Event: International Symposium: The Two Shall Become One

In anticipation of the re-opening of the Synod on the Family in October, an international symposium on the creation of Adam and Eve as the foundation of the Catholic doctrine on Holy Marriage will be held on September 26, 2015, at the Centro Congressi Cavour – Via Cavour 50/A (near Termini Station) in Rome. Experts in theology, philosophy, and natural science will demonstrate that the traditional doctrine of the Church on the divine creation of Adam and Eve harmonizes with the best arguments in theology and philosophy, as well as with sound natural science, including the latest findings in biology, genetics, and paleontology.  

At the end of the nineteenth century, the first wave of the modern assault on Holy Marriage began as social revolutionaries attempted to introduce divorce into Catholic countries.  In response to these coordinated attacks on Holy Marriage, Pope Leo XIII exhorted the Bishops and theologians of the Catholic Church to defend the divine institution of Holy Marriage on the foundation of the divine creation of Adam and Eve.  In his encyclical Arcanum he told the Bishops:

The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. [...] We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. [...] And this union of man and woman [...] even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties [...] namely, unity and perpetuity. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, 5)

According to Monsignor Barreiro, long-time director of Human Life International in Rome:

The international symposium will demonstrate the timeless wisdom of Pope Leo XIII’s teaching while exposing the serious errors in theology, philosophy and natural science that beset alternative explanations for the origins of the first human beings.

Participants in the symposium include:

• Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D., Philosophy (formerly professor of Dogmatic Theology at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary)
• D. Q. McInerny, Ph.D., Philosophy (professor of Philosophy at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary) 
• Fr. Thomas Hickey, M.A., Theology (Faculty, Holy Apostles Seminary)
• Mr. John Wynne, (author, A Catholic Assessment of Evolution Theory)
• Dr. John Sanford, Ph.D., Plant Genetics (author, Genetic Entropy)
• Bai Macfarlane, (Director, Mary’s Advocates)
• Fr. Francesco Giordano, STD (Director, Human Life International, Rome Office).

For further information in Europe, please contact, Fr. Francesco Giordano, STD, Director, Vita Umana Internazionale, Roma (vuiroma@tin.it); in North America and elsewhere outside of Europe, please contact Hugh Owen (howen@shentel.net).

***

Please visit the Symposium's website to read Cardinal Raymond Burke's letter of welcome to participants. The event will also be streamed live.

Conjugal Restraint

Seventh in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

All who look forward to marriage do so as to a state of ideal happiness. Yet how many fail to realize their ideal! It makes you jump, as Chesterton would say, when you think of what you expected, and compare it with what you have got. So we come round again to the same old theme: if you want to enjoy the Catholic ideal of a perfect marriage you must follow the Catholic rules. He who wishes for the end wishes also the means to the end.

Now, one of the chief means to happiness proposed by the Church is conjugal restraint. It would be very strange if in all the other animal tendencies she counselled moderation, and in this allowed unlimited indulgence. Yes, there can be debauchery in the pleasures of married life just as in the pleasures of eating and drinking. Such excess is a violation of the law of nature, and inevitably brings on nature's punishment. In this, as in all other functions of man, virtue, happiness, and well-being are to be found in moderation, and moderation is secured by rational restraint.

The question before us is not so much as to what is sin or no sin, but rather as to what helps to a higher happiness. The Church allows a wide freedom in the enjoyment of conjugal pleasures. She never for a moment forgets that one of the ends for which marriage was instituted was that it should be a remedy for concupiscence. In order therefore that there shall be no danger of indulgence outside lawful matrimony, the widest possible exercise is permitted within matrimony. The Church goes, hand in hand with nature, to the furthermost of nature's limits before she says that such or such an act is sin. She counsels the married pair, however, not to avail themselves of the whole range of nature's freedom. She declares that rational restraint is the way to the highest and fullest happiness in married life.

The root reason of this counsel is to be found in the fact that by restraint the sexual appetite is brought under control of the will. The will is guided by reason, and reason in its turn is illumined by divine wisdom. Thus, restrained and controlled, the sexual appetite can be directed to the three great ends for which it was made, and thus can it be prevented from abuse, for which it was not made. The order and higher satisfaction thus secured constitute the essence of happiness.

Let us see now how this higher satisfaction is reached. There are three ends for which marriage was instituted, and consequently three reasons which make the marriage act lawful and holy. The first and chief is the begetting of children. The second is the calming of concupiscence, and consequent avoiding of incontinence. The third is the fostering of conjugal love and affection. But all these minister to the perfection both of the individual and of the race. The married pair see in their offspring the continuance of their own life. Their joy is to know that a child is born to them, to see the child grow up and become settled in life, to hear that their own son is making his mark in the world, or that their own daughter is married well and happily.

The second and third reasons minister to the first. Unless there were a remedy for concupiscence, incontinence would follow, and with it all the evils of jealousy, quarrels, illegitimacy, separation, or divorce. Further, the fostering of conjugal love tends both to the increase of offspring, and to its good bringing up when born.

Sensual pleasure for its own sake is not amongst the recognized reasons for the exercise of the marriage act. It passes away with its own satisfaction, and if indulged merely for that purpose has neither use nor dignity. As a matter of fact, it was made to minister to higher ends. It is a mere adjunct to the marriage act, intended to make it attractive for the benefit of the race. If, therefore, it is perverted and made an end in itself, and if its higher ends are excluded, then it defeats the aim of matrimony, it kills the love between husband and wife, it shirks the burden of children.

In order that sensual pleasure may be the servant and not the master of man it must be restrained. It must not be crushed or destroyed. That was the error of Manicheism and Buddhism. But it must be moderated so that it may remain as long as possible a help towards conjugal love, towards the normal satisfaction of the sexual appetite, and towards the procreation of a large and healthy family of children. To let it have its full fling is to lessen its keenness, to destroy its power, and to render it disgusting.

There can be no general law for everybody. What is excess for one pair may be moderation for another. What is moderation for one partner may be excess for the other. Each case must be judged according to its own circumstances.

In deciding this, the existence and the welfare of the offspring is the first consideration. Incontinence tells against the interests of the offspring. Each partner then has the duty of seeing that, as far as possible, the other shall not be exposed to this danger. For the sake of home and family, therefore, each one is bound to render the debt as often as reasonably asked.

For such a sacred purpose either partner should be willing to undergo serious inconvenience. Indeed, marriage is supposed to be fraught with serious inconveniences. These are love's opportunities, and love is given to overcome them. The cares of child-bearing are no excuse for the wife refusing consent, nor yet is the expense of the child's education an excuse for the husband refusing consent. Not even a difficult childbirth is a sufficient reason for refusing. The only justification for refusing is something so serious as to involve danger of death, or long painful illness. Complete debauchery will come within this category. Such excessive indulgence may so weaken a man's will as to render him liable to incontinence. In the interests of conjugal fidelity the wife would in such a case be justified in refusing.

The intention of this chapter, however, is to indicate counsel rather than precept, to point the way of the higher happiness rather than the lowest degree of strict justice. St. Paul is our inspired authority. In laying down his doctrine, he is careful to say that it is a mere recommendation and not a binding obligation.

Defraud not one another, except perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

In the first place, he defends the conjugal rights of each partner. The husband is not to take upon himself any extraordinary restraint without the consent of the wife, nor the wife without consent of the husband. The aim of restraint is to acquire a wider and deeper spiritual life. But to do so at the expense of another's rights is an act of injustice which of its very nature militates against the deeper life desired. God instituted marriage as a remedy for concupiscence. But to deny the right is to put the other partner in danger of incontinence. Such an act of injustice can only entail spiritual loss to all concerned, and become the source of discontent and unhappiness in the family circle.

Lawful restraint requires three conditions. First, it must be by mutual consent; secondly, it must be only for a limited time; and thirdly, it must be for the sake of a higher spiritual life.

All things have their season: a time to embrace and a time to be far from embraces.

And the time most fitted for this abstention is the time of solemn fast or feast.

Blow the trumpet in Sion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: let the bridegroom go forth from his bed, and the bride out of her bride-chamber.

The two observances are mutually helpful: the abstention promotes religion, and religion promotes restraint.

The Church makes no law about the times of this restraint. She recommends, however, that it be practiced at the times of the ecclesiastical fasts and festivals. At the end of the marriage service, the priest is directed so to admonish the bridal pair. Owing to the delicacy of the public conscience, this admonition is usually omitted. It remains, however, to be read privately by all those who will avail themselves of the wisdom of Mother Church.

The counsels of St. Paul and the Church are supported by the counsels of nature. Nature will allow a wide liberty, but she will rebel if she is over-taxed. It is astonishing how the race continues, considering the extent to which its reproductive powers are abused. But nature is both kind and strict. She gives ample warning as the limits of moderation are transgressed. If the excess be persistent and grave, she visits the offenders with grave chastisement.

The married pair, then, have the advantage of two guides, nature and religion. Nature will give the first warning against excess. The moderate exercise of the sexual life ought not to interfere with the working-life of either husband or wife. The strength of the weaker partner, then, will be the measure by which restraint is judged.

If the advice of the Church, too, be followed, it will be a strong help to the married couple to regulate their life within the bounds of physical fitness. To be explicit, the Church mentions the eves of all great festivals, and the seasons of Advent and Lent. But, once again, the rule is not one of obligation, but only one of counsel and can thus be changed to suit each one's individual needs.

This restraint is not accomplished by unaided nature. It is the result of a special grace of God which is conferred through the matrimonial Sacrament. The woman is the minister of grace to the man, and the man to the woman. Grace is given to accomplish all the ends of matrimony. But this restraint is needed for these ends. Therefore it will be supported by grace. Thus, the Catholic ideal is again seen to be the power making for family happiness. It tends to keep the parents in good health and consequently tends to produce a healthy offspring. In preventing excess, it prevents the married pair from becoming mere instruments of pleasure for each other, and consequently promotes a reverence and love which debauchery would destroy.

Now, although this abstention during ecclesiastical seasons is not of obligation, yet there are occasions when it is of obligation; and it will then be difficult to observe unless the non-obligatory restraint has been practiced.

Common decency demands that abstinence should be observed during the whole period of menstruation. The same must be said of the time immediately following childbirth. There is an idea prevalent, especially amongst the poorer classes, that it is bad luck to return to the married life until the woman has been churched. There is no rule of the Church to this effect. But it is a good custom, provided it is regarded merely as a custom and not adorned with the sanction of magic, of good luck, or bad luck.

Then comes the question of times of illness. For one partner there is danger of grave illness, whilst for the other there is danger of incontinency. Rather than expose a partner to the danger of sin, the other partner is bound to suffer grave inconvenience, but is not bound to go so far as to incur dangerous illness. It is difficult sometimes to draw the line, and wherever the line is drawn it means dissatisfaction for one or other of the parties concerned. How much better it would be, then, if both had practiced restraint when it was not of obligation! It would have produced a habit of mind and heart, by which the stronger partner would show a tender regard for the weaker. It would have become an effective expression of love, powerful to create a return love and thus to weld anew the marriage bond.

There may also arise the necessity of temporary separation on account of business. A commercial traveler may be away from home for months at a time. A sailor may be ordered abroad for a year or perhaps two. Whenever possible a man should take his wife with him on his travels. But since this, for many, is not practicable, the mind must be especially strengthened by the practice of restraint when it is not obligatory.

The plight of the very poor calls for special consideration. There are thousands upon thousands who have not got a living wage, yea, indeed, thousands upon thousands who have no wages at all. A poor dock-laborer of Liverpool, writing to me on various topics of the social question, thus very delicately tells his story. He says:

I will now touch briefly on the birthrate. Many good, earnest-minded men have often said of us workers that it was a crime for a man earning a small wage to marry and bring children into the world whose only heritage was one of poverty and want. Too well do we know with what anxiety the arrival of each little new-comer is looked forward to, as it means more to feed and clothe, while the earning power of the bread-winner is gradually growing less. But as the Church tells us that we are obeying the law of God, we may well ask 'Is it ever to be thus? Must we, in order to do what we were created for, commit a serious crime against our own offspring?' And in this dilemma we inquire: 'Which is the greater criminal, the working-man for obeying God's law, or he who is responsible for his condition in life and who prevents him from rearing his family in decency and comfort?' Although I look on little children as precious heirlooms sent from God, and with full knowledge that they beget happiness, could I be blamed should I advise my sons not to marry till late in life, or else refrain from marriage altogether; and so further restrict the birthrate, the decline of which is causing so much agitation throughout the country?

The writer is a good Catholic and so does not go so far as to suggest the artificial restriction within marriage. This evil, though, is closely bound up with the economic evil of which he speaks.

Let it be said at once, then, that poverty is no bar to the Sacrament of marriage. The poor are entitled to receive all the graces and all the joys which pertain to the marriage state, including the possession of children. Poverty in its extremity - destitution, that is - is a deplorable evil; but it is a mere trifle compared with the sins of incontinency which would surely follow if the poor were forbidden to marry. It is a mere trifle compared with that detestable sin against nature, the artificial restrictions of the birthrate.

Of course, there is no reason why young people should not abstain from marriage until they have a living wage, or, having married, abstain from the marriage act, provided this can be done without danger of incontinency. This course, indeed, may be profitably recommended and the Sacraments of the Church will be the best help in carrying it out. But Satan will be busy amongst those who try it. If it fails, marriage is the remedy in spite of all poverty, marriage and all the normal blessings of marriage, the procreation of children, the avoidance of incontinency, and the promotion of mutual love and affection. And if eventually the marriage is to be made ideal and despoiled of the stigma of destitution, it can only be by fidelity to the complete ideal of the Church, for it pertains to the complete ideal of the Church that a man should receive as much wages for his labor as will keep himself, his wife, and his family in reasonable and frugal comfort.

The sexual question, therefore, though largely a physical and economic one, is at bottom a religious one. The restraint needful for a happy marriage wants religious illumination and strength. The marriage bond has its likeness in the bond between Christ and the Church, namely, the bond of intense, strong love. The marriage bond is thus something quite distinct from lust. Lust seeks its own animal gratification, regardless of any other end but its own indulgence. Love, however, seeks the higher well-being. The love of the married pair, then, will be tender above all things. It will be selfless to a degree so that the weaker party has every consideration. Whatever sensual pleasure may be incidental to this love, all will be controlled and directed to the higher well-being of husband, wife, and children.

Crisis: Where Will the Synod Lead Us?

There's nothing like a strong cup of coffee and an equally strong shot of Catholic doctrine to wake you up in the morning. I just enjoyed both simultaneously.

Portal PCh24.pl released a video yesterday entitled Crisis: Where Will the Synod Lead Us? (Original: Kryzys: Dokąd zaprowadzi nas synod?) which contains strong words from three prominent prelates - Cardinal Raymond Burke, Archbishop Jan Lenga and Bishop Athanasius Schneider - on the issues surrounding the upcoming 2015 Synod. It's well worth your time, so pour yourself a cup and enjoy:

You might think - as do I, gentle reader - that the real coup d'état has already taken place in the recently released marriage annulment reform (can there remain any doubt as to why Cardinal Burke was removed from his post as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura?), and that the Synod, while it will offer certain factions the opportunity to push for the approval of their perverted views on human sexuality, has been orchestrated to divert attention away from the structural and legal reforms currently being undertaken and to ultimately result in a widespread sigh of relief to the tune of "Crisis averted!" So, seeing as it speaks to eventualities which, in all likelihood, will never materialize, why draw your attention to this video?

To remind you to thank God for the holy priests and bishops who have demonstrated the courage and conviction to stand up for the teachings of Our Lord, Jesus Christ (miserere nobis), in the face of a pernicious heresy, the threat of schism and even apostasy. To remind you that the battle is not lost, and that the situation is not hopeless. To remind you that, come what may, Christ has not and will never abandon His Church.

Of course, you know these things. But it doesn't hurt to be reminded of them now and again.

The Gospel of St. John

Reading N°32 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

St. John the Evangelist
Domenichino (1581-1648)

The fall of the Flavians was followed by a conservative reaction, from which the Christians profited. At Domitian's death, in 96, St. John returned from exile to Ephesus. There he had the consolation of being again in the society of Christians in which he had lived for about thirty years. This whole crowd of converts, some from the ranks of Judaism, some from paganism, were all more or less imbued with the same philosophical ideas that issued from Alexandria. The educated discussed abstract systems that were venturesome and obscure. Even the common people spoke the language of those ideas; and by that unfelt influence which descends from the heights of speculative science little by little into the practice of life, curious theories insinuated themselves into the popular beliefs.

Some people were making a distinction between Christ and Jesus, regarding the latter as a mere man, like other men. This theory had been taught especially by a certain mysterious personage, Cerinthus, whose life is almost entirely unknown to us. His views are recorded by St. Irenaeus.^[1]

Cerinthus seems to have been a native of Egypt. He was a Jew before his conversion. After becoming a Christian, he kept his narrow views, refusing to admit the catholic character of Christianity. If we are to accept St. Epiphanius' report,^[2] Cerinthus organized even around St. Paul a sort of opposition preaching for the purpose of maintaining the Christian religion in strict dependence on Judaism. But the Judaism to which Cerinthus held was that interpreted by Philo - a synthesis of pagan wisdom and Mosaic teaching. After travelling through Palestine, Syria, and Galatia, Cerinthus returned to Asia. He may have settled at Ephesus during St. John's exile. Here is a brief outline of his teaching:

So far is the supreme God raised above all things, that even the angels do not know Him. He is neither the Creator nor Lawmaker of the world. This function belongs to the angels. As for Jesus, He is the son of Joseph and Mary. At His baptism, a power of the supreme God descended upon Him and remained in Him until the Passion exclusive. This divine entity was the Christ. The power of the supreme God left Him during His Passion, but nevertheless He rose from the dead.^[3]

Did Cerinthus confine himself to teaching by word of mouth, or did he put his ideas in writing? Contemporary evidence is too vague on this point to allow us to decide. We know that he made devoted disciples among the Christians. Upon St. John's return to Ephesus, the heresy of the Cerinthians was a great peril for the Church. Polycarp relates that John, the disciple of the Lord, one day entered a bath at Ephesus and there saw the heresiarch; thereupon John ran out, crying: "Let us fly lest the baths fall in, since Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."^[4]

Besides Cerinthus, were there any forerunners of Docetism - later propounded by Saturninus, Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion - the error which holds that Jesus Christ had only an apparent body? Or did Cerinthus himself teach this heresy? It is impossible to say. But several passages of St. John's writings seem to have such a doctrine in mind.^[5]

However this may be, to refute the false notions that were circulating about the adorable person of the Savior, nothing could equal the testimony of him who had known the Master intimately, who had rested his head upon His breast the night before He died, and who had heard His last words on Calvary. St. John addressed to the Christians of Asia Minor, who had been converted from paganism, a letter which may be considered as a preface to the Gospel which he wrote later. This letter begins thus:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life. [...] That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.^[6]

These words indicate the aim of the Fourth Gospel: to show, as against the new heretics, the identity of Jesus of Nazareth with the eternal Son of God, the life and light of the world. The first three Gospels had given a glimpse of the eternal preexistence of Jesus Christ.^[7] St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Colossians, and later in the Epistle to the Hebrews, represented Christ as the sole revealer and sole mediator of the invisible Father.^[8] St. John's originality consisted in this, that, in the light of more intimate recollections and deeper supernatural illuminations, he made Christian revelation more precise on these points; and that, in his exposition, he ventured to use the abstract expressions of Oriental language, expressions that were common in the country where he was writing.

Soon afterward, St. John's Gospel appeared. It begins thus:

In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This term "Word" or Logos was in common use by the Alexandrian philosophers. But we would be quite mistaken if we therefore concluded that the Evangelist's thought is at all dependent upon a particular philosophy. In the philosophy of Philo, the word Logos means vaguely an organ of the divine power, although we cannot exactly say whether it is confounded with God or constitutes a distinct person; for other philosophers, this word signified either a being intermediate between the world and God, or divine reason spread forth in the world, or something entirely different. The Logos, for the Hellenists of the time, was the favorite word to express whatever is beautiful and harmonious and great. We may form an idea of this by considering what the eighteenth century philosophers put under the name of Reason, those of the nineteenth under the name of Science, those of the twentieth under the name of Life. The Apostle seized upon this word - he uses it only four times in all his writings - and declares to that Alexandrian world, seduced by all the grand things which that term suggested to them, that its ideal is fully realized only in this Jesus, whose witness he, John, is.^[9] And the Evangelist makes the idea of the Word, or Logos, more precise by means of the two clearer words, light and life:

The Word was with God. [...] In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.^[10]

The wonderful prologue containing these words so far surpasses the ordinary conceptions of the human mind as to dazzle and astound it. This son of thunder does not speak a human language; he flashes lightning, he thunders, he stuns, he humbles every created mind under the obedience of the faith, when, by a rapid flight, cleaving the air and piercing the clouds and rising above the angels, he intones these words: "In the beginning was the Word."^[11]

Once the theologian has set forth the grand concept we should have of Jesus Christ, the part of the witness begins. St. John's aim in writing his Gospel is evidently to prove the faith; but he wishes to prove it by history, chiefly by that which he knows in a more personal way. He is not at pains to harmonize his account with that of the preceding Evangelists. As a rule John records the events in the order of their happening; and nevertheless it is possible to note a progressive movement in the march of ideas, which warrants the division of the Holy Book into three parts. The first recounts the various greetings accorded by the world to the Light bestowed on it by the Incarnate Word;^[12] the second describes the implacable resistance it met with from the creatures of Darkness;^[13] the third describes the eclipse of the Light, but only an apparent eclipse, since from it Jesus emerges in a more striking manifestation of His Divinity: His love attaining its climax in the Eucharist and the sacrifice on the Cross.^[14] "None but God could have loved so greatly as this."^[15]

The Fourth Gospel seems to flow in a single stream. The events and discourses connect, explain, and supplement each other in a magnificent unity. Everything in it is lifelike and glowing; the events are intermingled with dialogue and animated retort, with realistic interruptions; the actors of the story seem to live again in its pages. Even the abstract ideas take on a body, and the most material events evoke supernatural realities. The Savior's features appear more lifelike than in the Synoptic Gospels; the inner depths of His soul are more clearly revealed. The Apostle, writing his narrative after a long interval, "recording conversations and discourses that he did not write down on the spot, subjects these conversations and discourses to certain literary transformations," by giving them "a personal stamp of his own in the construction of phrases and the grouping of ideas."^[16] Yet it is quite natural to think that the beloved disciple was able to attain to deeper realities than the other Evangelists, either by the more intimate confidences which his divine Friend may have bestowed on him, or because a more ardent love made it easier for him to understand and remember, or because a half-century of intense mystical life revealed to him more clearly a saying at first imperfectly understood.^[17]

The appearance of St. John's Gospel was one of the greatest events in the early Church. It occurred about the year 98.^[18] The Evangelist accomplished his purpose. Without any direct controversy or specific mention of the heresy, by a simple mention of the opposite facts,^[19] which he himself had witnessed, he reduced to nothing all the affirmations of Cerinthus. Thereafter, in the teaching of the faithful, the influence of this book was immense. Eusebius says: "It is read in all the churches under heaven."^[20] Some heretics tried to make it serve their own purpose; others fought it with all their might. Especially in Alexandria it occasioned many metaphysical speculations. Eusebius speaks of "a school of sacred learning" or didascalia, founded in Alexandria at an early date.^[21] This was the germ of the famous school on which Clement of Alexandria and Origen shed such incomparable luster. It was the beginning of a new phase in the history of the Church. In Jerusalem, Christianity appears as a brotherhood, with St. James the Less as its father; at Antioch, it appears as a propaganda, with St. Paul as its chief champion; at Rome, it declares itself as a government, with St. Peter as the head; at Alexandria, it presents itself as a philosophy, with St. John as its doctor. These were, however, merely diverse aspects, successive adaptations, of a doctrine always one, always identical: for it to enlarge and develop was simply to succeed in fathoming the Master's teaching more and more deeply.

The story of St. John's last years has not been recorded; it is lost in fanciful legend, with which the Gnostics embellished it. What we can accept as a truthful detail is the continuance of his amiable kindness. All the traditions represent him as a kindly man advanced in years, summing up all his teaching in one saying:

My little children, let us love not in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth.^[22]

These same traditions are agreed in saying that his death was as gentle as falling asleep.^[23] His tomb soon became an object of universal veneration. Today, upon the ruins of the city of Ephesus, it is thought that traces of it are to be found on the side of a hill where eight or ten poor families are living together; and the memory of the great Apostle survives in the name of the little village which these families have founded, Aya Suluk, the place of the "Holy Theologian" (aghiou apostolou).^[24]

Tomb of St. John the Apostle in Ephesus. The Basilica which once stood over
the tomb was abandoned after the Seljuk conquest of the 13th century, with the
remains being completely burned and destroyed during the Mongol raids of 1402.

Footnotes

[1] St. Irenaeus, Haereses, I, xxvi, 1.

[2] St. Epiphanius, Haereses, XXVIII, 2-4.

[3] St. Irenaeus, III, xi, 7. On Cerinthus, cf. idem, I, xxvi, 1; Tertullian, De praescr., 48.

[4] Eusebius, H. E., IV, xiv, 6.

[5] John 1:14; 19:34; 1 John 1:1; 4:3; 2 John 7.

[6] 1 John 1:1.

[7] Mark 12:35-37; Matt. 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44.

[8] Coloss. 1:13-20; Heb. 1:2 f.; 7:6; 9:15; 12:24. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:6.

[9] On the comparison of Philo's Logos with the Logos of St. John, see Lebreton, Les Origines du dogme de Ia Trinité, I, 515-523.

[10] Anyone who will consult a Concordance, under the words "light" and "life," will be impressed with the important place which these two ideas hold in St. John's Gospel.

[11] Cf. Bossuet, Elévations sur les mystères, 7th edition.

[12] John 1-4.

[13] John 5-12.

[14] John 12-20. The last chapter, undoubtedly added as an afterthought, presents a somewhat different point of view.

[15] Fouard, St. John, p. 176.

[16] Lepin, art. "Evangiles", in the Dict. apol. de la foi catholique.

[17] Fouard (St. John, p. 175) admits as probable that other hands cooperated with St. John in the editing of his recollections. Calmes (Comment se sont formes les Evangiles, pp. 5-7, and L'Evangile selon saint Jean, Introduction) is willing to consider rather broadly the part of St. John's disciples in the editing of his Gospel. But, on any supposition, these authors maintain that the whole Gospel reproduces the Apostle's thought. Even with this restriction, the hypothesis admitted by Fouard and Calmes seems to us improbable. The perfect unity of plan and style to be observed in the Fourth Gospel does not easily comport with the supposition of a plurality of collaborators; unless these latter be regarded as simple scribes, passive secretaries, solely engaged in rendering with scrupulous care the thoughts and expressions of the Apostle - which would fundamentally be a return to the traditional thesis. (On the history of the Fourth Gospel, see Levesque, Nos quatre evangiles.)

[18] Probably the Apostle had begun to write his Gospel during his exile at Patmos, or even earlier, and it was merely the reproduction and orderly arrangement of his habitual preaching.

[19] Cf. Döllinger, The First Age of Christianity and the Church, I, 192.

[20] Eusebius, H. E., III, xxiv, 2. On the Gospel of St. John, see Corluy, Commentarium in Evangelium S. Joannis; Knabenbauer, ibidem; Lepin, La Valeur historique du quatrième Evangile; Nouvelle, L'Authenticité du quatrième Evangile.

[21] Eusebius, H. E. V, x, 1.

[22] 1 John 3:18.

[23] Zahn, Acta Johannis, p. 256.

[24] Le Camus, Voyage aux pays bibliques, III, 132 ff.

***

Join the discussion at:

Oaths

Twenty-Eighth in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by
 Fr. John H. Stapleton

The first quality of an oath is that it be true. It is evident that every statement we make, whether simple or sworn, must be true. If we affirm what we know to be false we lie, if we swear to what we know to be false, we perjure ourselves. Perjury is a sacrilegious falsehood, and the first sin against the Second Commandment.

If, while firmly believing it to be true, what we swear to happens to be false, we are not guilty of perjury, for the simple reason that our moral certitude places us in good faith, and good faith guarantees us against offending. The truth we proclaim under oath is relative, not absolute, subjective rather than objective, that is to say, the statement we make is true as far as we are in a position to know. All this holds good before the bar of conscience, but it may be otherwise in the courts where something more than personal convictions, something more akin to scientific knowledge, is required.

He who swears without sufficient certitude, without a prudent examination of the facts of the question, through ignorance that must be imputed to his guilt, that one takes a rash oath - a sin great or small according to the gravity of the circumstances. It is not infrequently grievous.

Some oaths, instead of being statements, are promises - sworn promises. That of which we call God to witness the truth is not something that is, but something that will be. If one promises under oath, and has no intention of redeeming his pledge; or if he afterwards revokes such an intention without serious reasons, and fails to make good his sworn promise, he sins grievously, for he makes a fool and a liar of Almighty God who acts as sponsor of a false pledge. Concerning temperance pledges, it may here be said that they are simple promises made to God, but not being sworn to, are not oaths in any sense of the word.

Then, again, to be lawful, an oath must be necessary or useful, demanded by the glory of God, our own or our neighbor's good; and it must be possible to fulfill the promise within the given time. Otherwise, we trifle with a sacred thing, we are guilty of taking vain and unnecessary oaths. There can be no doubt but that this is highly offensive to God, who is thus made little of in His holy name.

This is the most frequent offense against the Second Commandment, the sin of profane swearing, the calling upon God to witness the truth of every second word we utter. It betrays in a man a very weak sense of his own honesty when he cannot let his words stand for themselves. It betokens a blasphemous disrespect for God Himself, represented by that name which is made a convenient tool to further every vulgar end. It is therefore criminal and degrading, and the guilt thereby incurred cannot be palliated by the plea of habit. A sin is none the less a sin because it is one of a great many. Vice is criminal. The victim of a vice can be considered less guilty only on condition of seriously combating that vice. Failing in this, he must bear the full burden of his guilt.

Are we bound to keep our oaths? If valid, we certainly are. An oath is valid when the matter thereof is not forbidden or illicit. The matter is illicit when the statement or promise we make is contrary to right. He who binds himself under oath to do evil, not only does not sin in fulfilling his pledge, but would sin if he did redeem it. The sin he thus commits may be mortal or venial according to the gravity of the matter of the oath. He sinned in taking the oath; he sins more grievously in keeping it.

The binding force of an oath is also destroyed by fraud and deception. Fear may have a kindred effect, if it renders one incapable of a human act. Likewise a former oath may annul a subsequent oath under certain conditions.

Again, no man in taking an oath intends to bind himself to anything physically or morally impossible, or forbidden by his superiors; he expects that his promise will be accepted by the other party, that all things will remain unchanged, that the other party will keep faith, and that there will be no grave reason for him to change his mind. In the event of any of these conditions failing of fulfillment his intention is not to be held by his sworn word, and his oath is considered invalidated. He is to be favored in all doubts and is held only to the strict words of his promise.

The least, therefore, we have to do with oaths, the better. They are things too sacred to trifle with. When necessity demands it, let our swearing honor the Almighty by the respect we show His holy name.

Between Husband and Wife

Sixth in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

There is a very old Hindu legend in which the making of the first woman is described in this wise. When the creator Twashtri had made man, he gathered together a million contradictory elements, and out of them he made a woman whom he presented to the man. After eight days the man became dissatisfied. "My lord," he said, "the creature you gave me poisons my existence. She babbles unceasingly, she takes all my time, she grumbles at nothing, and is always ill." So Twashtri took the woman away. But after another eight days the man became again uneasy. "My lord," he said, "my life is very solitary since I returned this creature." So Twashtri gave him the woman back again. This time, however, only three days had gone by when the man came once more to the god. "My lord," he said, "I do not know how it is, but somehow the woman gives me more annoyance than pleasure. I beg of you to take her away." But Twashtri would not. "Go and do your best," he said. "But I cannot live with her," cried the man. "Neither can you live without her," cried the god. " Woe is me!" mourned the man," I can neither live with nor without her."

Since that story was written, thousands upon thousands have felt the conflicting experience which the story expresses. The underlying truth is that, when man and woman are joined together in matrimony, neither of them is perfect. It is their mutual life and constant adjustment of mind and heart, under the influence of matrimonial grace, which is to make them perfect. Marriage is one of the means of their salvation. Let us refer to St. Paul to see how the grace acts. He touches two sensitive nerves when he says: "Wives, be obedient to your husbands as you should be in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter toward them."

Doubtless, the Apostle was writing to correct certain abuses prevalent among the people to whom he wrote. He was not necessarily giving a full and comprehensive description of the marriage ideal. Forgetting this, many people have misunderstood the Apostle's words, especially that portion of them which speaks of the obedience of wives. How many women there are now who, reading the epistle in the light of present day abuses, "cannot stand that man Paul!" Let our consideration, then, be confined to these two virtues of conjugal relationship, love and obedience, for it is the failure to appreciate their true nature which issues in multitudes of other evils, affecting not only individual families, but communities, nations, nay, the whole human race.

"Husbands, love your wives."

The Apostle is evidently referring to a neglect on the part of the husbands. He is not talking as if love were to be a one-sided affair. The very nature of love requires that it should be reciprocal, and should exist at least between two persons. The ideal love requires three persons. In God, it is the love of the blessed Trinity. In the religious, it is the love of God and of one's neighbor. In the family, it Is the love of husband, wife, and child. The love between two is the inchoate and root love which issues in the perfect love between three. The love of the Father and the Son issues in the personal Spirit of Love. A religious must love God before she can love her neighbor. Husband and wife must love each other before they can love their children perfectly. It often happens that a wife who is without a husband's love can take refuge in the love of her children. But she can love her children more when she knows that she possesses also the love of their father.

The nature of man and woman, however, is such that the love of the man toward the woman needs a more careful watching, a more careful cultivation. A woman's love is as a torrent which is always flowing. It has been used even by God as one of the most forceful analogies by which to make men realize His love for mankind. It is of its nature so generous and so constant as to overshadow that other endowment of woman: her intelligence.

The difference, however, between the two faculties - the faculty of loving and the faculty of thinking - is not so great as has been frequently supposed. In our endeavor to emphasize the quality of a woman's love we may not undervalue her intelligence. We must ever remember that woman is essentially a rational being just as man is. She herself is beginning to realize this all the world over. One of the most remarkable phenomena of the age is the movement for the emancipation of women. While admitting and asserting then the claims of woman's intelligence, we cannot overlook the fact that it is in affairs of the heart that she is the stronger.

On the other hand, it is, ordinarily speaking, the lot of the man to be the breadwinner of the family. He it is who must use his brains in the learned professions, in commerce, in the arts, and in the crafts.

There are exceptions. Oftentimes the wife is the brains of the family. Half of the teaching profession consists of women. But the lady doctor, the lady dentist, and the lady professor, usually find it more convenient to retire from their professions whenever they enter the state of matrimony. And simply because man is the working brains of the family, his faculty of loving needs a special culture. He has so many outlets for his attention that, if he does not take the greatest care, his love which should be devoted to his wife and family is absorbed in his business or other intellectual pursuit.

The lines upon which the cultivation of a husband's love should take place will be decided according to the character and dispositions of the wife. Generally, however, it must have the three qualities of being affectionate, practical, and exclusive.

It must be first of all affectionate. The double affection of a woman for her children and her husband springs from the same affectionate nature. If it is to flourish, it must be fed. The need must be satisfied or it will shrivel away. There is a tendency among men to regard the time of courtship as the time of poetry, and the time of marriage as the time of prose. And there is an axiom among women that they are to expect about half as much affection after marriage as before. It is very sad that it should be so, although it may be excusable. There are far more cares in the married state than in the single, which, of their very nature, tend to take the poetry out of life. It has been divinely foretold that such shall have trouble in the flesh. But it need not be so bad as it is. Nay, the very cares which tend to lessen the affection ought to be the occasion of its increase. To cultivate such affection requires an active will and a keen intelligence. The man ought to be a man. That is, he ought not to allow himself to be moved merely by his passions and feelings. He ought to use his intelligence to find out what little acts of sympathy, kindness, interest, and attention affect his wife's feelings toward himself. Then he ought to put forth a strong will in the frequent repetition of such acts. It is extremely beautiful when an old Darby and Joan can look back on a married life of, say, forty years, and tell you with a knowing smile that they have not yet finished courting. They have learnt the secret of cultivating affection, of seizing upon adversity only as an occasion for deeper sympathy, of studying each other's likes and dislikes, of saying the word which gives pleasure, of avoiding the word which gives pain.

Secondly, a husband's love must be practical. Here, again, it is a question of external attractions against the attraction of the wife at home. Some men there are so absorbed in their business or profession as to regard their wife and home as a mere accident in life. Their business is not, as it were, a means of keeping one's self, wife, and family in comfort, but rather the wife and the family are the means of carrying on the business. Or, again, the counter-attraction may be only low pleasures, the pleasure of company, the pleasure of the club, the pleasure of the public-house. All are violations of the practical love due from husband to wife. Frequently the wife can just tolerate them, provided she gets the affection. But that is only because by nature she has such a strong affection. Nevertheless, a prolonged neglect of the practical side of a husband's love must wear out a wife's affection, and then there is an end of all love, the family life is broken and the strength of society is sapped at its foundations. The husband's practical love of his wife, therefore - his care for her dress, her housekeeping, her health, her pleasures - has consequences reaching much further than would appear at first sight. His affection must be translated into action, else he fails in one of the greatest duties of his manhood.

Thirdly, a husband's love must be exclusive. The Christian dispensation in forbidding polygamy shows how much more it is in conformity with the laws of human nature than the other religions which allow plurality of wives. If there is one instinct which is paramount in woman it is that the love given to her by her husband must be exclusive. And what the law of nature demands the law of revelation confirms and sanctions. The Christian wife cannot for a moment tolerate the idea which prevails in the Mormon or the Mohammedan social systems.

Even more peremptory is the law of nature against the crime of adultery. Nowhere, however, are these laws of nature more carefully protected than in the Catholic Church. She has had twenty centuries' experience of human nature. She knows quite well that those laws cannot be observed by merely forbidding the grosser sins of adultery or polygamy. One does not fall into those sins suddenly, while leading an otherwise pure and blameless life. The way is prepared by a series of seemingly less harmful sins, the unchaste thought, the unchaste look, the unchaste word. Therefore it is that, in the matter of purity, the Church brands as mortal sin even the lesser faults when deliberately committed.

The true Christian husband, then, will not be content with merely guarding against sin. He will strive all he can in the opposite direction. He will avoid even innocent attentions to others which may possibly give displeasure to his wife. He will make it a special study and effort that his wife shall realize that she is the only one who has any attraction for him. If this habit of thought and action be sedulously cultivated it will bear fruit on both sides. The mutual love between husband and wife will be so strong and constant as to leave no room for jealousy, for such love is strong as death, and actually is the death of that jealousy which would be hard as hell.

What has been said of a husband's love applies equally to a wife's love. It must be affectionate, practical, and exclusive. Although these qualities are ordinarily found more pronounced and more natural in the wife than in the husband, yet even the wife cannot afford to leave them to natural impulse. She also must cultivate them, must watch them, must seek out opportunities of giving them free and healthy exercise. There is only a slight difference in their order. Bending to the nature of the man, instead of making her love first affectionate, then practical, then exclusive, she will simply reverse the order, so that her love shall be first exclusive, then practical, and then affectionate.

"Wives, be obedient to your husbands in the Lord."

Like all other social movements, the movement for the emancipation of women is fraught with the danger of rushing into the opposite error of that which is to be remedied. Impotent of discernment, the agitator will purge away both the dross and the gold together. Especially in this question of the obedience of wives to husbands will he, or rather she, persist in confusing the true obedience with false, in condemning an obedience which no Christian wife is supposed to render.

Let us see then what is conjugal obedience. No one will deny that in some sense the husband is the head of the family. Man was made first, and made lord of the earth. In his overlordship, he was lonely and had need of a helpmeet for him. To this end was a woman taken from his flesh and bone and given to him to be his wife. She was not to be reckoned, among the rest of creation, as part of the man's goods and chattels. Nor yet was she to be reckoned above man. Nor yet again was she to be reckoned as fulfilling the same office as man. She was to be his complement, helping him in those things for which by nature he was unsuited. He was to be the strong element, she the gentle. He was to be her protector; she was to find her joy in the sense of the security of his protection. Obviously, then, she was meant to yield, at least to some extent, to his overlordship. The only question is as to what extent.

We all know the distinction between servile and filial obedience. The one is the obedience of slaves, informed by the motive of fear; the other is the obedience of sons, informed by the motive of love. So, likewise, there is a distinction between servile obedience and conjugal obedience. The obedience of wives is as much raised above that of sons as that of sons is above that of slaves. Doubtless there have been many husbands who have demanded of their wives the obedience of a slave. And doubtless such husbands are largely responsible for much of the present misunderstanding of the nature and limits of wifely obedience. Broadly speaking, we may say that the obedience of the wife is due to the husband only within certain limits. It is not absolute. It is due to him in all those matters where it is evident that he must rule. It is not due to him in those matters where it is evident that the wife must rule.

All matters of business, everything which seriously affects the income of the family, the choice of trades or professions for the children: these evidently belong to the judgment of the husband. The wife may be, and ought to be, frequently consulted. But, having expressed her opinion, she ought to abide by the decision of the head of the family. On the other hand, the interior domestic arrangements pertain to the judgment of the wife. The management of servants and babies, for instance, are points upon which the husband should have nothing to say, except perhaps when he is asked, or when he divines that his suggestion will meet with his' wife's approval. And a wife would be acting well within her rights were she to resent any interference in these matters.

Hard and fast rules, however, cannot be laid down. Much depends upon the temperament of individuals and the force of circumstances. If a man has failed in business, say three times, and eventually has to depend on his wife's dowry for a livelihood, or upon another business built up by his wife, then he cannot expect to have the same authority as one possessing the full complement of manhood.

Again, no obedience is due to him when he is obviously demanding something contrary to divine law. To require a wife to give up any of her religious duties as a Catholic, to ask her to do something which is against any of the Ten Commandments: these are occasions when she not only may, but must disobey. In all cases of doubt, however, the presumption is in favor of the husband.

Above all things, however, the obedience must have its foundation in mutual love. Unless there is present that determination to love each other through thick and thin, through success and through adversity, through life and through death, it will be useless to try to decide by argument who has the right to command and who the duty to obey. The love in marriage is a great mystery, and he who would reduce it to mechanical laws must possess a higher knowledge than that ever yet possessed by mere man.

Pope St. Clement

Reading N°31 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

Pope St. Clement (92-99)

The Church is more than a society guided by a common inspiration: it is a hierarchical organization with a supreme authority to regulate its operation and to decide disputes. At the very hour when persecution and heresy were increasing their ravages, a painful quarrel broke out in the Christian community at Corinth. Following certain troubles, the precise cause of which we do not know, some members of the councilor presbyters were deposed. In a city like Corinth, disorder may assume very serious proportions. The Greek spirit, naturally particularistic and fickle, found it hard to submit to the fundamental law of Christianity, which established its hierarchy on the unity of doctrine and government. Thirty years earlier, St. Paul was obliged to administer a sharp reprimand to the Corinthians, who were saying: "I am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas,"^[1] as they might have said: "I belong to the Porch, or to the Lyceum, or to the Academy." The schism threatened to rend the Church. To prevent this, there was need for something besides the exhortations of a doctor or prophet; the situation called for the decision of a supreme chief and sovereign judge. This is why recourse was had to the successor of the Apostle Peter, to Clement of Rome.

The Roman Pontiff wrote them a letter wherein, along with an admirable spirit of prudence, there appears the consciousness of undeniable authority. He begins by excusing himself for not having intervened sooner. He says:

Owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have befallen us, we consider that our attention has been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you.^[2]

This is evidently a reference to the persecution of Domitian. Then the head of the Roman Church enters clearly upon the capital question: the necessity of humble submission to the order established by God in all things, and principally in His Church.

Let us be humble-minded, brethren, putting aside all arrogance and conceit. [...] Let not the wise man boast himself in his wisdom. Let him boast in the Lord, to seek Him out and to do judgment and righteousness.^[3]

But to be just and righteous is to bow before the order and harmony that God has establislled in all things.

The ocean and the worlds beyond it are ruled by the same injunctions of the Master. The seasons of spring, summer, autumn, and winter give place to one another in peace. [...] All these things did the great Creator and Master of the universe ordain to be in peace and concord.^[4]

This comparison, taken from the harmony of the physical world, which the Greeks called the Kosmos, or order par excellence, was particularly well chosen. Clement pushes his argument farther. He takes his analogies from the human body and the social organization.

Let us take our body; the head is nothing without the feet; likewise the feet are nothing without the head.^[5]

He recalls that, in the Old Testament, God, the direct author of the Law, instituted a hierarchy composed of four degrees: the laity, the Levites, the priests, and the high priest.^[6]

The Apostles received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent from God. They appointed their first converts to be bishops and deacons.^[7]

The bishop of Rome in fine compares the ecclesiastical discipline to military discipline.

Let us consider those who serve our generals. [...] Not all are prefects nor tribunes nor centurions nor in charge of fifty men, or the like, but each carries out in his own rank the commands of the emperor and of the generals.^[8]

We know how inclined St. Paul was to use these military comparisons.^[9] But Christians are something more than an army. Clement says they are also "the flock of Christ,"^[10] or, better still, "the members of Christ."^[11] The flock should be at peace under the safekeeping of the presbyters;^[12] the members of Christ's body should not be torn asunder.^[13] The consequences that follow from these principles are solid and clear:

Let no one rebel against correction.^[14] [...] Let all submit to the presbyters.^[15] [...] Let the offerings be made and the ceremonies be performed, not according to each one's pleasure and without order, but as the Master commands and at fixed hours.^[16]

The pontiff sums up the whole instruction, saying:

Let us put aside empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition.^[17]

The letter closes with these lines, in a spirit of calm but firm authority:

You will give us joy and gladness if you are obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, and root out the wicked passion of your jealousy. [...] We have sent faithful and prudent men, who have lived among us without blame from youth to old age, and they shall be witnesses between you and us. We have done this that you may know that our whole care has been and is directed to your speedy attainment of peace.^[18]

Whether we consider this spontaneous act of Rome in itself or whether we weigh the terms of the letter, we cannot escape the impression that, as early as the end of the first century of the Christian era, i.e., about fifty years after her foundation, the Roman Church was conscious of possessing supreme and exceptional authority, which she will never cease hereafter to claim. But how did the Corinthians receive the exhortations and the messengers of the Church of Rome? So well, that St. Clement's Epistle was placed by them almost on a level with the Holy Scriptures. Seventy years later,^[19] it was still read on Sundays in the assemblies of the faithful.^[20]

By the fullness and reliability of its teaching, St. Clement's letter deserved the honors given it in the first centuries. Although it recalls the truths of the faith only in passing and insofar as they are related to the practical purpose of the letter, those truths are a sort of portrayal of the Christian beliefs in their main lines. The author appeals in turn to God's supreme authority and His creative power, to His providence, and to His love.^[21] The last judgment, Heaven, and the resurrection of the dead are presented as the final end of man;^[22] Christ, as man's divine model. The Son of God, equal to the Father and the Spirit by His divine nature, became man like us to save us by His death.^[23] Through Him, our high priest and our advocate with God the Father, man, aided by grace and making his faith fruitful by his works, has hope of being saved.^[24]

In testimony of the bonds, which in the Church have ever united the law of belief and the law of prayer,^[25] dogma and liturgy, the Pontiff inserts in his letter a solemn formula of prayer which we may regard, if not as the official formula of liturgical prayer of that time, at least as a specimen of the way the celebrants developed the subject of Eucharistic prayer:

Thou dost humble the pride of the haughty, thou dost destroy the imaginings of nations [...] thou dost slay and make alive [...] and art God of all flesh [...] thou dost multiply nations upon earth and hast chosen out from them all those that love thee through Jesus Christ thy beloved child. [...] We beseech thee, Master, to be our help and succor. [...] Feed the hungry, ransom our prisoners, raise up the weak. [...] O merciful and compassionate, forgive us our iniquities and unrighteousness, and transgressions and shortcomings. Reckon not every sin of thy servants and handmaids. [...] Give concord and peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth. [...] Thou, Master, hast given the power of sovereignty to them [our rulers and governors]. [...] And to them, Lord, grant health, peace, concord, firmness. [...] Direct their counsels according to that which is good and pleasing before thee. [...] O thou who alone art able to do these things and far better things for us, we praise thee through Jesus Christ, the high priest and guardian of our souls, through whom be glory and majesty to thee, both now and for all generations and for ever and ever. Amen.^[26]

Such is the beautiful prayer that ascended to God from the Christian assemblies of Rome, like a hymn of serene peace and unspeakable purity, after Domitian's persecution, in the midst of that "corrupted and corruptive" society, whose baseness and cruelty are recounted by the pens of Tacitus and Suetonius.^[27]

Footnotes

[1] Cf. 1 Cor. 1:12.

[2] Clement, First Epistle, 1:1.

[3] Ibidem, 13:1.

[4] Ibidem, 20:8-11.

[5] Ibidem, 37:5.

[6] Ibidem, 40:5.

[7] Ibidem, 62:1, 4.

[8] Ibidem, 37:2 f.

[9] Cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-6; Ephes. 6:10-18; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 TIm. 2:3.

[10] Clement, First Epistle, 54:2.

[11] Ibidem, 46:7.

[12] Ibidem, 54:2.

[13] Ibidem, 46:7.

[14] Ibidem, 56:2.

[15] Ibidem, 57:1.

[16] Ibidem, 40:2.

[17] Ibidem, 7:2.

[18] Ibidem, 63:2-4.

[19] Cf. Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, H. E., IV, xxiii.

[20] Cf. Duchesne, The Churches Separated from Rome, p. 85.

[21] Clement, First Epistle, Chapters 19, 23, 29, 35.

[22] Cf. Chapters 5, 24, 25, 26, 50.

[23] Cf. Chapters 2, 7, 12, 31, 32, 35, 49.

[24] Cf. Chapters 7, 8, 16, 18, 32, 33, 35.

[25] According to the well-known formula: lex orandi, lex credendi.

[26] Clement, First Epistle, Chapters 59 to 61. This letter was widely known and greatly venerated in Christian antiquity. But it seems to have been neglected in the West from the fourth century onward. In the Middle Ages, it was altogether unknown. In the seventeenth century, it was partly recovered in the famous Codex Alexandrinus. Bryennios, in 1875, reconstructed the entire text. The beautiful prayer quoted above forms a part of recently discovered fragments.

[27] "Corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur." (Tacitus, Germania, 19.)

***

Join the discussion at: