Petition: Synod Walkout

Esteemed Synod Fathers,

We thank you for your witness to and defense of the truth of Matrimony and Family proclaimed by the Church, in fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Ordinary Synod on the Family continues its work, confusion and scandal spread among the faithful. Catholics are concerned that some members of this body of apostolic successors, under the guidance of the Pope, are seeking to endorse homosexual relationships, effectively question the indissolubility of marriage, and permit the distribution of the Holy Eucharist to the unrepentant.

The current Instrumentum Laboris contains language in certain sections (§ 122 (52); §§ 124-125 (53); §§ 130-132 (55-56)) that is completely unacceptable from an orthodox Catholic point of view regarding divorce and attempted remarriage, homosexuality, and contraception. We have witnessed with profound sorrow the ongoing development of this crisis, beginning with last year’s extraordinary session in October, 2014, making it difficult to have confidence in the outcome of the Synod.  

The irregular changes to the rules governing the current synodal process practically assure that the existing Instrumentum Laboris will be largely adopted. This revised process also appears to reject openness, transparency, and collegiality, and the committee drafting the final document of the Synod seemingly rejects any substantive input from the Synod fathers. We note with regret that the highly visible and widely adopted filial appeals and open letters have not been acknowledged, and have produced no discernible amendment by the Synod organizers. Several high-ranking Cardinals have brought concerns to the Pope, only to have them summarily dismissed as unworthy of consideration – with unfair accusations against those who are legitimately concerned that their voices will not be heard.

We fear, evidenced by all of the above, that the Ordinary Synod will attempt to recommend changes in teaching and pastoral practice that are contrary to the Gospel of Christ and the constant teaching of the Church on the sacred mystery of Catholic marriage and the nature of human sexuality. This would pose a clear and present danger to souls.

The Code of Canon Law 212 §3 states that the Catholic faithful “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful…”  

Therefore, we faithfully request that each and every faithful Catholic bishop at the Synod, having made every effort to resist these attacks on Christ’s teaching, if its direction remains unaltered and those faithful voices remain unheard, do his sacred duty and publicly retire from any further participation in the Synod before its conclusion so as to prevent greater scandal and confusion.

Those bishops who remain as participants, accepting this process and its outcome, must certainly bear responsibility for whatever confusion and sin may result among the Catholic faithful from what would be the disastrous fruits of the Synod.

***

To sign the petition, go to: SYNOD WALKOUT at change.org

Synod 2015: 2nd German Language Group Report (English)

Moderator: Card. SCHÖNBORN, O.P. Christoph

Relator: S.E. Mons. KOCH Heiner

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

We extensively discussed the notions - repeatedly understood as opposites - of mercy and truth, grace and justice, and their theological relationship to one another. In God, they are not opposites: because God is love, justice and mercy become one in God. The mercy of God is the fundamental truth of revelation - one which does not stand opposed to other truths of revelation. Rather, it opens to us their deepest foundation, as it tells us why God revealed Himself in His Son and why Jesus Christ remains in His Church through His Word and His Sacraments for our salvation. The mercy of God thus opens to us the foundation and the goal of the entire work of salvation. The justice of God is His mercy, with which He makes us just.

We also considered the consequences of this interplay for our accompaniment of marriages and families. It precludes a one-sided, deductive hermeneutic which subsumes concrete situations under a general principle. According to Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent, fundamental principles are to be applied with prudence and wisdom to the particular, often complex situation - whereby we are concerned not with exceptions to which God's word does not apply, but rather with the question of the fair and equitable application of Jesus' words - for example, His words regarding the indissolubility of marriage - in prudence and wisdom. Thomas Aquinas underscores the necessity of such a concretizing application, for example, where he writes: "To prudence belongs not only the consideration of the reason, but also the application to action, which is the end of the practical reason." (S. Th. II. ii. 47:3: "ad prudentiam pertinet non solum consideratio rationis, sed etiam applicatio ad opus, quae est finis practicae rationis").

Another aspect of our discussion was that spoken of frequently, particularly in the third chapter of the second part, i.e. the gradual leading of people to the Sacrament of Marriage, from non-binding relationships, to cohabiting unmarried couples, to couples married civilly, to those in a valid, sacramental marriage recognized by the Church. To accompany those who find themselves at these various stages is a great pastoral challenge, but also a delight.

It also became clear to us that, in many discussions and observations, we are too static and give the biographical-historical dimension too little thought. Historically, the Church's teaching on marriage has developed and deepened. Initially, it was about humanizing marriage, which manifested in the conviction for monogamy. In the light of the Christian faith, the personal dignity of spouses was better recognized and the imago Dei was clearly perceived in the relationship between husband and wife. In a next step, the ecclesial dimension of marriage was deepened, and it was understood as the domestic church. Finally, the Church became explicitly aware of the sacramentality of marriage. This historic path of deepening is also apparent in the biographies of many individuals today. First, they are touched by the human dimension of marriage; they allow themselves to be convinced of the Christian view of marriage in the habitat [Lebensraum] of the Church and thus find their way to a celebration of the Sacrament of Marriage. Just as the historical development of the ecclesial doctrine required time, so must the Church's pastoral approach allow time for the people of today to mature along their path towards sacramental marriage, and stop acting according the principle of "all or nothing." Here, the notion of a "step-by-step process" (FC §9) towards the present [auf die Gegenwart hin] should be further developed. The foundation for this was laid by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio: "The Church's pastoral concern will not be limited only to the Christian families closest at hand; it will extend its horizons in harmony with the Heart of Christ, and will show itself to be even more lively for families in general and for those families in particular which are in difficult or irregular situations." (FC §65) The Church thus stands in an inescapable field of tension between a necessary clarity of doctrine regarding marriage and family on the one side and the concrete pastoral task of accompanying and convincing those individuals whose lifestyle correspond only partially with the principles of the Church on the other. With these latter, steps should be taken on the way to the fullness of life found in marriage and family as promised in the Gospel of the family.

Here it is necessary to have a pastoral approach oriented to the individual which equally involves both the normativity of doctrine and the personality of each human being, keeping sight of his capacity for conscience and strengthening his responsibility. "For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths." (GS §16)

We request that the final version of the text consider two additional aspects:

Every impression that Sacred Scripture only serves as a source of quotes for dogmatic, legal or ethical convictions should be avoided. The Law of the New Covenant is the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the faithful (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1965-66). The written word is to be integrated into the living word residing via the Holy Spirit in the heart of man. This gives Sacred Scripture a broad spiritual power.

Finally, we have struggled with the concept of "natural marriage." In the history of humanity, the natural marriage is always culturally informed. The term "natural marriage" can imply that there is a natural form of human life without such cultural influence. We therefore suggest the formulation: "that marriage founded in creation" [Die in der Schöpfung begründete Ehe].

[Original language: German]

St. Ignatius of Antioch

Reading N°37 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

The Martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch
from the Menologion of Basil II (ca. AD 1000)

We are totally ignorant of the circumstances that led to the arrest and execution of St. Ignatius. We have no details of his martyrdom. But we possess something better than that: the genuine letters in which the intrepid confessor of the faith, shortly before being ground by the teeth of lions, reveals his great soul. Neither Christian antiquity nor indeed any other antiquity offers anything more beautiful.^[1]

Ignatius was condemned at Antioch. His journey to Rome, along the coasts of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, was a triumphal progress. The fame of the holy bishop had spread through all the Church, especially in Asia Minor. Why did Roman justice require that he be put to death in Rome, in the amphitheater? We know that it was customary for the Romans to choose the most handsome men for those spectacles, and not the least of the trials which the Christian martyrs had to undergo was to be thus displayed to satisfy the curiosity of the populace. But beyond the growling wild beasts, beyond the crowd thirsting for excitement, they beheld, like the deacon Stephen, the opened heavens. This is the example that St. Ignatius gave. In the letter which reached Rome ahead of him, he wrote to his beloved brethren:

Pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only be called a Christian, but be found one, when I shall no longer appear to the world. [...] I write to the churches and signify to them all that I am willing to die for God, unless you hinder me.^[2] Suffer me to be food to the wild beasts, by whom I shall attain unto God. For I am the wheat of God; and I shall be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. [...] Let fire and the cross, let the companies of wild beasts, let breakings of bones and tearing of members, let the shattering in pieces of the whole body, and all the wicked torments of the devil come upon me; only let me enjoy Jesus Christ. [...] Pardon me, my brethren; ye shall not hinder me from living; nor, seeing I desire to go to God, may you separate me from Him for the sake of this world. Suffer me to enter into pure light; where being come, I shall be indeed the servant of God. If anyone has Him within himself, let him consider what I desire.^[3]

Not without good reason has this letter been considered to set forth the perfect idea of Christian martyrdom. A Christian martyr is not merely a witness to a dogmatic fact; he is also eo ipso, to use St. Thomas' phrase, a "witness of the faith,"^[4] a witness of Christ living in him, of that eternal life to which martyrdom opens the way for him and toward which he rushes with all the strength of his hope and love.^[5]

St. Ignatius' letters to the various churches have a still more important bearing. Two great heterodox currents were then flowing through the churches of the East. Some attacked the Savior's divine person, holding that He was simply a man; such were the Ebionites and the Cerinthians. The others attacked His human nature, teaching that the Word of God became incarnate and died only in appearance; these were the Docetae. The former heresy spread especially in the churches of Magnesia and Philadelphia; the latter advanced mostly in the churches of Tralles, Smyrna, and Ephesus. From all these churches there came to the bishop of the great Church of Antioch, to this glorious confessor of the faith, requests for advice. The replies to these requests are the letters to the Magnesians, the Philadelphians, the Trallians, the Smyrnaeans, and the Ephesians.

"There is one God, who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son," he writes to the Magnesians;^[6] and he urges them "to be diligent therefore to be confirmed in the ordinances of the Lord and the Apostles [...] in the Son and the Father and the Spirit."^[7] "God manifested Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son, who is His Word proceeding from silence."^[8] After so clearly affirming the divinity of Christ, Ignatius also affirms His real humanity. "He is in truth of the family of David according to the flesh [...] truly born of a virgin [...] truly nailed to a tree in the flesh for our sakes.^[9] I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the Resurrection."^[10]

The two heresies which the confessor of the faith attacks spring from the same root - the Judaizing spirit. The holy Bishop gives warning of the danger. To the Philadelphians he says: "If anyone interpret Judaism to you, do not listen to him."^[11] "Be not seduced. To face about would be to give up the grace you have received. The prophets of old are appealed to; but the prophets were disciples of Christ in the Spirit, and to Him they looked forward as their teacher. [...] It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism."^[12]

But it was not enough to defend the divinity of Christ against the naturalism of Cerinthus; the reality of His redemptive Incarnation against the fanciful idealism of the Docetae;^[13] in a word, the broad ancl full teaching of the Gospel against the narrow conceptions of a decadent Synagogue. It was necessary also to proclaim the great principle that preserves the Church from schism and heresy. On this point the letters of St. Ignatius are of the first importance.

Like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch knows only one guarantee of orthodoxy - obedience to the hierarchy. The Roman pontiff endeavored to prove the legitimacy of that hierarchy by its Apostolic institution. Ignatius is a mystic, and so views this principle from a different angle. He speaks of being "subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ."^[14]

It is fitting that you [priests] should live in harmony with the will of the bishop, as indeed you do. For your justly famous presbytery, worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop as the strings to a harp. Therefore, by your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is being sung."^[15]

The faithful are members of Christ. Ignatius says to them: "It is profitable for you to be in blameless unity, in order that you may always commune with God."^[16] "Be united to the bishop and to the presbytery and to the deacons."^[17] "The bishops are the thought of Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ is the thought of the Father."^[18] For the first time in Christian literature, we find here the name "Catholic Church" pronounced.^[19]

But does the holy Bishop of Antioch acknowledge a supreme head of this Catholic Church? It is beyond doubt that he does. The two fundamental principles of his ecclesiology - the hierarchy and unity - presuppose the existence of a sole authority; and the text of his letter to the Romans shows that he considers that the seat of that supreme authority is at Rome.

The beginning of his letter to the Romans, or rather to the Roman Church, is significant. He addresses it "to the Church beloved and illumined," to the Church that "presides in the country of the Romans, that presides at the love-feasts" (the charities).^[20] If we weigh these expressions, if we compare them with those used by Ignatius in his letters to the other Churches, there is no room for doubt; here is question of the primacy of the Church of Rome over the entire Catholic Church. The Church of Rome "presides in the country of the Romans," she "presides at the charities." If the martyr had been writing to the Bishop of Rome, these presidencies might be considered merely local in character, because, in his own diocese, the bishop always presides. But here, there is no question of the bishop, but of the Church. Over what did the Roman Church preside? Was it merely over some other Churches or dioceses, within a limited area? Ignatius had no idea of a limitation of that kind. Besides, were there in Italy any Christian communities distinct in their organization from the community of Rome? The most natural meaning of such language is that the Roman Church presides over all the Churches.^[21]

Footnotes

[1] Allard, Ten Lectures on the Martyrs, p. 183.

[2] St. Ignatius may have feared that the intervention of the Christians at Rome would obtain the Emperor's favor, or rather that the earnestness of their prayers would rob him of the martyr's crown.

[3] Funk, Patres apostolici, I, 255-261- Translation by Edward Burton, in the Apostolic Fathers, vol. II.

[4] St. Thomas, Summa theologica, 2a 2ae, q. 124, a. 4. "Martyr dicitur, quasi fidei christianae, per quam visibilia pro invisibilibus contemnenda proponuntur."

[5] Freppel, Les Pères apostoliques et leur époque, pp. 397-419.

[6] Magnesians, 8.

[7] Ibidem, 13.

[8] Ibidem, 8. Cf. other citations in Toxeront, History of Dogmas, I, 122 ff.

[9] Smyrnaeans, 1.

[10] Ibidem, 3.

[11] Philadelphians, 6.

[12] Magnesians, 9, 10.

[13] The dogma of Redemption is explicitly taught in several places in St. Ignatius' letters. (Tixeront, op. cit., I, 126.) The Real Presence of the Savior's body in the Eucharist is clearly affirmed in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7.

[14] Magnesians, 2.

[15] Ephesians, 4.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Philadelphians, 4.

[18] Ephesians, 3.

[19] Cf. Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, p. 139.

[20] Funk, Patres apostolici, I, 152.

[21] Cf. Duchesne, The Churches Separated from Rome, p. 85. Cf. Chapman, "Saint Ignace d'Antioche et l'Eglise romaine," in the Revue bénédictine, 1896, pp. 385 ff. Funk (op. cit., I, 253) says: "There is no doubt but that Ignatius, in this passage, is speaking of the primacy of the Church." This interpretation is admitted by many Protestants, e. g., Lightfoot, Jülicher, and Harnack. Harnack, however, tries to prove that the preeminence of the Church of Rome came solely from the preeminence of its charity. This explanation is refuted by Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, pp. 141-143. The clearness of St. Ignatius' affirmations in the matter of the essential dogmas of the Catholic Church led Protestants and Rationalists long since to cast suspicions on the authenticity of his letters. Bardenhewer, after relating the history of the disputes on this subject, concludes as follows: "The evidence of their authenticity is simply overwhelming." (Patrology, p. 34)

***

Join the discussion at:

Italian Archbishop Welcomes SSPX

Archbishop Lorenzo Ghizzoni

The French newsletter Riposte Catholique is reporting that Italian Archbishop Lorenzo Ghizzoni of Ravenna and Cervia has authorized a priest of the SSPX to celebrate two Holy Masses on the first and second Sunday of October in his diocese. Once a bitter enemy of all who desired the traditional Mass, Archbishop Lorenzo recently invited Fr. Enrico Doria (SSPX), priest of the Priory Madonna di Loreto, to celebrate the Extraordinary Form with an eye towards satisfying the demands of a stable group of faithful who have been consistently requesting the traditional Mass. Prima Pagina Reggio's Andrea Zambrano suggests that the change of heart is due in large part to Pope Francis' decision to grant the priest of the Society of St. Pius X faculties to validly and licitly absolve from sins during the 'Year of Mercy', set to begin December 8th. It is hoped that the welcome signals a period of increased cooperation between diocesan bishops and the Society.

Germans Ready to Jettison Church Unity

Abbot Jeremias Schröder

At today's Holy See press conference, Abbot Jeremias Schröder, OSB, said the following:

I am from Germany, and it seems to me that, for example, the question of divorced and remarried people - or people who are divorced and who are living again in a stable union with children - is felt very strongly and very broadly in the German Catholic public; it seems to be much less of a concern elsewhere and that seems to an area where maybe regional pastoral solutions could be envisaged. I also have the impression that the understanding of homosexuality - the social acceptance of homosexuality - is culturally very diverse, and that seems to me also to be an area where Bishops' Conferences should be allowed to formulate pastoral responses that are in tune with what can be preached and announced and lived within a given context.

This merely echoes Bishop Franz-Josef Bode's position, as well as Bishop Kurt Koch's remarks to DomRadio.de regarding his expectations for the Synod:

Moreover, I would find it good if the decision in some matters were to be left to the individual Bishops' Conferences. I can't imagine that, given the different perspectives with which I am familiar, all such questions will be answered in Rome. The Vatican is not a pastoral office.

All of this was summarized by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in the German Language Group Report as follows:

I would like to make an additional remark in regards to the perception and evaluation of varying cultural realities. A synodal document must take proper account of respective cultural peculiarities and differences - especially when dealing with elements of today's cultural reality which are ambivalent or problematic from the perspective of the Church. A differentiated analysis and evaluation is absolutely necessary here in order to contribute to a proper and nuanced ecclesiastical-intercultural exchange.

Thus, as many predicted, it seems that the German faction indeed desires "regional pastoral solutions" - "solutions" which will, of course, result in nothing less than the dissolving of Roman Church unity in matters of faith and morals.

Actually, it only makes sense, doesn't it? We've already destroyed the liturgical unity of the Church by the promulgation of a rite which is celebrated differently, not merely from diocese to diocese, but from priest to priest, and - in some cases - from day to day. Why should it be any different in matters of morals?

Right?

Archbishop Gadecki's Intervention at the Synod

[Note: The following is shamelessly borrowed from the excellent JPL Press Agency. If you have yet to bookmark their site and check regularly for updates, now is the time. -RC]

Saturday, 10th October, 2015

His Eminence Archbishop Gądecki

I wish to stress at the start, that this speech is not only my personal opinion, but the opinion of the whole Polish Episcopal Conference.

1.  It is obvious, that the Church of our time must - in the spirit of mercy - support the divorced living in repeated civil unions, caring with a special love, that they do not feel that they are cut away from the Church, when in fact, as baptized persons, they have a duty to take part in the life of the Church.

Let them, therefore, be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to take part in the Sacrifice of Holy Mass, to persevere in prayer, to support works of charity and common initiatives for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian Faith as well as nurturing a spirit of and acts of penance, so that in this way, on a day to day basis, they can work for God’s Grace. Let the Church show itself to be a merciful mother and in this way strengthen them in faith and hope. (St John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, 84).

2. Nevertheless the Church - in teaching about giving Holy Communion to the divorced living in new civil unions - cannot bend to the will of the person, but to the Will of Christ (see Paul VI, Speech to the Roman Rota, 28.01.1978; John Paul II, Speech to the Roman Rota, 23.01.1992, 29.01.1996). The Church cannot allow itself to be sub-ordinate to either feelings of false sentiment towards people or to the false - though popular - models of thinking.

To agree that those living more uxorio [as if they were married] in non-sacramental unions, should be able to receive Holy Communion, would be against the Tradition of the Church. Already documents from the earliest Synods in Elvira, Arles, Neocesaria, which took place in the years 304-319, confirm the doctrine of the Church, that the divorced living in new unions cannot receive Holy Communion.

The basis of this position is the fact that, their state and way of life is objectively a denial against the bonds of love between Christ and the Church, which is expressed and realised by the Eucharist” (St John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, 84; por. 1 Cor 11:27-29; Benedict XVI, Sacramentum caritatis, 29; Francis, Angelus, 16.08.2015).

3. The Eucharist is the Sacrament for the baptized, who are in a state of Sacramental Grace. Permission, for people who are not in a state of Grace, to receive Holy Communion, could do immense harm not only in the pastoral ministry for families, but also for the doctrine of the Church about Saving Grace.

In reality the decision to give them Holy Communion would open the door to this Sacrament for everyone living in mortal sin. In consequence this would write-off the meaning of the Sacrament of Penance and distort the meaning of life lived in a state of grace. It is also necessary to stress, that the Church cannot accept so-called gradualism of the law. (St John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, 34).

(Original: JLP Press Agency)

The Worship of Sacrifice

Thirty-Third in a Series on Catholic Morality

 by

 Fr. John H. Stapleton

We Catholics contend - and our contention is based on a law of nature that we glean from the history of man - that sacrifice is the soul of religion, that there never was a universally and permanently accepted religion - and that there cannot be any such religion - without an altar, a victim, a priest, and a sacrifice. We claim that reason and experience would bear us out in this contention, even without the example and teaching and express commands of Jesus Christ, who, in founding a new and the only true religion, Himself offered sacrifice and left a sacrifice to be perpetually offered in His religion; and that sacrifice constitutes the high worship we owe to the Creator.

It is our conviction that, when man came into the presence of the Almighty, his first impulse was to speak to Him, and his first word was an act of adoration. But human language is a feeble medium of communication with the Almighty. Man talks to man. To talk with God, he sought out another language; and, as in the case of Adam's sons, he discovered in sacrifice a better and stronger mode of expressing his religious feelings. He therefore offered sacrifice, and sacrifice became the language of man in his relations with the Deity.

In its simplest definition, sacrifice is the offering to God of a victim, by one authorized for that task. It supposes essentially the destruction of the victim; and the act is an eloquent acknowledgment, in language that is as plain as it possibly can be made, that God is the supreme Lord of life and death, that all things that exist come from Him, and revert to Him as to their natural end.

The philosophy of sacrifice is that man, in some manner or other, had incurred the wrath of the Almighty. The pagan could not tell in just what his offense consisted; but there is nothing plainer than the fact that he considered himself under the ban of God's displeasure, and that sin had something to do with it; and he feared the Deity accordingly. We know that original sin was the curse under which he labored.

Whatever the offense was, it was in the flesh, the result of weakness rather than malice. There was something in his nature that inclined to evil and was responsible for sin. The better part tried to serve, but the inferior man revolted. Flesh, therefore, was wicked and sinful; and since all offense must be atoned for, the flesh should pay the penalty of evil. The wrath of God could be appeased, and sacrifice was the thing that could do it.

Another thing most remarkable among those who worshiped by sacrifice in the early times, is that they believed firmly in the reversibility of merit, that is, that the innocent could atone for the wicked. Somehow, they acquired the notion that stainless victims were more agreeable to God than others. God sanctioned this belief among the Jews, and most strikingly on the hill of Calvary.

This being the case, man being guilty and not having the right to inflict the supreme penalty upon himself, the natural thing to do was to substitute a victim for himself, to put the flesh of another in the place of his own and to visit upon it the punishment that was due to himself. And he offered to God this vicarious atonement. His action spoke in this wise:

My God, I am a sinner and deserve Thy wrath. But look upon this victim as though it were myself. My sins and offenses I lay upon its shoulders, this knife shall be the bolt of Thy vengeance, and it shall make atonement in blood.

This is the language of sacrifice. As we have said, it supposes the necessity of atonement and belief in the reversibility of merit.

Now, if we find in history, as we certainly do find, that all peoples offered sacrifice of this kind, we do not think we would be far from the truth if we deduced therefrom a law of nature; and if it is a law of nature, it is a law of God. If there is no religion of antiquity that did not offer sacrifice, then it would seem that the Almighty had traced a path along which man naturally trod and which his natural instinct showed him.

We believe in the axiom of St. Augustine: securus judicet orbis terrarum, "a universally accepted judgment can be safely followed." Especially do we feel secure with the history of the chosen people of God before us with its sacrifice ordained by the law; with the sanction of Christ's sacrifice in our mind, and the practice of the divinely inspired Church which makes sacrifice the soul of her worship.

The victim we have is Jesus Christ Himself, and none other than He. He gave us His flesh and blood to consume, with the command to consume. Our sacrifice, therefore, consists in the offering up of this Victim to God and the consuming of it. Upon the Victim of the altar, as upon the Victim of the Cross, we lay our sins and offenses, and, in one case as in the other, the sacred blood, in God's eyes, washes our iniquity away.

Of course, it requires faith to believe, but religion is nothing if it is not whole and entire a matter of faith. The less faith you have, the more you try to simplify matters. Waning faith began by eliminating authority and sacrifice and the unwritten word. Now the written word is going the same way. Pretty soon we shall hear of the Decalogue's being subjected to this same eliminating process. After all, when one gets started in that direction, what reason is there that he should ever stop!