Vol 12 Issue 7 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
February 16, 2019 ~ Our Lady on Saturday
1. What is the Sacrament of Confirmation
2. Septuagesima Sunday
3. Saints Theodulus and Julian
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
The United States is known to be a drug dependent nation. Pharmaceutical sales in 2017 alone were over 450 billion dollars. Americans, with a gnostic/pseudo-scientific faith, believe drugs are the answer to everything since they are told all during school life and afterwards in the media that humans are just chemical reactions and drugs can alter any mal-function since different chemicals cause different reactions (and why everything now is labeled a disease, i.e., mal-function in the chemistry of the body). The result is self-medication—since some drugs are too expensive. The universal panacea prevalent today among our youth—and reaching now into our elderly—seems to be marijuana. Under the guise of lowering medical costs—which the state pays the majority of the costs through Medicaid, states are voting to legalize the sale of marijuana. There are claims that certain forms of THC not smoked but consumed as oil has benefits. If that is so, the medical experts can comment. Here I can only look at the past and present research that shows the effects of marijuana have no medical benefit when smoked but contrary detrimental side effects that debilitate the consumer. In fact, with higher THC content, worse than when one looks at the sixties and the hippies. It is legalized where I live in Nevada, and it has gotten to the point where you no longer try to avoid second hand cigarette smoking, because you find it difficult enough to avoid second-hand pot smoking. But it is also evident that there are more mentally ill and more violent mentally ill—caused by or increased through drug use. Not one, if you talk to them, believe there is anything wrong with them and all will say marijuana makes them feel better—but the truth is they are psychotic and marijuana makes them worse.
There is an article by Hillsdale College, in their publication Imprimis, which is worthwhile for everyone to read.
As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor
________________
WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION?
by Rev. Courtney Edward Krier
The New Conciliar Rite in comparison with the Tridentine Rite
The Conciliarists did not want to show the connection between the faith of Catholics in the early Church and that of today because by taking away the name, Mass of the Catechumens, the Conciliarists rather lost a true relic of the early Church that expressed the steps to full participation in the Sacraments and the need to keep holy “the mysteries” (Sacraments). The Conciliarists did not bring a Catholic meaning to the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, but confused it with what it originally meant, that is, an instructed Catholic, to a new meaning, that is, of one brought into a “mystery cult” or fraternity. During the Second Vatican Council, the use of “mystery” and “Sacrament” was already being distorted as Xavier Rynne notes in the complaint of Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini at the very beginning of the Second Session. Cardinal Ruffini
. . . Criticiz[ed] especially the inappropriateness of certain biblical quotations and remarking apropos of the statement that “the Church is a sacrament”: “For a long time the term sacrament has been reserved to the seven sacraments; because its use with reference to the Church is obscure today and needs long explanations, it is contrary to the pastoral orientation of the Council. This term was often used heretically by George Tyrrell, apostate priest and leader of the Modernists.” (Rynne, 50)
Confirmation, then, is not, according the Conciliarists, the perfecting of the Christian by a strengthening of the Life of the Holy Ghost in the Christian Soul, but the giving of the Holy Ghost for the very first time and now allowing the recipient to participate in the Holy Eucharist as a priest.(Cf. Rahner, 282.)
Next week there will be provided a comparison of the New Conciliar Rite side by side with the Roman Ritual used in the Catholic Church. As the beginning of the Conciliar Rite expresses, it is a part of baptism and therefore the renewal of baptismal promises to give this connection—though vaguely. Also, there is no laying on of hands when the Conciliarist anoints—whereas both the laying on of hand while signing (sealing) with Chrism is essential in the traditional Roman Catholic form. (To be continued)
————————–
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
M. F. Toal
THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY
MATTHEW xx. 1-16
At that time: Jesus spoke to His Disciples the following parable: The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle. And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just. And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner. But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle? They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard. And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.
When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny. And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats.
But he answeting said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil, because I am good? So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.
EXPOSITION FROM THE CATENA AUREA
The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard . . . REMIGIUS: Because the Lord had just said: Many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first, so that He might confirm this saying, He adds a similitude, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder . . .
CHRYSOSTOM, Super Matthaeum, Hom. 54 ex Op. lmperfecto: Christ is the householder, and the heavens and the earth are as it were His house, His family is made up of the creatures of both heaven and earth, and those that are beneath. The vineyard is the life of justice in which the various virtues are planted, like vines in a vineyard; as for example: mildness, chastity, patience, and the other virtues; all of which are called by the name justice. The labourers in the vineyard are men; hence He says: Who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. God has planted His justice in our hearts, not for His own profit, but for ours. Learn therefore that we are hired servants. And as no one hires a servant whose sole service is to feed himself, so likewise we are not called by Christ that we may do only the things that are for our personal benefit, but those that pertain to the glory of God.
And just as the servant first has mind for the task he has to do, then afterwards for his daily bread, so must we also look first to what belongs to the glory of God, then to that which is to our own profit; and as the hired servant gives the whole day to the work of his master, and but one hour to his own nourishment, so ought we devote all the days of our life to God’s glory, reserving but a little portion to our earthly needs. And as the servant is ashamed, upon a day in which he has not laboured, to enter the house of the master and ask for bread, ought you not be ashamed to enter the Church and stand before the face of God, when in His sight you have not laboured unto good?
GREGORY. Hom. 19 in Evang.: The householder, that is, our Creator, has a vineyard, namely, the universal Church, which from Abel the Just until the last of the Elect that shall be born into this world, has brought forth as many saints as it sends forth shoots. And at no time has the Lord failed to send labourers to work in His vineyard, that is, to instruct His people unto justice. This He first did by means of the Patriarchs, then through the Teachers of the Law, then by the Prophets, and last of all He has cultivated His vineyard by the Apostles, His labourers; though whosoever has performed, with a right intention any good action, the same has been a worker in this vineyard.
ORIGEN, Tr. 10 in Matt.: We may describe this whole present world as but one day, which is great indeed to us, but as nothing in the sight of God. GREGORY, as above: The morning of the world was the time from Adam until Noah; therefore is it said: Who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And He also describes the form of the contract, saying: And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day. ORIGEN: I believe that the word denarius (penny) stands for salvation. REMIGIUS: A denarius is the coin which formerly was reckoned as equal to ten nummi (pence), and had on it the effigy of the king. Rightly therefore is a denarius used to indicate the reward of the observance of the Decalogue; and rightly is it said: Having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, because in the field of the holy Church each one labours for a reward that is promised.
GREGORY: The third hour was from Noah to Abraham: of which it is said: And going out about the third hour he saw others standing in the market place idle. ORIGEN: The market place is anywhere that is outside the Catholic Church. CHRYSOSTOM, Super Matth.: For in this world men live by buying and selling: and by defrauding each other they sustain their own lives. GREGORY: He who lives for himself, who gratifies himself with the pleasures of the flesh, is rightfully considered as one standing idle, because he is not seeking after the fruits of labouring for God.
CHRYSOSTOM, as above: Or those standing idle are sinners: for they are said to be dead; for that man is idle who does not the work of the Lord. Do you wish then not to be idle? Then do not take what is another’s, and give of your own: and thus you shall labour in the vineyard of the Lord, cultivating the vine of mercy. Then follows: And he said to them: go you also into my vineyard. Note here that it was only with the first hired that he agreed upon a particular wage, the others he hired with an undefined agreement, saying only: I will give you what shall be just. For the Lord, knowing that Adam would sin, and that all would later perish in the flood, made with him a certain agreement: lest he might afterwards say that he had departed from justice because he knew not what reward he would receive. With the workers who were called later he made no agreement, for He was resolved to give them an amount such as they had no expectation of receiving.
ORIGEN: Or He did not call the labourers of the third hour to a whole day’s work: whatever they were able to do He reserved to His own judgement to reward accordingly. For they could do an amount of work equal to that done by those who had worked from the early morning, were they willing, in the shorter space of time, and not sparing their toil, to put forth a greater effort to the work in hand.
GREGORY: The sixth hour is from Abraham to Moses; the ninth from Moses to the coming of the Lord; hence follows: And he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour and did in like manner. CHRYSOSTOM, as above: He unites the sixth and ninth hour in this manner, because in the sixth and ninth hour He called the Jewish people, and frequently visited mankind, in order to establish His covenants with them as the time drew near for the salvation of all men.
GREGORY: The eleventh hour is from the coming of the Lord until the end of the world. The workers in the morning, at the third, the sixth, the ninth hour, stand for the ancient Jewish people, which, in its Elect, and from the beginning of the world, while it served God with an upright heart, has scarcely ceased from labour in the divine vineyard. At the eleventh hour the Gentiles were called: About the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and saith to them: why stand you here all the day idle? They who for so long a period of the world’s time neglected to labour for their livelihood were standing as it were all the day idle. But note what those who were so questioned made answer: They say to him: because no man hath hired us. No Patriarch had come to them, and no Prophet. What means no man hath hired us if not that no man hath preached to us the way of life?
CHRYSOSTOM, as above: What is our hiring, and what is the wage of our engagement? The promise of life eternal. The Gentiles alone knew not God nor His promises. HILARY, in Matth. 20: These therefore are sent into the vineyard; hence follows: He saith to them: go you also into my vineyard. RABANUS: At the computation of the day’s work, a time suitable for payment, the Gospel says: And when the evening was come, that is, when the day of the world had inclined towards the evening of its ending.
CHRYSOSTOM, as above: Observe that He gave payment at evening time, not on the following morning: therefore while the world endures judgement is yet to come, and to each must his reward be given, and this for two reasons. The first is because happiness is itself the future reward of justice: therefore not in the next world is judgement given, but prior to it. Then, judgement will be given before the Coming of the Lord, lest sinners see that day’s happiness. The Gospel continues: The Lord said to his steward, that is, the Son says to the Holy Spirit.
GLOSS: Or if you will, the Father says to the Son: because the Father worketh through the Son, and the Son through the Holy Spirit; but not because of any difference of substance or of dignity.
ORIGEN: Or the Lord saith to His steward, that is to one of the angels who have the duty of bestowing rewards; or to one of the many governors, according to that which is written: As long as the heir is a child he is under tutors and governors (Gal. iv. 2). REMIGIUS: Or the Lord Jesus Christ is Himself the householder and the steward of the vineyard just as He is both the Door and the Doorkeeper. He therefore calls the workers, and giyes them their wage, when all shall be gathered together at the judgement, so that each may be seen to receive according to his works.
ORIGEN: For the first workers being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise. God, the householder, providing some better thing for us who were called at the eleventh hour, so that they should not be perfected without us (Heb. xi. 39). And because we have obtained mercy, for the reason that we stood the whole day idle, we hope to be the first to receive reward, because we are Christ’s; and after us He will pay those who have laboured before us; and therefore is it said: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first.
———————–
17: SS. THEODULUS AND JULIAN, MARTYRS (A.D. 309)
ST THEODULUS and St Julian suffered at Caesarea in Palestine immediately after the five Egyptians commemorated on the 16th, but they are mentioned under this date in the Roman Martyrology. Theodulus, a wise and pious old man, occupied one of the most honourable positions in the household of Firmilian, the governor of Palestine, who held him in great esteem. After witnessing the fortitude and patience of the five saints, he visited the prison and held the martyrs up as examples to encourage the other confessors and to prepare them for a similar ordeal. Firmilian was so furious at this action on the part of his old servant that he sent for him, reproached him sternly for his ingratitude and, without hearing his defence, condemned him to be crucified. Theodulus received the sentence gladly, and went joyfully to a form of death which so closely resembled that of his Saviour and by means of which he would speedily be united with Him.
Julian, who shared his triumph, was only a catechumen, held in great honour by the faithful on account of his exemplary character. He had been absent from Caesarea and had scarcely arrived back when he was informed of the sufferings and of the execution of the martyrs which had just been taking place. At once he ran to the spot, and finding that all was over he expressed his veneration by kissing and embracing the bodies of the saints. The guards apprehended him and took him to the governor, who, perceiving that he was as determined as the rest, wasted no time in useless cross-examination but immediately ordered him to be burnt. Julian thanked God for the honour, and asked Him to accept his life as a voluntary sacrifice. His cheerfulness whilst he was being tortured by slow fire amazed his executioners and the spectators.
(Butler’s Lives of the Saints)
__________________________
The Catholic Marriage Manual
Reverend George A. Kelly
Random House, New York 1958
13
“Until Death Do You Part”
The above discussion has considered some conditions which make a marriage null and void from the beginning. When such cases are brought to the attention of the Church, judges of the Church will decide whether a marriage exists. If they conclude that there has been no marriage, the persons involved must cease to live together or must enter a valid contract if possible. Thus when a marriage is annulled, the parties to it are free to remarry validly in the Church.
The subject of impediments and lack of true consent is highly complicated and the discussion above is intended for general information only. Any person involved in an annulment case should discuss it with a member of the Marriage Court who has been specifically trained for this work and appointed by the Bishop. When conditions warrant, the parish priest will arrange for such a discussion.
It should also be borne in mind that in all cases of this kind, the burden of proof rests upon the person seeking the annulment. A mere statement that an impediment was present will never suffice; the Church requires clear-cut proof.
“It is a rule of law that whatever is done is presumed to have been done correctly,” explains Father Stephen J. Kelleher, Judge of the Marriage Court of the Archdiocese of New York. “This means that any time that two people enter a contract, it is presumed that they do everything necessary to make the contract a valid one. There are no exceptions to this rule.
“Where a party alleges that his marriage is not to be considered valid because he is a Catholic and was not married in the presence of a priest, it is necessary that he clearly prove that he is a Catholic, that his marriage did not take place before a priest, and that his marriage was never blessed by a priest. In insanity cases, it must be proved that a party was actually insane at the time of the marriage. Insanity which arises after the marriage never affects its validity. On the several thousand marriages which we consider each year, perhaps only one or two will be declared null because of the invalidating intentions of one of the parties. That is, for example, because one person absolutely excluded children from the marriage. These statistics indicate the reserve with which the Church regards alleged causes for annulment.”
Dissolution of the bond. A sacramental marriage legally contracted and consummated can never be dissolved by any human power except through death. A Christian marriage that has not been consummated, a marriage between a person baptized and one not baptized, or a marriage between two unbaptized persons can, however, be dissolved under certain circumstances through a dispensation granted by the Holy See. Such dispensations are rare. The granting of them should never be presumed. Each individual case must be thoroughly investigated by the bishop and his tribunal.
A legitimate, consummated marriage between non-baptized persons may be dissolved if it is clearly proved that neither party has been baptized and if one partner is converted to the Faith and the other does not wish to live with the convert peacefully without offense to God. The Catholic can then contract a new marriage. This is called the Pauline Privilege because St. Paul taught: “If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, let her not put away her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.” (1 Corinthians, 7:12-15) This pronouncement was made to protect the faith of Christians. Faith is of first importance to all of us because it is necessary for eternal life.
It is not permissible for a Catholic who is single to keep company with a married person on the theory that the married person may receive an ecclesiastical annulment or dissolution. The Church presumes the validity of all marriages, including marriages between two non-Catholics. Until and unless an annulment or a dissolution is actually granted by the Church Court, it is morally wrong for the married person to keep company with anyone. More often than not, there is no basis for that anticipated annulment or dissolution. Even when such a basis may exist, it may not be provable in accordance with the norms of the Church Court.
Cost of annulments. A libel sometimes made against the Church is that annulments can be obtained more easily by the rich than by the poor. Father Kelleher comments: “For the year 1956 in the Matrimonial Court of the Archdiocese of New York, the expenses involved in the running of the court amounted to about $60,000. This included the full-time activities of seven secretaries and nine priests. Of this amount the people who were involved in the cases being processed paid approximately $20,000. This means that there was a deficit of $40,000. . . . During the course of the year, more than 2,000 marriages are brought to the attention of the court. When we find there is no basis for nullity, expenses are simply not mentioned, even though we often spend a good deal of time and money in preliminary investigations. In some hundreds of cases we ask for approximately $25 in expenses. In perhaps twenty-five cases we estimate the expenses at between $150 and $250. I use the word “estimate” because if the people cannot afford to pay, their cases are handled anyway. To obtain a civil divorce or annulment anywhere in the United States would probably cost at least $300.”
Two kinds of separation possible. The Church recognizes that certain conditions may make it extremely difficult for a man and woman to live together as husband and wife. When a husband and wife cease to live together, however, the danger of adultery is magnified, along with a weakening of the faith and perhaps the ultimate loss of soul. Therefore, the Church always urges married persons to make every effort to reconcile their differences and to try to live in harmony. Separation should be undertaken only after all other attempts to live in peace have failed.
Separation may be of two types—permanent and temporary. Permanent separation is that in which cohabitation is considered out of the question for the rest of the lifetime of the parties involved. So gravely does the Church regard the potential evils of permanent separation that only one greater evil—the evil of adultery—is recognized as sufficient cause for it. When a husband or wife commits adultery, the innocent spouse may refuse to cohabit with the offending party ever again. According to Church law, the victim need not even consult a priest before taking this step. However, the innocent party must be certain that the mate has committed a complete act of adultery with another person; suspicion is not enough. Moreover, the innocent party must not have been responsible, even indirectly, for the commission of the adultery. If a wife habitually refused to engage in the marital act or indicated in any way that her husband should satisfy his physical needs elsewhere, she might have encouraged his adultery indirectly. Nor could she separate if she forgave her husband after discovering the adultery. In view of these conditions, prudence suggests that a priest be consulted before the decision is made to separate.
Temporary separation exists when a husband and wife live apart but with the possibility that they will be reunited if there is a change in the conditions responsible for the separation. Sometimes husbands and wives must separate temporarily for reasons not related to the harmony of their marriage. For example, a husband may be transferred by his employer to a different city in the middle of a school year. His wife remains behind until he obtains living quarters or until the children complete the school term. Or a husband is called into military service and sent to a remote base where facilities for family life do not exist. Such separations are involuntary and do not involve a deliberate decision to live apart; they are not the type which Church law considers.
Before the Church will permit validly married couples to break up their home and go their separate ways, there must be a serious reason for the step. Sufficient reason may exist if one partner has renounced Catholicism to join another religion, or has given up his belief in God entirely; if one insists that the children be educated in non-Catholic schools, when Catholic schooling is available and within the family’s capacity to pay; if the husband refuses to provide for his family, or his wife refuses to perform ordinary wifely duties around the home; if a partner is habitually drunk and makes life difficult by disturbances, cruelty, or threats; if the partner leads a life of public sin—for instance, if he is a known and habitual criminal; or if he demands that his mate commit mortal sin with him.
Persons who believe that sufficient reasons exist to justify separation must request permission to do so from their pastor. The pastor will refer the case to the judges of the marriage court established by the diocese.
Even when an innocent victim has a legal right to live apart from an erring spouse, it is often unwise to do so. This may be especially true when a partner has expressed sorrow for his adultery and promises not to repeat it. Although a wife may legally separate, by doing so she may deny her children the advantage of their father’s companionship. Her refusal to engage in bodily communion with her husband may lead to future sins of adultery by him and possibly even by herself. By insisting upon the right to live apart, she may show a lack of the Christian virtue of forgiveness.
When faced with the possibility of a separation, the priest will usually advise against it. For trials are the lot of all men. When one of the parties is apparently more bound than the other by the “for worse” clause in the marriage contract, it would be well to remember that there is no strict justice in this world and that first one spouse, and then the other, may bear unequal burdens at different times. Often a little heroism helps a marriage emerge triumphant after a few stormy years. In some cases, a true sense of martyrdom may be necessary; more often, however, the grace obtainable through trust in God, prayer and the sacraments will enable the innocent party to bear the crosses of marriage with serenity.
If separation is finally counseled by the priest and consented to by the bishop, it should never be presumed to be for life. Our Faith teaches that there is always hope even for the greatest of sinners: adulterers repent and drunkards reform, and sometimes they even become more virtuous than they have ever been. The possibility of reconciliation should never be ruled out. If God willingly forgives the repentant sinner, one of His creatures should not refuse to do so.
When civil divorce action is permitted. Church law states that Catholics may not start a civil divorce action with the intention of ending their marriage. As we have seen, a civil divorce or annulment cannot destroy the bonds of any valid marriage. In the eyes of the State, however, two persons remain married until a divorce decree is granted. Therefore it may sometimes be necessary for a Catholic to go through civil divorce proceedings in order to protect his legal rights. When the Church annuls a marriage and states that a true marriage never existed, for example, the parties must obtain a civil divorce in order to be free to remarry in accord with the laws of the State. In cases where the Church permits a couple to separate, a wife may find it necessary to sue for divorce in order to force her husband to support her and the children.
Only a properly authorized representative of the bishop can grant permission to a Catholic to apply for a civil divorce. Church authorities require that the person involved fully understand that civil divorce cannot destroy the marriage bonds. Some dioceses require that the applicant for divorce swear under oath before witnesses that he or she is initiating the action only for civil purposes.
A grave reason must exist before Church authorities will approve a civil divorce application. For instance, the wife may require a court order to force her husband to contribute to her support in the form of alimony. A husband may need this protection against debts incurred by his wife.
Another requirement is that no element of scandal will be attached to the divorce action. The party to the proceedings must always make it plain, in discussing this action with friends, relatives or others, that it is taken solely for civil reasons. Catholics who obtain ecclesiastical permission to begin divorce proceedings must never give the impression to those either in or out of the Faith that their action represents any departure from Church teaching.
(To be continued)
—————————
Father Krier will be in Eureka, Nevada, February 19. He will be in Los Angeles March 5.
————————
For those who purchase through Amazon, please help support the work here at Saint Joseph’s by going through this link: http://smile.amazon.com/ch/94-2855162
—————————–
The topics of Faith and Morals will correspond to the Roman Catholic Faith in Tradition and the Magisterium. The News will be of interest. The commentaries are for the reader to ponder and consider. The e-mail address will be for you to provide thought for consideration. The donations will be to support the continuation of this undertaking.
While the Newsletter is free of charge it is not free of cost. Please consider supporting St Joseph’s Catholic Church with a tax – deductible donation by clicking the secure link: Donate
Or if you prefer send a check to
Catholic Tradition Newsletter
c/o St Joseph’s Catholic Church
131 N. 9th St
Las Vegas, NV 89101