The Disciples of St. John

Reading N°28 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by
 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

John did not come alone to Ephesus. With him he brought companions and disciples, or at least he was visited and aided by several of them.

Among these brethren in the apostolate, we know especially the Apostle Philip.^[1] Like John, he was born on the shores of Lake Tiberias, and a particular bond of friendship seems to have united the two Apostles. It was to Philip that Christ had addressed those profound words: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?"^[2] The earliest traditions tell us that he preached the gospel in Phrygia; all the records agree that he spent the last years of his life at Hierapolis. He had three daughters: one of them, who was married, was buried at Ephesus; the other two remained virgins and aided the Apostle by devoting themselves to works of charity.^[3]

John's three principal disciples, whose names are handed down to us, were Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias. Ignatius was probably a native of Syria. This, at least, is the conjecture of several scholars.^[4] We have very little information about his life or his labors in the Church of Antioch, of which he was bishop.^[5] But the letter he wrote to the Christians of Rome, on his way to martyrdom in that city, enables us to penetrate the depths of his great soul. History can boast of none more courageous in the face of death.

Polycarp is likewise known to us by his glorious martyrdom, but we are ignorant both of his family and birthplace. Tertullian relates that Polycarp was made bishop of Smyrna by St. John.^[6] It is by his authority, often appealed to by his disciple St. Irenaeus, that the Church of Gaul glories in having received the pure ApostolIc tradition. St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in his old age, wrote as follows to the heretic Florinus:

These opinions [that you teach], O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the Church. [...] I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to the people, how he reported his intercourse with John, and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life. [...] I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper, but in my heart. [...] I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and Apostolic presbyter had heard anything of this kind he would have cried out and shut his ears. [...] He would have fled even from the place in which he was seated or standing when he heard such words.^[7]

We saw Papias' testimony in connection with the question of the composition of the Gospels. Of his life we are as uninformed as in the cases of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. We know that he was bishop of Hierapolis. Eusebius calls him "a man of varied education and notably well versed in the Holy Scripture." He took great pains to gather the oral traditions regarding the Savior's life and words; for this purpose he visited several churches and summed up what he learned in five books entitled Exegesis of the Words of the Lord. The extant fragments of this work are of the highest value for the history of Christian origins.^[8] Although conscientious in what he relates, Papias seems to have lacked tact and discernment in the interpretation of doctrine. Eusebius says: "I suppose that he got these notions by a perverse reading of the Apostolic accounts, not realizing that they [the Apostles] spoke mystically and symbolically."^[9] Thus it happened that his work, undertaken to preserve the most genuine traditions, was later used by the millenarians, who appealed to his authority in behalf of their fanciful views.

Among the "disciples of the Lord" whom Papias had seen and consulted, he mentions Andrew, Peter, Thomas, James, and Matthew.^[10] These Apostles must have visited their brethren in Asia only in passing. The two chiefs in whom the East gloried were John and Philip. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, writes:

Two great stars have set in Asia, but they will rise at the last day: Philip, one of the Twelve, whose remains lie at rest at Hierapolis, and John the Apostle, who slept upon the Savior's breast, and who, martyr and doctor, has his tomb at Ephesus.^[11]

The real head of the churches of Asia was John the Apostle. We shall presently see the proof of this in the Letter to the Seven Churches. When St. John reached Asia, the churches founded by St. Paul were about to assume the definite form generally adopted later; one after the other, they were abandoning that assembly of ancients which had governed them, under the direction of a resident bishop or under that of an Apostle, and were placing themselves directly under the authority of a bishop. John, while not attaching himself particularly to any one see, exercised over them all that universal jurisdiction vested by Christ in His Apostles, a jurisdiction that was to end only with the last of them. 

Footnotes

[1] Eusebius seems to confuse the Apostle Philip with Philip the deacon. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in the latter part of the second century, who had every means of being well informed, says positively that St. John's companion in Asia was the Apostle Philip. The fragment from Polycrates is in Eusebius, III, xxxi.

[2] John 14:10.

[3] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxxi.

[4] But their arguments are contested by the Maronite Assemani, Bibl. orient., vol. III, part 1, p. 16.

[5] Cf. Eusebius, Chron., 11th year of Trajan.

[6] Tertullian, De praescr., 32.

[7] Eusebius, H. E., V, XX, 4-1.

[8] They were published by Harnack, Patrum apostolicorum opera, and by Funk, Patres apostolici. In the thirteenth century, the Exegesis of Papias was still extant. Mention is made of it in a catalogue of the cathedral of Nimes dating from that century.

[9] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxxix, 12. Eusebius calls him "a man of very little intelligence." (Ibid., no. 13.)

[10] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxxix.

[11] Idem, III, xxxi, 3.

***

Join the discussion at:

Devotions

Twenty-Fourth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

There is in the Church an abundance and a rich variety of what we call devotions - practices that express our respect, affection and veneration for the chosen friends of God. These devotions we should be careful not to confound with a thing very differently known as devotion - to God Himself. This latter is the soul, the very essence of religion; the former are sometimes irreverently spoken of as "frills."

Objectively speaking, these devotions find their justification in the dogma of the Communion of Saints, according to which we believe that the blessed in heaven are able and disposed to help the unfortunate here below. Subjectively they are based on human nature itself. In our self-conscious weakness and unworthiness, we choose instinctively to approach the throne of God through His tried and faithful friends rather than to hazard ourselves alone and helpless in His presence.

Devotion, as all know, is only another name for charity towards God, piety, holiness, that is, a condition of soul resulting from, and at the same time, conducive to, fidelity to God's law and the dictates of one's conscience. It consists in a proper understanding of our relations to God - creatures of the Creator, paupers, sinners and children in the presence of a Benefactor, Judge and Father; and in sympathies and sentiments aroused in us by, and corresponding with, these convictions. In other words, one is devoted to a friend when one knows him well, is true as steel to him, and basks in the sunshine of a love that requites that fidelity. Towards God, this is devotion.

Devotions differ in pertaining, not directly, but indirectly through the creature to God. No one but sees at once that devotion, in a certain degree, is binding upon all men; a positive want of it is nothing short of impiety. But devotions have not the dignity of entering into the essence of God-worship. They are not constituent parts of that flower that grows in God's garden of the soul - charity; they are rather the scent and fragrance that linger around its petals and betoken its genuine quality. They are of counsel, so to speak, as opposed to the precept of charity and devotion. They are outside all commandment, and are taken up with a view of doing something more than escaping perdition quasi per ignem.

For human nature is rarely satisfied with what is rigorously sufficient. It does not relish living perpetually on the ragged edge of a scant, uncertain meagerness. People want enough and plenty, abundance and variety. If there are many avenues that lead to God's throne, they want to use them. If there are many outlets for their intense fervor and abundant generosity, they will have them. Devotions answer these purposes.

It is impossible to enumerate all the different practices that are in vogue in the Church and go under the name of devotions. Legion is the number of Saints that have their following of devotees. Some are universal, are praised and invoked the world over; others have a local niche and are all unknown beyond the confines of a province or nation. Some are invoked in all needs and distresses; St. Blase, on the other hand, is credited with a special power for curing throats, St. Anthony, for finding lost things, etc. Honor is paid them on account of their proximity to God. To invoke them is as much an honor to them as an advantage to us.

If certain individuals do not like this kind of a thing, they are under no sort of an obligation to practise it. If they can get to heaven without the assistance of the Saints, then let them do so, by all means; only let them be sure to get there. No one finds devotions repugnant but those who are ignorant of their real character and meaning. If they are fortunate enough to make this discovery, they then, like nearly all converts, become enthusiastic devotees, finding in their devotions new beauties, and new advantages every day.

And it is a poor Catholic that leaves devotions entirely alone, and a rare one. He may not feel inclined to enlist the favor of this or that particular Saint, but he usually has a rosary hidden away somewhere in his vest pocket and a scapular around his neck, or in his pocket, as a last extreme. If he scorns even this, then the chances are that he is Catholic only in name, for the tree of faith is such a fertile one that it rarely fails to yield fruit and flowers of exquisite fragrance.

Devotions are not based on historical facts, although in certain facts, events or happenings, real or alleged, they may have been furnished with occasions for coming into existence. The authenticity of these facts is not guaranteed by the doctrinal authority of the Church, but she may, and does, approve the devotions that spring therefrom. Independently of the truth of private and individual revelations, visions and miracles, which she investigates as to their probability, she makes sure that there is nothing contrary to the deposit of faith and to morals, and then she gives these devotions the stamp of her approval as a security to the faithful who wish to practise them. A Catholic or non-Catholic may think what he likes concerning the apparitions of the Virgin at Lourdes; if he is dense enough, he may refuse to believe that miracles have been performed there. But he cannot deny that the homage offered to Our Lady at Lourdes, and known as devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes, is in keeping with religious worship as practised by the Church and in consonance with reason enlightened by faith, and so with all other devotions.

A vase of flowers, a lamp, a burning candle before the statue of a Saint is a prayer whose silence is more eloquent than all the sounds that ever came from the lips of man. It is love that puts it there, love that tells it to dispense its sweet perfume or shed its mellow rays, and love that speaks by this touching symbolism to God through a favorite Saint.

Swiss Bishop to be Charged with Public Incitement of Violence

His Excellence Vitus Bishop Huonder
(Photo: Bistum Chur)

On Friday, 31. July, Bishop Vitus Huonder of Chur (Switzerland) delivered a speech to a group of faithful German Catholics (yes, they do exist) on the topic of marriage, sexuality and family entitled "Marriage: Gift, Sacrament and Commission" (Original: Die Ehe: Geschenk, Sakrament und Auftrag). In that speech, the good Bishop quoted several relevant passages from Sacred Scripture, including the following:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Bishop Huonder went on to describe the passages as continuing to exert influence upon the Christian understanding of sexual morality. He said:

These two passages, taken together with several others in Sacred Scripture - particularly in the Book of Leviticus - demonstrate the divine order which governs our understanding of sexuality. In the present case, same-sex practices are dealt with. The quoted passages alone would be enough to answer the question of homosexuality from the perspective of our Faith. Their import thus has meaning for the definition of marriage and the family. There is no plurality of models for marriage and family. To even speak of such is already an attack on the Creator, as well as on the Savior and Sanctifier, that is, on the trinitarian God. Pastoral care must orient itself according to the divine order. It's mission, undertaken in awareness of the salvation of souls, that is, in pastoral love - and in contradistinction to pure Humanism -  is to free mankind from the condition of a fallen nature and raise it to life as children of light (Eph. 5:8). The Faith is to everyone, even to those with homophile tendencies, a source of comfort and can lead to a redirection of such an orientation, to a governing of sexual urges, and to a ordering of one's own life according to the divine command.

As was to be expected, the progressive elements in the Church were not pleased with Bishop Huonder's statement. Almost on cue, Twitter exploded with horrified denouncements. Theologians felt obliged to respond. Bishop Markus Büchel of St. Gallen even felt the need to demonstrate to the world how pleased he is to see sodomites in stable relationships, arguing that "our present knowledge of homosexuality as a trait and not as a freely chosen sexual orientation was unknown in biblical times." All par for the course, really.

However, now things have been taken to a new level. The Swiss pro-sodomy activism group Pink Cross has announced that it will be filing criminal charges against Bishop Huonder on Monday. Apparently, they plan to charge the good Bishop with a violation of Swiss Penal Code Article 259: Public incitement to commit a felony or act of violence. In other words, by quoting Leviticus, Bishop Huonder was approving of the killing of homosexuals, and indirectly encouraging others to do so. If found guilty, the good Bishop could face up to three years in prison.

The case is, of course, frivolous and without legal merit. But even if this case fails, we can already imagine the day when quoting certain parts of Sacred Scripture will be classified as hate speech.

Persecution is coming, folks. Get prepared.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Second in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

It is part of God's providence that, when He sets before us an end to be attained, He provides us also with the means of attaining that end. So in the case of marriage, having ordained it for the high purpose of preparing souls for heaven, God has endowed it with qualities which make it an apt instrument for the purpose for which it was instituted. These qualities are revealed in the truth of Christ and the Church. Christ's Church was to be one only, and it was to last until the end of time. The bond of Christian marriage must likewise be one only and must last until broken by death. Unity and perpetuity are the qualities which make the marriage state specially fitted for the great object of bringing children into the world, of nourishing them in body, mind, and spirit, of bringing them to the final perfection for which man was created. If the bringing of children into the world is attended with great pain and labor, the bringing of their souls to perfection is attended with still greater pain and labor. It requires nothing else than the united life and love of both parents.

Now, such is the nature of man and woman that they cannot love effectually with a divided love. Let either partner give the other the slightest cause for jealousy and there is an end of that perfect love and harmony in the family which is so needful for the well-being of the children. The archtype of perfect love is the mutual love of the three Persons of the blessed Trinity. One of the fairest created reflections of that love is the triple love of family life: the love of husband, wife, and child. It will brook no intrusion from without. It cannot bear the prospect of it coming to an end. This is a fundamental and universal law of nature, a law of nature which is accentuated, ennobled, and made perfect by a law of grace. The Sacrament of Matrimony implies a special divine sanction to the laws of unity and perpetuity in the marriage bond.

The need of the higher sanction and help is seen from the passing nature of the merely natural charms. The mere physical pleasures pass away with their satisfaction. Youthful ardor burns out before the mature part of life is reached. In the course of a life so intimate as that of husband and wife, many faults of character become exposed. Marriage certainly brings a revelation of many new beauties of character, but it also brings a revelation of many faults of character. It is fraught with disappointments even as with agreeable surprises. The fading of bodily beauty also tends to weaken the natural bond. When the hair turns gray, and the eye loses its luster, and the features fall into wrinkles; when the general buoyancy and ardor of youth tones down into the prose of middle age; then, indeed, is there need of something more sustaining, something more lasting than the mere tie of natural affection or natural contract. It is found in the unity and perpetuity of the Sacrament. The Sacrament imparts all the courage, the energy, the refreshment, and the love needful to make the bond strong and lasting. It renews the youth of married life and makes it satisfying even in spite of years.

The Church claims to have the care of this Sacrament. The Church, therefore, has ever insisted on its unity and perpetuity. The Church regards the sin of adultery as something infinitely more heinous than any sin possible among the unmarried. The father who has to provide for his children must be certain that they are his own. He cares for them only on the supposition that they are his offspring. Any infidelity, therefore, on the part of the woman must of necessity tend to break up these sacred family relationships. A father cannot love and care for children who may be those of the man who has done him the greatest possible injury. And if a woman gives unswerving fidelity to her husband she has a right to claim an equal fidelity in return. Infidelity on the part of the man, although it does not act directly in rendering the offspring of the family uncertain, yet it strikes at the root of conjugal love, and thus almost directly at the foundations of family life. A violation of the sanctity of marriage, then, by either party is a double violation of God's law, a violation of chastity, and a violation of justice. Hence, we have the most stringent laws against adultery, against polygamy, and against divorce.

Among the Jews the penalty of adultery was death by stoning. In the most savage races of the earth, its punishment is immediate death. The law of Christ makes the law of nature and the law of Moses more perfect. This it does by all the conditions and rules which it lays down for the prevention of polygamy and divorce. By polygamy we usually understand the possession of two wives at the same time. The possession of two husbands at the same time is known as polyandry. Both are equally condemned by the Christian law.

The cases of polygamy among the Jews are frequently quoted by those who want an excuse for disregarding the laws of Christian marriage. Attention must be paid to the circumstances of time and race. If polygamy was permitted, then it was for a special reason. And the permission was mere toleration. The circumstances of the times required that it should be permitted in order to avoid greater evils. Nevertheless, God did not cease to give signs to His people as to what was the great ideal. The most wondrous love song ever sung by man was that inspired by the Holy Spirit, the song of songs, which tells of the love between one bridegroom and one bride, the love which lasts till death.

One is my dove, my perfect one is but one. [...] I to my beloved and my beloved to me, who feedest among the anemones. [...] Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy as hard as hell, the lamps thereof are fire and flames. [...] My beloved to me and I to him who feedeth among the lilies, till the day break and the shadows flee away.

So the young Tobias could say to his wife Sara: "For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God." In praying to God for a blessing on his marriage he referred back to its original conditions: "Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper. And now, Lord, thou knowest that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which Thy name may be blessed forever and ever." And Sara prayed with him: "Have mercy on us, and let us grow old both together in health."

Further, the Church, although she insists that the marriage bond lasts only till death, although she allows remarriage after the death of one of the partners, yet she looks upon such remarriage as something less perfect. Her ideal is that a marriage should be so distinctly one and perpetual as to exclude any other marriage even after the first has been dissolved by death. A marriage is not merely a union of two in one flesh, but also of two in one spirit. The more perfect thing, therefore, would be to consider the bond of love lasting right through death. The reason why the Church allows remarriage after the death of one of the partners is because there are other ends of matrimony besides mutual love. To give expression to her wish, however, and to mark the distinction between the more perfect state and the less perfect state, the Church does not give the nuptial blessing in cases where the bride is a widow if she has received it in a previous marriage. She gives It where the bride is being married for the first time, even though the bridegroom be a widower. Having regard to the dignity of the bride, the Church in this case overlooks the defect in the bridegroom. Her end is achieved by withholding the blessing only in the case of the marriage of widows, as stated above.

This brings us to the all-important question of divorce. If both the natural and divine laws maintain the unity and perpetuity of the marriage bond, then no power on earth, not even the Church, has power to grant a divorce. "What, therefore, God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Here, on the threshold of the question, it is necessary to make a clear distinction of terms.

When it is said that no power on earth can grant a divorce, divorce must be understood in a particular and strict sense of the word. Let us distinguish then between three kinds of separation. First, there is a separation which implies that the husband and wife are allowed to live apart. It is called, in juridical language, a judicial separation. It is called, in theological language, separatio a mensa et thoro, or "separation from bed and board". Its meaning is that, although the parties are separated from each other, yet they are not free to marry again. If they were allowed to marry again the separation would be said to be a vinculo, or "separation from the bond". The actual contract or tie would be broken. Now, the first kind of separation is allowed by the Church whenever there is a grave reason, such, for instance, as the misconduct of one of the parties. But the second kind the Church allows never. The bond which has been made by God may not be broken by man. One of the parties may forfeit certain rights of marriage through infidelity to the partner, but can never thereby acquire the freedom to marry again.

And further, the Church makes no distinction in this respect between the innocent party and the guilty. A bond is a bond, the contract is a two-sided one, and, therefore, as long as the bond or contract remains, it must bind both the parties. However unfair it may seem to the innocent party, yet it is God's law and God will see to it that those who observe His law, will, in the final balancing, receive their just reward.

Then there is another kind of separation which is frequently believed to be a divorce and which is a source of much perplexity to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is called a declaration of nullity. It means that that which has appeared to be a marriage is declared never to have been a marriage from the beginning. The parties have gone through the ceremony, but there has been some obstruction in the way which has prevented the knot from being tied and so the supposed marriage must be declared null and void.

Let us take an instance. A Jew married to a baptized Christian wife seeks for a divorce in the law courts. He is successful in his suit. Then, he becomes a Catholic, falls in love with a Catholic girl, and wishes to be married to her in the Catholic Church. There is no difficulty, the Church approves of the marriage. What has happened? The undiscerning public think that the Church has approved of divorce and of the remarriage of a divorced person. And if the man happens to have been a wealthy Jew, the undiscerning public is not slow to attribute unworthy motives to the Church. But again, what has really happened? The Jew's first marriage was really no marriage at all in the sight of the Church. Baptism is the first Sacrament and the door of the other Sacrament. The Jew had not received the Sacrament of Baptism and so was incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Marriage. And, being unbaptized, he was furthermore incapable of making the contract of marriage, for the Sacrament is the contract. Therefore, the marriage which, by the law of the land, was declared to be dissolved was, by the law of the Church, declared never to have existed, to have been null and void from the beginning. Consequently, when the Jew became a Catholic and received the Sacrament of Baptism, he was quite free and capable of uniting himself with the partner of his choice.

There are three exceptions to the law of indissolubility. The first two concern marriages ratified but not consummated. Such may be dissolved either by papal dispensation for some grave reason, or by the solemn, religious profession of one of the parties. The third is known as the Pauline privilege. It may happen only in a marriage between unbelievers, and this even when consummated. If one of the parties is converted to the Christian faith, and the other refuses to live peaceably, or shows contempt for God and religion, or tries to pervert the faithful partner, then the faithful one has a right to a real divorce (1 Cor. 7:15).

Within these limitations, the Church is absolutely inexorable against any attempt at separation from the bond. She has suffered the loss of whole nations from the faith rather than sacrifice one jot or tittle of her principle. The care of the Sacrament has been committed to her keeping, and to have condoned a denial of the sacramental nature of the matrimonial bond, even in one case, would have been to renounce the divine charge given to her. For the English-speaking world, the Pope's firmness in refusing to grant a divorce to Henry VIII must ever be a monument of the fidelity of the Church to the sanctity of the marriage state. And the famous Encyclical of the late Sovereign Pontiff, Leo XIII, must ever remain the character of woman's dignity and safety as to her marriage right. He wrote:

The great evils, of which divorce is the spring, can hardly be enumerated. When the conjugal bond loses its immutability, we may expect to see benevolence and affection destroyed between husband and wife; an encouragement given to infidelity; the protection and education of children rendered more difficult; the germs of discord sown between families; woman's dignity disowned; the danger for her of seeing herself forsaken, after having served as the instrument of man's passions. And as nothing ruins families and destroys the most powerful kingdoms like the corruption of manners, it is easy to see that divorce, which is only begotten of the depraved manners of a people, is the worst enemy of families and of States, and that it opens the door, as experience attests, to the most vicious habits, both in private and in public life.

Views subversive of the Catholic ideal are now very prevalent, and are becoming day by day more prevalent. In the matter of the sanctity of marriage, as in many other things, it is the Catholics who are the salt of the earth. Whilst other religious bodies are prepared to give way under any specious pretext which may arise, the See of Peter proclaims the principle of no compromise. And when the churches which ought to guard the sanctity of marriage show themselves weak and accommodating to the lower pleasures of man, we must not be surprised if non-religious bodies speak openly in favor of divorce and, all unashamed, make profession of free love. This, indeed, has come to pass.

High time is it, then, for Catholics to make their voice heard in protest. Nay, absolutely imperative is it that Catholics should rally themselves anew with even greater loyalty around the Holy Father who watches the marriage Sacrament so anxiously and sees its dangers so clearly. Legislation is made which may be irksome; but the irksomeness thereby suffered is trifling compared with the irksomeness thereby avoided. Let us admit boldly that the marriage state is fraught with difficulties, that love is liable to grow cold, that childbearing is a burden, that the education of many children is a tax on the family's resources, that a drunken husband is an almost intolerable nuisance, that a gossiping wife is a plague of a life; let us admit all this, but at the same time insist that the Sacrament of Marriage has power either to prevent or mitigate the evils. It restrains the passions. But let the idea of divorce once get established, and there is an end of restraint. The passions are let loose and fall victim to every little counter-attraction to family life. The half-hearted partner who realizes that there is an easy escape from the burden of married life makes no serious attempt to bear it. Then comes the sad spectacle of a mother left alone with a house full of children and no father to provide for them; or what is perhaps even more sad, a father with a house full of children and no mother to take care of them. The Church's laws may be hard to bear at times. They are, however, as the yoke of Christ, sweet and easy to bear, if only we spread them out over the short run of life.

On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or The Fissure of Pope Paul VI

[Note: The following article, which treats the crisis of biblical exegesis in the century preceding Vatican II, is something I originally posted over a year ago on Louie Verrecchio's blog - on April 11, 2014 to be precise, just a few months before I decided to start The Radical Catholic. I hesitated to re-publish it here, mainly because I wanted to undertake a more comprehensive treatment of the subject at some point. I still do. In fact, I've since collected enough raw material for a medium-sized book. But the circumstances of my off-line life have changed recently, and I don't know when I'll be able to get back to working on that project. In the meantime, I present to you, gentle reader, the original unedited article for your consideration. - RC]

***

It is often claimed that the changes made to the Sacred Liturgy in the wake of Vatican II have had a devastating effect on the life of the Church. That these two things - the liturgical changes and the devastation - were historically concomitant is clear enough. But are the two things connected as a cause to its effect? Or are they both rather effects of some other cause?

For those who have spent any time researching the matter, it is clear that trouble was brewing long before the opening of Vatican II. Many point to Pope St. Pius X’s 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis as a key document in the Church’s war against Modernism, and rightly so. But that work is often treated in a way which removes it from its historical context.

Even a superficial examination of the reign of Pope St. Pius X reveals a man fighting a veritable hydra of heresy. It is clear that the matter weighed heavily on him, and he devoted a tremendous amount of energy to combating it. But the focal point of his energy is often overlooked: biblical exegesis.

Pascendi has to be read in light of the documents with which it appeared. Of central importance here is the 1907 syllabus of errors, Lamentabili Sane Exitu, nearly all of which treat errors pertaining to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Of equal importance are the documents Praestantia Scripturae (1907), which bound all Catholics to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission, and Vinea Electa (1909), which established the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Taken together, these documents reveal that Pope St. Pius X clearly recognized biblical exegesis as the crack through which Modernism was attempting to enter the sanctuary of the Church.

Pope St. Pius X was not the first to recognize that biblical exegesis was to be the Modernist’s chosen point of entry in their campaign to "reform" the Church from within. Under Blessed Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council promulgated Dei Filius, which forcefully restated the Church’s position on Sacred Scripture. This, however, seems only to have emboldened the Modernists. As a counter-measure, Pope Leo XIII delivered his encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893, which deals extensively with the study and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Providentissimus, while laudable in its treatment of the potential errors in regards to biblical exegesis, appeared to leave just enough wiggle-room for Modernists to continue spreading their errors. In 1902, Leo XIII delivered Vigilantiae Studiique, which officially instituted the Pontifical Commission for Biblical Studies. This Commission, it was hoped, would close the crack and thwart any future advances of the Modernists in the field of biblical exegesis. As it set about its work, however, one thing became perfectly clear: the extent of the errors promulgated by "Catholic" exegetes had been grossly underestimated. The very foundation of the faith was under full assault, and the Church was doing little to nothing to combat it. This recognition is what prompted Pope St. Pius X to issue Lamentabili Sane Exitu in 1907 and found the Pontifical Biblical Institute in 1909. For the time being, the Church closed ranks behind its leader. It would also prove to be the last time.

The period of superficial calm ended with the death of St. Pius X in 1914, and the Modernists returned to their work with renewed vigor under Pope Benedict XV. Taking advantage of the occasionally vague language of Leo XIII’s Providentissimus, the Modernists pushed ahead with their advocacy of the methods of historical criticism. This prompted Benedict XV to deliver the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920, which set about to give an official clarification of the intent behind Leo XIII’s encyclical. Benedict roundly condemned once again the errors of modernist biblical exegesis, but the warnings fell on deaf ears. The modernists held so many key positions in institutions of higher learning that dissent from Rome on this point had become commonplace.

The ultimate turning point in the battle is marked by Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This document essentially removed every defensive measure the previous Popes had put in place to safeguard Sacred Scripture from the attacks of modernist criticism. It was, by and large, drafted by Cardinal Bea, who served as Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute from 1930 to 1949 and was later to become instrumental in the drafting of several key documents of Vatican II, including Nostra Aetate and - most significantly - Dei Verbum, the Council’s "Dogmatic Constitution on Sacred Scripture". It is questionable whether Pius XII had much to do with the Divino at all prior to putting his signature on it. Of course, the person of Cardinal Bea needs little in the way of further introduction. He was Pope John XXIII’s closest adviser, and was appointed as the first President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Bea was, indeed, one of the major players in the tragedy of Vatican II.

If there is one central fact which could be used to illumine all of the events leading up to and transpiring after Vatican II, it is this: the members of the Church, clerics and laity alike, have, by and large, lost all sense of supernatural faith in Sacred Scripture. Even among the most staunch supporters of Tradition and the time-honored form of the Divine Liturgy, there are exceedingly few who would maintain anything resembling a traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Countless are those who run to St. Augustine or - incomparably worse - Origen, hoping to find something there which will allow them to read a big bang, billions of years, evolution, and any other modern scientific theory into Sacred Scripture. Little do they realize that, in doing so, they have already capitulated to modernism inasmuch as they grant the underlying thesis that modern science and Sacred Scripture are telling the same story. They are not.

When we give up the plain historical sense of Genesis - the same sense taught by Our Blessed Lord - we open up the very real threat of giving up the plain historical sense of the Gospel. Without a historical Adam, without a historical Eden, without a historical Fall, there is no New Adam, no New Jerusalem, no Eternal Salvation. There’s just a Jewish carpenter’s son preaching social justice in the countryside of Judea 2,000 years ago.

Already now, theologians are working feverishly to remove the biblical foundation of traditional soteriology and eschatology. For example, Benedict XVI made no secret of his desire to rehabilitate the work of the heretic evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin. For anyone familiar with the work of the latter and capable of thinking the system through to its logical consequence, the prospect is horrifying. For the uninformed, let it suffice to say that this is most emphatically not the faith of the Apostles.

So, my question is this: How can the call to traditional liturgy be made without an equally forceful call to traditional exegesis?

Ancient Alexandria

Reading N°27 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

By good fortune, the later First Century saw Asia Minor become wide open for the spread of the Gospel. Next to the city of Ephesus, Alexandria seemed to promise the brightest future for the Christian religion.

Serapis

Like Ephesus, which became the metropolis of the Roman province of Asia in 129 BC, the city built by Alexander the Great and containing his tomb, a century later also fell under the might of Rome. Old Egypt became a Roman province and its great capital was thereafter the center and a sort of rallying place for the world of philosophers, thinkers, poets, artists, and mathematicians. Under Roman sway, however, Alexandria jealously kept its religious autonomy. The vast temple of Serapis, which from the top of its artificial hill surveyed the commercial activity of the whole city, appeared to symbolize that haughty independence.

There was located the great library containing 200,000 volumes, which Antony brought from Pergamus to replace that of the Museum which had been burned when Julius Caesar set fire to the Egyptian fleet. This library was the meeting-place of Alexandrian Hellenism and of Jewish culture. The Jews had long been settled in Egypt. At Alexandria they formed an important community which, in this city of a million souls,^[1] reached a figure of more than 300,000, about one-third of the total population.^[2] One of our canonical books, Wisdom, was probably written at Alexandria toward the middle of the second century BC.^[3] The Bible had there been translated into Greek under the first Ptolemies, between 280 and 230 BC. The Jewish books had an influence upon the notions of Greek philosophy. And Alexandrian Judaism, though still venerating at Jerusalem the center of the theocratic religion, was renewed by contact with Hellenic civilization. From this reciprocal influence was born the work of Philo.

Philo of Alexandria

We have very little information about the life of this Jewish writer, who was a contemporary of Christ. We know only that his brother, or rather the son of his brother, was alabarch, or chief collector of the customs at Alexandria, and that Philo himself was deputed by his fellow-Jews (AD 40) to go to Rome to appease the wrath of Caligula, who had been angered against the Jews because they refused to adore him as a god.^[4] Philo of Alexandria was principally an exegete, but applied Plato's idealism in the interpretation of the holy books. Many Fathers of the Church speak of him with a respect that borders on admiration. Philo had none of the narrowness of the Pharisees attached to the letter of the Law. He was a man of mysticism and inner worship. With him the idea of philosophy and that of revelation, far from being mutually exclusive, harmonize with each other.^[5] But it is also noteworthy that the ideas which Philo sets forth in his books are not so much personal, as they are ideas slowly and deeply elaborated in the Alexandrian atmosphere, ideas that, outside the limited circle of scholars, penetrated into the minds of the ordinary people.^[6]

Such being the case, Alexandrian philosophy, if ill-directed, might contribute to the perversion of the Christian movement and might lead it in the direction of vague and dissolvent fancies; but if wisely regulated, it might become, by its broad spirit, a powerful instrument in the spread of Christianity. It is a fact that, at a very early date, Alexandria was entered by missioners of the gospel. According to Eusebius, the first Christian community there was founded by St. Mark.^[7] It is probable that the Alexandrians and the Cyrenians who were present at Pentecost may have preceded him there. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that one of the most eloquent preachers of the good tidings, Apollo, "one mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit," was a native of Alexandria. Alexandrian Jews are mentioned among the adversaries of Stephen.^[8] Soon, beside brilliant apologists of the school of Clement of Alexandria, the Gnostic sects began to increase. Both truth and error appeared in a powerful and spirited manner, overflowing with life and splendor.

Footnotes

[1] Dict. de la Bible, I, col. 354.

[2] Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, I, 239.

[3] Dict. de la Bible, I, col. 356; Touzard, in Où en est l'histoire des religions, sec. 7, nos. 148-152.

[4] Beurlier, Le culte impérial, pp. 264-271.

[5] Brehier, Les Idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie, pp. 311-318. Cf. Louis, Philon le Juif; Lebreton (Les Théories du Logos au debut de l'ère chrétienne, in Etudes, vol. 106, and Les Origines de la Trinité) shows that Philo's doctrine is fundamentally a Jewish doctrine, altered and distorted, not a doctrine taken from the pagans, as was once claimed. For Philo, the Logos is "the world of the ideas of the personal God according to Moses." The origin of this conception is connected with the Sapiential literature of the Old Testament. "In Palestine, as also in Egypt, the Jews were accustomed to meditate upon these inspired pages, notably Baruch 3:10-38, Job 28, and especially Prov. 1-9, Ecclu. 24:5-47; Wisdom 7:10; 10:17. Considering the outward operation of this Wisdom, we find it very similar to the Logos of the Stoics or the popular Hermes of Egypt or the amesha spenta of Persia or the Logos of Philo. But the Scriptural notion of the hypostatic Wisdom, in which Israel adored the only true God, is quite opposed to the pantheistic materialism of the Porch, as also to the mythological phantasies of Egypt and Persia, which were an undefinable product of Alexandrian speculation. The contemporary apocrypha, as also the books of the Bible, show how deeply this notion had penetrated the minds of the chosen people." (D'Alès, in Etudes, 1912, p. 90.)

[6] Bréhier, loc. cit.

[7] Eusebius, H. E., II, xvi.

[8] Acts 6:9.

***

Join the discussion at:

Religion

Twenty-Third in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

As far back as the light of history extends, it shows man, of every race and of every clime, occupied in giving expression, in one way or another, to his religious impressions, sentiments, and convictions. He knew God; he was influenced by this knowledge unto devotion; and he sought to externalize this devotion for the double purpose of proving its truth and sincerity, and of still further nourishing, strengthening, safeguarding it by means of an external worship and sensible things. Accordingly, he built temples, erected altars, offered sacrifices, burnt incense; he sang and wept, feasted and fasted; he knelt, stood and prostrated himself - all things in harmony with his hopes and fears. This is worship or cult. We call it religion, distinct from interior worship or devotion, but supposing the latter essentially. It is commanded by the first precept of God.

He who contents himself with a simple acknowledgment of the Divinity in the heart, and confines his piety to the realm of the soul, does not fulfill the first commandment. The obligation to worship God was imposed, not upon angels - pure spirits - but upon men - creatures composed of a body as well as a soul. The homage that He had a right to expect was therefore not a purely spiritual one, but one in which the body had a part as well as the soul. A man is not a man without a body. Neither can God be satisfied with man's homage unless his physical being cooperate with his spiritual, unless his piety be translated into acts and become religion, in the sense in which we use the word.

There is no limit to the different forms religion may take on as manifestations of intense fervor and strong belief. Sounds, attitudes, practices, etc., are so many vehicles of expression, and may be multiplied indefinitely. They become letters and words and figures of a language which, while being conventional in a way, is also natural and imitative, and speaks more clearly and eloquently and poetically than any other human language. This is what makes the Catholic religion so beautiful as to compel the admiration of believers and unbelievers alike.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent an individual from making religion a mask of hypocrisy. If in using these practices, he does not mean what they imply, he lies as plainly as if he used words without regard for their signification. These practices, too, may become absurd, ridiculous and even abominable. When this occurs, it is easily explained by the fact that the mind and heart of man are never proof against imbecility and depravity. There are as many fools and cranks in the world as there are villains and degenerates.

The Church of God regulates divine worship for us with the wisdom and experience of centuries. Her sacrifice is the first great act of worship. Then there are her ceremonies, rites, and observances; the use of holy water, blessed candles, ashes, incense, vestments; her chants, and fasts and feasts, the symbolism of her sacraments. This is the language in which, as a Church, and in union with her children, she speaks to God her adoration, praise and thanksgiving. This is her religion, and we practice it by availing ourselves of these things and by respecting them as pertaining to God.

We are sometimes branded as idolaters, that is, as people who adore another or others than God. We offer our homage of adoration to God who is in heaven, and to that same God whom we believe to be on our altars. Looking through Protestant spectacles, we certainly are idolaters, for we adore what they consider as simple bread. In this light we plead guilty; but is it simple bread? That is the question. The homage we offer to everything and everybody else is relative, that is, it refers to God, and therefore is not idolatry.

As to whether or not we are superstitious in our practices, that depends on what is the proper homage to offer God and in what does excess consist. It is not a little astonishing to see the no-creed, dogma-hating, private-judgment sycophants sitting in judgment against us and telling us what is and what is not correct in our religious practices. We thought that sort of a thing - dogmatism - was excluded from Protestant ethics; that every one should be allowed to choose his own mode of worship, that the right and proper way is the way one thinks right and proper. If the private interpreter claims this freedom for himself, why not allow it to us? We thought they objected to this kind of interference in us some few hundred years ago. Is it too much if we object most strenuously to it in them in these days? It is strange how easily some people forget first principles, and what a rare article on the market is consistency.