On Proposition No. 52

by

Cardinal Velasio De Paolis

His Eminence Velasio Cardinal De Paolis

The issue of access to the sacraments, especially to the Eucharist, on the part of the divorced and remarried was the object of reflection at the extraordinary synod of bishops last October. This is referred to in proposition no. 52 of the final Relatio, which says:

The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).

1. The Meaning of the Synod Proposition

The text did not receive a sufficient amount of support, meaning two thirds of the votes, the reason why it was not approved by the synod; it is therefore not to be considered a synodal text. But it must be said right away that it is difficult to evaluate the significance of the vote. The text is made up of various parts that are not homogeneous, even conflicting, with motivations that are inadequate or not totally appropriate or, at least, incomplete in lining up with the doctrinal sources. 

In effect, the proposal begins with a reference to current events: there has been reflection on the issue. It then refers to a group of fathers in favor of the current discipline and to others who are in favor of a change in the discipline. The text continues by explaining in what points the discipline should be changed, also pointing out what responsibility should belong to the bishop. It concludes with a caution and an invitation to further consideration, even suggesting some elements for doing so. So it would be difficult to pin down the specific reasons for any vote of rejection or approval of the text.

2. Limitations of the Proposition

The proposition is presented with a limited formulation. It refers to a limited category of persons who are living in a situation of irregular union: the divorced and remarried. This is a matter of a category that deserves, according to the proposition, particular and exceptional attention, motivated by the particular situations worthy of consideration that this category could present, as the text effectively explains immediately afterward. 

It is not difficult to find in these words some significant elements of Cardinal Kasper's proposal. But we have already had occasion to study this proposal and to verify that it is not supported by any valid argument. Moreover, that proposal was already known to the competent authority, which had studied and rejected it, not finding in it elements that could exempt it from evaluation according to the doctrinal principles of the documents of the Church. So the hypothesis advanced in the synodal proposition had already been studied and evaluated in an explicit manner and the conclusion had already been reached that it did not imply exceptional principles but fell within the category of general principles, since from the point of view of moral gravity and in the order of access to the Eucharist the hypothesis advanced in the proposal constitutes in all cases a grave violation of conjugal morality and of the discipline of the Church, which cannot permit access to the Eucharist. This is why the documents of the Church never make a distinction between the different categories of persons living in irregular unions: the various kinds of persons living together irregularly are not distinguished as far as conjugal coexistence and access to the Eucharist are concerned.

Moreover, the conditions by virtue of which special consideration is claimed for the divorced and remarried can be found among all those living in irregular situations. And in some cases, the situation could even be made worse: it could seem like a reward and an invitation to establish new bonds.

We can still make a further consideration. The proposition, in restricting the hypothesis to a specific category, recognizes the doctrinal and normative value of the Church documents that regulate this matter. And, seeing that the proposition calls for exploration, a certain perplexity surrounds the proposal itself. On what could this exploration be based? Not on the doctrinal and normative value of the documents, but on the possible exception contained in the proposition. And from where could the doubt arise if not from the fact that the proposition contains within itself an exception to the two essential conditions for access to the Eucharist, since what is involved is a grave violation of the natural moral law and a personal situation not appropriate for receiving the Eucharist?

In effect, in this category as well the divorced and remarried find present the two conditions that prevent access to the Eucharist, which leads the ecclesiastical authority not to be able to act in any other way, since the ecclesiastical authority cannot dispense with the natural and divine law: respect for the natural law of marriage and the need for sanctifying grace.

The situations described might not permit the separation of the two persons who are living in an irregular union, but they do not necessarily require life in common more uxorio and the permanent situation of sin.

3. Discipline, Doctrine, or Magisterium?

We observe that the wording of the text of the proposition generates ambiguities. It speaks of the "current discipline" and a possible modification of this, but this prompts a few doubts that require examination. In reality, the regulation in effect is not only a "current discipline," as if this were a matter of a merely ecclesiastical norm and not of divine norms ratified by the magisterium, with doctrinal and magisterial motivations that concern the very foundations of Christian life, of conjugal morality, of the meaning of and respect for the Eucharist, and of the validity of the sacrament of penance. We are in the presence of a discipline founded on divine law. It is not emphasized enough that the documents of the Church in this matter do not impose obligations on the part of authority, but rather affirm that the ecclesiastical authority cannot act otherwise, because this "discipline" cannot be modified in its essential elements. The Church cannot act otherwise. It cannot modify the natural law or respect for the nature of the Eucharist, because this is a question of the divine will.

The proposition, to the extent to which it provides for the possibility of admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion, in fact constitutes a change of doctrine. And this contrary to the fact that it is said that there is no intention to modify doctrine. Moreover, doctrine by its very nature is not modifiable if it is the object of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Before talking about and dealing with any change in the discipline in force, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of this discipline. In addressing this matter one must, in the first place, reflect on this doctrine and on its level of firmness; there must be careful study of what can be modified and what cannot be modified. The doubt has been insinuated into the proposition itself when it calls for exploration, which must be doctrinal and prior to any decision.

We can also ask ourselves if it is the competency of a synod of bishops to deal with a question like this: the value of the doctrine and discipline effective in the Church, which have been formed over the course of centuries and have been ratified with statements on the part of the supreme magisterium of the Church. Moreover, who is competent to modify the magisterium of other popes? This would constitute a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, the innovations that would be introduced if the text of the proposition were approved would be of unprecedented gravity:

a) the possibility of admitting to Eucharistic communion with the explicit approval of the Church a person in a state of mortal sin, with the danger of sacrilege and profanation of the Eucharist;

b) doing this would bring into question the general principle of the need for the state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Eucharistic communion, especially now that a generalized practice has been introduced or is being introduced into the Church of receiving the Eucharist without previous sacramental confession, even if one is aware of being in grave sin, with all of the deleterious consequences that this practice involves;

c) the admission to Eucharistic communion of a believer who cohabits more uxorio would also mean bringing into question sexual morality, particularly founded on the sixth commandment;

d) this would also lend support to cohabitation or other bonds, weakening the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.

4. The Reasons Adopted for Keeping the Current Discipline

In this regard the proposition affirms the following:

Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage.

The text is not very clear, and in any case it is insufficient because it does not place the accent on the problems involved. This is not only a matter of disciplinary matters to be decided in agreement with the majority, but of an indispensable doctrine and magisterium, which certainly goes beyond the competencies of an extraordinary synod of bishops. In reality, this problem involves doctrinal questions of the greatest importance, to which we have made reference. It must be specified that the reason behind the ban on receiving the Eucharist is, simply, the condition in which the divorced person cohabiting with another person finds himself: a condition of grave objective sin. The fact that this condition has been caused by divorce or by a new civil bond has no bearing on the moral condition that excludes the Eucharist: finding oneself in a permanent state of violation of the moral norms of the Church.

5. Examination

The proposition upholds the following:

The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).

The text affirms the need for exploration from just one point of view, rather weakly. In fact, it cites the catechism of the Catholic Church, with which it is not possible not to agree. The problem lies in understanding to what extent this paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church applies to the difficulties discussed here. The first source of morality is the objective one. And it is with objective morality that we are dealing here.

(Source: Sando Magister's Chiesa)

Universal Salvation in Three Easy Steps

I was browsing through the pages of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review recently and came upon a most succinct and candid description of what is quickly becoming a virtual dogma of the ecclesiastical revolution we are currently experiencing: Universal Salvation. It appears in an article by the young Fr. Philip-Michael F. Tangorra entitled The Holy Spirit and the Contemporary Reform of the Catholic Church. The article is noteworthy on several counts - in particular, its last section (The Holy Spirit, Pope Francis, and the Church), in which the Protestant call of Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est (The Church Is Always To Be Reformed) is taken up as a laudable ideal for the Catholic Church. However, I want to focus here on the brief paragraph consisting of a mere three sentences in which Fr. Tangorra manages to transition almost seamlessly from a vague affirmation of the dogma Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (Outside The Church There Is No Salvation) to the doctrine that all men are saved. Observe:

There is no salvation outside of a participation in the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit, while not offering a separate or unique mediation of salvation from Christ, can unite all humanity to the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, through the explicit act of faith in the existence of God and trust in God's divine providence for their salvation. "In the hearts of those men of good will, where grace is active invisibly, we can say that a non-Christian is mysteriously related to Christ, even if he is unconscious of the role of Christ in his life." Through this mysterious participation, wrought by the Holy Spirit, in the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ, one participates in the fruits of the sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist, and is, therefore, part of the People of God, as they are ordinantur Ecclesiae, related to the Church, which is necessary for salvation. (cf. footnotes in the original)

As Fr. Zuhlsdorf recently commented in regards to an article submitted to First Things deploring what passes as Catholic in many parts of the western world: It's another religion.

Indeed, and the first dogma of this new religion might very well be that of Universal Salvation.

Lutheranism Promulgated

Third in a Series on the Protestant Reformation

by

Fr. Charles Coppens, S.J.

Luther, the Devil's Bagpipe
(Woodcut illustration, ca. 1530)

It was in the Lent of 1517 that Luther began preaching some of his new doctrines to the faithful in a church at Wittenberg, where an enthusiastic audience ever hung upon his eloquent lips. He inveighed against those who had made the people believe that they were obliged to cultivate good will, good intentions, good ways of thinking, etc., etc. On July 25, he preached at Dresden, teaching that the mere acceptance of Christ's merits insured salvation. On October 31, he seized a favorable opportunity to vent some of his views in public by attacking the teachings of the Dominican monk, Tetzel, who was collecting alms for the building of the grand Basilica of St. Peter in Rome.

This magnificent edifice is certainly a rish source of glory to God and of edification to mankind. It was fitting that the noblest edifice on earth should be erected for the most solemn functions of the Christian religion. But, of course, it required a vast amount of money, such as could not be collected at the time without appealing to the generosity of all Christian lands. To encourage liberal donations for this worthy purpose, Pope Leo X had proclaimed a special indulgence for all those who, repenting of their sins, should receive the Sacrament of Confession, attend church devoutly and contribute for the erection of St. Peter's church according to their ability. No definite sum was appointed, and those who had no money to give could gain the indulgence by prayers and fasting offered for the success of the work. The preachers of the indulgence were expressly enjoined to dismiss no applicant without the grace, as in this transaction the welfare of Christians was no less considered than the building of the church.

An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt has been remitted. That such punishment may remain after the pardon of a sin is taught clearly in Holy Scripture, where we read that Nathan said to David:

The Lord hath taken away the sin; nevertheless, the child that is born of thee shall die. (2 Kings 13:13-14)

Now, Christ comissioned St. Peter, saying "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Hence the Popes, as successors of St. Peter, claim the power of granting the remission of whatever can keep us out of Heaven, both the guilt by absolution and the penalty of sin by indulgences; provided all be done so as to promote the glory of God and the good of souls.

Did any great abuse occur in connection with the indulgence preached by Tetzel and his companions? Yes. What we now call "graft" was pretty common abuse in Luther's time. It was perhaps almost as bad then as it is today. But it was a much greater scandal than it is now, because many persons guilty of it were churchmen, and not merely city or state officials. The crime of simony, that is, selling sacred things for money or its equivalent, has often been a plague to the Church. It has done a very great amount of harm, chiefly by getting unworthy men into sacred offices. Then those unworthy priests and cardinals disgraced their holy religion and caused those very scandals which Luther gave as a pretexts for his reform. For instance, Albert, the archbishop of Mayence, at the time we speak of, had become archbishop by simony, and when the indulgence for St. Peter's church was preached, he strove to have one-third of the money collected in his province turned into his own pocket to reimburse him for the sum he had spent to get his office. This was a great abuse, but it did not affect the indulgence itself.

At the same time, the Elector Frederick, Luther's friend and patron, did not wish any of the money to go from his domains to Rome if he could prevent it. Luther and his brethren, the Augustinian monks, could do him no greater favor than to attack the preachers of the indulgence. They had some additional motive to do so in the fact that this mission had been entrusted to the Dominican Fathers instead of their own more austere order. The master stroke of Luther consisted in throwning the odium of the graft on the indulgences.

The work of inveighing against the preaching of the indulgences was rendered more favorable by certain mistakes made by some of Tetzel's missionaries. It was not in explaining how person could gain the indulgence for themselves - for in this respect, their teaching was correct - but in explaining the manner in which such indulgences can be gained on behalf of the souls in Purgatory. They supposed that a Christian did not need to be in God's grace himself in order to secure an indulgence in favor of a certain departed soul of his own choice. This would take person holiness out of the matter, and it gave occasion to wicked men to call it a "sale" of indulgences. Rome had made no mistake, but some of its missionaries had. Even these did not mean to sell indulgences, but Luther thus interpreted their conduct.

Luther's chief purpose was not to correct this error, but to profit by it for the prupose of making indulgences odious, and indirectly to blame the Pope, who had granted them. The proof of this statement is found in some of the ninety-five theses which he posted up at Wittenberg, one of which asked:

Why does not the Pope, who is rich as Croesus, buld St. Peter's with his own money, rather than with that of the poor Christians?

Now, the Pontiff was not building a private chapel for himself, but a basilica for the whole Christian world. Another thesis said:

Christians should be taught that he who gives to the poor, or assists the needy, does better than he who purchases indulgences.

It was the old argument of the traitor Judas, who asked:

'Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?' Now, he said this not because he cared for the poor. (John 12:5-6)

Besides, Luther knew very well that the Church does not allow people to purchase indulgences; but he skillfully turned the blunders of some underlings against the higher authorities, and thus gave currency to the slander which has been perpetuated to the present day: that indulgences can be bought for money.

Tetzel answered him on January 20, 1518, by posting up one hundred and six counter-theses. But the dispute soon drifted into a wider field, Luther passing from one accusation to another. He afterwards wrote to Tetzel, whom many blamed for the beginning of the rebellion:

You need no trouble and distress yourself; for the matter did not begin with you; this child had, indeed, quite a different father.

He himself was that father, and the Reformation would have taken place is no indulgence had ever been preached.

Still, Luther seems to have had no fixed purpose - at that time - of separating from the Church, but of reforming both the doctrine and the discipline of the Church after his own peculiar ideas. But until he felt secure of having sufficient support in secular princes, he carefully concealed his rebellious spirit. Thus, on March 3, 1519, he wrote a humble letter to Pope Leo X, in which he swore before God that he had never dreamt of impeaching the Catholic Church, that there was nothing in Heaven or n earth that he preferred before her. And yet, only ten days later, he wrote to his friend Spalatin:

I don't mind telling you, between ourselves, that I am not sure whether the Pope is Anti-Christ himself or only his apostle.

In the following year, 1520, Luther felt secure in the support of a large army of revolutionaries, princes and nobles and learned Humanists and the common people, who would not have allowed any harm to befall him. Then he proclaimed aloud that the new Gospel truth had been revealed to him by the Lord, that he was commissioned to announce it to the people, and that there was no salvation by any but his doctrine. The pith of that doctrine was:

Salvation by faith alone, without good works on the part of man, all whose actions are only so many sins, because human nature is utterly corrupted by the fall of Adam; but belief that his sins are covered with the mantle of Christ's merits, is saving to any man who has it.

Evidently there is no room for indulgences or confession in this system of justification; nor for Purgatory, nor for honoring any Saint, since there are no Saints, but all remain corrupt for all eternity, only the corruption is covered by the cloak of Christ's merits.

Luther taught besides that, "whatever issues from Baptism may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop, pope," there is no difference among Christians except the offices assigned to some. Since all Christians are priests, all have equal authority to interpret the Bible for themselves. As he wished chiefly to flatter the princes so as to secure their protection, he taught that:

For as much as the temporal power is ordained of God, to punish the wicked and to protect the good, therefore it must be allowed to do its work unhindered on the whole Christian body, without respect to persons, whether it strike popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whom it will.

The secular power, he maintained, should summon a free council which "should reorganize the constitution of the Church from its foundation, and must liberate Germany from the Romish robbers, from the scandalous, devilish rule of the Romans." He adds:

It is stated that there is no finer government in the world than that of the Turks, who have neither a spiritual nor a secular code of law, but only their Koran. And it must be acknowledged that there is no more disagreeable system of rule than ours, with our canon law and our common law, whilst no class any longer obeys either natural reason or the Holy Scripture.

This, then, is the "Reformation," or new religion which Luther proclaimed to the world. We shall next consider how it spread like a swelling torrent over large portions of Europe.

Fourth Sunday in Advent

by
Fr. Leonard Goffine

On this Sunday the Church redoubles her ardent sighs for the coming of the Redeemer, and, in the Introit, places the longing of the just of the Old Law upon the lips of the faithful, again exhorting them through the gospel of the day, to true penance as the best preparation for the worthy reception of the Savior. Therefore at the Introit she prays:

Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the just (Is. 45). Let the earth be opened, and bud forth a Savior. The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands (Ps. 18:2).

Prayer of the Church

Raise up, O Lord, we pray Thee, Thy power, and come, and with great might succor us: that, by the help of Thy grace, that which our sins impede may be hastened by Thy merciful forgiveness. Through our Lord.

Epistle (1 Cor. 4:1-5)

Brethren: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. But to me, it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man's day: but neither do I judge my own self. For I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge not before the time, until the Lord come: who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise from God.

Q. Why is this epistle read on this day?

A. The Church desires by this epistle to impress those who received Holy Orders on Ember Saturday with the dignity of their office, and exhorts them to fill it with becoming fidelity and sanctity, excelling the laity in piety and virtue, as well as in official dignity. She wishes again to remind the faithful of the terrible coming of Christ to judgment, urging them, by purifying their conscience through a contrite confession, to receive Christ at this holy Christmas time, as their Savior, that they may not behold Him, at the Last Day, as their severe judge.

Q. How should the faithful regard the priests and spiritual superiors?

A. They should esteem and obey them as servants, stewards, and vicars of Christ; as dispensers of the holy mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1); as ambassadors of the most High (2 Cor 5:20). For this reason God earnestly commands honor to priests (Ecclus. 7:31), and Christ says of the Apostles and their successors (Lk. 10:16): Who despiseth you, despiseth me; and St. Paul writes (1 Tim. 5:17): Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor: especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.

Q. Can the priest dispense the sacraments according to his own will?

A. No, he must have power from the Church, and must exercise his office faithfully, in accordance with the orders of the Church, and act according to the will of Christ whose steward he is. The priest dare not give that which is holy to dogs (Mt. 7:6), that is, he is not permitted to give absolution, and administer the sacraments to impenitent persons, under penalty of incurring eternal damnation.

Q. Why does St. Paul consider the judgment of men a small matter?

A. Because it is usually false, deceptive, foolish, and is consequently not worth seeking or caring for. Man often counts as evil that which is in itself good and, on the contrary, esteems as good that which is evil. St. Paul says: If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ (Gal. 1:10). Oh, how foolish, and what poor Christians, therefore, are they, who not to displease man, willingly adopt all silly customs, and fashions in dress, manners and appearance, making themselves contemptible to God, the angels, and saints. Recall the beautiful words of the Seraphic St. Francis: "We are, what we are in the sight of God, nothing more"; learn from them to fulfil your duties faithfully, and be indifferent to the judgment of the world and its praise.

Q. Why does not St. Paul wish to judge himself?

A. Because no one, without a special revelation from heaven, can know if he be just in the sight of God or not, even though his conscience may accuse him of nothing, for "man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred" (Eccles. 9:1). Thus St. Paul goes on to say, that though he was not conscious of any wrong, he did not judge himself to be justified, God only could decide that. Man should certainly examine himself as much as is in his power, to find if he has anything within him displeasing to God; should he find nothing he must not judge himself more just than others, but consider that the eyes of his mind may be dimmed, and fail to see that which God sees and will reveal to others at the judgment Day. The Pharisees saw no fault in themselves, and were saintly and perfect in their own estimation, yet our Lord cursed them.

Aspiration

"O Lord, enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight no man living can be justified" (Ps. 142:2).

Gospel (Lk. 3:1-6)

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of Iturea and the country of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilina, under the high priests Annas and Caiphas: the word of the Lord came to John the son of Zachary in the desert. And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins, as it is written in the book of the sayings of Isaias the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low: the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways plain: and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

Q. Why is the time in which St. John commenced to preach so minutely described?

A. The Evangelist, contrary to his usual custom, describes the time minutely, and enumerates exactly, in their precise order, the religious and civil princes in office, that, in the first place, it could not be denied that this was truly the time and the year in which the promised Messiah appeared in this world, whom John baptized, and the Heavenly Father declared to be His beloved Son. Furthermore, it shows the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Patriarch Jacob (Gen. 49:10), that when the scepter would be taken away from Juda, that is, when the Jews would have no longer a king from their own tribes, the Savior would come.

Q. What is meant by: "The word of the Lord came to John"?

A. It means that John was commissioned by divine inspiration, or by an angel sent from God, to preach penance and announce to the world the coming of the Lord. He had prepared himself for this work by a penitential, secluded life, and intercourse with God. We learn from his example not to intrude ourselves into office, least of all into a spiritual office, but to await the call from God, preparing ourselves in solitude and quiet, by fervent prayer and by a holy life, for the necessary light.

Q. What is meant by: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths"?

A. It means that we should prepare our hearts for the worthy reception of Christ, by penance, amendment, and the resolution to lead a pious life in future. To do this, every valley should be filled, that is, all faintheartedness, sloth and cowardice, all worldly carnal sentiments should be elevated and directed to God, the highest Good, by firm confidence and ardent desire for heavenly virtues; the mountains and hills should be brought low, that is, pride, stubbornness, and ambition should be humbled, and the obstinate will be broken. The crooked shall be made straight, that is, ill-gotten goods should be restored, hypocrisy, malice, and double dealing be renounced, and our intentions turned to God and the performance of His holy will. And the rough ways shall be made plain, that is, anger, revenge, and impatience must leave the heart, if the Lamb of God is to dwell therein. It may also signify that the Savior put to shame the pride of the world, and its false wisdom by building His Church upon the Apostles, who, by reason of their poverty and simplicity, may be considered the low valleys, while the way to heaven, formerly so rough and hard to tread, because of the want of grace, is now by His grace made smooth and easy.

Aspiration

O my Jesus! Would that my heart were well prepared and smooth for Thee! Assist me, O my Savior to do that which I cannot do by myself! Make me a humble valley, fill me with Thy grace; turn my crooked and perverted will to Thy pleasure; change my rough and angry disposition, throw away in me whatever impedes Thy way, that Thou mayst come to me without hindrance. Thou alone possess and rule me forever. Amen.

From Rupture to Rapture: A Timeline

Lest you be caught unawares, gentle reader, when 2017 rolls around and you witness the Catholic Pope joined in prayer with Protestant Lutheran ministers in an ecumenical service at St. Peter's Basilica to commemorate the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Schism Difference of Opinion - and you will - observe the following timeline. It documents the half-century of steady, largely unnoticed work conducted by the luminaries of the ecumenical movement to accomplish what the Fathers of the Council of Trent were apparently far too "Pharisaical" to do: to realize how wonderful heresy can be. The documents produced during each phase can be viewed by clicking the titles.

• Preparatory Phase (1965-1967)
• 1965 - (August 25th) Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation meet in Strasbourg, France to lay the foundation for a new ecumenical body.
• 1965 - (December 8th) The Second Vatican Council ends.
• 1967 - First Official Report of the Joint Working Group
• Phase I (1967-1972)
• 1972 - The Gospel and the Church, a.k.a. "The Malta Report"
• Phase II (1973-1984)
• 1978 - The Eucharist
• 1980 - All Under One Christ
• 1980 - Ways to Communion
• 1981 - The Ministry in the Church
• 1983 - Martin Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ
• 1984 - Facing Unity: Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship
• Phase III (1986-1993)
• 1993 - Church and Justification
• Phase IV (1995-2006)
• 1997 - Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Draft)
• 1999 - Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
• 2006 - The Apostolicity of the Church
• Phase V (2009 – Present and Beyond)
• 2012 - From Conflict to Communion (Details the 2017 Joint Commemoration)
• 2017 - Joint Commemoration of 500 years of Protestantism

Who was President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity from 2001 to 2011, you ask? 

His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper

Surprised? Any more than to learn that this project was well underway before Vatican II had even been concluded?

The Character of Christ

by

Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J.

Christ with Children
Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890)

To all of us who are grown up, to most of us who are still growing up, there have come times when we have found the service of God no easy matter. To be steadily faithful to Him in our prayers, to keep His commandments as we know He would have us keep them, and that from day to day without yielding for a moment, these are no light undertakings; without His grace to help us, they would be impossible. And when these hours of trial have come, perhaps the thought has occurred to us that if only we could have lived in the lifetime and in the company of our Divine Saviour, if even now we could but see Him for a moment as He is, it might have been, and it might be, so much easier. A word from Him had the power to break the heart of a hardened sinner like the Magdalene; if we could have heard that word with our own ears, perhaps we should have sinned so much less, perhaps we should have been so much more penitent. A single glance of His truth-compelling eyes forced hot tears of repentance from Peter; if we could only feel those eyes upon us, it might be so much easier to understand Him, so much easier to love Him, so much easier to give ourselves to His service.

And yet it must be remembered there is another side to the picture. Even of those who had this privilege, and they were many, the number that recognized and acknowledged Him was small. Many saw His wonderful works, many felt the influence of His words; yet they followed Him, as He was forced to tell them, not because of Himself, but because of what He gave them; and in the hour of trial they fell away. "Amen, Amen, I say to you," He said on one occasion.  You seek Me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled." Even His own disciples, who had been with Him from the beginning, who had seen all that He had done, had drunk in all the sweetness of His words, had learnt to love the eager glancing of His eyes, had gone so far as to profess that though all the world forsook Him they would not, even they could not stand the trial of the Crucifixion. "Then the disciples all leaving Him, fled away."

"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." Are we, then, sure that we should have stood by Him? Are we sure that we should not have come under that bitter complaint pronounced by our Lord against His generation: "Having eyes, they see not, and having ears, they do not hear, nor do they understand"? After all, it may be better for us that we can look upon Him and study Him only at a distance. We cannot, indeed, now with our own eyes "see the things" that the disciples saw, but we have a picture, a portrait of those things in our keeping. And as a portrait of an absent friend keeps his memory fresh with us, so the picture of our living Lord, "ever living to make intercession for us," brings Him to our mind; nay, more, if we study it carefully, may stir us to an even greater affection and devotion. Let us look at this picture for a minute and renew an old acquaintance.

We are walking along a country lane in the fertile upland of Galilee. The hills rise up on either side, green with pasture, the valley between teems with corn. There are men labouring in the fields, shepherds tending their sheep along the hillside, men and women here and there along the road. Presently, at a turn in the road, we come upon a group, made up for the most part of simple country folk from the farms and cottages about. In the middle is a young man, tall and lithe in appearance, his dress of white, and with a mantle over his shoulder. He is seated on a stone by the roadside, and is talking quietly, but with words that are clearly full of interest to the simple folk gathered around him. In his eyes there is a strange glitter, a mixture as of joy and pain, of laughter and tears, of hope and disappointment, which cannot be described. And over all is a cloak of enduring gentleness; gentleness in the eyes, gentleness over all His face, gentleness in the movement of His hands, which are resting on the heads of little children that have crept close to Him; gentleness, instinctive and therefore very true, in the order of His thoughts, in the tone of His voice, in the deliberation of His actions - this is the one leading feature of the picture.

We take up His words, and they have the same tale to tell: "Come to Me, all you that labour and are burdened," He says, "I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon you, for My yoke is sweet and My burthen light. And learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart; and you shall find rest for your souls." He points to the sheep gathering round their shepherd on the hillside, and says: "I am the Good Shepherd, and I know Mine and Mine know Me, ... and I lay down My life for My sheep." He hears the shepherd call his flock together, and sees him lead them to a fresh pasture; and He adds: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand." He points to the bright sun overhead, filling the valley with light and glory, and He says: "I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life." He looks along the road that leads to the city in the distance, and cries: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." He sees the simple folk around Him with their simple food in their wallets, and tells them: "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst."

And then He will go on to teach them how they, too, should imitate His enduring gentleness. "As often as you do it to the least of these My little ones," He says, as the little children clamber on His knee, "as often as you have given a cup of water to the least of these My little ones, you have given it to Me." "Love your enemies, do good to them that injure you and persecute you; and your reward shall be very great in Heaven." Gentleness, forgivingness, He tells them, is the nature of God the Father; and He repeats to them the story of the Prodigal Son. Gentleness, forgivingness, is His own nature; and He proves it by the story of the Good Shepherd. And gentleness, forgivingness, He would have to be the nature of every Christian; and He brings this lesson home by the story of the Good Samaritan.

Presently He rises, and passes through the group that presses close around Him. He seems to know them all; He has a kindly word for everyone; obviously all are dear to Him, for His interest is not official and no more. There they are, poor country-folk from the hillsides, who have left the plough to listen to Him; poor labourers from the town, who find in Him relief from unrest; poor fishermen from Galilee, who have left their nets and their boats to share His lot. There are the lame and the blind, the deaf and the dumb, even the sick from the neighbouring cottages. What a motley congregation! What a weird group on which to waste so finished a work of art as that discourse! But He does not think of that. He gives what He has to anyone who will have it. As He passes along, one He will touch with His gentle hand, and will heal him; to another He will merely speak some word of comfort, and the sufferer learns that which turns his pain into delight; to a third He will grant a favour greater than was asked for, and will say: "Son, go in peace, thy sins are forgiven thee." But to whomsoever He speaks, no matter how few words He utters, whomsoever He touches, no matter whether He heals them or not, all alike know the consolation of His presence, and are contented with their lot for His sake. "And they all did wonder," St. Mark tells us, " saying: He hath done all things well; He hath made the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak."

It is not possible to make too much of this enduring gentleness of Jesus Christ. So kind was He, that strong men were tempted to despise Him, as did Simon the Pharisee. So gentle was He, that His own disciples complained, as did Judas Iscariot, "and all with him." So enduring was He, and in consequence so varied was the company He drew around Him, that His enemies called out against Him as the comrade of drunkards and sinners. And such is the Jesus Christ who lives on today; the same, but, if possible, with a yet wider sympathy and feeling. For the arm of the Lord is not shortened. Having once risen, He dieth now no more; and that same enduring gentleness marked the risen Jesus Christ as much as, more than, it marked Him before His death. That same Lord stands still in our midst, with us "all days, even to the consummation of the world," ever living to make intercession for us, ever healing, ever forgiving, ever making the same appeal to us for our affection in return - with the certainty of our faith we know it.

"Blessed are the eyes that see the things which you see. For I say to you that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them." At the beginning we were tempted to envy the Jews of Palestine; do we ever think of those who envy us for what we see, and perhaps with greater reason? How many thousands, how many millions are there who desire to see the things that we see, and to hear the things that we hear, and who, if they did see and hear, would turn what they learnt to better account!

Martin Luther

Second in a Series on the Protestant Reformation

by

Fr. Charles Coppens, S.J.

Martin Luther, ca. 1525

Martin Luther, the leading spirit of the Protestant Reformation, was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, on the 10th of November, 1483, nine years before Columbus discovered America. His parents were not blessed with the goods of earth, but his father seemed to have been a good man, and his mother certainly was a pious Catholic woman. Both strove to raise their boy in the knowledge and fear of God, and in the practice of the moral and the Christian virtues. This was no easy task. They gave him the best intellectual education their means allowed, and they did not spare the rod to subdue his very refractory spirit. Much of a man's character through life depends on the way he has profited by his early opportunities. Luther profited by his chances to acquire knowledge, but not docility and Christian humility. He himself relates that his mother once whipped him till he bled, and he adds ironically that it was about a miserable nut. It matters little what the occasion was; the reason of the severity was no doubt his stubbornness. This is apparent from another statement of his, namely, that when his father had one day punished him cruelly, as he calls it, he was filled with hatred against his parent, and came very near running away from home. That he was an unusually stubborn boy is clear from the fact that, when at school, he once got fifteen thrashings in one morning.

Once broken in, he worked hard to get an education. Schools were mostly free for poor students in those Catholic times, and he managed to eke out a sparing subsistence by various devices, one of which was to sing in the streets and collect alms from the kindly disposed among his hearers. The Lord had given him a charming voice; and this, together with his devout demeanor at the Holy Mass, which he attended daily, brought him, in his sixteenth year, an unexpected and considerable blessing. For he thus attracted the favorable attention of a rich, charitable lady, Frau Cotta, who received him as a permanent guest in her family, till at eighteen he went to pursue higher studies at Erfuhrt University.

There he read Virgil, Livy, Cicero, Plautus, etc.; he also studied law and philosophy under the tuition of the Augustinian monks. The whole university soon wondered at his intellectual powers. At nineteen, he was made a Bachelor, and at 22 a Doctor of Philosophy. During these years, his piety appears to have been sincere, and, in keeping with his natural character, deeply earnest.

But it was the period of history when the Humanist movement, aroused by the migration westward of Greek scholars flying from Moslems, had turned the attention of the educated in Europe rather to the classical pagan models than to Christian ideals of perfection. Luther was seized with this spirit to such an extent that his highest ambition was to attain distinction in secular learning. Whereas the university at Erfurt contained an eight years' course of the study of Holy Scripture, he seems to have ignored it entirely, giving all his attention to profane letters. Thus it may well be that, when later on he took to the reading of the Holy Bible, he found this precious treasure almost a new book to him, though it had been the most familiar of all books during the preceding centuries. So there are today thousands of Christian literateurs and scientists who have never read the Holy Gospels. The late historian Joannes Janssen, in his monumental work The History of the German People, has forever dispelled the mist that used to surround the life of Luther with a halo of glory. The main facts narrated in the present rapid sketch are taken from his pages. He writes with great impartiality, giving to each historical personage all the credit he deserves.

We naturally ask ourselves, how was it that Luther, with his head full of secular ambition and already highly distinguished by his learning, and honored so early in life with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, how was it that he abandoned the world to become a humble Augustinian friar? Janssen narrates the facts as follows:

Among the younger Humanists whose circle he (Luther) joined, Crotus Rubianus and Joannes Lange were his special friends, but he himself passed among his associates as a musician and a learned philosopher rather than as a poet. he joined heartily in all their social pleasures, and delighted them with his singing and music. But he would often pass suddenly from mirth and cheerfulness to a gloomy, despondent state of mind, in which he was tormented by searchings of conscience. In the year 1505, he sustained a great shock in the sudden death of a friend, who was stabbed in a duel; and in the same year, he was caught in a terrific thunder storm, during which his life was in danger. "As I hurried along with the anguish and fear of death upon me," he wrote later on, "I vowed a vow that was wrung from me by terror." Soon after, he gathered his friends together at a supper, which was enlivened by lute-playing and singing, and then informed them of the resolve he had made to renounce the world and become an Augustinian monk. "Today you see me," he said, "but afterwards no more." All the entreaties of his friends were useless. They accompanied him weeping to the door of the monastery. It was characteristic of Luther that the only books which he took with him into his retreat were the pagan poets Virgil and Plautus. (Janssen, Vol. III, p. 81)

Luther himself admits that he was driven by despair, rather than the love of higher perfection, into a religious career. He wrote: "I entered the monastery and renounced the world, despairing of myself all the while." He fell a victim to excessive scrupulousness of conscience. The only remedy for such an abnormal state of mind is perfect obedience to a wise director. But obedience and docility were uncongenial virtues to his stubborn mind. He soon yielded to despondency to such an extent as to neglect for weeks together the recitation of the Divine Office, to which after his vows he was bound under sin. Following his own notions, he would fast and discipline himself and bury himself in solitude till he nearly lost his reason.

He saw more sin in himself than he felt he could atone for by his works of penance; and instead of trusting in the merits of Christ, as the Church has always taught her children to do, he gave himself up to black despair. Here is the picture he draws of his sad condition at the time:

From misplaced reliance on my own righteousness, my heart became full of distrust, doubt, fear, hatred, and blasphemy of God. I was such an enemy of Christ that whenever I saw an image or a picture of Him hanging on His Cross, I loathed the sight and I shut my eyes and felt that I would rather have seen the devil. My spirit was completely broken, and I was always in a state of melancholy; for, do what I would, my 'righteousness' and my 'good works' brought me no help or consolation. (Janssen, Vol. III, p. 84)

It is a common experience to see scrupulous souls, if they are self-opinionated, rush from extreme timidity to excessive rashness. It was so with Luther. He made up his mind that, by reason of inherited sin, man was become totally depraved, and possessed no liberty of the will. Here was the root of the Lutheran heresy. He concluded that all human action whatever, even that which is directed towards good, being an emanation from our corrupt nature, is, in the sight of God, nothing more nor less than deadly sin; therefore our actions have no influence on our salvation; we are saved by faith alone without good works. "When we believe in Christ," he said, "we make His merit our own possession. The garment of His righteousness covers all our guilt." He wrote some years later to a friend: "Be a sinner, if you will, and sin right lustily; but believe still more lustily, and rejoice in Christ, who is the vanquisher of sin." Again: "From the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world sin will not separate men, even though they should commit fornication a thousand times a day, or murders as frequently." This is Lutheranism full-blown, carried to its logical consequences, not probably as he understood it as yet; but it was conceived by him at the time in embryo and elaborated later on. He needed only time to mature and opportunity and stubborn resolve to propagate these errors and establish a new religion.

After one year of novitiate, Luther had been ordained priest in 1506. Two years later, he was promoted to a professorship at the recently founded University of Wittenberg. His novel system of justification was meanwhile maturing in his active brain. His Protestant eulogist, Mathesius, says that as early as 1515 he was denounced as a heretic. But he spoke so eloquently in defense of his original views that he gained over to his side almost the entire student body and most members of the faculty at the young university. He aroused the admiration and enthusiasm of the faithful in the city, and he became a special favorite of Frederick the Elector of Saxony. His mind was big with projects, and the Reformation was ready to leap forth from his brain armed cap-à-pie, as Minerva did from the head of thundering Jove.