Vol 9 Issue 2 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
January 9, 2015 ~ Our Lady on Saturday

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (50)
2. Feast of the Holy Family
3. Holy Name of Jesus (O’Sullivan)
4. Christ in the Home (25)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

As the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Family, she does so to point the desired goal of all families: To be a holy family. Parents have the obligation to lead their children to sanctity—not necessarily in the sense most would conceive sanctity to be such as performing miracle and levitating, but in that of living a life reflective of the great grace given through redemption, the reception of baptism and a life in union with God. This is achieved by the avoidance of sin and what leads to sin and in the use of the means that lead to a greater union with God, prayer and the Sacraments. There is the reminder of the words of Fr. Peyton of the Rosary Crusade: The family that prays together stays together.

Sometimes I hear that there are so-called Catholics who say they don’t need the Sacraments ministered by the priests, they can obtain salvation on their own efforts—all they need is baptism. Well, many Protestant sects have baptism and claim the same theology. All this stems from Pelagianism in the denial of supernatural grace. The Mass and the Sacraments has always been the greatest source of grace and union with God; and how sad to see both these self-deceived self-righteous persons as also our parents who neglect to bring their children to Church at least every Sunday and see that they are religiously partaking in the sacraments—of course first by example. May the Holy Family assist our Families especially when the powers of evil are doing everything to destroy the bonds of family life.

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

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

Saint Thomas Aquinas

After Saint Augustine, the next doctor or teacher of the Church to exert an enormous influence was the Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas. One may say it was not for Thomas to teach anything new, but to gather the teachings of the Church, the Fathers and theologians and to judge what is the accepted teaching and why it is to be accepted as the teaching in opposition to those who reject the teaching. This is chiefly to be found in his work, Summa Theologica.

Born in 1225 the son of Landulf, Count of Aquino and Theodora, Countess of Teano, he was related to the European rulers of the period. Sent, at age five, to the Benedictines for training he was later sent to the University of Naples to pursue a scholastic education. Noted for quickly grasping the arguments and expositions of his teachers, he did not look at a lucrative career, but set his heart on serving God within the Order of Preachers. Once he joined the Dominican Order in 1240 his family had him abducted and held him incarcerated in the fortress of San Giovanni Rocca Secca for two years while attempting to induce him to change his mind. But he spent the time in study and prayer until he was “allowed” to escape and continue his life as a Dominican Friar.  Pope Innocent IV blessed his decision as Thomas passed through Rome on the way to Paris. Saint Albert the Great became his teacher and when Albert returned to Cologne in 1248, Thomas followed him. Here he was ordained a priest in 1250 by the Archbishop Conrad of Hochstaden. The next year he was sent back to Paris as sub-regent of the Dominicans. As the other students and faculty opposed the Mendicants (Dominicans and Franciscans) both Thomas (Dominican) and Bonaventure (Franciscan) became close friends defending their Orders. Disputation.

From this time [receiving his Doctorate in Theology] St. Thomas’s life may be summed up in a few words: praying, preaching, teaching, writing, journeying. Men were more anxious to hear him than they had been to hear Albert, whom St. Thomas surpassed in accuracy, lucidity, brevity, and power of exposition, if not in universality of knowledge. Paris claimed him as her own; the popes wished to have him near them; the studia of the order were eager to enjoy the benefit of his teaching; hence we find him successively at Anagni, Rome, Bologna, Orvieto, Viterbo, Perugia, in Paris again, and finally in Naples, always teaching and writing, living on earth with one passion, an ardent zeal for the explanation and defence of Christian truth. [Kennedy, St. Thomas Aquinas in CE]

Rejecting the offer of the Archbishopric of Naples when appointed by Clement IV in 1265, he devoted himself to writing the Summa Theologica and outlaying a studia generalis for the Dominican Order. Still incomplete, on 6 December 1273, he stopped his work on the Summa Theologica with the words: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value”. He then began to prepare for his death. Gregory X had convoked the Second Council of Lyons, set for 1 May, 1274, and wanted both Thomas and Bonaventure present. Obedient, Thomas left only to die on the way on March 7.

The following is a brief outline of the teachings Saint Thomas provides in hisSumma Theologica (Part III, questions 66-68) regarding Baptism and of which all has been accepted as her teaching also by the Catholic Church. It must be understood that in the objections Thomas is not simply placing an error, but attempting to extract reflection upon the parts to expound upon the whole. It cannot be properly labeled an antithesis and then the thesis to provide a synthesis, for then it would be mixing error with truth which is both the foundation for Modernist theology today as an evolutionary progress of religion as well as the political diplomacy that is based upon an evolutionary progress of man (Marxist dialectics).

Thomas firsts asks: What is Baptism? Is it a washing? And proceeds to answer:

In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is “sacrament only”; that which is “reality and sacrament”; and that which is “reality only.” That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it is “a material element”: and in defining Baptism he says it is “water.”

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that “Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the prescribed form of words.”

The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, in this sacrament–namely, the reality signified and not signifying.

That which is both sacrament and reality–i.e. the character–and that which is reality only–i.e. the inward justification–remain: the character remains and is indelible, as stated above (Question 63, Article 5); the justification remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the character–namely, “seal” and “safeguarding”; inasmuch as the character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament–namely, “regeneration” which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and “enlightenment,” which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, according to Habakkuk 2 (Hebrews10:38; cf. Habakkuk 2:4): “But (My) just man liveth by faith”; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is called the “Sacrament of Faith.” Likewise Dionysius defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying (Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is “the principle that forms the habits of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments”; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, “preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom”; and again as to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, “the conferring of our most sacred and Godlike regeneration.” (Q. 66, art. 1)

After a very proper and lengthy definition of what Baptism is: The remission of sin (Original and, if present, actual sin) causing the person to be justified or sanctified, Thomas proceeds to answer other questions surrounding baptism as follows.

When was Baptism instituted?

[S]acraments derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and Resurrection. First, because Christ’s Passion put an end to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is “made conformable” to Christ’s Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ’s Death and Resurrection. (Art. 2)

What is the proper matter for baptism? Taking Scripture as indisputable, he quotes John (3:5): Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Then he goes on to write:

By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things.

Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to Baptism as the “sacrament of Faith.”

Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on John 3:5, “Unless a man be born again,” etc., “When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed.”

Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained everywhere. (Art. 3)

He then goes on to explain that it must be natural water or pure water: We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism.  (Art. 4) Therefore, as stated before (cf. D 412), saliva cannot be used nor can phlegm or juice.

What is the form of baptism?

Again taking Scripture as indisputable, he quotes Matthew (28:19): Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Baptism receives its consecration from its form, according to Ephesians 5:26: “Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.” And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that “Baptism is consecrated by the words of the Gospel.” Consequently the cause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, viz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both causes should be expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the words, “I baptize thee”; and the principal cause in the words, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Art. 5)

May one use the words: I baptize you in the Name of Christ?

Thomas takes the more certain route and retorts that what is an exception by Christ, Who did not bind His power to the sacraments, cannot be assumed by a minister of Christ who is bound to the command of Christ.

Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: “If any people living in your Worship’s neighborhood, avow that they have been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith.” Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): “If indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names,” viz. of the three Persons, “he baptizes invalidly.”

I answer that, As stated above (Question 64, Article 3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ’s institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments.Now Christ commanded the sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.

Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ’s Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove. (Art. 6)

(To be continued)

————————–

Feast of the Holy Family

Benedict Baur, O.S.B.  

Sacred gifts

1. The three wise men open their treasures and make their offering. The liturgy imitates this example daily in the Offertory of the Mass. The Offertory for the feast of Epiphany refers to the Church, to us: “The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts; and all kings of the earth shall adore Him; all nations shall serve Him.”
2. In the offerings which the faithful formerly brought to the altar in the Offertory procession and which the priest now, in the name of the sacrificing Church, brings to the altar as the bread and wine, we give ourselves as sacrifices to God. These sacrificial gifts are a substitute for those who offer them. Instead of gold, we offer the best and most precious thing we have: ourselves, our heart with its desires and inclinations, our will, our freedom, and our actions. “Behold, I come to do Thy will” (Heb. 10:9). To Him belongs all we have and are. When we offer incense, we acknowledge Him to be our God, our all. Our whole life should be a prayer and a continual elevation of our thoughts and affections to our Lord and God. “Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight” (Ps. 140:2). With our offering of myrrh we renounce, as did the wise men at the crib, the inordinate attachment to flesh and blood; we leave father and mother in order to live for Him. We renounce the inordinate desires of earthly life and willingly share the poverty of the divine King in the manger. We choose a life of penance and resolve to mortify the internal and external man.

At the Consecration of the Mass, our gifts of bread and wine become the living Christ. “Graciously regard, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the gifts of Thy Church, in which gold, frankincense, and myrrh are no longer offered, but He whom those mystic offerings signified is immolated and received, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord” (Secret). Then with the Church we offer this unspotted, holy, and immaculate gift to the Father. It is our gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The gold is the divine person of the incarnate God. The incense is His endless holiness, which alone can pay worthy adoration, homage, praise, and thanksgiving to God. The myrrh is His holy love for God and man which prompted Him to suffer death on the cross. By means of this most perfect offering we give “to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). “By Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to Thee, God, the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost all honor and glory,” and to us the forgiveness of sin and the fullness of grace.

3. “The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts.” How zealous these kings were! How much they have sacrificed in order to make an offering to the Lord! How great and generous was their faith! With what joy they gave the best they had! And when we come to Mass, what do we have to offer? What do we finally give? Have we ever given all that we have: our entire will without restriction? Have we forsaken every selfish wish, every selfish demand, in order to live according to His will and desire? Have we really offered, given all, renounced all, as the Lord demands of us?

Our participation in the sacrificial offering of the Church consists of more than words and prayers. What we do in the Offertory procession of the Mass and in the Consecration is merely a beginning, the first step. We should continue our self-offering, but in a different way. The three kings who offered the gifts in Bethlehem returned home “by a different way.” They became new men; they broke with the old way which they had hitherto taken. The true co-offering of the Mass creates a new spirit a new man, who goes forth and offers every day to the Lord and Savior. He recognizes the Lord in his brothers and sisters and in all with whom he comes in contact. He opens the treasures of his heart and inspires the members of Christ with his love, his talent, and his strength. He gives to those in need and freely opens his hand to share his goods. In the spiritual and corporal works of mercy which he performs, one may discern the extent of his sincerity at the Offertory of the Mass.

PRAYER

Graciously regard, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the gifts of Thy Church, in which gold, frankincense, and myrrh are no longer offered, but He whom those mystic offerings signified is immolated and received, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Amen. 

The miraculous star

1. For the reception of Communion, the liturgy for the feast of Epiphany places the words of the three wise men on our lips: “We have seen His star in the East and are come with gifts to adore Him.” These words take on a Eucharistic meaning.
2. “We have seen His star.” In the star the liturgy recognizes the Holy Eucharist. “We have seen His star” in the celebration of Mass, in the reception of Holy Communion, and in the visits we make to the tabernacle. The altar is our Bethlehem. By the light of faith we have been led here and we have found Him. He is the Star of the East, the Eucharistic sun, from whom all life and blessings proceed. “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me” (John 6:55-58).

Christ is the source of all supernatural life and grace. Daily He enlightens us in the Mass, in Holy Communion, and in our visits to the tabernacle. May the Eucharist be our star. Let us turn our eyes to it often during the day. We should visit the tabernacle frequently in order to study the star and to be enlightened and penetrated by its light. This is the crowning point in the life of the three wise men: they have seen the star. May this good fortune be ours daily. “We have seen His star. . . and are come with gifts to adore Him,” Jesus, our all, in the Holy Eucharist.

We “come with gifts to adore Him.” In the light and strength of the star which has risen for us early in the morning in Mass and Communion, the day will be filled with holy thoughts, holy affections, and good deeds. The love aroused in our heart by the sacraments penetrates all our deeds and bestows a priceless value on all our works. Every morning the Holy Eucharist will enkindle in our hearts a greater and purer love. If we have adopted this attitude, every thought, every deed, every sacrifice we make, becomes a gift which we may offer to the newborn child. With gifts in our hand, in the strength of the Holy Eucharist, we approach the Lord. In the holy Bethlehem of heaven, our homeland, we shall love, adore, and possess Him eternally.

3. “We have seen His star.” From the Offertory and from our sacrificial meal we return to our daily occupations. The star which we saw early in the morning follows us everywhere. By recalling to mind our part in the Mass and Holy Communion, we shall be able to renew our strength and courage when our tasks become burdensome.

“We have seen His star in the East and are come with gifts to adore Him.” The star of the Holy Eucharist has also risen over our neighbor; he has partaken of the same sacrificial meal we have. We have shared in offering the same divine victim; we have been enlightened by the same star. Its light has guided and strengthened both of us. We should soon be able to see Christ in each of our fellow men. Then we shall honor our neighbor because we see Christ in him. We shall best serve and worship Christ when we have learned to love our neighbor for His sake. “As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me” (Matt. 25:4.0). The fruit of our daily sharing in Mass and Holy Communion should be a persevering and efficacious love of the members of Christ’s mystical body.

PRAYER

Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God, that what we celebrate with solemn office, we may attain by the understanding of a purified mind. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

————————– 

January 10: BD GREGORY X, POPE (A.D. 1276)

THEOBALD VISCONTI belonged to an illustrious Italian family and was born at Piacenza in 1210. In his youth he was distinguished for his virtue and his success as a student. He devoted himself especially to canon law, which he began in Italy and pursued at Paris and Liege. He was acting as archdeacon of this last church when he received an order from Pope Clement IV to preach the crusade for the /66/ recovery of the Holy Land. A tender compassion for the distressed situation of the servants of Christ in those parts moved the holy archdeacon to undertake a dangerous pilgrimage to Palestine, where Prince Edward of England then was. At this time the see of Rome had been vacant almost three years, from the death of Clement IV in November 1268, since the cardinals who were assembled at Viterbo could not come to an agreement in the choice of a pope. At last, by common consent, they referred the election to a committee of six amongst them, who on September 1, 1271 nominated Theobald Visconti.

Arriving in Rome in March, he was first ordained priest, then consecrated bishop, and crowned on the 27th of the same month, in 1272. He took the name of Gregory X, and to procure the most effectual succour for the Holy Land he called a general council to meet at Lyons. This fourteenth general council, the second of Lyons, was opened in May 1274. Among those assembled were St Albert the Great and St Philip Benizi; St Thomas Aquinas died on his way thither, and St Bonaventure died at the council. In the fourth session the Greek legates on behalf of the Eastern emperor and patriarch restored communion between the Byzantine church and the Holy See. Pope Gregory, we are told, shed tears whilst the Te Deum was sung. Unhappily the reconciliation was short-lived.

After the council, Bd Gregory devoted all his energies to concerting measures for carrying its decrees into execution, particularly those relating to the crusade in the East, which, however, never set out. This unwearied application to business, and the fatigues of his journey across the Alps on his return to Rome brought on a serious illness, of which he died at Arezzo on January 10, 1276. The name of Gregory X was added to the Roman Martyrology by Pope Benedict XIV; his holiness was always recognized, and had he lived longer he would doubtless have left a deeper mark on the Church.

(Butler’s Lives of the Saints)

CHRIST IN THE HOME

BY RAOUL PLUS, S.J.

(1951)

MARRIAGE

SINGLE THOUGH TWO

ANNA DE NOAILLES, a French poetess, summed up her unhappy married life in the words, “I am alone with someone.”

It is an expressive but sinister remark.

People marry in order to be two, but two in one, not to continue to be alone, alone although with someone.

Aloneness for two can have a double cause:

1. Waiting too long to have children through a mutual agreement at the beginning of married life.
2. Loving each other too much perhaps. Too much, selfishly of course. Man and wife united, together, yes; and in this sense, it is not the solitude of which Anna de Noailles spoke. But if their union for two deserves rather to be called selfishness for two, it is not a true union.

These are the reefs upon which many a marriage has been wrecked.

Granted that if they do nothing to prevent generation, they do not sin . . . at least not against the law of chastity for marriage; but besides going counter to the law of fecundity, they are running the risk of sterility.

If they wait too long to have their brood, the nest hardens, loses its softness and adaptability. They get so accustomed to being only two that the presence of a third, even though the fruit of their union, does not seem desirable. There will always be time later, later! Let us enjoy each other first.

Selfishness for two: conjugal solitude. And let us add, a risk for later on. The wife will probably suffer from not being able to be a mother; the husband gets used to seeing in her only a wife. “It is in springtime,” the proverb picturesquely says, “that the father bird learns to do his duty.” The wife is very imprudent if she lets her husband prolong unduly a sort of bachelorhood; let her teach him how to assume his duties without too much delay.

There can be another reason more harmful still for this being alone though two and that is born of opposition of characters.

Generally, it does not appear in the first years of married life. Everything is marvelous then, sunshine and moonlight. Though there may be exceptions, they are rare.

But there comes a time when tension creeps in, more or less restrained, then hidden resentment, finally opposition if not with weapons at least by tongue lashings, sullen silences, disagreeable attitudes. There is in every man, even a married man the stuff of an old bachelor; in every woman, even a married woman, something of . . . well, a person shouldn’t really use that word to speak of unmarried women.

When husbands and wives notice their rising irritability, they should take hold of their hearts with both hands so to speak and refrain from words they will regret soon after. If they have the courage, let them have an understanding with each other as soon as possible. They should learn not to notice every little thing; to forget with untiring patience all the little pricks; to remember only the joys they lived through together; to make a bouquet of them, not a faded bouquet

like dried out artificial flowers that are kept in a drawer, but alive and fresh, beautiful enough to be put in full view on the mantelpiece.

Everything that is typical of the single life is taboo. They are united. They are to remain united. Two in one. In one: It is not always easy; it is always necessary.

MARRIAGE AND THE PRIESTHOOD (1)

THERE is a greater resemblance between the sacrament of matrimony and the sacrament of Holy Orders than is immediately evident. The encyclical “Casti Connubii” of Pope XI does not fail to point it out. Here are a few similarities:

1. Although the sacrament of matrimony does not like Holy Orders impart a special character to the soul, it does consecrate “ministers” appointed to communicate grace. The priest is but a witness at the marriage. It is not the priest who marries but the man and woman who marry themselves who by exchanging their mutual “yes” give to each other more divine life. A sublime dignity which we have considered before.
2. Both marriage and Holy Orders give and sustain life. Holy Orders, supernatural…

[Message clipped]  View entire message