Catholic Tradition Newsletter C3: Holy Eucharist, Second Sunday after Epiphany, Saint Anthony

Vol 14 Issue 3 ~ Editor: Rev. Fr. Courtney Edward KrierJanuary 16, 2021 ~ Our Lady on Saturday

1.      What is the Holy Eucharist
2.      Second Sunday after Epiphany
3.      Saint Anthony, Hermit
4.      Family and Marriage
5.      Articles and notices
Dear Reader:

The institutions of knowledge and the spread of information have been monopolized to control the information distributed in an Orwellian fashion. Someone can ask a crowd to protest peacefully and the media will inform that the person told the people to riot. The distortion means that what one says can no longer be trusted to be reported accurately and then used to indict someone for inciting insurrection. As faithful Catholics, we know that the Catholic faith is not politically correct in today’s world. We still believe in creation, we still believe in marriage as God instituted the Sacrament, we still believe that Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven, we still believe that abortion is murder, we still believe that one must be saved through the Catholic Church—all of which, in one way or another have been determined by most present anti-Catholic governments to be hate speech if mentioned in the public square.

How does one approach this situation?

You know the deceitful one, the ancient serpent will pervert the truth (just as he did to Eve—and a liar from the beginning). We must not give cause to these Progressive Socialists who control public opinion to point and justify their claims that we are deplorables, rabble rousers. We condemned the mob violence of Antifa and BLM while they defended it—but how can we defend those who do riot, even if orchestrated, without being hypocrites? The Progressives know we are morally conscious—though they themselves have no morals—and will play havoc with our moral conflict if we are convicted. Our Lord knew how it would be when He said:

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:37-48)

We must actually begin to be principled and not use or support those institutions which are bent on destroying us morally, by being conscientious objectors—and leave it in God’s hands so that those of good will see that we are good citizens but the tyrannical Progressive Socialists are the ones depriving everyone of freedom simply because they oppose those who disagree with their tyranny and perversion.

If you justify your actions to retaliate, ask yourself the following: Do I keep the Lord’s Day—Assistance at Mass and absolutely no shopping or work on Sunday? Or do I excuse myself? Do I take God’s Name in vain? Do I pray each day with my family? Do I personally pray the Rosary? Remember, he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone (cf. John 8:7)

I have said and will say again that parents should not send their children to public school until boys are boys and girls are girls again. That Twitter and Facebook and other News Media should not be used until they are open forums not propaganda machines of the Progressive Elite. What we cannot do is react to their action unreasonably—but wisely, thoughtfully and prudently.

To those asking what if the nation does implode—remember, right now the Progressives run the FBI and will arrest immediately any opponents to the Progressive Elites as they have all eyes and ears looking for dissenters—it could then turn into a legitimate overthrow of their tyrannical power. But we ourselves cannot start a rebellion that will make us responsible for the deaths of countless others. Read the Epistles of Saints Peter and Paul after they were arrested because Nero burned Rome and blamed the Christians—no call to rebellion. I would rather pray that Christ returns soon: Marantha. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (1 Cor. 16:22; Apoc. 22:20)

Let us pray to the Angel of our Nation, let us pray to Mary, Immaculately Conceived, let us pray to the Saints of our Country to intercede—to resolve to be faithful to Christ as King of our hearts, to not offend God, assist at Holy Mass every Sunday [no civil government has the right to stop us from worshipping God!—remember the martyrs] and observe the day as holy, to receive the Sacraments. Then, and only then can we present ourselves before Him and ask Him to be our Father, to be our God, to save us from our enemies.

Another point that cannot be overlooked is the Conciliar Church—like the Protestants—letting women step by step become full-fledged ministers in their Church. To say that women can perform the functions of a deacon—announcing the Gospel, administer the Eucharist, and other offices—places one in the predicament that either the office of deacon is not a sacrament and part of the priesthood or that it is and women are actually deceitfully participating in the office of the priesthood—albeit as ministers. The Roman Catholic Church has always held the diaconate as part of the priesthood; this novelty would negate the dogmatic teaching of at least the Council Trent. You cannot say the office is not synonymous with the office, that the office of a deacon(ess) is not the office of a deacon. But leave it to the Modernists to re-interpret Church teaching as a living faith just as the Progressives re-interpret the Constitution as a living document.

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

________________

WHAT IS THE HOLY EUCHARIST

By Rev. Courtney Edward Krier

Part V

Reception of the Holy Eucharist: Holy Communion

The Reception of the Body and Blood of Christ

Necessity of Receiving the Holy Eucharist

Baptism is necessary for salvation as a means, for it obtains justification. Only serious sin can again deprive one of the justification received in Baptism. Mark quotes Christ: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. (Mark 16:16) Saint Paul repeats the same truth:

Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. (Rom. 6:3-5)

In which the Apostle of the Gentiles continues: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. (Rom. 8:1) Wherefore the Council of Trent takes these passages to teach:

If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema. For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because “there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death” [Rom. 6:4], who do not “walk according to the flesh” [Rom. 8:1], but putting off “the old man” and putting on the “new, who is created according to God” [Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9 ff.], are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved sons of God, “heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ” [Rom.8:17]. So that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. (Session V, Decree on Original Sin, 5)

Therefore, the reception of Holy Communion is not necessary for salvation as a means. This is why children are not bound to receive the sacrament and this is confirmed by the same Council (Trent) in its XXI Session:

Finally, the same holy Synod teaches that little children without the use of reason are not bound by any necessity to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist [can. 4.], since having been “regenerated” through “the laver” of baptism [ Tit. 3:5], and having been incorporated with Christ they cannot at that age lose the grace of the children of God which has already been attained; Nor is antiquity, therefore, to be condemned, if at one time it observed this custom in some places. For, just as those most holy Fathers had good reason for an observance of that period, so certainly it is to be believed without controversy that they did this under no necessity for salvation. (Ch. 4; cf. DB 933)

And is followed by Canon 4: If anyone says that for small children, before they have attained the years of discretion, communion of the Eucharist is necessary: let him be anathema. (cf. DB 937)

Pohle presents this argument:

From the philosophical point of view the following considerations are worth pondering. If infants could not be saved without the Eucharist, holy Communion would be necessary to them either as a means or in consequence of a positive precept. It is impossible to assume the latter because infants are not yet amenable to law; or the former, because baptismal innocence can be lost only through mortal sin. (240)

That in the Oriental Church children are still given the Eucharist as found also practiced in the early Church in some locals does not make it either universal or of necessity, but only a custom not to be found in Church teaching.

For adults it is necessary for salvation as a precept, for Christ said, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6:54). Saint Luke has Christ commanding: Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22:19) Paul repeats Christ giving the command recorded by Luke (1 Cor. 11:24, 25) and then continues:

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (Ibid. 11:26-29)

The Fourth Lateran Council decreed yearly Communion at the Paschal (Easter) time:

Let everyone of the faithful of both sexes, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, alone faithfully confess all his sins at least once a year to his own priest, and let him strive to fulfill with all his power the penance enjoined upon him, receiving reverently the sacrament of the Eucharist at least in Paschal time, unless by chance on the advice of his own priest for some reasonable cause it shall be decided that he must abstain from the precept temporarily; otherwise both while living let him be barred from entrance to the church, and when dying let him be deprived of Christian burial. (Cap. 21; cf. DB 437).

This was repeated by the Council of Trent in its Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist in Canon 9:

If anyone denies that each and everyone of Christ’s faithful of both sexes, is bound, when he reaches the age of reason, to receive Communion at least every year during the Paschal season according to the command of holy Mother Church: let him be anathema. (Session XIII; cf. DB 891)

The correlation of the necessity of food to sustain one, seen in the words of Christ when He multiplied the loaves and fishes in the desert place, They have no need to go: give you them to eat (Matt. 14:16) One who neglects receiving the Holy Eucharist ignores the words of Christ: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. (John 6:35) That life which is sustained is the spiritual life and without Christ one is not able to preserve oneself in the state of supernatural life.

Necessity to Receive the Chalice

In connection with the necessity of receiving the Holy Eucharist, there is further the question of the necessity of receiving both Species. This question was first raised by the Utraquists in the fifteenth century. It was discussed earlier under Errors, in the treatise Reception of Chalice: Denial of Christ’s Real Presence and Church Authority. Here, briefly to complete this section on the receiver of the Sacrament, is a review of the teaching.

Christ, in chapter 6 of John’s Gospel, teaches the disciples and hearers:

This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. (Vv. 51-59)

Christ begins with this bread alone and ends with this bread alone. That in the words of Institution He changed bread into His Body and wine into His Blood signifies the giving of His Body and Blood in sacrifice on Calvary in which He shed His blood, which John describes in these words:

Then the Jews, (because it was the parasceve,) that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath day, (for that was a great sabbath day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came; and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe. For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him. And again another scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced. (John 19:31-37)

In Chapter 1, That Laymen and Clerics who are not Offering Mass are not Bound by Divine Law to Communion under Both Species, the Council of Trent, in the XXI Session teaches:

Thus, the holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, [Isa. 11:2]. and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laymen and clerics not officiating are bound by no divine law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under either species suffices for them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at the Last Supper instituted and delivered to the apostles this venerable sacrament under the species of bread and wine [cf. Matt. 26:26 f.; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19;1 Cor. 11:23 f.], yet, that institution and tradition do not contend that all the faithful of Christ by an enactment of the Lord are bound to receive under both species. But neither is it rightly inferred from that sixth discourse in John that communion under both forms was commanded by the Lord, whatever the understanding may be according to the various interpretations of the holy Fathers and Doctors. For, He who said: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you” [John 6:54], also said: “If anyone eat of this bread, he shall live forever” [John 6:52]. And He who said: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting” [John 6:55] also said: “The bread, which I shall give, is my flesh for the life of the world” [John 6:52]: and finally, He who said: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him” [John 6:57], said nevertheless: “He that eateth this bread, shall live forever” [John 6:58]. (Cf. DB 930)

With the glorification of Christ, the separation of the Body, Blood, Soul or Divinity from Christ is not possible, as Christ can die no more (cf. Rom. 6:9)

As Pohle states:

He who communicates under the species of bread alone, truly receives the Flesh and Blood of Christ, i. e. the living Christ whole and entire, with Body and Soul, Divinity and Humanity, and together with the whole Sacrament, all the graces necessary for salvation.19 (252)

This coincides with Chapter 3, that Christ Whole and Entire and a True Sacrament is Received under Either Species:

Moreover, it declares that although our Redeemer, as has been said before, at that Last Supper instituted this sacrament and gave it to the apostles under two species, yet it must be confessed that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament is received even under either species alone, and that on that account, as far as regards its fruit, those who receive only one species are not to be deprived of any grace which is necessary for salvation. (Session XXI; cf. DB 932)

The Council of Constance, 1415-1418, immediately opposed with this definition the Hussites who re-introduced the practice:

In certain sections of the world some men have rashly claimed that Christians ought to receive the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, that of bread and wine.  In some places they communicate the laity under both the species of bread and the species of wine.  They boldly maintain that the people should communicate after taking their meal, or at other times when they are not fasting, contrary to the Church’s praiseworthy custom, approved of with good reason–a custom which they try to condemn as sacrilegious.  These are the reasons that lead to this present Council…to declare, decree, and define that although it was after the Supper when Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and although He gave it to His disciples under  both species, that of bread and wine, nevertheless, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the Church has maintained and now maintains that this Sacrament should not be consecrated after supper, and that it is not to be received by the faithful unless they are fasting, except in case of sickness or other necessity, as approved or allowed by law or by the Church.  Although in the early Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both species, still, to avoid certain scandals and dangers, the custom was introduced with good reason, that this Sacrament be received under both species by those who consecrate, and by the laity under the species of bread only.  For it should be firmly believed, and not doubted in the least that the entire body and blood of Christ are truly contained both under the species of bread and under the species of wine . . . Therefore, to say that it is sacrilegious or that it is wrong to observe this law or custom, must be considered erroneous.  And those who obstinately maintain the opposite of what has been put down should be treated as heretics and severely punished by the bishops or by the officials or by those whose duty it is to investigate heresy (Session XIII, June 15, 1415; Cf. DB 626).

The Council of Trent listed these Canons against the Reformers insisting on the Chalice:

Canon 1. If anyone says that each and every one of the faithful of Christ ought by a precept of God, or by necessity for salvation to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 934)

Canon 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to layman and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 935)

Canon 3. If anyone denies that Christ whole and entire, who is the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received according to the institution of Christ Himself under both species: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 936)

The complete abolition of the reception from the Chalice in the Middle Ages (twelfth and thirteenth centuries) was enjoined for practical reasons, particularly the danger of profanation as Saint Thomas teaches in his Summa Theologica:

It is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood . . . . [For] on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone. (III, Q. 80, art. 12)

Two other reasons are given: that of spread of disease or fear of spread and that of sufficient quantity of unadulterated wine.

That the Church has continuously administered Communion solely under the Species of Bread is seen in Communion for the sick and absent and that of the Mass of the Presanctified—both which have been in practice since the early Church.

(To be continued)

————————–

The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers

M. F. Toal

THE GOSPEL OF THE SUNDAY

JOHN ii. 1-11

At that time: there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother said to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. Now there were set there six water pots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, and saith to him: every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.

I. ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, BISHOP AND DOCTOR

My Hour is not yet Come

Woman, what is it to me, and to thee? My Hour is not yet come.

1. There is toil in preaching, as Paul testifies: Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in word and doctrine (I Tim. v. 17). And it is for you to make this toil either light or heavy. Should you reject what we say to you, or, not rejecting it, yet bring forth no fruit, our labour is heavy, because we have laboured in vain. But should you hearken, and do that which you have heard, we shall not feel the labour, for the fruit born of our toil makes labour seem light. So then should you wish to help our zeal, not to extinguish or lessen it, show proof, I pray you; so that seeing the fields fruitful, and joyful in the hope of an abundant yield, and counting our riches, we shall not weary in this honoured calling.

It is no light subject that we must speak of today. For when the Mother of Jesus said, they have no wine, Christ answered: Woman, what is that to me, and to thee? My Hour is not yet come. When He had thus answered her, He did that which His mother wished. This, no less than what was said previously, is something we must consider. Therefore calling on His name Who wrought the miracle, let us seek to understand it. Not here alone do we find this saying: My hour is not yet come; for the Evangelist says in a subsequent chapter, that they could not lay hands on Him, because his hour was not yet come. And again, and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come; and again: Father, the hour is come, glorify thy son (Jn. viii. 20; vii. 30; xvii. 1). I have gathered these sayings from the whole Gospel, that I may give a common explanation to all of them. What is this explanation? Not because He was subject to the need of the times, or because He was governed by the hour, did Christ say: My hour is not yet come: must the Maker observe the times, and the Creator the years and the ages He has made?

By these words He desires to make plain that He does all things at a fitting time; not doing all things at once, lest the order of things might appear confused if He did not bring forth each single happening at its due moment, but should as it were commingle all things: such as, His Birth, His Resurrection, the Judgement. But observe carefully. Creation was to be made, but not all at once: man and woman, but not even these at the same hour. The rest of men were to be condemned to death, and judgement was to follow; but long ages were to pass between. He must decree the Law; but the Dispensation of grace was not given with it, but each was given at its proper time.

Christ therefore was not subjected to the necessity of the times and hours, since it was He, as their Creator, Who laid down their order. But John here speaks of Christ as saying, my hour is not yet come, meaning that He was not yet known to the many; neither had He yet the full company of His Disciples: Andrew had followed Him, together with Philip: but no one else. Nor did these all truly know Him, not even His Mother, or His Disciples. For even after He had wrought many miracles, the Evangelist could still say of His brethren: For neither did His brethren believe in him (Jn. vii. 5).

Neither did they know Him who were present at the wedding feast: or they would have come to Him, and petitioned Him in their need. So He says: My hour is not yet come. I am not yet known to those who are present, neither do they know that the wine is failing. Leave it till they learn this. Neither should I learn of this from Thee. Thou art my Mother, and this will render the Miracle suspect. They should have come to Me, they who were in need, and asked: not that I have need of them, but that they might with full accord accept the miracle when it is performed. For he that knows his own need, when his prayer is answered, is very grateful; but he that has not adverted to his need, will have no clear sense of a favour received. And why, you will ask, after He had said, My hour is not yet come, and had seemed to refuse her, did He then do what His mother said? So that those who withstood Him, and believed that He also was subject to the hour, might be shown that He was subject neither to time nor the hour. For if He were subject to the hour, how could He do this; seeing that the fitting hour had not yet come? He did it also to honour His Mother, lest He seem to contradict her, and shame before all present the Mother who had borne Him. For she had brought the waiters to Him.

For as He said to the woman of Canaan: It is not good to take the bread of children, and cast it to the dogs. Yet he gave it to her, after saying this. And He had also said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost (Mt. xv. 26, 24). And after this He delivered the woman’s daughter. By this we learn that though we be unworthy, yet by persevering we often render ourselves worthy of being heard. Because of this His Mother waited, and wisely brought forward the waiters, that He might be requested by many. And therefore she added: Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye. For she knew that He did not refuse from want of power, but because He was retiring, and neither did He wish to appear to hasten to perform this miracle, and therefore she led forward the waiters.

2. There were set there six water pots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the water pots with Water. And they filled them up to the brim. Not without purpose does he write, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews: but so that no one of those who believed not might suspect that the lees being left within, then water being poured in, He would thus have made a very diluted wine. Therefore he says: According to the manner of the purifying of the Jews; showing that there never had been wine in these vessels. For Palestine is a land not plentiful in water, and many wells and springs are not to be found there. So they were wont to fill jars with water, so that if they were soiled they would not have to run to the stream, but would have the means of purifying themselves near at hand.

But why did He not work this wonder before filling the pots with water? This would have been more wonderful. It is one thing to give an actual substance another quality, and yet another to make a new substance out of nothing, this indeed is the more wonderful. Yet to many it would appear less credible. And accordingly He often abstains from impressiveness in performing His wonders, desiring to make more easily credible that which He did.

And why, you may say, did He not himself produce the water, that He might then change it into wine, instead of ordering the servants to do this? For the same reason; and that those who drew it might be witness of what happened, and of the fact that there had been no illusion. For should there be anyone who would imprudently dare to deny that it happened, the waiters could contradict them and say: we ourselves drew the water.

By this He also defeats the doctrine that rose up against the Church. For there are some (the Manicheans) who say that the creator of the world is another being, and that what is visible is not His, but the work of another deity opposed to Him; and so that He may reprove this foolishness, He works many of His miracles from the material present to His Hands. For if the Creator were a being contrary to Him, He would not thus use the creation of an enemy to show forth His own power.

And now showing that it is He Who changes water within the vine, and sends the rain upwards through the roots into the grape, He does that in a moment at the wedding feast which He accomplishes within the vine itself over a longer period of time. And when they had filled the water jars, He said: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chie] steward calleth the bridegroom, and saith to him: every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Here again some ridicule this happening, saying: this was a gathering where the people were drunk, their taste was dulled, and they could not reason well, nor give a true judgement; since they would not know whether they drank wine or water: for that they were drunk the chief steward has himself said. That this is absurd is easily evident: yet even against this suspicion the Evangelist has provided. For it was not the guests who gave their opinion, but the chief steward: who was sober, and had yet tasted nothing. For you know well that they to whom the care of the guests is committed are the soberest of all, having this especial obligation, that they should conduct everything in an appropriate manner. And accordingly He appeals to such a person, as being sober and watchful, in witness of what had taken place. For He did not say: “Pour out the wine now to the guests”, but: Carry to the chief steward of the feast; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom.

Why did he not call the waiters? For the miracle then would have been revealed. Because Jesus Himself had not made known that He had wrought a miracle, desiring that the power of His miracles come slowly and gradually to be known. If He had then made it known, the waiters telling of it would not have been believed, but would be thought to have gone mad, should they ascribe such a thing to one who in the common belief was but an ordinary person. They indeed knew what had taken place, from personal experience; for they could not deny the evidence of their own hands; yet they were not persons suited to make others believe.

So He did not make it known to all; but to the person who could best discern what had been done, reserving a fuller knowledge of the event till later: after other remarkable happenings had taken place, this also would, later, become credible. For when He healed the Ruler’s son, the Evangelist implies by what he then says, that by that time this miracle had become known. It was especially because of this that the Ruler had appealed to Him, because he was aware of this miracle, as I have said; and as John shows when he says: He came again therefore unto Cana of Galilee, where he had made the water wine (Jn. v. 46), and not alone made wine, but He made the best wine.

———————–

JANUARY 17

St. Anthony, Hermit

1. In St. Anthony, a hermit of the desert, the liturgy today presents for our consideration an “epiphany,” a manifestation of Christ.

2. Anthony gave up everything upon hearing in Church the Word of God: “If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me” (Matt. 19: 21). Enlightened by grace, Anthony realized that these words applied to him. Without delay, he set about obeying them; he sold his possessions, gave the money to the poor, and withdrew into the solitude of the Egyptian desert. “Your loins must be girt, and your lamps burning, and you yourselves like men awaiting their master’s return from a wedding feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks at the door. Blessed are those servants, whom their master will find watching when he comes” (Gospel). That is what St. Anthony did; having given up everything, he awaited the coming of the Lord. His loins were girt with chastity, mortification, and penitential practices; he held in his hands the lamp of love of God; he kept his eyes on the promised goal. “How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the cost of losing his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26.)

Anthony gained everything. “Never a wish in his heart, Lord, hast thou disappointed” (Offertory). “He prayed for life, and thou hast granted him life unfailing till the end of time” (Gradual). In the silence of the desert, true wisdom came to him; he saw everything in the light of God, in the light of eternity. Earthly things appeared to him as dung and filth. «Only one thing is necessary” (Luke 10:42). ‘Well-loved by God, well-loved among men, a benediction rests upon his memory. The Lord gave him such honor as he gives to his holy ones. . . . The Lord set him apart, chose him out from the rest of mankind . . . answered his prayer . . . imparting commandments to him, the law that gives life and wisdom” (Epistle). As a consequence, St. Anthony devoted himself earnestly to contemplation and loving converse with God. His nights he spent in prayer. All too soon the sun would rise and call him back to mundane things. His contemporaries stood in awe of Anthony, amazed at the wonders of grace and virtue, the sublime, Christlike personality he manifested. Thousands left the world, sold their possessions, went into the Egyptian desert, and gathered round him in order to learn from him the science of living.

Anthony became the teacher, the leader, and the father of a great throng of ascetics, hermits, and monks. Here was a miracle of grace: no study, no books, quiet converse with God, the deep solitude of the desert. How could men live such a life? The severe renunciations, fighting evil inclinations, and sacrificing all comforts in the desert—all this paid dividends toward a life of contemplation and the holy enjoyment of. God. Anthony had surrendered all things, now he gained all things.

3. “The man who tries to save his life shall lose it; it is the man who loses his life for my sake that will secure it. How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the cost of losing his own soul? For a man’s soul, what price can be high enough? The Son of man will come hereafter in his Father’s glory with his angels about him, and he will recompense everyone, then, according to his works” (Matt. 16:25-27).

Anthony took those words of our Lord seriously, so much so that he fled into the desert of Egypt. By this renunciation of the world and the flight from it, he desired, not only to protect his own soul against dangers which threatened it in the world, but, at the same time, he wanted to be active in the salvation of his brothers and sisters in Christ, through a life of penance, sacrifice, and prayer.

Let us also, as we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice with St. Anthony, give up everything and become a holocaust for God. The more we surrender in this immolation, the more shall we receive from God for our own soul and for the salvation of others.

Collect: May the intercession of the blessed abbot Anthony gain us favor, we pray Thee, Lord, and may his advocacy win for us that which we do not ourselves deserve. Amen.

(Benedict Baur)

_____________________

A  MOTHER’S LETTERS

A Book for Young Women

by

FATHER ALEXANDER , O.F.M.

(1923)

LETTER XI

“THE LOVE-CHILD” AND “WHITE-SLAVE TRAFFIC”

YOU ask me to explain what is meant by a “Love-child.” You may well ask, dearest, for a definition would never occur to a mind trained to decent thinking. The so-called Love-child is a child of shame, the product of a union which has not had the sanction of Holy Matrimony. It is a visible witness to the fact that two persons have sinned. It is a child who, later on in life, will be ashamed of its own mother and will possibly search in vain for someone to acknowledge himself as father. Some man has been his father, but the father of the Love-child skulks off and leaves the hapless mother to her fate.

While we pity the poor mother, and should do our best to help her to rise, and encourage her to be more virtuous in the future, we must guard against the maudlin sentimentality which would make it appear that, after all, no great harm has been done, for that would be flying in the face of God, who sternly condemns the sin that has been committed. That sin is called Fornication—i.e., the illicit union of persons who are unmarried. If, unfortunately, a married person sinned in that way with another, it would be called Adultery, and as long as the world lasts all true believers must be of one mind in condemning such sins, no matter how the new “Moralists” may try to slur them over….

[Message clipped]  View entire message

Ginger SnapsFri, Jan 15, 4:30 PM (15 hours ago)
———- Forwarded message ——— From: Fr Courtney E Krier <tcatholicn@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:08 AM Subject: Catholic Tradition Newslett
JOSEPH SARACENO2:50 AM (5 hours ago)
to me

O.K.

Catholic Tradition Newsletter

———————–

JANUARY 17

St. Anthony, Hermit

1. In St. Anthony, a hermit of the desert, the liturgy today presents for our consideration an “epiphany,” a manifestation of Christ.

2. Anthony gave up everything upon hearing in Church the Word of God: “If thou hast a mind to be perfect, go home and sell all that belongs to thee; give it to the poor, and so the treasure thou hast shall be in heaven; then come back and follow me” (Matt. 19: 21). Enlightened by grace, Anthony realized that these words applied to him. Without delay, he set about obeying them; he sold his possessions, gave the money to the poor, and withdrew into the solitude of the Egyptian desert. “Your loins must be girt, and your lamps burning, and you yourselves like men awaiting their master’s return from a wedding feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks at the door. Blessed are those servants, whom their master will find watching when he comes” (Gospel). That is what St. Anthony did; having given up everything, he awaited the coming of the Lord. His loins were girt with chastity, mortification, and penitential practices; he held in his hands the lamp of love of God; he kept his eyes on the promised goal. “How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the cost of losing his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26.)

Anthony gained everything. “Never a wish in his heart, Lord, hast thou disappointed” (Offertory). “He prayed for life, and thou hast granted him life unfailing till the end of time” (Gradual). In the silence of the desert, true wisdom came to him; he saw everything in the light of God, in the light of eternity. Earthly things appeared to him as dung and filth. «Only one thing is necessary” (Luke 10:42). ‘Well-loved by God, well-loved among men, a benediction rests upon his memory. The Lord gave him such honor as he gives to his holy ones. . . . The Lord set him apart, chose him out from the rest of mankind . . . answered his prayer . . . imparting commandments to him, the law that gives life and wisdom” (Epistle). As a consequence, St. Anthony devoted himself earnestly to contemplation and loving converse with God. His nights he spent in prayer. All too soon the sun would rise and call him back to mundane things. His contemporaries stood in awe of Anthony, amazed at the wonders of grace and virtue, the sublime, Christlike personality he manifested. Thousands left the world, sold their possessions, went into the Egyptian desert, and gathered round him in order to learn from him the science of living.

Anthony became the teacher, the leader, and the father of a great throng of ascetics, hermits, and monks. Here was a miracle of grace: no study, no books, quiet converse with God, the deep solitude of the desert. How could men live such a life? The severe renunciations, fighting evil inclinations, and sacrificing all comforts in the desert—all this paid dividends toward a life of contemplation and the holy enjoyment of. God. Anthony had surrendered all things, now he gained all things.

3. “The man who tries to save his life shall lose it; it is the man who loses his life for my sake that will secure it. How is a man the better for it, if he gains the whole world at the cost of losing his own soul? For a man’s soul, what price can be high enough? The Son of man will come hereafter in his Father’s glory with his angels about him, and he will recompense everyone, then, according to his works” (Matt. 16:25-27).

Anthony took those words of our Lord seriously, so much so that he fled into the desert of Egypt. By this renunciation of the world and the flight from it, he desired, not only to protect his own soul against dangers which threatened it in the world, but, at the same time, he wanted to be active in the salvation of his brothers and sisters in Christ, through a life of penance, sacrifice, and prayer.

Let us also, as we celebrate the Holy Sacrifice with St. Anthony, give up everything and become a holocaust for God. The more we surrender in this immolation, the more shall we receive from God for our own soul and for the salvation of others.

Collect: May the intercession of the blessed abbot Anthony gain us favor, we pray Thee, Lord, and may his advocacy win for us that which we do not ourselves deserve. Amen.

(Benedict Baur)

_____________________

A  MOTHER’S LETTERS

A Book for Young Women

by

FATHER ALEXANDER , O.F.M.

(1923)

LETTER XI

“THE LOVE-CHILD” AND “WHITE-SLAVE TRAFFIC”

YOU ask me to explain what is meant by a “Love-child.” You may well ask, dearest, for a definition would never occur to a mind trained to decent thinking. The so-called Love-child is a child of shame, the product of a union which has not had the sanction of Holy Matrimony. It is a visible witness to the fact that two persons have sinned. It is a child who, later on in life, will be ashamed of its own mother and will possibly search in vain for someone to acknowledge himself as father. Some man has been his father, but the father of the Love-child skulks off and leaves the hapless mother to her fate.

While we pity the poor mother, and should do our best to help her to rise, and encourage her to be more virtuous in the future, we must guard against the maudlin sentimentality which would make it appear that, after all, no great harm has been done, for that would be flying in the face of God, who sternly condemns the sin that has been committed. That sin is called Fornication—i.e., the illicit union of persons who are unmarried. If, unfortunately, a married person sinned in that way with another, it would be called Adultery, and as long as the world lasts all true believers must be of one mind in condemning such sins, no matter how the new “Moralists” may try to slur them over.

You see, therefore, how grossly misleading is the term “Love-child,” for it drags down the sacred name of love from its pedestal and rolls it in the mire of lustful passion. Love is a sacred name, which ever tends to union of the soul with God, or of soul with soul (in and for God’s sake), or of body with body (in Holy Matrimony); but in the case in which it is used—as above—it simply means animal attraction. If the unhappy people protest and say that soul sought soul, then it was a case of a lost soul seeking one equally degraded.

I pray you, dearest, not to think me harsh in my indictment. I simply wish to emphasize the fact that in such matters we must take God’s valuation and not that of the world. But all the while that the Church gives to things their proper names she—infinitely more than the world—is solicitous for the spiritual and temporal welfare of those who have erred. In almost every country she has Homes for “the mother and the child”—i.e., for poor young women who have loved “not wisely, but too well,” and for the infant they have brought into the world—and you may recall to mind that St. Vincent de Paul and many other Saints made the care of such children one of their special works—for it sometimes happens that the shamefaced mother abandons her child to its fate. In Catholic countries there are, in many towns, receptacles for “foundlings.” Under cover of the night, the shame-stricken mothers leave their babies in those receptacles, and they are instantly baptized and subsequently cared for by the charitable inhabitants of the adjoining Hospital.

Such, dearest, must be your spirit when you hear of this and of similar evils. Beware of harshness, for we know little or nothing of the circumstances which lead to, or precipitate, a fall from virtue. The Spanish proverb says: “You see what I drink but not the thirst I suffer.” So we see the sin, but not the temptations—that preceded—temptations that may have lasted for years. Neither do we see the possible gaps in a girl’s education and upbringing—gaps which may have been responsible for her frailty. While deploring the sin, let us compassionate the victim and do what we can to help in every good work that will enable her to rise again and face the world with renewed courage and greater prudence.

This advice will be of especial value should you in your social work or studies be brought face to face with the worst form of female degradation—viz., that in which our unfortunate sisters literally trade with their bodies for a livelihood. Oh, dearest, it is a most horrible thing, yet, although the topic is so loathsome, I should not be true to myself nor to you unless I gave you, at least, some explanation. (I scarcely know how to begin!)

Well, you have doubtless heard of the “White-Slave Traffic,” for articles bearing on it have appeared even in our own newspapers. It is a traffic in which victims are procured—nay, sometimes willingly proffered—for the impure satisfaction of men who are a law to themselves. Such persons, overruled by the animal instinct that I have so often spoken of, spare neither pains nor money in the gratification of their passions, and in all parts of the world agencies exist for procuring the necessary victims.

The most unlikely means are made use of to trap innocent and unsuspecting girls—viz., advertisements in the most respectable papers for a Maid, a Governess, a Housekeeper, an Aspirant to the Stage or Music-Hall: seemingly chance meetings on a railway-platform or landing-stage, where simple girls are accosted by male or female strangers (who are sometimes disguised in a religious dress) and asked if they have any difficulty in reaching their destination, for (in that case) the stranger will be only too glad to be of assistance. Nay, the traffic is so daring that sometimes even a church is used to ensnare victims. I have before me the letter of a Nun-friend which reads: “A young lady was kneeling in one of our city churches, preparing for Confession, when a young man placed himself next to her, to take his turn among the penitents. Presently he whispered to her: ‘May I ask if you are a stranger here?’ On her replying in the affirmative, he said to her: ‘I am trying to spread devotion to the Sacred Heart and have had copies printed of a beautiful Act of Consecration. I am sorry I have not one with me, but if you give me your name and address, I shall be delighted to send you one. The young lady thanked him and gave him her card. The next morning’s post brought her a letter desiring her to call at a given address in the city any evening after seven o’clock, when she would receive a number of copies of the prayer for distribution among her friends. Needless to say she did not call, and later she discovered that the house was one of ill repute.”

Now, dearest, the moral conveyed by all such happenings is this—and I hope you will spread it among your friends—when alone, or in perplexity about finding your destination, never be communicative with strangers, no matter how bland, affable, aged, or respectable they may seem. Seek information rather from someone in an official position. With regard to situations on the Continent, or at a distance from home, put yourself first of all in touch with the Clergy, or a Convent of Nuns, who will obtain either from or through some third party reliable information as to the reputation of the family or the firm. Should you make up your mind to emigrate, arrange with well-known friends to have you met on the other side by well-known responsible people. Moreover, in travelling by rail, choose a well-filled compartment rather than an empty one, and if—when forced to be alone—you find any gentleman loitering about the platform as if bent on entering your compartment just as the train is about to start, leave it instantly, even at the risk of losing that particular train. I am by no means an alarmist, but if you credit me with having kept my eyes and ears open during my long life you will come to the conclusion that there must be something in what I say.

I dare say you marvelled at my remark that some proffer themselves as victims to the White-Slave Traffic. Alas! it is too true, but horrid as it is we cannot wonder at it when we consider the homes from which many girls emerge. Where religion is ridiculed or neglected, where decency is not observed, and nasty propensities (which sometimes manifest themselves even in childhood) are unchecked, where pernicious literature is devoured, low places of amusement frequented, indecent pictures and pastimes relished, the sexual instinct which is in every child of Adam becomes abnormally insistent and finally seeks its goal in open profligacy. From such homes and after such early training the pathway to vice is short and tragic. Oh, dearest, it is so easy to pass from dens of that kind to the “streets.” Pity such poor souls, victims as they are of their depraved surroundings. Pray for them. Try to have the heart of a Good Shepherd. Here again our holy mother the Church (oh, how we should love her!) comes to the assistance of the fallen and throws open Convents of the Good Shepherd for their reformation, fondly hoping that as they imitated the Magdalen in her sins they may follow her in her repentance.

Were the awful traffic I speak of recruited only in the above way, it would not, humanly speaking, be so terrible—for its very sordidness would shock—but, sad to say, it is supported even by many who have been nurtured in the best of homes, carefully trained, splendidly educated, but who succumbed to a temptation which disgraced them before the world and deprived them of the courage to rise again. Recruits for the unholy traffic are likewise found through excessive frivolity, a craze for “liberty,” a hatred of self-control, a strange feeling of loneliness, a passion for jewels and finery, lapses into intemperate habits, an habitual distaste for religious practices, or secret sins which, long persevered in, ultimately seek a wider field for indulgence.

As the roots of all these evils are in every girl, they point to the need of cultivating sound views, for just about your age there is likely to be a big struggle as between duty and pleasure. It is a period in which, after the stern discipline of her school-life, a girl is strongly tempted to seek “freedom.” She feels she has been “dictated to” long enough, and pants for “liberty.” Hit…

[Message clipped]  View entire message

ReplyForward