The Deadly Sins

Eighth in a Series on Catholic Morals

by

Fr. John H. Stapleton

Narcissus
Gerard van der Kuijl (1604-1673)

You can never cure a disease till you get at the seat or root of the evil. It will not do to attack the several manifestations that appear on the surface, the aches and pains and attendant disorders. You must attack the affected organ, cut out the root of the evil growth, and kill the obnoxious germ. There is no other permanent remedy; until this is done, all relief is but temporary.

And if we desire to remove the distemper of sin, similarly it is necessary to seek out the root of all sin. We can lay our finger on it at once; it is inordinate self-love.

Ask yourself why you broke this or that commandment. It is because it forbade you a satisfaction that you coveted, a satisfaction that your self-love imperiously demanded; or it is because it prescribed an act that cost an effort, and you loved yourself too much to make that effort. Examine every failing, little or great, and you will trace them back to the same source. If we thought more of God and less of ourselves we would never sin. The sinner lives for himself first, and for God afterwards.

Strange that such a sacred thing as love, the source of all good, may thus, by abuse, become the fountainhead of all evil! Perhaps, if it were not so sacred and prolific of good, its excess would not be so unholy. But the higher you stand when you tumble, the greater the fall; so the better a thing is in itself, the more abominable is its abuse. Love directed aright, towards God first, is the fulfillment of the Law; love misdirected is the very destruction of all law.

Yet it is not wrong to love oneself; that is the first law of nature. One, and one only being, the Maker, are we bound to love more than ourselves. The neighbor is to be loved as ourselves. And if our just interests conflict with his, if our rights and his are opposed to each other, there is no legitimate means but we may employ to obtain or secure what is rightly ours. The evil of self-love lies in its abuse and excess, in that it goes beyond the limits set by God and nature, that it puts unjustly our interests before God's and the neighbor's, and that to self it sacrifices them and all that pertains to them. Self, the "ego," is the idol before which all must bow.

Self-love, on an evil day, in the garden of Eden, wedded sin, Satan himself officiating under the disguise of a serpent; and she gave birth to seven daughters like unto herself, who in turn became fruitful mothers of iniquity. Haughty Pride, first-born and queen among her sisters, is inordinate love of one's worth and excellence, talents and beauty; sordid Avarice or Covetousness is excessive love of riches; loathsome Lust is the third, and loves carnal pleasures without regard for the law; fiery Anger, a counterpart of pride, is love rejected but seeking blindly to remedy the loss; bestial Gluttony worships the stomach; green-eyed Envy is hate for wealth and happiness denied; finally Sloth loves bodily ease and comfort to excess. The infamous brood! These parents of all iniquity are called the seven deadly sins. They assume the leadership of evil in the world and are the seven arms of Satan.

As it becomes their dignity, these vices never walk alone or go unattended, and that is the desperate feature of their malice. Each has a cortège of passions, a whole train of inferior minions, that accompany or follow. Once entrance is gained and a free hand is given, there is no telling the result. Once seated and secure, the passion seeks to satisfy itself; that is its business. Certain means are required to this end, and these means can be procured only by sinning. Obstacles often stand in the way and new sins furnish steps to vault over, or implements to batter them down. Intricate and difficult conditions frequently arise as the result of self-indulgence, out of which there is no exit but by fresh sins. Hence the long train of crimes led by one deadly sin towards the goal of its satisfaction, and hence the havoc wrought by its untrammeled working in a human soul.

This may seem exaggerated to some; others it may mislead as to the true nature of the deadly sins, unless it be dearly put forth in what their malice consists. Deadly sins are not, in the first place, in themselves, sins; they are vices, passions, inclinations or tendencies to sin, and we know that a vice is not necessarily sinful. Our first parents bequeathed to us as an inheritance these germs of misery and sin. We are all in a greater or lesser degree prone to excess and to desire unlawful pleasures. Yet, for all that, we do not of necessity sin. We sin when we yield to these tendencies and do what they suggest. The simple proneness to evil, devoid of all willful yielding is therefore not wrong. Why? Because we cannot help it; that is a good and sufficient reason.

These passions may lie dormant in our nature without soliciting to evil; they may, at any moment, awake to action with or without provocation. The sight of an enemy or the thought of a wrong may stir up anger; pride may be aroused by flattery, applause or even compliments; the demon of lust may make its presence known and felt for a good reason, for a slight reason, or for no reason at all; gluttony shows its head at the sight of food or drink, etc.

He who deliberately and without reason arouses a passion, and thus exposes himself imprudently to an assault of concupiscence, is grievously guilty; for it is to trifle with a powerful and dangerous enemy and it betokens indifference to the soul's salvation.

Suggestions, seductions, allurements follow upon the awakening of these passions. When the array of these forces comes in contact with the will, the struggle is on; it is called temptation. Warfare is the natural state of man on earth. Without it, the world here below would be a paradise, but life would be without merit.

In this unprovoked and righteous battle with sin, the only evil to be apprehended is the danger of yielding. But far from being sinful, the greater the danger, the more meritorious the struggle. It matters not what we experience while fighting the enemy. Imagination and sensation that solicit to yielding, anxiety of mind and discouragement, to all this there is no wrong attached, but merit.

Right or wrong depends on the outcome. Every struggle ends in victory or defeat for one party and in temptation there is sin only in defeat. A single act of the will decides. It matters not how long the struggle lasts; if the will does not capitulate, there is no sin.

This resistance demands plenty of energy, a soul inured to like combats and an ample provision of weapons of defense - faith, hatred of sin, love of God. Prayer is essential. Flight is the safest means, but is not always possible. Humility and self-denial are an excellent, even necessary, preparation for assured victory.

No man need expect to make himself proof against temptation. It is not a sign of weakness; or if so, it is a weakness common to all men. There is weakness only in defeat, and cowardice as well. The gallant and strong are they who fight manfully. Manful resistance means victory, and victory makes one stronger and invincible, while defeat at every repetition places victory farther and farther beyond our reach.

Success requires more than strength, it requires wisdom, the wisdom to single out the particular passion that predominates in us, to study its artifices and by remote preparation to make ourselves secure against its assaults. The leader thus exposed and its power for evil reduced to a minimum, it will be comparatively easy to hold in check all other dependent passions.

The Fruit of Dialogue

Catholics of San Francisco, Meet Bishop Sanderson

Dear Catholics of San Francisco,

It has come to my attention that you are rather upset with Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and the demands he is making upon Catholic schools in your archdiocese. Your recent letter addressed to His Holiness Pope Francis, in which you respectfully ask him to replace the Archbishop, gives powerful witness to the overwhelming divergence between the Archbishop's understanding of the Catholic faith and your own. Among those who signed the letter were Frank and Diane Pitre, who said that they hoped the letter would serve to get someone's attention. Well, I'm pleased to report that it has!

I have it on good authority that there's someone who would like very much to meet with you in the spirit of charity to discuss your shared values: Bishop Jason Sanderson. Below, I reproduce his special invitation to all who would like to experience the respect, inclusion and freedom of conscience which you so desire. I've highlighted those bits which seem most congruent with your own vision of what it means to be Church.

***

His Excellence Bishop Jason Sanderson

Greetings in the Name of Christ!

Thank you for taking the time to inquire about our Church.

The Liberal Catholic Church is unlike many of the churches you have encountered and yet we are very similar to them. We are founded upon the Gospel of Love as taught us by our Lord and approach our mission to the World from that perspective and value the uniqueness of each individual. We honour and preserve both our Apostolic Succession and our Apostolic Teachings, but realise that these are ever growing and ever evolving teachings that call upon each generation to look at anew. We try to keep pace with the ever expanding knowledge of the universe that science provides and use that knowledge to better understand God's revelations to humanity.

To that end, we do not demand of our members a rigid conformity to a set of dogmas, but instead appreciate the fact that each person will have their own perspective. We are an open and inclusive church, heeding the words of Christ who calls to 'all who are weary and heavy laden' and welcome all those who approach the Lord's table with reverence and respect. We value equality and the stability of tradition and intellectual freedom.

We are also an active church, knowing that we best serve Christ when we serve others. From orphanages and schools in the various countries of Africa, to hospice and outreaches in the churches of the United States and elsewhere, as well as the simple, yet profound expression of God's love in our day to day lives, we put into practice the call of the risen Christ to go into the world and proclaim the Gospel to all.

Thank you once again for giving us the opportunity to share our message with you!

Sincerely,

+Jason 'Wolfman' Sanderson

Presiding Bishop

Liberal Catholic Church International

***

P.S. Besides being a bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church, +Sanderson is also:

A beer aficionado:

A collector of carefully hand-crafted monster movie t-shirts:

And the proud owner of an impressive assortment of fine sacred tobaccos and ceremonial turkey-feather fans:

In case you're still not convinced of the man's sincerity, he was also a semi-professional wrestler:

Catholics of San Francisco, if you don't like the archbishop you have, there's no reason you shouldn't have the bishop you deserve.

The Word Was Made Flesh

Sixth Conference on the Most Sacred Heart

by

Fr. Henry Brinkmeyer

We have now seen that the divine uncreated love of the Sacred Heart as manifested in the creation of man dates from all eternity, and that it proceeds from God and embraces, as it were, the whole substance of the Divine Being. Again that overwhelming love is displayed in the Incarnation of the Son of God. It is ever the same eternal and total love we have already considered; it is simple, it is pure, it is immutable as God Himself. Yet we poor creatures, who do not see God, and who study His perfections successively in His works, perceive new qualities in that divine love for man when we look at it, not only through the mystery of Creation, but also through that of the Incarnation. Each of these sublime mysteries demonstrates God's love for His creatures. Creation reveals it as eternal and total, while the Incarnation manifests it as a generous and humble love. We will study, then, the generosity and humility of the divine love of the Sacred Heart for man.

Generosity is something more than kindness, tenderness or beneficence. A kind person will assist one in distress and will be careful not to wound the feelings of another. A beneficent, bountiful person will provide for the comfort and happiness of others and will dispense his favors abundantly. But a generous person will do not only all this, he will not only give, though he receive nothing in return: he will dispense favors, though at a great sacrifice to himself; he will, as it were, forget his own rights and disregard his own inclinations if he can bestow comfort upon another; he will not be repelled by the ingratitude and wickedness of those he benefits. In a word, he will sacrifice himself, his claims, his interests, and all that is dearest to him for the sake of those he loves. Such are the traits of one who is not only compassionate, kind, liberal and beneficent, but who is also generous.

Such are the characteristics of God's love as shown in the Incarnation. God is beneficent as our Creator, He continues His beneficence to us by His daily preservation and protection, He is bountiful in providing us daily with so many things over and above our needs, and which are intended only to procure us pleasure and to gladden our hearts; but He was infinitely generous when He so loved the world as to give for its redemption His only-begotten Son.

What need has He of us? What interest has He in loving us? Is He not complete and perfect in Himself? What beauty, what glory, what happiness does He want? Can we add to His bliss and to His unspeakable loveliness? We can receive all from Him, yet we cannot make any return for His bounties. Says St. Hilary most beautifully:

As no light returns to the sun, or heat to the fire, or to a perfume its sweet scent, so the Divine gifts so precious to him who receives them, are without profit to Him who gives them.

But to his native nothingness, and to his incapability of making any requital to God, man has added sin, and not one sin, but vast oceans and floods of sins - sin so cruel, so heinous, so terrible, that the mere sight of it cast the Son of God prostrate upon the ground in the garden of Gethsemane, and caused Him to sweat blood from sheer agony. And God knew it from all eternity. He saw these oceans of sin rising one upon another, He saw each and every sin in all its naked, revolting deformity, with all its hideous and shocking circumstances. It required all the strength of His infinite intelligence to comprehend the malice of these innumerable sins, yet still His love had to be satisfied. Love, as it were, silenced His justice, it quickened His wisdom, it strained His mercy. We might say, man's sin made Him, in a measure, love man more; for He decreed to become man Himself to redeem man. Yet he knew well that, even after the redemption, man would go on sinning, that few would try to be saved, that fewer still would become saints, and that for those He would make saints, He would have to suffer more grievously than for all the rest. But He shrank not, for love makes one insensible to wrong, for love must be satisfied at every cost. He determined to save His creatures by giving up His only-begotten Son.

Who can understand such love? It is so generous that it overwhelms us. If we had not God's word for it, we could never believe it. Father Faber well says:

More men are puzzled and tempted by the love of God than by any other article of faith.

We may indeed exclaim with Job:

My God, what is man that Thou shouldst magnify him? Why dost Thou set Thy Heart upon him?

To resume: God gives to man without the possibility of receiving any return. And when man is no longer man, when he is become like to senseless beasts, and, from being a child of love, makes himself a child of wrath, even then God loves him, and, to satisfy His own infinite justice, He becomes man, He suffers and, by His sufferings, pays rigorously for all He gives us. Finally, He immolates Himself to save His creature. Is not all this indeed generous?

Secondly, God's love for man, as manifested in the mystery of the Incarnation, is humble. Generally humility is defined as a virtue which prompts us to acknowledge our baseness and accept the place which belongs to us. Since in God there are all rights and no defects, He cannot, in this sense, be humble. There can be no presumption, no excess, no insincerity, no baseness in God; consequently, there cannot be in Him what is ordinarily called humility. But if we regard humility under another respect, namely, as a willingness to be lowered, and as an inclination for abasement, because of the blessed effects of such abasement, then we must say that, without exception, God is the one who abases Himself the most consummately and the most willingly, and on this ground God is more humble than any creature ever can be or ever will be.

It was love for God to create man, but it was a humble love, for it was a condescension, an inclination towards nothing, and therefore an abasement. Especially in decreeing the Incarnation did this humility become apparent. Undoubtedly again it was love that prompted it, but a love which, as St. Bernard says, makes majesty give way; a love which is humble, and therefore, it is indeed humility, and profound humility. Tu non abhorruisti Virginis uterum. "Thou hast not abhorred the Virgin's womb." That womb was all holy and pure, unstained by sin, but for God to descend into it was like descending into an abyss of infinite depth. Think of the pure God putting on a human form and, consequently, assuming an animal nature, not for a day, not only for thirty-three years, but for endless ages : think of His decreeing from all eternity that in time He would unite to Himself personally a material nature, and consequently, in that nature be forever after beneath His own millions and millions of angels. And this is not yet all. Think of His decreeing, from all eternity, that He Himself would take upon Himself the sins of mankind, that He would be their victim and their ransom, that He would be the despised and the most abject of men, as it were, a worm trodden under foot. If we think of all this, and consider that God, as God, from all eternity conceived and willed and in time, as man, accomplished all these things, must we not say that of all beings He is the one who abases Himself most consummately and most willingly, and is therefore most humble? And that humility, that willingness to be abased sprang from love.

For, what is love? It is something more than mere complacency and affection. St. Francis de Sales explains its nature in his beautiful treatise on the love of God. He says that complacency is a sort of satisfaction which the heart experiences at the view of goodness, that affection is a tender sentiment which dwells with pleasure upon an object, but that love is a movement forward, an effusion and an impulse of the heart towards the object of its predilection. Love, therefore, of its own nature tends to union, it breaks down all barriers, it bends towards the object loved, "it unites, collects, assembles and compresses all things, reducing them to unity." God's love for man sought, therefore, union with man, and by means of this union, it sought to communicate itself to man.

Now, there is no connection known to us which could be formed with man so close and intimate as this alliance of God with man in becoming man Himself. And to this unparalleled union, God's love impelled Him. It was an awe-inspiring humiliation, as we have just seen: but God loved us and He became incarnate; His Incarnation proves therefore, that He loves us with a love which is humble even to the lowest degree of self-abasement.

We have now seen God's love, all generous and humble, in the mystery of the Incarnation. "I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also." We should imitate this generous and humble love of the Sacred Heart. We should be generous with God, by the practice of self-forgetfulness, self-sacrifice, self-abandonment; we should be humble by loving a hidden life, by being silent when blamed, by avoiding praise and seeking what is lowly in the estimation of the world. Love will make all things easy.

O Lord! Make me love Thee, then do with me what Thou wilt! O, would that I could die for love of Thee, who hast deigned to die for love of me!

Tres Cardinales Contra Haereticos

How many Cardinals does it take to condemn a heresy?

If I had been gifted with more wit by Almighty God, I'd be able to turn that into one heck of a joke. I'm sure there's at least a mediocre one in there somewhere.

As many of you know by now, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Commission for Historical Sciences, has gone on record in condemnation of any proposal to change Catholic teaching on marriage as heresy. As reported on LifeSiteNews yesterday, when asked whether the Church can change its teaching on marriage without falling into grave error, the good Cardinal replied:

It is evident that the pastoral practice of the Church cannot stand in opposition to the binding doctrine nor simply ignore it. In the same manner, an architect could perhaps build a most beautiful bridge. However, if he does not pay attention to the laws of structural engineering, he risks the collapse of his construction. In the same manner, every pastoral practice has to follow the Word of God if it does not want to fail. A change of the teaching, of the dogma, is unthinkable. Who nevertheless consciously does it, or insistently demands it, is a heretic – even if he wears the Roman Purple.

Cardinal Brandmüller thus becomes the third high-ranking prelate to condemn the Kasper proposal and its attendant errors as heresy. The first to use the H-word in relation to the aftermath of the 2014 Synod was Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who quipped back in December of 2014:

Any separation of the theory and the practice of the faith would, in its formulation, represent a subtle christological heresy.

As I noted at the time, one can't help but be reminded of the comments made by Cardinal Donald Wuerl on the second day of the 2014 Synod in which he suggested precisely such a separation of theory from practice.

The second prelate to drop the H-bomb was Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, back in February of this year:

The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice - which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions - is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology. I affirm solemnly that the Church of Africa will firmly oppose every rebellion against the teaching of Christ and the Magisterium.

The case seemed clear to me when I wrote the admittedly sophomoric but nonetheless uncontested article "Is Cardinal Kasper Promoting Heresy?" at the conclusion of the 2014 Synod. Now that there are three high-profile Cardinals who have come forward to condemn the heresy, I feel justified in maintaining my original conclusion.

But what is to come of these condemnations? If the position may be safely rejected as heresy, is condemnation of its promoters as heretics to follow? Cardinal Brandmüller's explicit mention of "the Roman Purple" is as far as anyone has gone in the natural progression from condemnation of the proposal to condemnation of the one who proposed it. If Cardinal Kasper remains adamant in the face of such condemnation, must we wait for the judgment of the Pope - a judgment which may never materialize - before we draw the necessary conclusion? And what would that conclusion entail? I'm no canon lawyer, but it seems to me that the canons of Trent (Session 13, Canon 11) explicitly call for the excommunication of anyone who "shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend" the thesis that one who is in a state of unrepentant mortal sin may receive Holy Communion. Does the fact that Pope Francis, in his address to the Synod Fathers wherein he admonished them "Let no one say 'this cannot be said'," appeared to have had precisely this canonical censure in mind, nullify the incurment of the penalty? And who is competent to decide?

In any event, I have the feeling that momentum is building. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that Cardinal Carlo Caffarra will be the next to publicly confirm the heretical nature of the Kasper proposal, well in advance of the 2015 Synod. If he does, I foresee a chain-reaction which will be well-nigh impossible for anyone - perhaps including even Pope Francis - to stop.

Ananias, Saphira and the Baptism of Cornelius the Centurion

Reading N°11 in the History of the Catholic Church

by

Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

"They shall deliver you up to councils," the Savior had said, "and in the synagogues you shall be beaten. [...] Be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak."^[1] But He had also foretold that the enemy would sow cockle in the field of the householder, and that false prophets would rise up among the people.^[2] The Church would not escape persecution, nor would she be spared schisms and heresies. The early Christian community of Jerusalem was well acquainted with both.

From the beginning, two currents were discernible among the disciples of Christ: that of the Jews of Palestine and that of the Hellenist Jews. The latter name was applied to those Jews who, during the period of the dispersion, had adopted the Greek language and to some extent also the customs of the Greeks. The diaconate was instituted in consequence of the demands of the Hellenists, who complained that their widows were neglected "in the daily ministrations."^[3] The opposition between the two parties remained a permanent source of strife in the community.

More serious difficulties arose from the fact of its economic organization. We have already observed that, through a natural prompting of charity, most of the first Christians sold as much of their possessions as they could and gave the price into the community treasury. During the Savior's own life, the Apostles had had a community purse: an attempt was made to continue this early tradition in a larger circle. Christianity spread especially among the poor. For the rich to place their possessions into a common fund was the most delicate means they had to come to the relief of their poor brethren.^[4]

A certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, and by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto; and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the Apostles. But Peter said: "Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? [...] Thou hast not lied to men, but to God." And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost. [...] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. [...] And Peter said to her: "Why have you agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out." Immediately she fell down before his feet and gave up the ghost. [...] And there came great fear upon the whole Church and upon all that heard these things."^[5]

The Death of Ananias
Raphael (1483-1520)

By this terrible example, God showed the members of the young Church that one does not deceive His ministers with impunity, and that nothing is more unworthy of a Christian believer than to evade a duty or even a counsel by an act of disloyalty.

A like event was never witnessed again. The economic regime of the early Church soon disappeared, made impossible by the very fact of its growth. But a source of more lasting conflict presently arose in connection with the question of admitting pagans into the Church.

The Savior, speaking to His disciples of the signs that would portend the fall of Jerusalem, had said: "Unto all nations the gospel must first be preached."^[6] The Apostles took advantage of every opportunity to carry out the Master's injunction.

Peter lived habitually in Jerusalem. But his duties as head of the Church obliged him to visit the Christian groups founded in various places.^[7] The districts evangelized by the deacon Philip were the first to which he went, to consolidate and extend the work so happily begun. God blessed his apostolate by numerous miracles. At Lydda, in the southern part of the rich plain of Sharon, "he found a certain man named Eneas, who had kept his bed for eight years, who was ill of the palsy. And Peter said to him: 'Eneas, the Lord Jesus Christ healeth thee: arise, and make thy bed.' And immediately he arose. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him; who were converted to the Lord."^[8] At Joppa,^[9] an important seaport which appears to have been a center of Christianity, he raised to life a widow, Tabitha, a woman "full of good works," who seems to have devoted her fortune to the needs of the early Church.^[10]

In these cities, with their mixed population, the problem of admitting pagans into the Church presented difficulties which the Apostle did not hide from himself. The question was not to decide whether the infidels should enter the kingdom of God; the Master had solved this question in their favor. It concerned the conditions on which they were to be admitted. Must they first become Jews in order to become Christians? Would they have to pass through Judaism to come to the Gospel? This was the point at issue. The Jerusalem Jews (Hebrews, they were called) were clearly inclined to answer the question in the affirmative. But the Hellenist Jews (the Greeks) inclined to the negative. Little by little the views were formulated with sharper cleavage between them. It is not surprising that the conflict was long and even bitter. Christianity and Judaism seemed to be striving for their existence. If, said the Hebrews, "the Gentiles enter the, Church directly, and there obtain through faith alone the same rank and privileges as the Jews, what becomes of the rights of Israel? What advantage has the elect people over other nations? Is not this to deny the absolute validity of Judaism? On the other hand, if circumcision be imposed on the Gentile converts, is not that in itself a declaration that faith in Christ is insufficient for salvation? Does it not reduce the Gospel to the position of a mere accessory to Mosaism? Is not this to deny the absolute validity of the work of Jesus Christ?"^[11]

Saint Peter's Vision
Domenico Fetti (1589-1623)

Peter was deeply concerned over this problem, when a heavenly vision brought him the light. One day, as he was at prayer on the roof of a tanner's house, which he had chosen for his residence, in view of that sea by which the Gospel was to spread in the pagan world, he had a prophetic ecstasy. He saw the heavens open and a sort of linen sheet let down. It was knotted at the four corners and was suspended from the firmament. When he looked into it, he saw therein all kinds of four-footed beasts, reptiles, and birds. And he heard a voice saying to him: "Arise, Peter; kill and eat." But he answered: "Far be it from me. For I never did eat anything that is common and unclean." We know that, according to the Mosaic Law, certain animals were called unclean, and no one could eat them without himself becoming defiled. This mixing of clean and unclean animals in the great sheet made the whole collection unclean. The voice replied: "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common." This was done three times. Then the sheet was taken up into heaven.

Peter wondered what might be the meaning of this vision, when three men came and told him that a certain Roman centurion named Cornelius, a just and God-fearing man, to whom the whole Jewish nation gave good testimony, had been directed by an angel to find Peter and hear his words. Peter's eyes were opened. He saw God's purpose: the legal observances abolished or at least given their death blow by the sacrifice of Christ; the Old Law gradually giving way to the New; and, as a direct consequence, the Gentiles entering the Church through Baptism alone, without the need of first being circumcised.

Saint Peter baptizing Cornelius
Francesco Trevisani (1656-1746)

Peter went to the centurion's house and instructed him in the chief truths of the faith. He was preparing to confer Baptism on Cornelius and all the members of his household, when the Holy Ghost, this time before Baptism had been given, descended upon the catechumens. The mystical graces of prophecy and of the gift of tongues were bestowed upon these still pagan souls. God Himself came to purify them in a manifest way. No longer was any hesitation possible. Then Peter said: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we ?" And he poured the water of Baptism upon the head of the pagan Cornelius, and likewise baptized his entire household.^[12]

Word of this event soon reached Judea and there caused a great stir. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, "they that were of the circumcision," as the Scripture calls them, found fault with him. They said to him: "Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them?" The Apostle boldly faced the storm. He related the details of what had occurred: the vision on the roof, the appearance of the angel to the Roman centurion, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the household of the unbaptized man. Their murmuring was silenced by this simple and firm narration. Peter concluded by saying: "If then God gave them the same grace as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that could withstand God?"^[13] The malcontents held their peace. But "they that were of the circumcision" soon started their complaints again, loudly recriminated, and made the first schism in the infant Church.

On the other hand, those who were urged on towards new countries by zeal for the Gospel, those who were fired by the memory of the Savior's words to announce the Gospel "to every creature," were moved with a new enthusiasm, seeing the great prospects opening before them. On the Phenician coast, at Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, and Byblus, the Gospel missioners, after preaching in the synagogues, met pagans who were troubled by religious unrest, who longed for purification, and were seeking for the truth. The same was true of the island of Cyprus, where the Jews had settled in large numbers in the time of the Maccabees.^[14] But there was another city where the Jewish world was found even more mingled with the pagan: Antioch, the capital of Syria.

At the time of the dispersion following the martyrdom of Stephen, Apostles and disciples took refuge in Antioch and there preached the glad tidings in the synagogues.^[15] Shortly afterwards, some Christians from Cyprus and Cyrene, more familiar with Gentile society, came to Antioch and there announced the Gospel to the pagans themselves.^[16] Upon learning that Peter had baptized a Roman centurion, they redoubled their zeal. It was in this city, the third largest of the world,^[17] the "metropolis of the East," that the Church, for the first time, was about to have extensive contact with the Greco-Roman civilization.

Footnotes

[1] Mark 13:9-11.

[2] Matt. 13:25; Mark 13:22.

[3] Acts 6:1.

[4] "There is a surprising likeness," says Renan, "between such attempted organizations of the proletariat and certain Utopias that have been undertaken in times not very remote." (Renan, Les Apôtres, p. 112.) But it is evident that profound differences separate this common life of the first Christians and the organization contemplated by Communism. True it is that, in both cases, the distribution is made according to each one's needs, not in proportion to his contribution; but among the Christians, the offering is spontaneous, without any sort of constraint: any doubt as to this is removed by St. Peter's words to Ananias. Moreover, no mention is made of the proceeds of labor. Did they remain the property of the worker or did they, too, become part of the community fund? The text gives no indication. Furthermore, between the Communist soul, altogether concerned with the division of earthly things, and the Christian soul, with its thought in Heaven, any supposed likeness is artificial. To call this primitive organization a Utopia and to say that the Church was eager to abandon it as soon as it was seen to be chimerical, is no less erroneous. In fact, the Church never has abandoned that ideal. Renan himself acknowledges this to be so. He says: "When whole countries became Christian, the rule of the primitive Church took refuge in the monasteries. In a certain sense, the monastic life is but the continuation of that primitive Church. The convent is the result of the Christian spirit. There is no perfect Christianity without the convent, because nowhere else can the Gospel ideal be realized." (Op. cit., p. 128.)

[5] Acts 5:1-11.

[6] Mark 13:10.

[7] Acts 9:32.

[8] Acts 9:32-35.

[9] Now Jaffa.

[10] Acts 9:36-42.

[11] Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, p. 125.

[12] Acts 10:1-48.

[13] Acts 11:17.

[14] Cf. 1 Macc. 15:23.

[15] Acts 11:19.

[16] Acts 11:20 f. The names of these first apostles are unknown. It has been conjectured that the principal ones were Lucius the Cyrenean, Manahen (foster brother of Herod Antipas), and Simon who was called Niger (mentioned in Acts 13:1). From St. Luke (Acts 6: 5) we learn that Nicolas, one of the first seven deacons, was from Antioch.

[17] Rome and Alexandria were the first two. See Josephus, Jewish War, III, ii. 

4. Cf. Strabo, Geography, XVI, ii, 5.

***

Join the discussion at:

The Great Apostasy: Ground Zero

I don't normally post videos on this blog, but Michael Matt and Christopher A. Ferrara of The Remnant recently released a video which deserves special consideration by all faithful Catholics. In it, they discuss a topic which I have long considered to be Ground Zero of the Great Apostasy: the Creation Narrative. Granted, running at a little over 40 minutes, the video can do little more than scratch the surface of this huge topic, and a follow-up has already been announced for release next week. But I commend both Mr. Matt and Mr. Ferrara for weighing in on the matter, and for inviting Catholics to re-examine their assumptions in regards to Special Creation, the Big Bang and Evolution.

As something of a primer on the subject in anticipation of next week's installment, I warmly recommend to all my readers a small but powerful paper put together by Dominique Tassot, Hugh Owen and Peter Wilders entitled Creation and Time. It discusses Catholic teaching on creation with regard to geological time and evolution, is well-researched and comes with the recommendation of several secular scholars and priests, including that of Bishop Emeritus Desmond C. Moore. Regardless of where you presently stand on the issue, you owe it to yourself as a Catholic to be familiar with the authentic teaching of the Church on this subject. A PDF of the paper can be downloaded here. If you prefer a web-based version, you can view the same here.

There's one final point I'd like to make to those of you who are genuinely concerned about raising the ire of the scientific establishment against the Catholic Church by calling scientistic dogmas like the Big Bang and Evolution into question. If you believe in the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, the Miracle at Cana - or any other miracle, for that matter - you are already considered a certifiable idiot in their book. I suggest you get used to it.