Vol 14 Issue 32 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
August 7, 2021~ Saint Cajetan, opn!
1. The Incarnation of the Word of God—Eberhard Heller
2. Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saints Cyriagus, Largus and Smaragdus
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices
Dear Reader:
This month is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In addition this year the feast of the Assumption and the Immaculate Heart of Mary happen to fall on the next two Sundays. As a result the faithful will be inundated with the Marian doctrines. There are four dogmas that have been proclaimed regarding Mary: Her Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Virginity, her Divine Motherhood (Mother of God) and her Assumption into heaven. The Church also teaches that she is the New Eve and Mediatrix of all Graces. The Church teaches that we must give Mary hyperdulia, or a service (honor) above all the Saints and Angels. This sets the foundation of the Church’s devotion to Mary, whose singular privileges were both a preparation and result of her participation in our Redemption. When Martin Luther said sola fides and sola scriptura, he wiped out both faith and Scripture because they became meaningless. Faith in an historic Christ, is no different then faith in an historic Buddha. The Bible as the sole rule of belief is no different than the Koran as a sole rule of belief and belief in nothing since the letter may be kept but the spirit is killed, i.e., what is the true meaning of the word? What do we believe about the Christ? What is Sacred Scripture telling us? At least the Ethiopian was humble in his reply to Phillip the Deacon: And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? (Acts 8:30-31) As one saw how blind the Jews were to the Scriptures that they crucified their own Redeemer. In conversing with Nicodemus, Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. (John 3:10-11) The disciples on the way to Emmaus needed Our Lord to explain the Scriptures that they could not grasp: Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. (Luke 24:25-27) Martin Luther, deceived by the Adversary, left the Wisdom of God for the foolishness: Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom. 1:21) The Church has the Holy Ghost to guide Her: But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26). Jesus Christ spoke this to the Apostles—not to everyone. It is the Apostolic Faith the Church upholds and preserves, not what innovators (heretics) devise afterwards. And the Church, through the Pope and Her Councils prove that this faith has always been held (or it could not be held as Apostolic) be it regarding the Holy Trinity, Creation, Original Sin, the Incarnation, Redemption, Establishment of the Church, Mass and the Sacraments, and Mary. The Protestants quote a Scriptural passage and give an interpretation they say is inspired but is merely their own opinion. Therefore, would I want someone’s personal opinion as my faith? or would I want a guarantee that my faith is the right faith founded in Truth?
As always, enjoy the readings provided for your benefit.—The Editor
________________
The Incarnate Word
How Christ can be recognized as Son of God – Further reflections
Translation: Elisabeth Meurer
I sent my explanations as to the question: “Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?” to acquaintances and friends, who are not regular readers of the EINSICHT but who I knew had an interest in fundamental theological problems. I received various reactions. A former classmate of mine who after the school exit exam studied theology wrote to me: “I have tried to read your article – but for me these philosophical thoughts about Jesus being the Son of God are simply not comprehensive. In my opinion I can only approach the deepest secret of Jesus in a biblical-theological way. My intellect is too small to plumb the secret of Jesus. My advice: Please read Mt. 11,1 ff. ([John the Baptist – in prison himself makes his disciples ask Jesus:] “Are you the one who is to come – or are we to wait for another one?”) – and the answer Jesus gave was perfect, no better answer was possible.”
John who lived waiting for the Messiah to come and of whom Christ himself speaks as the greatest “among those born of a woman” (Mt.11, 11) could very well understand Christ’s answer as an instance of the divine mission of the latter: “The blind see, the lame walk, the leper get cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, the gospel is preached to the poor and blessed is he who is not scandalized by me.” (Mt. 11,5 f.) But this answer is indeed directed to the ability of John who, seeing, recognized in these examples the work of God, that is, of the Son of God.
I got an approving answer from a fellow student who intensely occupied himself with the post-Conciliar development of the Church and of the letter of whom I want to quote some sentences: “I largely agree to your explanations about the question of how Christ can be recognized as Son of God. Some remarks:
– The mere handing down of knowledge – Scripture and Tradition –. . . is not in itself a foundation to be able to say with conviction that He is the “Word made flesh” (John 1, 1 ff.) But on the other hand the moment (of recognition) looked for must indeed be contained in this material. So it still does hold the basis for obtaining the insight, only the passage which leads to the insight has not yet been located and evaluated (. . .)
– You say: ‘So the question asked at the beginning: Is Christ the Son of God? is answered – at least in general terms’. However, this question is not yet answered, but it is obviously only shown what has to be done so that it can be answered.”
Concerning the momentum to be searched in tradition, I had already postulated in EINSICHT of Sept. 2013, p. 84: “In the tradition there must be a moment, an original point which shows me the way to accede to the absolute Person, who must then be shown to be this Person, and Who reveals Himself.” I had then defined this momentum further as one which gives testimony of itself.
“This momentum – formally seen –, as it ought to/must exceeds the level of merely stating the being of God, and though not conveyed externally, that is by some other manner, it must testify for itself. As God is not a mere being but an absolute requirement which in itself requires its absolute fulfillment, so a requirement which also requires its required being.” (EINSICHT no. 4 of Dec. 2013, p. 115)
Now in order to comply with the requirement of what still must be done to give a complete answer to the asked question “Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?”, I want to continue with further definitions concerning the problem of testifying for itself. These are, however, rather to be seen as comments than as systematically leading further [the answer].
As I cannot produce God’s way of being in myself – if I could do so, I would be God myself!—He has to testify for Himself (Ego eimi eimi, ἐγώ εἰμι εἰμι – I am he who I am). He must show Himself as God, reveal how He is God, where His divinity as such emerges, as it ought to emerge.
The concept of God must be applied equally to Christ and therefore be complete with the reality of that which God claims of Himself. The concept of God, that is, the absolute as the bonum (the good) and the verum (the true) has to grasp as also comprehend the one who shows Himself as such. When applying this requirement it is not sufficient to stop at the verum and bonum as such but must reflect absolute Good (as Person), the absolute True (as Person). I. e., one must be able to connect and must identify the concept of the Absolute with the historical, real Person of Christ. So the (conceptually) absolutely good/true must not only be possible to be connected with that which is via Tradition presented to me or presents itself of Christ, but it has to be identical with this concept: bonum/verum=Christ (bonus/verus). It must show that Christ is the Absolute Good. Bonum and Christ must be identical: Ab=Ac.
But which conditions can I state on which it is possible to get this understanding? I need to be able to comprehend by insight that the concept of love/love of atonement conveyed to me about Christ via Scripture and Tradition (conveying his intention on an interpersonal level throughout all times) is the Absolute position of Good being a Being as such.
The task of religious philosophy is among others to show the conditions on which I – knowing about the historical person of Jesus – can recognize him as the God revealing himself and know about Him as God. It is only by this insight that one can establish a clear conviction of one’s faith. Clear concepts are thus referenced to the concept of God who revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. The need is to form, to develop, a conviction that in the historically verifiable Person of Jesus, the Son of God has revealed himself, being born of Mary, the virgin who received Him from the Holy Spirit: the absolutely holy one who has come
– To expand His love that is truly interpersonal,
– To atone for our sins, so that we would be able—once atoned for as sinners—again to communicate with Him.
From this reflection, that Christ is the Absolute, the only One alone Who may and can set the true standard, we arrive at the basis of a religious relationship with Him, a religious life where I strive to communicate with Him (in prayer or by the sacraments which let me take part in an active participation of divine life), i. e. with whom I can develop an interpersonal relationship of my own, i. e. which takes into consideration the difference between Creator and creature, between Father and child, which is neither formed by fear of the absolute nor by being equal in rank – as for example with other persons in our environment—but is formed through reverence for God.
If I have grasped this – the Son of God is the only true absolute One – then errors and false prophets from other religions would exclude themselves as being equal ways to salvation. (Exodus 20,2: “I am the Lord, thy God (. . .) Thou shalt not have other gods besides me.”) However, this means as well that I indeed can/must respect someone who has adopted another religion in the (subjective) belief to have chosen the right one, as the access to God, the faith in him, is also always an act of grace, suitably given by God, whom one can accept or refuse. Therefore, I accept with hope that the other one who adheres to a wrong religion, converts, because he is principally able to come to God.
If I suppose that God has been shown to me as absolute Lord, then it is also the duty of every Christian to form this relationship not in a solipsist way – resting in and on myself – but also to win other persons – my neighbours – over to this as well, to open for them the “good news” (Evangelium), the Gospel, where the good news (Eu angelion) does not always need to be happiness. This insight, that the claim of absolute right is justified, includes that the requirements and institutions which Christ has made, that is established – the foundation of the Church as an institution of salvation, the institution of the sacraments, the theological doctrines and the moral principles are absolutely valid, without any exception. Then I also know that I, when receiving holy Communion, am immediately receiving Him, He calls in on me, not as he met the disciples as a real person and called in on them, but in a hidden way – under the Species of bread and wine. But this hiddenness is also especially difficult to form a personal relationship with Christ as an interpersonal relationship just as one builds a relationship towards his wife, or as she builds up towards her husband, or towards the children or friends.
“From the position of this knowledge it becomes thus understandable that by intentionally negating, by disdaining and in a radical refusal of the absolutely required love for God, this love of God is not able to be reached. But as this love is an absolute requirement for any interpersonal relationship which looks for its moral fulfillment, any other form of a human relationship is consequently perverted and has to fail necessarily, for example a form which can only refer to ‘humanism’ as substance. For if this human relationship is not nourished by the absolute love appearing in God and through this love to a love fed thereof, then the contents which must necessarily be taken as a unit for an interpersonal relationship can now only be the expression of absolute arbitrariness, a cruelty which at least implicitly negates its own reasonability toward the other person, destroys it in praxis, especially if this surrogate of an interpersonal “union” represents the declared intentional refusal of the love of God“. (My explanations in “Die Theorie der Interpersonalität im Spätwerk J. G. Fichtes”, Munich 1974, p. 307)
If I do not have this belief, i. e., if I do not have the certainty that Christ is the Son of God, who after His earthly life ascended into heaven and is now seated enthroned at the right of God, then my religious position, which I have for example adopted for reasons of tradition (through parental training), remains insecure, hypothetical. Under faith, then, my faith would be the absorption of the ethnic soul the particulars of which I am unaware of. Then the following scheme is the result: If A is valid, then also B is valid. If Christ is the Son of God, then also His commandment is valid. But I do not know, I have no conviction that Christ is the Son of God, I only assume He is. Therefore His commandment, His Institution (the Church), His importance for our salvation as such remain hypothetical, questionable. The word of Christ: “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14,6) remains doubtful to me.
So if A is not certain, then all other moments remain relatively uncertain, towards other institutions as well which even say B=B, like Islam which says “Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet”, and which allows no doubt to arise about this. Partly convinced, Muslims have good reasons to look with contempt on a Christianity which is not certain in its most central position, namely: that Christ is the Son of God.
However, what can remain is a moral certainty is that which can be connected with one’s religious position. So even though reformist theologians have left the orthodox Catholic position but who protest against abortion, prostitution or homosexuality they are still considered conservative (Wojtyla, Ratzinger).
This hypothetical position of faith has also a traditionalist version which is hard to be discovered as such. Although there the faith is not immediate either, there are quite a few so-called traditionalists who count on their theological knowledge. They compare pre- and post-conciliar positions and find out the divergences. Thus it becomes quickly clear to them that the different positions about the same subject are contradictory. But not having a requirement for clarity of the truth, they decide to accept the pre-Conciliar teaching without validating it for themselves (even within tradition).
But if I am firmly convinced that Christ is the Son of God Who has manifested Himself historically as a Person (et incarnatus est – and is made flesh) and Who has revealed himself as God, then all other religions which also refer to ‘God’ are ruled out as true religions. They cannot be considered as true ways of salvation either – as the reformist Church does, which considers Judaism and Islam as (legitimate) ways of salvation. (EINSICHT of February 2014, no. 1, p. 9-12)
(To be continued)
————————–
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
M. F. Toal
THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY
MARK vii. 31-37
At that time: Jesus going out of the coasts of Tyre, he came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. And they bring to him one deaf and dumb; and they besought him that he would lay his hand upon him. And, taking him from the multitude apart, he put his fingers into his ears: and spitting, he touched his tongue. And, looking up to heaven, he groaned and said to him: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened. And immediately his ears were opened and the string of his tongue was loosed and he spoke right. And he charged them that they should tell no man. But the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal did they publish it. And so much the more did they wonder, saying: He hath done all dungs well: He hath made the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.
II ST AMBROSE, BISHOP AND DOCTOR
On Baptism; A Catechetical Instruction2
I 1. In which, treating of the sacraments, of which it was not fitting to speak to them before this (being catechumens), the Saint comes to the mystery of, The Opening, which, he teaches, was established by Christ in the healing of the man who was deaf and dumb.
———————–
August 8
SS. Cyriacus, Largus, Smaragdus, and Their Companions, Martyrs (A.D. 303.)
ST. CYRIACUS was a holy deacon at Rome, under the popes Marcellinus and Marcellus. In the persecution of Dioclesian, in 303, he was crowned with a glorious martyrdom in that city. With him suffered also Largus and Smaragdus, and twenty others, among whom are named Crescentianus, Sergius, Secondus, Alban, Victorianus, Faustinus, Felix, Sylvanus, and four women, Memmia, Juliana, Cyriacides, and Donata. Their bodies were first buried near the place of their execution on the Salarian way; but were soon after translated into a farm of the devout lady Lucina, on the Ostian road, on this eighth day of August, as is recorded in the ancient Liberian Calendar, and others.
To honour the martyrs and duly celebrate their festivals, we must learn their spirit, and study to imitate them according to the circumstances of our state. We must, like them, resist evil unto blood, must subdue our passions, suffer afflictions with patience, and bear with others without murmuring or complaining. Many practise voluntary austerities cheerfully, only because they are of their own choice. But true patience requires, in the first place, that we bear all afflictions and contradictions from whatever quarter they come; and in this consists true virtue. Though we pray for heaven our prayers will not avail, unless we make use of the means which God sends to bring us thither. The cross is the ladder by which we must ascend.
(Butler’s Lives of the Saints)
_____________________
LETTERS TO JACK
WRITTEN BY A PRIEST TO HIS NEPHEW
By the
RIGHT REV. FRANCIS C. KELLEY, D.D., LL.D.
(1917)
IV
TEMPTATION
I NEVER knew anyone who had ”humanly reasoned” himself off the path of evil; or who had really overcome dangerous temptations, merely because they interfered with his temporal success.
My dear Jack:
I never knew anyone who had “humanly reasoned” himself off the path of evil; or who had really overcome dangerous temptations, merely because they interfered with his temporal success. I have heard doctors lecture to young men on the horrible consequences of a life spent in yielding to lust or gluttony. I have known young men to give up evil ways for health’s sake, or for the sake of prosperity; but I also knew that they did not entirely give them up. Those who are strong enough to be moderate for worldly reasons are wise enough to know that moderation avoids nine-tenths of the physical dangers, and are willing enough to chance the other tenth. There is only one way to face temptation with any hope of success against it; and that is the Christian way. Let me explain it.
There is a great palace which is called Life and, by the grace of God, we are all in it as residents. The King dwells in the palace, but our corporal eyes never see Him. We only know that He is under the same roof with us. You have entered houses that spoke most eloquently of their owners, though you did not see the owners at all. Something about the rooms, the furnishings, the books, the pictures, the order or the disorder, told you the owner had left himself there even when absent in body. In this great palace you see and note the same thing, only the wonder of its Owner’s power to be there and yet not be seen is infinitely greater. He permeates everything about you with His unseen presence. He vivifies and beautifies and inspires, till you ask yourself, ”What am I here for?” and receive the answer before it is corroborated by your fellow-residents. You are in the palace to serve the King. You have no other purpose in it; but by this service you are made happy and contented. You do not think of pay, yet you know that your pay will be dealt out to you with lavish generosity.
In gardens around the palace multitudes play constantly, but stop often to weep and gaze upon the buildings. The gardens are splendid; but you know that the fruits are beautiful only to the sight—at a touch they fall to ashes. The flowers have beauty, too, but no perfume. The multitude calls to you from the ground, as you now and then look out of the windows. They ask you to come out and pluck the fruit and stroll amongst the odorless flowers; and sometimes you long to go. They call to you that you have a duty of mercy or charity to come. You shut out the thought of the Presence sometimes and go.
But your place is in the King’s service. His call may come at any time, and woe to you if then you are absent; for the door may be closed against you, and your strength, which comes from the Presence, will be too much weakened to enable you to enter again.
It is better for you to keep within and to call those outside to come to you; for any of that great multitude may enter and join you. If they do come there is great rejoicing in the palace, and a deep peace and satisfaction in your heart for the gaining of other servants for the King.
There are things in the palace, inanimate and animate, that you may use for your comfort, your convenience and your pleasure. There are things in the gardens below, or in the distance, upon which you may feast your eyes to satiety. But you know that all these things serve but one purpose-to help you serve the King better. Shall you use them? Yes, as far as they promote good service. No, as far as they take you from that service. To use these things as far as they promote the service you are to render the King, is wise and good. To use them when they hinder, is to succumb to temptation and fall from grace; then the Presence seems to be less felt, and you languish in your vigilance for the King’s call.
I have never known, my dear Jack, a better way ”to avoid evil and do good” than to keep this picture before my mind. Father Diertens sums it up splendidly: ”All other things on the face of the earth are created for man and that they may help him in the end for which he was created. From this it follows that man is to use them as much as they help him to his end, and ought to rid himself of them as far as they hinder him as to it.”
There you are. To overcome temptations, remember the palace and the Presence, the windows looking out on the fruit that is ashes and the flowers without perfume, the voices that call, the doors that can be opened only by spiritual strength, the service that you must give, and the call that will surely come to the Chamber of the King. Learn that all things about you are yours, and feel your freedom to use them; but ask your soul the question, ”Are they going to promote my efficiency as a servant of God, or hinder it?”
This, with humility, is the best means of overcoming temptations.
(To be continued.)
————————-
Father Krier will be in Munich, Germany, August 10-13 and Touzim, Czech Republic, August 14-22. He will be in Eureka, Nevada, August 26.
————————-
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
Visit us on the Worldwide Web: http://stjosephlv.org
e-mail news and comments to: tcatholicn@yahoo.com