“Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?”

Vol 8 Issue 38 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
September 19, 2015 ~ Saint Januarius, opn!

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (34)
2. Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost
3. St. Eustace and Companions
4. Christ in the Home (9)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

This week a convert of Fundamentalism and Anglicanism to the Conciliar Church writes of three branches within Conciliar Catholicism:

I agree with Daniel Maguire [a theologian at Marquette University] that there are three perspectives within the Catholic Church. I could even put names and faces to his three groups of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Catholics. The Orthodox are the traditionalists who love the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The Conservatives are the Novus Ordo “Evangelical Catholics”. The Reform are the Nuns on the Bus, Spirit of Vatican II, “I’ll do it My Way” Catholics. 

We all know that these three groups exist within the Catholic Church, and that there is conflict among them. However, despite the conflict we still assert a core unity around the magisterium and authority of the Pope.

(http://www.ncregister.com/blog/longenecker/can-there-be-a-catholic-schism/#ixzz3mC3dAgPi)

What I want to point out is there is nothing here about faith, only that you have Nostalgic Catholics, Protestant Catholics and Pagan Catholics—obviously not united in the same faith but under the same leader more akin to the Church of England, where you have the Queen as Head of the Church of England but no two Anglicans can agree on any point of faith (they don’t even discuss it) and in which you have the High Church, the Broad Church and the Low Church. The unity is not in one faith, but in one universal leader.

There are further articles of interest in light of the devastating trends that are happening in the world today and which faithful Catholics should have a clear grasp as to why these movements must be opposed.

As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit.—The Editor

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

Baptism Instituted by Christ

In the last section Baptism was considered in relation to its meaning as a word from the Greek, that is, a washing. That Baptism is an outward sign instituted by Jesus Christ is a dogma of faith. One needs only to review the dogmatic declarations by the Church to know it is not disputable. The Council of Trent (Session VII, March 3, 1547):

Canon. 1: If any one says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that there are more than seven or fewer than seven—that is, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony; or that any one of these is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema (D844).

And, even more recently, Pope St Pius X condemned this Modernist error: (42)The Christian community brought about the necessity of baptism by adopting it as a necessary rite and joining to it the obligations of the profession of a Christian (D2042).

The Roman Catechism instructs the Pastor to teach and point out that there are two different periods of time which relate to Baptism, ­­ one the period of its institution by the Redeemer; the other, the establishment of the law regarding its reception. (Rom. Cat. II, 2.)

Therefore, it is well that one first considers the testimony of Christ and the Scripture concerning the institution of this Sacrament. As was said previously, Christ, before His going into the desert to fast and pray (cf. Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12f; Luke 4:1-13), presented Himself to John the Baptist to be baptized: “Then Jesus came from Galilee to John, at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. And John was for hindering Him, and said, ‘It is I who ought to be baptized by thee, and dost Thou come to me?’ But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Let it be so now, for so it becomes us to fulfill all justice’” (Matt. iii. 13-15).

Being baptized by John not only gave confirmation to the baptism of John and not only provided the transition of those following John in repentance to following Christ as Messias, it was also to sanctify the act of baptizing as the outward sign of justification. The Catechism of the Council of Trent

With regard to the former, it is clear that this sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying.  St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. xxxviii. n. 16) and St. Augustine (Serm. cxxxv. [in app.] n. 4) testify that to water was then imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life.  In another place St Augustine says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sin (ibid.). And, again: The Lord is baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing (Serm. xxxvii. de temp).

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by Our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion.  The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open (Matt. iii. 16-17; Mark i. 10-11; Luke iii. 21-22).

Should anyone desire to know how Our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding.  Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtues and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were of all the actions of Christ (Cat. Rom.  II, 2, 20).

Even before John the Baptist was taken as prisoner by Herod (Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:19), Christ had instructed His disciples to Baptize. It would seem apparent  that the baptism of Christ was not the Baptism of John. As John was baptizing to prepare the people for the coming of Christ, Christ could not have his disciples baptize in His presence to prepare them for His coming when He had already come. John the Baptize implies this when he addresses the complaints of his disciples who had not followed the Christ:

Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God doth not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:26-36)

John the Baptist is instructing his followers that the baptism of the Christ is not his baptism, but that for which he foretold the Christ would baptized—the same words which were seen in the conversation of Jesus Christ with Nicodemus: If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things? And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.(3:11-12). Here, also, Jesus was speaking of baptism: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (v. 5). It would only be proper and express that unity if Christ is explaining also to Nicodemus not that which would be, but that which is: Baptism and that invitation to baptism. It would not be Christ who baptizes, for then salvation would be through that act alone. Rather the Disciples of Christ baptize, bestowing justification in view of the act of Redemption Christ would accomplish for all. That the Apostles were baptized prior to the Crucifixion is taught in that they received the Holy Eucharist and were made priests and bishops in the New Covenant. These require that one be baptized and could only be maintained that one must be baptized only if the Apostles themselves had been Baptized—which does not require a priest or bishop to administer, but even one who is not baptized may administer the Sacrament. In this Augustine has already written:

When almost all felt the force of this argument [That Christ ministered to Judas, even though He knew Judas would betray Him], Fortunius [a heretic]attempted to meet it by saying, that before the Lord’s Passion that communion with a wicked man did no harm to the apostles, because they had not as yet the baptism of Christ, but the baptism of John only. When he said this, I [Augustine] asked him to explain how it was written that Jesus baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples, that is to say, baptized by means of His disciples? (John 4:1-2) How could they give what they had not received (a question often used by the Donatists themselves)? Did Christ baptize with the baptism of John? I was prepared to ask many other questions in connection with this opinion of Fortunius; such as— how John himself was interrogated as to the Lord’s baptizing, and replied that He had the bride, and was the Bridegroom? (John 3:29) Was it, then, lawful for the Bridegroom to baptize with the baptism of him who was but a friend or servant? Again, how could they receive the Eucharist if not previously baptized? Or how could the Lord in that case have said in reply to Peter, who was willing to be wholly washed by Him, He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit? (John 13:10) For perfect cleansing is by the baptism, not of John, but of the Lord, if the person receiving it be worthy; if, however, he be unworthy, the sacraments abide in him, not to his salvation, but to his perdition. When I was about to put these questions, Fortunius himself saw that he ought not to have mooted the subject of the baptism of the disciples of the Lord. (Letter 44, 5, 10)

John the Evangelist goes on in the next chapter (4:1-2) to state: When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John, (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples). But, even though it may seem there is no connection between this introduction to the chapter (chapters not being original to the Bible, the Bible being set into chapters first in the 13^th century by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, the same who extracted the Magna Carta from King John of England) and that which follows, the Woman at the Well, it actually connects the two chapters on the theme of baptism. The scene is set of Our Lord both avoiding arrest from Herod and the Pharisees as they would John the Baptist (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John 1, 4, 552) and extending Salvation to all. In John’s Gospel, therefore, one reads:

He cometh therefore to a city of Samaria, which is called Sichar, near the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well. It was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria, to draw water. Jesus saith to her: Give me to drink. For his disciples were gone into the city to buy meats. Then that Samaritan woman saith to him: How dost thou, being a Jew, ask of me to drink, who am a Samaritan woman? For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans. Jesus answered, and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith to him: Sir, thou hast nothing wherein to draw, and the well is deep; from whence then hast thou living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered, and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever: But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting. The woman saith to him: Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw. (John 5:15)

Jacob symbolizes God the Father, and Joseph, His Son. This places into the mind the biblical passages pertaining to the mother of Jacob, Rebecca, who meets the servant of Abraham and gives water from the well. [The account of Jacob digging a well and giving the well to Joseph is not related in the Old Testament, thereby encompassing more a spiritual connotation—similar to the king and high priest Melchisedech (cf. Gen. 14:18 and Ps. 109.4 in which St. Paul interprets in Hebrews 5:6ff the pre-figurement of the Christ as Divine, as Priest, as King) who has no beginning or end.] Gregory of Nyssa eloquently describes the various type, continuing with Jacob:

According to the same force of the text, Jacob also, hastening to seek a bride, met Rachel unexpectedly at the well. And a great stone lay upon the well, which a multitude of shepherds were wont to roll away when they came together, and then gave water to themselves and to their flocks. But Jacob alone rolls away the stone, and waters the flocks of his spouse.  The thing is, I think, a dark saying, a shadow of what should come. For what is the stone that is laid but Christ Himself? For of Him Isaiah says, “And I will lay in the foundations of Sion a costly stone, precious, elect:” and Daniel likewise, “A stone was cut out without hands,” that is, Christ was born without a man. For as it is a new and marvellous thing that a stone should be cut out of the rock without a hewer or stone-cutting tools, so it is a thing beyond all wonder that an offspring should appear from an unwedded Virgin. There was lying, then, upon the well the spiritual stone, Christ, concealing in the deep and in mystery the laver of regeneration which needed much time— as it were a long rope— to bring it to light. And none rolled away the stone save Israel, who is mind seeing God. But he both draws up the water and gives drink to the sheep of Rachel; that is, he reveals the hidden mystery, and gives living water to the flock of the Church. (On the Baptism of Christ.)

This passage of the Woman at the Well is perhaps what Paul has in mind when he writes: There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus(Galatians 3:28). And Peter in addressing husbands: Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). For baptism would be administered to both male and female, unlike circumcision.

The Evangelist John says no more about Baptism, for he has established its institution in these two chapters. It will the other Evangelists and Apostles who will establish its precept.

(To be continued)

————————–

Week of Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost

Benedict Baur, O.S.B. 

The great commandment, charity

1. A lawyer approaches the Lord to tempt Him. “Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?” Jesus answers, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Gospel).
2. “Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God.” Our love of God is often an imperfect love. We love God because we have received some good from Him, or because we still hope to receive something from Him. We love Him that we may escape hell, and that we may be happy with Him in Heaven.

If our love is of this kind it is imperfect since we love God only next to ourselves, and because of our desire for eternal salvation. This is a wholesome and supernatural love, of course, but it is not a perfect love. A perfect love seeks God for Himself alone, without any thought of self. He who loves God with a perfect love, cleaves to the Lord and “is one spirit with Him” (I Cor. 6: 17). In perfect love, God and man, in a certain sense, are blended one with the other. God fills the soul with the fullness of His light and goodness. God penetrates the soul so completely, that He elevates it to His own life, and shares His knowledge and His life with it, so as to become the object of its beatitude. He addresses Himself completely to the soul, and the soul gives itself up completely to God and loses itself in Him. The soul then knows only God, lives in Him and for Him alone. Such a soul is lifted above itself and is so perfectly united to the God, that it takes on the nature of the beloved, and receives a new life. “He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” This love is of the very essence of Christian perfection, and the highest reach of the Christian soul. It is for the attaining to such a love that we strive to fulfill the commandments and undertake all the duties of our lives as Christians. Only through such a love can we achieve union with God, conquer sin, overcome self-love, and subject our inordinate passions. Only when we have given God our love have we given Him everything. When we have once given Him all, then He gives Himself completely to us in the fullness of His love for time and eternity.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul and with thy whole strength.” “God is a jealous God” (Gen. 2:5; 34:14). God wants our entire love. He will not be satisfied with anything less than that. He wants the complete homage of our soul, that is, that we submit completely to Him, so that we reason, will and desire just what He does, God wants us to subject our judgment perfectly to His and to accept everything that each day brings, great and small as coming from Him. He wants us to see all things in the light of faith, and in the spirit of the gospel. God is jealous of the love of our hearts for He wants to be the very center of all our desires and ambitions. He demands that we put the love of God before all other love that we may have for creatures or for ourselves. All other loves must be made to serve His love. God wants all of our powers and all of our works to be placed at His service, so that in everything we do we seek the fulfillment of His holy will, and never willingly depart from it. God wills that in so far as this is possible, our thoughts be entirely centered on Him, so that even during our work our thoughts return constantly to Him and bring: Him assurance of our love. He wants our whole and undivided love.

3. “Thou are just, O Lord,” when you demand our love. Nothing else which we can give God will suffice. “Make vows to the Lord and fulfill them, all you that round about him bring presents to him that is terrible” (Communion). We must remember that all of our vows and gifts have value in the sight of God only in the measure in which they are inspired by our love.

“Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God.” Do we really love Him? Do we love Him with a perfect love, that is, for Himself alone? Is our love one that causes us to avoid not only deliberate venial sins, and every voluntary infidelity, but makes us want nothing but to please Him? Do we seek nothing but His holy will, and do we bless Him both when He gives and when He takes away? Is our love such as to make us vigilant lest our hearts become attached to any created good, and most of all to ourselves? Do we express this love with countless acts of devotion and in acts of Christian charity toward our neighbor? It is most important that we ask ourselves, what is the quality of our love.

PRAYER

O God, Thou dost make all things a blessing for those who love Thee. Grant that our hearts may be bound to Thee by an inmovable love, that no temptation may harm the life that Thou hast awakened in us. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The great commandment, charity

1. A doctor of the law approached our Lord to tempt Him, asking: “Master, which is the great commandment of the law?” Jesus answered him: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Gospel).
2. The greatest commandment is this, “Thou shalt love.” This is a commandment which every Christian is bound in conscience before God to fulfill. This is a commandment which binds us continually and which we must strive each day to fulfill more perfectly. No matter how far we have advanced in the love of God, we will never exhaust the possibilities, and must press forward continually toward a more perfect love. The commandment to love “knows no bounds.” This is not a commandment which we can start observing today, and some day hope to complete. The will to love God “with our whole heart,” must be an ideal held up before our eyes constantly, and towards which we strive incessantly. It is not only the priest and the religious who is bound to love God with his “whole heart, and with his whole soul, and his whole mind.” Every Christian has precisely the same obligation.

“Not that I have already obtained this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on hoping that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not consider that I have laid hold of it already. But one thing I do: forgetting what is behind, I strain forward to what is before. I press on towards the goal, to the prize of God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3: 12-15). When we stop making progress in the love of God, we do not reach a static state, but we are actually losing ground. He who aspires to a perfect love can reach it only if he strives for it constantly and without ceasing. There is no fixed limit in which we can rest satisfied. Therefore, no one is fulfilling this commandment in the right way unless he seeks always to grow in love. It is by this very desire for a more perfect love that a man can know that he is making progress in the love of God. Either we are making progress, and are becoming more perfect, or we stop making progress and start to decline in perfection. Once we say to ourselves, “It is enough, I shall not strive to progress further, at that very moment we stop fulfilling the commandment to love God with all our hearts.”

3. “He who is holy, let him be hallowed still” (Apoc. 22: 11). Falling bodies accelerate their speed as they approach closer to the earth. A similar phenomenon may be observed in the soul: as a soul’s progress in perfection is accelerated as it approaches its goal, the more it must grow in love.

Since we are under a strict commandment of God to strive for a perfect love, and since this commandment binds us at all times, God will provide us at all times whatever is necessary for fulfilling it. We must hope and expect, then, to arrive at our goal, not by our own devices, or by virtue of our own strength, but by the help of God. “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” (Phil. 4: 13). However sublime the degree of love to which the goodness and the grace of God has called us, in the time allotted us here on earth, we must confess, if we do not reach it, that the fault has been entirely our own. God’s goodness and mercy help us to make progress. If we fail to make progress the fault is ours. Thus the soul that strives for perfection finds the infinite abyss of God’s mercy open to it, and the humility and nothingness of such a soul calls down from on high the grace and the strength to fulfill this great commandment of love.

PRAYER

O God, Thou dost make all things a blessing for those who love Thee. Grant that our hearts may be bound to Thee by an immovable love, that no temptation may harm the life that Thou hast awakened in us. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

____________________________________________

20: SS. EUSTACE AND HIS COMPANIONS, MARTYRS (DATE UNKNOWN)

ST EUSTACE (Eustachius, Eustathius) is among the most famous martyrs of the Church, venerated for many centuries in both East and West. He is one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, a patron of hunting men, and at least since the eighth century has given his name to the titular church of a cardinal deacon at Rome. But there is nothing that can be said of him with any sort of certainty. His legend relates that he was a Roman general under Trajan, by name Placidas, and while out hunting one day he saw coming towards him a stag, between whose antlers appeared a figure of Christ on the cross (which story appears also in the legend of St Hubert and other saints), and a voice issuing there from calling him by name. This is said to have occurred at Guadagnolo, between Tivoli and Palestrina. Placidas was at once converted by the vision and received baptism with his whole family. His own name he changed to Eustachius, that of his wife to Theopistis, and his sons to Agapitus and Theopistus. Eustace soon after lost all his wealth, and in a series of misadventures was separated from the members of his family. Then he was recalled to command the army at a critical moment, and was romantically reunited with his wife and sons. But Eustace refused to sacrifice to the gods after his victory for the imperial arms, and he and his family were martyred by being confined in a brazen bull wherein they were roasted to death.

(Butler’s Lives of the Saints) 

CHRIST IN THE HOME

BY RAOUL PLUS, S.J.

(1951)

MARRIAGE

THE FOUR BONDS OF CONJUGAL UNION

THE four bonds of conjugal union are the bond of consciences, the bond of intellects, the bond of souls, and the bond of hearts.

The bond of consciences: This means that husband and wife must have the same norms for judging between right and wrong. Is it not only too clear that if they do not have an identical point of view in their appreciation of God’s law, a fundamental disunity will be introduced into the very foundation of their unity? If one, for example, holds to the principle of free love while the other advocates the principle of unity in marriage, can there be complete communion? Or if

one is determined to abide by the demands of the moral law in the difficult duty of procreation while the other has no intention of abstaining from the latest practices of birth control or from onanism, will there not be constant struggle in their home, and that in regard to their most intimate relations? If both are not in agreement on the question of their children’s education, one will insist on secular education, the other on Catholic education, and again conflict will ensue.

The bond of intellect: This bond is not so essential as the first—it is in the realm not of strict requirement, but of the desirable. There is much to be gained from shared reading experiences, from a mutual exchange of artistic impressions and psychological observations.

For this, it is not necessary that the wife share her husband’s work. It is enough if she is able to be interested in his profession. Nor is it necessary that they have the same tastes, the same outlook; a certain diversity in mentality, on the contrary, is desirable on condition that there are possibilities for mutual exchange of ideas which will lead to mutual enrichment.

That evidently supposes great simplicity in both husband and wife, a loving liberty in their communication of ideas, a very humble recognition of any superior quality in each other, an entire good faith which makes each one willing to yield to the ideas of the other when they are better.

 

The bond of souls: It is not sufficient to enjoy an exchange of ideas in profane matters only. It is very desirable that there be harmony of action in the domain of the spiritual, the supernatural . . . prayer together . . . meditation in common . . . reception of Holy Communion together.

Father Doncoeur and several others go so far as to advise making the examination of conscience together with mutual admonition and mutual resolves. This would surely call for extreme delicacy and could not be so generally recommended as the suggestions given previously. But how beautiful it is when husband and wife are as an open book to each other!

Is it good to tell each other the graces received from God, the aspirations of the soul to become holy, to become a saint?

Yes, certainly, on condition that all be done with simplicity, with mutual spontaneity, with nothing of constraint, exaggeration or artificiality. Why should one hide perpetually from one’s life companion the best of oneself? Some individuals remain much too reticent and it is a hindrance to great depths of intimacy.

The bond of hearts: How many in marriage love each other selfishly, show themselves demanding, moody, eager to receive, but never generous in giving. There is so much selfishness in certain families even when they are very closely united.

The remedy is to supernaturalize the affections; to pass as quickly as possible from passionate love to virtuous love and to make conjugal love a permanent exercise of the theological virtue of charity.

LIFE TOGETHER IS DIFFICULT

MARRIAGE is not an easy vocation. It requires great virtue of husbands and wives.

Personal experience reveals how true that is; those who cannot claim this personal experience can, in any case, accept the statement of psychologists who observe, “Marriage is the most difficult of all human relations, because it is the most intimate and the most constant. To live so close to another person—who in spite of everything remains another person—to be thus drawn together, to associate so intimately with another personality without a wound or without any

shock to one’s feelings is a difficult thing.”

According to an old saying, “There are two moments in life when a man discovers that his wife is his dearest possession in the world—when he carries her across the threshold of his home, and when he accompanies her body to the cemetery.”

But in the interval between these two moments, they must live together, dwell together, persevere together. “To die for the woman one loves is easier than to live with her” claim those who ought to know. And how many women could claim similarly, “To die for the man one loves is easier than to live with him.”

They must bear with each other.

A French journalist while visiting Canada stopped for a time at Quebec. “You have no law permitting a divorce in the case of husbands and wives who do not understand each other?” he questioned.

“No.”

“But what do those married persons do whose discontent is continual and whose characters are in no way compatible?”

“They endure each other.”

How expressive an answer! How rich in meaning! How expressive of virtue which is perhaps heroic! They endure each other.

This is not an attempt to deny the delights of married life, but to show that more than a little generosity is required to bear its difficulties.

In “The New Jerusalem” by Chesterton, a young girl is sought in marriage. She opposes the proposal in view of differences in temperament between her

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message