Questions and Answers
by Fr. Peter R. Scott
How can we deny that non-Catholic Christian religions are means of salvation, given that they have (frequently) valid baptism?
The denomination of false religions as “means of salvation” is a novelty unheard of before Vatican II. The text that promotes this idea is the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which states that “the separated churches and communities as such . . . have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation…” (§3). It is likewise stated in the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium, that “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines”–that is, outside of the Catholic Church (§8).
There is, in both of these statements, a deliberate ambiguity, depending on how we understand that “means of salvation” or “elements of sanctification and truth” could exist in a religious group. It is certainly true that, in a purely material sense, such means of salvation that require no specific disposition on the part of the subject can exist in the various Protestant denominations.
The valid administration of the sacrament of baptism to children is such a case. If administered with the correct matter and form and the intention of doing what the Church does, it is valid and confers grace, since the child who has not yet attained the age of reason cannot place an obstacle in the path of grace. However, it is in only a material sense that this sacrament is administered by the Protestant group. It does not belong to it, nor does it follow at all that the false religious community itself is a means of salvation. In effect, every valid and fruitful baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic Church and makes the baptized child a member of the Catholic Church, as Pope Benedict XIV taught quite explicitly in 1749:
Quote: “He (i.e., a child) who receives baptism validly from a heretic, in virtue of this very fact is made a member of the Catholic Church” (DS 2567).
The pope goes on to state that the child receives the infused virtue of Faith (that is, the Catholic Faith), although the minister was a heretic. Consequently, truly and formally speaking the baptism is administered by the Catholic Church although the child is not aware of it and the minister denies it. It is only after having attained the age of reason, and after having formally adhered to the heretical or schismatic group, that the baptized child leaves the Church. Although this is canonically presumed from the age of 14 years whenever a person continues to participate in the religious ceremonies of the sect, it is entirely possible that a particular individual could be in invincible ignorance even well after that age, and hence not formally heretical or schismatic.
The question then arises as to those elements of salvation that require the correct disposition of the subject, such as the baptism of adults, or any other of the sacraments that might be valid in these sects, or concerning which the teachings of these sects might contain certain elements of the truth. Again, in a purely material sense, it can be said that these sacraments or teachings can be given in a heretical or schismatic church. However, they can only be efficacious when there is invincible ignorance on the part of the person who receives these sacraments in this false religious environment. In such a case, he does not voluntarily refuse to belong to the true Church, but has an implicit desire of belonging to it. It is consequently formally and properly to the Catholic Church that these sacraments belong and through the Catholic Church that they are salutary, even if perchance they are sometimes received materially speaking outside of her. An adult validly and fruitfully baptized with such invincible ignorance is in reality a member of the Catholic Church, despite appearances to the contrary.
Not only does the Council of Florence teach that heretics and schismatics cannot be saved
Quote:“unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock,” but also that “the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Decree for the Jacobites, Dz. 714).
The consequence is that anyone who is truly and with pertinacity a member of a false religion, explicitly refusing to be a member of the Catholic Church, cannot possibly receive any means of salvation nor any elements of sanctification from his Protestant or schismatic sect. He might appear to do so, and to go through the motions of receiving means of salvation and elements of sanctification, but this is only in a purely material, exterior sense, and none of them will be of any profit to his soul, as St. Paul says of the Holy Eucharist: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” (I Cor. 11:28).
In such cases the sacraments are valid, but not efficacious for salvation, on account of an impediment placed by the subject who deliberately refuses to submit to the true Church, her teaching, and her authority. This teaching is very clear in the Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine, who has this to say:
Quote:The comparison of the Church with Paradise shows us that men may indeed receive baptism outside her pale, but that no one outside can either receive or retain the salvation of eternal happiness. For, as the words of the Scripture testify, the streams from the fountain of Paradise flowed copiously even beyond its bounds. Record is indeed made of their names; and through what countries they flow, and that they are situated beyond the limits of Paradise, is known to all; and yet in Mesopotamia, and in Egypt, to which countries those rivers extended, there is not found that blessedness of life which is recorded in Paradise. Accordingly, although the waters of Paradise are found beyond its boundaries, yet its happiness is in Paradise alone. So, therefore, the baptism of the Church may exist outside, but the gift of the life of happiness is found alone within the Church, which has been founded on a rock, which has received the keys of binding and loosing….This indeed is true, that “baptism is not unto salvation except within the Catholic Church.” For in itself it can indeed exist outside the Catholic Church as well; but there it is not unto salvation, because there it does not work salvation; just as that sweet savour of Christ is not unto salvation in them that perish, though from a fault not in itself but in them. (On Baptism against the Donatists)
Pope St. Leo the Great also taught that baptism received outside of the Church is fruitless.
Quote:For they who have received baptism from heretics are to be confirmed by the imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification. (Letter CLIX)
The consequence of the fact that it is only perchance, by invincible ignorance and lack of pertinacity, that sacraments can be valid in such communities is that no sacrament or means of salvation can be said, properly speaking, to belong to the false religious community. This what is St. Augustine had to say against the heretics of his time, called Donatists:
Quote:It [baptism] does not belong to you. That which is yours are your bad sentiments and sacrilegious practices, and that you have the impiety to separate yourselves from us. (Quoted in From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, §28)
It is not only ambiguous, but misleading and false to affirm that these communities have elements of sanctification and means of salvation. Moreover, such a statement leads inexorably to the denial of the doctrine “Outside the Church, no salvation,” nor can this statement be denied, sent by the four bishops of the Society to all the cardinals in 2004:
Quote:“In the degree in which this assertion of the Council contradicts the affirmation that the Catholic Church is the unique possessor of the means of salvation, it approaches heresy” (ibid.).
|
|
|
Solange Hertz: The Wonderous Tale of the Wizard Clip |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 11:48 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - November 1987
The Wonderous Tale of the Wizard Clip
by Solange Hertz
By the banks of Opequon Creek, near the little colonial village of Middleway, West Virginia, lies a tract of land known for generations as Priest Field. Despite its unassuming aspect, it boasts an extraordinary history, which unfolded with the beginnings of the Catholic Church in the U.S. All the ecclesiastical records were destroyed by the clergy, but many well-documented accounts by contemporaries survive. Among these witnesses was the famous Russian convert, Prince Dimitri Augustine Gallitzin, who was the first priest to receive all his orders in the new man-made nation, and who as Fr. Demetrius A. "Smith" became the Apostle of the Alleghenies.
There is a solemn promise attached to the field: BEFORE THE END OF TIME THIS WILL BE A GREAT PLACE OF PRAYER AND FASTING AND PRAISE. But this is getting ahead of the story, which began in the late 1770's, when a God-fearing, propertied German Lutheran named Johann Adam Liebenstein settled his numerous household near the creek on 70 acres inherited from his father, within the triangle formed by Charles Town, Martinsburg and Winchester— in those days all part of Virginia. He hoped to escape the mysterious disasters afflicting him at his former homestead in York County, Pennsylvania, where horses and cattle kept dying, crops withered and barns burned down for no reason.
Alas, the move afforded no relief. Not only did the livestock continue to die, but the legs and heads of the poultry began dropping off unaccountably, and the house itself was infested. Furniture and crockery flew about, balls of fire rolled from the fireplaces across the floors, and deafening sounds of galloping horses could be heard day or night. All this was accompanied by the sound of incessant clipping which seemed to belong to phantom scissors bent on attacking any available piece of cloth or leather.
Linens, clothing, even boots and harness fell prey to the invisible frenzied shears, which especially liked to snip things into distinctive crescent shapes. Not even the clothing of guests was spared. A Presbyterian lady from Martinsburg, calling on the Liebensteins (now called Livingston) to enquire about the happenings, took the precaution of doffing her new silk cap and wrapping it up in her pocket to avoid decimation. When she took her leave, however, pulling out her cap, she found it cut to ribbons.
Needless to say, tales of the Wizard Clip spread like wildfire. Middleway was called Clip-town, and to this day the natives are known as "Clippers". The distraught Mr. Livingston turned to his Bible, where he read that "Christ had given to His ministers power over evil spirits." He journeyed to Winchester to ask his minister for help, but the latter acknowledged no such power. Concluding that his parson could be no true minister, he applied to others, who "came, prayed and read, but they prayed and read in vain." Three were routed by a giant whirling stone, and the Episcopalian divine's prayer book was whisked away to be discovered later in the bottom of a chamber pot.
"A Roman Catholic peddler" eventually chanced to spend the night at the Livingston's, and being "much disturbed by the noise which prevailed almost the whole night in the house, tried to persuade Livingston to send for a Catholic priest, but Livingston answered quickly that he had tried so many of those fellows, he was not going to try any more of them!" Not until, that is, he had a dream wherein, climbing a high mountain with great difficulty, he saw at the top in a beautiful church "a minister dressed in robes" and a voice told him, "That is the man who can relieve you."
An Italian acquaintance, Giuseppe Minghini, erstwhile valet to Major General Charles Lee, told him that could only be a Catholic priest, and directed him to the estate of a wealthy Catholic, Richard McSherry. Told that Holy Mass would be celebrated in a private home in Shepherdstown the following Sunday, there he met the Irish missionary Fr. Dennis Cahill from Hagarstown, Maryland. On seeing him vested at the altar, Livingston exclaimed, "That is the very man I saw in my dream!"
He related his misfortune to Fr. Cahill, who scoffed loudly, but was finally pressured by Minghini and McSherry into going to say some prayers and sprinkle holy water. As he left, money which had disappeared from a locked chest was suddenly placed by invisible hands at his feet, and the noxious Clip was quiet for several days. Only much later, after Holy Mass had been offered on the premises, did the manifestations cease entirely.
Fr. Gallitzin investigated all this for his superiors in 1797. In a letter to a McSherry daughter dated April 11, 1839, he writes, "My view in coming to Virginia, and remaining there three months, was to investigate those extraordinary facts at Livingston's, of which I had heard so much at Conewago, and which I could not prevail upon myself to believe; but I was soon converted to a full belief of them. No lawyer in a court of justice did ever examine witnesses more strictly than I did all those I could procure." He also says elsewhere that Adam Livingston "soon after became a most edifying member of the Catholic Church."
Fr. Gallitzin wrote a complete history, but apparently it perished with the official church records. Why? The reason seems clear. Until the Revolution, no Catholic priest was permitted in Virginia, where Bishop Carroll estimated there were hardly 200 Catholics. Many had never seen a Catholic church, and until then had no possibility of Mass and the Sacraments. They were still engulfed in Protestants, among whom their new freedom of religion remained precarious. For fear of rousing anti-Catholic sentiment, the Americanist John Carroll would have been careful not to publicize the Wizard Clip in any case, but especially in view of the alarming sequel:
For some 17 years after the manifestations, a mysterious Voice instructed the Livingston household in the truths of the Faith. It assumed the spiritual direction of the entire family, guiding their every action, scolding, encouraging, warning and prophesying. In the evenings it would summon them with, "Come! Take your seats!" and proceed to catechize, always prefacing its utterances with, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and making them bless themselves. The Voice preached deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin, often leading them in the Rosary. For the benefit of Livingston's Presbyterian wife (a second marriage), who found Marian devotion unacceptable, they were required to render the second part of the Hail Mary as "Holy, Holy, Holy Mary, Mother of God…"
Before their reception into the Church, the family was put through a 40-day fast with three hours of daily prayer and told to keep March 4 annually as a day in thanksgiving. Often in the middle of the night the Voice would demand prayers for the souls in Purgatory. Mr. Livingston was once required to pray for three hours for the soul of "Fr. Pellins" (Fr. James Pellentz, S.J., Bishop Carroll's recently deceased Vicar-General). When one of the girls was thinking to herself that the Holy Souls could well have helped themselves, shrieks for help were heard, and the imprint of a human hand was scorched into a shirt before their eyes. The Voice constantly inveighed against worldly fashions for either sex, but on one occasion his counsel was punctuated by shattering the mirror before which the McSherry girls were admiring themselves.
But the most embarrassing characteristic of the Voice was its unecumenical intransigence towards Protestantism. It stated flatly that all ministers of false religions were of the devil1, possessing no other power than any lay person, and that Catholics under no circumstances should ever attend their services. Poor Eve McSherry, who became very saintly, was severely reprimanded for one infraction. When the hospitable Mrs. McSherry lodged two traveling Protestant ministers for the night in the room where the visiting priest usually slept, and where the vestments were kept, the family was kept awake all night by the sound of galloping horses, although the ministers heard nothing. The Voice warned her through Mr. Livingston that she should never have permitted them to use that room, and not to let it happen again!2
Whose was this unseen voice? Allegedly seen by some of the younger children, it told Mr. Livingston that it had once been in the flesh as he was. Because it sang beautifully in Latin, the family thought it was that of a priest. One day a stranger, barefoot, bearded and poorly clad, appeared suddenly in the living room. Presuming him to be a beggar, they offered him shoes and clothing, which he accepted, although remarking that these were not needed where he came from. Asked where this was, the stranger replied, "From my Father." And where was he going? "To my Father. And I have come to teach you the way of my Father." He stayed three days and nights, instructing them, and then vanished into thin air. In his fine work, The Mystery of the Wizard Clip, published in Baltimore in 1879, Fr. Joseph Finotti, S.J. says that this "Angel" informed his hosts during his visit that "Luther and Calvin were in hell, and every soul that was lost through their fault added to their torments."
Withal, the Voice was a source of abundant blessings. Admitting that Protestants who died in the proper dispositions could be saved, the Voice held small hope for Catholics who relied on a last minute repentance. There were many conversions, Mr. Minghini's Protestant wife among them, besides miraculous cures. Catholics in Virginia and Maryland were drawn to lead better lives, and fervent lay apostles were formed at a crucial time when priests and churches were very scarce.
Once when Mrs. McSherry saw with horror her infant son's cradle rocking violently of itself, she received word from the Voice that "it was the devil who was trying to destroy the child, knowing that he would one day be his enemy." That child, whose cradle was preserved at Georgetown University, turned out to be Very Rev. William McSherry, a Jesuit Provincial. His mother is said to have died in the odor of sanctity. Staying home one Sunday to nurse a sick child, she saw "a beautiful person standing before her in a light cloud, with one hand up and the other down, and a nail running through each hand, who said to her, 'Whatsoever you do for one of my little ones, you do it for me.'" She told no one, but the Voice related the vision to Mr. Livingston, and when she died the Voice declared that "her soul did not even pass through Purgatory."
Not all fared so well. Mrs. McSherry's brother, studying for the priesthood, spurned a warning and died obstinate. Mrs. Livingston never truly converted. Frequently falsifying the Voice, she referred to herself as the Judas of the family, and died in regrettable circumstances. Fr. Gallitzin believed that some of the children also "care very little for the Church," but this did not apply to Henry, who lived a holy life after being punished for over a year for refusing to do the reaping without being paid for it!
Before returning to Pennsylvania in 1802, Adam Livingston deeded the 34 acres comprising Priest Field to the Catholic Church. One well-substantiated explanation is that during exorcism, the Wizard Clip identified itself as a previous incumbent who had acquired the parcel by murdering its owner, and declared that restitution must be made. Presumably no rightful heirs could be found, whereupon Livingston made the customary disposition of such stolen property by giving it to the Church, obtaining his wife's consent with great difficulty. It was then the Voice foretold that the Field would become a great place of prayer.
The deed specified that "said land is to be rented and the profits are to be applied towards building and repairing a church or chapel thereon." For many reasons this was not feasible, but the land was used as a Catholic cemetery for many years. Finally, in 1922, the Bishop of Richmond obtained a ratification of the will, and in 1923 a little wooden chapel was built, which became the scene of frequent pilgrimages, with Mass said there on All-Souls' Day, and later on the feast of the Assumption.
In the chaos following the Council, the chapel was gutted of its old wooden altar, which some pious ladies saying the Rosary on the property were horrified to see had been used to construct an outdoor latrine to accommodate campers, the letters IHS plainly visible on the back of the stalls. The tabernacle was discovered at a distance by the creek, its top used for cutting bait.
In 1974 Priest Field became part of the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia, and four years later was turned into an extensive Pastoral Center with a resident priest, a huge parking lot and a welter of modern buildings housing a new well-upholstered chapel devoid of images or kneelers. (The old chapel now serves as a conference hall.) A brochure informs visitors: "A special mission of Priest Field will be to foster the principle of religious freedom in America."
Perhaps the Voice will let us know what he thinks of this.
Biographical Note
The story of the Wizard Clip figures in John Gilmary Shea's monumental History of the Catholic Church within the United States and also in P. J. Mahon's Trials and Triumphs of the Catholic Church in America. It is mentioned by many non-Catholic sources as well, such as the West Virginia Historical Magazine for 1904 and the West Virginia Guidebook put together by the WPA in 1941, besides various newspapers et alia.
By far the most reliable authority is The Mystery of the Wizard Clip, by Fr. Joseph Finotti, who in fact supplied Shea with his information. The work is compiled exclusively from primary sources, letters, accounts of eye witnesses and the children of the eye witnesses, interviews with Mrs. McSherry and Mr. Minghini, and of course Fr. Gallitzin's own versions as they appear in his letters and writings.
In 1949 Raphael Brown's The Mystery of the Wizard Clip was published by the Catholic Historical Society in Richmond, Virginia. One of the most recent accounts is that of Anna Marshall, who published Adam Livingston—The Wizard Clip—The Voice in 1978. These are well-researched but tend to water down details which would be unacceptable to Protestants. The fate of Luther and Calvin as revealed by the Angel is conspicuously omitted.
1. Whether consciously or unconsciously, since such ministers, though they may be of good will, preach error and dissimulate the truths that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught and gave to His Church. (Ed. note)
2. Her charity is to be commended, but perhaps those ministers were bad men, or because she considered them on the same level as a Catholic minister, that the Voice reprimanded her. (Ed. note)
|
|
|
Dominicans of Avrillé: Protestantism - Born of Insanity, Leading to Insanity |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 11:41 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- Replies (1)
|
|
Protestantism: Born of Insanity, Leading to Insanity - Part I
Adapted from Jacques Balmès Le Protestantisme comparé au Catholicisme
Delirium and fanaticism are a natural component of Protestantism. One could write volumes to prove it, but a quick look at the facts will suffice here.
Luther discussed religion with the Devil
Let’s start with Luther. What could be more insane than to claim to be taught by the Devil, to glory in it, and to establish a new doctrine based on this rather doubtful (to say the least!) authority? This is, however, exactly what was done by the founder of Protestantism, Luther himself, who left written accounts of his interview with Satan.
Whether the apparition was real or just a nightmarish hallucination during a long night troubled by fever, it’s impossible to push fanaticism any further than to brag about being instructed by such a teacher.
Luther tells us himself that he had several colloquies with the Devil. The most noteworthy is the vision – which he recounts very seriously – where Satan assailed Luther with arguments against the Mass celebrated privately, without the faithful. Luther depicts the scene in vivid colors. He awakes in the middle of the night, and Satan appears to him: he sweats, trembles; his heart is beating terribly. Nevertheless, a discussion is engaged. The Devil shows himself to be such a good dialectician that Luther is vanquished, and left with no response. The Devil’s logic was accompanied by a voice so terrifying that the blood froze in poor Luther’s veins. He said:
Quote:“I then understood how it is that people often die at the dawning of day; it’s because the Devil can kill or suffocate them, and, without going so far as that, when he argues with them, he puts them in such difficulty that he can thus cause their death: this is what I have often experienced myself.”
A very curious passage indeed!
Zwingli helped by a phantom
Another example of this folly: the phantom that appeared to Zwingli, the founder of Protestantism in Switzerland. This heresiarch wanted to deny the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. He claimed that the consecrated bread and wine are nothing more than the sign of the Body and Blood of Christ. However, he was bothered by the texts of Sacred Scripture that clearly affirm the contrary. All of a sudden, just as he was imagining a discussion with the secretary of the town, a black or white phantom (as he says himself), appeared to him and provided him with the desired explanation.
This edifying story comes from Zwingli himself!
Melanchthon’s superstitions
Melanchthon showed himself to be strangely credulous when it came to dreams, extraordinary phenomena and astrological predictions. His letters are full of examples. During the Diet of Augsburg, Melanchthon interpreted various happenings in Rome (the flooding of the Tiber and the birth of a monstrous mule having the foot of a crane), and in the territory of Augsburg (the birth of a calf with two heads) as favorable omens for the new Gospel. These events were for him the unquestionable announcement of the imminent ruin of Rome and the triumph of Protestantism. He affirms this very seriously to Luther in a letter.
He would read his daughter’s horoscope for her, and trembled in seeing that Mars “manifested a dreadful aspect”. He was also terrified by the flames of a comet appearing in the northern sky. The astrologists predicted that the stars would be more favorable to theological debates in autumn, and that sufficed to console him concerning the delays in the conferences of Augsburg. These “reasons” were also good enough to convince his friends, the leaders of the Protestant faction.
Someone having predicted that Melanchthon would be shipwrecked in the Baltic Sea, he refused to embark. A certain Franciscan had prophesied that the power of the Pope was going to disappear, and that in the year 1600 the Turks would become the masters of Italy and Germany: Melanchthon glorified in having the original version of the prophecy. Moreover, the earthquakes which occur shortly after reinforce him in this belief.
To be continued…
|
|
|
Fr. de Chivré: God's Secret Language |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 11:36 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus -November 2007
God's Secret Language
Twenty-Seven Minutes with Fr. de Chivré
God's Hidden Way of Expressing Himself
The mystical life is the only complete life. This is true as much on the part of God (Who is free to act in the soul) as on the part of the soul, which is entirely at God's disposition. But this is done through the medium of "secrets" which are personal to the soul and which God uses to draw near to the soul's essential existence. What exactly are these "secrets"?
We here call "secrets" those psychological realities that dwell in us without an initial reference to an external source. External things can sometimes awaken them, like the way a beautiful mountain scene awakens the virtue of adoration of God by the intermediary of Creation. But the exterior does not create them. They appear in us, in spite of us, even from our birth, without any possible explanation, without a natural origin. They command our attention, wanting to take the initiative of conversations between us and ourselves, and between us and God.
These conversations go beyond earthly questions; they present us with demands: the choice of God, of virtue, of value, of an existence without self-interest. Or else other, more intimate demands: that of a permanence of attention upon God, of relations made as constant as possible by exchanges that engage the Redemption in itself, or the redemption of souls, or the rectification of an interior direction towards a more consciously consented sanctification.
They are secrets because they have no relation with the banality of every-day life. They are secrets because they define us so personally that we are afraid of others' catching a glimpse, because it really is our true face, the face that only God has a right to see.
God speaks to these secrets and expresses Himself by them. He speaks in ways inseparable from His divine nature, and specific to each one of the souls to which He addresses Himself.
The first of all those ways: God is outside of time, and He addresses Himself to a particular moment in a spiritual existence localized in time. How does that work? Since it is outside of time, the divine word expresses itself without necessarily using the intermediary of temporal means. I mean without obligatory reference to the rational thought that dwells in us. His word springs forth so complete that it requires the total attention of reason and heart to foster its nourishing development and so allow it to blossom into conclusions that will lead us beyond the relative, the logical, and the rationally argued. With His word, there is no link between the natural thought which preceded it and which it suddenly replaces, breaking into our thought and commanding our attention. We find it again in us with the same expression we found ten years earlier, or centuries before in Holy Scripture, in a form adapted to our destiny, but analogous to the "official" revelations (which it never contradicts). "Ego sum: it is I who am speaking to you with the same words, inviting you to turn away from the human words that you are accustomed to hearing and that build up your earthly happiness, your immediate success, your personal fortune; I am situating you where I come from: outside of time; I am waiting for you as of right now, in your mind and in your soul."
The result is a kind of interior attention to the decisions that these words inspire, words spoken outside of time: words which do not change but which have the firm intention of changing our way of thinking; which solicit an audience within the intimacy of a reflection inaccessible to those around us, incommunicable to our friends. Words in tune with God: always, definitive, absolute, completely, seeking to set in motion our consent, so uncertain, so hesitant, so fearful. They situate us in a perfect attitude, encouraging us toward the insatiable repetition of a "yes" never quite like the one before, always more complete, constantly recommenced without the slightest weariness, and offering an echo to God's infinity by the absolute open-endedness of that blessed obsession to draw near to His mind and His heart.
"You think of 'fortune', and My word says to you: 'And then what?' With Me, it is not about fortune but about the use you will make of it in order to place it outside of time by how it is used. Do this with scrupulous honesty and unconditional charity giving birth to the secret fortune of an absolute fusion with My love."
"You think 'pleasure for tomorrow', and I tell you: self-possession, privation, crucifixion of pleasure in its excess, to situate you in a state of soul outside of time: Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God."
By His sudden illuminations from on high, without reference to some logically constructed argument, God penetrates through the realities of here below: earthbound realities, stunted, mediocre. He renders them translucent so that we might see beyond what they are, through to the eternity that they can help prepare by our way of using them and of raising them up at the expense of the earthly advantages that they hold out to us.
I always remember the example of the word "Eucharist," spoken from the pulpit, which fell upon a soul who was listening, penetrating through him with an implacable light, showing him all the repulsion of his past life and bringing him back to God in one fell swoop. God had made use of a natural word, charging it with an "outside of time" potential to strike down the naturalism of that soul.
This manner of expression is completed by God's second way of speaking to us, proper to His divine nature: density.
The hallmark of false mysticism is the caricature of density: pious verbiage, a mass of emotionally-charged imaginings, woven together by the intensity of a trembling imagination and by the individualism of a mind busy building the profusion of his ravings on a basis of total unreality. On the contrary, true mysticism participates in the divine density by that certain reservation which is its necessary effect in a soul, charged with speaking the inexpressible and the untranslatable. This spiritual density leads our attention back to a unity of interior attitude with respect to God:
A unity of insistence on a particular struggle to be accepted; a unity of the importance of recollection, to be desired even in the agitation of a busy life; a unity of the permanent responsibility to accept a given sacrifice, meritorious for the body, or for our dignity, or for the esteem we would hope to have, a veritable tidal wave rising up from the divine density to the benefit of a disposition pronounced at the expense of self-love and in favor of pure love; a tidal wave building up from very far away, from the depths of a thanksgiving, from the depths of a prayer, from the depths of a sudden realization forbidding us to doubt under pain of bad faith; a supplication both strong and tender to accept the language of the Uncreated by imposing silence on the pleas of the created.
God acts like the teacher toward his students who are looking out the window at the little birds or at the weather outside: with a word of authority, with a more insistent tone, he centers the attention of the children back on the primary reason of their presence in class: to learn. The divine density draws our giddy malleability back to the unchanging and attentive love: learning to know Existence and realizing a little more about our own existence, present and future. In this way, tirelessly nourishing our eager appetite with the density of grace, the interior word teaches the consequences of these divine conversations: a perfect continuity of attitude throughout the infinite variability of the events of a day. The unification of our manner of conducting ourselves even throughout the contrasts brought on by tears, then joys, weariness, triumph, the always unexpected...stretched over a single day. In a word, a mentality of eternity, outside time, inflicting on time the defeat that always arises from a lack of continuity in love. This mentality of continuity freely lived puts us in a position to conduct ourselves as Jesus did in the midst of the crowds: healing, improving, resurrecting–the mark of God, the restoration of life. The mystical life obtains for us this participation in the prestige of our Lord over human miseries: it heals events of their disrupting emotions, of their crushing, discouraging influence, of their pessimism, so damaging to love.
Jesus said: "Stand up and walk," and, by his courageous continuity, the mystic lifts up his stretcher of misery and continues his progress with secret patience.
Jesus said: "Silence!" to the agitated winds and to the angry waves, and the mystic imposes his spiritual authority on the interior struggle by the pacifying effect of continuity, holding fast and not changing direction. He imposes on existence the authority of a continual regard of faith–lived out, loved and chosen. He stares down doubt, with the authority of the "I believe in God."
Constantly nourished on this spiritual continuity, arising from the density of interior conversation with God, St. Francis and St. Dominic lived with scandalous optimism the adventures of voluntary poverty, of beloved detachment, to such a point that their earthly trials provoked their interior smile and their secret song of thanksgiving.
In fact, mysticism brings to life in society an intelligent optimism of attitude, which is a living sermon for those all around and an irresistible distribution of example and influence, infinitely superior to our falsely-intellectual talking heads when they start to try to explain God, without the speaker's really living of God. Mysticism imposes a balance and equilibrium in our daily living which confounds all of the bitter and unhealthy criticisms expressed against it by human pride, in the name of science and observation–as if He who acts outside of time within time were going to make Himself accessible to the microscope and to the methods of research of doctors submerged in the changing of time. The response of the true mystic is irrefutable: when everyone else jumps ship, he stays; when nearly everyone else holds their tongue, he affirms and holds his ground; when almost all of the others step away, like the disciples at the announcement of the Eucharist, he steps closer and holds firm. He is the contrary of a deserter. A Church filled again with mystics could only be a Church filled with saints.
But be careful! There can be no question of discrediting reason and denying its duty to participate in the mystical life by verification, reflection, judgment–not so as to diminish the interior word but so as to help maintain it worthy of God, to preserve it from the excessive wanderings which are always a risk for the imagination and passions; to oblige it to remain in harmony with the wisdom of the Faith by remaining courageously determined not to bend before the wisdom of the world.
"Always maintain reason" used to be the motto of the Kings of France, and St. Louis was an admirable example. Why? Because God will never contradict reason, but He may ask that it be raised up to functions which, though seemingly unreasonable for the normal conduct of its "job" by the results obtained, in a "super-reasonable" role, are the opposite of unreasonable. Jesus' forty-day fasting in the desert was seemingly unreasonable, but in reality it originated in a lifting up of reason by grace, preparing Him to affront the combats of His public life, beginning with the assaults of the Accursed. It terminated in the marvelous result of Satan's defeat by the strength of soul of Jesus' answers. Whereas the fasting of a hunger strike proves itself unreasonable by the disproportion of the decision, giving rise to no virtue and only provoking astonishment by its unreasonable character, not "super-reasonable" in the least.
Jesus assured us, "You will recognize a tree by its fruits"; the infused virtues, raising reason up to the level of a courage above the norm, prove their influence by the superlatively reasonable results of perfection developed, virtue acquired, sanctification obtained. That is to say these virtues, directly infused by the Holy Ghost into human judgment, prove their authenticity when they give a surplus of value to our reason beyond its natural capacities. I give the example of a religious mobilized as an Air Force officer: learning that one of his comrades, a father of eight children, had been chosen for a reconnaissance mission over enemy lines, in practically fatal conditions, he spontaneously took the initiative to leave in his place, considering that his state as a religious owed it to itself to give this testimony of heroic charity, which ended up costing him his life. Yet, this priest also had a right to his mother's affection, and his mother to the affection of her son; far from yielding to the unreasonableness of an impulse, he had decided in a lucid and super-reasonable manner to offer this witness of an absolute gift of self.
In a much more continual manner, St. Francis of Assisi was nearly constantly under the influence of the infused virtues which made him run the adventure of an apparently unreasonable material life, whereas in fact they gave him the mission to affirm the spiritual fecundity of poverty pushed to the point of a heroism inexplicable for reason. Taking this example, we can show the three degrees of perfection with which God can ask us to possess material wealth:
- The first degree: to possess it in order to manage it honestly, in all justice, in the light of the natural virtue of a reason rectified according to duty,
- The second degree is to manage it under the influence of an habitual supernatural virtue inspiring its management in view of detaching oneself from it morally by the benefit that the poor can draw from it, thanks to the many alms which already underline a human detachment from the goods of the earth.
- The third degree is "Go, sell all that you have and follow Me." This is the infused virtue inciting the rich child to give up the exploitation of his goods in order to affirm himself super-reasonable with regard to the command of Jesus, asking him to leave everything in order to save his own soul and the souls of others.
The harshness of worldly judgments toward certain decisions–which utterly confound its rationalistic manner of considering life, supposedly upright and excellent–comes from a kind of self-defense mechanism at the thought of grace's total intervention in existence, an existence whose use the worldly man intends to maintain for himself, according to his desire and according to his material or psychological avarice.
There is always some form of self-surpassing lying in ambush for us. There is a kind of self-surpassing in evil, upon which the Pharisees let fall their scornful anathemas. There is the hard-hearted, indifferent self-surpassing practiced by "oblivious Pharisees," with the kind of thoughtlessness that Jesus despised. There is the self-surpassing in sanctity which affirms the presence of God acting in us, engaging the conversation with the best of ourselves.
The first case is the self-surpassing of weakness, the second, that of pride, while the third is a self-surpassing by humility–a form of "psychosis" which no one need fear nor try to heal, so incompatible is it with original sin: nothing exalting for instinct nor for vanity, simply the strength to allow God to take our place and that of our judgment, because we have had the humility to listen to Him down to the very end. Only souls determined to take their commitment to the absolute limit have that authority of proving its absolute moral fruitfulness.
"To the absolute limit," whether in quantity, quality of application and consent, according to the passing of grace, whether in decisiveness under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, whether in perseverance under the influence of the Faith. The encounter with God is at this price; being outside of time, God does not offer Himself through parcels of time used to love Him, but with the totality of a love proven over the length of time.
Contrary to an unhealthy self-surpassing inspired by pride and the desire to show off our perfection, self-surpassing in humility presents characteristics typical of that fundamental virtue of the mystical life: the fear to be mistaken, the need to obey, the concern to have one's personal inspirations ratified, prudence and reserve in keeping to oneself about the graces heard and received. Infused virtue is accompanied by an entire escort of delicate timidities which reveal that God has the principal initiative in the lights received and understood. If the saints were so audacious in the defense of the Faith and in the gift of themselves for the salvation of souls, it is because they were so timid, delicate and strong in their relations with the interior word. Their fear of being unreasonable confirms the super-reasonable origin of graces that took command over their slightly panicking judgment; before yielding–contrary to the unbalanced–they feel that what is asked of them is beyond their strength, although they are ready to obey; they are fearful, though consenting, like Jesus in the Garden of His Agony.
On the contrary, the unbalanced have as a rule a kind of natural sympathy with the abnormal, the moment the opportunity arises for an inaccurate imitation of the super-reasonable. It is evident when you see their ease in putting this imbalance before duty of state, before obedience–something a saint would never do. The fruits of an imbalanced spirituality are directly opposed to the simple common sense natural to an everyday piety that is nonetheless strong and solid. When God directs a soul toward the conversation by which He means to penetrate into it, He never goes beyond a certain depth, marking the limit of that soul's reasonable balance. On the contrary, He reinforces its fidelity by the reinforcement of a pacified reason. The "leave everything" is proportioned to the degree of union or to the mission which God means to confide to that soul.
The fear of abandoning one's self-will is the first enemy upon which we have to declare war when God begins to express Himself by way of the conscience or by way of a directly supernatural light. We are so deeply rooted in ourselves that Jesus even said it to His beloved apostles: "You do not know of what spirit you are..." It is going to be the role of the priest, in the direction of souls, to distinguish of what spirit they are and of what spirit God means for them to be. Imprudence consists in wanting to decide all alone, in a misunderstanding in which we are always both judge and defendant. Spiritual direction is not an authoritarianism nor a taking command; it is a direction, an orientation, facing the soul toward the destination which God holds out to him, and which it is his own duty to reach, strengthened by obedience and by the wisdom of the grace of the priesthood. The first mission of this grace is to help the soul renounce the individualistic affirmation of his self-love or of his ever-so-slightly pharisaical virtue, enclosed within its little human recording-studio where all it can hear is its own monotonous conversation. The true mystic is more anxious to receive than to affirm, and what he receives in spiritual direction helps him allow God to affirm Himself in his place. "Who hears you hears Me"; knowing how to "hear" the sonority of a soul is the first duty and the heaviest responsibility of spiritual direction, in order that the soul might hear, in the priest, the echo of God Himself; providing an atmosphere of understanding which the soul needs in order to be able to reveal its secrets and the secrets of God for him; the most merciful and paternal of functions, for whomever knows how to appreciate the priestly vocation: "sacra dare"–to give the sacred of divine light, after having given the sacred of the sacraments.
This intelligent mysticism of personal existence has been all but discredited, not only by excessively materialistic doctors but by excessively human confessors, or by theologians excessively de-valorized by their personal points of view on a problem which must always remain the problem of God seeking to draw as close as possible to souls, in order to engage in conversation with them.
Mysticism recovers man before the Fall; it places him there where God planted the tree of life after He eliminated the garden of happiness: the Cross, where the soul finds himself in company of the life that cannot die: with the love of his God and with the God of his love.
Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from the private archives of the Association du R. P. de Chivré. Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. (say: Sheave-ray´) was ordained in 1930. He was an ardent Thomist, student of Scripture, retreat master, and friend of Archbishop Lefebvre. He died in 1984.
|
|
|
Mgr. Joseph Fenton: Our Lord's Presence in the Catholic Church |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 11:32 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
OUR LORD’S PRESENCE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
by Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton
The following is taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review July 1946.
The central, the most important fact about the Catholic Church, that which primarily differentiates it from every other religious organization on the lace of the earth, is the living presence of Jesus Christ Our Lord within it. This actual indwelling of Our Blessed Lord within the society which He founded is the great and essential glory of the Catholic Church. It is the basic reason why the Catholic Church can be and should be accurately designated as the true Church of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom and the City and the House of God. Because the fellowship and the company of Christ are to be found within this, the society of His disciples, our present Sovereign Pontiff, in his masterly encyclical Mystici Corporis, could correctly insist that “nothing more glorious, nothing nobler, nothing surely more honorable can be imagined than to belong to the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.”1
Certainly no man can begin to realize what the Catholic Church really is until he considers it in the light of the living presence of Christ within it. Unless we become aware of the fact that Our Lord actually resides within the Church, any designation of this society as the Mystical Body of Christ or as the Spouse of Christ is bound, for all intents and purposes, to be practically meaningless to us. Furthermore, in order to love the Church as we should love it, we must also take cognizance of Our Lord’s abiding life and activity within it. Pope Pius XII reminds us of this in that section of the Mystici Corporis in which he exhorts us to love the Church.
“In order that such a solid and undivided love of the Church may abide and increase in our souls day by day, w e must accustom ourselves to see Christ Himself in the Church. For it is Christ who lives in His Church, and through her teaches, governs and sanctifies.”2
Catholics today, subject as they are bound to be to the influence of the propaganda and the attitudes of the world around them, are in some danger of failing to appreciate the complete reality of Our Lord’s presence within the visible Catholic Church. Amidst the turmoil of pressure in favor of “inter-faith” movements and the like, there is an almost inevitable tendency to imagine that Christ is in the Church only in a kind of imaginary or metaphorical way. That unfortunate tendency is sometimes aided and increased by books and instructions which, though otherwise creditable, constantly persist in employing metaphors and other figurative expressions in dealing with the Church’s relations to Our Lord. For one reason or another, modern men and women are inclined to discount as imaginary or unreal, and therefore as basically unimportant, any subject which is presented to them in predominantly metaphorical terms.
Failure to appreciate the full reality of Our Lord’s presence within the Catholic Church is responsible for one unfortunate and even dangerous phenomenon in modern religious writing. This is the habit of placing the true Church of Jesus Christ, if not on a level with other religious societies, at least in the same general class with these outside organizations. In some cases this tendency resolves itself into the essentially Protestant tactic of imagining the existence of an invisible church, an assembly of good-intentioned men and women of all religions, which is supposed to constitute the true Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
Likewise forgetfulness of the fact that Christ really lives and acts within the Catholic Church leads to the mistaken but unfortunately all-too-prevalent belief that the essential difference between the Catholic Church and other religious societies is to be found in the fact that the Catholic Church teaches he entirety of religious truth while these other organizations present only a portion of it. Such a difference does in fact exist, but it is by no means the ultimate and essential distinction. In the last analysis the real reason why the Catholic Church is something apart from and superior to all of the other religious societies in the world is to he found in the fact that Our Lord actually dwells within this Catholic Church and within it alone. Within this society, and in no other way, do we find the fellowship of Christ, our God and our Redeemer.
CHRIST IN HIS CHURCH DURING HIS PUBLIC LIFE
It is quite impossible to appreciate the reality of Our Lord’s presence within the Church today unless we consider carefully His position within the society of His disciples prior to the time of His ascension into heaven. The fact of the matter is that, although Christ’s sacred body is now located in heaven, and hence in a place far remote from that in which His followers do His will in this world, the basic and essential relation of the Church to Our Lord remains unaltered. He lives and acts in the Church, He speaks to the world from out of the Church, in essentially the same way today as He did during the period intervening between His baptism by John the Baptist in the Jordan and His ascension into heaven.
The Catholic Church, the Kingdom of God in the New Testament, started out as a band of disciples or learners, gathered around and ruled by Our Lord, acting in His capacity as the Teacher of the divinely revealed public revelation. Men and women were admitted to this group only by personal invitation, issued by Our Lord Himself. The company had neither reason for nor bond of corporate existence apart from Christ. He was not merely present within the group, but the company itself was seen and understood preeminently in terms of its association with Him. Looking back on the days of Our Lord’s public life, St. Peter could refer to the original members of the band as those “who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken from us.”3
Knabenbauer notes that the Greek words είσήλθεν καί έξήλθεν which the Douai renders as “came in and went out” constitute an authentic Hebraism, found in many sections of the Old Testament.4 The expression signifies an intimate and continual association. The Greek τών σμνελθόντων ήμίν rendered as “who have companied with us,” involves another form of the word έσχομαι and gives point to the truth that not only the twelve, but the rest of the company of the disciples as well, were continually in the presence of the Master. Thus the Church was originally, as it is now, the group of men and women in the company of Christ.
Long before the ascension, however, Our Lord taught His disciples that He would be present among them even while they were in a place remote from that which He occupied. To the seventy-two whom He sent on a preaching mission during the course of His public life He said: “He that heareth you heareth me.”5 That notice, as it stands, contains far more than the mere declaration that these men were appointed as His representatives. It implied that these preachers who had received their mission from Him within His Church actually spoke to the people with His voice, in such a way that the persons who heard them listened to the voice of Christ.
Not only did Our Lord speak in and through the disciples whom He commissioned to preach in His name, but He habitually spoke to the multitudes from the midst of the disciples, who formed a group apart. Both St. Matthew and St. Luke make this clear in describing the setting of the Sermon on the Mount. St. Matthew tells us that “seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain. And when he was set down, his disciples came unto him. And opening his mouth, he taught them.”6 St. Luke writes that “coming down with them [the twelve apostles], he stood in a plain place: and the company of his disciples and a very great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the sea coast, both of Tyre and Sidon”7 were there to hear Him. Our Lord spoke to the multitudes in parables. He explained these parables to the disciples.
Furthermore, during the course of Our Lord’s public life, His enemies were so aware of the intimate union of the corps of the disciples with Him that they spoke in such a way as to hold Him responsible for the actions of His followers, the members of the Church, and conversely they considered the disciples responsible for Him. When the scribes and the pharisees saw Our Lord and His disciples partaking of the banquet which St. Matthew had given to celebrate his call to the company of Christ, they angrily questioned the disciples about Our Lord’s conduct and about their own.8 The question addressed to the disciples was answered by Our Lord Himself. Again, when the pharisees objected to the disciples’ practice of plucking and eating grains of wheat on the Sabbath, Christ answered for them and defended them.9
During the time of Our Lord’s public life, then, He was not only locally present among His disciples, the men and women who then constituted the Catholic Church, the true Church of the New Testament, but He also worked within this group, teaching and ruling and sanctifying the society and its individual members. He taught them directly. He taught the multitudes, the people whom He was preparing for the call into the society of the disciples, in His capacity as the Head of the company of the disciples. Furthermore He taught the multitudes Himself in and through the preaching of the disciples.
Up until the time of the ascension Our Lord was the only visible Ruler of the company of the disciples. It is perfectly true that, as a part of the course of divine instruction which He gave to his followers, He promised and announced that Peter was to possess a real primacy of jurisdiction over his fellow disciples, but even then it was made perfectly clear to Peter and to the rest that the authority was to be exercised over the Church which would always belong to Christ.10 Thus the governing authority which was promised to Peter was that of Christ’s vicar on earth. Furthermore a definite social authority was promised to the entire membership of the apostolic college, but this, too, was something subject to the power of Peter within the Church of Christ.11
It was not, however, until just before the ascension that the jurisdiction which had been promised to the Prince of the Apostles and to the apostolic college as a whole was actually given by Our Lord.12 Up until the moment of the ascension, the complete rule and direction of the society came visibly from Christ, visibly dwelling and working within that organization. Visibly and truly then, and invisibly though just as truly now, every order emanating from a superior within the Catholic Church was and is the command of Christ. Both the rule within the Catholic Church and the monarchical and hierarchical organization within which the followers of Christ are to be guided and sanctified until the end of time were the personal work of Our Lord.
Christ sanctified His society and its members, not merely by giving them the teaching of holiness, but by communicating the life of grace to the individual disciples within the Church and to the company itself as a whole. He, the Master and Lord, around whom the society itself was constructed, earned the remission of sins and the life of divine grace for men through His death on the cross. He brought that life of grace to his followers through the channels of that sacramental activity which He instituted within His Church. He gave His disciples the gift of newness of life, separating them from the world and sealing them to Himself through the Sacrament of Baptism which He inaugurated. He constituted that sign as the rite of initiation into His company in such a way that it was ready for use as a gateway into the Church and a departure from the generation ruled over by the prince of this world at the very moment of the Church’s first missionary activity after the ascension.13 Then and now it is Christ Himself who communicates the grace, and Christ Himself who is the principal agent of baptism. “The bodily ministry,” said St. Augustine, “was the contribution of the disciples. His contribution was the aid of majesty.”14 He was present and He remains present to the Church in the work of baptism.
As the perfective center of the sacramental system within the Catholic Church He instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In this rite, which is preeminently the act of the Church as His Mystical Body,15 He is truly, really, and substantially present under the accidents of bread and wine. Furthermore at every Mass He is present to His Church as the High Priest, offering this true and commemorative sacrifice through the instrumentality of his priest as the ultimate cohesive sign and force of the unity of His society. He was visibly and truly living in the Church when He instituted and first confected this Sacrament. He remains invisibly and no less truly living in the Church through this Eucharistic Sacrifice today. In His Sacerdotal Prayer, set forth in the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, He petitioned the Father that the assembly of the disciples might remain one with Him. St. Paul tells us that, even in Heaven, His prayer of intercession for us continues. 16
THE DEPARTURE AND THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF OUR LORD
With Our Lord’s ascension into heaven a new status of the Church of Jesus Christ came into being. That society had been gathered together, organized, and conducted in the visible and local presence of its divine Founder. Now, with the ascension, that visible and local presence was taken away, not to be restored to the disciples of Christ as a complete society until that day when the Church will finally see Him again and forever at His second advent. The place in which Christ dwells locally is heaven. Since His ascension, as the epistles of St. Paul especially show so well, the Church on earth labors and struggles against its spiritual and earthly adversaries in order to enjoy the visible presence of Christ once again.
To sustain the society of His disciples during the period in which it suffers the loss of the visible presence of its divine Founder, He promised and gave to the Church the indwelling Spirit of Truth and Love.17 This indwelling of the Blessed Trinity within the Catholic Church, appropriated by Our Blessed Lord Himself to the Holy Ghost, gives the Church the understanding and the fortitude requisite for its task of acting as the instrument of Christ in calling and aiding men to salvation and in overthrowing the efforts of the world against God. By reason of His divine nature Our Lord thus continues, though invisible, to reside within the Church, to guide and to instruct it, to sustain it and to give it strength. Moreover, in His human nature also, Our Lord remains within the Church. He told His disciples that they would see Him no longer,18 but He also promised them that He would be with them until the consummation of the world.19 The promise of His continued though invisible presence and the accomplishment of that promise were given to the disciples as Christ had formed them, organized into a society which is His Mystical Body on earth.
THE INDWELLING OF CHRIST IN THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO HIS DIVINE NATURE
In His divine nature Christ is in all created things according to the three ways which St. Thomas Aquinas designates as essence, presence and power.20 God can be said to be in all things in so far as He keeps them in existence, in so far as they are visible to Him and subject to His power. In this way Our Lord remains within the Church, sustaining it and preserving it for what it is and what He made it, His true Church and the sole ark of salvation on earth. He sees it, and He is available to the prayers of mankind. Since true prayer is essentially the petition of fitting things from God 21 and since a thing is truly fitting only if it is in line towards salvation and union with God in heaven, the divine work of hearing and answering prayers on earth is in itself a mode of indwelling within the Catholic Church.
This does not mean, of course, that only the prayers of those who are truly disciples of Christ and thus truly members of the Catholic Church are heard and answered by God. It is perfectly true that the prayer of the Church is always answered because this is, in the last analysis, the prayer of Christ Himself. But all true prayer has its efficacy from this central petition to God, and all true prayer is answered in so far as the essential and central good sought in the petition is concerned. This dominant petition is always for God’s glory, to be attained through the granting of eternal life to men. Since, in the providence of God, eternal salvation or the attainment of eternal life is to be achieved only through association with Christ through membership in the Catholic Church or through the sincere desire for that association, the granting of the petition of prayer by God constitutes a divine indwelling in the true Church, drawing men to this society and strengthening them in its life and in its communion.
According to this same divine presence, through the power of God the Church is kept safe from the attacks of its enemies and preserved against the dissolution which would naturally be the lot of any merely human society. The divine protection accorded to the Church is in itself easily visible to mankind. As the recipient of this protection against the forces which naturally tend to overthrow and transform merely human organizations, the Church is visible in the world as a social miracle, and thus, according to the Vatican Council, it stands as a true and perpetual motive of credibility and as a real witness of its own status as the bearer of divine revelation.22
There is one, and according to St. Thomas Aquinas, only one, distinctively supernatural and invisible mode of the divine indwelling. It is the divine presence according to the activity of sanctifying grace,23 according to which God really dwells in those creatures whom He strengthens and renders competent to live the divine life of the Beatific Vision. In this way God is present to a man who is in a position to see God as He is in Himself, rather than merely to recognize the fact of His existence by a recognition of the truth that there must be a First Cause of created things. The man who lives the life of grace in this world possesses charity, and possesses the life to which the Beatific Vision itself belongs, even though, by reason of his status as a viator, he does not exercise the act of the Beatific Vision. Christ, as God, is present in every person who has this life of grace. It is the presence of which He was speaking when He told his apostles: “If any one love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him: and we will come to him and will make our abode with him.’’24
According to this intrinsically supernatural mode of divine presence, Our Lord lives within the Church, drawing men into it and strengthening them in its communion. Those who have the life of grace must be either members of the Church or sincerely, albeit perhaps only implicitly, intend to enter it. By dwelling in the souls of those who love Him and the Father, Christ thus lives really and actually within the visible society which He founded and over which He presides.
Moreover there is still another way in which Our Lord can truly be said to dwell within the Catholic Church according to the divine indwelling in line with the life of sanctifying grace. The life of grace and charity is more than a merely individual affair. It is something which has a corporate existence and a corporate expression. The corporate life of grace within the world is that divine charity of which the only authorized and authentic expression is the Eucharistic sacrifice. Although that sacrifice can be performed by a priest not in communion with the true Church, it remains properly and essentially the act of the Church, and the indwelling of Christ in the society of His disciples is thus the source of the Eucharistic liturgical activity, the visible sacrifice within the Church which is the expression and the manifestation of the invisible sacrifice of prayer and devotion and charity among the children of men.
THE INDWELLING OF CHRIST IN THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO HIS HUMAN NATURE
According to His sacred human nature, Our Lord remains truly though invisibly resident within the Catholic Church in governing, instructing, and sanctifying this society. He rules the disciples within the Church invisibly and directly. At time same time His divine teaching within the Church makes it perfectly clear that the judgments and the commands of the Church officers who hold their position by reason of the commission which He has given them are to be accepted by the disciples as His judgments and His commands. This presence of Christ in the Church as its supreme though invisible Ruler is the guarantee of and the reason for the Church’s indefectibility. It is manifestly impossible that a society within which Christ governs until the end of time can ever lose its identity or the substantial character which He gave to it.
Now, as during the period of His public life in this world, the Church speaks to the world with the voice of Christ. He it is who teaches within the Church and who, from out of the Church, teaches and calls the men in the world. Furthermore Christ, truly present in the Church, perfects and authenticates the divine message winch He preaches through the Church by sealing that doctrine with motive of credibility. St. Mark’s Gospel says of the apostles that “they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.”25 The presence of Christ teaching within the Church is the cause an[d] the explanation of the Church’s infallibility. It is obviously impossible for an institution within which Christ will dwell until the end of time and from which He teaches to do other than set forth his teaching, accurately.
St. Clement of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians speaks of Our Lord living in the Church as “the high priest of our offerings.” 26 In His human nature He continues to sanctify the Church by communicating the life of grace in the channels of those sacraments which He instituted and of which, in His human nature, He continues to act as the principal agent. As the high priest forever, offering the sacrifice of the New Law, He effectuates and expresses the unity of that society which He holds in existence and over which He presides.
OUR TWOFOLD BOND OF UNION WITH CHRIST
The classical Catholic ecclesiologists and more recently the Holy Father’s encyclical Mystici Corporis speak of two different kinds of forces which bring us into union with Our Lord within the Church. The first of these, the so-called external or bodily bond of union, includes those factors which together constitute a man as a true member of the society of the disciples. The second, the internal or spiritual bond, is composed of those elements which go to make a man a living member of this society. Both of these bonds bring us into contact with Our Lord dwelling within the Catholic Church. The fault which vitiated many of the earlier twentieth century writings of the Mystical Body was an absolute neglect of the external bond of unity with Christ.
A man is joined to Our Lord within the Church by the external bond of unity when he has the profession of the true divine faith, the communication of the sacraments, and subjection to his legitimate ecclesiastical superiors.27 The external profession of the true faith involves contact with Christ dwelling within the Catholic Church because it means the visible acceptance of that message which Christ teaches infallibly here and now within the Catholic Church and which men receive only from the Church. Communication of the divine sacraments is available only to one who has the baptismal character, and who, consequently, has been invited or called personally by Our Lord to enter into the company of His followers. Furthermore this communication is open only to those baptized persons who have not been cast out by the Church, and who have not abandoned that society which is the fellowship of Christ. Subjection to legitimate ecclesiastical superiors carries with it the acceptance of that authority which speaks and commands with the voice of Our Lord Himself.
Through the internal bond of union within the Catholic Church we come into vital contact with Christ residing in the Church in the possession of faith, hope, and charity.28 By faith we have in our own minds that truth which Christ comprehends as God in the divine understanding, which, as Man, He sees in the Beatific Vision, and which He preaches in the Church. Through Christian hope we long for the intuitive vision of the divine essence and for the visible presence of Christ which belongs to, and on the last day will be granted to, the Catholic Church within which He resides. By charity we love Christ who lives in our soul, and who gives us our love for God and our fellow men within the society of His disciples.
It is this life of Christ within the Catholic Church which makes this visible society a mystery of our faith. The mystery of the Church is, as it were, the center of the divine economy with mankind. The Church within which Our Lord lives and works is that visible organization within which bad members will be mingled with the good until the day of judgment. Yet it is the Church apart from which we shall not find Christ. Our Lord’s presence within this visible society is not imaginary but real and active. “Wherever Jesus Christ is,” said St. Ignatius of Antioch, “there is the Catholic Church.”29
The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C.
JOSEPH CLIFFORD FENTON
1. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXV (1943), 237.
2. Ibid., 238.
3. Acts 1:21-22.
4. Cf. Commentarius in Actus Apostolorum (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1928), p.36
5. Luke 16:16; cf. Matt. 10:40.
6. Matt. 5:1.
7. Luke 6:17.
8. Cf. Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30.
9. Cf. Matt. 12:1 ff; Mark 2:23 ff; Luke 6:1 ff.
10. Cf. Matt. 16 :18-19.
11. Cf. Matt. 18:18.
12 Cf. John 20:22-23; 21:15 ff.
13. Cf. Acts 2:41.
14. In Ioan., XV, c. 3
15. Cf. the article “The Act of the Mystical Body,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, C, 5 (May, 1939), 397 ff, and the discussion occasioned by this article, AER, CII, 4 (April, 1940), pp. 306 ff.
16. Cf. Rom. 8:34.
17. Cf John 14:16.
18. Cf. John 16:10.
19. Cf. Matt. 28:20.
20. Cf. Sum. theol., I, q. 8, a. 3.
21. Cf. St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, III, c. 24, and the author’s The Theology of Prayer (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1939), pp. 1 ff.
22. Cf. DB 1794.
23. Cf. Sum. theol., 1, q. 43, a. 3.
24. John 14:23.
25. Mark 16:20.
26. Cap. 36, n. 1.
27. Cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, De controversiis christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, Tom. I, Quartae controversiae generalis, Lib. III, De ecclesia militante, cap. 2 (Ingolstadt, 1586), col. 1264.
28. Ibid.
29. Ad Smyrnaeos, cap. 8, n. 2.
|
|
|
Mgr. Joseph Fenton: Background of the Oath Against Modernism |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 11:15 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism
September 1 of this year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the last, and in some ways the most important, of the three main anti-Modernist pronouncements issued by the Holy See during the brilliant reign of St. Pius X. This document was the Motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum. The other two basic anti-Modernist documents are, of course, the Holy Office decree Lamentabili sane exitu, dated July 3, 1907, and the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, issued September 8 of that same year.
The Sacrorum antistitum is best known because it contains the text of the famous anti-Modernist oath and the rules prescribing when and by whom this oath is to be taken. Because of the tremendous intrinsic importance of the oath itself and by reason of its function in the doctrinal life of the Catholic Church, the papal document containing this oath definitely deserves serious study by the present generation of theologians. The Sacrorum antistitum brings out the basic objectives, which the saintly Pius X hoped to attain through the taking of the oath. These objectives, which are also the ends St. Pius X worked to achieve through the writing of the Motu proprio itself, are expressed very clearly in the introduction and in the conclusion to this document.
Since the entire text of the Sacrorum antistitum is not very generally available here and now, it will be helpful to see a translation of its most important parts, including the introduction and conclusion. The following is a translation of the introduction to this Motu proprio.
The Introduction
We believe that no bishop is ignorant of the fact that the wily Modernists have not abandoned their plans for disturbing the peace of the Church since they were unmasked by the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis. For they have not ceased to seek out new recruits and to gather them into a secret alliance. Nor have they ceased, along with their new associates, to inject the poison of their own teachings into the veins of the Christian body-politic by turning out anonymous or pseudonymous books and articles. If, after a re-reading of the above-mentioned encyclical Pascendi, this audacity, which has caused Us so much grief, be considered very carefully, it will become quite apparent that these men are just as the encyclical describes them: enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us. They are men who pervert their ministry in such a way as to bait their hooks with poisoned meat in order to catch the unwary. They carry with them a form of doctrine in which the summary of all errors is contained.
While this plague is spreading abroad over that very part of the Lord's field from which the best fruits might be expected, it is the duty of all Bishops to exert themselves in defence of the Catholic faith and most diligently to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss. Likewise it is most definitely Our duty to obey the commands of Christ the Saviour, who gave to Peter, to whose position of authority We, though unworthy, have succeeded, the order: "Confirm thy brethren." Thus, so that the souls of the good may be strengthened in the present struggle, We have considered it opportune to repeat the following statements and commands of the encyclical Pascendi. 1
The last words of this introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum show that the first section of the body of this Motu proprio is a long citation from the disciplinary part of the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis. To this citation is attached an appendix, having to do with legislation concerning seminaries. The second part of the body of the text of the Sacrorum antistitum contains the text of the anti-Modernist oath, together with the rules prescribing when and by whom his oath is to be taken, and the other directives, which accompanied the command to take the oath. The third section is merely a statement in Latin of a text on preaching, originally issued in Italian, on the orders of Pope Leo XIII, by the Congregation of Bishops and of Regulars, on July 31, 1894.
The introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum contains some badly needed lessons for the priests of our own time. Incidentally it contains some reminders of truths in the theological and in the historical orders, which are far too seldom insisted upon today. It will, in my judgment, be definitely helpful to take cognizance of some of these truths at this time.
(1) Basically the Sacrorum antistitum and the anti-Modernist oath it contains were intended by St. Pius X as works he was required to perform in order to carry out his own divinely imposed responsibility to confirm the faith of his fellow members of the Catholic Church and to strengthen the efforts of the Bishops to see to it that their flocks received the divinely revealed message in all its integrity and purity.
For the sake of both fidelity to revealed teaching and of historical veracity, it is absolutely imperative that our contemporary Catholic scholars take cognizance of the truth of St. Pius X's claim about his intention. Actually the responsibility, which St. Pius X had assumed when he accepted the burden of the papacy, demanded that he take the most effective means at his disposal to protect the faith of Catholics. Quite obviously the greatest danger to the faith of the members of the true Church of Jesus Christ exists when some members of this Church actually teach or even show sympathy for doctrine contradictory to or incompatible with the body of Catholic dogma without receiving any reproof from those whom God has commissioned and obligated to protect the purity and the integrity of the Catholic faith. St. Pius X was acutely conscious of the fact that many influential Catholics were teaching or encouraging erroneous doctrines opposed to the divinely revealed Catholic message long after those erroneous doctrines had been pointed out and condemned by the highest teaching authority within the Church. And the saintly Pope was brilliant enough to realize that, unless he took some sort of drastic action, a great number of Catholics might be persuaded to imagine that de facto the Church at least tacitly tolerated the doctrinal deviations of the Modernists and their sympathizers. Thus he directed the severe commands of the Sacrorum antistitum towards the protection of the Catholic faith that was his most important responsibility as the Vicar of Christ on earth.
It was and it still is the contention of the Modernists, together with their sympathizers and their dupes, that St. Pius X in some way or another went beyond the bounds imposed by prudence and charity in the war he waged against the heresy of Modernism. As a matter of fact, even after the regular investigations involved in the process of his beatification had been completed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites considered it best to commission its historical section to conduct a special investigation into the validity of this particular contention. This strict investigation, which made use of all available testimony and of the very abundant documentary material pertinent to the question, brought out very clearly the fact that St. Pius X, in issuing the Sacrorum antistitum and in taking the other steps against the Modernists and their supporters during the latter days of his pontificate, had been doing only what the demands of his high office demanded of him. 2
One of the most striking indications of this is to be found in a well-known statement attributed to Pope Benedict XV. The Disquisitio of the Historical Section of the Sacred Congregation of Rites reprints this statement in a part of the testimony offered by Msgr. Hoenning-O'Carroll in the course of the inquiry into the virtues of Pius X held in Venice.
Particularly his [Pius X's] political dealings with France and the steps he took against Modernism were attacked as imprudent and exaggerated . . . When Father Mauro Serafini was having an audience with Pope Benedict XV, the Pope said to him: "Now that I am sitting on this Chair, I see very well how right Pius X was. While I was the Sostituto in the Secretariate of State, and even while I was Archbishop of Bologna, I did not always share the thought of Pius X, but now I have to realize how right he was." 3
Monsignor Hoenning-O'Carroll testified that he learned of this statement of Pope Benedict XV from Monsignor Pescini. Despite the fact that this particular witness knew the story only through hearsay, the statement itself seems very well attested. It seems to reflect the mind of Pope Benedict XV.
In any event there is ample and compelling evidence that the Sacrorum antistitum and the other anti-Modernistic documents issued by St. Pius X were actually called for and really required by reason of the danger to the Catholic faith which had been caused by the activity of the Modernists, their sympathizers, and their dupes, within the true Church of Jesus Christ.
(2) At the time the Sacrorum antistitum was being written, the integrity of the Catholic faith itself was being seriously threatened. Within the Catholic Church itself a definite and formidable effort was being made to persuade members of the true Church to reject as antiquated and outdated certain teachings, which were actually presented by the Church's magisterium as belonging to the deposit of divine public revelation. This effort was being made by the Modernists, most of whom were members of the Catholic Church. The teachings, which these men had attempted to impose upon the Church had been specifically and authoritatively condemned by the Holy See three years before the Sacrorum antistitum was issued.
Thus it is immensely important to realize that the teachings against which the Sacrorum antistitum was directed were being put forward by an obdurate group of men whose heresies had been indicated, denounced, and condemned three years before this Motu proprio was written. This, incidentally, is quite at variance with the unhistorical statements of some contemporary sympathizers with Modernism and the Modernists. Writers of this sort have tried to delude their fellow Catholics into imagining that, upon the appearance of the Lamentabili sane exitu and the Pascendi dominici gregis, most of the men who had been teaching and defending the doctrines condemned in these two documents quickly and humbly submitted to the teaching authority of the Holy See. The text of the Sacrorum antistitum, and also, be it noted, the text of the Ad beatissimi, the inaugural encyclical of Pope Benedict XV, show that no such reaction took place. 4 The well defined group which had been proposing and favoring the propositions condemned in the Lamentabili and in the Pascendi insolently continued to work for acceptance of their errors within the Church even after St. Pius X had denounced and condemned them.
(3) In the Sacrorum antistitum St. Pius X speaks out very clearly of the existence of a secret alliance or a foedus clandestinum among the Modernists of his day. For one reason or another, this truth, observed and stated by St. Pius X, and clearly evident to any person who takes the trouble to study the history of the Modernist movement, has always been singularly distasteful to sympathizers with Modernism and with the Modernists. It seems to have been precisely in order to cause confusion on this particular point that the men who have been partial to the Modernists have gone to such extreme lengths to delude people into imagining that the opposition to Loisy, Von Hugel, and their ilk within the Catholic Church was fundamentally the work of a secret alliance of sinister and reactionary Catholics. It would certainly appear that the ridiculous and mendacious propaganda directed against the Sodalitium Pianum and against Monsignor Umberto Benigni, even over the course of the past few years, 5 can best be explained as an attempt to cover up the fact that there was a foedus clandestinum connected with and inherent in the Modernist movement.
(4) The introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum takes cognizance of the fact that most of the genuinely dangerous supporters of the Modernist movement, the men against whose efforts the Sacrorum antistitum and its commands were particularly directed, were priests active within the Catholic Church itself. St. Pius X took cognizance of the fact that such priests were actually perverting their own ministry. They were guilty of using their priestly power and their priestly position to counter, rather than to advance, the work of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Basically the work of the priesthood is directed towards the glory of God, which is to be achieved and obtained in the salvation of souls. This objective is to be obtained only by those who pass from this life living the life of sanctifying grace. And the life of sanctifying grace cannot exist apart from the truth faith, until such time as the faith itself is replaced by the Beatific Vision. Thus the priestly ministry in the true Church of Jesus Christ necessarily seeks to induce men to accept God's supernatural teaching with the certain assent of divine faith and works to increase the perfection and the intensity of the faith in those who already possess this virtue. Hence any effort on the part of a Catholic priest to influence people to reject or to pass over a truth revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church's magisterium definitely constitutes a perversion of the sacerdotal ministry.
(5) St. Pius X describes the Modernists as men "who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us." It would be difficult indeed to appreciate the position of the Church in the twentieth century without realizing the objectivity and the shrewdness of this observation.
A man is to be feared by the Church, or by the members of the Church, in the measure that this man intends and is genuinely able to harm the Church, or to counteract and negate the salvific mission of Our Lord's Mystical Body in this world. And this happens especially when non-members of the Church are influenced not to accept its divine message and not to seek entrance into this society, and when members of the Church are pressured to reject Our Lord, or His love, or His divine teaching. It is most important to remember that the only real and serious damage to the cause of Christ is done when effective efforts are made to nullify and to counteract the work the Church does as the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
With its insistence that the Modernists and their sympathizers were "enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us," the introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum takes cognizance of the fact that, during our own times at least, non-members of the Church have, generally speaking, not been able to damage the Church to any very considerable extent. Quite obviously, despite their manifest and intense ill will, people like those who used to be associated with the old Menace and the Ku Klux Klan, and those who are now associated with groups like P. . . U, are not particularly formidable adversaries of Our Lord, His Church, or His message. They have certainly helped to stir up and further to envenom antipathy towards the Catholic Church on the part of ignorant non-Catholics who were previously ill disposed towards the Church. But it would hardly seem likely that any Catholic has ever been turned against Christ or against the Church's divinely revealed message as a result of anything that has ever been said or written by these rabble-rousers. And it seems highly unlikely that any individual has been excluded from the Beatific Vision by reason of anything he has said or done by reason of their influence.
On the other hand, no one has ever been as well placed to harm the true Church and to counteract its essential work as a Catholic priest in good standing. If such a man, by his preaching, his teaching, or his writing, actually sets forth the kind of teaching condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, or if he works to discredit the loyal defenders of Catholic dogma without receiving any repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted, the Catholic people are in grave danger of being deceived.
The Modernists and their most influential sympathizers were, in great part, drawn from the ranks of the Catholic clergy. Thus they were, in the words of the introduction to the Sacrorum antistitum, the "enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us." These Catholics who taught or favored Modernism were the men whose influence within the true Church of Jesus Christ St. Pius X sought to counter by the teaching and the directives contained in the Sacrorum antistitum.
(6) Finally, in the introduction to this famous Motu proprio, St. Pius X makes it very clear indeed that the Bishops of the Catholic Church were bound in conscience by the obligations of their office to act energetically against this teaching that contradicted the divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the true Church. The "defence of the Catholic faith" and strenuous efforts "to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss" are definitely not works of supererogation. These are the duties prescribed by Our Lord Himself for the leaders of the Church, which He has purchased by His blood.
The Conclusion To The Sacrorum Antistitum
The conclusion to this document, the last of the three great anti-Modernist declarations issued by the Holy See during the reign of St. Pius X, is even more enlightening than the introduction. In this we see how St. Pius X enunciated, more clearly than in any other document, the most fundamental position of the Modernists. The text of this conclusion follows:
Moved by the seriousness of the evil that is increasing every day, an evil, which We cannot put off confronting without the most grave danger, We have decided to issue and to repeat these commands. For it is no longer a case, as it was in the beginning, of dealing with disputants who come forward in the clothing of sheep. Now we are faced with open and bitter enemies from within our own household, who, in agreement with the outstanding opponents of the Church, are working for the overthrow of the faith. They are men whose audacity against the wisdom that has come down from heaven increases daily. They arrogate to themselves the right to correct this revealed wisdom as if it were something corrupt, to renew it as if it were something that had become obsolete, to improve it and to adapt it to the dictates, the progress, and the comfort of the age as if it had been opposed to the good of society and not merely opposed to the levity of a few men.
To counter such attempts against the evangelical doctrine and the ecclesiastical tradition, there will never be sufficient vigilance or too much severity on the part of those to whom the faithful care of the sacred deposit has been entrusted. 6
In this conclusion to the Sacrorum antistitum, St. Pius X expressly recognizes the fact that the Modernists and their sympathizers, the anti-anti-Modernists, were actually working, in agreement with the most-bitter enemies of the Catholic Church, for the destruction of the Catholic faith. It is interesting and highly important to note exactly what St. Pius X said. He definitely did not claim that these men were working directly to destroy the Church as a society. It is quite obvious that, given the intimate connection between the Church and the faith, a connection so close and perfect that the Church itself may be defined as the congregatio fidelium, the repudiation of the Catholic faith would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Church. Yet, for the Modernists and for those who co-operated in their work, the immediate object of attack was always the faith itself. These individuals were perfectly willing that the Catholic Church should continue to exist as a religious society, as long as it did not insist upon the acceptance of that message which, all during the course of the previous centuries of its existence, it had proposed as a message supernaturally revealed by the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. They were willing and even anxious to retain their membership in the Catholic Church, as long as they were not obliged to accept on the authority of divine faith such unfashionable dogmas as, for example, the truth that there is truly no salvation outside of the Church.
What these men were really working for was the transformation of the Catholic Church into an essentially non-doctrinal religious body. They considered that their era would be willing to accept the Church as a kind of humanitarian institution, vaguely religious, tastefully patriotic, and eminently cultural. And they definitely intended to tailor the Church to fit the needs and the tastes of their own era.
It must be understood, of course, that the Modernists and the men who aided their efforts did not expect the Catholic Church to repudiate its age-old formulas of belief. They did not want the Church to reject or to abandon the ancient creeds, or even any of those formularies in which the necessity of the faith and the necessity of the Church are so firmly and decisively stated. What they sought was a declaration on the part of the Church's magisterium to the effect that these old formulas did not, during the first decade of the twentieth century, carry the same meaning for the believing Catholic that they had carried when these formulas had first been drawn up. Or, in other words, they sought to force or to delude the teaching authority of Christ's Church into coming out with the fatally erroneous proposition that what is accepted by divine faith in this century is objectively something different from what was believed in the Catholic Church on the authority of God revealing in previous times.
Thus the basic objective of Modernism was to reject the fact that, when he sets forth Catholic dogma, the Catholic teacher is acting precisely as an ambassador of Christ. The Modernists were men who were never quite able to grasp or to accept the truth that the teaching of the Catholic Church is, as the First Vatican Council designated the content of the Constitution Dei Filius, actually "the salutary doctrine of Christ," and not merely some kind of doctrine, which has developed out of that teaching. And, in the final analysis, the position of the Modernists constituted the ultimate repudiation of the Catholic faith. If the teaching proposed by the Church as dogma is not actually and really the doctrine supernaturally revealed by God through Jesus Christ Our Lord, through the Prophets of the Old Testament who were His heralds, or through the Apostles who were His witnesses, then there could be nothing more pitifully inane than the work of the Catholic magisterium.
It is interesting to note the parallel between what St. Pius X says about the intentions of the Modernists and what his great predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, had to say about the basic premise of the errors he pointed out and condemned in his famed letter, the Testem benevolentiae. St. Pius X declares that the Modernists "arrogate to themselves the right to correct this revealed wisdom as if it were something corrupt, to renew it as if it were something that had become obsolete, to improve it and to adapt it to the dictates, the progress, and the comfort of the age as if it had been opposed to the good of society and not merely opposed to the levity of a few men." And Pope Leo XIII states:
The principles on which the new opinions We have mentioned are based may be reduced to this: that in order the more easily to bring over to Catholic doctrine those who dissent from it, the Church ought to adapt herself somewhat to our advanced civilization, and, relaxing her ancient rigor, show some indulgence to modern theories and methods. Many think that this is to be understood not only with regard to the rule of life, but also to the doctrines in which the deposit of faith is contained. For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or so to soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held. 7
Thus, when we examine the actual texts of the Testem benevolentiae and of the Sacrorum antistitum, it becomes quite apparent that Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X were engaged in combating doctrinal deviations that actually sprang from an identical principle, the fantastically erroneous assumption that the supernatural communication of the Triune God could and should be brought up to date and given a certain respectability before modern society. The men who sustained the weird teachings condemned by Pope Leo XIII, a document, which, incidentally, did not denounce any mere phantom body of doctrine, and the men who taught and protected the doctrinal monstrosities stigmatized in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis, based their errors on a common foundation. The false Americanism and the heresy of Modernism were both offshoots of doctrinal liberal Catholicism.
This belief that the meaning of the Church's dogmatic message was in some way subject to change and capable of being improved and brought up to date was definitely not an explicit part of the original or the more naive stage of the liberal Catholic movement. The first components of liberal Catholicism, during the earlier days of the unfortunate Felicite De Lamennais, were religious indifferentism, some false concepts of human freedom, and the advocacy of a separation of Church and state as the ideal situation in a nation made up of members of the true Church. But, after these teachings had been forcefully repudiated by Pope Gregory XVI in his encyclical Mirari vos arbitramur, a new set of factors entered into this system. These were inserted into the fabric of liberal Catholicism because the leaders of this movement persisted in defending as legitimate Catholic doctrine this teaching, which had been clearly and vigorously condemned by the supreme power of the Catholic magisterium. Most prominent among these newer components of liberal Catholicism were minimism, doctrinal subjectivism, and an insistence that there had been and that there had to be at least some sort of change in the objective meaning of the Church's dogmatic message over the course of the centuries. 8
The liberal Catholic since the time of Montalembert has been well aware of the fact that the basic theses he proposes as acceptable Catholic doctrine have been specifically and vehemently repudiated by the doctrinal authority of the Roman Church. If he is to continue to propose these teachings as a member of the Church, he is obliged by the very force of self-consistency to claim that the declarations of the magisterium, which condemned his favorite theses do not at this moment mean objectively what they meant at the time they were issued. And, if such a claim is advanced about the Mirari vos arbitramur, there is very little to prevent its being put forward on the subject of the Athanasian Creed. Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X were well aware of the fact that the advocates of the false Americanism and the teachers and the protectors of the Modernist heresy were employing this same discredited tactic.
This common basis of the false doctrinal Americanism and of the Modernist heresy is, like doctrinal indifferentism itself, ultimately a rejection of Catholic dogma as a genuine supernatural message or communication from the living God Himself. It would seem impossible for anyone to be blasphemous or silly enough to be convinced, on the one hand, that the dogmatic message of the Catholic Church is actually a locutio Dei ad homines, and to imagine, on the other hand, that he, a mere creature, could in some way improve that teaching or make it more respectable. The very fact that a man would be so rash as to attempt to bring the dogma of the Church up to date, or to make it more acceptable to those who are not privileged to be members of the true Church, indicates that this individual is not actually and profoundly convinced that this dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is a supernatural communication from the living and Triune God, the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth. It would be the height of blasphemy knowingly to set out to improve or to bring up to date what one would seriously consider a genuine message from the First Cause of the universe.
The conclusion to the Sacrorum antistitum brings out more clearly than any other statement of the Holy See the fact that Modernism sprang from the same basic principle, as did the false Americanism pointed out and proscribed in the Testem benevolentiae of Pope Leo XIII.
The Immediate Context Of The Oath In The Sacrorum Antistitum
The main body of the first section of the Sacrorum antistitum is substantially a repetition of the legislative or disciplinary portion of the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis. To this, however, in the text of the Sacrorum antistitum, is added an expression of the saintly Pontiff's concern for seminaries, ending with the vigorous command that henceforth the reading of "diaria quaevis aut commentaria, quantumvis optima" was strictly forbidden to seminarians "onerata moderatorum conscientia qui ne id accidat religiose non caverint." 9
The second section of the Sacrorum antistitum, the one which contains and which deals with the Oath against Modernism, follows immediately after the statement of the prohibition of the reading of newspapers by seminarians. The first part of this section is of particular importance in that it shows very clearly the effect, which St. Pius X wished to produce through the taking of the oath. The section begins as follows:
But in order to do away with all suspicion that Modernism may secretly enter in [to the seminaries], not only do We will that the commands listed under n. 2 above be obeyed absolutely, but We also order that all teachers, before their first lectures at the beginning of the scholastic year, must show to their Bishop the text which each shall decide to use in teaching, or the questions or theses that are to be treated, and that furthermore throughout the year itself the kind of teaching of each course be examined, and that if such teaching be found to run counter to sound doctrine, that this will result in the immediate dismissal of the teacher. Finally [We will] that over and above the profession of faith [the teacher] should take an oath before his Bishop, according to the formula that follows, and that he should sign his name. 10
The Sacrorum antistitum goes on to say that the profession of faith shall be that prescribed by Pope Pius IV, together with the additions, relative to the First Vatican Council, prescribed by the Decree of Jan. 20, 1877. And it likewise indicates the Church officials other than professors in seminaries who are bound by law to take the Oath.
Actually, then, in the immediate context of the Sacrorum antistitum, the command that seminary professors take the Oath against Modernism stands out as one of four orders directed towards the prevention of the entrance of Modernism into ecclesiastical seminaries. These four directives are: (1) the strict carrying out of the legislation set down under n. 2 of the first section of the Sacrorum antistitum, (2) the submission by individual seminary professors to their Bishops at the beginning of the scholastic year of the textbooks they are going to use and of the theses they are going to propound, (3) the investigation (obviously by the competent and proper ecclesiastical authority), of the teaching offered in the various courses being given to the seminarians, and finally (4) the making of the Tridentine-Vatican profession of faith and the taking of the Oath against Modernism. The teacher is to sign his name to the Oath he has taken. The context would seem to indicate that it was the mind of St. Pius X that this Oath should be taken every year at the beginning of the academic term.
All of the other operations, including the taking of the Oath against Modernism, are subordinated to a certain extent to the legislation set down in the second sub-section of the first part of the Sacrorum antistitum. This sub-section, it must be remembered, is part of the text of the Sacrorum antistitum, which is simply reproduced from the disciplinary portion of the Pascendi dominici gregis. The pertinent sub-section follows:
All these prescriptions, both Our own and those of Our predecessor, are to be kept in view whenever there is a question of choosing directors and teachers for seminaries and for Catholic universities. Anyone who in any way is found to be tainted with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, whether of administration or of teaching, and those who already occupy such offices are to be removed. The same policy is to be followed with regard to those who openly or secretly lend support to Modernism, either by praising the Modernists and excusing their culpable conduct, or by carping at scholasticism, and the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries; and with regard to those who manifest a love of novelty in history, archeology, and biblical exegesis; and finally with regard to those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer the secular [sciences] to them. On this entire subject, Venerable Brethren, and especially with regard to the choice of teachers, you cannot be too watchful or too careful, for as a rule the students are modeled according to the pattern of their teachers. Strong in the consciousness of your duty, act always in this matter with prudence and with vigor.
Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hates the proud and the obstinate mind. In the future the doctorate in theology or in canon law must never be conferred on anyone who has not first of all made the regular course in scholastic philosophy. If such a doctorate be conferred, it is to be held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics of Italy, both secular and regular, about the frequenting of universities, We now decree to be extended to all nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic institute or university must not in the future follow in civil universities those courses for which there are chairs in the Catholic institutes to which they belong. If this has been permitted anywhere in the past, We order that it shall not be allowed in the future. Let the Bishops who form the governing boards of such institutes or universities see to it with all care that these Our commands be constantly observed. 11
There can be no doubt whatsoever about the severity of the directives which are, in the text of the Sacrorum antistitum, immediately associated with the command that teachers in seminaries and in the ecclesiastical schools of Catholic universities take the Oath against Modernism, which appeared for the first time in that document. St. Pius X ordered that those who taught the errors condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu and in the Pascendi dominici gregis should be dropped from any position on the administrative or on the teaching staff of any seminary or Catholic university, and that men who held such views must not, under any conditions whatsoever, be considered as prospects for membership in the administrations or in the professional corps of such institutions. Furthermore he ordered that the sympathizers with Modernism should be treated in exactly the same fashion. It is quite obvious that, in speaking of lovers of "novelties," the saintly Pontiff meant people who favored these propositions condemned by the Church and designated as Modernism.
Then there were other directives. It was decreed that the doctorate in sacred theology and in canon law must never, in the future, be conferred on any person who had not taken a regular course in scholastic philosophy. Furthermore, St. Pius X ordered that priests connected with Catholic institutions of higher learning must not, in the future, take in non-Catholic institutions of higher studies courses, which were being given in the schools with which they themselves were connected.
All of these directives went against the liberal Catholic spirit, of which Modernism was the outstanding expression. All of them were likewise unpopular, as calculated to arouse the antagonism of the enemies who attacked the Church from the outside. All of them were duly denounced and regretted as obscurantist. Catholics of mediocre intellectual attainments attracted praise to themselves for their disloyalty to Our Lord's cause and to His Church, which was manifested in their disdainful reactions against these commands of Christ's Vicar on earth. Yet certainly and incontrovertibly the cause of Christ, the cause of truth, the cause of the Catholic faith, benefited to the extent that these rigorous directives were carried out.
It must definitely be understood that the most rigorous and the most important of these directives set forth in the disciplinary part of the Pascendi dominici gregis, and afterwards in the Sacrorum antistitum, are expressions of what we may call the natural law of the supernatural order. In other words, the obligation of the individual Bishop to exclude Modernists and sympathizers with Modernism from the administrations and from the professorial staffs of seminaries and of Catholic universities definitely did not begin with the first promulgation of this law by St. Pius X. Given the position and the obligation of the Bishop within the true Church of Jesus Christ, and given the nature and the necessity of the Catholic faith, it is always the clear duty of the Bishop to exclude from the dignity of teaching in the Church in any position under his control any individual who will teach or favor the contradiction of the divinely revealed message. Modernism was and is such a contradiction. Thus it was and always will necessarily remain the duty of the Bishop to see to it that any individual who teaches or who supports Modernism in any way be excluded from any co-operation in the apostolic task of teaching the divine message of Jesus Christ within His Church.
In issuing this decree, St. Pius X was taking cognizance of the basic truth about the teaching work in the Church, which was afterwards brought out so clearly by Pope Pius XII in his allocution Si diligis. This document brings out more clearly than any other in recent years the tremendous responsibility of the Bishop in the field of teaching the divine message.
Christ Our Lord entrusted the truth, which He had brought from heaven to the Apostles, and through them to their successors. He sent His Apostles, as He had been sent by the Father, (John, 20:21), to teach all nations everything they had heard from Him (cf. Matt., 28:19 f.). The Apostles are, therefore by divine right the true doctors and teachers in the Church. Besides the lawful successors of the Apostles, namely the Roman Pontiff for the universal Church and the Bishops for the faithful entrusted to their care (cf. can. 1326), there are no other teachers divinely constituted in the Church of Christ. But both the Bishops and, first of all, the Supreme Teacher and Vicar of Christ on earth, may associate others with themselves in their work as teacher, and may use their advice. They delegate to them the faculty to teach, either by special grant, or by conferring an office to which this faculty is attached (cf. can. 1328). Those who are so called teach, not in their own name, nor by reason of their theological knowledge, but by reason of the mandate they have received from the lawful Teaching Authority. Their faculty always remains subject to that Authority, nor is it ever exercised in its own right or independently. Bishops, for their part, by conferring this faculty, are not deprived of the right to teach. They retain the very grave obligation of supervising the doctrine, which others propose, in order to help them and of seeing to its integrity and security. Therefore the legitimate Teaching Authority of the Church is guilty of no injury or no offence to any of those to whom it has given a canonical mission, if it desires to ascertain what they, to whom it has entrusted the mission of teaching, are proposing and defending in their lectures, in books, notes, and reviews intended for the use of their students, as well as in books and other publications intended for the general public. 12
In the Si diligis, Pope Pius XII explains the directives issued by St. Pius X in the Pascendi and in the Sacrorum antistitum. The members of the apostolic hierarchy of jurisdiction, the Pope and the residential Bishops throughout the world are responsible before God Himself for the teaching in the Catholic Church. All the legitimate teaching in the Church is issued by them or under their direction. They have full responsibility and full competence to see to it that the faithful of Christ receive His message in all of its purity and integrity. Naturally if they themselves contradict, or transform, or withhold any portion of the revealed truth, which has been entrusted to them, they will have been recreant to the commission they have received from Our Lord Himself. And, in precisely the same way, they are being disloyal to Our Lord if they allow those whom they use as helpers in the teaching work within the Church to deny or to adulterate any of the divinely revealed doctrines.
The power and the dignity of the apostolic Catholic hierarchy in the field of dogmatic teaching are beyond comparison. But with that dignity and with that authority goes the gravest responsibility which human beings are called upon to assume. The directives, which, in the Sacrorum antistitum, form the immediate context of the command to take the Oath against Modernism, simply take cognizance of these basic and most important facts.
In the final analysis, they are founded upon an awareness of the tremendous and vital necessity of the divine faith itself. St. Pius X directed that all professors or directors of seminaries and of Catholic universities, who taught or showed sympathy with the doctrines condemned as Modernism, should be removed from their positions, and commanded that such individuals should not be brought into such positions in the future. This order, as is quite obvious, is simply a statement of what is actually required by the constitution of the Catholic Church itself. The same obligation would have been incumbent on the Bishops of the Catholic Church even if St. Pius X had not spoken out and issued these directives.
The Sacrorum antistitum, however, goes even further. It demands that the individual teachers in seminaries and in Catholic universities submit to their Bishops the name of the textbook they intend to follow or the list of theses they intend to teach and defend in their academic lectures. Furthermore it insists that the Bishops themselves take care, during the course of the academic year, to find out exactly what is being taught in the various classes in the Catholic institutes of higher learning under their direction. And then, in order to bring out this obligation for doctrinal orthodoxy in the clearest possible way, the Sacrorum antistitum orders these teachers to make the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, and to take and sign their names to the special Oath composed by St. Pius X precisely to repudiate and to condemn the central teachings of the Modernist movement.
With this salutary severity with reference to the teachers and directors of ecclesiastical seminaries and of Catholic universities, the Sacrorum antistitum likewise contains strict directives about the candidates for Holy Orders. Men who hold Modernistic teachings or who are sympathetic towards the Modernists are not to be ordained. With his intense awareness of the pastoral mission of the Catholic priesthood, St. Pius X was all too cognizant of the harm that could and inevitably would come to the Catholic Church from a priest who would be willing to pervert his position by working against the divinely revealed teaching of Jesus Christ.
The Oath Itself
Against the background of the Sacrorum antistitum, then, the Oath against Modernism appears as something intended primarily for teachers in and directors of ecclesiastical seminaries and Catholic universities. Other dignitaries of the Catholic Church are ordered to take this Oath, along with the Tridentine Profession of the Faith. But it is something intended primarily and immediately for those who are called upon to teach or to direct candidates for Holy Orders.
Thus the Oath itself is constituted as a Profession of the Catholic belief. The man who takes this Oath makes his solemn declaration in the sight of God Himself that he firmly accepts and receives all the teachings and each individual one of the teachings "that have been defined, asserted, and declared by the infallible magisterium of the Church, especially those points of doctrine which are directly opposed to the errors of this time." 13 The most important and influential of these "errors of this time" are clearly pointed out in the formula, and the man who takes the Oath calls upon God as His Witness that he rejects these false judgments and firmly accepts the statements of Catholic doctrine opposed to them. St. Pius X ordered that the professors and administrators in seminaries and in Catholic universities sign their names to the formula of the Oath after they had taken it. Thus it would be difficult to find or even to conceive of a more effective measure for the protection of candidates for Holy Orders from the infection of Modernism than that constituted by St. Pius X in his legislation about the Oath in the Sacrorum antistitum. The man who taught or in any way aided in the dissemination or the protection of Modernistic teachings in a seminary or in a Catholic university after the issuance of the Sacrorum antistitum would mark himself, not only as a sinner against the Catholic faith, but also as a common perjurer.
Incidentally, the Oath against Modernism contained in the Sacrorum antistitum is something, which demands a certain amount of knowledge in the man who takes it seriously and religiously. We must not allow ourselves to forget that essentially an oath is an act of religion, an act in which we worship almighty God or manifest our acknowledgement of His supreme excellence and of our own complete and absolute dependence upon Him. 14 Thus an oath is definitely not something that can be taken lightly. And the man who takes the Oath against Modernism calls upon God to witness that he reverently submits and whole-heartedly assents "to all the condemnations, the declarations, and the commands which are contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially to those that relate to what they call the history of dogmas." 15 It would seem to be irreverent indeed for any seminary or university professor to take this oath without knowing exactly what is condemned, what is taught, and what is commanded in these two tremendously important documents. It is quite obvious that some of the doctrines and directives contained in the Pascendi and in the Lamentabili are also brought out in the Oath against Modernism. But it is equally clear that not all of these teachings and precepts of the two 1907 documents are set forth in the Oath, and that the man who wishes to take the Oath as a religious act, to take it worthily, must exert himself to find out exactly and in detail what he is promising to accept and to believe. And it is patent that the man who does not take the time and the trouble to find out what is taught and what is commanded in the Pascendi and in the Lamentabili is being somewhat careless in calling upon the living God to witness that he will whole-heartedly abide by the doctrines and the directives contained in these two statements.
Recapitulation
The Oath against Modernism is undoubtedly, up until now, the most important and the most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the twentieth century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth, in the face of the errors, which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history. It was a profession of Catholic belief intended primarily for those engaged in the spiritual and intellectual formation of candidates for Holy Orders. According to the strict command of the Sacrorum antistitum, the men for whom the Oath against Modernism was primarily intended were also obliged to show their Bishops, at the beginning of each academic year, the textbooks they were employing in class, and the theses they intended to teach and to defend. The Bishops themselves were not only reminded of their obligation, but were strictly commanded to watch over the teaching being given in the institutions of higher learning under their direction and control.
The Bishops were also commanded to see to it that no man tainted with Modernism, either as a teacher of the errors condemned in the Lamentabili and the Pascendi, or as one who supported these errors by working to discredit the teachers of Catholic truth who opposed and unmasked Modernism, was to be admitted to or permitted to remain in the professorial corps or the administration of an ecclesiastical seminary or a Catholic university. And no young man who was infected by Modernism errors was to be allowed to become or to remain a candidate for Holy Orders.
This was the rigorous and powerful direction of the Sacrorum antistitum. Quite obviously it was not and it still is not in accord with the tastes of liberal Catholics. But it was and it remains the great expression of St. Pius X's desire to accomplish his mission as Christ's Vicar on earth. It was and it remains a tremendously effective factor for the protection of the little ones of Jesus Christ against the virus of Modernism.
Endnotes
1 The Latin text of the Sacrorum antistitum is to be found in the Codicis iuris canonici fontes, cura Petri Cardinalis Gasparri editi (Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1933), III, 774-90. This particular section is on p. 774.
2 The documentation and the results of this investigation are contained in the Disquisitio circa quasdam obiectiones modum agendi Servi Dei [Pii Papae X] respicientes in Modernismi debellatione, una cum summario additionali ex officio compilato, which is n. 77 of the printed documents of the Sectio historica of the Sacra Rituum Congregatio. The work was edited by Father Antonelli, O.F.M. It is mentioned and used rather well by Pierre Fernessole, in his Pie X: Essai historique (Paris: Lethielleux, 1953), II, 237-51. It is employed brilliantly by Fr. Raymond Dulac in his two famous articles, "Les devoirs du journaliste catholique selon le Bienheureux Pie X," and "Simple note sur le Sodalitium Pianum," in La pensee catholique, n. 23 (1952), 68-87; 88-93.
3 Disquisitio, p. 127. Cited by Fernessole, op. cit., II, 249.
4 It is quite evident that Pope Benedict XV considered the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X as an influential movement in the Church four years after the Sacrorum antistitum was written. Thus we read in the Ad beatissimi: "And so there came into being the monstrous errors of Modernism, which Our predecessor rightly designated as the gathering together of all the heresies, and which he solemnly condemned. To the fullest extent possible, Venerable Brethren, We here renew that condemnation. And, because this pestiferous contagion has not yet been overcome, but even now creeps in here and there, even though in a hidden manner. We exhort all most diligently against any infection of this evil, to which you might rightly apply the words that Job said on another subject: 'It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring.' And We will that Catholic men should turn away in disgust, not only from the errors, but from the very mentality, or, as they call it, the spirit of the Modernists" (Cf. Codicis iuris canonici fontes. III, 842).
It must also be remembered that the errors denounced by the late Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis definitely were Modernistic.
5 Perhaps the most insolent and naive of these attacks is that contained in the article " 'La Sapiniere,' ou breve histoire de l'organisation integriste," written by someone who used the pseudonym "Louis Davallon," in the May 15, 1955, number of Folliet's Chronique sociale de France, pp. 241-62. A brief discussion of this unfortunate and thoroughly untrustworthy article will be found in Fenton, "Some Recent Writings in the Field of Fundamental Dogmatic Theology," Part II, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXXIV, 5 (May, 1956), 340-45. It is tragic that an otherwise respectable book, The Life of Benedict XV, by Walter H. Peters (Milwaukee: Bruce 1959), incorporates some of this nonsensical propaganda against Monsignor Benigni into its chapter "Modernists and Integralists" (pp. 42-53).
6 The text is in Codicis iuris canonici fontes. III, 789 f.
7 The text is in Denz., n. 1967. This passage is translated in Father Wynne's edition of The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1903), p. 442.
8 Cf. Fenton, "The Components of Liberal Catholicism," in The American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXXIX, 1 (July, 1958), 36-53.
9 Codicis iuris canonici fontes. III, 782.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., III, 776.
12 The text and translation of the Si diligis are in The American Ecclesiastical Review, CXXX, 2 (Aug., 1954), 127-37. This passage is found on pp. 133 f.
13 Denz., n. 2145.
14 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 89, a. 4.
15 Denz., n. 2146.
|
|
|
UK prime minister orders new virus lockdown for England |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 09:06 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
UK prime minister orders new virus lockdown for England
LONDON (AP) — Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced on Monday a new national lockdown for England until at least mid-February to combat a fast-spreading new variant of the coronavirus, even as Britain ramped up its vaccination program by becoming the first nation to start using the shot developed by Oxford University and drugmaker AstraZeneca.
Johnson said people must stay at home again, as they were ordered to do so in the first wave of the pandemic in March, this time because the new virus variant was spreading in a “frustrating and alarming” way.
“As I speak to you tonight, our hospitals are under more pressure from COVID than at any time since the start of the pandemic,” he said in a televised address.
From Tuesday, primary and secondary schools and colleges will be closed for face to face learning except for the children of key workers and vulnerable pupils. University students will not be returning until at least mid-February. People were told to work from home unless it’s impossible to do so, and leave home only for essential trips.
All nonessential shops and personal care services like hairdressers will be closed, and restaurants can only operate takeout services.
As of Monday, there were 26,626 COVID-19 patients in hospitals in England, an increase of more than 30% from a week ago. That is 40% above the highest level of the first wave in the spring.
Large areas of England were already under tight restrictions as officials try to control an alarming surge in coronavirus cases in recent weeks, blamed on a new variant of COVID-19 that is more contagious than existing variants. Authorities have recorded more than 50,000 new infections daily since passing that milestone for the first time on Dec. 29. On Monday, they reported 407 virus-related deaths to push the confirmed death toll total to 75,431, one of the worst in Europe.
The U.K.’s chief medical officers warned that without further action, “there is a material risk of the National Health Service in several areas being overwhelmed over the next 21 days.” [See this article and accompanying video of a woman showing a nearly empty hospital in the UK and asking 'where are all the COVID patients?' - The Catacombs]
Hours earlier, Scotland’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon, also imposed a lockdown there with broadly similar restrictions from Tuesday until the end of January.
“I am more concerned about the situation we face now than I have been at any time since March last year,” Sturgeon said in Edinburgh.
“The weeks ahead will be the hardest yet but I really do believe that we’re entering the last phase of the struggle,” Johnson said.
Britain has secured the rights to 100 million doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper and easier to use than some of its rivals. In particular, it doesn’t require the super-cold storage needed for the Pfizer vaccine.
The new vaccine will be administered at a small number of hospitals for the first few days so authorities can watch out for any adverse reactions. Officials said hundreds of new vaccination sites — including local doctors’ offices — will open later this week, joining the more than 700 vaccination sites already in operation.
A “massive ramp-up operation” is now underway, Johnson said. The goal was that by mid-February, some 13 million people in the top priority groups — care home residents, all those over 70 years old, frontline health and social workers, and those deemed extremely clinically vulnerable — will be vaccinated, he said.
Brian Pinker, an 82-year-old dialysis patient, received the first Oxford-AstraZeneca shot early Monday at Oxford University Hospital.
“The nurses, doctors and staff today have all been brilliant, and I can now really look forward to celebrating my 48th wedding anniversary with my wife, Shirley, later this year,” Pinker said in a statement released by the National Health Service.
But aspects of Britain’s vaccination plan have spurred controversy.
Both vaccines require two shots, and Pfizer had recommended that the second dose be given within 21 days of the first. But the U.K.’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization said authorities should give the first vaccine dose to as many people as possible, rather than setting aside shots to ensure others receive two doses. It has stretched out the time between the doses from 21 days to within 12 weeks.
While two doses are required to fully protect against COVID-19, both vaccines provide high levels of protection after the first dose, the committee said. Making the first dose the priority will “maximize benefits from the vaccination program in the short term,” it said.
Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said policymakers are being forced to balance the potential risks of this change against the benefits in the middle of a deadly pandemic.
“As has become clear to everyone during 2020, delays cost lives,” Evans said. “When resources of doses and people to vaccinate are limited, then vaccinating more people with potentially less efficacy is demonstrably better than a fuller efficacy in only half.”
Monday’s urgent announcement was yet another change of course for Johnson, who had stuck with a regional alert system that stipulated varying restrictions for areas depending on the severity of local infections. London and large areas of southeast England were put under the highest level of restrictions in mid-December, and more regions soon joined them.
But it soon became clear that the regional approach wasn’t working to tamp down the spread of the virus, and critics have been clamoring for a tougher national lockdown.
And while schools in London were already closed due to high infection rates in the capital, Johnson had said that students in many parts of the country could return to classrooms on Monday after the Christmas holidays, to the dismay of teachers’ unions.
“We are relieved the government has finally bowed to the inevitable and agreed to move schools and colleges to remote education in response to alarming COVID infection rates,” said Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders.
|
|
|
Massachusetts Passes 'Passive Infanticide' Bill |
Posted by: Stone - 01-05-2021, 08:51 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
Massachusetts lawmakers override governor’s veto, expand abortion access for minors
The pro-life Massachusetts Family Institute called the legislation ‘Infanticide Act.’
BOSTON, Massachusetts, January 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Despite efforts on the part of local pro-life activists, Massachusetts legislators last week overrode a veto of Governor Charlie Baker ® and enacted a significant expansion of decriminalized abortion access in the state.
With required supermajorities in both legislative chambers, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted 107 to 46 on Monday, December 28th; and without a statement or any debate, the Senate followed suite the next day with a vote of 32 to 8, effectively overriding the governor’s veto.
According to the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), the legislation enshrines the decriminalization of abortion prior to 24 weeks for any reason, while, for all practical purposes, extending abortion access up to the moment of birth.
Massachusetts law had allowed abortion after 24 weeks if the mother’s life is at risk. Under this new provision, that exception is expanded “to preserve the patient’s physical or mental health” — criteria which can be broadly interpreted to make almost any abortion legal.
But, according to MFI, the legislation goes even further and allows “passive infanticide.” Instead of directing abortionists to “take all reasonable steps” to save a child who has survived a botched abortion, the new law “simply requires that there be life-saving equipment present, but doesn’t require that the physician actually USE it.” Thus, MFI has labeled this legislation the “Infanticide Act.”
Further, the new law no longer requires abortions procured prior to 24 weeks to be performed by a physician, but allows non-doctors such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners or nurse midwives to kill preborn babies as well.
Finally, the law lowers parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion from the age of 18 to 16. MFI considers this a “horrifying” prospect for “any sane parent” and “[f]or those concerned about sex trafficking,” as it “allows abusers to cover their crimes by taking underage girls to a Planned Parenthood clinic themselves and keeping parents out of the picture.”
Even though he is a pro-abortion Republican, Gov. Baker expressed concerns about this latter measure, along with the expansion of access to “later-term abortions” in vetoing the bill and sending it back to the legislature on Christmas Eve.
Speaker of the Massachusetts House Bob DeLeo (D) promised on the same evening that his chamber “will seek to override the Administration’s veto,” in order to expand access to abortion, which they did on Monday, December 28.
Andrew Beckwith, president of MFI, noted the significance of these dates. In response to Baker’s veto, MFI expressed hope that a “Christmas Eve Miracle” would stop the “Infanticide Act.” Following the House override vote, Beckwith observed that December 28th “is also the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the day in the church calendar when we remember the baby boys killed by Herod’s decree.”
Beckwith concludes, “there is a deeper struggle at play here … [t]hese are all moral, spiritual battles with real, and often devastating, consequences.”
Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, stated, “Pro-lifers know setbacks. What we don’t know how to do is give up, look the other way, and allow injustice to stand.”
“We know the truth is worth pursuing!” she continued. “We know the lives we work to protect are worth every minute of our time in this life … And we look forward to continuing our work alongside the citizens of Massachusetts, who already know the value of human life and are eager to educate and support others and to ultimately illuminate the inherent right to life of the unborn.”
“As we have done since January 23, 1973, Massachusetts Citizens for Life will work tirelessly to make abortion unthinkable. And we will prevail.”
|
|
|
|