Vol 9 Issue 15 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
April 9, 2016 ~ Our Lady on Saturday

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (63)
2. Second Sunday after Easter
3. St. Agape, Chionia and Irene
4. Christ in the Home (37)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

It may be well, on this Good Shepherd Sunday, to listen to a true Good Shepherd, Pope Pius XI, who wrote the following in his encyclical, Casti Conubii (December 31, 1930) which is a re-iteration of the teaching Magisterium of the Church regarding marriage and which must be upheld—not turn to some collection of opinions (Amoris Laetitia) that reject this teaching Magisterium.

32. In the first place Christ Himself lays stress on the indissolubility and firmness of the marriage bond when He says: “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder” (Matt. xix. 6). And: “Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke xvi. 18).
33. And St. Augustine clearly places what he calls the blessing of Matrimony in this indissolubility when He says: “In the Sacrament it is provided that the marriage bond should not be broken, and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring” (De Gen. ad litt., lib. ix, c. 7, n. 12; D2234)
34. And this inviolable stability, although not in the same perfect measure in every case, belongs to every true marriage, for the word of the Lord: “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder,” must of necessity include all true marriages without exception, since it was spoken of the marriage of our first parents, the prototype of every future marriage. Therefore, although before Christ the sublimeness and the severity of the primeval law was so tempered that Moses permitted to the chosen people of God on account of the hardness of their hearts that a bill of divorce might be given in certain circumstances, nevertheless, Christ, by virtue of His supreme legislative power, recalled this concession of greater liberty and restored the primeval law in its integrity by those words which must never be forgotten, “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.” Wherefore Our Predecessor Pius VI, of happy memory, writing to the Bishop of Agria, most wisely said: “Hence it is clear that marriage even in the state of nature, and certainly long before it was raised to the dignity of a Sacrament, was divinely instituted in such a way that it should carry with it a perpetual and indissoluble bond which cannot therefore be dissolved by any civil law.  Therefore, although the sacramental element may be absent from a marriage as is the case among unbelievers, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage there must remain and indeed there does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so bound up with Matrimony from its first institution that it is not subject to any civil power.  And so, whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is really a true marriage, in which case it carries with it that enduring bond which by divine right is inherent in every true marriage; or it is thought to be contracted without that perpetual bond, and in that case there is no marriage, but an illicit union opposed of its very nature to the divine law, which therefore cannot be entered into or maintained” (Rescript. ad Episc. Agriens., 11 July 1789).

There is also the call of the Los Angeles Conciliar Archdiocese to apostatize as noted in an article below.

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

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

Post Trent

Form of baptism to be carefully explained.

Having carefully explained the matter, which is one of the two parts of which the Sacrament consists, the pastor will evince equal diligence in explaining the second, that is the form, which is equally necessary with the first. In the explication of this Sacrament, a necessity of increased care and study arises, as the pastor will perceive, from the circumstance that the knowledge of so holy a mystery, is not only in itself a source of pleasure to the faithful, as is generally the case with regard to religious knowledge, but, also, very desirable for almost daily practical use. This Sacrament, as we shall explain in its proper place, is frequently administered by the laity, and most frequently, by women; and it, therefore, becomes necessary to make all the faithful indiscriminately, well acquainted with whatever regards its substance.

In what it consists, and when instituted.

The pastor, therefore, will teach, in clear, unambiguous language intelligible to every capacity, that the true and essential form of baptism is: “I BAPTIZE THEE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST:” a form delivered by our Lord and Saviour when, as we read in St. Matthew, he gave to his Apostles the command: “Going teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” [2 Matt, xxviii. 19.] By the word “baptizing,” the Catholic Church, instructed from above, most justly understands that the form of the Sacrament should express the action of the minister, and this takes place when he pronounces the words: “I baptize thee.” Besides the minister of the Sacrament, the person to be baptized and the principal efficient cause of baptism should be mentioned. The pronoun “thee,” and the names of the Divine Persons are, therefore, distinctly added; and, thus, the absolute form of the Sacrament is expressed in the words already mentioned: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom St. John says: “This is he who baptizeth;” [3 John i. 33.] but of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity. By saying, however, “in the name,” not names, we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one nature and Godhead. The word “name” is here referred not to the persons, but to the divine essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in the three Persons. [4 Vid. Aug. contra Donatist. lib. 6. c. 25. D. Thom, p. 3. q. 66, art. 5.]

What essential, what is not essential, to it.

It is however to be observed, that of the words contained in this form, which we have shown to be the true and essential one, some are absolutely necessary, the omission of them rendering the valid administration of the Sacrament impossible; whilst others, on the contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity. Of the latter kind is, in the Latin form, the word “ego,” (I) the force of which is included in the word “baptizo,” (I baptize.) Nay more, the Greek Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister, omits the pronoun altogether. The form universally used in the Greek Church is: “Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” It appears, however, from the opinion and definition of the Council of Florence, that the Greek form is valid, because the words of which it consists, sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

Baptism in the name of Christ only.

If at any time the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, [1 Act ii. 38, viii. 16; x. 48; xix. 5.] they did so, no doubt, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to only, render their preaching in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ more illustrious, and to proclaim more effectually his divine and infinite power. If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that the Greek form omits nothing which the Saviour himself commands to be observed; for the name of Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost in whom he was anointed. However, the use of this form by the Apostles becomes, perhaps, matter of doubt, if we yield to the opinions of Ambrose [2 Ambr. lib. 1. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 3.] and Basil, [3 Basil, lib. 1. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 12.] Holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and of paramount authority, who interpret “baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” as contradistinguished to “baptism in the name of John,” and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the three Persons. Paul, also, in his epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner: “As many of you,” says he, ” as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ:” [4 Gal. iii. 27.] meaning that they were baptized in the faith of Christ, and with no other form than that commanded by him to be observed.

Baptism may be administered by immersion, infusion, or aspersion.

What has been said on the principal points which regard the matter and form of the Sacrament will be found sufficient for the instruction of the faithful: but, as in the administration of the Sacrament, the legitimate ablution should also be observed, on this point too the pastor will explain the doctrine of the Church. He will briefly inform the faithful that, according to the common practice of the Church, baptism may be administered by immersion, infusion, or aspersion; and that administered in either of these forms it is equally valid. In baptism water is used to signify the spiritual ablution which it accomplishes, and on this account baptism is called by the Apostle, a “laver.” [1 Eph. v. 26.] This ablution takes place as effectually by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in the early ages of the Church, as by infusion, which is now the general practice, or by aspersion, which was the manner in which Peter baptized, when he converted and gave baptism to about three thousand souls.” [2 Acts ii. 41.] It is also matter of indifference to the validity of the Sacrament, whether the ablution is performed once or thrice; we learn from the epistle of St. Gregory the Great to Leander, that baptism was formerly and may still be validly administered in the Church in either way. [3 Greg. lib. i. regist. epist. 41.] The faithful, however, will follow the practice of the particular Church to which they belong.

Two important matters to be observed in its administration.

The pastor will be particularly careful to observe, that the baptismal ablution is not to be applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head, which is pre-eminently the seat of all the internal and external senses; and also that he who baptizes is to pronounce the words which constitute the form of baptism, not before or after, but when performing the ablution.

Baptism when instituted.

When these things have been explained, it will also be expedient to remind the faithful that, in common with the other Sacraments, baptism was instituted by Christ. On this subject, the pastor will frequently point out two different periods of time which relate to baptism the one the period of its institution by the Redeemer the other, the establishment of the law which renders it obligatory. With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord, when, being baptized by John, he gave to the water the power of sanctifying. St. Gregory Nazianzen [4 Greg. orat. in nat Salvat. circa finem.] and St. Augustine testify that to the 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 sins:” [5 Aug. serm. 29. 36, 37. de temp.] and again the Lord is baptized, not because he had occasion to be cleansed, but by the contact of his pure flesh to purify the waters, and impart to them the power of cleansing.”

The circumstances which attended the event afford a very strong argument to prove that baptism was then instituted by our Lord. The three persons of the most Holy Trinity, in whose name baptism is conferred, manifest their august presence the voice of the Father is heard—the Person of the Son is present—the Holy Ghost descends in form of a dove—and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by baptism, are thrown open. [6 Matt. iii. 16, 17. Mark i. 10, 11. Luke ii. 21, 22.]

Water consecrated to the use of baptism, when Christ was baptized.

Should we, however, ask how our Lord has endowed water a virtue so great, so divine; this indeed is an inquiry which transcends the power of the human understanding. That when our Lord was baptized, water was consecrated to the salutary use of baptism, deriving, although instituted before the passion, all its virtue and efficacy from the passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ this, indeed, we sufficiently comprehend. [1 Vid. Hieron. in com. in. 3. cap. Matt. Aug. serm. 36. de temp.]

The law of baptism when promulgated.

The second period to be distinguished, that, when the law of baptism was promulgated, also admits of no doubt. The Holy Fathers are unanimous in saying, that after the resurrection of our Lord, when he gave to his Apostles the command: “Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” [2 Mark xvi. 15. Matt, xxviii. 19.] the law of baptism became obligatory, on all, who were to be saved. This is to be inferred from these words of St. Peter: “who hath regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, from the dead;” [3 1 Pet. i. 3.] and also from the words of St Paul; “He delivered himself up for it:” (he speaks of the Church) that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.” [4 Eph. v. 25, 26. ] In both passages, the obligation of baptism is referred to the time, which followed the death of our Lord. These words of our Lord:  “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” [5 John iii. 5.] refer also, no doubt, to the time subsequent to his passion. If then the pastor use all diligence in explaining these truths accurately to the faithful, impossible that they should not fully appreciate the high dignity of this Sacrament, and entertain towards it the most profound veneration; a veneration which will be heightened by the reflection, that the Holy Ghost, by his invisible agency, still infuses into the heart, at the moment of baptism, those blessings of incomparable excellence, and of inestimable value, which were so strikingly manifested, by miracles, at the baptism of Christ our Lord. Were our eyes, like those of the servant of Eliseus, [6 4 Kings vi. 17.] opened to see these heavenly things, who so insensible as not to be lost in rapturous admiration of the divine mysteries, which baptism would then present to the astonished view! when, therefore, the riches of this Sacrament are unfolded to the faithful by the pastor, so as to enable them to behold them, if not with the eyes of the body, with those of the soul illumined with the light of faith, is it not reasonable to anticipate similar results?

The ministers of the Sacrament

In the next place, it appears not only expedient but necessary, to say who are ministers of this Sacrament; in order that those to whom this office is specially confided, may study to perform its functions, religiously and holily; and that no one, outstepping as it were, his proper limits, may unseasonably take possession of, or arrogantly assume, what belongs to another; for, as the Apostle teaches, order is to be observed in all things. [1 Cor. xiv. 40.]

Bishops and priests by right of office:

The faithful, therefore, are to be informed that of those who Bishops administer baptism there are three gradations: bishops and priests hold the first place; to them belongs the administration of this Sacrament, not by any extraordinary concession of power, but by right of office; for to them, in the persons of the Apostles, was addressed the command: “Go, baptize.” [Matt, xxviii. 19.] Bishops, it is true, not to neglect the more weighty charge of instructing the faithful, generally leave its administration to priests; but the authority of the Fathers, [Isid. lib. 2. de offic. Eccles. cap. 4.] and the usage of the Church, prove that priests exercise this function of the ministry by a right inherent in the priestly order, a right which authorises them to baptize even in presence of the bishop. Ordained to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament of peace and unity, [1 Cor. x. 17.] it is necessary that they be invested with power to administer all those things, which are required to enable others to participate of that peace and unity. If, therefore, the Fathers have at any time said, that without the leave of the bishop, the priest has not power to baptize ; they are to be understood to speak of that baptism only, which was administered on certain days of the year with solemn ceremonies.

Deacons by permission.

Next to bishops and priests, are deacons, for whom, as numerous decrees of the holy Fathers attest, it is not lawful, without the permission of the bishop or priest to administer baptism. [Distinct. 93. cap. 13.]

All persons in case of necessity; but without its solemn ceremonies.

Those who may administer baptism, in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the third and last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels, and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. Already established by the decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils, these things have been again confirmed by the Council of Trent, which denounces anathema against those who presume to say, “that baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism.” [Trid. sess. 7. can. de consec. dist. 4. cap. 24. Aug. lib. 7. contra Donatist. cap 51. et ibid. lib. 3. cap. 10. et lib. 2. contra Parmen. et Council. Lat. cap. 1. et Conc. Florent in decr. Eugenii.]

In this, the goodness and wisdom of God to be admired.

And here let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord, who, seeing the necessity of this Sacrament for all, not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common as its matter; but also placed its administration within the jurisdiction of all. In its administration, however, as we have already observed, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity, but because they are of inferior necessity to the Sacrament.

Order to be observed by the ministers of baptism.

Let not the faithful, however, imagine that this office is given promiscuously to all, so as to supersede the propriety of observing a certain order amongst those who administer baptism: When a man is present, a woman; when a clerk, a layman; when a priest, a simple clerk, should not administer this Sacrament. Midwives, however, when accustomed to its administration, are not to be found fault with, if sometimes, when a man is present, who is unacquainted with the manner of its administration, they perform what may otherwise appear to belong more properly to men.

Sponsors, of ancient institution, why institute.

To those who, as we have hitherto explained, administer baptism, another class of persons is to be added, who, according to the most ancient practice of the Church, assist at the baptismal font; and, who, although formerly called by sacred writers by the common name of sponsors or sureties, are now called God-fathers and God-mothers. [Tert 1. de bapt. c. 18. et de coron. milit cap. 3.] As this is an office common almost to all the laity, the pastor will teach its principal duties, with care and accuracy. He will, in the first instance, explain why at baptism, besides those who administer the Sacrament, God fathers and God-mothers are also required. The propriety of the practice will at once appear, if we keep in view the nature of baptism, that it is a spiritual regeneration, by which we are born children of God; of which St. Peter says: “As newborn infants desire the rational milk without guile.” [1 Pet ii. 2.] As, therefore, every one, after his birth, requires a nurse and instructor, by whose assistance and assiduity he is brought up, and formed to learning and morality; so those, who, by the efficacy of the regenerating waters of baptism, are born to spiritual life, should be intrusted to the fidelity and prudence of some one, from whom they may imbibe the precepts of the Christian religion, and the spirit of Christian piety; and thus grow up gradually in Christ, until, with the divine assistance, they at length arrive at the full growth of perfect manhood. This necessity must appear still more imperious, if we recollect, that the pastor, who is charged with the public care of his parish, has not sufficient time to undertake the private instruction of children in the rudiments of faith. For this very ancient practice, we have this illustrious testimony of St. Denis: “It occurred,” says he, “to our divine leaders,” (so he calls the Apostles,) “and they in their wisdom ordained, that infants should be introduced into the Church, in this holy manner that their natural parents should deliver them to the care of some one well skilled in divine things, as to a master under whom, as a spiritual father and guardian of his salvation in holiness, the child may lead the remainder of his life.” [Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. c. 7. parte 3.] The same doctrine is confirmed by the authority of Higinus. [Habetur de consec. dist. 5. cap. 100. et Leo, pp. ib. c. 101. et Conc.Mogunt. ib. cap. 101. et 30. q. 1.]

Affinity contracted in baptism, what and between whom.

The Church, therefore, in her wisdom, has ordained that not only the person who baptizes, contracts a spiritual affinity with the person baptized, but also the sponsor with the God-child and its parents: so that marriage cannot be lawfully contracted between by them, and if contracted, it is null and void.

(To be continued)

————————–

Second Sunday after Easter

Benedict Baur, O.S.B. 

Subjection to authority

1. “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow His steps” (Epistle). Although St. Peter in the Epistle is urging all of his converts to be subject to legitimate authority, it is probable that he had in mind particularly the slaves who had been converted to Christianity. Slaves newly converted to Christ were apt to misunderstand the Christian concept of liberty, freedom, and equality. Writing to the Galatians St. Paul had asserted that among Christians “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3: 28). But neither St. Paul nor St. Peter meant to deny that these differences did exist in fact. They meant that once a man was incorporated into the mystical body of Christ, he ought to act as if they did not exist when dealing with fellow Christians. But the apostles were realists, and although they may have felt that all men ought to be free and equal, and that there ought not be any distinction between masters and slaves among Christians, they knew that this principle might not always be easy to enforce. St. Peter was instructing his converts how they ought to react when the ideal of Christian equality and justice could not be enforced.
2. “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow His steps” (Epistle). The Christian slave might complain that his membership in the Church had not alleviated the harsh conditions of his life. St. Peter points to the example of Christ who was in all things to be the model of the Christian. Christ, he says, did not deserve to suffer either, for “He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” but nevertheless he was subjected to persecution and injustice. But the Christian is expected to be a follower of Christ, who “when He was reviled, did not revile; when He suffered, He threatened not, but delivered Himself to him that judged Him unjustly.” If then Christians feel that they have not achieved the liberty and the equality they long for, they are to remember that Christ had come not to right all the wrongs and injustices in the world, but to give an “example that you should follow His steps.”

Men often complain against God when they suffer what they consider undeserved misfortunes. They think that God ought to interfere and punish injustice and wickedness here and now. They are like the apostles James and John; they want to call down fire from heaven and destroy those who appear to them to act improperly. This is the spirit of the world, but it is not the spirit of Christ. “You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save” (Luke 9:55). Christ made it clear that all injustice will be rectified eventually, but that for the present He wishes to allow the cockle to grow among the wheat. When the proper time comes God will deal with injustice in His own way.

3. But it is not only the slave who is to be subject to authority, and to recognize that mistreatment patiently borne is a service acceptable to God and meritorious for man. Obedience to legitimate authority does not depend on the worthiness of the official exercising authority. Christ Himself had commanded His disciples to obey the officials of the Jewish Church, even though they might not be personally worthy of the office they held. He had Himself given the example. He was obedient first of all to His parents. “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them” (Luke 2:52). He observed the ritual and the laws of the Jewish Church, for He Himself had established them. He obeyed the laws of the Roman authorities and paid the tribute they demanded.

The Christian, then, is to follow in the steps of Christ. He need not expect that he will always be treated justly even by other Christians placed in authority over him. If he is not, following in the steps of Christ, and imitating His example, he is not to revile when he is reviled, he is not to threaten when he suffers unjustly, for “Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow His steps.” If the Christian is prepared to imitate the humility of Christ, he may expect eventually to be delivered from the perils of eternal death, and to enjoy the endless happiness of heaven with Christ.

PRAYER

O God, who by the humility of Thy Son, hast raised up a fallen world, grant to Thy faithful people abiding joy: that those whom Thou hast delivered from the perils of eternal death, Thou mayest cause to enjoy endless happiness. Amen.

SATURDAY OF THE SECOND WEEK AFTER EASTER

Patience in suffering

1. “Who when He was reviled, did not revile; when He suffered, He threatened not” (Epistle). Patience in suffering and the disposition to forgive the persecutor, have always been the true mark of the great servants of Christ. St. Stephen, the first great martyr of the Church imitated Christ in begging for forgiveness for his murderers. He stood staunchly for the truth, even unto death as Christ had done; and although he knew that his assertion that he saw “the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God” would be used as an excuse for his murder, he would not deny the truth. Although he knew that he was being unjustly put to death, like his divine Master he could exclaim, “Lord, do not lay this sin against them” (Acts 7:60).

This disposition to forgive did not die with St. Stephen, but has continued to be one of the most characteristic virtues of the saint. We read in the life of St. Benedict as related in the Dialogues of St. Gregory, that he was continuously and severely persecuted by a delinquent priest who lived in the neighborhood of the monastery. Finally, in order to protect the virtue and the vocations of his disciples, St. Benedict decided to abandon the site of his monastery and move to another location. He and his monks had hardly left their monastery when word, was brought that the persecutor had died suddenly. Contrary to the expectation of the messenger who brought the news, St. Benedict broke out in loud lamentations that his enemy had died suddenly and had not had an opportunity to repent. The saints see so much more clearly than we the relative unimportance of the hardships and injustices we suffer in this world, and the importance before all else of the sinner’s being converted and repenting of his sins. How differently we act sometimes! How long and how persistently we harbor grudges in our hearts against those who have offended us. How difficult we find it to forgive freely and from our hearts. Yet we proclaim ourselves to be Christians and to practice all the Christian virtues. Do we forget that our Lord told us that if we expect our prayers to be heard, and our sacrifices to be pleasing in the sight of God, we must, if our brother has anything against us, leave our sacrifice at the altar, and go first and make peace with our brother? (Matt. 5:23.)

Nor is the disposition to forgive our enemies peculiar only to the saints and martyrs of the ancient Church; nor should we expect it to be, for the truth Christ preached was eternal, and if His disciples were commanded to forgive their enemies in His’ day, that command is still binding. When the Jesuit martyr, Father Pro was executed in Mexico some years ago, he was asked by his executioner if he had anything he wished to do, or anything he wished to say before the sentence was executed. Father Pro said that there was; he wished to be given an opportunity to pray for his executioners and to give them his blessing before he died. During the persecutions in Spain during the late civil war, one of the religious who was to be put to death by the Communists was led to his death with his hands bound. When asked if he had any final request, he too, asked to be allowed to give his blessing to the members of the firing squad. It is said that the officer in charge of the guard untied his hands, and then swiftly struck off the hands of the priest with his sword, and said, “Now, Priest, give them your blessing.” The Priest, blood streaming from his mangled wrists, raised his right arm and traced the sign of the cross over the heads of his murderers. This is the true sign of the authentic martyr, the characteristic mark of the true saint of the Church.

2. “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. Who His own self bore our sins in His body upon the tree” (Epistle). The redemption of man as accomplished by Christ might have been accomplished in other ways, but none of them would have been as perfect as the way Christ chose. God might have forgiven man outright without requiring any satisfaction for sin. This would have been a splendid manifestation of the infinite mercy of God, but it would have ignored His infinite justice. God might have refused redemption and forgiveness altogether, and this would have been in complete conformity with His justice, but it would not have satisfied His infinite mercy. Perfect redemption required that both God’s mercy and justice be satisfied. Man was in no position to help himself. Any act of satisfaction on his part would only have been of limited and finite value, and would not have been adequate. An act of reparation offered by a divine person would have been adequate, but it would not have been authentic, since it would not have been offered by the offending party. The only possibility of a perfect redemption was for the divine person to become incarnate. Christ, since He was God, could perform acts of infinite value; since he was a human being, He could act in the name of the human race, and offer an act of reparation which would be both adequate and authentic.
3. “By whose stripes you are healed” (Epistle). As when he was speaking of the duty of subjection to superiors, so here St. Paul seems to be addressing himself to the servants and the slaves of his time. Slaves were often cruelly treated by their masters in ancient times, and stripes from the scourge were familiar to every slave. The slave understood that the stripes he received from his master were in payment for some offense he had committed. He would understand then, that the debt that was due to almighty God for sin, could be paid by the stripes Christ received.

Since St. Paul points out to us that everything in Christ’s life, and especially his conduct during His passion should be an example for the Christian, and that the Christian should follow in His footsteps, it might be well for us to remember that we can satisfy for our personal sins by bearing patiently the sufferings that come to us in this world. Much of the misfortune and the suffering we endure in this world is the result of our own foolishness and perversity. Nevertheless, we can offer all of the misfortunes that overtake us in reparation for our sins and for those of our friends and relatives. When sorrow and suffering trouble us we should offer our trials humbly to God. thus making a feeble attempt to imitate Christ, “who suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow His steps” (Epistle).

PRAYER

O God, who by the humility of Thy Son hast raised up a fallen world, grant to Thy faithful people abiding joy; that those whom Thou hast delivered from the perils of eternal death, Thou mayest cause to enjoy endless happiness. Amen.

10: ST BADEMUS, ABBOT (A.D. 376)

ONE of the victims of the persecution under King Sapor II of Persia was a holy abbot whose name is latinized as Bademus. He was a citizen of Bethlapat, who had founded near the city a monastery over which he ruled with great repute for sanctity. He was apprehended with seven of his monks, condemned /61/ to be beaten daily, loaded with chains, and imprisoned in a dungeon. About the same time a Christian at the Persian court, Nersan, was also apprehended because he refused to worship the sun. At first he showed constancy, but at the sight of torture his resolution failed and he promised to conform. To test his sincerity Sapor suggested that he should kill Bademus, promising that he should be restored to favour and to his former possessions if he would comply. Nersan consented; a sword was placed in his hand and the abbot was brought into his cell. As Nersan advanced to plunge the weapon into his victim’s body, terror seized upon him and he stood for a time motionless, unable to raise his arm. Bademus remained calm, and fixing his eyes upon his would-be assailant he said, “Nersan! To what depths of wickedness you must have sunk when you can not only deny God but can also kill His servants. Willingly do I give myself to be a martyr for Christ, but I could have wished that it might have been by some other hand than yours!” Nersan, however, hardened his heart and made a thrust at the saint, but his arm was so unsteady that he struck several times before he inflicted a mortal wound.

THE MARTYRS UNDER THE DANES (c. A.D. 870)

IN one of their numerous descents upon Anglo-Saxon England, the Danes made their way up the Thames as far as the abbey of Chertsey, where they massacred Beocca the abbot, a priest called Hethor, and a number of monks. There are said to have been as many as ninety victims. They are reckoned as martyrs because the Danes showed special ferocity towards those whom they regarded as the representatives of Christianity. At about the same period similar massacres occurred in different parts of England. At Medeshamstede, the site of the modern Peterlorough, Abbot Hedda was slain with all his community, to the number of eighty-four. There were also raids made into the fen country, and at Bardney, Ely and probably at Croyland all the religious were exterminated. In the abbey church of Thomey in Cambridgeshire were venerated the relics of three anchorets of whom tradition declared that they had suffered martyrdom in the same year, 870, at the hands of the Danes. The very lack of details in our chronicles is probably due to the desolation almost everywhere created among those who alone could make any pretence to scholarship.

(Butler’s Lives of Saints)

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message