Vol 14 Issue 46 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward Krier
November 13, 2021 ~ Saint Stanislaus Kostka, opn!
1. Sacrament of Penance
2. Twenty Fifth Sunday after Pentecost
3. Saint Josaphat
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and noticesDear
Reader:
As Catholics, we pray for the faithful departed. The reason why we pray for the faithful departed is our faith tells us that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living (cf. Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38). The interpretation of Scriptural passages is a matter of understanding the passages and therefore which understanding is correct. Of course, we as Catholics know that we cannot take our personal interpretation as correct unless it corresponds to the understanding of the Church. Why does the Church have the correct understanding? Because she is guided by the Spirit of Truth (cf. John 16:13). Individually we cannot claim that charism and herein lies the problem of the Innovators of Protestantism: Private interpretation as each is inspired by the spirit of God. But, logically speaking, that means that the spirit they are inspired by is not the Spirit of Truth, because God is one (cf. Gal. 3:20). The consequence is not one truth, but many errors—and therefore their understanding converts into an opinion, a narrative, and a multiplication of beliefs made evident in the diversity of sects. I personally cannot see how anyone could leave the Catholic Church for some obvious error; but, the deceiver (Job 12:16), the adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8) And people, wanting to seek another way than God’s way, are devoured by the novelties of their errors.
First, I want to approach the topic that the Old Testament and New Testament confirm those who depart are still living and one only needs to take Scripture at its explicit presentation. This is seen in Genesis, in enumerating the deaths of the patriarchs:
And Henoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Mathusala. And Henoch walked with God: and lived after he begot Mathusala, three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. And all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him. (Gen. 5:21-24)
And the same expression can be applied to Noe, whom we also know to be just and died in God’s grace: But Noe found grace before the Lord. These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. (Gen. 6:8-9)
Those who walked with God, as seen in Genesis 5 and 6, are those walking in God’s grace and God takes them to Himself—yet we know heaven was not open—so they did not yet enter heaven immediately after death; but they must be living to be able to go with God—their soul separated from their body. Therefore, Our Lord, without remonstrance from His hearers, could tell the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:
And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. (Luke 16:20-31)
This returning from the dead by the poor man Lazarus reflects onto Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, raised from the dead (John 11.) and to Christ’s Resurrection—where those of ill-will but who witnessed the historical fact still refused to believe in Christ being the Messias. On our point, it testifies that the people believed those who had departed were still living. This can be found specifically when it comes to the Witch of Endor and Saul:
And she said: An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul understood that it was Samuel, and he bowed himself with his face to the ground, and adored. And Samuel said to Saul: Why hast thou disturbed my rest, that I should be brought up? And Saul said, I am in great distress: for the Philistines fight against me, and God is departed from me, and would not hear me, neither by the hand of prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest shew me what I shall do. (1 Kings 28:14-15)
Contrasting this, Isaias warns the Jews not to turn to seeking to communicate with the dead, but to pray for the dead: And when they shall say to you: Seek of pythons, and of diviners, who mutter in their enchantments: should not the people seek of their God, for the living of the dead? (Isaias 8:19)
It follows that even though non-Catholics reject the Books of the Machabees, it is in line with Scripture when one reads the account of the fallen Jewish soldiers:
And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.
Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (II Mach. 12:39-46)
This passage from Machabees also corresponds with Solomon’s prayer in II Paralipomenon, which includes: Hear thou from heaven, from thy high dwelling place, and forgive, and render to every one according to his ways, which thou knowest him to have in his heart: (for thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men:) That they may fear thee, and walk in thy ways all the days that they live upon the face of the land, which thou hast given to our fathers.
This topic will be continued next week as I have already projected the commentary.
As always, enjoy the readings provided for your benefit.—The Editor
________________
WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
What is the Sacrament of Penance?
An Outward Sign, Instituted by Christ, to Give Grace
The Matter of the Sacrament (Cont.)
Satisfaction for sin is seen in the role of the Confessor as judge. But the satisfaction is to also be understood as medicinal as seen in the role of the Confessor as physician. Since satisfaction is an essential component of Penance, the priest must impose some act of satisfaction, not merely to punish, but to heal. Unfortunately the penances now imposed are not indicative of the seriousness of the sins committed. This is because of pride and vanity. No one wants to be pointed publicly as a sinner and because auricular confession is to be secret, the imposition of a severe penance would reveal the sinner—therefore penitents would stay away if it would mean giving the slightest occasion for others to recognize them as having committed a grievous sin. Too, fewer would perform the lengthy penance and would avoid confession lest they receive one from a confessor and the Church sees here that the role of physician is lost. Therefore, one should see that the penance, though seemingly insignificant, is to encourage the penitent to return frequently to confession in the spiritual effort to heal the soul, to cure one of a life of sin while also making atonement for one’s sins.
The absolution is given by the priest without which there is no forgiveness and expresses then that of loosing, or, if the absolution is denied, binding. The absolution is called the form of the Sacrament.
The Form of the Sacrament
The form of the sacrament are the words mentioned above: I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
The form, also, because well calculated to excite the faithful, to receive with fervent devotion the grace of this sacrament, the pastor will not omit to explain. The words that compose the form are: “I ABSOLVE THEE,” as may be inferred not only from these words of the Redeemer: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven;” [Matt. xviii. 18.] but also from the same doctrine of Jesus Christ, as recorded by the Apostles. That this is the perfect form of the sacrament of penance, the very nature of the form of a sacrament proves. The form of a sacrament signifies what the sacrament accomplishes: these words “I absolve thee” signify the accomplishment of absolution from sin through the instrumentality of this sacrament; they therefore constitute its form. Sins are, as it were, the chains by which the soul is fettered, and from the bondage of which it is “loosed” by the sacrament of penance. This form is not less true, when pronounced by the priest over him, who by means of perfect contrition, has already obtained the pardon of his sins. Perfect contrition, it is true, reconciles the sinner to God, but his justification is not to be ascribed to perfect contrition alone, independently of the desire which it includes of receiving the sacrament of penance. Many prayers accompany the form, not because they are deemed necessary, but in order to remove every obstacle, which the unworthiness of the penitent may oppose to the efficacy of the sacrament. Let then the sinner pour out his heart in fervent thanks to God, who has invested the ministers of his Church with such ample powers! Unlike the authority given to the priests of the Old Law, to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, [Levit. xiii. 9 et xiv. 2] the power with which the priests of the New Law are invested, is not simply to declare that sins are forgiven, but, as the ministers of God, really to absolve from sin; a power which God himself, the author and source of grace and justification, exercises through their ministry. (Roman Catechism, II, 5.)
The Ritual for the Sacrament of Penance has the Confessor pronounce:
May our Lord, Jesus Christ, absolve thee, and by His very authority do I absolve thee from every bond of excommunication, suspension and interdict, in so far as lies within my power and thou hast need of it. Furthermore, I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. (Rom. Rit. Tit. IV, cap. ii.)
The confessor only uses the word, suspension, when absolving a priest as it refers to his faculties in administering the Sacraments and offering holy Mass. The form is according to that decreed by by Pope Eugene IV: The words of absolution which the priest utters when he says: Ego te absolve etc., are the form of this sacrament, and the minister of this sacrament is the priest who has either ordinary authority for absolving or has it by the commission of a superior. (Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439; cf. D.B. 699) and by the Council of Trent:
Furthermore, the holy Council teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance, in which its force chiefly consists, is set down in these words of the minister: “I absolve thee, etc.”; to which indeed certain prayers are laudably added according to the custom of holy Church; yet in no way do they pertain to the essence of this form, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament. (Sess. XIV, Chapter 3; cf. D.B. 896)
The words express that the priest is absolving as a power granted him through that of orders and the jurisdiction through the Church to act as judge in binding and loosing as contained in the power of the keys. It is not a declaration that sin is forgiven.
There are several considerations that arise in that of Confession and absolution. First, that of sin already forgiven through an act of perfect contrition. If it is already forgiven, why must one confess? This is because a) one does not know absolutely if one is forgiven and the confessing and receiving absolution does give forgiveness; b) secondly, the act of perfect contrition cannot be separate from the sacrament, but must be with the purpose (desire) of receiving the sacrament—therefore the fulfilment of one of the conditions of the Sacrament. One may not receive a Sacrament of the living unless this Sacramental Absolution is obtained. It is understood in the same sense as the Sacrament of Baptism, in which one obtains justification by desire, but must still be baptized sacramentally to receive the other Sacraments. Also, the desire to be baptized must be a condition.
Pohle provides this explanation in likening it to devotional Confession:
What about sins that are confessed more than once? Are they also forgiven more than once? Or does the formula of absolution lose its true meaning in the so-called devotional confessions now so popular among the faithful? How can a priest forgive sins which no longer exist in the moral order? How can a criminal be released from chains that no longer bind him? . . . [T]he custom of confessing the same sin repeatedly can be justified. A man can obligate himself repeatedly to the performance of a duty to which he is bound anyhow, a creditor can again release a debtor from an obligation from which he has already been freed. If you have been insulted, there is nothing to prevent you from forgiving the offense twice, three times, nay a hundred times, if you like. The example of the chained criminal proves nothing because the physical does not resemble the moral order in all respects. There is no doubt whatever that one and the same sin can be forgiven more than once and that in each case the formula of absolution has the same meaning: vis.: I forgive thee thy sins by the infusion (which in this case means an increase) of sanctifying grace. (The Sacraments, Vol. III, 90-91)
Minister of the Sacrament
The minister of the Sacrament is a duly ordained priest authorized to hear confessions. Christ gave the Apostles the power to absolve, and this power is given to their successors in the priesthood.
The first requisite is being a duly ordained priest, sacerdote, that is, a priest or bishop. Deacons are not priests, but assistants in the priestly ministry—similar to the Levites who assisted the priests in the Old Testament. Our Lord, in instituting this Sacrament, said to the Apostles, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained (John 20:23); to the leper, Go, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them (Matt. 8:4). He makes clear the distinction of the priest and the Levite: And it chanced, that a certain priest went down the same way: and seeing him, passed by. In like manner also a Levite, when he was near the place and saw him, passed by (Luke 10:31-32). History shows abuses and misunderstandings, but the teaching of the Church has always been clear and consistent. Therefore, those who would point to a confession to a deacon are either speaking of an abuse, a self-accusation to instill a sense of sorrow, or the deliverance of a canonical penance. It would be the same for the account of a confession to a lay person. Leo X condemned this thesis of Martin Luther: (13) In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much. (Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520; cf. DB 753) And the Council of Trent in the sixth chapter on the Sacrament of Penance teaches:
With regard to the minister of this sacrament the holy Synod declares false and entirely foreign to the truth of the Gospel all doctrines which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men besides bishops and priests, believing that those words of the Lord: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” [Matt. 18:18; and “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” [John 20:23], were indifferently and indiscriminately addressed to all the faithful of Christ contrary to the institution of this sacrament, so that anyone may have the power of remitting sins, public sins by way of rebuke, if the rebuked acquiesces, and secret ones through a voluntary confession made to anyone. It also teaches that even priests who are bound by mortal sin exercise as ministers of Christ the office of forgiving sins by virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, and that they are of an erroneous opinion who contend that this power does not exist in bad priests. However, although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of the benefaction of another, yet it is not a bare ministry only, either of announcing the Gospel or declaring the forgiveness of sins, but it is equivalent to a judicial act, by which sentence is pronounced by him as if by a judge. And, therefore, the penitent should not so flatter-himself on his own faith as to think that even though he have no contrition, and that the intention of acting earnestly and absolving effectively be wanting in the priest, nevertheless he is truly and before God absolved by reason of his faith alone. For faith without penance effects no remission of sins, and he would be most negligent of his own salvation, who would know that a priest was absolving him in a jesting manner, and would not earnestly consult another who would act seriously. (Session XIV, November 25, 1551; cf. DB 902)
And adds this Dogmatic Canon:
10. If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing, or, that not only priests are the ministers of absolution, but that these words were spoken also to each and all of the faithful: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 18:18]; and, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” [John 20:23 ], that by virtue of these words anyone can absolve sins, public sins indeed by reproof only, if the one reproved accepts correction, secret sins by voluntary confession: let him be anathema. (Ibid.; cf. DB 920)
(To be continued)
————————–
The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers
M. F. Toal
MATTHEW xiii. 31-35
At that time: Jesus proposed to the multitude another parable, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.
Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of heaven is like to a leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.
All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables He did not speak to them. That it might be fufilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.
ST APHRAATES, BISHOP AND MARTYR
Against Discord and Envy
Dearly beloved, it is not enough to read and to study the Sacred Scriptures, we must fulfil them also. For to me it seems that if anyone is involved in contentions and in quarrels, his prayers are not acceptable, his supplications are not answered, his gift rises not upwards from the earth; and neither does the giving of alms avail him for the forgiveness of his sins. And wheresoever there is no peace and tranquillity, the door is left open to the Evil One. Where correction and right order are also absent, then the Christian manner of living, and earnest striving after righteousness are also absent. Then the wheat is mixed with the tares, thorns flourish, the disorderly multiply, mockery is everywhere, there is neither correction nor amendment of life, nor any right order. The salt then loses its flavour, mens’ minds become obscured, and the body walks clothed in darkness. The ordinary things of life are thrown into confusion, and there is peace neither for the one coming, nor for the one going. Such are the fruits of discord.
In times such as these, those who are worthy reveal themselves, those who are truly wise are now seen to be so, the good are shown forth, they who follow after peace, who foster tranquillity among men. Their reward is enduring, and their fruit abundant. These are the men who, set up a defense and stand in the gap before me, that I may not destroy the land (Ezech. xxii. 30); who give themselves to toil on behalf of the people, and receive their reward with the good and faithful servants of holy memory.
But envy and discord throw even kingdoms into disorder; lay waste great cities, devour peoples; betray mighty fortresses. They provoke endless tragedies, and because of them destruction is multiplied. Through envy and discord brothers are separated from brothers, driven from place to place, made into wanderers, driven forth from their homes. And while these poor wanderers live, they are looked upon as dead by their own kindred.
Envy comes between husbands and wives. It makes children rise in disobedience against their parents. It separates friend from friend, making one who was loved before now an object of hatred to those who are dearest to him. It leads men to violence and disorders, setting them against their own brothers. It puts two against three, and three against two. By it one man slays another with his tongue, and with his mouth drives another mercilessly to ruin. Day by day envy brings sorrow among men.
In those that love strife and discord evil thoughts take deep root; in them the old leaven ferments, and grows yet older. A man of this kind conceives evil in his heart, and brings forth fruit of the most bitter kind. There is no sleep or rest for such a one; and the friend is so changed that he prepares iniquities against him he loved. Should a good thought overtake him, and find entry in his heart, the Evil One uproots it, and casts it forth from his mind. But he sends his own roots down deep into the heart, and secures himself firmly within the thoughts of the mind. He gathers together a multitude of images, and drives them towards him, and entering in they take possession of the mind.
What the Evil One has begotten, when it is scattered about it is sown over him; but he is a stranger to the wisdom of the wise: the good seed is suffocated in him, and the wheat is choked amid the thorns. From the mind of the envious no good fruit comes forth, and from his heart the Evil One plucks out the good seed and casts it away.
The Evil One now places his own guards at the door of the soul and disturbs the mind with manifold allurements. Gradually like water they seep inwards, and the soul is overcome. The heart becomes like rock underneath, and when the good seed is scattered it is immediately received, but its roots will wither, and bear no fruit.
Such a man, given to envy and discord, will stand and pray as is his daily habit: he will begin his prayer, continue on with it, and bring it to an end. But his heart takes no heed of what his lips are saying, His mouth fulfils its usual office, but his heart is empty of every good work. He keeps far from his soul the teaching of the Spirit, and from his mind has departed the memory of that which he learned but yesterday. Or should his mind recall anything of it, he will grieve over each single fault, but the Evil One will goad him on, and again possess his heart. The memory of evil lingers, and the heart fluctuates as the waters of a deep lake. His nature is dark, his mind clouded, his intellect is blind; he gropes and stumbles. Then the Evil One takes his hand and hurries him along his way, the pathless way of deceit. He takes away from him and casts out whatsoever worthy thoughts are within him, and leads in his own shameful ones, and thus he urges him on his way: Pay no heed to good advice, do not inflict on yourself the humiliation of seeking forgiveness.
But the Evil One while he caresses him is but mocking him, since he himself has acquired a slave that obeys his will. The man devoured by envy does not know that he has been purchased, and almost for nothing, and neither is he aware of the blindness of his own mind. The Evil One astutely flatters him, beguiles him with every trick and allurement. He throws a fish towards him, as one throws it to a bird. The unwary bird, as soon as it sees the piece of fish set upon the edge of the trap, rejoices in its heart, and in its simplicity approaching to seize it is suddenly struck. It struggles to free itself, but it is caught. It is the clever hunter that rejoices, at his own good fortune: because his wait was not without gain.
Such is the lot of a man who loves discord and envy. The Evil One blows him up, and inflates him with his own bitter fruits. As with the bird he allures him, beguiles him, throws him a fish, and he falls into the trap. When by the sweetness of his enticements he has caught him, he gives him counsel such as he has never before heard; he learns of injustice, he is smothered with words, and gathers into his mind the most evil dispositions.
It will happen then that the good things he had learned will vanish from his memory; what thoughts were his own remain deep down in him, like a treasure hidden; but the roots of evil gather strength in his mind, and then it is only by the greatest labour that its claws, like those of a lion fastened on its prey, are drawn forth. But a wise physician will draw forth these claws with many remedies. But yet while evil thoughts still linger in the man, from day to day his heart will bring forth evil fruits, and his tongue foster counsels of discord.
Suave is the enticement of the Evil One, and flattering to the mind, but its end is more bitter than a serpent’s venom. But to any man who has the will to oppose him, there is no remedy that will heal him other than to follow after peace, to be reconciled with his brother, to put up with injury from his friend, and, until the fruits of peace shall come, to let all envious thoughts depart. Neither let him keep them in his memory, nor permit them to creep back into the heart. Amen.
———————–
14: ST JOSAPHAT, ARCHBISHOP OF POLOTSK, MARTYR (A.D. 1623)
IN the month of October 1595, at Brest-Litovsk in Lithuania (a town which three hundred and twenty-two years later again became talked of throughout Europe but in a quite different connection), the dissident Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev and five bishops, representing millions of Ruthenians (to-day called Byelorussians and Ukrainians), decided to seek communion with the Holy See of Rome. The controversies which followed this event were disfigured by deplorable excesses and violence, and the great upholder of Christian unity whose feast is kept today was called on to shed his blood for the cause, whence he is venerated as the protomartyr of the reunion of Christendom. At the time of the Union of Brest he was still a boy, having been born at Vladimir in Volhynia in 1580 or 1584, and baptized John. His father, a Catholic, was a burgess of a good family called Kunsevich, who sent John to school in his native town and then apprenticed him to a merchant of Vilna. John was not particularly interested in trade, and employed his spare time in mastering Church Slavonic in order that he might assist more intelligently at divine worship and recite some of the long Byzantine office every day; and he got to know Peter Arcudius, who was then rector of the oriental college at Vilna, and the two Jesuits, Valentine Fabricius and Gregory Gruzevsky, who took an interest in him and gave him every encouragement. At first his master was not favourably disposed towards John’s religious preoccupations, but he did his work so well that eventually the merchant offered him a partnership and one of his daughters in marriage. Both offers were refused, for John had decided to be a monk and in 1604 he entered the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Vilna. He induced to join him there Joseph Benjamin Rutsky, a learned convert from Calvinism ‘who had been ordered by Pope Clement VIII to join the Byzantine rite against his personal wishes, and together the two young monks concerted schemes for promoting union and reforming Ruthenian monastic observance.
John Kunsevich, who had now taken the name of Josaphat, was ordained deacon and priest and speedily had a great reputation as a preacher, especially on behalf of reunion with Rome. He led a most austere personal life and added to a careful observance of the austerities of eastern monastic life such extreme voluntary mortifications that he was often remonstrated with by the most ascetic. At his beatification the burgomaster of Vilna testified that “there was not a better religious in the town than Father Josaphat”. Meanwhile, the abbot of Holy Trinity having developed separatist views, Rutsky was promoted in his place and the monastery was soon full, so Father Josaphat was taken away from his study of the Eastern fathers to help in the foundation of new houses in Poland. In 1614 Rutsky was made metropolitan of Kiev and Josaphat succeeded him as abbot at Vilna. When the new metropolitan went to take possession of his cathedral Josaphat accompanied him and took the opportunity of visiting the great monastery of The Caves at Kiev. The community of two hundred monks was relaxed, and they threatened to throw the Catholic reformer into the river Dnieper. He was not successful in his efforts to bring them to unity, but his personality and exhortations brought about a somewhat changed attitude and a notable increase of good-will.
The archbishop of Polotsk at this time was a very old man and a favourer of the dissidents, and in 1617 Abbot Josaphat was ordained bishop of Vitebsk with right of succession to Polotsk. A few months later the old archbishop died and Josaphat was confronted with an eparchy which was as large in extent as it was degraded in life. The more religious people were inclined to schism through fear of arbitrary Roman interference with their worship and customs; churches were in ruins and benefices in the hands of laymen; many of the secular clergy had been married two and three times and the monks were decadent. Josaphat sent for some of his brethren from Vilna to help him and got to work. He held synods in the central towns, published a catechism and imposed its use, issued rules of conduct for the clergy, and fought the interference of the “squires” in the affairs of the local churches, at the same time setting a personal example of assiduous instructing and preaching, administration of the sacraments and visiting of the poor, the sick, prisoners and the most remote hamlets. By 1620 the eparchy was practically solidly Catholic, order had been restored, and the example of a few good men had brought about a real concern for Christian life. But in that year a dissident hierarchy of bishops was set up in the territory affected by the Union of Brest, side by side with the Catholic one; and one Meletius Smotritsky was sent as archbishop to Polotsk, who began with great vigour to undo the work of the Catholic archbishop. He zealously spread a report that St Josaphat had “turned Latin”, that all his flock would have to do the same, and that Catholicism was not the traditional Christianity of the Ruthenian people. St Josaphat was at Warsaw when this began and on his return he found that, though his episcopal city was firm for him, some other parts of the eparchy had begun to waver; a monk called Silvester had managed to draw nearly all the people of Vitebsk, Mogilev and Orcha to the side of Smotritsky. The nobility and many of the people adhered strongly to the union, but St Josaphat could do little with these three towns; and not only at Vitebsk but even at Vilna, when the proclamation of the King of Poland that Josaphat was the only legitimate archbishop of Polotsk was publicly read in his presence, there were riots and the life of St Josaphat was threatened.
Leo Sapieha, the chancellor of Lithuania and a Catholic, was fearful of the possible political results of the general unrest, and lent too willing an ear to the heated charges of dissidents outside of Poland that Josaphat had caused it by his policy. Accordingly in 1622 Sapieha wrote accusing him of violence in the maintenance of the union, of putting the kingdom in peril from the Zaporozhsky Cossacks by making discord among the people, of forcibly shutting-up nonCatholic churches, and so on. These and similar accusations were made in general terms, and their unjustifiability was amply demonstrated by contemporary ad hoc testimony from both sides: the only actual fact of the sort is the admitted one that Josaphat invoked the aid of the civil power to recover the church at Mogilev from the dissidents. Thus the archbishop had to face misunderstanding, misrepresentation and opposition from Catholics as well. There is no doubt that some of the easy reversion to schism was due to the firm discipline and reform of morals that had been inaugurated under Catholic auspices, and St Josaphat did not receive the support he was entitled to from the Latin bishops of Poland because of the uncompromising way in which he maintained the right of the Byzantine clergy and customs to equal treatment with those of Rome. He continued doggedly and fearlessly on his way and, Vitebsk continuing to be a hot-bed of trouble, he determined in October 1623 to go there in person again. He could neither be dissuaded nor would he take a military escort. “If I am accounted so worthy as to deserve martyrdom, then I am not afraid to die”, he said. He went accordingly, and for a fortnight preached in the churches and visited the houses of all without distinction. He was continually threatened in the streets, and his opponents tried to pick quarrels with his attendants in order that he might be killed in the ensuing fracas. On the feast of St Demetrius the Martyr he was surrounded by an angry mob, and exclaimed: “You people of Vitebsk want to put me to death. You make ambushes for me everywhere, in the streets, on the bridges, on the highways, in the market-place. I am here among you as your shepherd and you ought to know that l should be happy to give my life for you. I am ready to die for the holy union, for the supremacy of St Peter and of his successor the Supreme Pontiff.”
Smotritsky was fomenting this agitation, his object doubtless being no worse than to drive his rival from the diocese. But his followers got out of hand, and a plot was laid to murder St Josaphat on November 12, if he could not be induced to give excuse for violence before then. A priest named Elias was put up to go into the courtyard of the archbishop’s house and to use insulting words to his servants about their master and their religion, and after several complaints St Josaphat gave permission for him to be seized if it happened again. On the morning of the 12th, as the archbishop came to the church for the office of Daybreak, he was met by Elias, who began to abuse him to his face; he therefore allowed his deacon to have the man taken and shut up in a room of the house. This was just what his enemies were waiting for: the bells of the town-hall were rung and a mob assembled, demanding the release of Elias and the punishment of the archbishop. After office St Josaphat returned to his house unharmed, and let Elias go with a warning, but the people broke in, calling for their victim and striking his attendants. St Josaphat went out to them. “My children”, he asked, “what are you doing with my servants? 1f you have anything against me, here I am: but leave them alone”—words remarkably reminiscent of those of another archbishop, St Thomas Becket, on a similar occasion. Amid cries of “Kill the papist!” he was brained with a halberd and pierced by a bullet. The mangled body was dragged out and contemptuously cast into the river Dvina.
St Josaphat Kunsevich was canonized in 1867, the first saint of the Eastern churches to be formally canonized after process in the Congregation of Sacred Rites. Fifteen years later Pope Leo XIII gave his feast to the whole Western church for this date; the Ukrainians and others keep it on November 12, or the Sunday following, according to the Julian calendar. An immediate result of the martyrdom was a revulsion in favour of Catholicity and unity; but the controversy continued to be carried on with an unholy bitterness, and the dissidents too had their martyr, Abbot Athanasius of Brest, who was put to death in 1648. On the other hand, Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky himself eventually was reconciled with the Holy See, and the great Ruthenian reunion persisted, with varying fortunes, until after the partition of Poland the Russian sovereigns forcibly aggregated a majority of the Ruthenian Catholics to the Orthodox Church of Russia. To the afflictions with which a repetition of history has visited the remainder in our own time Pope Pius XII bore sufficient witness, in his encyclical letter “Orientales omnes” issued at the 350th anniversary of the Union of Brest in 1946. (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)
XVII
HATRED
WHAT the confusion of tongues did in scattering humanity, the gospel of hatred would have done later; but in blood and tears, and with the sacrifice of thousands.
NO reputation is fortified against hatred, and no personal worth can save entirely from its venom.
IF you must hate, then hate hatred.
My dear Jack:
The chum you brought to dinner last Sunday said that he “just hated” an old friend of his because he thought he had done him a wrong. If you love your chum show him this letter; and if you love yourself read it carefully and take its counsels to heart.
The Gospel of Christ is a gospel of love. It is an outspoken gospel, since it has been preached everywhere. But there is another gospel. It is the gospel of evil, that I call the gospel of hatred. It is a gospel of silence, for it is guarded in the heart rather than spoken with the lips,—a gospel which too many accept, knowing what it is; yet which many accept, too, without knowing. Those who accept it most freely are those most anxious to tell themselves that they repudiate it.
The gospel of hatred has its place in the history of mankind. It was born in the first generation of the race, but with Cain, not with Adam. Fallen as was the first man, he could not fall so far as that, since he could not so completely forget the direct Divine handiwork in him. But the world needed only two additions to its population to bring the gospel of hatred to the earth: one to excel, and one to realize that he had been excelled. It is a testimony to the power of the gospel of hatred that its first fruit on earth was murder, in one of murder’s vilest forms—fratricide.
Once born, the gospel of hatred lived on the rivalries of men who battled for gain, and the vanities of women who battled to please the winner. It spread like a pestilence over the earth, so that not even a deluge could drown it. It entered the Ark with Noah’s sons, and came out of it, like the other beasts, on Ararat. What the confusion of tongues did in scattering humanity, the gospel of hatred would have done later, but in blood and tears, and the sacrifice of thousands. It was the gospel that swept Troy to ruin; but fastened itself firmly on the necks of her conquerors to their own ruin later on. It marched with Sesostris out of Egypt and Alexander out of Macedonia. It mixed for Socrates his cup of poison, and stuck a needle through the once eloquent tongue of the dead Cicero. It stabbed Caesar in irony before Pompey’s Statue; burned Rome, under its devotee, Nero; and then extinguished the Empire in the fury of northern revenge.
The gospel of hatred has filled the army of martyrs. It gathered the stones that killed Stephen, beheaded Paul at the Three Fountains, and crucified Peter on the Capitolian Hill. It dragged Joan of Arc, innocent, pure and sweet as a lily, to the fire lighted in Rouen’s market place, and sounded the depths of injustice in the execution of More on Tower Hill. Why not, when it had spit upon Christ in the Court of Caiphas, loaded Him with stripes and buffets and a Cross, and let Calvary stand in history as a never-to-be-forgotten name for all that human malignity could do?
The gospel of hatred, once accepted, degrades man to the level of the brute. One by one, it quenches in him every generous thought and impulse and renders barren that spot in his soul whereon they grew. It hardens hearts against the appeal of affliction and steels them against the ecstasy of pure love. It blinds the eyes to virtue and goodness, but opens them wide to all that is ugly and full of sin. It closes the ears to the call of mercy, but makes them keen for the cry of revenge. It shuts the hand tight over the coin of charity, but stretches it out to pay for acts of plunder and murder. In the poor, it makes poverty sordid and miserable. In the rich, it cultivates flaunting show, as naked before God as it is lavish before men.
In the wake of the gospel of hatred follows blind injustice, against which there is neither appeal nor hope in this world. No reputation is fortified against it, and no personal worth can save entirely from its venom. The king has been dragged from the throne to the headsman’s block at its order. The legislator has felt the assassin’s steel in his breast, and knew that the gospel of hatred had inspired his killing. But the peasant, also, has been driven from his cabin, to be lashed to death before his own children; while babies have been carried on the points of bayonets, because men having power had accepted this gospel of horror. It was the gospel of hatred that Madame Roland should have blamed on the scaffold, even though the crime was done “in liberty’s name”.
To civil and religious liberty no enemy has been so strong, because no enemy is so insidious. The gospel of hatred creeps almost at once into the heart of the conqueror toward the conquered, whispering that he himself is of superior clay, and the subdued but the dust beneath his feet. Thus does it add venom to the sting of the lash and weight to the shackles.
In a nation the gospel of hatred divides citizens so that, when Power falls to one side it sends hatred to the other; but always double hatred from those who rule to those who are ruled. Self-interest is then its spouse and tyranny its offspring.
But greatest of all is the evil which follows the acceptance of the gospel of hatred amongst friends, for it kills all friendship. It is most malignant toward those who have shown the greatest generosity. By preference, it strikes those who should be loved most, and pursues most relentlessly those who have been kindest.
The gospel of hatred has covered the world with destruction and has buried millions, innocent and guilty, in the ruins. It stands as the most convincing of all arguments for an Eternal Justice; because wrongs cannot always go unrighted; and the sods of the grave, alas! cover millions of wrongs that call for a righting beyond the power of men.
For God’s dear sake, never say that you hate anybody. Fear lest every little dislike is the beginning of a hatred. If you must hate, then hate hatred. It and sin are the only things you may hate with safety.
(To be continued.)
————————-
Father Krier will be in Albuquerque, New Mexico, (Saint Joseph Cupertino) November 16. On November 18, he will be in Eureka, Nevada (Saint Joseph, Patron of Families).
————————-
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