Vol 8 Issue 49 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
December 5, 2015 ~ Advent Feria

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (45)
2. Second Sunday in Advent
3. Saint Nicholas
4. Christ in the Home (20)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

This month is always a busy month with the Novena (3-12) to Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron of the Americas which is then followed by the Las Posadas (16-24). So please excuse the absence of an introduction, but there are some articles and links below besides the regular commentaries.

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

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

The Church Defines her Teachings on Baptism 

Saint Augustine

Augustine and the Pelagians

The custom of baptizing children would be one of the beginning arguments against the Pelagians, solidifying the Church’s teaching that Baptism of children was of Apostolic practice and therefore part of the Catholic Faith. While in Italy, Augustine took to revealing the erroneous positions of the Manicheans—he, himself having once joined their sect in the attempt to understand good and evil in the world. As in the last sections one could see his intent on battling the Donatists as he arrived in Northern Africa until it was evident that this error was reaching its demise, yet, it was not without a replacement. Pelagius, a lay monk from the Britannias, had travelled to Rome and obtained a reputation of piousness and erudition as he loquaciously moved through Roman society. Just before Augustine arrived in Hippo, Pelagius had already found acceptance in Carthage. Augustine had the opportunity to meet Pelagius in Carthage and seems to have, in his friendly mannerisms, not observed anything to reproach. But when Pelagius left for Palestine, one of his devotees asked for ordination. The Bishop of Carthage, Aurelius, refused upon learning that this disciple of Pelagius, Caelestius, had penned a work “Contra traducem peccati” that rejected original sin as the Church had always taught, that is, he claimed: 

1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2. Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.(quoted from Pohle, Pelagius and Pelagianism in CE; cf. Augustine, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 23)

Augustine, and the African bishops immediately condemned the teachings that they now recognized were being propagated by Pelagius and informed the other Bishops of their decisions. Unfortunately, the past controversies within the African Church was to the advantage of Pelagius, whose character was seemingly charismatic, that even when Pelagius was questioned, he was able to produce letters, even from Augustine, which commended him—though none spoke of his orthodoxy—since he seemed to use Catholic terms in an uncatholic meaning.  As Pohle tells us:

Thus from the charge that he made the possibility of a sinless life solely dependent on free will, he exonerated himself by saying that, on the contrary, he required the help of God (adjutorium Dei) for it, though by this he meant nothing else than the grace of creation (gratia creationis). Of other doctrines with which he had been charged, he said that, formulated as they were in the complaint, they did not originate from him, but from Caelestius, and that he also repudiated them.

In regards to baptizing children 

. . . [H]e granted that it ought to be administered in the same form as in the case of adults, not in order to cleanse the children from a real original guilt, but to secure to them entrance into the “kingdom of God”. Unbaptized children, he thought, would after their death be excluded from the “kingdom of God”, but not from “eternal life”.

Repulsed and condemned by most of the Bishops, not only in Northern (Latin) Africa, but also in the Oriental Church and in Gaul, Pelagius and Caelestius pleaded to Innocent I, but the letters arrived when his successor, Zosimus, was sitting on the chair of Peter. Pelagius and Caelestius both made Catholic profession of faith, which were accepted by Zosimus. Augustine, afraid that Pelagius would be exonerated and that his errors would not be condemned, immediately wrote On the Proceedings of Pelagius, in which he sets forth that what Pelagius taught as grace was not a free gift of God working as light that without which an eye cannot see, though the eye is made to see and does not produce the light that enables it to see but must receive it outside itself, so“what he meant by God’s grace was that, when our nature was created, it received the capacity of not sinning, because it was created with free will.”(Op. cit., 22) Baptism became a work that obtained the “kingdom of God”, but not necessary for eternal life. [The kingdom of God is possession of God’s Life, and the possession of God’s Life is Eternal Life. It is akin to the distinction between justification and sanctification that was discussed earlier.] Instruction brought one to the knowledge of the law and for those in personal sin, baptism also cleansed them. But one was able to be without sin of his own freewill, knowing how he was to live and so live—heedless of God’s actual grace. Saint Augustine takes Pelagius’ sentence “No one is without sin, but the man who has acquired the knowledge of the law,” and questions it referencing the baptism of infants. If one must be able to know the law then:

. . . [A] knowledge which must needs be conveyed to believers before they attain to the actual remission of sins—even in such case there would crowd around him a countless multitude, not indeed of angry disputants, but of crying baptized infants, who would exclaim—not, to be sure, in words, but in the very truthfulness of innocence—“What is it, O what is it that you have written: ‘He only can be without sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law.’ See here are we, a large flock of lambs, without sin, and yet we have no knowledge of the law.” Now surely they with their silent tongue would compel him to silence, or, perhaps, even to confess that he was corrected of his great perverseness, . . . (Ibid. 4.)

This intervention was intended to provide a public revelation of the contradictions in the teaching of Pelagius and the Catholic Faith and to manifest to all even his interpretation of Scripture was contrary to Catholic teaching. Augustine would build on Pelagius’ denial of Grace and Original Sin in his work On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin. In chapter 35 he quotes from Pelagius’s writings, We hold likewise one baptism, which we aver ought to be administered to infants in the same sacramental formula as it is to adults. Augustine continues:

Well, now, you have yourselves affirmed that you heard him admit at least as much as this in your presence. What, however, is the use of his saying that the sacrament of baptism is administered to children in the same words as it is to adults, when our inquiry concerns the thing, not merely the words? It is a more important matter, that (as you write) with his own mouth he replied to your own question, that infants receive baptism for the remission of sins. For he did not say here, too, in words of remission of sins, but he acknowledged that they are baptized for the remission itself; and yet for all this, if you were to ask him what the sin is which he supposes to be remitted to them, he would contend that they had none whatever. (op. cit. 1, 35) 

The light of grace was able to show Augustine clearly this was a denial of Original Sin, but that Pelagius knew he could not overcome the practice of baptizing children that had been of Apostolic origin and all Catholics everywhere had witnessed. Therefore Augustine points this out in the very beginning: 

Next I beg of you, carefully to observe with what caution you ought to lend an ear, on the question of the baptism of infants, to men of this character, who dare not openly deny the laver of regeneration and the forgiveness of sins to this early age, for fear that Christian ears would not bear to listen to them; and who yet persist in holding and urging their opinion, that the carnal generation is not held guilty of man’s first sin, although they seem to allow infants to be baptized for the remission of sins. You have, indeed, yourselves informed me in your letter, that you heard Pelagius say in your presence, reading out of that book of his which he declared that he had also sent to Rome, that they maintain that infants ought to be baptized with the same formula of sacramental words as adults. Who, after that statement, would suppose that one ought to raise any question at all on this subject? Or if he did, to whom would he not seem to indulge a very calumnious disposition— previous to the perusal of their plain assertions, in which they deny that infants inherit original sin, and contend that all persons are born free from all corruption? (op. cit. 1, 1.)

Zosimus decided, with so much opposition, to withdraw his support from Pelagius and Caelestius through a rescript of 21 March, 418, that declared his decision was not final and allowing the African Bishops to once more present their case that was submitted to and approved by Pope Innocent I in 416. Convening another Council in Carthage on May 1, Augustine and 200 Bishops once again confirmed what was decreed in 416 at Mileve. Pope Zosimus approved most of the decrees submitted and condemned Pelagius and Caelestius. Canon 2 is as follows:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: “Through one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [cf. Rom. 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration. (D 102)

With these Canons approved by Zosimus, Pelagianism ceased to have its many proponents in the West and its quick demise would have its end with the Council of Ephesus. This was a result since Caelestius had been chiefly responsible for continuing to propagate the errors of Pelagianism in the Oriental Church, and the Council of Ephesus, convoked in 431, would conclude the Council with a final condemnation of those bishops and clergy who adhered to his errors, ending any defense of the heresy. (Cf. D 126-127)

Zosimus had also send a letter “Epistola tractoria” throughout the world which required all the bishops to accept or be deprived of their diocese.  The Letter sent to the  Orient (Greek), “Tract (at) oria ad Orientales ecclesias, Aegypti diocesim, Constantinopolim, Thessalonicam, Hierosolymam,” which was in 418, reads in part as follows:

The Lord [is] faithful in his words [ Ps. 144:13] and His baptism holds the same plenitude in deed and words, that is in work, confession, and true remission of sins in every sex, age, and condition of the human race. For no one except him who is the servant of sin is made free, nor can he be said to be redeemed unless he has previously truly been a captive through sin, as it is written: “If the Son liberates you, you will be truly free [John 8:36]. For through Him we are reborn spiritually, through Him we are crucified to the world. By His death that bond of death introduced into all of us by Adam and transmitted to every soul, that bond contracted by propagation is broken, in which no one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through baptism. (cf. D 109a)

Therefore, Augustine’s contention was simple: Denial of baptismal to children, or its necessity for children, is tantamount to denying original sin and the redemption obtained by Christ.

(To be continued)

————————–

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

Benedict Baur, O.S.B.

“Blessed art thou, O Mary!”

1. “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything, from the beginning” (Epistle). Mary is likewise contained in the eternal Wisdom, who is to become man in time, who adorns her with His person, His purity, and His glory, and is most intimately united with her in His work on earth. God ordained the creation of Mary with the same act by which He willed the incarnation of His Son. “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways.” God chose Mary from all eternity as the one from whom His Son, the eternal Wisdom…was to take His sacred humanity. By virtue of this intimate union with divine Wisdom and divine purity, she is herself possessed of unlimited purity, wisdom, and holiness.

In the liturgy she is presented to our wondering eyes clothed with divine wisdom, as the Seat of Wisdom. “Now, therefore, ye children, hear me…. Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors. He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord” (Epistle).

2. In today’s liturgy Mary is the woman of fortitude who will crush the head of the serpent and will overcome singlehanded the ancient enemy of the Church and of the kingdom of God. Mary is the Judith of the new chosen people. She it is who rescues beleaguered souls from the hand of Holofernes. With hearts filled with joy and gratitude, we greet her on the day of her triumph over Satan and original sin. “Blessed art thou, O Virgin Mary, above all women upon the earth. Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel” (Gradual). Today thou shalt crush the head of the vile serpent who rages against thy Son and His people. We fly to thy patronage, O immaculate and victorious Virgin.

The liturgy presents Mary to us as full of grace. “At that time the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Gospel) “Full of grace.” “He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, and with the robe of justice He hath covered me, as the bride adorned with her jewels” (Introit). From the first moment of her conception she is enriched with more grace than the most highly favored angel or archangel in heaven. Richer in grace and more resplendent with supernatural beauty than the holiest of the saints of the Church, is this immaculate mother of ours. “Thou art all fair, O Mary.”

3. “The stream of the river [the fullness of grace] maketh the city of God [Mary] joyful; the Most High hath sanctified His own tabernacle. God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved; God will help it in the early morning [at her conception]. . . . Come and behold ye the works of the Lord, what wonders He hath done upon the earth [in Mary] making wars to cease even to the end of the earth. He shall destroy the bow and break the weapons [Satan and original sin], and the shield He shall burn in the fire. Be still and see that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth. The Lord of armies is with us [in Mary]; the God of Jacob is our protector” (Ps. 45:5 ff.).

Purity is union with God. Purity is the strength that brings victory. Purity is the most precious of graces. “Blessed are the clean of heart” (Matt. 5:8). “Draw us, O immaculate Virgin.”

PRAYER

O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, didst make ready a worthy dwelling place for Thy Son: grant, we beseech Thee, that, as through the foreseen death of the same Son, Thou didst preserve His mother from all stain of sin, so may we likewise be pure in heart through her intercession and may come to Thee. Through the same Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

Fruitful purity

1. The mystery of the Virgin Mother which gives us the Redeemer at Christmas is based on the Immaculate Conception and on purity. Christmas demands pure hearts and pure intentions.
2. “O God, who by the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, didst make ready a worthy dwelling place for Thy Son” (Collect). Mary, who was worthy to be a dwelling place for God, is free from all personal sin, from all inordinate inclinations. She was not merely cleansed immediately alter her conception, but she is also exempt from all stain from the first moment of her existence. “I will put enmities between thee and the woman” (Gen. 3: 15). Thus Mary, stainless in her purity and heavenly in her beauty, from the first moment of her existence was a worthy habitation for the most high God. The Lord comes to the pure. Christmas demands pure hearts.

“Thou art all fair, O Mary.” Mary’s soul was enlightened by the light of purity, her will was perfectly united to God’s will, her heart was free from every inordinate inclination and desire. She had the greatest dread of all sin, the most ardent love of every virtue, the most intimate union with God, and a complete forgetfulness of self. “Thou art all fair, O Mary, and the stain of original sin is not in thee.” “Hail, full of grace.” Because thou art pure, thou art full of grace; because thou art full of grace, the Lord is with thee, and thou art blessed among women. Hail, Mary, for through thee we possess purity, life, salvation, Christ, and heaven. Fruitful purity!

3. “The resplendent angel was sent from heaven to greet the mother of God. And when he saw Thee, O Lord, taking unto Himself a body that He might become the Incarnate Word, he fell into ecstasy and cried out to her: Hail, thou, the source of all joy. Hail, thou, through whom our malediction is destroyed. Hail, thou, who raises up the fallen Adam. Hail, thou who wipes away the tears of Eve. Hail, for thou art the throne of the king, thou art the bearer of Him who bears all things. Hail, for all creation has been renewed through thee. Hail, for through thee a child shall lead them” (Paul the Deacon).

“Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” They shall see Him when He appears at Christmas time, they shall see Him daily in Holy Communion. They shall see Him uninterruptedly in the consciousness of the soul that lives constantly in the presence of God. But they will behold Him perfectly when they have closed their eyes on the world, and open them to behold the joys of eternity, truly then, “Thou shalt see God.”

PRAYER

Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that with pure minds we may worthily enter into the holy of holies. (Prayer of the priest as he ascends the altar at Mass.)

————————–

DECEMBER 6

St. Nicholas, Bishop and Confessor

1. History offers no facts concerning St. Nicholas. According to legend he lived in Asia Minor in the third century. Educated as a Christian and left wealthy by the early death of his parents, he devoted himself and his means to helping the poor. A certain noble family had fallen into poverty and the father was thinking of selling his three daughters. When Nicholas learned of this, he went to the home and threw a small sack of gold through an open window. In this way he provided a dowry for each of the daughters and they were happily married. All Christendom knows about the three golden apples on St. Nicholas’ tree of neighborly charity. Once, on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, Nicholas’ power saved himself and all aboard the ship in a terrific storm. About 270 or 280, he went to Myra and was chosen bishop of that city. Imprisoned under Diocletian in 305, he was released by Constantine and returned to his See. Legend says that he took part in the Council of Nice, 325. His feast is celebrated in both East and West.
2. “You must remember to do good to others and to give alms; God takes pleasure in such sacrifice as this” (Epistle What, above all, made this legendary hero famous was his great generosity and the, profound wisdom with which he grasped the word of God and translated it into act. “Make us of your base wealth to win yourselves friends, who, when you leave it behind, will welcome you into eternal habitation (Luke 16:9). He must have pondered also: “Warn those who are rich in this present world not to think highly of themselves not to repose their hopes in the riches that may fail us, but in the living God, who bestows on us so richly all that we enjoy. Let them do good, enrich their lives with charitable deeds, always ready to give, and to share the common burden, laying down a sure foundation for themselves in time to come, so as to have life which is true life within their grasp” (I Tim. 6:17-19) And again: “Blessed is the man who lives, for all his wealth unreproved, who has no greed for gold. . . . Show us such a man, and we will be loud in his praise; here is a life to wonder at. A man so tested and found perfect wins eternal honor” (Ecclus. 31:8 ff.). Nicholas possessed his wealth in such a way that it did not possess him. He did not lose sight of the true treasures with which he could enrich himself for eternity, that is, good deeds.

“God takes pleasure in such a sacrifice as this” (Gospel). “Give, and gifts will be yours; good measure, pressed down and shaken up and running over, will be poured into your lap” (Luke 6:38). When Nicholas arrived at Myra the election of a new bishop was in progress. The oldest bishop proposed a plan: Let the man entering the church first on the following morning be made bishop. All agreed. Very early next morning, entirely unaware of this agreement, Nicholas hastened to church. At once he was hailed as bishop of Myra, for he had abundantly demonstrated his love of Christ in his brethren. “Dost thou care for me more than these others? Yes, Lord . . . thou knowest well that I love thee.” To Nicholas, as once to Peter, the commission was given: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:15 fl.), Thenceforth, he devoted all his love and care to the flock entrusted to him; he became a true father to all, a refuge for the oppressed, a high priest who prayed and sacrificed and consumed himself in the service of souls. But he, too, was to experience treatment similar to that promised to Peter: “As a young man, thou wouldst gird thyself and walk where thou hadst the will to go, but when thou hast grown old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee where thou goest, not of thy own will” (John 21: 18). Emperor Diocletian issued an edict: Bishops and presbyters of churches were to be taken into custody and subjected to torture. Nicholas was put in chains and banished, but he was a brave soldier of Christ and confessor of the Faith. Love proves itself in suffering.

3. “Suppose that a man has the worldly goods he needs, and sees his brother go in want; if he steels his heart against his brother, how can we say that the love of God dwells in him?” (I John 3:17.) Nicholas knew that earthly wealth may easily become a danger. He knew the truth of St. Leo’s words: “Whatever good one has, death robs him of it; whatever good one does, heaven returns it to him. He who gives perishable things falls heir to eternal goods.”

“Well done, my good and faithful servant; since thou hast been faithful over little things, 1 have great things to commit to thy charge; come and share the joy of thy Lord” (Gospel).

Collect: O God, who didst glorify the blessed bishop Nicholas by countless miracles, grant, we pray Thee, that by his merits and prayers we may be delivered from the fires of hell. Amen.

CHRIST IN THE HOME

BY RAOUL PLUS, S.J.

(1951)

MARRIAGE

MUTUAL DEVOTEDNESS

THE emphasis upon the duty of reciprocal devotedness of husband and wife is evident in the previous quotation from Saint Paul. So that the Church may remain intact, beautiful, and immaculate, Christ is lavish in His care of her. In return the Church leaves nothing undone to bring glory to her Divine Spouse.

That is how husbands and wives should treat each other. The husband must be another Christ, a faithful copy of Christ. He ought to neglect nothing for the honor and the welfare of his wife; he should even be ready, if the need arose, to shed his blood for her. She, on her part, ought to do everything to revere her husband. It must be a mutual rivalry of love.

Just as there exists between Christ and the Church, in perfect harmony with their mutual devotedness, a bond of authority on the one side and of submission on the other, so too in the

home, the husband is entrusted with the lead in their advance together and the wife joins her efforts to his in sentiments of loving submission.

The wife’s duty of subordination to her husband does not arise from woman’s incapacity but from the different functions each of the two are to exercise. When each fulfills well the proper function, the unity of the home is assured. The wife is not a slave; she is a companion. On essential points there is no subordination but necessary equality.

The man has no right to come to marriage sullied and yet demand that his wife be still a virgin. The man does not have permission to betray the home, and the wife the obligation to remain faithful. And when it is a question of the marriage right, the duty is conjugal, equal for each: When the husband asks the wife to give herself to him she must grant the request. But there is a reciprocal duty. When she makes the same request of him, he too must grant it.

The duty of subordination holds only where the direction of the home is concerned. It does not give the husband the right to impose any of his whims upon his wife. In fact, should he go so far as to make demands contrary to the law of God, she has the duty to resist him with all gentleness but also with the necessary firmness. Rightly understood, then, the wife’s submission to her husband is not at all demeaning. Moreover, to obey is never to descend but to ascend.

Let husband and wife strive not so much to equal each other as to be worthy of each other. Let the husband put into the exercise of his authority the reserve and prudence which win

confidence and let the wife strive to be an accomplished woman not masculine but feminine.

The interesting character of the home is not a man, a woman, but the couple; not an individual, but the family, the harmonious development of the family cell; not duality as such but the advance in common of the two.

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message