Vol 9 Issue 22 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
May 28, 2016 ~ Saint Augustine of Canterbury

1. Baptism: Means of Salvation (70)
2.Second Sunday after Pentecost
3. St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi
4. Christ in the Home (44)
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:

This week Holy Mother the Church will celebrate the Queenship of Mary. The discrepancy about the Church and her teachings in comparison with the Neo-Modernists is that the Neo-Modernists say they are going back to Scripture and the Fathers but don’t; whereas the Catholic Church teachings do go back to Scripture and the Fathers of which Faithful Catholics uphold. This is especially clear in relation to Mary. Scripture always places Mary with Christ and inseparable. The Fathers always place Mary with Christ and inseparable. The Neo-Modernists place Mary separate from Christ—not in the sense that they deny Mary is Mother of the historical Christ, but that Mary is the mother of the Church by faith as Abraham is father by faith and from this she obtains her praise. She is not singularly privileged but

She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin. (Cf. Lumen Gentium, cap. 8, par. 55.)

Neither should Mary should be made into a fetish that answers all the improbable whims of those rejecting the true Faith have placed faith in themselves and believe Mary must conform to it.

Faithful Catholics have proclaimed Mary the Mother of God because Christ is God; faithfulCatholics have proclaimed Mary Virgin because Scripture proclaims her virgin (cf. Isa. 7:14); faithful Catholics proclaim Mary Queen because she reigns with her Divine Son who is King.  As Pius XII wrote in Ad Coeli Reginam (1954):

[I] f Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God’s design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of “recapitulation,” in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ “in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race”; and if, in truth, “it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal love, like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his lamentable fall,” then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam.

As daughter of the Father she obeys God in all things; as mother of the Son, God obeys her in all things; as spouse of the Holy Ghost she is beloved by both.

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

____________________

Baptism

Means of Salvation

Sacrament of Baptism

Post Trent

The Jansenists and Gallicans were a large contingent in France and what is now French speaking Belgium by the latter 1600’s and 1700’s.  The fate of the French clergy, in such a disarray can be seen with the French Revolution of 1789 and its easy acceptance of schism in submitting to the Constitutional Clergy. In 1786, Scipio de’ Ricci, whom Pius VI (1775-1799) made bishop of Pistoia and Prato in Tuscany in 1780, called for a Synod in Pistoia that was an attempt to change the Church by making it Jansenist and Gallican, i.e., anti-Roman and semi-Protestant by adopting Pelagian and Protestant errors and subjecting the Church to the State and not to the Vicar of Christ. It must be noted that Pius VI appointed him for his zeal at reforming the Church, but de’ Ricci was soon influenced by the modern spirit of his age that looked at rejecting papal authority and considering itself part of the enlightenment by its acceptance of the “rights of man” (Voltaire, or François-Marie Arouet) as well as Gnosticism, or knowledgeable [The Encyclopedists were inevitably Freemasons and Illuminatists—and unfortunately Francis I, ruling Holy Roman Emperor (1745-65) with Maria Theresa, was a Freemason and supported the Freemasons against papal condemnation (cf. Sorley,  p.757.)]. Leopold I, a son of Francis I and Maria Theresa, was appointed Grand Duke of Tuscany. Following the example of his brother, Joseph II who succeeded Francis I and was aggregating Church property and controlling Church affairs in Austria, demanded the same reforms in Tuscany and Scipio de’ Ricci agreed by convoking a council.  The Synod of Pistoia convened on September 18 and concluded on the 28 of the same month, but it was not the local priests who were invited, rather it was mainly a select group of extra-diocesanal academics bent on promoting Jansenism and Gallicanism (denying papal authority). It called for acceptance of subjecting the Church and its properties to the State as found in the four Gallican Articles of the Assembly of the French Clergy of 1682 (and later the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of 1790), vernacular to be used for the liturgy, only one altar (table) to be erected in a church, the rejection of the word transubstantiation, among numerous other errors. Pius VI, on 28 August, 1794, condemned 85 errors in the Constitution, Auctorem fidei, among which are these concerning Baptism:

17. The proposition stated in these words: “Taught by the Apostle, we regard death no longer as a natural condition of man, but truly as a just penalty for original guilt,” since, under the deceitful mention of the name of the Apostle, it insinuates that death, which in the present state has been inflicted as a just punishment for sin by the just withdrawal of immortality, was not a natural condition of man, as if immortality had not been a gratuitous gift, but a natural condition,—deceitful, rash, injurious to the Apostle, elsewhere condemned. (Cf. DB 1517)

Pope Pius V had already condemned this teaching of Michel du Bai who wrote:The immortality of the first man was not a benefit of grace, but a natural condition (Proposition 78; cf. DB 1078). This is saying that man, by nature, would have lived forever not because God granted man immortality as a sign of His goodness, but by what man is. Therefore, it would mean that God took away something necessarily belonging to man by nature in order to punish him, destroying humanity of its true immortal nature. This is opposite the teaching of Pelagius who claimed that death would have occurred with or without original sin, but does coincides with Protestantism which denies the working of supernatural grace and places the weakness of man as a consequence of his nature which God subjected to sin as a punishment for the Sin of Adam. This is why Protestants claim all men are sinners—not because of supernatural grace being withdrawn, but because God gives man a sinful nature as punishment of Adam’s sin. It is also why Protestants do not baptize children, because for Protestants, Baptism is not a washing away of Original Sin, but a sign of fiduciary faith in Christ. For them Baptism does not remit sin, rather only sin is not imputed though still there. (Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. 5; DB 792)

The Synod in its chapter Baptism, section 3, also denied the existence of Limbo, which corresponded to that of the Protestants and the schismatic Orthodox. Pius VI condemned such a suggestion as follows in Proposition 26 ofAuctorem fidei:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false,  rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Cf. DB 1526)

The consequences of a denial of Limbo (of infants) would be that all children either go to heaven when they die or God would be unjustly punishing them by making them suffer beyond what is natural for something they were not responsible in sending them into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. (Cf. Matt. 25:41.) Saint Augustine objects to both when confronting the Pelagians because it would deny children are tainted by Original Sin. Augustine writes:

It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: “Judgment from one offense to condemnation,” (Rom. 5:16) and again a little after: “By the offense of one upon all persons to condemnation.” (Rom. 5:18). . . . (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, I, xvi, 21.)

It is true that Augustine had the Council of Carthage (418) declare:

Canon 3 [on Baptism] It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions” [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5.], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [Hrd. I 927 B note.].

Yet, earlier Saint Gregory Nazienzen gave this sermon on January 6, 381:

And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift [of Baptism], some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift [of Baptismal Grace] through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third [unbaptized infants] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. . . . (Oration XL, 23)

Saint Thomas expressly denies that they suffer from any “interior affliction”, in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae — “In Sent.”, II, 33, q. ii, a. 2 as quoted by Patrick Toner in the Catholic Encyclopedia under article Limbo.). This is what Pius VI is accepting in Auctorem Fidei and is repeated in Schema reformatum constitutionis dogmaticae de doctrina catholica, cap. V, n. 6 in Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis, t. 7, col. 565.

Reviewing this rejection of the Limbo of children by the Synod of Pistoia, it is interesting to note that a 360° turnaround is made by the Modernists who also deny Limbo for children not that, as St. Augustine can be wrongly interpreted as saying they go to Gehenna, but rather all children go to heaven. This is stated in the Study by International Theological Commission, of 22 April 2007:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

The article then proceeds through what is presented in the Catholic Encyclopedia (not referenced) in the Article Limbo by the Rev. Patrick Toner; but as it was published in 1910, it then jumps to introduce a novelty that is a disconnect from tradition—as the authors coin it, a chiaroscuro:

27 . . . In the 20th century, however, theologians sought the right to imagine new solutions, including the possibility that Christ’s full salvation reaches these infants.

28. In the preparatory phase of Vatican II, there was a desire on the part of some that the Council affirm the common doctrine that unbaptised infants cannot attain the Beatific Vision, and thereby close the question. The Central Preparatory Commission, which was aware of many arguments against the traditional doctrine and of the need to propose a solution in better accordance with the developing sensus fidelium, opposed this move. Because it was thought that theological reflection on the issue was not mature enough, the question was not included in the Council’s agenda; it did not enter into the Council’s deliberations and was left open for further investigation. The question raised a number of problems whose outcome was debated among theologians, in particular: the status of the Church’s traditional teaching concerning children who die without Baptism; the absence of an explicit indication in Holy Scripture on the subject; the connection between the natural order and the supernatural vocation of human beings; original sin and the universal saving will of God; and the “substitutions” for sacramental Baptism that can be invoked for young children.
29. Without responding directly to the question of the destiny of unbaptised infants, the Second Vatican Council marked out many paths to guide theological reflection. The Council recalled many times the universality of God’s saving will which extends to all people (1 Tim 2:4). All “share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all humankind” (NA 1, cf. LG 16). In a more particular vein, presenting a conception of human life founded on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God, the constitution Gaudium et Spes recalls that, “[h]uman dignity rests above all on the fact that humanity is called to communion with God,” specifying that “[t]he invitation to converse with God is addressed to men and women as soon as they are born” (GS 19). This same constitution proclaims with vigour that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being take on light. Furthermore, there is the renowned statement of the Council which asserted: “since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). Although the Council did not expressly apply this teaching to children who die without Baptism, these passages open a way to account for hope in their favour.
30. The study of history shows an evolution and a development of Catholic teaching concerning the destiny of infants who die without Baptism. . .

The consequences of such a document is a forfeiture of the necessity of baptism for salvation as also witnessing by Conciliarists the celebration of even children who have been aborted as being in heaven and therefore their death being a positive act instead of acknowledging the real tragic loss of a child’s possessing both an earthly life and eternal life. It also acquiesces to the Protestants that children do not need baptism to go to heaven as they have no sin that prevents them.

In reaching the last error of the Pistoia Synod regarding Baptism, this error dealt with re-baptism and omitting si non es baptizatus (-a)—If you are not baptized—when Baptism is administered conditionally. This is necessary to express, contrary to the Donatist and the Pelagian teachings, the one baptism for the remission of sins. The ana-Baptists rejected baptism of children and the Protestants took up their position. They also took up the concept of being baptized in a “Confession”, i.e., a Church and, like the Donatists, demanded the person be baptized in that “confession.” Pius VI, therefore, had the following Proposition 27, found under the chapter on Baptism, section 12, of the Council, condemned as rash, contrary to practice, to the law, to the authority of the Church which Proposition is stated here: The deliberation of the synod which, under pretext of clinging to ancient canons in the case of doubtful baptism, declares its intention of omitting mention of the conditional form. (Cf. DB 1527)

(To be continued)

————————–

Second Sunday after Pentecost

Benedict Baur, O.S.B. 

FEAST OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS

The Sacred Heart of Jesus

1. The liturgy associates the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus with the feast of Corpus Christi as a sort of continuation of the latter. The object of our worship on this feast is the physical heart of the God-man together with the humanity and the divinity of Christ—the heart of Jesus as a living member of this living organism. We adore the physical heart of Jesus as a symbol and expression of Christ’s love for men, particularly in the redemption on the cross, and as an expression of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist. By the heart of Jesus we mean, in the last analysis, the divine person of Jesus, which reveals His divine and human love for us by the symbol of His Sacred Heart. The mysteries of the incarnation, of the redemption, of the coming of the Holy Ghost, of the final resurrection, and of our participation in the life of God, depend ultimately on the mystery of the Savior’s love for us. All these mysteries are embodied in the heart of Jesus, and we wish to honor and appreciate them more fully on the feast of the Sacred Heart.
2. The concept which the liturgy presents of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is outlined for us in the Introit, in the Gospel, and in the Preface of the Mass. “The thoughts of His heart are to all generations; to deliver their souls from death and feed them in famine” (Introit). “Come to Me all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you” (Alleluia). The Gospel leads us to the cross of Christ: “But after they [the soldiers] were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear opened His side, and immediately there came out blood and water” (Gospel). The mystery which is contained in this opening of Christ’s side is explained to us in the Preface. His side was pierced, “that from His opened heart, as from a sanctuary of divine bounty, might be poured out upon us streams of mercy and grace; and that in His heart always burning with love for us, the devout may find a haven of rest and the penitent a refuge of salvation” (Preface). The opening in the side of Jesus was prefigured by the door of Noe’s ark, through which all were obliged to pass who were to be rescued from the destruction of the Deluge (Hymn at Lauds), The wound in the side of Jesus is the door of salvation.

Our obligations toward the Sacred Heart of Jesus are explained in the Collect of the Mass. We are obliged to render to the Sacred Heart a becoming homage (our adoration, praise, and thanksgiving) and at the same time make a worthy reparation for our sins. These thoughts are presented for our consideration on this feast. We acknowledge and honor in the Sacred Heart of Jesus the summation of Christ’s divine and human inner life, with all His virtues, affections, and emotions, all His ambitions and desires. We venerate and honor especially the unspeakable love of Jesus for us, which He has revealed by His death on the cross and by His establishment of the Holy Eucharist. We have countless other reasons for thanking Him, worshiping Him, and adoring Him. We likewise wish to acknowledge the ingratitude we have shown Him, the many repeated infidelities with which we have responded to His love and His countless graces. We wish to make recompense for our neglect of His love and the graces which He earned for us on the cross and which He has manifested in the Eucharist. We wish to compensate for our coldness and lack of interest in Him. What a multitude of offenses we have each day to regret, to repent of, and to satisfy for!

3. “My heart hath expected reproach and misery; and I looked for one that would grieve together with me, but there was none; and for one that would comfort me, and I found none” (Offertory). Not so with me; for in me He will find one that will grieve with Him. In me He will find one to console Him, as did the angel who came to Him in the Garden. Jesus can be consoled by expiation, by satisfaction, by love.

Behold the heart that has loved men so much, the heart that has loved men in the Incarnation, in the crib, and on the cross. Who can comprehend the love of the heart of Jesus, especially when we consider who we are and who He is? Truly we have no claim upon Him and His love except that which He in His infinite mercy has given to us. Who could be more unworthy of His love than we have been? And yet He has loved us with an abundance of love. How can we ever forget this thought or take an interest in anything other than the eternal love of God for us, who have been so undeserving of that love? Should we not, like an earthly lover, forget even food and drink and sleep so that every hour of the day and night we may devote our attention ‘to Jesus as the object of our love? Graces have been heaped upon us in such abundance that we can scarcely bear them or enumerate them; Christ’s mercy appears anew each day. And still more, He will grant me the reward that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man hath conceived. Yet we remain cold and unmoved, having many interests in life that seem far more important than Christ Himself. Sacred Heart of Jesus, how Thou hast loved us! Teach us to love Thee more and more.

PRAYER

O God, who in the heart of Thy Son, wounded by our transgressions, dost mercifully vouchsafe to bestow upon us the infinite wealth of Thy love; grant, we beseech Thee, that revering it with meet devotion, we may make a worthy reparation for our sins. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

Christ’s love for us

1. To St. Paul was given the privilege of revealing to the Gentiles the “unsearchable riches of Christ,” that is, the wealth of grace and salvation which are given to us through Christ. He falls on his knees and begs God that we may comprehend the “breadth, and length, and height, and depth” of God’s mercy in calling us to the faith, and Christ’s love, “which surpasseth all knowledge” (Epistle).
2. Oh, “the breadth, and length, and height, and depth” of God’s mercy for us! That mercy is expressed in the mystery of the incarnation: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). Christ further expresses His mercy for men in the mystery of His life of voluntary poverty, in His humility, His subjection to the Father, and His willingness to do whatever the Father desires of Him. “The breadth, and length, and height, and depth” of the mercy of God are expressed with infinite forcefulness by His suffering in the Garden, at the pillar, and on the way to Calvary, and especially by His crucifixion and death on the cross. All these sufferings He endured for our sake, to render satisfaction to God in our stead. He has withheld nothing. There is not a single act of His will that is not directed toward our redemption; there was not a single member of His adorable body that did not suffer for us. There was no suffering, no humiliation, no injustice that He did not endure for us. He shed every drop of His precious blood for us. Who can fathom the breadth, and length, and height, and depth of the mercy of the Sacred Heart of Jesus? Who can measure it as it is revealed in our vocation to grace and salvation and to membership in the Church? Or who can measure it as expressed in our call to receive the sacrament of baptism, or in our participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Communion? What divine mercy is expressed in our incorporation in the mystical body of Christ, since we thereby become branches of Christ, the vine, now through grace, but eventually through the possession of the glory of heaven! Other men He has passed by. Why has He selected me in preference to others? Certainly not because I was more worthy. Only because of pure mercy and compassion has He chosen me. Oh, the depth and the height of divine mercy!

“The charity of Christ which surpasseth all knowledge.” Love is His very essence. Love is the secret of His being. He loves us with a love that no words can express and no created intellect can comprehend. Love makes as one the lovers. For them they are no longer two persons, but a perfect unity of the two in one. “And all My things are Thine, and Thine are Mine” (John 17:10). Christ has removed the barrier that separates us from Him, for by baptism He has called us to a living union with Himself, who is our head. By virtue of this mystical union, Christ’s merits, satisfactions, and prayers become ours. And everything that was ours becomes His. When we suffer, He suffers in us and with us. When we humble ourselves, He offers satisfaction through us to the Father. If we emulate the spirit of Christ and practice the poverty of Christ, He uses this power to pay homage to His Father. “All My things are Thine, and Thine are Mine.” Christ was not satisfied with having once paid the price of our redemption; He is not satisfied with being merely our exemplar and teacher. Love unites. He draws us to Himself and unites us to Himself in a mysterious but efficacious participation in His life and merits. He could not have done more. He could not have given us His love more completely or more perfectly. And all this love, “which surpasseth all knowledge,” He has revealed to us in the symbol of His Sacred Heart.

3. What is meant by the veneration of the Sacred Heart? It means a living faith in the mercy and love of Jesus; it means a consciousness and understanding of the mystery of Christ’s love for us. It means especially a devout and grateful regard for that living union between Christ and the soul, between the head and the members. It implies an abiding joy in the realization that we are united to Him, that we have been elevated by Him to share His life and His riches. “That being rooted and founded in charity, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth; to know also the charity of Christ which surpasseth all understanding, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God” (Epistle). We should dwell on the infinity of Christ’s mercy and love. We must strive to understand this love and learn to believe in it and trust in it completely. The one reality in which we can live and die confidently is the love of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Among all the uncertainties of human life, only one thing is certain; the love and mercy of the Sacred Heart. “Heart of Love I place my trust in Thee. In my weakness and sinfulness I fear all things, yet I hope all things from Thy love” (St. Margaret Mary Alacoque).

PRAYER

O almighty and eternal God, look down upon the heart of Thy beloved Son, and upon the praise and satisfaction which it renders to Thee in the name of sinners and such as seek Thy mercy, and do Thou graciously grant pardon in the name of Thy divine Son, Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen

29: ST MARY MAGDALEN DEI PAZZI, VIRGIN (A.D. 1607)

The family of Pazzi was one of the most illustrious in Florence and was closely allied to the Medici, the ruling house: it gave to the state a long line of eminent politicians, governors and soldiers ; and to the world one great woman who in fame has eclipsed them all. The father of St Mary Magdalen Dei Pazzi, Camillo Geri by name, had married Mary Buondelmonte, the descendant of a family as distinguished as his own. The saint was born in Florence in 1566, and in honour of St Catherine of Siena received her name in baptism. Almost from infancy she began to display an intense attraction for religion and good works, and she made her first communion with wonderful fervor when she was ten. Her father having been appointed governor of Cortona, she was placed at the age of fourteen as a boarder in the convent of St John in Florence. There she could give full scope to her devotion and learned to love the atmosphere of a religious house.

Fifteen months later her father took her home with a view to arranging a marriage for her. Several desirable suitors were proposed, but her heart was so strongly set upon the religious life that her parents after some opposition reluctantly gave way to her desire. She chose the Carmelite convent of her native town because its members made their communion almost every day. On the eve of the Assumption, 1582, she entered the convent of St Mary of the Angels upon the understanding that she should continue to wear her secular clothes until she had full experience of the rule. She had only been there fifteen days when her parents fetched her home hoping, no doubt, that she would reconsider her decision. Her resolution, however, was unbroken, and three months later she re-entered the convent with their approbation and blessing.

On January 30, 1583, she received the habit, and took the name of Mary Magdalen. When the priest placed the crucifix in her hands with the words, “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”, her face was suffused with an almost unearthly radiance and her heart was filled with an ardent desire to suffer during the rest of her life for her Savior. That desire was never to leave her. After a most fervent novitiate she was allowed to take her vows unusually early, because she was dangerously ill. As her sufferings were obviously very severe, one of the sisters asked her how she could bear so much pain without a murmur. The saint pointed to the crucifix and said, “See what the infinite love of God has suffered for my salvation. That same love sees my weakness and gives me courage. Those who call to mind the sufferings of Christ and who offer up their own to God through His passion find their pains sweet and pleasant.” When she was conveyed back to the infirmary after her profession she sank into an ecstasy which lasted over an hour; and for forty days she enjoyed heavenly consolations in addition to frequent raptures. It has often been noticed by writers on the spiritual life that God is wont thus to visit elect souls with special consolations after their first act of complete self-surrender. He does it in order to brace them for the trials which never fail to ensue. To crucify in them all self-seeking, to teach them to know themselves, and to prepare them to be vessels of His pure love, He refines them in the crucible of internal tribulation. Usually the higher the degree of sanctity to which they are to rise, the fiercer are the cleansing fires. This we find exemplified in the state of desolation into which this saint fell after her first transports of spiritual joy. But she did not desire spiritual consolations. Her aspiration was to suffer for her Savior’s sake.

Fearing that she might have offended God by over-eagerness to be professed, Mary Dei Pazzi asked and obtained permission to live as a novice two years after she had made her vows. At the expiration of that time she was appointed second directress of the extern girls, and three years later she was set to instruct young nuns. She was now being tried by the most severe interior trials. Although she fasted always on bread and water, except on Sundays and holidays, she was assaulted with violent temptations to gluttony and impurity. To resist them she chastised her body with disciplines, while she never ceased to implore the help of her heavenly Spouse and of our Blessed Lady. She seemed to be plunged into a state of darkness in which she saw nothing but what was horrible in herself and in all around her. For five whole years she remained in this state of desolation and spiritual dryness, and then God restored to her soul His holy peace together with the comfort of His divine presence. In 1590, on Whitsunday at Matins when the Te Deum was intoned, she fell into a rapture. On emerging from it, she pressed the hands of the prioress and the novice-mistress, exclaiming, ” Rejoice with me, for my winter is at an end! Help me to thank and glorify my good Creator.” From this time onwards God was pleased to manifest His graces in her.

Mary Magdalen dei Pazzi read the thoughts of others and predicted future events. To Alexander dei Medici she foretold that he would one day be pope. Repeating the prophecy on a subsequent occasion she added that his reign would be a short one: it actually lasted twenty-six days. During her lifetime she appeared to several persons in distant places and she cured a number of sick people. As time went on, her ecstasies became more and more frequent. Sometimes in that state she would appear rigid and lifeless, sometimes she would carry on her customary duties while remaining entranced. Occasionally from her words and gestures it was evident that she was in some way participating in the passion of our Lord or conversing with her divine Spouse and the denizens of Heaven. So edifying were the words that fell from her lips that a record was kept of them by her sisters, who collected them after her death into a book. Her union with God seemed unbroken: she would call upon all created things to glorify their Creator and longed for all mankind to love Him as she did. She would pray with tears for the conversion of the heathen, of unbelievers, of heretics, of sinners. She would cry out, ” O Love, love is not loved, not known by His own creatures. O my Jesus! If I had a voice sufficiently loud and strong to be heard in every part of the world, I would cry out to make this Love known, loved and honored by all men as the one immeasurable good.”

In 1604 St Mary Magdalen became bedridden. She was now subject to violent headaches, and she lost all power in her limbs although she suffered agonies if touched. Besides being in constant pain she experienced much spiritual dryness. Nevertheless, the greater her suffering the greater grew her desire for it. “O Lord”, she prayed, “let me suffer or let me die—or rather—let me live on, that I may suffer more! ” She even rejoiced if her prayers were not granted because it meant that God’s will was being done, not hers. When she knew that her last hour was approaching, she gave a parting injunction to the nuns assembled round her. “Reverend mother and dear sisters”, she said, “I am about to leave you; and the last thing I ask of you—and I ask it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—that you love Him alone, that you trust implicitly in Him and that you encourage one another continually to suffer for the love of Him.” On May 25, 1607, she went to her eternal reward at the age of forty-one years. Her body, which was untouched by corruption, still lies in a shrine in the church attached to her convent in Florence, and in 1669 she was canonized.

(Butler’s Lives of the Saints)

…

[Message clipped]  View entire message