Temperance; Reading 1 -Acts 4:8-12 ; Responsorial Psalm - Psalms 118:1-29; Reading 2 - First John 3:1-2: Gospel - John 10:11-18; Pope Francis Angelus; Inspirational Hymns - Gregorian Chants; Our Lady of Medjugorje Message; Jesus 2018 Lucutions; Direction For Our Times Features; Feast Day of Saint Anselm: Virtue; Sin; Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary; Acts of Reparation (Morning Offering, First Friday and First Saturday Devotions); Mystical City of God - Book 6 Chapter 11 and 12 The Resurrection and Ascension of our Savior Jesus Christ; Catholic Catechism - Prologue of Part I ; RECHARGE: Heaven Speaks to Young Adults
Consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary ~ Zarya Parx 2018
JESUS I TRUST IN YOU (Year of Mercy). "Always Trust in Jesus, He the beacon of light amongst the darkest clouds" ~ Zarya Parx 2016
"Where There is a Will, With God, There is a Way", "There is always a ray of sunshine amongst the darkest Clouds, the name of that ray is Jesus" ~ Zarya Parx 2014
The world begins and ends everyday for someone. We are all human. We all experience birth, life and death. We all have flaws but we also all have the gift of knowledge, reason and free will, make the most of these gifts. Life on earth is a stepping stone to our eternal home in Heaven. The Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, wonder and awe (fear of the Lord) , counsel, knowledge, fortitude, and piety (reverence) and shun the seven Deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony...Its your choice whether to embrace the Gifts of the Holy Spirit rising towards eternal light or succumb to the Seven deadly sins and lost to eternal darkness. Material items, though needed for sustenance and survival on earth are of earthly value only. The only thing that passes from this earth to the Darkness, Purgatory or Heaven is our Soul...it's God's perpetual gift to us...Embrace it, treasure it, nurture it, protect it...~ Zarya Parx 2013
"Raise not a hand to another unless it is to offer in peace and goodwill." ~ Zarya Parx 2012
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Liturgical Cycle: B - Gospel of Mark - 4th Sunday in Easter
Morning Offering
O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I
offer You the prayers, works, joys and sufferings of
this day, for all the intentions of Your Sacred Heart,
in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
throughout the world, in reparation for my sins, and
for the intentions of the Holy Father. Amen.
Morning Offering
O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I
offer You the prayers, works, joys and sufferings of
this day, for all the intentions of Your Sacred Heart,
in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
throughout the world, in reparation for my sins, and
for the intentions of the Holy Father. Amen.
Daily Rosary
(MON, SAT) - Joyful Mysteries
(TUES, FRI) - Sorrowful Mysteries
(WED,SUN) - Glorious Mysteries
(THURS) - Luminous Mysteries
(MON, SAT) - Joyful Mysteries
(TUES, FRI) - Sorrowful Mysteries
(WED,SUN) - Glorious Mysteries
(THURS) - Luminous Mysteries
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Inspirational Hymns
Illumination: Peaceful Gregorian Chants
**Copyright Disclaimer - Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research under the term "fair use", which is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, and personal use also tips the balance in favor of fair use.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Our Lady of Medjugorje Monthly Messages
April 2, 2018 message from Our Lady of Medjugorje:
"Dear children, Through the great love of the Heavenly Father I am beside you as your mother and you are beside me as my children, as apostles of my love whom I ceaselessly gather around me. My children, you are those who, along with prayer, need to completely surrender to my Son so that you may no longer live but my Son may live in you - so that all those who do not know my Son may see Him in you and come to desire to know Him. Pray that in you they may see resolute humility and goodness, a readiness to serve others; that in you they may see that you live your vocation in the world with the heart, in communion with my Son; that in you they may see meekness, tenderness and love for my Son as well as for all brothers and sisters. Apostles of my love, you must pray much and cleanse your hearts so that you may be the first to walk on the way of my Son, that you may be the just who are united with the justice of my Son. My children, as apostles of my love, you must be united in the communion which emanates from my Son, so that my children who do not know my Son may recognize the communion of love and may come to desire to walk on the way of life, the way of unity with my Son. Thank you." ~ Blessed Mother Mary, Mother of Jesus, Queen Of Peace, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Mount Carmel, Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Jesus's 2018 Messages to the World through locution apparition
to Lay Apostle Anne of Ireland. Imprimatur. 2018
Direction For Our Times
2018 Locutions From Jesus
Jesus's 2018 Messages to the World through locution apparition
to Lay Apostle Anne of Ireland. Imprimatur. 2018
April 5, 2018 message from Jesus:
"I am looking at mankind with eyes of hope. Who will help me? That is the question that I ask in every time. I search tirelessly for people who recognize My call to holiness. There are those who serve the Church, but they forget that the call to holiness comes before the call to preach the Gospel message. Who will help me? I ask that question and look for those who are working to become holier each day. Without a commitment to personal holiness, a person’s ability to impact others decreases. The Gospel message is compelling. It is timeless. It is full of love and hope. But, my beloved friends, when people relax their efforts to become holier, they lose the force needed to convict others. You may believe that My call is unfair, given its requirement of personal sacrifice. You may believe that the cost is too high for you to pay. To remain faithful to Me, you must sometimes put yourself and your personal plans in the second place and My plan in the first place. You are no different than any other follower in any other time. On earth, I put My father’s plan before My own desires. Would I have asked for a different experience for My mother? Can you imagine that I wanted her to suffer? I did not want her to suffer, anything, ever. She was the greatest joy of My life. But I subordinated my human wishes for her to the eternal plan of the Father and she wanted this for Me. She wanted the Father’s will for her life and for mine, too. Do you understand? We were both willing to sacrifice what was temporary for what was eternal. You must be willing to do, so, too. I did not suffer alone in the sense that she accompanied Me to My death. You do not suffer alone, either, in the sense that we are with you. Our mother, Mary, wishes to assert her feminine strength in this time. She looks at mankind with eyes of hope, too. Who will help her? Who will help Me? This is the question we ask of you. Do not count personal cost, My friends, because you will be rewarded far beyond your ability to give. We reward you in sublime ways. I have great hope for mankind and part of that hope must be realised through My Church. Will you help me to establish and maintain unity in the Church? Will you be a person who follows in My footsteps? With humility? Will you trust Me to protect the Church and her earthly mission? I am asking you directly. Will you help Me?" ~ Jesus Christ
February 26, 2018
Jesus
"How does My Passion speak to people of every age, in every time? People can be confused by the events of their time. People can become distracted by the events of their time. People, however, recognise love. Love is a universal language, a constant communication of God. Who, around you, loves? That person represents Me in that when you see love you will know that I am near. Who speaks of love? Who offers actions that communicate love? Who stands for love and remains aloof to distraction and despair? Love, sometimes only love, changes hearts, prompts repentance and frees a person from defensiveness enough to acknowledge his or her guilt in relation to the failure to love. Do you see what I am telling you? We will not bring people to the Father through anything but love. And so, my friends, are you studying love? Are you trying to become more perfect in love? Do you love yourself in the sense that you understand that your wounds are important to Me. Your suffering is visible to Me. Just as you gaze at My Passion and feel determination to remain faithful to Me, I gaze at your sufferings and I remain determined to comfort you. There are times when I spare you suffering, supernaturally, because it will not benefit you or others. If you are not spared suffering, and you are carrying a cross, remember that I allow it for your growth and for the salvation of those who need help. Your suffering, like Mine, is allowed by the Father in a temporary way so that we can offer sacrifice for others. These crosses we carry with determination are proof of our commitment to our Creator, who never pauses in pulsing love into the world. Our Father was able to send pulsations of love through Me. Is He able to send them through you? Do not ask yourself if the person you are thinking of is worthy of love. That person IS loved. And that is all you must know. The Father loves all of His children and so must we. Today, ask yourself if you are actively loving people. ‘Am I active in my obligation to love?’ That is your question. Every day I spent on earth, I loved actively. So must you. We must love as a decision, with such force that the world changes. Love does change people. You know this because you have already changed because of My love for you. Focus on offering My love to others and you will live a life truly following Me, Jesus Christ." ~Jesus Christ
March 10, 2018
Jesus
"What do I need from the people of My Church? I need fidelity. Many claim they are faithful but they make war on the Church. When an enemy comes directly to one’s door, from the outside, one is prepared. When an enemy emerges from within one’s home, one is more vulnerable. My children, I do not wish you to become an enemy in My earthly home, the Church. Follow the leadership I have arranged for you, in a manner that is humble and determined, and you will see My Spirit blossoming in a way that is both fresh and compelling. Where are My beloved children? Why do they flee from our assembly? Is it I? Have I changed or demanded that they leave our Church? No. It is not I. I have watched in pain as many people have been made to believe that they are somehow less worthy than the unworthy, that they are not welcome or not received by Me. The truth is that sinners do not cause Me to fret. You are all sinners and you are all welcome. Who is driving God’s children from our Church? Ask yourself that question and do not point to the man I have chosen to lead My Church. He is in My care and I am pleased that he is following My direction. Do you wish to argue with the Holy Spirit in him? Then you must look to Me, and do so silently in prayer. Perhaps I can help you to see that the people in every assembly are unworthy. God did not create you to be perfectly worthy on earth but to be loved and to grow and grow in holiness and happiness. Would you say that every person starts at the same point? Do you believe you can judge? You are attempting to usurp My role if you believe this and you are also damaging My Church. Stop. I am asking you to stop pretending that you are Me. I am the judge. You are the ones who will be judged. I am looking deeply into your heart. If you are dissuading people from belief and total trust in My mercy, then I am asking you to stop." ~Jesus Christ
Jesus
"How does My Passion speak to people of every age, in every time? People can be confused by the events of their time. People can become distracted by the events of their time. People, however, recognise love. Love is a universal language, a constant communication of God. Who, around you, loves? That person represents Me in that when you see love you will know that I am near. Who speaks of love? Who offers actions that communicate love? Who stands for love and remains aloof to distraction and despair? Love, sometimes only love, changes hearts, prompts repentance and frees a person from defensiveness enough to acknowledge his or her guilt in relation to the failure to love. Do you see what I am telling you? We will not bring people to the Father through anything but love. And so, my friends, are you studying love? Are you trying to become more perfect in love? Do you love yourself in the sense that you understand that your wounds are important to Me. Your suffering is visible to Me. Just as you gaze at My Passion and feel determination to remain faithful to Me, I gaze at your sufferings and I remain determined to comfort you. There are times when I spare you suffering, supernaturally, because it will not benefit you or others. If you are not spared suffering, and you are carrying a cross, remember that I allow it for your growth and for the salvation of those who need help. Your suffering, like Mine, is allowed by the Father in a temporary way so that we can offer sacrifice for others. These crosses we carry with determination are proof of our commitment to our Creator, who never pauses in pulsing love into the world. Our Father was able to send pulsations of love through Me. Is He able to send them through you? Do not ask yourself if the person you are thinking of is worthy of love. That person IS loved. And that is all you must know. The Father loves all of His children and so must we. Today, ask yourself if you are actively loving people. ‘Am I active in my obligation to love?’ That is your question. Every day I spent on earth, I loved actively. So must you. We must love as a decision, with such force that the world changes. Love does change people. You know this because you have already changed because of My love for you. Focus on offering My love to others and you will live a life truly following Me, Jesus Christ." ~Jesus Christ
Reference : Direction For Our Times, New Locutions.
https://www.directionforourtimes.com/new-locutions-jesus/#.Wt-CLZdOnIW
Direction For Our Times Book Store
(Print • Audio • Digital Media)
https://www.directionforourtimes.com/new-locutions-jesus/#.Wt-CLZdOnIW
Featured Book of the Month
Volume One- Thoughts On Spirituality
**Fair Use/Copyright Disclaimer - Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research under the term "fair use", which is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, and personal use also tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Reference :
Direction For Our Times. https//:www.directionforourtimes.org
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Papam Franciscus
(Pope Francis)
Pope Francis's Angelus
(Vatican Radio)
Pope Francis has urged Christians to be “couriers of hope,” “genuine witnesses of Jesus in the world”.
The Pope’s exhortation to leave the Lord’s table after the Eucharist and to be active in bringing His message of peace and mercy into the world, came during the homily at Holy Mass in the southern Italian town of Molfetta where he travelled to pay tribute to Fr. Tonino Bello who was known as “the pastor of mercy” and the bishop of “the last ones.
Addressing the crowds gathered for Mass in the port area of the coastal town, Pope Francis commented on the liturgical readings of the day which focus on two central elements for Christian life: Bread and the Word.
The Bread of Life and of Peace
Pointing out that bread is the essential food for living and Jesus in the Gospel offers himself to us as the Bread of Life, the Pope said the Eucharist is not just a beautiful rite, but a communion of love that calls on each Christian to be nourished by the Lord in order to then give him or herself to others. “As Don Tonino Bello recalled, works of charity are not enough, if the charity of works is lacking, if the love in which the works are conceived is lacking, if the starting point which is the Eucharist is lacking, every pastoral commitment is only a merry-go-round” he said.
And remarking on the fact that living for others is the “trademark” of a Christian, the Pope said “One could post a warning outside every church: ‘After Mass one no longer lives for oneself, but for others’. Don Tonino lived like this, he said, amongst his people he was a Bishop-Servant, a Pastor whom, before the Tabernacle, “learned to be eaten by the people”. “He dreamed of a Church that is hungry for Jesus and intolerant to worldliness, a Church that sees the body of Christ in the uncomfortable tabernacles of misery, suffering and loneliness”. And reiterating that the “Eucharist cannot stand sedentariness” Francis invited the faithful to ask themselves whether they ‘like to be served at table by the Lord, or do they get up and serve like the Lord?’ ‘Do they give back in life what they receive at Mass?’ “And as Church we could ask ourselves: after so many Communions, have we become people of communion?” he said.
The Bread of Life, The Pope continued is also the Bread of Peace, and as Don Tonino maintained, peace comes with conviviality, in “eating bread together with others”, because conflict and war, he said, are rooted in not knowing the other. “We, who share this Bread of unity and peace, are called to love every face, to heal every tear; to be, always and everywhere, builders of peace” he said.
The Word that saves
Turning to the theme of the “Word”, the Pope said there is nothing to be gained by just “discussing the words of Jesus.” The Word of Jesus, he continued, “is to walk in life, not to sit down and talk about what goes and what does not go” Don Tonino, he said, urged his people to move from words to deeds, encouraging and supporting those who did not have the courage to change. Reflecting on the first Reading in which the risen Jesus addresses Saul and asks him to put his life at stake saying “Get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do”, the Pope said the first thing to avoid is to ‘not get up’, to submit oneself to life, to be gripped by fear”. Don Tonino, he said, used to say “Stand up!” Because one must stand before the Risen One: “one must stand up and look up because an apostle of Jesus cannot just get by in life with small satisfactions”. The Lord, the Pope said, asks each of us to go forth, to have the courage to leave our comfort zones and to take risks.
'Couriers of hope'
“A Christian life must be invested for Jesus and spent for others” he said. As Don Tonino used to say, he continued, “Whatever situation we find ourselves in, we are called to be bearers of Easter hope, servants – not employees - of the world”. It is nice to be "couriers of hope", simple and joyful distributors of the Easter alleluia” he said.
Finally Pope Francis invited those present to be humble, because humility does not mean being shy or resigned, but docile to God, and empty of oneself. And once we are stripped of presumption and pride he said, the Word of God frees us, it allows us to move forward, “humble and courageous at the same time”, it does not make us protagonists or champions of our own skills, but genuine witnesses of Jesus in the world.
Reference:
- Vatican News. From the Pope. © Copyright 2018 Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Accessed - 04/22/2018
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Word - temperance [tem-per-uh ns]
Dictionary Definition:
Word Origin: 1200-50; Middle English temperaunce < Anglo-French < Latin temperantia self-control. See temper, -anc
1. moderation or self-restraint in action, statement, etc.; self-control.
2. habitual moderation in the indulgence of a natural appetite or passion, especially in the use of alcoholic liquors.
3. total abstinence from alcoholic liquors.
Catholic Encyclopedia Definition:
Temperance is here considered as one of the four cardinal virtues. It may be defined as the righteous habit which makes a man govern his natural appetite for pleasures of the senses in accordance with the norm prescribed by reason. In one sense temperance may be regarded as a characteristic of all the moral virtues; the moderation it enjoins is central to each of them. It is also according to St. Thomas (II-II:141:2) a special virtue. Thus, it is the virtue which bridles concupiscence or which controls the yearning for pleasures and delights which most powerfully attract the human heart. These fall mainly into three classes: some are associated with the preservation of the human individual; others with the perpetuation of the race, and others still with the well-being and comfort of human life. Under this aspect temperance has for subordinate virtues, abstinence, chastity, and modesty. Abstinence prescribes the restraint to be employed in the partaking of food and drink. Obviously the measure of this self-restraint is not constant and invariable. It is different for different persons as well as for different ends in view. The diet of an anchorite would not do for a farm labourer. Abstinence is opposed to the vices of gluttony and drunkenness. The disorder of these is that food and drink are made use of in such wise as to damage instead of benefit the bodily health. Hence gluttony and drunkenness are said to be intrinsically wrong. That does not mean, however, that they are always grievous sins. Gluttony is seldom such; drunkenness is so when it is complete, that is when it destroys the use of reason for the time being. Chastity as a part of temperance regulates the sensual satisfactions connected with the propagation of the human species. The contrary vice is lust. As these pleasures appeal with the special vehemence to human nature, it is the function of chastity to impose the norm of reason. Thus it will decide that they are altogether to be refrained from in obedience to a higher vocation or at any rate only availed of with reference to the purposes of marriage. Chastity is not fanaticism; much less is it insensibility. It is the carrying out of the mandate of temperance in a particular department where such a steadying power is acutely needed. The virtue of modesty, as ranged under temperance, has as its task the holding in reasonable leash of the less violent human passions. It brings into service humility to set in order a man's interior. By transfusing his estimates with truth, and increasing his self-knowledge it guards him against the radical malice of pride. It is averse to pusillanimity, the product of low views and a mean-spirited will. In the government of the exterior of a man modesty aims to make it conform to the demands of decency and decorousness (honestas). In this way his whole outward tenor of conduct and method of life fall under its sway. Such things as his attire, manner of speech, habitual bearing, style of living, have to be made to square with its injunctions. To be sure they cannot always be settled by hard and fast rules. Convention will often have a good deal to say in the case, but in turn will have its propriety determined by modesty. Other virtues are enumerated by St. Thomas as subordinate to temperance inasmuch as they imply moderation in the management of some passion. It ought to be noted, however, that in its primary and generally understood sense temperance is concerned with what is difficult for a man, not in so far as he is a rational being precisely, but rather in so far as he is an animal. The hardest duties for flesh and blood are self-restraint in the use of food and drink and of the venereal pleasures that go with the propagation of the race. That is why abstinence and chastity may be reckoned the chief and ordinary phases of this virtue. All that has been said receives additional force if we suppose that the self-control commanded by temperance is measured not only by the rule of reason but by the revealed law of God as well. It is called a cardinal virtue because the moderation required for every righteous habit has in the practice of temperance a specially trying arena. The satisfactions upon which it imposes a check are at once supremely natural and necessary in the present order of human existence. It is not, however, the greatest of moral virtues. That rank is held by prudence; then come justice, fortitude, and finally temperance.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Reading 1 - Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, 'Rulers of the people, and elders!9 If you are questioning us today about an act of kindness to a cripple and asking us how he was healed,
10 you must know, all of you, and the whole people of Israel, that it is by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, and God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man stands before you cured.
11 This is the stone which you, the builders, rejected but which has become the cornerstone. Only in him is there salvation;
12 for of all the names in the world given to men, this is the only one by which we can be saved.'
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Psalms - Psalms 118:1, 8-9, 21-23, 26, 21, 29
1 Alleluia! Give thanks to Yahweh for he is good, for his faithful love endures for ever.8 It is better to take refuge in Yahweh than to rely on human beings;
9 better to take refuge in Yahweh than to rely on princes.
21 I thank you for hearing me, and making yourself my Saviour.
21 I thank you for hearing me, and making yourself my Saviour.
22 The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
23 This is Yahweh's doing, and we marvel at it.
26 Blessed in the name of Yahweh is he who is coming! We bless you from the house of Yahweh.
29 Give thanks to Yahweh for he is good, for his faithful love endures for ever.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Reading 2 - First John 5:1-6
1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and whoever loves the father loves the son.2 In this way we know that we love God's children, when we love God and keep his commandments.
3 This is what the love of God is: keeping his commandments. Nor are his commandments burdensome,
4 because every child of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world -- our faith.
5 Who can overcome the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 He it is who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with water alone but with water and blood, and it is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is Truth.First John 3:1-2
1 You must see what great love the Father has lavished on us by letting us be called God's children -- which is what we are! The reason why the world does not acknowledge us is that it did not acknowledge him.
2 My dear friends, we are already God's children, but what we shall be in the future has not yet been revealed. We are well aware that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he really is.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Gospel Reading - John 10, 11-18
Jesus the Good Shepherd
“So that all may have life and have it to the full!”
“So that all may have life and have it to the full!”
1. Opening prayer
Lord Jesus, send your Spirit to help us to read the Scriptures with the same mind that you read them to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. In the light of the Word, written in the Bible, you helped them to discover the presence of God in the disturbing events of your sentence and death. Thus, the cross that seemed to be the end of all hope became for them the source of life and of resurrection.
Lord Jesus, send your Spirit to help us to read the Scriptures with the same mind that you read them to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. In the light of the Word, written in the Bible, you helped them to discover the presence of God in the disturbing events of your sentence and death. Thus, the cross that seemed to be the end of all hope became for them the source of life and of resurrection.
Create in us silence so that we may listen to your voice in Creation and in the Scriptures, in events and in people, above all in the poor and suffering. May your word guide us so that we too, like the two disciples from Emmaus, may experience the force of your resurrection and witness to others that you are alive in our midst as source of fraternity, justice and peace. We ask this of you, Jesus, son of Mary, who revealed to us the Father and sent us your Spirit. Amen.
2. Reading
a) A key to the reading:
The Gospel of the fourth Sunday after Easter presents to us the parable of the Good Shepherd. This is why, sometimes, it is called the Sunday of the Good Shepherd. In some parishes the feast of the Parish priest is celebrated on this day, the shepherd of the flock. In today’s Gospel, Jesus presented himself as the Good Shepherd, who has come “so that they may have life and have it to the full” (Jn 10,10). At that time, the shepherd was the image of the leader. Jesus says that many presented themselves as shepherds but in fact they were “thieves and brigands”. The same thing happens today. There are persons who present themselves as leaders, but in reality, instead of rendering service, they only seek their own interests. Some of them have such a meek way of speaking, and make such an intelligent type of propaganda that they succeed in deceiving people. Have you ever had the experience of being deceived? Which are the criteria to evaluate a leadership whether at community level or at the level of the country? How is and how should a good shepherd be? Keeping these questions in mind, let us try to meditate on the text of today’s Gospel. During the reading let us try to be attentive to the images which Jesus uses to present himself to the people as a true and good Shepherd.
b) A division of the text to help me in reading it:
Jn 10, 11: Jesus presents himself as the Good Shepherd who gives his life for his sheep
Jn 10, 12-13: Jesus defines the attitude of the mercenary
Jn 10, 14-15: Jesus presents himself as the Good Shepherd who knows his sheep
Jn 10, 16: Jesus defines the goal to be attained: only one flock and one shepherd
Jn 10, 17-18: Jesus and the Father.
Jn 10, 12-13: Jesus defines the attitude of the mercenary
Jn 10, 14-15: Jesus presents himself as the Good Shepherd who knows his sheep
Jn 10, 16: Jesus defines the goal to be attained: only one flock and one shepherd
Jn 10, 17-18: Jesus and the Father.
c) The Gospel John 10:11-18:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. 12 The hired man, since he is not the shepherd and the sheep do not belong to him, abandons the sheep as soon as he sees a wolf coming, and runs away, and then the wolf attacks and scatters the sheep; 13 he runs away because he is only a hired man and has no concern for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And there are other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and I must lead these too. They too will listen to my voice, and there will be only one flock, one shepherd. 17 The Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and as I have power to lay it down, so I have power to take it up again; and this is the command I have received from my Father.
3. A moment of prayerful silence
so that the Word of God may penetrate and enlighten our life.
4. Some questions
to help us in our personal reflection.
a) What has struck you most in the text of the Good Shepherd? Why?
b) Which are the images which Jesus applies to himself, how does he apply them and what do they signify?
c) How many times does Jesus use the term life in this text and what does he affirm about life?
d) What does the text say about the sheep that we are? Which are the qualities and the tasks of the sheep?
e) Shepherd (Pastor) - Pastoral. Do our pastoral works continue the mission of Jesus-Shepherd?
b) Which are the images which Jesus applies to himself, how does he apply them and what do they signify?
c) How many times does Jesus use the term life in this text and what does he affirm about life?
d) What does the text say about the sheep that we are? Which are the qualities and the tasks of the sheep?
e) Shepherd (Pastor) - Pastoral. Do our pastoral works continue the mission of Jesus-Shepherd?
5. For those who desire to deepen more into the text
a) Context:
i) The discourse of Jesus on the Good Shepherd (Jn 10, 1-18) is like a brick inserted into a wall which already exits. With this brick the wall is stronger and more beautiful. Immediately before, in Jn 9, 40-41, the Gospel spoke about the healing of the man born blind (Jn 9, 1-38) and of the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees on blindness (Jn 9, 39-41). Immediately after in Jn 10, 19-21, John gives the conclusion of Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees on blindness. The Pharisees presented themselves before the people as leaders and believed that they could discern and teach the things of God. In reality, they were blind (Jn 9, 40-41) and they despised the opinion of the people represented by the man born blind who had been cured by Jesus (Jn 9, 34). The discourse on the Good Shepherd has been inserted here for the purpose of offering some criteria to know how to discern who is the leader, the shepherd who deserves to be trusted. The parable fulfils a word which Jesus had just said to the Pharisees: “It is for judgment that I have come into this world, so that those without sight may see and those with sight may become blind.” (Jn 9, 39).
ii) The discourse of Jesus on the “Good Shepherd” presents three comparisons, linked among themselves by the image of the sheep, which offer criteria to discern who is the true shepherd:
First comparison (Jn 10, 1-5): “Enter through the gate”. Jesus distinguishes between the shepherd of the sheep and the one who climbs some other way to rob them. That which reveals who is the shepherd is the fact that he enters through the gate. The thief climbs some other way.
Second comparison: (Jn 10, 6-10): “I am the gate”. To enter through the gate means to act like Jesus, whose greatest concern is the life in abundance of the sheep. What the shepherd reveals is the defence of the life of the sheep.
Third comparison: (Jn 10, 11-18)): “I am the Good Shepherd”. Jesus is not simply a shepherd. He is the Good Shepherd. That which reveals who is the Good Shepherd is (1) the reciprocal knowledge between the sheep and the shepherd and (2) to give his life for the sheep.
iii) In what way can the parable of the Good Shepherd take away the blindness and open the eyes of persons? At that time, the image of the shepherd was the symbol of the leader. But not because of the simple fact that someone who took care of the sheep can be defined as shepherd. The mercenaries also count and the Pharisees were also leaders. But were they also shepherds? As we shall see, according to the parable, in order to discern who is shepherd and who is a mercenary, it is necessary to pay attention to two things: (a) To the attitude of the sheep before the shepherd guiding them, to see if they recognize his voice. (b) To the attitude of the shepherd before the sheep to see if his interest is the life of the sheep and if he is capable to give his life for them (Jn 10, 11-18).
iv) The text of the Gospel of the Fourth Sunday after Easter (Jn 10, 11-18) is the last part of the discourse on the Good Shepherd (Jn 10, 1-18). This is why we wish to comment on the whole text. We observe closely the diverse images which Jesus uses to present himself to us as the true and Good Shepherd.
b) Commentary on the text:
i) Jn 10, 1-5: First image: the shepherd “enters through the gate”
Jesus begins the discourse with the comparison of the gate: “He who does not enter through the gate, but climbs somewhere else, is a thief, a bandit! Instead, the one who enters through the gate, is the shepherd of the sheep!” To understand this comparison, it is well to remember what follows. At that time, the shepherds took care of the flocks during the day. When night arrived, they took the sheep into a large communitarian place, which was well protected against thieves and wolves. All the shepherds from the same region took their flocks there. There was a guardian who took care of them during the night. On the following day, early in the morning, the shepherd would go, knocked on the gate and the guardian would open. The sheep recognized the voice of their shepherd, got up and got out following him to the pastures. The sheep of the other shepherds heard the voice, but did not move because for them it was an unknown voice. The sheep recognizes the voice of its shepherd. From time to time, there was the danger of bandits. To rob the sheep, the thieves presented themselves to the guardian by the other door, but entered by another side or destroyed the wall, made of stones one on top of the other.
Jesus begins the discourse with the comparison of the gate: “He who does not enter through the gate, but climbs somewhere else, is a thief, a bandit! Instead, the one who enters through the gate, is the shepherd of the sheep!” To understand this comparison, it is well to remember what follows. At that time, the shepherds took care of the flocks during the day. When night arrived, they took the sheep into a large communitarian place, which was well protected against thieves and wolves. All the shepherds from the same region took their flocks there. There was a guardian who took care of them during the night. On the following day, early in the morning, the shepherd would go, knocked on the gate and the guardian would open. The sheep recognized the voice of their shepherd, got up and got out following him to the pastures. The sheep of the other shepherds heard the voice, but did not move because for them it was an unknown voice. The sheep recognizes the voice of its shepherd. From time to time, there was the danger of bandits. To rob the sheep, the thieves presented themselves to the guardian by the other door, but entered by another side or destroyed the wall, made of stones one on top of the other.
ii) Jn 10, 6-10: Second image: He explains what it means “to enter through the gate”:
Jesus is the gate. The Pharisees who were listening to Jesus, (cf. Jn 9, 40-41), did not understand the comparison. Then, Jesus explained: “I am the gate of the sheepfold. All those who have come before me, are thieves and bandits”. About whom is Jesus speaking using these hard words? Probably, he is referring to the religious leaders who drew people behind them, but who did not respond to the hopes of the people. They deceived the people, leaving them worse than before. They were not interested in the good of the people, but rather in their own interests and in their own portfolio. Jesus explains that the fundamental criterion to discern who is the shepherd and who is the bandit is the concern for the life of the sheep. He asks the people not to follow the one who presents himself as a shepherd, but does not desire the life of the people. It is here that Jesus pronounced that phrase which we sing even now: “I have come so that they may have life, and life to the full!” This is the first criterion.
Jesus is the gate. The Pharisees who were listening to Jesus, (cf. Jn 9, 40-41), did not understand the comparison. Then, Jesus explained: “I am the gate of the sheepfold. All those who have come before me, are thieves and bandits”. About whom is Jesus speaking using these hard words? Probably, he is referring to the religious leaders who drew people behind them, but who did not respond to the hopes of the people. They deceived the people, leaving them worse than before. They were not interested in the good of the people, but rather in their own interests and in their own portfolio. Jesus explains that the fundamental criterion to discern who is the shepherd and who is the bandit is the concern for the life of the sheep. He asks the people not to follow the one who presents himself as a shepherd, but does not desire the life of the people. It is here that Jesus pronounced that phrase which we sing even now: “I have come so that they may have life, and life to the full!” This is the first criterion.
* Jn 10, 11: Jesus presents himself as the Good Shepherd who gives his life for the sheep.
Jesus changes the comparison. First, he was the gate of the sheep. Now he says that he is the shepherd of the sheep. And not just any shepherd, but rather: “I am the Good Shepherd!” The image of the good shepherd comes from the Old Testament. Everybody knew what a shepherd was and how he lived and worked. In saying that he is a Good Shepherd, Jesus presents himself as the one who comes to fulfil the promises of the prophets and the hopes of the people. He insists on two points: (a) the defence of the life of the sheep; the good shepherd gives his life (Jn 10, 11.15.17.18): (b) in the reciprocal understanding between the shepherd and the sheep; the shepherd knows his sheep and they know the shepherd (Jn 10, 4.14.16).
Jesus changes the comparison. First, he was the gate of the sheep. Now he says that he is the shepherd of the sheep. And not just any shepherd, but rather: “I am the Good Shepherd!” The image of the good shepherd comes from the Old Testament. Everybody knew what a shepherd was and how he lived and worked. In saying that he is a Good Shepherd, Jesus presents himself as the one who comes to fulfil the promises of the prophets and the hopes of the people. He insists on two points: (a) the defence of the life of the sheep; the good shepherd gives his life (Jn 10, 11.15.17.18): (b) in the reciprocal understanding between the shepherd and the sheep; the shepherd knows his sheep and they know the shepherd (Jn 10, 4.14.16).
* Jn 10, 12-13: Jesus defines the attitude of the mercenary who is not a shepherd.
“The mercenary who is not a shepherd”. Looking from outside, the differences between the mercenary and the shepherd are not perceived. Both of them are busy with the sheep. Today there are many persons who take care of other persons in hospitals, in the communities, in the old peoples’ homes, in schools, in public services, in the parishes. Some do this out of love, others, hardly for a salary, in order to survive. These persons are not interested in the other persons. Their attitude is that of a functionary, of a worker earning a salary, of a mercenary. In a moment of danger, they are not interested, because “the sheep are not theirs”, the children are not theirs, the pupils are not theirs, their neighbours are not theirs, the faithful are not theirs, the sick are not theirs, the members of the community are not theirs.
Now, instead of judging the behaviour of others, let us place ourselves before our own conscience and let us ask ourselves: “In my relationship with others, am I a mercenary or a shepherd?” Look, Jesus does not condemn you because the worker has a right to his salary (Lk 10, 7), but he asks you to take another step forward and to become a shepherd.
“The mercenary who is not a shepherd”. Looking from outside, the differences between the mercenary and the shepherd are not perceived. Both of them are busy with the sheep. Today there are many persons who take care of other persons in hospitals, in the communities, in the old peoples’ homes, in schools, in public services, in the parishes. Some do this out of love, others, hardly for a salary, in order to survive. These persons are not interested in the other persons. Their attitude is that of a functionary, of a worker earning a salary, of a mercenary. In a moment of danger, they are not interested, because “the sheep are not theirs”, the children are not theirs, the pupils are not theirs, their neighbours are not theirs, the faithful are not theirs, the sick are not theirs, the members of the community are not theirs.
Now, instead of judging the behaviour of others, let us place ourselves before our own conscience and let us ask ourselves: “In my relationship with others, am I a mercenary or a shepherd?” Look, Jesus does not condemn you because the worker has a right to his salary (Lk 10, 7), but he asks you to take another step forward and to become a shepherd.
* Jn 10, 14-15: Jesus presents himself as the Good Shepherd who knows his sheep.
Two things characterize the Good Shepherd: a) he knows the sheep and is known by them. in the language of Jesus, "to know" is not a question of knowing the name or the face of the person, but to be in relationship with a person as a friend, and with affection. b) to give the life for the sheep. That means to be ready to sacrifice oneself out of love. The sheep feel and perceive when a person defends and protects them. This is valid for all of us: for the Parish priests and for those who have some responsibility towards other persons. In order to know if a Parish Priest is a good shepherd it is not sufficient to be named Parish Priest and to obey the norms of Canon Law. It is necessary to be recognized as a good shepherd by the sheep. Sometimes this is forgotten in the present day politics of the Church. Jesus says that not only does the shepherd know the sheep, but also the sheep know the shepherd. They have criteria for this. Because if they do not recognize him, even if he is named according to Canon Law, he is not a shepherd according to the Heart of Jesus. Not only the sheep have to obey the one who guides them. Also the one who guides has to be very attentive to the reaction of the sheep to know if he is acting like a shepherd or like a mercenary.
Two things characterize the Good Shepherd: a) he knows the sheep and is known by them. in the language of Jesus, "to know" is not a question of knowing the name or the face of the person, but to be in relationship with a person as a friend, and with affection. b) to give the life for the sheep. That means to be ready to sacrifice oneself out of love. The sheep feel and perceive when a person defends and protects them. This is valid for all of us: for the Parish priests and for those who have some responsibility towards other persons. In order to know if a Parish Priest is a good shepherd it is not sufficient to be named Parish Priest and to obey the norms of Canon Law. It is necessary to be recognized as a good shepherd by the sheep. Sometimes this is forgotten in the present day politics of the Church. Jesus says that not only does the shepherd know the sheep, but also the sheep know the shepherd. They have criteria for this. Because if they do not recognize him, even if he is named according to Canon Law, he is not a shepherd according to the Heart of Jesus. Not only the sheep have to obey the one who guides them. Also the one who guides has to be very attentive to the reaction of the sheep to know if he is acting like a shepherd or like a mercenary.
* Jn 10, 16: Jesus defines the goal to be attained; only one flock, only one shepherd.
Jesus opens the horizon and says that he has other sheep that are not of this fold. They have not as yet heard the voice of Jesus, but when they will hear it, they will become aware that he is the shepherd and they will follow him. Who will do this, and when will this happen? We are the ones, imitating in everything the behaviour of Jesus, the Good Shepherd!
Jesus opens the horizon and says that he has other sheep that are not of this fold. They have not as yet heard the voice of Jesus, but when they will hear it, they will become aware that he is the shepherd and they will follow him. Who will do this, and when will this happen? We are the ones, imitating in everything the behaviour of Jesus, the Good Shepherd!
* Jn 10, 17-18: Jesus and the Father.
In these two last verses Jesus opens himself and makes us understand something which is in the deepest part of his heart: his relationship with the Father. Here the truth of everything he says in another moment is perceived: “I shall no longer call you servants, but I have called you friends because all that I have heard from the Father I have made it known to you” (Jn 15, 15). Jesus is for us an open book.
In these two last verses Jesus opens himself and makes us understand something which is in the deepest part of his heart: his relationship with the Father. Here the truth of everything he says in another moment is perceived: “I shall no longer call you servants, but I have called you friends because all that I have heard from the Father I have made it known to you” (Jn 15, 15). Jesus is for us an open book.
c) Extending the information:
The image of the Shepherd in the Old Testament which is realized in Jesus
i) In Palestine, the survival of the people depended on the cattle breeding: goats and sheep. The image of the shepherd who guides his sheep to the pasture was known by everyone, just like today we know the image of the bus driver. It was normal to use the image of the shepherd to indicate the function of the one who governed and guided the people. The prophets criticized the kings because they were shepherds who were not concerned about their flocks and did not guide them to the pastures (Jr 2,8; 10,21; 23, 1-2). This criticism of the bad shepherds increased and reached its summit when the people were deported into exile because of the fault of the king (Ezk 34, 1-10; Zc 11, 4-17).
ii) In the face of the frustration which they had to suffer because of the way the bad shepherds acted, the desire arose to have God as the shepherd. a desire which is very well expressed in the Psalm: “The Lord is my Shepherd, there is nothing I shall want (Ps 23, 1-6; Gn 48, 15). The prophets hope that in the future, God himself will come to guide his fold, like a shepherd (Is 40, 11; Ezk 34, 11-16). And they hope that this time the people will know how to recognize the voice of their shepherd: “Today listen to his voice!” (Ps 95, 7). They hope that God will come as a Judge who will pronounce judgment among the sheep of the fold (Ezk 34,17). The desire and the hope arise that one day, God will arouse good shepherds and that the Messiah will be a Good Shepherd for the People of God (Jr 3, 15; 23, 4).
iii) Jesus fulfils this hope and presents himself as the Good Shepherd, different from the bandits who, before him, had robed the people. He also presents himself as the Judge of the people who, at the end, will issue the sentence as the shepherd who separates the sheep from the goats (Mt 25, 31-46). In Jesus the prophecy of Zechariah is fulfilled, which says that the good shepherd will be persecuted by the evil shepherds, annoyed by his denunciation: “Strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep!” (Zc 13, 7).
iv) At the end of the Gospel of John, the image is extended and Jesus at the end is everything at the same time: gate (Jn 10, 7, shepherd (Jn 10, 11) lamb and sheep (Jn 1, 36)!
A key for the Gospel of John
Everyone perceives the difference that exists between the Gospel of John and the other three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Someone defines it as follows: The other three make a photo, John makes and X-Ray. That is, John helps his readers to discover the most profound dimension which exits in what Jesus says and does. He reveals the hidden things that only the X-Rays of faith succeed to discover and reveal. John teaches to read the other Gospels with the gaze of faith and to discover the most profound significance. Jesus himself had already said that he would have sent the gift of his Spirit in order that we could understand all the fullness of his own word (Jn 14, 24-25; 16, 12-13). The ancient Fathers of the Church said: the Gospel of John is “spiritual” and “symbolical”.
Some examples: (a) Jesus cures the man born blind (Jn 9, 6-7). For John this miracle has a more profound significance. It reveals that Jesus is the light of the World who makes us understand and contemplate better the things of God in life (Jn 9, 39). (b) Jesus rises Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11, 43-44) not only to help Lazarus and to console his two sisters, Martha and Mary, but also to reveal that he is the Resurrection and the Life (Jn 11, 25-26). (c) Jesus changes 600 liters of water into wine at the wedding at Cana (Jn 2, 1-13). And he does this not only to safeguard the joy of the feast, but also and above all, to reveal that the new Law of the Gospel is like wine compared to the water of the former Law. And he does it with such great abundance (600 liters), precisely to signify that it will not be lacking for anyone, up until today! (d) Jesus multiplies the bread and feeds the hungry (Jn 6, 11) not only to satisfy the hunger of those poor people who were with him in the desert, but also to reveal that he himself is the bread of life which nourishes all throughout life (Jn 6, 34-58). (e) Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman about water (Jn 4, 7.10), but he wanted that she would succeed to discover the water of the gift of God which she already had within her (Jn 4, 14-14). In one word, it is the Spirit of Jesus that gives life (Jn 6, 63). The flesh or only the letter are not enough and can even kill the sense and the life (2 Co 3, 6).
6. Prayer: Psalm 23 (22)
Yahweh is my shepherd!
Yahweh is my shepherd,
I lack nothing.
In grassy meadows he lets me lie.
By tranquil streams he leads me
to restore my spirit.
He guides me in paths of saving justice
as befits his name.
I lack nothing.
In grassy meadows he lets me lie.
By tranquil streams he leads me
to restore my spirit.
He guides me in paths of saving justice
as befits his name.
Even were I to walk in a ravine
as dark as death
I should fear no danger,
for you are at my side.
Your staff and your crook
are there to soothe me.
as dark as death
I should fear no danger,
for you are at my side.
Your staff and your crook
are there to soothe me.
You prepare a table
for me under the eyes of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup brims over.
for me under the eyes of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup brims over.
Kindness and faithful love pursue me
every day of my life.
I make my home in the house
of Yahweh for all time to come.
every day of my life.
I make my home in the house
of Yahweh for all time to come.
7. Final Prayer
Lord Jesus, we thank for the word that has enabled us to understand better the will of the Father. May your Spirit enlighten our actions and grant us the strength to practice that which your Word has revealed to us. May we, like Mary, your mother, not only listen to but also practice the Word. You who live and reign with the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.
Reference: Courtesy of Order of Carmelites, www.ocarm.org.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Featured Item from Litany Lane
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Saint of the Day: Saint Anselm |
|---|
Feast Day: April 21
Attributes: Archbishop, Doctor of the Church.
Beginning at Bec, Anselm composed dialogues and treatises with a rational and philosophical approach, sometimes causing him to be credited as the founder of Scholasticism. Despite his lack of recognition in this field in his own time, Anselm is now famed as the originator of the ontological argument for the existence of God and of the satisfaction theory of atonement. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by a bull of Pope Clement XI in 1720.
As archbishop, he defended the church's interests in England amid the Investiture Controversy. For his resistance to the English kings William II and Henry I, he was exiled twice: once from 1097 to 1100 and then from 1105 to 1107. While in exile, he helped guide the Greek bishops of southern Italy to adopt Roman rites at the Council of Bari. He worked for the primacy of Canterbury over the bishops of York and Wales but, though at his death he appeared to have been successful, Pope Paschal II later reversed himself and restored York's independence.
Family
Anselm was born in or around Aosta in Upper Burgundy sometime between April 1033 and April 1034.[5] The area now forms part of the Republic of Italy, but Aosta had been part of the Carolingian Kingdom of Arles until the death of the childless Rudolph III in 1032.[6] The Emperor and the Count of Blois then went to war over his succession. Humbert the White-Handed, count of Maurienne, so distinguished himself that he was granted a new county carved out of the secular holdings of the less helpful bishop of Aosta. Humbert's son Otto was subsequently permitted to inherit the extensive march of Susa through his wife Adelaide in preference to her uncle's families, who had supported the effort to establish an independent Kingdom of Italy under William the Great of Aquitaine. Otto and Adelaide's unified lands then controlled the most important passes in the western Alps and formed the county of Savoy whose dynasty would later rule the kingdoms of Sardinia and Italy.Records during this period are scanty, but both sides of Anselm's immediate family appear to have been dispossessed by these decisions[7] in favour of their extended relations.[8] His father Gundulph[9] or Gundulf[10] was a Lombard noble,[11] probably one of Adelaide's Arduinici uncles or cousins;[12] his mother Ermenberga was almost certainly the granddaughter of Conrad the Peaceful, related both to the Anselmid bishops of Aosta and to the heirs of Henry II who had been passed over in favour of Conrad.[12] The marriage was thus probably arranged for political reasons but was incapable of resisting Conrad's decrees after his successful annexation of Burgundy on 1 August 1034.[13] (Bishop Burchard subsequently revolted against imperial control but was defeated; he was ultimately translated to Lyons.) Ermenberga appears to have been the wealthier of the two. Gundulph moved to his wife's town,[6] where she held a palace, likely near the cathedral, along with a villa in the valley.[14] Anselm's father is sometimes described as having a harsh and violent temper[9] but contemporary accounts merely portray him as having been overgenerous or careless with his wealth;[15] Anselm's patient and devoutly religious mother,[9] meanwhile, made up for her husband's fault with her own prudent management of the family estates.[15] In later life, there are records of three relations who visited Bec: Folceraldus, Haimo, and Rainaldus. The first repeatedly attempted to impose on Anselm's success but was rebuffed owing to his ties to another monastery; the latter two Anselm attempted in vain to persuade to join his community.[16]
Early life
 |
Becca di Nona south of Aosta, the sight of a supposed mystical vision during Anselm's childhood[17]
|
Following the death of his mother, probably at the birth of his sister Richera,[19] Anselm's father repented his earlier lifestyle but professed his new faith with a severity that the boy found likewise unbearable.[20] Once Gundulph had entered a convent,[21] Anselm, at age 23,[22] left home with a single attendant,[9] crossed the Alps, and wandered through Burgundy and France for three years.[18][b] His countryman Lanfranc of Pavia was then prior of the Benedictine abbey of Bec; attracted by the fame of his fellow countryman, Anselm reached Normandy in 1059.[9] After spending some time in Avranches, he returned the next year. His father having died, he consulted with Lanfranc as to whether to return to his estates and employ their income in providing alms or to renounce them, becoming a hermit or a monk at Bec or Cluny.[23] Professing to fear his own bias, Lanfranc sent him to Maurilius, the archbishop of Rouen, who convinced him to enter the abbey as a novice at the age of 27.[18] Probably in his first year, he wrote his first work on philosophy, a treatment of Latin paradoxes called the Grammarian.[24] Over the next decade, the Rule of Saint Benedict reshaped his thought.[2
Abbot of Bec
Early years
Three years later, in 1063, Duke William II summoned Lanfranc to serve as the abbot of his new abbey of St Stephen at Caen[9] and the monks of Bec—with some dissenters at first on account of his youth[18]—elected Anselm as his replacement.[26] A notable opponent was a young monk named Osborne. Anselm overcame his hostility first by praising, indulging, and privileging him in all things despite his hostility and then, when his affection and trust were gained, gradually withdrawing all preference until he upheld the strictest obedience.[27] Along similar lines, he remonstrated a neighboring abbot who complained that his charges were incorrigible despite being beaten "night and day".[28] After fifteen years, in 1078, Anselm was unanimously elected as Bec's abbot following the death of its founder,[29] the warrior-monk Herluin.[9] He was consecrated by the Bishop of Évreux on 22 February 1079.[30]In England
Following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, devoted lords had given the abbey extensive lands across the Channel.[9] Anselm occasionally visited to oversee the monastery's property, to wait upon his sovereign William I of England (formerly Duke William II of Normandy),[35] and to visit Lanfranc, who had been installed as archbishop of Canterbury in 1070.[36] He was respected by William I[37] and the good impression he made while in Canterbury made him the favourite of its cathedral chapter as a future successor to Lanfranc.[9] Instead, upon the archbishop's death in 1089, King William II—William Rufus or William the Red—refused the appointment of any successor and appropriated the see's lands and revenues for himself.[9] Fearing the difficulties that would attend being named to the position in opposition to the king, Anselm avoided journeying to England during this time.[9] The gravely ill Hugh, Earl of Chester, finally lured him over with three pressing messages in 1092,[38] seeking advice on how best to handle the establishment of a new monastery at St Werburgh's.[18] Hugh was recovered by the time of Anselm's arrival,[18] but he was occupied four[9] or five months by his assistance.[18] He then travelled to his former pupil Gilbert Crispin, abbot of Westminster, and waited, apparently delayed by the need to assemble the donors of Bec's new lands in order to obtain royal approval of the grants.[39] |
| A 19th-century portrayal of Anselm being dragged to the cathedral by the English bishops |
From the mid-8th century, it had become customary that metropolitan bishops could not be consecrated without a woolen pallium given or sent by the pope himself.[49] Anselm insisted that he journey to Rome for this purpose but William would not permit it. Amid the Investiture Controversy, Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV had deposed each other twice; bishops loyal to Henry finally elected Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, as a second pope. In France, Philip I had recognized Gregory and his successors Victor III and Urban II, but Guibert (as "Clement III") held Rome after 1084.[50] William had not chosen a side and maintained his right to prevent the acknowledgement of either pope by an English subject prior to his choice.[51] In the end, a ceremony was held to consecrate Anselm as archbishop on 4 December, without the pallium.[46]
 |
| The statue of Anselm on the southwest porch of Canterbury Cathedral, holding a copy of Cur Deus Homo in its right hand |
Archbishop of Canterbury
As archbishop, Anselm maintained his monastic ideals, including stewardship, prudence, and proper instruction, prayer and contemplation.[55] Anselm continued to agitate for reform and the interests of Canterbury.[56] As such, he repeatedly took advantage of expedient moments to press the English monarchy for concessions and support of the reform agenda.[57] His principled opposition to royal prerogatives over the church, meanwhile, twice led to his exile from England.[58]The traditional view of historians has been to see Anselm as aligned with the papacy against lay authority and Anselm's term in office as the English theatre of the Investiture Controversy begun by Pope Gregory VII and the emperor Henry IV.[58] Vaughn has argued against this and seen Anselm as primarily concerned with the dignity of Canterbury rather than the Church at large, thus acting as a third pole in the controversy.[59] By the time of a charter of c. 3 September 1101, he was styling himself "Archbishop of Canterbury and primate of Great Britain and Ireland and vicar of the High Pontiff Paschal".[60] By the end of his life, he had proven successful, having freed Canterbury from submission to the English king,[61] received papal recognition of the subservience of the wayward York[62] and the Welsh bishops, and gained strong authority over the Irish bishops.[63] He died before the Canterbury–York dispute was definitively settled, however, and Pope Honorius II finally found in favour of York instead.[64]
Conflicts with William Rufus
Anselm's vision was of a universal Church with its own internal authority, which clashed with William II's desire for royal control over both church and state.[57] One of Anselm's first conflicts with William came in the month he was consecrated. William II was preparing to wrest Normandy from his elder brother, Robert II, and needed funds.[69] Anselm was among those expected to pay him. He offered £500 but William refused, encouraged by his courtiers to insist on 1000 as a kind of annates for Anselm's elevation to archbishop. Anselm not only refused, he further pressed the king to fill England's other vacant positions, permit bishops to meet freely in councils, and to allow Anselm to resume enforcement of canon law, particularly against incestuous marriages,[18] until he was ordered to silence.[70] When a group of bishops subsequently suggested that William might now settle for the original sum, Anselm replied that he had already given the money to the poor and "that he disdained to purchase his master's favour as he would a horse or ass".[32] The king being told this, he replied Anselm's blessing for his invasion would not be needed as "I hated him before, I hate him now, and shall hate him still more hereafter".[70] Withdrawing to Canterbury, Anselm began work on the Cur Deus Homo.[32] |
| "Anselm Assuming the Pallium in Canterbury Cathedral" from E. M. Wilmot-Buxton's 1915 Anselm[71] |
Immediately following this, William secretly sent William Warelwast and Gerard to Italy,[56] prevailing on Urban to send a legate bearing Canterbury's pallium.[74] Walter, bishop of Albano, was chosen and negotiated in secret with William's representative, the Bishop of Durham.[75] The king agreed to publicly support Urban's cause in exchange for acknowledgement of his rights to accept no legates without invitation and to block clerics from receiving or obeying papal letters without his approval. William's greatest desire was for Anselm to be removed from office. Walter said that "there was good reason to expect a successful issue in accordance with the king's wishes" but, upon William's open acknowledgement of Urban as pope, Walter steadfastly refused to depose the archbishop. William then tried to sell the pallium to others, failed,[76] tried to extract a payment from Anselm for the pallium, but was again refused. William then tried to personally bestow the pallium to Anselm, an act connoting the church's subservience to the throne, and was again refused.[77] In the end, the pallium was laid on the altar at Canterbury, whence Anselm took it on 10 June 1095.[77]
The First Crusade was declared at the Council of Clermont in November.[c] Despite his service for the king which earned him rough treatment from Anselm's biographer Eadmer,[79][80] upon the grave illness of the Bishop of Durham in December, Anselm journeyed to console and bless him on his deathbed.[81] Over the next two years, William opposed several of Anselm's efforts at reform—including his right to convene a council[37]—but no overt dispute is known. However, in 1094, the Welsh had begun to recover their lands from the Marcher Lords and William's 1095 invasion had accomplished little; two larger forays were made in 1097 against Cadwgan in Powys and Gruffudd in Gwynedd. These were also unsuccessful and William was compelled to erect a series of border fortresses.[82] He charged Anselm with having given him insufficient knights for the campaign and tried to fine him.[83] In the face of William's refusal to fulfill his promise of church reform, Anselm resolved to proceed to Rome—where an army of French crusaders had finally installed Urban—in order to seek the counsel of the pope.[57] William again denied him permission. The negotiations ended with Anselm being "given the choice of exile or total submission": if he left, William declared he would seize Canterbury and never again receive Anselm as archbishop; if he were to stay, William would impose his fine and force him to swear never again to appeal to the papacy.[84]
First exile
 |
| Romanelli's c. 1640 Meeting of Countess Matilda and Anselm of Canterbury in the Presence of Pope Urban II |
At the Council of Bari in October, Anselm delivered his defence of the Filioque and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist before 185 bishops.[88] Although this is sometimes portrayed as a failed ecumenical dialogue, it is more likely that the "Greeks" present were the local bishops of Southern Italy,[89] some of whom had been ruled by Constantinople as recently as 1071.[88] The formal acts of the council have been lost and Eadmer's account of Anselm's speech principally consists of descriptions of the bishops' vestments, but Anselm later collected his arguments on the topic as De Processione Spiritus Sancti.[89] Under pressure from their Norman lords, the Italian Greeks seem to have accepted papal supremacy and Anselm's theology.[89] The council also condemned William II. Eadmer credited Anselm with restraining the pope from excommunicating him,[86] although others attribute Urban's politic nature.[90]
Anselm was present in a seat of honour at the Easter Council at St Peter's in Rome the next year.[91] There, amid an outcry to address Anselm's situation, Urban renewed bans on lay investiture and on clerics doing homage.[92] Anselm departed the next day, first for Schiavi—where he completed his work Cur Deus Homo—and then for Lyons.[90][93]
Conflicts with Henry I
Meanwhile, Anselm publicly supported Henry against the claims and threatened invasion of his brother Robert Curthose. Anselm wooed wavering barons to the king's cause, emphasizing the religious nature of their oaths and duty of loyalty;[98] he supported the deposition of Ranulf Flambard, the disloyal new bishop of Durham;[99] and he threatened Robert with excommunication.[60] The lack of popular support greeting his invasion near Portsmouth compelled Robert to accept the Treaty of Alton instead, renouncing his claims for an annual payment of 3000 marks.
Anselm held a council at Lambeth Palace which found that Henry's beloved Matilda had not technically become a nun and was thus eligible to wed and become queen.[100] On Michaelmas in 1102, Anselm was finally able to convene a general church council at London, establishing the Gregorian Reform within England. The council prohibited marriage, concubinage, and drunkenness to all those in holy orders,[101] condemned sodomy[102] and simony,[60] and regulated clerical dress.[60] Anselm also obtained a resolution against the British slave trade.[103] Henry supported Anselm's reforms and his authority over the English church, but continued to assert his own authority over Anselm. Upon their return, the three bishops he had dispatched on his second delegation to the pope claimed—in defiance of Paschal's sealed letter to Anselm, his public acts, and the testimony of the two monks who had accompanied them—that the pontiff had been receptive to Henry's counsel and secretly approved of Anselm's submission to the crown.[104] In 1103, then, Anselm consented to journey himself to Rome, along with the king's envoy William Warelwast.[105] Anselm supposedly travelled in order to argue the king's case for a dispensation[106] but, in response to this third mission, Paschal fully excommunicated the bishops who had accepted investment from Henry, though sparing the king himself.[90]
Second exile
After this ruling, Anselm received a letter forbidding his return and withdrew to Lyons to await Paschal's response.[90] On 26 March 1105, Paschal again excommunicated prelates who had accepted investment from Henry and the advisors responsible, this time including Robert de Beaumont, Henry's chief advisor.[107] He further finally threatened Henry with the same;[108] in April, Anselm sent messages to the king directly[109] and through his sister Adela expressing his own willingness to excommunicate Henry.[90] This was probably a negotiation tactic[110] but it came at a critical period in Henry's reign[90] and it worked: a meeting was arranged and a compromise concluded at Laigle on 22 July 1105. Henry would forsake lay investiture if Anselm obtained Paschal's permission for clerics to do homage for their lands;[111][112] Henry's bishops'[90] and counselors' excommunications were to be lifted provided they advise him to obey the papacy (Anselm performed this act on his own authority and latter had to answer for it to Paschal);[111] the revenues of Canterbury would be returned to the archbishop; and priests would no longer be permitted to marry.[112] Anselm insisted on the agreement's ratification by the pope before he would consent to return to England, but wrote to Paschal in favour of the deal, arguing that Henry's forsaking of lay investiture was a greater victory than the matter of homage.[113] On 23 March 1106, Paschal wrote Anselm accepting the terms established at Laigle, although both clerics saw this as a temporary compromise and intended to continue pressing for reforms,[114] including the ending of homage to lay authorities.[115]Even after this, Anselm refused to return to England.[116] Henry travelled to Bec and met with him on 15 August 1106. Henry was forced to make further concessions. He restored to Canterbury all the churches that had been seized by William or during Anselm's exile, promising that nothing more would be taken from them and even providing Anselm with a security payment. Henry had initially taxed married clergy and, when their situation had been outlawed, had made up the lost revenue by controversially extending the tax over all churchmen.[117] He now agreed that any prelate who had paid this would be exempt from taxation for three years. These compromises on Henry's part strengthened the rights of the Church against the king. Anselm returned to England before the new year.[90]
Final years
In 1107, the Concordat of London formalized the agreements between the king and archbishop,[61] Henry formally renouncing the right of English kings to invest the bishops of the church.[90] The remaining two years of Anselm's life were spent in the duties of his archbishopric.[90] He succeeded in getting Paschal to send the pallium for the archbishop of York to Canterbury, so that future archbishops-elect would have to profess obedience before receiving it.[62] The incumbent archbishop Thomas II had received his own pallium directly and insisted on York's independence. From his deathbed, Anselm anathematized all who failed to recognize Canterbury's primacy over all the English church. This ultimately forced Henry to order Thomas to confess his obedience to Anselm's successor.[63] On his deathbed, he announced himself content, except that he had a treatise in mind on the origin of the soul and did not know, once he was gone, if another was likely to compose it.[120]He died on Holy Wednesday, 21 April 1109.[106] His remains were translated to Canterbury Cathedral[121] and laid at the head of Lanfranc at his initial resting place to the south of the Altar of the Holy Trinity (now St Thomas's Chapel).[124] During the church's reconstruction after the disastrous fire of the 1170s, his remains were relocated,[124] although it is now uncertain where.
On 23 December 1752, Archbishop Herring was contacted by Count Perron, the Sardinian ambassador, on behalf of King Charles Emmanuel, who requested permission to translate Anselm's relics to Italy.[125] (Charles had been duke of Aosta during his minority.) Herring ordered his dean to look into the matter, saying that while "the parting with the rotten Remains of a Rebel to his King, a Slave to the Popedom, and an Enemy to the married Clergy (all this Anselm was)" would be no great matter, he likewise "should make no Conscience of palming on the Simpletons any other old Bishop with the Name of Anselm".[127] The ambassador insisted on witnessing the excavation, however,[129] and resistance on the part of the prebendaries seems to have quieted the matter.[122] They considered the state of the cathedral's crypts would have offended the sensibilities of a Catholic and that it was probable that Anselm had been removed to near the altar of SS Peter and Paul, whose side chapel to the right (i.e., south) of the high altar took Anselm's name following his canonization. At that time, his relics would presumably have been placed in a shrine and its contents "disposed of" during the Reformation.[124] The ambassador's own investigation was of the opinion that Anselm's body had been confused with Archbishop Theobald's and likely remained entombed near the altar of the Virgin Mary,[131] but in the uncertainty nothing further seems to have been done then or when inquiries were renewed in 1841.[133]
Writings
Anselm has been called "the most luminous and penetrating intellect between St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas"[106] and "the father of scholasticism",[33] Scotus Erigena having employed more mysticism in his arguments.[90] Anselm's works are considered philosophical as well as theological since they endeavor to render Christian tenets of faith, traditionally taken as a revealed truth, as a rational system.[134] Anselm also studiously analyzed the language used in his subjects, carefully distinguishing the meaning of the terms employed from the verbal forms, which he found at times wholly inadequate.[135] His worldview was broadly Neoplatonic, as it was reconciled with Christianity in the works of St Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius,[136][d] with his understanding of Aristotelian logic gathered from the works of Boethius.[138][139][33] He or the thinkers in northern France who shortly followed him—including Abelard, William of Conches, and Gilbert of Poitiers—inaugurated "one of the most brilliant periods of Western philosophy", innovating logic, semantics, ethics, metaphysics, and other areas of philosophical theology.[140]Anselm held that faith necessarily precedes reason, but that reason can expand upon faith:[141] "And I do not seek to understand that I may believe but believe that I might understand. For this too I believe since, unless I first believe, I shall not understand".[e][142] This is possibly drawn from Tractate XXIX of St Augustine's Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John: regarding John 7:14–18, Augustine counseled "Do not seek to understand in order to believe but believe that thou may understand".[143] Anselm rephrased the idea repeatedly[f] and Thomas Williams(SEP 2007) considered that his aptest motto was the original title of the Proslogion, "faith seeking understanding", which intended "an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God".[144] Once the faith is held fast, however, he argued an attempt must be made to demonstrate its truth by means of reason: "To me, it seems to be negligence if, after confirmation in the faith, we do not study to understand that which we believe".[g][142] Merely rational proofs are always, however, to be tested by scripture[145][146] and he employs Biblical passages and "what we believe" (quod credimus) at times to raise problems or to present erroneous understandings, whose inconsistencies are then resolved by reason.[147]
Stylistically, Anselm's treatises take two basic forms, dialogues and sustained meditations.[147] In both, he strove to state the rational grounds for central aspects of Christian doctrines as a pedagogical exercise for his initial audience of fellow monks and correspondents.[147] The subjects of Anselm's works were sometimes dictated by contemporary events, such as his speech at the Council of Bari or the need to refute his association with the thinking of Roscelin, but he intended for his books to form a unity, with his letters and latter works advising the reader to consult his other books for the arguments supporting various points in his reasoning.[148] It seems to have been a recurring problem that early drafts of his works were copied and circulated without his permission.[147]
- De Grammatico
- The Monologion
- The Proslogion
- De Veritate
- De Libertate Arbitrii
- De Casu Diaboli
- De Fide Trinitatis, also known as De Incarnatione Verbi[33]
- Cur Deus Homo
- De Conceptu Virginali
- De Processione Spiritus Sancti
- De Sacrificio Azymi et Fermentati
- De Sacramentis Ecclesiae
- De Concordia
Monologion
The Monologion (Latin: Monologium, "Monologue"), originally entitled A Monologue on the Reason for Faith (Monoloquium de Ratione Fidei)[149][h] and sometimes also known as An Example of Meditation on the Reason for Faith (Exemplum Meditandi de Ratione Fidei),[151][i] was written in 1075 and 1076.[24] It follows St Augustine to such an extent that Gibson argues neither Boethius nor Anselm state anything which was not already dealt with in greater detail by Augustine's De Trinitate;[153] Anselm even acknowledges his debt to that work in the Monologion's prologue.[154] However, he takes pains to present his reasons for belief in God without appeal to scriptural or patristic authority,[155] using new and bold arguments.[156] He attributes this style—and the book's existence—to the requests of his fellow monks that "nothing whatsoever in these matters should be made convincing by the authority of Scripture, but whatsoever... the necessity of reason would concisely prove".[157]In the first chapter, Anselm begins with a statement that anyone should be able to convince themselves of the existence of God through reason alone "if he is even moderately intelligent".[158] He argues that many different things are known as "good", in many varying kinds and degrees. These must be understood as being judged relative to a single attribute of goodness.[159] He then argues that goodness is itself very good and, further, is good through itself. As such, it must be the highest good and, further, "that which is supremely good is also supremely great. There is, therefore, some one thing that is supremely good and supremely great—in other words, supreme among all existing things."[160] Chapter 2 follows a similar argument, while Chapter 3 argues that the "best and greatest and supreme among all existing things" must be responsible for the existence of all other things.[160] Chapter 4 argues that there must be a highest level of dignity among existing things and that highest level must have a single member. "Therefore, there is a certain nature or substance or essence who through himself is good and great and through himself is what he is; through whom exists whatever truly is good or great or anything at all; and who is the supreme good, the supreme great thing, the supreme being or subsistent, that is, supreme among all existing things."[160] The remaining chapters of the book are devoted to consideration of the attributes necessary to such a being.[160] The Euthyphro dilemma, although not addressed by that name, is dealt with as a false dichotomy.[161] God is taken to neither conform to nor invent the moral order but to embody it:[161] in each case of his attributes, "God having that attribute is precisely that attribute itself".[162]
A letter survives of Anselm responding to Lanfranc's criticism of the work. The elder cleric took exception to its lack of appeals to scripture and authority.[154] The preface of the Proslogion records his own dissatisfaction with the Monologion's arguments, since they are rooted in a posteriori evidence and inductive reasoning.[156]
Proslogion
The Proslogion (Latin: Proslogium, "Discourse"), originally entitled Faith Seeking Understanding (Fides Quaerens Intellectum) and then An Address on God's Existence (Alloquium de Dei Existentia),[149][163][j] was written over the next two years (1077–1078).[24] It is written in the form of an extended direct address to God.[147] It grew out of his dissatisfaction with the Monologion's interlinking and contingent arguments.[147] His "single argument that needed nothing but itself alone for proof, that would by itself be enough to show that God really exists"[164] is commonly[k] taken to be merely the second chapter of the work. In it, Anselm reasoned that even atheists can imagine a greatest being, having such attributes that nothing greater could exist (id quo nihil maius cogitari possit).[106] However, if such a being's attributes did not include existence, a still greater being could be imagined: one with all of the attributes of the first and existence. Therefore, the truly greatest possible being must necessarily exist. Further, this necessarily-existing greatest being must be God, who therefore necessarily exists.[156] This reasoning was known to the Scholastics as "Anselm's argument" (ratio Anselmi) but it became known as the ontological argument for the existence of God following Kant's treatment of it.[164][l]Responsio
The argument presented in the Proslogion has rarely seemed satisfactory[156][m] and was swiftly opposed by Gaunilo, a monk from the abbey of Marmoutier in Tours.[175] His book "for the fool" (Liber pro Insipiente)[n] argues that we cannot arbitrarily pass from idea to reality[156] (de posse ad esse not fit illatio).[33] The most famous of Gaunilo's objections is a parody of Anselm's argument involving an island greater than which nothing can be conceived.[164] Since we can conceive of such an island, it exists in our understanding and so must exist in reality. This is, however, absurd, since its shore might arbitrarily be increased and in any case varies with the tide.Anselm's reply (Responsio) or apology (Liber Apologeticus)[156] does not address this argument directly, which has led Klima,[178] Grzesik,[33] and others to construct replies for him and led Wolterstorff[179] and others to conclude that Gaunilo's attack is definitive.[164] Anselm, however, considered that Gaunilo had misunderstood his argument.[164][175] In each of Gaunilo's four arguments, he takes Anselm's description of "that than which nothing greater can be thought" to be equivalent to "that which is greater than everything else that can be thought".[175] Anselm countered that anything which does not actually exist is necessarily excluded from his reasoning and anything which might or probably does not exist is likewise aside the point. The Proslogion had already stated "anything else whatsoever other than [God] can be thought not to exist".[180] The Proslogion's argument concerns and can only concern the single greatest entity out of all existing things. That entity both must exist and must be God.[164]
Dialogues
All of Anselm's dialogues take the form of a lesson between a gifted and inquisitive student and a knowledgeable teacher. Except for in Cur Deus Homo, the student is not identified but the teacher is always recognizably Anselm himself.[147]Anselm's De Grammatico ("On the Grammarian"), of uncertain date,[o] deals with eliminating various paradoxes arising from the grammar of Latin nouns and adjectives[151] by examining the syllogisms involved to ensure the terms in the premises agree in meaning and not merely expression.[182] The treatment shows a clear debt to Boethius's treatment of Aristotle.[138]
Between 1080 and 1086, while still at Bec, Anselm composed the dialogues De Veritate ("On Truth"), De Libertate Arbitrii ("On the Freedom of Choice"), and De Casu Diaboli ("On the Devil's Fall").[24] De Veritate is concerned not merely with the truth of statements but with correctness in will, action, and essence as well.[183] Correctness in such matters is understood as doing what a thing ought or was designed to do.[183] Anselm employs Aristotelian logic to affirm the existence of an absolute truth of which all other truth forms separate kinds. He identifies this absolute truth with God, who therefore forms the fundamental principle both in the existence of things and the correctness of thought.[156] As a corollary, he affirms that "everything that is, is rightly".[185] De Libertate Arbitrii elaborates Anselm's reasoning on correctness with regard to free will. He does not consider this a capacity to 'sin but a capacity to do good for its own sake (as opposed to owing to coercion or for self-interest).[183] God and the good angels therefore have free will despite being incapable of sinning; similarly, the non-coercive aspect of free will enabled man and the rebel angels to sin, despite this not being a necessary element of free will itself.[186] In De Casu Diaboli, Anselm further considers the case of the fallen angels, which serves to discuss the case of rational agents in general.[187] The teacher argues that there are two forms of good—justice (justicia) and benefit (commodum)—and two forms of evil: injustice and harm (incommodum). All rational beings seek benefit and shun harm on their own account but independent choice permits them to abandon bounds imposed by justice.[187] Some angels chose their own happiness in preference to justice and were punished by God for their injustice with less happiness. The angels who upheld justice were rewarded with such happiness that they are now incapable of sin, there being no happiness left for them to seek in opposition to the bounds of justice.[186] Humans, meanwhile, retain the theoretical capacity to will justly but, owing to the Fall, they are incapable of doing so in practice except by divine grace.[188]
Cur Deus Homo
Cur Deus Homo ("Why God was a Man") was written from 1095 to 1098 once Anselm was already archbishop of Canterbury[24] as a response for requests to discuss the Incarnation.[189] It takes the form of a dialogue between Anselm and Boso, one of his students.[190] Its core is a purely rational argument for the necessity of the Christian mystery of atonement, the belief that Jesus's crucifixion was necessary to atone for mankind's sin. Anselm argues that, owing to the Fall and mankind's fallen nature ever since, humanity has offended God. Divine justice demands restitution for sin but human beings are incapable of providing it, as all the actions of men are already obligated to the furtherance of God's glory.[191] Further, God's infinite justice demands infinite restitution for the impairment of his infinite dignity.[188] The enormity of the offence led Anselm to reject personal acts of atonement, even Peter Damian's flagellation, as inadequate[192] and ultimately vain.[193] Instead, full recompense could only be made by God, which His infinite mercy inclines Him to provide. Atonement for humanity, however, could only be made through the figure of Jesus, as a sinless being both fully divine and fully human.[189] Taking it upon himself to offer his own life on our behalf, his crucifixion accrues infinite worth, more than redeeming mankind and permitting it to enjoy a just will in accord with its intended nature.[188] This interpretation is notable for permitting divine justice and mercy to be entirely compatible[159] and has exercised immense influence over church doctrine,[156][194] largely supplanting the earlier theory developed by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa[106] that had focused primarily on Satan's power over fallen man.[156] Cur Deus Homo is often accounted Anselm's greatest work,[106] but the legalist and amoral nature of the argument, along with its neglect of the individuals actually being redeemed, has been criticized both by comparison with the treatment by Abelard[156] and for its subsequent development in Protestant theology.[195]Other works
Anselm's De Fide Trinitatis et de Incarnatione Verbi Contra Blasphemias Ruzelini ("On Faith in the Trinity and on the Incarnation of the Word Against the Blasphemies of Roscelin"),[33] also known as Epistolae de Incarnatione Verbi ("Letters on the Incarnation of the Word"),[24] was written in two drafts in 1092 and 1094.[33] It defended Lanfranc and Anselm from association with the supposedly tritheist heresy espoused by Roscelin of Compiègne, as well as arguing in favour of Trinitarianism and universals.De Conceptu Virginali et de Originali Peccato ("On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin") was written in 1099.[24] He claimed to have written it out of a desire to expand on an aspect of Cur Deus Homo for his student and friend Boso and takes the form of Anselm's half of a conversation with him.[147] Although Anselm denied belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception,[196] his thinking laid two principles which formed the groundwork for that dogma's development. The first is that it was proper that Mary should be so pure that—apart from God—no purer being could be imagined. The second was his treatment of original sin. Earlier theologians had held that it was transmitted from generation to generation by the sinful nature of sex. As in his earlier works, Anselm instead held that Adam's sin was borne by his descendants through the change in human nature which occurred during the Fall. Parents were unable to establish a just nature in their children which they had never had themselves.[197] This would subsequently be addressed in Mary's case by dogma surrounding the circumstances of her own birth.
De Processione Spiritus Sancti Contra Graecos ("On the Procession of the Holy Spirit Against the Greeks"),[163] written in 1102,[24] is a recapitulation of Anselm's treatment of the subject at the Council of Bari.[89] He discussed the Trinity first by stating that human beings could not know God from Himself but only from analogy. The analogy that he used was the self-consciousness of man. The peculiar double-nature of consciousness, memory, and intelligence represent the relation of the Father to the Son. The mutual love of these two (memory and intelligence), proceeding from the relation they hold to one another, symbolizes the Holy Spirit.[156]
De Concordia Praescientiae et Praedestinationis et Gratiae Dei cum Libero Arbitrio ("On the Harmony of Foreknowledge and Predestination and the Grace of God with Free Choice") was written from 1107 to 1108.[24] Like the De Conceptu Virginali, it takes the form of a single narrator in a dialogue, offering presumable objections from the other side.[147] Its treatment of free will relies on Anselm's earlier works, but goes into greater detail as to the ways in which there is no actual incompatibility or paradox created by the divine attributes.[148] In its 5th chapter, Anselm reprises his consideration of eternity from the Monologion. "Although nothing is there except what is present, it is not the temporal present, like ours, but rather the eternal, within which all times altogether are contained. If in a certain way the present time contains every place and all the things that are in any place, likewise, every time is encompassed in the eternal present, and everything that is in any time."[199] It is an overarching present, all beheld at once by God, thus permitting both his "foreknowledge" and genuine free choice on the part of mankind.[200]
Fragments survive of the work Anselm left unfinished at his death, which would have been a dialogue concerning certain pairs of opposites, including ability/inability, possibility/impossibility, and necessity/freedom.[201] It is thus sometimes cited under the name De Potestate et Impotentia, Possibilitate et Impossibilitate, Necessitate et Libertate.[33] Another work, probably left unfinished by Anselm and subsequently revised and expanded, was De Humanis Moribus per Similitudines ("On Mankind's Morals, Told Through Likenesses") or De Similitudinibus ("On Likenesses").[202] A collection of his sayings (Dicta Anselmi) was compiled, probably by the monk Alexander.[203] He also composed prayers to various saints.[11]
Anselm wrote nearly 500 surviving letters (Epistolae) to clerics, monks, relatives, and others,[204] the earliest being those written to the Norman monks who followed Lanfranc to England in 1070.[11] Southern asserts that all of Anselm's letters "even the most intimate" are statements of his religious beliefs, consciously composed so as to be read by many others.[205] His long letters to Waltram, bishop of Naumberg in Germany (Epistolae ad Walerannum) De Sacrificio Azymi et Fermentati ("On Unleavened and Leavened Sacrifice") and De Sacramentis Ecclesiae ("On the Church's Sacraments") were both written between 1106 and 1107 and are sometimes bound as separate books.[24] Although he seldom asked others to pray for him, two of his letters to hermits do so, "evidence of his belief in their spiritual prowess".[53] His letters of guidance—one to Hugh, a hermit near Caen, and two to a community of lay nuns—endorse their lives as a refuge from the difficulties of the political world with which Anselm had to contend.[53]
A 12th-century illumination of Eadmer composing Anselm's biography
Many of Anselm's letters contain passionate expressions of attachment and affection, often addressed "to the beloved lover" (dilecto dilectori). While there is wide agreement that Anselm was personally committed to the monastic ideal of celibacy, some academics such as McGuire[206] and Boswell[207] have characterized these writings as expressions of a homosexual inclination.[208] The general view, expressed by Olsen[209] and Southern, sees the expressions as representing a "wholly spiritual" affection "nourished by an incorporeal ideal".[210]Legacy
Two biographies of Saint Anselm were written shortly after his death by his chaplain and secretary Eadmer (Vita et Conversatione Anselmi Cantuariensis) and the monk Alexander (Ex Dictis Beati Anselmi).[23] Eadmer also detailed Anselm's struggles with the English monarchs in his history (Historia Novorum). Another was compiled about fifty years later by John of Salisbury at the behest of Thomas Becket.[204] The historians William of Malmesbury, Orderic Vitalis, and Matthew Paris all left full accounts of his struggles against the second and third Norman kings.[204]Anselm's students included Eadmer, Alexander, Gilbert Crispin, Honorius Augustodunensis, and Anselm of Laon. His works were copied and disseminated in his lifetime and exercised an influence on the Scholastics, including Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham.[139] His thoughts have guided much subsequent discussion on the procession of the Holy Spirit and the atonement. His work also anticipates much of the later controversies over free will and predestination.[51] An extensive debate occurred—primarily among French scholars—in the early 1930s about "nature and possibility" of Christian philosophy, which drew strongly on Anselm's work.[139]
Modern scholarship remains sharply divided over the nature of Anselm's episcopal leadership. Some, including Fröhlich[211] and Schmitt,[212] argue for Anselm's attempts to manage his reputation as a devout scholar and cleric, minimizing the worldly conflicts he found himself forced into.[212] Vaughn[213] and others argue that the "carefully nurtured image of simple holiness and profound thinking" was precisely employed as a tool by an adept, disingenuous political operator,[212] while the traditional view of the pious and reluctant church leader recorded by Eadmer—one who genuinely "nursed a deep-seated horror of worldly advancement"—is upheld by Southern[214] among others.[53][212]
Veneration
 |
Sant'Anselmo in Rome, the seat of the Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Confederation
|
Anselm's canonization was requested of Pope Alexander III by Thomas Becket at the Council of Tours in 1163.[204] He may have been formally canonized before Becket's murder in 1170: no record of this has survived but he was subsequently listed among the saints at Canterbury and elsewhere. It is usually reckoned, however, that his cult was only formally sanctioned by Pope Alexander VI in 1494[90][215] or 1497[131] at the request of Archbishop Morton.[131] His feast day is commemorated on the day of his death, 21 April, by the Roman Catholic Church, much of Anglican Communion,[23] and some forms of High Church Lutheranism. The location of his relics is uncertain. His most common attribute is a ship, representing the spiritual independence of the church.
Anselm was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Clement XI in 1720;[18] he is known as the doctor magnificus ("Magnificent Doctor")[33] or the doctor Marianus ("Marian doctor"). A chapel of Canterbury Cathedral south of the high altar is dedicated to him; it includes a modern stained-glass representation of the saint, flanked by his mentor Lanfranc and his steward Baldwin and by kings William II and Henry I.[216][217] The Pontifical Atheneum of St. Anselm, named in his honor, was established in Rome by Pope Leo XIII in 1887. The adjacent Sant'Anselmo all'Aventino, the seat of the Abbot Primate of the Federation of Black Monks (all the monks under the Rule of St Benedict except the Cistercians and the Trappists), was dedicated to him in 1900. 800 years after his death, on 21 April 1909, Pope Pius X issued the encyclical "Communium Rerum" praising Anselm, his ecclesiastical career, and his writings. In the United States, the Saint Anselm Abbey and its associated college are located in New Hampshire; they held a celebration in 2009 commemorating the 900th anniversary of Anselm's death. In 2015, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, created the Community of Saint Anselm, an Anglican religious order that resides at Lambeth Palace and is devoted to "prayer and service to the poor".[218]
References
- "Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109)", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006, retrieved 30 June 2015
- "St Anselm", The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 73–75, ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3
- "Reviews: St. Gregory and St. Anselm: Saint Anselme de Cantorbery. Tableau de la vie monastique, et de la lutte du pouvoir spirituel avec le pouvoir temporel au onzième siècle. Par M.C. de Remusat. Didier, Paris, 1853", The Rambler, A Catholic Journal and Review, Vol. XII, No. 71 & 72, London: Levey, Robson, & Franklyn for Burns & Lambert, 1853, pp. 360–374, 480–499
- "Saint Anselm", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 2000 [Revised 2007]
- "Anselm of Canterbury" (PDF), Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Lublin: Polish Thomas Aquinas Association [Originally published in Polish as Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii]
- Anselm of Canterbury, De Concordia (in Latin), (Schmitt edition)
- Barlow, Frank (1983), William Rufus, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-04936-5
Baynes, T.S., ed. (1878), "Anselm", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2 (9th ed.), New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp. 91–93- Boniface (747), "Letter to Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury", translated by Talbot
- Boswell, John (1980), Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, University Of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-06711-4
- Butler, Alban (1864), "St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury", The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints, Vol. VI, D. & J. Sadlier & Co.
- Cantor, Norman F. (1958), Church, Kingship, and Lay Investiture in England 1089–1135, Princeton: Princeton University Press, OCLC 2179163
- Charlesworth, Maxwell J. (2003), "Introduction", St. Anselm's Proslogion with A Reply on Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo and the Author's Reply to Gaunilo, South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press (Originally published 1965)
- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Anselm". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 81–83.
- Cook, G.H. (1949), Portrait of Canterbury Cathedral, London: Phoenix House
- Crawley, John J. (1910), Lives of the Saints, John J. Crawley & Co.
- Davies, Brian; et al. (2004), The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-00205-2
- Davies, James (1874), History of England from the Death of "Edward the Confessor" to the Death of John, (1066–1216) A.D., London: George Philip & Son
- Dinkova-Bruun, Greti (2015), "Nummus Falsus: The Perception of Counterfeit Money in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth Century", Money and the Church in Medieval Europe, 1000–1200: Practice, Morality, and Thought, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 77–92, ISBN 9781472420992
- Doe, Michael (2000), Seeking the Truth in Love: The Church and Homosexuality, Darton, Longman and Todd, p. 18, ISBN 978-0-232-52399-7
- Duggan, Charles (1965), "From the Conquest to the Death of John", The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages, [Reprinted 1999 by Sutton Publishing], pp. 63–116, ISBN 0-7509-1947-7
- Foley, George C. (1909), Anselm's Theory of the Atonement, London: Longmans, Green, & Co.
- Forshall, Josiah, ed. (1840), Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum, New Series Vol. I, Pt. II: The Burney Manuscripts, London: British Museum
- Fortescue, Adrian H.T.K. (1907), The Orthodox Eastern Church, Catholic Truth Society
- Fröhlich, Walter (1990), "Introduction", The Letters of Saint Anselm of Canterbury, Vol. I, Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications
- Fulton, Rachel (2002), From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ & the Virgin Mary, 800–1200, New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-12550-X
- Gale, Colin (5 July 2010), "Treasures in Earthen Vessels: Treasures from Lambeth Palace Library", Fulcrum, London: Fulcrum Anglican
- Gibson, Margaret (1981), "The Opuscula Sacra in the Middle Ages", Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Influence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–234
- Historical Manuscripts Commission (1901), Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections, Vol. I Berwick-upon-Tweed, Burford, and Lostwithiel Corporations; the Counties of Wilts and Worcester; the Bishop of Chichester; and the Deans and Chapters of Chichester, Canterbury, and Salisbury, London: Mackie & Co. for His Majesty's Stationery Office
- Holland, Richard A., Jr. (2012), "Anselm", God, Time, and the Incarnation, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, pp. 42–44, ISBN 978-1-61097-729-6
- Hollister, C. Warren (1982), Medieval Europe: A Short History, New York: John Wiley & Sons
- Hollister, C. Warren (1983), The Making of England: 55 B.C. to 1399, Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company
- Hollister, C. Warren (2003), Henry I, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-09829-7
- Hughes-Edwards, Mari (2012), Reading Medieval Anchoritism: Ideology and Spiritual Practices, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, ISBN 978-0-7083-2505-6
- Janaro, John (Spring 2006), "Saint Anselm and the Development of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: Historical and Theological Perspectives" (PDF), The Saint Anselm Journal, 3 (2): 48–56
- Kent, William (1907), "St. Anselm (1)", in Herbermann, Charles, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1, New York: Robert Appleton Company
- Kidd, B.J. (1927), The Churches of Eastern Christendom: From A.D. 451 to the Present Time, [reprinted by Routledge 2013]
- Klima, Gyula (2000), "Saint Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding", Medieval Philosophy and Modern Times (Proceedings of "Medieval and Modern Philosophy of Religion", Boston University, August 25–27, 1992), Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 69–88
- Logan, Ian (2009), Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and its Significance Today, Farnham: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-7546-6123-8
- Luscombe, David Edward (1997), Medieval Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press [Reprinted 2004], ISBN 0-19-289179-0
- Marenbon, John (2005), "Anselm: Proslogion", Central Works of Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval, King's Lynn: Biddles for McGill–Queen's University Press, ISBN 0-7735-3016-9
- McEvoy, James (1994), "La preuve anselmienne de l'existence de Dieu est-elle ontologique? [Is the Anselmian Proof of the Existence of God Ontological?]", Revue philosophique de Louvain, Vol. 92
- McGuire, Brian P. (1985), "Monastic Friendship and Toleration in Twelfth Century Cistercian Life", Monks, Hermits and the Ascetic Tradition: Papers Read at the 1984 Summer Meeting and the 1985 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0-631-14351-3
- Ollard, Sidney Leslie; et al., eds. (1931), Archbishop Herring's Visitation Returns 1743, Vol. V, (reprinted by Cambridge University Press 2013)
- Olsen, Glenn (1988), "St. Anselm and Homosexuality", Anselm Studies II: Proceedings of the Fifth International Saint Anselm Conference, pp. 93–141
- Partner, Nancy (December 1973), "Henry of Huntingdon: Clerical Celibacy and the Writing of History", Church History, 42 (4): 467–475, 468
- Potter, Philip J. (2009), Gothic Kings of Britain: The Lives of 31 Medieval Rulers, 1016-1399
- Powell, J. Enoch; et al. (1968), The House of Lords in the Middle Ages: A History of the English House of Lords to 1540, London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, OCLC 263296875
- Robson, Michael (June 1996), "Saint Anselm and his Father, Gundulf", Historical Research, Vol. 69, No. 169, pp. 197–200, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2281.1996.tb01851.x
- Rogers, Katherin A. (2008), Anselm on Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-923167-6
- Rule, Martin (1883), The Life and Times of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Britons, Vol. I, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co.
- Schaff (13 July 2005), "NPNF1-07. St. Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John; Homilies on the First Epistle of John; Soliloquies", Christian Classics Ethereal Library, retrieved 2 May 2015
- Southern, Richard W. (1990), St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-43818-6
- Southern, Richard W. (1963), Saint Anselm and His Biographer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Vaughn, Sally N. (Autumn 1974), "St. Anselm: Reluctant Archbishop?", Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 240–250
- Vaughn, Sally N. (1975), "St Anselm of Canterbury: the Philosopher-Saint as Politician", Journal of Medieval History, Vol. I, pp. 279–306
- Vaughn, Sally N. (Winter 1978), "Robert of Meulan and Raison d'État in the Anglo-Norman State, 1093–1118", Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 352–373
- Vaughn, Sally N. (1980), "St. Anselm and the English Investiture Controversy Reconsidered", Journal of Medieval History, Vol. 6, pp. 61–86
- Vaughn, Sally N. (1987), Anselm of Bec and Robert of Meulan: The Innocence of the Dove and the Wisdom of the Serpent, Berkeley: University of California Press
- Vaughn, Sally N. (Summer 1988), "Anselm: Saint and Statesman", Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 205–220
- Willis, Robert (1845), The Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral, Oxford: I. Shrimpton for Parker
- Wilmot-Buxton, Ethel Mary (1915), Anselm, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Illustrated by Morris Meredith Williams
- Wolterstorff, Nicholas (1993), "In Defense of Gaunilo's Defense of the Fool", Christian Perspectives on Religious Knowledge, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
- Zalta, Edward N.; et al. (1991), "On the Logic of the Ontological Argument" (PDF), Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 5, pp. 509–529
- Zalta, Edward N.; et al. (2007), "Reflections on the Logic of the Ontological Argument" (PDF), Studia Neoaristotelica, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 28–35
- Zalta, Edward N.; et al. (2011), "A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument" (PDF), Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 333–349
Citations
- A. D. Smith, Anselm's Other Argument, Harvard University Press, 2014, p. 66.
- Brian Davies, Brian Leftow (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 120.
- Steven P. Marrone, William of Auvergne and Robert Grosseteste: New Ideas of Truth in Early Thirteenth Century, Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 146.
- Rule (1883), p. 2–3.
- Rule (1883), p. 1–2.
- Southern (1990), p. 7.
- Rule (1883), p. 1–4.
- Southern (1990), p. 8.
- EB (1878), p. 91.
- Robson (1996).
- ODCC (2005), p. 73.
- Rule (1883), p. 1.
- Rule (1883), p. 2.
- Rule (1883), p. 4–7.
- Rule (1883), p. 7–8.
- Southern (1990), p. 9.
- Rule (1883), p. 12–14.
- Butler (1864).
- Wilmot-Buxton (1915), Ch. 3.
- Rambler (1853), p. 365–366.
- Rambler (1853), p. 366.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 9.
- IEP (2006), §1.
- SEP (2007), §1.
- Southern (1990), p. 32.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 10.
- Rambler (1853), pp. 366–367.
- Rambler (1853), p. 367–368.
- Rambler (1853), p. 368.
- Vaughn (1975), p. 282.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 15.
- Rambler (1853), p. 483.
- PEF (2000).
- Vaughn (1975), p. 281.
- Rambler (1853), p. 369.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 16.
- ODCC (2005), p. 74.
- Rambler (1853), p. 370.
- Southern (1990), p. 189.
- Rambler (1853), p. 371.
- Barlow (1983), pp. 298–299.
- Southern (1990), p. 189–190.
- Southern (1990), p. 191–192.
- Barlow (1983), p. 306.
- Vaughn (1974), p. 246.
- Vaughn (1975), p. 286.
- Vaughn (1974), p. 248.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 17.
- Boniface (747), Letter to Cuthbert.
- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Guibert of Ravenna". Encyclopædia Britannica. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 683.
- CE (1907).
- Vaughn (1974), p. 240. Hughes-Edwards (2012), p. 19.
- A. D. Smith, Anselm's Other Argument, Harvard University Press, 2014, p. 66.
- Brian Davies, Brian Leftow (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 120.
- Steven P. Marrone, William of Auvergne and Robert Grosseteste: New Ideas of Truth in Early Thirteenth Century, Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 146.
- Rule (1883), p. 2–3.
- Rule (1883), p. 1–2.
- Southern (1990), p. 7.
- Rule (1883), p. 1–4.
- Southern (1990), p. 8.
- EB (1878), p. 91.
- Robson (1996).
- ODCC (2005), p. 73.
- Rule (1883), p. 1.
- Rule (1883), p. 2.
- Rule (1883), p. 4–7.
- Rule (1883), p. 7–8.
- Southern (1990), p. 9.
- Rule (1883), p. 12–14.
- Butler (1864).
- Wilmot-Buxton (1915), Ch. 3.
- Rambler (1853), p. 365–366.
- Rambler (1853), p. 366.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 9.
- IEP (2006), §1.
- SEP (2007), §1.
- Southern (1990), p. 32.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 10.
- Rambler (1853), pp. 366–367.
- Rambler (1853), p. 367–368.
- Rambler (1853), p. 368.
- Vaughn (1975), p. 282.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 15.
- Rambler (1853), p. 483.
- PEF (2000).
- Vaughn (1975), p. 281.
- Rambler (1853), p. 369.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 16.
- ODCC (2005), p. 74.
- Rambler (1853), p. 370.
- Southern (1990), p. 189.
- Rambler (1853), p. 371.
- Barlow (1983), pp. 298–299.
- Southern (1990), p. 189–190.
- Southern (1990), p. 191–192.
- Barlow (1983), p. 306.
- Vaughn (1974), p. 246.
- Vaughn (1975), p. 286.
- Vaughn (1974), p. 248.
- Charlesworth (2003), p. 17.
- Boniface (747), Letter to Cuthbert.
- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Guibert of Ravenna". Encyclopædia Britannica. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 683
- CE (1907).
- Vaughn (1974), p. 240. Hughes-Edwards (2012), p. 19.
- Vaughn (1975), pp. 296–297.
- Vaughn (1980), p. 80.
- Vaughn (1975), p. 297.
- Cross, Michael, "Altar in St Anselm Chapel", Canterbury Historical and Archaeological Society, retrieved 30 June 2015
- "St Anselm's Chapel Altar", Waymarking, Seattle: Groundspeak, 28 April 2012, retrieved 30 June 2015
- Rambler (1853), p. 498.
- Willis (1845), p. 46.
- Ollard & al. (1931), App. D, p. 21.
- HMC (1901), p. 227–228.
- A letter of 9 January 1753 by "S.S." (probably Samuel Shuckford but possibly Samuel Stedman)[122] to Thomas Herring.[123]
- Ollard & al. (1931), App. D, p. 20.
- HMC (1901), p. 226.
- A letter of 23 December 1752 by Thomas Herring to John Lynch.[126]
- HMC (1901), p. 227.
- A letter of 6 January 1753 by Thomas Herring to John Lynch.[128]
- HMC (1901), p. 229–230.
- A letter of 31 March 1753 by P. Bradley to Count Perron.[130]
- HMC (1901), p. 230–231.
- A letter of 16 August 1841 by Lord Bolton, possibly to W.R. Lyall.[132]
- Davies & al. (2004), p. 2.
- IEP (2006), Introduction.
- Charlesworth (2003), pp. 23–24
- Marenbon (2005), p. 170.
- Logan (2009), p. 14.
- IEP (2006), §2.
- Marenbon (2005), p. 169–170.
- Hollister (1982), p. 302.
- Chisholm 1911, p. 82.
- Schaff (2005).
- SEP (2007).
- Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo, Vol. I, §2.
- Anselm of Canterbury, De Fide Trinitatis, §2.
- IEP (2006), §3.
- Davies & al. (2004).
- Logan (2009), p. 85.
- Anselm of Canterbury, Letters, No. 109.
- Luscombe (1997), p. 44.
- Logan (2009), p. 86.
- Gibson (1981), p. 214
- Logan (2009), p. 21.
- Logan (2009), p. 21–22.
- EB (1878), p. 93.
- Anselm of Canterbury, Monologion, p. 7, translated by Sadler.[147]
- SEP (2007), §2.1.
- IEP (2006).
- SEP (2007), §2.2.
- Rogers (2008), p. 8.
- IEP (2006), §6.
- Forshall (1840), p. 74.
- SEP (2007), §2.3.
- Vaughn (1975), pp. 296–297.
- Vaughn (1980), p. 80.
- Vaughn (1975), p. 297.
- Cross, Michael, "Altar in St Anselm Chapel", Canterbury Historical and Archaeological Society, retrieved 30 June 2015
- "St Anselm's Chapel Altar", Waymarking, Seattle: Groundspeak, 28 April 2012, retrieved 30 June 2015
- Rambler (1853), p. 498.
- Willis (1845), p. 46.
- Ollard & al. (1931), App. D, p. 21.
- HMC (1901), p. 227–228.
- A letter of 9 January 1753 by "S.S." (probably Samuel Shuckford but possibly Samuel Stedman)[122] to Thomas Herring.[123]
- Ollard & al. (1931), App. D, p. 20.
- HMC (1901), p. 226.
- A letter of 23 December 1752 by Thomas Herring to John Lynch.[126]
- HMC (1901), p. 227.
- A letter of 6 January 1753 by Thomas Herring to John Lynch.[128]
- HMC (1901), p. 229–230.
- A letter of 31 March 1753 by P. Bradley to Count Perron.[130]
- HMC (1901), p. 230–231.
- A letter of 16 August 1841 by Lord Bolton, possibly to W.R. Lyall.[132]
- Davies & al. (2004), p. 2.
- IEP (2006), Introduction.
- Charlesworth (2003), pp. 23–24.
- Marenbon (2005), p. 170.
- Logan (2009), p. 14.
- IEP (2006), §2.
- Marenbon (2005), p. 169–170.
- Hollister (1982), p. 302.
- Chisholm 1911, p. 82.
- Schaff (2005).
- SEP (2007).
- Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo, Vol. I, §2.
- Anselm of Canterbury, De Fide Trinitatis, §2.
- IEP (2006), §3.
- Davies & al. (2004).
- Logan (2009), p. 85.
- Anselm of Canterbury, Letters, No. 109
- Luscombe (1997), p. 44.
- Logan (2009), p. 86.
- Gibson (1981), p. 214.
- Logan (2009), p. 21.
- Logan (2009), p. 21–22.
- EB (1878), p. 93.
- Anselm of Canterbury, Monologion, p. 7, translated by Sadler.[147]
- SEP (2007), §2.1.
- IEP (2006).
- SEP (2007), §2.2.
- Rogers (2008), p. 8.
- IEP (2006), §6.
- IEP (2006), §4.
- Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 104, translated by Sadler.[166]
- SEP (2007), §3.1.
- SEP (2007), §3.2.
- Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 115, translated by Sadler.[166]
- Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 117, translated by Sadler.[166]
- Zalta & al. (1991).
- Zalta & al. (2007).
- Zalta & al. (2011).
- IEP (2006), §5.
- Psalm 14:1.
- Psalm 53:1.
- Klima (2000).
- Wolterstorff (1993).
- Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, p. 103, translated by Sadler.[166]
- Southern (1990), p. 65.
- IEP (2006), §8.
- SEP (2007), §4.1.
- IEP (2006), §9.
- Anselm of Canterbury, De Veritate, p. 185, translated by Sadler.[184]
- SEP (2007), §4.2.
- IE
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Featured Item from Litany Lane
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Snippet I: VIRTUE
Definitions
According to its etymology the word virtue (Latin virtus) signifies manliness or courage. "Appelata est enim a viro virtus: viri autem propria maxime est fortitudo" ("The term virtue is from the word that signifies man; a man's chief quality is fortitude"; Cicero, "Tuscul.", I, xi, 18). Taken in its widest sense virtue means the excellence of perfection of a thing, just as vice, its contrary, denotes a defect or absence of perfection due to a thing. In its strictest meaning, however, as used by moral philosophers and theologians, it signifies a habit superadded to a faculty of the soul, disposing it to elicit with readiness acts conformable to our rational nature. "Virtue", says Augustine, "is a good habit consonant with our nature." From Saint Thomas's entire Question on the essence of virtue may be gathered his brief but complete definition of virtue: "habitus operativus bonus", an operative habit essentially good, as distinguished from vice, an operative habit essentially evil. Now a habit is a quality in itself difficult of change, disposing well or ill the subject in which it resides, either directly in itself or in relation to its operation. An operative habit is a quality residing in a power or faculty in itself indifferent to this or that line of action, but determined by the habit to this rather than to that kind of acts. (See HABIT.) Virtue then has this in common with vice, that it disposes a potency to a certain determined activity; but it differs specifically from it in that it disposes it to good acts, i.e. acts in consonance with right reason. Thus, temperance inclines the sensuous appetite to acts of moderation conformably to right reason just as intemperance impels the same appetite to acts of excess contrary to the dictates of our rational nature.Subjects of virtue
Before determining the subjects or potencies in which the different virtues reside, it will be necessary to distinguish two kinds of virtues: those which are virtues absolutely (simpliciter) and those which are virtues only in a restricted sense (secundum quid). The later confer only a faculty for well-doing, and render the possessor good only in a restricted sense, e.g. a good logician. The former, in addition to the facility for well-doing, cause one to use the facility rightly, and render the possessor unqualifiedly good. Now the intellect may be the subject of those habits which are called virtues in a restricted sense, such as science and art. But the will only, or any other faculty only in so far as it is moved by the will, can be the subject of habits, which are called virtues in the absolute sense. For it is the proper function of the will to move to their respective acts all the other powers which are in any way rational. Thus the intellect and sensuous appetite as moved by the will are the subjects of prudence and temperance, while the will itself is the subject of justice, a virtue in the absolute sense.Divisions of virtue
Virtues may be divided into intellectual, moral, and theological.Intellectual virtues
Intellectual virtue may be defined as a habit perfecting the intellect to elicit with readiness acts that are good in reference to their proper object, namely, truth. As the intellect is called speculative or practical according as it confines itself to the sole contemplation of truth or considers truth in reference to action, the intellectual virtues may be classified according to this twofold function of the mental faculty. The speculative intellectual virtues are wisdom, science, and understanding. Wisdom is the knowledge of conclusions through their highest causes. Thus philosophy, and particularly metaphysics, is properly designated as wisdom, since it considers truth of the natural order according to its highest principles. Science is the knowledge of conclusions acquired by demonstration through causes or principles which are final in one class or other. Thus there are different sciences, mathematics, physics, etc., but only one wisdom, the supreme judge of all. Understanding is defined as the habit of first principles; as habit or virtue it is to be distinguished, at least logically, from the faculty of intelligence. It is also called intuition, as it has for its object truths that are self-evident, the perception of which requires no discursive process. It is to be observed that these virtues differ from the gifts of the Holy Ghost, designated by the same name, inasmuch as they are qualities of the natural order, while the gifts are intrinsically supernatural. The practical intellectual virtues are two, namely, art and prudence.Art
Art, according to the Schoolmen, signifies the right method with regard to external productions (recta ratio factibilium). Just as science perfects and directs the intellect to reason correctly with regard to its proper object in view of the attainment of truth, so also art perfects and directs the intellect in the application of certain rules in view of the production of external works, whether these be of a useful or æsthetic character. Hence the division into useful and fine arts. Art has this in common with the three speculative intellectual habits, that they are all virtues only in a restricted sense. Hence they constitute a man good only in a qualified sense, e.g. a good geometrician or a good sculptor. For the proper function of science as art, as such, is not to confer moral goodness, but to direct the intellect in its scientific or artistic processes.
Prudence
As art is the right method of production, so prudence, as defined by St. Thomas, is the right method of conduct (recta ratio agibilium). It differs from all the other intellectual virtues in this, that it is a virtue in the absolute sense, not only conferring a readiness for well-doing, but causing one to use that readiness rightly. Considered more specifically, it is that virtue which directs on in the choice of means most apt, under existing circumstances, for the attainment of a due end. It differs from the moral virtues as it resides not in the appetitive powers but in the intellect, its proper act being, not the choice of apt means, but the direction of that choice. But although prudence is essentially an intellectual virtue, nevertheless, under a certain respect (materialiter) it may be considered a moral virtue, since it has as its subject matter the acts of the moral virtues. For if the end be vicious, though a certain astuteness be manifested in the discernment of means, such astuteness is not real prudence, but the semblance of prudence. (See PRUDENCE.)
Moral virtues
Moral virtues are those which perfect the appetitive faculties of the soul, namely, the will and the sensuous appetite. Moral virtue is so called from the word mos, which signifies a certain natural or quasi-natural inclination to do a thing. But the inclination to act is properly attributed to the appetitive faculty, whose function it is to move the other powers to action. Consequently that virtue is called moral which perfects the appetitive faculty. For as appetite and reason have distinct activities, it is necessary that not only reason be well disposed by the habit of intellectual virtue, but that the appetitive powers also be well disposed by the habit of moral virtue. From this necessity of the moral virtues we see the falsity of the theory of Socrates, who held that all virtue was knowledge, as he held that all vice was ignorance. Moreover, the moral virtues excel the intellectual, prudence excepted, in this, that they give not only the facility, but also the right use of the facility, for well- doing. Hence moral virtues are virtues absolutely; and when we say without qualification that a man is good, we mean morally good. As the proper function of the moral virtues is to rectify the appetitive powers, i.e. to dispose them to act in accordance with right reason, there are principally three moral virtues: justice, which perfects the rational appetite or will; fortitude and temperance, which moderate the lower or sensuous appetite. Prudence, as we have observed, is called a moral virtue, not indeed essentially, but by reason of its subject matter, inasmuch as it is directive of the acts of the moral virtues.Justice
Justice, an essentially moral virtue, regulates man in relations with his fellow-men. It disposes us to respect the rights of others, to give each man his due. (See JUSTICE.) Among the virtues annexed to justice are:
- religion, which regulates man in his relations to God, disposing him to pay due worship to his Creator;
- piety, which disposes to the fulfillment of duties which one owes to parents and country (patriotism);
- gratitude, which inclines one to recognition of benefits received;
- liberality, which restrains the immoderate affection for wealth from withholding seasonable gifts or expenses;
- affability, by which one is suitably adapted to his fellow-men in social intercourse so as to behave toward each appropriately.
Temperance
Temperance it is which restrains the undue impulse of concupiscence for sensible pleasure, while fortitude causes man to be brave when he would otherwise shrink, contrary to reason, from dangers or difficulties. Temperance, then, to consider it more particularly, is that moral virtue which moderates in accordance with reason the desires and pleasures of the sensuous appetite attendant on those acts by which human nature is preserved in the individual or propagated in the species. The subordinate species of temperance are:
- abstinence, which disposes to moderation in the use of food;
- sobriety, which inclines to moderation in the use of spirituous liquors;
- chastity, which regulates the appetite in regard to sexual pleasures; to chastity may be reduced modesty, which is concerned with acts subordinate to the act of reproduction.
- continence, which according to the Scholastics, restrains the will from consenting to violent movements or concupiscence;
- humility, which restrains inordinate desires of one's own excellence;
- meekness, which checks inordinate movements of anger;
- modesty or decorum, which consists in duly ordering the external movements of anger; to the direction of reason.
Fortitude
As temperance and its annexed virtues remove from the will hindrances to rational good arising from sensuous pleasure, so fortitude removes from the will those obstacles arising from the difficulties of doing what reason requires. Hence fortitude, which implies a certain moral strength and courage, is the virtue by which one meets and sustains dangers and difficulties, even death itself, and in never through fear of these deterred from the pursuit of good which reason dictates. (See FORTITUDE.) The virtues annexed to fortitude are:
- Patience, which disposes us to bear present evils with equanimity; for as the brave man is one who represses those fears which make him shrink from meeting dangers which reason dictates he should encounter, so also the patient man is one who endures present evils in such a way as not to be inordinately cast down by them.
- Munificence, which disposes one to incur great expenses for the suitable doing of a great work. It differs from mere liberality, as it has reference not to ordinary expenses and donations, but to those that are great. Hence the munificent man is one who gives with royal generosity, who does things not on a cheap but magnificent scale, always, however, in accordance with right reason.
- Magnanimity, which implies a reaching out of the soul to great things, is the virtue which regulates man with regard to honours. The magnanimous man aims at great works in every line of virtue, making it his purpose to do things worthy of great honour. Nor is magnanimity incompatible with true humility. "Magnanimity", says St. Thomas, "makes a man deem himself worthy of great honours in consideration of the Divine gifts he possesses; whilst humility makes him think little of himself in consideration of his own short-comings".
- Perseverance, the virtue which disposes to continuance in the accomplishment of good works in spite of the difficulties attendant upon them. As a moral virtue it is not to be taken precisely for what is designated as final perseverance, that special gift of the predestined by which one is found in the state of grace at the moment of death. It is used here to designate that virtue which disposes one to continuance in any virtuous work whatsoever.
Theological virtues
All virtues have as their final scope to dispose man to acts conducive to his true happiness. The happiness, however, of which man is capable is twofold, namely, natural, which is attainable by man's natural powers, and supernatural, which exceeds the capacity of unaided human nature. Since, therefore, merely natural principles of human action are inadequate to a supernatural end, it is necessary that man be endowed with supernatural powers to enable him to attain his final destiny. Now these supernatural principles are nothing else than the theological virtues. They are called theological- because they have God for their immediate and proper object;
- because they are Divinely infused;
- because they are known only through Divine Revelation.
Faith
Faith is an infused virtue, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light, in virtue of which, under a supernatural movement of the will, it assents firmly to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the motive of intrinsic evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible authority of God revealing. For as man is guided in the attainment of natural happiness by principles of knowledge known by the natural light of reason, so also in the attainment of his supernatural destiny his intellect must be illumined by certain supernatural principles, namely, Divinely revealed truths. (See FAITH.)
Hope
But not only man's intellect must be perfected with regard to his supernatural end, his will also must tend to that end, as a good possible of attainment. Now the virtue, by which the will is so perfected, is the theological virtue of hope. It is commonly defined as a Divinely infused virtue, by which we trust, with an unshaken confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to attain life everlasting.
Charity
But the will must not only tend to God, its ultimate end, it must also be united to Him by a certain conformity. This spiritual union or conformity, by which the soul is united to God, the sovereign Good, is effected by charity. Charity, then, is that theological virtue, by which God, our ultimate end, known by supernatural light, is loved by reason of His own intrinsic goodness or amiability, and our neighbour loved on account of God. It differs from faith, as it regards God not under the aspect of truth but of good. It differs from hope inasmuch as it regards God not as our good precisely (nobis bonum), but as good in Himself (in se bonum). But this love of God as good in Himself does not, as the Quietists maintained, exclude the love of God as He is our good (see QUIETISM). With regard to the love of our neighbor, it falls within the theological virtue of charity in so far as its motive is the supernatural love of God, and it is thus distinguished from mere natural affection. Of the three theological virtues, charity is the most excellent. Faith and hope, involving as they do a certain imperfection, namely, obscurity of light and absence of possession, will cease with this life, but charity involving no essential defect will last forever. Moreover, while charity excludes all mortal sin, faith and hope are compatible with grievous sin; but as such they are only imperfect virtues; it is only when informed and vivified by charity that their acts are meritorious of eternal life (see THEOLOGICAL VIRTUE OF LOVE).
Causes of virtue
To the human intellect the first principles of knowledge, both speculative and moral, are connatural; to the human will the tendency to rational good is connatural. Now these naturally knowable principles and these natural tendencies to good constitute the seeds or germs whence the intellectual and moral virtues spring. Moreover by reason of individual natural temperament, resulting from physiological conditions, particular individuals are better disposed than others to particular virtues. Thus certain persons have a natural aptitude with regard to science, others to temperance, and others to fortitude. Hence nature itself may be assigned as the radical cause of the intellectual and moral virtues, or the cause of those virtues viewed in their embryonic state. In their perfect and fully developed state, however, the aforesaid virtues are caused or acquired by frequently repeated acts. Thus by multiplied acts the moral virtues are generated in the appetitive faculties in so far as they are acted upon by reason, and the determination of first principles (see HABIT). The supernatural virtues are immediately caused or infused by God. But a virtue may be called infused in two ways: first, when by its very nature (per se) it can be effectively produced by God alone; secondly, accidentally (per accidens) when it may be acquired by our own acts, but by a Divine dispensation it is infused, as in the case of Adam and Christ. Now besides the theological virtues, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, there are also moral and intellectual virtues of their very nature Divinely infused, as prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. These infused virtues differ from the acquired virtues- as to their effective principle, being immediately caused by God, whilst the acquired virtues are caused by acts of a created vital power;
- by reason of their radical principle, for the infused virtues flow from sanctifying grace as their source, whereas the acquired virtues are not essentially connected with grace;
- by reason of the acts they elicit, those of the infused virtues being intrinsically supernatural, those of the acquired not exceeding the capacity of human nature;
- whilst one mortal sin destroys the infused virtues, with the acquired virtues acts of mortal sin are not necessarily incompatible, as contrary acts are not directly opposed to the corresponding contrary habit.
Properties of virtues
Mean of virtues
One of the properties of virtues is that they consist in the golden mean, that is to say, in what lies between excess and deficit. For as the perfection of things subject to rule consists in conformity with that rule, so also evil in those same things results from deviation from that rule either by excess or defect. Hence the perfection of the moral virtues consists in rendering the movements of the appetitive powers conformable to their proper rule, which is reason, neither going beyond nor falling short of it. Thus fortitude, which makes one brave to meet dangers, avoids on the one hand reckless daring and on the other undue timidity. This golden mean, which consists in conformity with right reason, sometimes coincides with the mean of the objective thing (medium rei), as in the case of the virtue of justice, which renders to every man his due, no more and no less. The golden mean, however, is sometimes taken in reference to ourselves, as in the case of the other moral virtues, viz. fortitude and temperance. For these virtues are concerned with the inner passions, in which the standard of right cannot be fixed invariably, as different individuals vary with regard to the passions. Thus what would be moderation in one would be excess in another. Here also it is to be observed that the mean and extremes in actions and passions must be determined according to circumstances, which may vary. Hence with regard to a certain virtue, what may be an extreme according to one circumstance may be a mean according to another. Thus perpetual chastity, which renounces all sexual pleasures, and voluntary poverty, which renounces all temporal possessions, are true virtues, when exercised for the motive of more surely securing life everlasting. With regard to the intellectual virtues, their golden mean is truth or conformity to reality, whilst excess consists in false affirmation, and defect in false negation. Theological virtues do not absolutely (per se) consist in a mean, as their object is something infinite. Thus we can never love God excessively. Accidentally (per accidens), however, what is extreme or mean in theological virtues may be considered relatively to ourselves. Thus although we can never love God as much as He deserves, still we can love Him according to our powers.Connection of virtues
Another property of virtues is their connection with one another. This mutual connection exists between the moral virtues in their perfect state. "The virtues", says St. Gregory, "if separated, cannot be perfect in the nature of virtue; for that is no true prudence which is not just and temperate and brave". The reason of this connection is that no moral virtue can be had without prudence; because it is the function of moral virtue, being an elective habit, to make a right choice, which rectitude of choice must be directed by prudence. On the other hand prudence cannot exist without the moral virtues; because prudence, being a right method of conduct, has as principles whence it proceeds the ends of conduct, to which ends one becomes duly affected through the moral virtues. Imperfect moral virtues, however, that is to say, those inclinations to virtue resulting from natural temperament, are not necessarily connected with one another. Thus we see a man from natural temperament prompt to acts of liberality and not prompt to acts of chastity. Nor are the natural or acquired moral virtues necessarily connected with charity, though they may be so occasionally. But the supernatural moral virtues are infused simultaneously with charity. For charity is the principle of all good works referable to man's supernatural destiny. Hence it is necessary that there be infused at the same time with charity all the moral virtues by which one performs the different kinds of good works. Thus the infused moral virtues are not only connected on account of prudence, but also on account of charity. Hence he who loses charity by mortal sin looses all the infused but not the acquired moral virtues.From the doctrine of nature and properties of virtues it is abundantly clear how important a role they play in man's true and real perfection. In the economy of Divine Providence all creatures by the exercise of their proper activity must tend to that end destined for them by the wisdom of an infinite intelligence. But as Divine Wisdom governs creatures conformably to their nature, man must tend to his destined end, not by blind instance, but by the exercise of reason and free will. But as these faculties, as well as the faculties subject to them, may be exercised for the faculties subject to them, may be exercised for good or evil, the proper functions of the virtues is to dispose these various psychical activities to acts conductive to man's true ultimate end, just as the part which vice plays in man's rational life is to make him swerve from his final destiny. If, then, the excellence of a thing is to be measured by the end for which it is destined, without doubt among man's highest principles of action which play so important a part in his rational, spiritual, supernatural life, and which in the truest sense of the word are justly called virtues.
References:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
- Diary: Divine Mercy in My Soul by Faustina Kowalska 2003 ISBN 1-59614-110-7 "Virtue." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 22 Apr. 2018 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm>.
- ARISTOTLE, Ethics; PETER LOMBARD, Sent., III, dist.xxv-xxxvi; SAINT THOMAS, Summa Theol. I-II., Q. lv-lxxxi, tr. RICKABY, Aquinas Ethicus; SUAREZ, De virtutibus; JOANNES A. S. THOMA, Cursus theologicus, Comment. in I-II; SALAMANTICENSES, Tractatus XII de virtutibus; BARRE, Tractatus de virtutibus; LEQUEUX, Man. Comp. doct. mor de virtut; BILLOT, De virtut, infusis; PESCH, De virtutibus theologicis et moralibus (Freiburg, 1900); JANVIER, Conf. de Notre Dame: La vertu (Paris, 1906); RICKABY, Moral phil. (London, 1910); CRONIN, Science of Ethics; ULLATHORNE, Groundwork of the Christian Virtues (London, 1888); MING, Data of Modern Ethics Examined.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Snippet II: SIN
The subject is treated under these heads:
- Nature of sin
- Division
- Mortal sin
- Venial sin
- Permission and remedies
- The sense of sin
Nature of sin
Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil. Evil is defined by St. Thomas (De malo, 2:2) as a privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good. Everything else possesses but a limited being, and, in so far as it possesses being, it is good. When it has its due proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its own order and degree, good. (See GOOD.) Evil implies a deficiency in perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the perfection they have: "for evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among human beings at least, the suffering in which life abounds" (see EVIL).According to the nature of the perfection which it limits, evil is metaphysical, physical, or moral. Metaphysical evil is not evil properly so called; it is but the negation of a greater good, or the limitation of finite beings by other finite beings. Physical evil deprives the subject affected by it of some natural good, and is adverse to the well-being of the subject, as pain and suffering. Moral evil is found only in intelligent beings; it deprives them of some moral good. Here we have to deal with moral evil only. This may be defined as a privation of conformity to right reason and to the law of God. Since the morality of a human act consists in its agreement or non-agreement with right reason and the eternal law, an act is good or evil in the moral order according as it involves this agreement or non-agreement. When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results.
Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:89:2; "De malo", 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end.
In every sin a privation of due order or conformity to the moral law is found, but sin is not a pure, or entire privation of all moral good (St. Thomas, "De malo", 2:9; I-II:73:2). There is a twofold privation; one entire which leaves nothing of its opposite, as for instance, darkness which leaves no light; another, not entire, which leaves something of the good to which it is opposed, as for instance, disease which does not entirely destroy the even balance of the bodily functions necessary for health. A pure or entire privation of good could occur in a moral act only on the supposition that the will could incline to evil as such for an object. This is impossible because evil as such is not contained within the scope of the adequate object of the will, which is good. The sinner's intention terminates at some object in which there is a participation of God's goodness, and this object is directly intended by him. The privation of due order, or the deformity, is not directly intended, but is accepted in as much as the sinner's desire tends to an object in which this want of conformity is involved, so that sin is not a pure privation, but a human act deprived of its due rectitude. From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that it is voluntary, its imputability.
Division of sin
As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of commission and omission. A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment (I-II:72:5). As regards their malice, sins are distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice; as regards the activities involved, into sins of thought, word, or deed (cordis, oris, operis); as regards their gravity, into mortal and venial. This last named division is indeed the most important of all and it calls for special treatment. But before taking up the details, it will be useful to indicate some further distinctions which occur in theology or in general usage.Material and formal sin
This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.Internal sins
That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness" (Matthew 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed". Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:- delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
- gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and
- desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.
The capital sins or vices
According to St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) "a capital vice is that which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source". It is not then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins. These are enumerated by St. Thomas (I-II:84:4) as vainglory (pride), avarice, gluttony, lust, sloth, envy, anger. St. Bonaventure (Brevil., III, ix) gives the same enumeration. Earlier writers had distinguished eight capital sins: so St. Cyprian (De mort., iv); Cassian (Institutes 5, Conferences 5); Columbanus ("Instr. de octo vitiis princip." in "Bibl. max. vet. patr.", XII, 23); Alcuin (De virtut. et vitiis, xxvii sqq.). The number seven, however, had been given by St. Gregory the Great (Lib. mor. in Job. XXXI, xvii), and it was retained by the foremost theologians of the Middle Ages.It is to be noted that "sin" is not predicated univocally of all kinds of sin. "The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a division of genus into species which participate equally the nature of the genus, but the division of an analogue into things of which it is predicated primarily and secondarily" (St. Thomas, I-II:88:1, ad 1um). "Sin is not predicated univocally of all kinds of sin, but primarily of actual mortal sin ... and therefore it is not necessary that the definition of sin in general should be verified except in that sin in which the nature of the genus is found perfectly. The definition of sin may be verified in other sins in a certain sense" (St. Thomas, II, d. 33, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um). Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpæ (I-II:87:6).
The division of sin into original and actual, mortal and venial, is not a division of genus into species because sin has not the same signification when applied to original and personal sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true last end; venial sin only impedes us in its attainment. Actual personal sin is voluntary by a proper act of the will. Original sin is voluntary not by a personal voluntary act of ours, but by an act of the will of Adam. Original and actual sin are distinguished by the manner in which they are voluntary (ex parte actus); mortal and venial sin by the way in which they affect our relation to God (ex parte deordinationis). Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, it is impossible that sin should be a generic term in respect to original and actual, mortal and venial sin. The true nature of sin is found perfectly only in a personal mortal sin, in other sins imperfectly, so that sin is predicated primarily of actual sin, only secondarily of the others. Therefore we shall consider: first, personal mortal sin; second, venial sin.
Mortal sin
Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Reply to Faustus XXII.27) as "Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam", i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words "dictum vel factum vel concupitum" denote the material element of sin, a human act: "contra legem æternam", the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a "prevarication of the Divine law". The definition of St. Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law, although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be included in the definition because they presuppose some positive act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law.Biblical description of sin
In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:11; Isaiah 1:2-4; Jeremiah 2:32); as an insult to God (Numbers 27:14); as something detested and punished by God (Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tobit 12:10); to be expiated by penance (Psalm 51:19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Romans 2:23; 5:12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Romans 6:16-18); a disobedience (Hebrews 2:2) punished by God (Hebrews 10:26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John 12:43), an iniquity (1 John 3:4-10). Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His Sermon on the Mount, He condemns as sinful many acts which were judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal, infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He teaches that sins come from the heart (Matthew 15:19-20).Systems which deny sin or distort its true notion
All systems, religious and ethical, which either deny, on the one hand, the existence of a personal creator and lawgiver distinct from and superior to his creation, or, on the other, the existence of free will and responsibility in man, distort or destroy the true biblico-theological notion of sin. In the beginning of the Christian era the Gnostics, although their doctrines varied in details, denied the existence of a personal creator. The idea of sin in the Catholic sense is not contained in their system. There is no sin for them, unless it be the sin of ignorance, no necessity for an atonement; Jesus is not God (see GNOSTICISM). Manichaeism with its two eternal principles, good and evil, at perpetual war with each other, is also destructive of the true notion of sin. All evil, and consequently sin, is from the principle of evil. The Christian concept of God as a lawgiver is destroyed. Sin is not a conscious voluntary act of disobedience to the Divine will. Pantheistic systems which deny the distinction between God and His creation make sin impossible. If man and God are one, man is not responsible to anyone for his acts, morality is destroyed. If he is his own rule of action, he cannot deviate from right as St. Thomas teaches (I:63:1). The identification of God and the world by Pantheism leaves no place for sin.There must be some law to which man is subject, superior to and distinct from him, which can be obeyed and transgressed, before sin can enter into his acts. This law must be the mandate of a superior, because the notions of superiority and subjection are correlative. This superior can be only God, who alone is the author and lord of man. Materialism, denying as it does the spirituality and the immortality of the soul, the existence of any spirit whatsoever, and consequently of God, does not admit sin. There is no free will, everything is determined by the inflexible laws of motion. "Virtue" and "vice" are meaningless qualifications of action. Positivism places man's last end in some sensible good. His supreme law of action is to seek the maximum of pleasure. Egotism or altruism is the supreme norm and criterion of the Positivistic systems, not the eternal law of God as revealed by Him, and dictated by conscience. For the materialistic evolutionists man is but a highly-developed animal, conscience a product of evolution. Evolution has revolutionized morality, sin is no more.
Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" having rejected all the essential notions of true morality, namely, liberty, the soul, God and a future life, attempted in his "Critique of the Practical Reason" to restore them in the measure in which they are necessary for morality. The practical reason, he tells us, imposes on us the idea of law and duty. The fundamental principle of the morality of Kant is "duty for duty's sake", not God and His law. Duty cannot be conceived of alone as an independent thing. It carries with it certain postulates, the first of which is liberty. "I ought, therefore I can", is his doctrine. Man by virtue of his practical reason has a consciousness of moral obligation (categorical imperative). This consciousness supposes three things: free will, the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, otherwise man would not be capable of fulfilling his obligations, there would be no sufficient sanction for the Divine law, no reward or punishment in a future life. Kant's moral system labours in obscurities and contradictions and is destructive of much that pertains to the teaching of Christ. Personal dignity is the supreme rule of man's actions. The notion of sin as opposed to God is suppressed. According to the teaching of materialistic Monism, now so widespread, there is, and can be, no free will. According to this doctrine but one thing exists and this one being produces all phenomena, thought included; we are but puppets in its hands, carried hither an thither as it wills, and finally are cast back into nothingness. There is no place for good and evil, a free observance or a wilful transgression of law, in such a system. Sin in the true sense is impossible. Without law and liberty and a personal God there is no sin.
That God exists and can be known from His visible creation, that He has revealed the decrees of His eternal will to man, and is distinct from His creatures (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1782, 1785, 1701), are matters of Catholic faith and teaching. Man is a created being endowed with free will (ibid., 793), which fact can be proved from Scripture and reason (ibid., 1041-1650). The Council of Trent declares in Sess. VI, c. i (ibid., 793) that man by reason of the prevarication of Adam has lost his primeval innocence, and that while free will remains, its powers are lessened (see ORIGINAL SIN).
Protestant errors
Luther and Calvin taught as their fundamental error that no free will properly so called remained in man after the fall of our first parents; that the fulfillment of God's precepts is impossible even with the assistance of grace, and that man in all his actions sins. Grace is not an interior gift, but something external. To some sin is not imputed, because they are covered as with a cloak by the merits of Christ. Faith alone saves, there is no necessity for good works. Sin in Luther's doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law. Jansenius, in his "Augustinus", taught that according to the present powers of man some of God's precepts are impossible of fulfilment, even to the just who strive to fulfil them, and he further taught that grace by means of which the fulfilment becomes possible is wanting even to the just. His fundamental error consists in teaching that the will is not free but is necessarily drawn either by concupiscence or grace. Internal liberty is not required for merit or demerit. Liberty from coercion suffices. Christ did not die for all men. Baius taught a semi-Lutheran doctrine. Liberty is not entirely destroyed, but is so weakened that without grace it can do nothing but sin. True liberty is not required for sin. A bad act committed involuntarily renders man responsible (propositions 50-51 in Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1050-1). All acts done without charity are mortal sins and merit damnation because they proceed from concupiscence. This doctrine denies that sin is a voluntary transgression of Divine law. If man is not free, a precept is meaningless as far as he is concerned.Philosophical sin
Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God's providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment" (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Romans 2:5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality.
Conditions of mortal sin: knowledge, free will, grave matter
Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.Imputability
That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:- first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
- second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
- third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.
Malice
The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to God, and an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in God, who is immutable by nature, but that the sinner by his act deprives God of the reverence and honor due Him: it is not any lack of malice on the sinner's part, but God's immutability that prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to God mortal sin is in a way infinite in its malice, since it is directed against an infinite being, and the gravity of the offence is measured by the dignity of the one offended (St. Thomas, III:1:2, ad 2um). As an act sin is finite, the will of man not being capable of infinite malice. Sin is an offence against Christ Who has redeemed man (Philippians 3:18); against the Holy Ghost Who sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:29), an injury to man himself, causing the spiritual death of the soul, and making man the servant of the devil. The first and primary malice of sin is derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends, and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround the act are also determining factors of its morality. An act which, objectively considered, is morally indifferent, may be rendered good or evil by circumstances, or by the intention of the sinner. An act that is good objectively may be rendered bad, or a new species of good or evil may be added, or a new degree. Circumstances can change the character of a sin to such a degree that it becomes specifically different from what it is objectively considered; or they may merely aggravate the sin while not changing its specific character; or they may lessen its gravity. That they may exercise this determining influence two things are necessary: they must contain in themselves some good or evil, and must be apprehended, at least confusedly, in their moral aspect. The external act, in so far as it is a mere execution of a voluntary efficacious internal act, does not, according to the common Thomistic opinion, add any essential goodness or malice to the internal sin.Gravity
While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II.73.5).Specific and numeric distinction of sin
Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse objects; or from their opposition to different virtues, or to morally different precepts of the same virtue. Sins that are specifically distinct are also numerically distinct. Sins within the same species are distinguished numerically according to the number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects. A total object is one which, either in itself or by the intention of the sinner, forms a complete whole and is not referred to another action as a part of the whole. When the completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are as many sins as there are morally interrupted acts.Subject causes of sin
Since sin is a voluntary act lacking in due rectitude, sin is found, as in a subject, principally in the will. But, since not only acts elicited by the will are voluntary, but also those that are elicited by other faculties at the command of the will, sin may be found in these faculties in so far as they are subject in their actions to the command of the will, and are instruments of the will, and move under its guidance (I-II:74).The external members of the body cannot be effective principles of sin (I-II:74:2, ad 3um). They are mere organs which are set in activity by the soul; they do not initiate action. The appetitive powers on the contrary can be effective principles of sin, for they possess, through their immediate conjunction with the will and their subordination to it, a certain though imperfect liberty (I-II:56:4, ad 3um). The sensual appetites have their own proper sensible objects to which they naturally incline, and since original sin has broken the bond which held them in complete subjection to the will, they may antecede the will in their actions and tend to their own proper objects inordinately. Hence they may be proximate principles of sin when they move inordinately contrary to the dictates of right reason.
It is the right of reason to rule the lower faculties, and when the disturbance arises in the sensual part the reason may do one of two things: it may either consent to the sensible delectation or it may repress and reject it. If it consents, the sin is no longer one of the sensual part of man, but of the intellect and will, and consequently, if the matter is grave, mortal. If rejected, no sin can be imputed. There can be no sin in the sensual part of man independently of the will. The inordinate motions of the sensual appetite which precede the advertence of reason, or which are suffered unwillingly, are not even venial sins. The temptations of the flesh not consented to are not sins. Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is not given to it (Council of Trent, sess. V, can. v). The sensual appetite of itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin, for the reason that it can neither grasp the notion of God as an ultimate end, nor avert us from Him, without which aversion there cannot be mortal sin. The superior reason, whose office it is to occupy itself with Divine things, may be the proximate principle of sin both in regard to its own proper act, to know truth, and as it is directive of the inferior faculties: in regard to its own proper act, in so far as it voluntarily neglects to know what it can and ought to know; in regard to the act by which it directs the inferior faculties, to the extent that it commands inordinate acts or fails to repress them (I-II:74:7, ad 2um).
The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either actually deliberating and commanding the consent, or by failing to deliberate and impede the consent of the will when it could and should do so. The superior reason is the ultimate judge of human acts and has an obligation of deliberating and deciding whether the act to be performed is according to the law of God. Venial sin may also be found in the superior reason when it deliberately consents to sins that are venial in their nature, or when there is not a full consent in the case of a sin that is mortal considered objectively.
Causes of sin
Under this head, it is needful to distinguish between the efficient cause, i.e. the agent performing the sinful action, and those other agencies, influences or circumstances, which incite to sin and consequently involve a danger, more or less grave, for one who is exposed to them. These inciting causes are explained in special articles on OCCASIONS OF SIN and TEMPTATION. Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not under the influence of ignorance or passion.The exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad example. God is not the cause of sin (Council of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi, in Denz.-Bann., 816). He directs all things to Himself and is the end of all His actions, and could not be the cause of evil without self-contradiction. Of whatever entity there is in sin as an action, He is the cause. The evil will is the cause of the disorder (I-II:79:2). One sin may be the cause of another inasmuch as one sin may be ordained to another as an end. The seven capital sins, so called, may be considered as the source from which other sins proceed. They are sinful propensities which reveal themselves in particular sinful acts. Original sin by reason of its dire effects is the cause and source of sin in so far as by reason of it our natures are left wounded and inclined to evil. Ignorance, infirmity, malice, and concupiscence are the consequences of original sin.
Effects of sin
The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace. The sinful act passes, and the sinner is left in a state of habitual aversion from God. The sinful state is voluntary and imputable to the sinner, because it necessarily follows from the act of sin he freely placed, and it remains until satisfaction is made (see PENANCE). This state of sin is called by theologians habitual sin, not in the sense that habitual sin implies a vicious habit, but in the sense that it signifies a state of aversion from God depending on the preceding actual sin, consequently voluntary and imputable. This state of aversion carries with it necessarily in the present order of God's providence the privation of grace and charity by means of which man is ordered to his supernatural end. The privation of grace is the "macula peccati" (St. Thomas, I-II.86), the stain of sin spoken of in Scripture (Joshua 22:17; Isaiah 4:4; 1 Corinthians 6:11). It is not anything positive, a quality or disposition, an obligation to suffer, an extrinsic denomination coming from sin, but is solely the privation of sanctifying grace. There is not a real but only a conceptual distinction between habitual sin (reatus culpæ) and the stain of sin (macula peccati). One and the same privation considered as destroying the due order of man to God is habitual sin, considered as depriving the soul of the beauty of grace is the stain or "macula" of sin.The second effect of sin is to entail the penalty of undergoing suffering (reatus pænæ). Sin (reatus culpæ) is the cause of this obligation (reatus pænæ ). The suffering may be inflicted in this life through the medium of medicinal punishments, calamities, sickness, temporal evils, which tend to withdraw from sin; or it may be inflicted in the life to come by the justice of God as vindictive punishment. The punishments of the future life are proportioned to the sin committed, and it is the obligation of undergoing this punishment for unrepented sin that is signified by the "reatus poenæ" of the theologians. The penalty to be undergone in the future life is divided into the pain of loss (pæna damni) and the pain of sense (pæna sensus). The pain of loss is the privation of the beatific vision of God in punishment of turning away from Him. The pain of sense is suffering in punishment of the conversion to some created thing in place of God. This two-fold pain in punishment of mortal sin is eternal (1 Corinthians 6:9; Matthew 25:41; Mark 9:45). One mortal sin suffices to incur punishment. (See HELL.) Other effects of sins are: remorse of conscience (Wisdom 5:2-13); an inclination towards evil, as habits are formed by a repetition of similar acts; a darkening of the intelligence, a hardening of the will (Matthew 13:14-15; Romans 11:8); a general vitiating of nature, which does not however totally destroy the substance and faculties of the soul but merely weakens the right exercise of its faculties.
Venial sin
Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is called venial precisely because, considered in its own proper nature, it is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment. It is distinguished from mortal sin on the part of the disorder. By mortal sin man is entirely averted from God, his true last end, and, at least implicitly, he places his last end in some created thing. By venial sin he is not averted from God, neither does he place his last end in creatures. He remains united with God by charity, but does not tend towards Him as he ought. The true nature of sin as it is contrary to the eternal law, repugnant namely to the primary end of the law, is found only in mortal sin. Venial sin is only in an imperfect way contrary to the law, since it is not contrary to the primary end of the law, nor does it avert man from the end intended by the law. (St. Thomas, I-II.88.1; and Cajetan, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1, for the sense of the præter legem and contra legem of St. Thomas).Definition
Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, venial sin as it is a voluntary act may be defined as a thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God. It retards man in the attainment of his last end while not averting him from it. Its disorder consists either in the not fully deliberate choosing of some object prohibited by the law of God, or in the deliberate adhesion to some created object not as an ultimate end but as a medium, which object does not avert the sinner from God, but is not, however, referable to Him as an end. Man cannot be averted from God except by deliberately placing his last end in some created thing, and in venial sin he does not adhere to any temporal good, enjoying it as a last end, but as a medium referring it to God not actually but habitually inasmuch as he himself is ordered to God by charity. "Ille qui peccat venialiter, inhæret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia non constituit in eo finem, sed ut utens, referens in Deum non actu sed habitu" (I-II:88:1, ad 3).For a mortal sin, some created good must be adhered to as a last end at least implicitly. This adherence cannot be accomplished by a semi-deliberate act. By adhering to an object that is at variance with the law of God and yet not destructive of the primary end of the Divine law, a true opposition is not set up between God and that object. The created good is not desired as an end. The sinner is not placed in the position of choosing between God and creature as ultimate ends that are opposed, but is in such a condition of mind that if the object to which he adheres were prohibited as contrary to his true last end he would not adhere to it, but would prefer to keep friendship with God. An example may be had in human friendship. A friend will refrain from doing anything that of itself will tend directly to dissolve friendship while allowing himself at times to do what is displeasing to his friends without destroying friendship.
The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in Scripture. From St. John (1 John 5:16-17) it is clear there are some sins "unto death" and some sins not "unto death", i.e. mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:8-15), where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and venial sin. "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it; because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." By wood, hay, and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II:89:2) which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit eternal but temporal punishment. "Just as", says St. Thomas, [wood, hay, and stubble] "are gathered together in a house and do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless obtains eternal salvation." (I-II:89:2)
The suitableness of the division into wood, hay, and stubble is explained by St. Thomas (iv, dist. 21, Q. i, a. 2). Some venial sins are graver than others and less pardonable, and this difference is well signified by the difference in the inflammability of wood, hay, and stubble. That there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins is of faith (Council of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi and canons 23-25; sess. XIV, de poenit., c. v). This distinction is commonly rejected by all heretics ancient and modern. In the fourth century Jovinian asserted that all sins are equal in guilt and deserving of the same punishment (St. Aug., "Ep. 167", ii, n. 4); Pelagius, that every sin deprives man of justice and therefore is mortal; Wyclif, that there is no warrant in Scripture for differentiating mortal from venial sin, and that the gravity of sin depends not on the quality of the action but on the decree of predestination or reprobation so that the worst crime of the predestined is infinitely less than the slightest fault of the reprobate; Hus, that all the actions of the vicious are mortal sins, while all the acts of the good are virtuous (Denz.-Bann., 642); Luther, that all sins of unbelievers are mortal and all sins of the regenerate, with the exception of infidelity, are venial; Calvin, like Wyclif, bases the difference between mortal sin and venial sin on predestination, but adds that a sin is venial because of the faith of the sinner. The twentieth among the condemned propositions of Baius reads: "There is no sin venial in its nature, but every sin merits eternal punishment" (Denz.-Bann., 1020). Hirscher in more recent times taught that all sins which are fully deliberate are mortal, thus denying the distinction of sins by reason of their objects and making the distinction rest on the imperfection of the act (Kleutgen, 2nd ed., II, 284, etc.).
Malice of venial sin
The difference in the malice of mortal and venial sin consists in this: that mortal sin is contrary to the primary end of the eternal law, that it attacks the very substance of the law which commands that no created thing should be preferred to God as an end, or equalled to Him, while venial sin is only at variance with the law, not in contrary opposition to it, not attacking its substance. The substance of the law remaining, its perfect accomplishment is prevented by venial sin.Conditions
Venial sin is committed when the matter of the sin is light, even though the advertence of the intellect and consent of the will are full and deliberate, and when, even though the matter of the sin be grave, there is not full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will. A precept obliges sub gravi when it has for its object an important end to be attained, and its transgression is prohibited under penalty of losing God's friendship. A precept obliges sub levi when it is not so directly imposed.Effects
Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, or diminish it. It does not produce a macula, or stain, as does mortal sin, but it lessens the lustre of virtue — "In anima duplex est nitor, unus quiden habitualis, ex gratia sanctificante, alter actualis ex actibus virtutem, jamvero peccatum veniale impedit quidem fulgorem qui ex actibus virtutum oritur, non autem habitualem nitorem, quia non excludit nec minuit habitum charitatis" (I-II:89:1). Frequent and deliberate venial sin lessens the fervour of charity, disposes to mortal sin (I-II:88:3), and hinders the reception of graces God would otherwise give. It displeases God (Revelation 2:4-5) and obliges the sinner to temporal punishment either in this life or in Purgatory. We cannot avoid all venial sin in this life. "Although the most just and holy occasionally during this life fall into some slight and daily sins, known as venial, they cease not on that account to be just" (Council of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi). And canon xxiii says: "If any one declare that a man once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema", but according to the common opinion we can avoid all such as are fully deliberate. Venial sin may coexist with mortal sin in those who are averted from God by mortal sin. This fact does not change its nature or intrinsic reparability, and the fact that it is not coexistent with charity is not the result of venial sin, but of mortal sin. It is per accidens, for an extrinsic reason, that venial sin in this case is irreparable, and is punished in hell. That venial sin may appear in its true nature as essentially different from mortal sin it is considered as de facto coexisting with charity (1 Corinthians 3:8-15). Venial sins do not need the grace of absolution. They can be remitted by prayer, contrition, fervent communion, and other pious works. Nevertheless it is laudable to confess them (Denz.-Bann., 1539).Permission of sin and remedies
Since it is of faith that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good it is difficult to account for sin in His creation. The existence of evil is the underlying problem in all theology. Various explanations to account for its existence have been offered, differing according to the philosophical principles and religious tenets of their authors. Any Catholic explanation must take into account the defined truths of the omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness of God; free will on the part of man; and the fact that suffering is the penalty of sin. Of metaphysical evil, the negation of a greater good, God is the cause inasmuch as he has created beings with limited forms. Of physical evil (malum pænæ) He is also the cause. Physical evil, considered as it proceeds from God and is inflicted in punishment of sin in accordance with the decrees of Divine justice, is good, compensating for the violation of order by sin. It is only in the subject affected by it that it is evil.Of moral evil (malum culpæ) God is not the cause (Council of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi), either directly or indirectly. Sin is a violation of order, and God orders all things to Himself, as an ultimate end, consequently He cannot be the direct cause of sin. God's withdrawal of grace which would prevent the sin does not make Him the indirect cause of sin inasmuch as this withdrawal is affected according to the decrees of His Divine wisdom and justice in punishment of previous sin. He is under no obligation of impeding the sin, consequently it cannot be imputed to Him as a cause (I-II:79:1). When we read in Scripture and the Fathers that God inclines men to sin the sense is, either that in His just judgment He permits men to fall into sin by a punitive permission, exercising His justice in punishment of past sin; or that He directly causes, not sin, but certain exterior works, good in themselves, which are so abused by the evil wills of men that here and now they commit evil; or that He gives them the power of accomplishing their evil designs. Of the physical act in sin God is the cause inasmuch as it is an entity and good. Of the malice of sin man's evil will is the sufficient cause. God could not be impeded in the creation of man by the fact that He foresaw his fall. This would mean the limiting of His omnipotence by a creature, and would be destructive of Him. He was free to create man even though He foresaw his fall, and He created him, endowed him with free will, and gave him sufficient means of persevering in good had he so willed. We must sum up our ignorance of the permission of evil by saying in the words of St. Augustine, that God would not have permitted evil had He not been powerful enough to bring good out of evil. God's end in creating this universe is Himself, not the good of man, and somehow or other good and evil serve His ends, and there shall finally be a restoration of violated order by Divine justice. No sin shall be without its punishment. The evil men do must be atoned for either in this world by penance (see PENANCE) or in the world to come in purgatory or hell, according as the sin that stains the soul, and is not repented of, is mortal or venial, and merits eternal or temporal punishment. (See EVIL.) God has provided a remedy for sin and manifested His love and goodness in the face of man's ingratitude by the Incarnation of His Divine Son (see INCARNATION); by the institution of His Church to guide men and interpret to them His law, and administer to them the sacraments, seven channels of grace, which, rightly used, furnish an adequate remedy for sin and a means to union with God in heaven, which is the end of His law.
Sense of sin
The understanding of sin, as far as it can be understood by our finite intelligence, serves to unite man more closely to God. It impresses him with a salutary fear, a fear of his own powers, a fear, if left to himself, of falling from grace; with the necessity he lies under of seeking God's help and grace to stand firm in the fear and love of God, and make progress in the spiritual life. Without the acknowledgment that the present moral state of man is not that in which God created him, that his powers are weakened; that he has a supernatural end to attain, which is impossible of attainment by his own unaided efforts, without grace there being no proportion between the end and the means; that the world, the flesh, and the devil are in reality active agents fighting against him and leading him to serve them instead of God, sin cannot be understood. The evolutionary hypothesis would have it that physical evolution accounts for the physical origin of man, that science knows no condition of man in which man exhibited the characteristics of the state of original justice, no state of sinlessness. The fall of man in this hypothesis is in reality a rise to a higher grade of being. "A fall it might seem, just as a vicious man sometimes seems degraded below the beasts, but in promise and potency, a rise it really was" (Sir O. Lodge, "Life and Matter", p. 79). This teaching is destructive of the notion of sin as taught by the Catholic Church. Sin is not a phase of an upward struggle, it is rather a deliberate, wilful refusal to struggle. If there has been no fall from a higher to a lower state, then the teaching of Scripture in regard to Redemption and the necessity of a baptismal regeneration is unintelligible. The Catholic teaching is the one that places sin in its true light, that justifies the condemnation of sin we find in Scripture.The Church strives continually to impress her children with a sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid it. We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is a warfare. Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we cannot avoid sin, with God's grace we can. If we but place no obstacle to the workings of grace we can avoid all deliberate sin. If we have the misfortune to sin, and seek God's grace and pardon with a contrite and humble heart, He will not repel us. Sin has its remedy in grace, which is given us by God, through the merits of His only-begotten Son, Who has redeemed us, restoring by His passion and death the order violated by the sin of our first parents, and making us once again children of God and heirs of heaven. Where sin is looked on as a necessary and unavoidable condition of things human, where inability to avoid sin is conceived as necessary, discouragement naturally follows. Where the Catholic doctrine of the creation of man in a superior state, his fall by a wilful transgression, the effects of which fall are by Divine decree transmitted to his posterity, destroying the balance of the human faculties and leaving man inclined to evil; where the dogmas of redemption and grace in reparation of sin are kept in mind, there is no discouragement. Left to ourselves we fall, by keeping close to God and continually seeking His help we can stand and struggle against sin, and if faithful in the battle we must wage shall be crowned in heaven. (See CONSCIENCE; JUSTIFICATION; SCANDAL.)
References:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
- "Sin." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 22 Apr. 2018 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm>.
- DOGMATIC WORKS: ST. THOMAS, Summa theol., I-II, QQ. lxxi-lxxxix; IDEM, Contra gentes, tr. RICKABY, Of God and His Creatures (London, 1905); IDEM, Quaest. disputatae: De malo in Opera omnia (Paris, 1875); BILLUART, De peccatis (Paris, 1867-72); SUAREZ, De pecc. in Opera omnia (Paris, 1878); SALMANTICENSES, De pecc. in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1877); GONET, Clypeus theol. thom. (Venice, 1772); JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, De pecc. in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1886); SYLVIUS, De pecc. (Antwerp, 1698); Catechismus Romanus, tr. DONOVAN, Catechism of the Council of Trent (Dublin, 1829); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch d. kath. Dogmatik (Freiburg, 1873-87); MANNING, Sin and its Consequences (New York, 1904); SHARPE, Principles of Christianity (London, 1904); IDEM, Evil, its Nature and Cause (London, 1906); BILLOT, De nat. et rat. peccati personalis (Rome, 1900); TANQUEREY, Synopsis theol., I (New York, 1907).
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Snippet III: Devotion to The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
 |
| Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Scapular |
The Sacred Heart (also known as Most Sacred Heart of Jesus) is one of the most famous religious devotions to Jesus' physical heart as the representation of his divine love for humanity.
This devotion is predominantly used in the Catholic Church and among some high-church Anglicans and Lutherans. The devotion especially emphasizes the unmitigated love, compassion, and long-suffering of the heart of Christ towards humanity. The origin of this devotion in its modern form is derived from a French Roman Catholic nun, Marguerite Marie Alacoque, who said she learned the devotion from Jesus during a mystical experience. Predecessors to the modern devotion arose unmistakably in the Middle Ages in various facets of Catholic mysticism.
In the Roman Catholic tradition, the Sacred Heart has been closely associated with Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ. In his encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor, Pope Pius XI stated: "the spirit of expiation or reparation has always had the first and foremost place in the worship given to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus". The Golden Arrow Prayer directly refers to the Sacred Heart. Devotion to the Sacred Heart is sometimes seen in the Eastern Catholic Churches, where it remains a point of controversy and is seen as an example of Liturgical Latinisation.
The Sacred Heart is often depicted in Christian art as a flaming heart shining with divine light, pierced by the lance-wound, encircled by the crown of thorns, surmounted by a cross and bleeding. Sometimes the image shown shining within the bosom of Christ with his wounded hands pointing at the heart. The wounds and crown of thorns allude to the manner of Jesus' death, while the fire represents the transformative power of divine love.
The Feast of the Sacred Heart has been in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar since 1856, and is celebrated 19 days after Pentecost. As Pentecost is always celebrated on Sunday, the Feast of the Sacred Heart always falls on a Friday.
History of Devotion
Early devotion
 |
| Sacred Heart of Jesus Ibarrará, 1896 |
From the time of John the Evangelist and Paul of Tarsus there has always been in the Church something like devotion to the love of God, but there is nothing to indicate that, during the first ten centuries of Christianity, any worship was rendered to the wounded Heart of Jesus. It is in the eleventh and twelfth centuries that the first indications of devotion to the Sacred Heart are found. It was in the fervent atmosphere of the Benedictine or Cistercian monasteries, in the world of Anselmian or Bernardine thought, that the devotion arose, although it is impossible to say positively what were its first texts or who were its first devotees. It was already well known to St. Gertrude, St. Mechtilde, and the author of the Vitis mystica (previously ascribed to St. Bernard, now attributed to St. Bonaventure).
From the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, the devotion was propagated but it did not seem to have developed in itself. It was everywhere practised by individuals and by different religious congregations, such as the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carthusians, etc. It was, nevertheless, a private, individual devotion of the mystical order. Nothing of a general movement had been inaugurated, except for similarities found in the devotion to the Five Wounds by the Franciscans, in which the wound in Jesus's heart figured most prominently.
In the sixteenth century, the devotion passed from the domain of mysticism into that of Christian asceticism. It was established as a devotion with prayers already formulated and special exercises, found in the writings of Lanspergius (d. 1539) of the Carthusians of Cologne, the Louis of Blois (Blosius; 1566), a Benedictine and Abbot of Liessies in Hainaut, John of Avila (d. 1569) and St. Francis de Sales, the latter belonging to the seventeenth century.
The historical record from that time shows an early bringing to light of the devotion. Ascetic writers spoke of it, especially those of the Society of Jesus. The image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was everywhere in evidence, largely due to the Franciscan devotion to the Five Wounds and to the habit formed by the Jesuits of placing the image on their title-page of their books and the walls of their churches.
Nevertheless, the devotion remained an individual, or at least a private, devotion. Jean Eudes (1602–1680) made it public, gave it an Office, and established a feast for it. Père Eudes was the apostle of the Heart of Mary; but in his devotion to the Immaculate Heart there was a share for the Heart of Jesus. Little by little, the devotion to the Sacred Heart became a separate one, and on August 31, 1670, the first feast of the Sacred Heart was celebrated in the Grand Seminary of Rennes. Coutances followed suit on October 20, a day with which the Eudist feast was from then on to be connected. The feast soon spread to other dioceses, and the devotion was likewise adopted in various religious communities. It gradually came into contact with the devotion begun at Paray, and resulting in a fusion of the two.
Visions of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque
 |
| St Margaret Mary Alacoque, Giaquinto 1765 |
The most significant source for the devotion to the Sacred Heart in the form it is known today was Visitandine Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690), who claimed to have received visions of Jesus Christ. There is nothing to indicate that she had known the devotion prior to the revelations, or at least that she had paid any attention to it. The revelations were numerous, and the following apparitions are especially remarkable:
- On December 27, probably 1673, the feast of St. John, Margaret Mary reported that Jesus permitted her, as he had formerly allowed St. Gertrude, to rest her head upon his heart, and then disclosed to her the wonders of his love, telling her that he desired to make them known to all mankind and to diffuse the treasures of his goodness, and that he had chosen her for this work.
- In probably June or July, 1674, Margaret Mary claimed that Jesus requested to be honored under the figure of his heart, also claiming that, when he appeared radiant with love, he asked for a devotion of expiatory love: frequent reception of Communion, especially Communion on the First Friday of the month, and the observance of the Holy Hour.
- During the octave of Corpus Christi, 1675, probably on June 16, the vision known as the "great apparition" reportedly took place, where Jesus said, "Behold the Heart that has so loved men ... instead of gratitude I receive from the greater part (of mankind) only ingratitude ...", and asked Margaret Mary for a feast of reparation of the Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi, bidding her consult her confessor Father Claude de la Colombière, then superior of the small Jesuit house at Paray. Solemn homage was asked on the part of the king, and the mission of propagating the new devotion was especially confided to the religious of the Visitation and to the priests of the Society of Jesus.
A few days after the "great apparition", Margaret Mary reported everything she saw to Father de la Colombière, and he, acknowledging the vision as an action of the Spirit of God, consecrated himself to the Sacred Heart and directed her to write an account of the apparition. He also made use of every available opportunity to circulate this account, discreetly, through France and England. Upon his death on February 15, 1682, there was found in his journal of spiritual retreats a copy in his own handwriting of the account that he had requested of Margaret Mary, together with a few reflections on the usefulness of the devotion. This journal, including the account and an "offering" to the Sacred Heart, in which the devotion was well explained, was published at Lyons in 1684. The little book was widely read, especially at Paray. Margaret Mary reported feeling "dreadful confusion" over the book's contents, but resolved to make the best of it, approving of the book for the spreading of her cherished devotion. Outside of the Visitandines, priests, religious, and laymen espoused the devotion, particularly the Capuchins, Margaret Mary's two brothers, and some Jesuits. The Jesuit Father Croiset wrote a book called The Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a book which Jesus is said to have told Margaret to tell Fr. Croiset to write, and Fr. Joseph de Gallifet, also a Jesuit, promoted the devotion.
Papal Approvals
The Blessed Mary of the Divine Heart was a nun from Sisters of the Good Shepherd Congregation who requested, in the name of Christ Himself, to Pope Leo XIII that he consecrate the entire World to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
The death of Margaret Mary Alacoque on October 17, 1690, did not dampen the zeal of those interested; on the contrary, a short account of her life published by Father Croiset in 1691, as an appendix to his book "De la Dévotion au Sacré Cœur", served only to increase it. In spite of all sorts of obstacles, and of the slowness of the Holy See, which in 1693 imparted indulgences to the Confraternities of the Sacred Heart and, in 1697, granted the feast to the Visitandines with the Mass of the Five Wounds, but refused a feast common to all, with special Mass and Office. The devotion spread, particularly in religious communities. The Marseilles plague, 1720, furnished perhaps the first occasion for a solemn consecration and public worship outside of religious communities. Other cities of the South followed the example of Marseilles, and thus the devotion became a popular one. In 1726 it was deemed advisable once more to importune Rome for a feast with a Mass and Office of its own, but, in 1729, Rome again refused. However, in 1765, it finally yielded and that same year, at the request of the queen, the feast was received quasi-officially by the episcopate of France. On all sides it was asked for and obtained, and finally, in 1856, at the urgent entreaties of the French bishops, Pope Pius IX extended the feast to the Roman Catholic Church under the rite of double major. In 1889 it was raised by the Roman Catholic Church to the double rite of first class.
After the letters of Mother Mary of the Divine Heart (1863–1899) requesting, in the name of Christ Himself, to Pope Leo XIII consecrate the entire World to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Holy Father commissions a group of theologians to examine the petition on the basis of revelation and sacred tradition. This investigation was positive. And so in the encyclical letter Annum Sacrum (on May 25, 1899) this same pope decreed that the consecration of the entire human race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus should take place on June 11, 1899. In this encyclical letter the Pope attached Later Pope Leo XIII encouraged the entire Roman Catholic episcopate to promote the devotion of the Nine First Fridays and he established June as the Month of the Sacred Heart. Leo XIII also composed the Prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart and included it in Annum Sacrum.
Pope Pius X decreed that the consecration of the human race, performed by Pope Leo XIII be renewed each year. Pope Pius XI in his encyclical letter Miserentissimus Redemptor (on May 8, 1928) affirmed the Church's position with respect to Saint Margaret Mary's visions of Jesus Christ by stating that Jesus had "manifested Himself" to Saint Margaret and had "promised her that all those who rendered this honor to His Heart would be endowed with an abundance of heavenly graces." The encyclical refers to the conversation between Jesus and Saint Margaret several times[2] and reaffirmed the importance of consecration and reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Finally, Venerable Pope Pius XII, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Pope Pius IX's institution of the Feast, instructed the entire Roman Catholic Church at length on the devotion to the Sacred Heart in his encyclical letter Haurietis aquas (on May 15, 1956). On May 15, 2006, also Pope Benedict XVI sent a letter to Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, on the 50th Anniversary of the encyclical Haurietis Aquas, about the Sacred Heart, by Pope Pius XII. In his letter to Father Kolvenbach, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed the importance of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Worship and Devotion
The Roman Catholic acts of consecration, reparation and devotion were introduced when the feast of the Sacred Heart was declared. In his Papal Bull Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI praised devotion to the Sacred Heart. Finally, by order of Leo XIII, in his encyclical Annum Sacrum (May 25, 1899), as well as on June 11, he consecrated every human to the Sacred Heart. The idea of this act, which Leo XIII called "the great act" of his pontificate, had been proposed to him by a religious woman of the Good Shepherd from Oporto (Portugal) who said that she had supernaturally received it from Jesus. Since c. 1850, groups, congregations, and States have consecrated themselves to the Sacred Heart. In 1873, by petition of president Gabriel García Moreno, Ecuador was the first country in the world to be consecrated to the Sacred Heart, fulfilling God's petition to Saint Margaret Mary over two hundred years later.
Peter Coudrin of France founded the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary on December 24, 1800. A religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, the order is best known for its missionary work in Hawaii. Mother Clelia Merloni from Forlì (Italy) founded the Congregation of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Viareggio, Italy, May 30, 1894. Worship of the Sacred Heart mainly consists of several hymns, the Salutation of the Sacred Heart, and the Litany of the Sacred Heart. It is common in Roman Catholic services and occasionally is to be found in Anglican services. The Feast of the Sacred Heart is a solemnity in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar, and is celebrated 19 days after Pentecost. As Pentecost is always celebrated on Sunday, the Feast of the Sacred Heart always falls on a Friday.
The Enthronement of the Sacred Heart is a Roman Catholic ceremony in which a priest or head of a household consecrates the members of the household to the Sacred Heart. A blessed image of the Sacred Heart, either a statue or a picture, is then "enthroned" in the home to serve as a constant reminder to those who dwell in the house of their consecration to the Sacred Heart. The practice of the Enthronement is based upon Pope Pius XII's declaration that devotion to the Sacred of Jesus is "the foundation on which to build the kingdom of God in the hearts of individuals, families, and nations..."
Alliance with the Immaculate Heart of Mary
The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary is based on the historical, theological and spiritual links in Catholic devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The joint devotion to the hearts was first formalized in the 17th century by Saint Jean Eudes who organized the scriptural, theological and liturgical sources relating to the devotions and obtained the approbation of the Church, prior to the visions of Saint Marguerite Marie Alacoque.
In the 18th and 19th centuries the devotions grew, both jointly and individually through the efforts of figures such as Saint Louis de Montfort who promoted Catholic Mariology and Saint Catherine Labouré's Miraculous Medal depicting the Heart of Jesus thorn-crowned and the Heart of Mary pierced with a sword. The devotions, and the associated prayers, continued into the 20th century, e.g. in the Immaculata prayer of Saint Maximillian Kolbe and in the reported messages of Our Lady of Fatima which stated that the Heart of Jesus wishes to be honored together with the Heart of Mary.
Popes supported the individual and joint devotions to the hearts through the centuries. In the 1956 encyclical Haurietis Aquas, Pope Pius XII encouraged the joint devotion to the hearts. In the 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis Pope John Paul II explained the theme of unity of Mary's Immaculate Heart with the Sacred Heart. In his Angelus address on September 15, 1985 Pope John Paul II coined the term The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and in 1986 addressed the international conference on that topic held at Fátima, Portugal.
The Miraculous Medal
 |
| The Miraculous Medal |
The Sacred Heart has also been involved in (and been depicted) in saintly apparitions such as those to Saint Catherine Labouré in 1830 and appears on the Miraculous Medal.
On the Miraculous Medal, the Sacred Heart is crowned with thorns. The Immaculate Heart of Mary also appears on the medal, next to the Sacred Heart, but is pierced by a sword, rather than being crowned with thorns. The M on the medal signifies the Blessed Virgin at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was being crucified.
Religious imagery depicting the Sacred Heart is frequently featured in Roman Catholic, and sometimes Anglican and Lutheran homes. Sometimes images display beneath them a list of family members, indicating that the entire family is entrusted to the protection of Jesus in the Sacred Heart, from whom blessings on the home and the family members are sought. The prayer "O Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee" is often used. One particular image has been used as part of a set, along with an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In that image, Mary too was shown pointing to her Immaculate Heart, expressing her love for the human race and for her Son, Jesus Christ. The mirror images reflect an eternal binding of the two hearts.
The Scapular of the Sacred Heart and the Scapular of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary are worn by Roman Catholics.
In Eastern Catholicism
Devotion to the Sacred Heart may be found in some Eastern Catholic Churches, but is a contentious issue. Those who favour purity of rite are opposed to the devotion, while those who are in favour of the devotion cite it as a point of commonality with their Latin Catholic brethren.
Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Jesus Christ, in his appearances to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, promised these blessings to those who practice devotion to his Sacred Heart. This tabular form of promises was not made by Saint Margaret Mary or her contemporaries. It first appeared at 1863. In 1882, an American businessman spread the tabular form of the promises profusely throughout the world, the twelve promises appearing in 238 languages. In 1890, Cardinal Adolph Perraud deplored this circulation of the promises in the tabular form which were different from the words and even from the meaning of the expressions used by St. Margaret Mary, and wanted the promises to be published in the full, authentic texts as found in the writings of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque:
- I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life.
- I will give peace in their families.
- I will console them in all their troubles.
- I will be their refuge in life and especially in death.
- I will abundantly bless all their undertakings.
- Sinners shall find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.
- Tepid souls shall become fervent.
- Fervent souls shall rise speedily to great perfection.
- I will bless those places wherein the image of My Sacred Heart shall be exposed and venerated.
- I will give to priests the power to touch the most hardened hearts.
- Persons who propagate this devotion shall have their names eternally written in my Heart.
- In the excess of the mercy of my Heart, I promise you that my all powerful love will grant to all those who will receive Communion on the First Fridays, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance: they will not die in my displeasure, nor without receiving the sacraments; and my Heart will be their secure refuge in that last hour.
The last promise has given rise to the pious Roman Catholic practice of making an effort to attend Mass and receive Communion on the first Friday of each month.
Great efficacy of converting people has been attached to the use of the image of the Sacred Heart.
"Even at the hour of death, incredulous, indifferent, hardened souls have been converted by simply showing them a picture of the Sacred Heart, which sufficed to restore these sinners to the life of hope and love, in a word, to touch the most hardened. It would, indeed, be a great misfortune to any apostolic man to neglect so powerful a means of conversion, and in proof of this I will mention a single fact which will need no comment. A religious of the Company of Jesus had been requested by the Blessed Margaret Mary to make a careful engraving of the Sacred Heart. Being often hindered by other occupations, there was much delay in preparing this plate. ' This good father,' writes the saint, 'is so much occupied by Mon- signor d'Autun in the conversion of heretics, that he has neither time nor leisure to give to the work so ardently desired by the Heart of our Divine Master. You cannot imagine, my much-loved mother, how greatly this delay afflicts and pains me. I must avow confidently to you my belief that it is the cause of his converting so few infidels in this town. I seem constantly to hear these words : ' That if this good father had acquitted himself at once of his promise to the Sacred Heart, Jesus would have changed and converted the hearts of these infidels, on account of the joy He would have felt at seeing Himself honoured in the picture He so much wishes for. As, however, he prefers other work, even though to the glory of God, to that of giving Him this satisfaction, He will harden the hearts of these infidels, and the labours of this mission will not be crowned with much fruit.'
Scapular of the Sacred Heart
The devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus also involve the Scapular of the Sacred Heart. It is a Roman Catholic devotional scapular that can be traced back to Saint Margaret Marie Alacoque who herself made and distributed badges similar to it. In 1872 Pope Pius IX granted an indulgence for the badge and the actual scapular was approved by the Congregation of Rites in 1900. It bears the representation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on one side, and that of the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of Mother of Mercy on the other side. Prayer, Almighty and everlasting God, look upon the Heart of Thy well-beloved Son and upon the acts of praise and satisfaction which He renders unto Thee in the name of sinners; and do Thou, in Thy great goodness, grant pardon to them who seek Thy mercy, in the name of the same Thy Son, Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with Thee, world without end.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Featured Item from Litany Lane
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Snippet IV: Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
 |
| Immaculate heart of Mary Scapular |
The Immaculate Heart of Mary (also known as The Sacred Heart of Mary) is a devotional name used to refer to the interior life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, her joys and sorrows, her virtues and hidden perfections, and, above all, her virginal love for God the Father, her maternal love for her son Jesus, and her compassionate love for all persons. The consideration of Mary's interior life and the beauties of her soul, without any thought of her physical heart, does not constitute the traditional devotion; still less does it consist in the consideration of the heart of Mary merely as a part of her pure body. In 1855 the Mass of the Most Pure Heart formally became a part of Catholic practice. The two elements are essential to the devotion, just as, according to Roman Catholic theology, soul and body are necessary to the constitution of man.
Eastern Catholic Churches occasionally utilize the image, devotion, and theology associated with the Immaculate Heart of Mary. However, this is a cause of some controversy, some seeing it as a form of liturgical instillation. The Roman Catholic view is based on Mariology, as exemplified by Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae which builds on the total Marian devotion pioneered by Louis de Montfort.
Traditionally, the heart is pierced with seven wounds or swords, in homage to the seven dolors of Mary. Consequently, seven Hail Marys are said daily in honor of the devotion. Also, roses or another type of flower may be wrapped around the heart
Veneration and devotion
 |
| Immaculate Heart Mary, Seven Dolors |
Veneration of the Heart of Mary is analogous to worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It is, however, necessary to indicate a few differences in this analogy, the better to explain the character of Roman Catholic devotion to the Heart of Mary. Some of these differences are very marked, whereas others are barely perceptible. The Devotion to the Heart of Jesus is especially directed to the "Divine Heart" as overflowing with love for humanity, presented as "despised and outraged". In the devotion to the Mary, on the other hand, the attraction is the love of this Heart for Jesus and for God. Its love for humans is not overlooked, but it is not so much in evidence nor so dominant.
A second difference is the nature of the devotion itself. In devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Roman Catholic venerates in a sense of love responding to love. In devotion to the Heart of Mary, study and imitation hold as important a place as love. Love is more the result than the object of the devotion, the object being rather to love God and Jesus better by uniting one's self to Mary for this purpose and by imitating her virtues. It would also seem that, although in the devotion to the Heart of Mary the heart has an essential part as symbol and sensible object, it does not stand out as prominently as in the devotion to the Heart of Jesus; devotion focuses rather on the thing symbolized, the love, virtues, and sentiments of Mary's interior life.
The Immaculate Heart has also been involved in (and been depicted) in saintly Marian apparitions such as those to Saint Catherine Labouré in 1830 and appears on the Miraculous Medal. On the Miraculous Medal, the Immaculate Heart is pierced by a sword. The Sacred Heart of Jesus also appears on the medal, next to the Immaculate Heart, but is crowned with thorns, rather than being pierced by a sword. The M on the medal signifies the Blessed Virgin at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was being crucified.
Our Lady of Fatima asked that, in reparation for sins committed against her Immaculate Heart, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months the Catholic:
- Go to Confession (within 8 days before or after the first Saturday)
- Receive Holy Communion
- Recite five decades of the Rosary
- Keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary
She promised that, whoever would ever do this, would be given at the hour of his death, the graces necessary for salvation.
History of devotion
The history of the devotion to the Heart of Mary is connected on many points with that to the Heart of Jesus. The attention of Christians was early attracted by the love and virtues of the Heart of Mary. The gospels recount the prophecy delivered to her at Jesus' presentation at the temple: that her heart would be pierced with a sword. This image (the pierced heart) is the most popular representation of the Immaculate Heart. The St. John's Gospel further invited attention to Mary's heart with its depiction of Mary at the foot of the cross at Jesus' crucifixion. St. Augustine said of this that Mary was not merely passive at the foot of the cross; "she cooperated through charity in the work of our redemption".
Statue depicting the Immaculate Heart of Mary as described by Sister Lucia of Fátima.
Another Scriptural passage to help in bringing out the devotion was the twice-repeated saying of Saint Luke, that Mary kept all the sayings and doings of Jesus in her heart, that there she might ponder over them and live by them. A few of Mary's sayings, also recorded in the Gospel, particularly the Magnificat (the words Mary is reported to have said to describe the experience of being pregnant with Jesus), disclose new features in Marian psychology. Some of the Church Fathers also throw light upon the psychology of Mary, for instance, Saint Ambrose, when in his commentary on The Gospel of Luke he holds Mary up as the ideal of virginity, and Saint Ephrem, when he poetically sings of the coming of the Magi and the welcome accorded them by the humble mother. Some passages from other books in the Bible are interpreted as referring to Mary, in whom they personify wisdom and her gentle charms. Such are the texts in which wisdom is presented as the mother of lofty love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope. In the New Testament Elizabeth proclaims Mary blessed because she has believed the words of the angel who announced that she would become pregnant with Jesus, although she was still a virgin; the Magnificat is an expression of her humility. In answering the woman of the people, who in order to exalt the son proclaimed the mother blessed, Jesus himself said: "Blessed rather are they that hear the word of God and keep it." The Church Fathers understood this as an invitation to seek in Mary that which had so endeared her to God and caused her to be selected as the mother of Jesus, and found in these words a new reason for praising Mary. St. Leo said that through faith and love she conceived her son spiritually, even before receiving him into her womb, and St. Augustine tells us that she was more blessed in having borne Christ in her heart than in having conceived him in the flesh.
It is only in the twelfth, or towards the end of the eleventh century, that slight indications of a regular devotion are perceived in a sermon by St. Bernard (De duodecim stellis), from which an extract has been taken by the Church and used in the Offices of the Compassion and of the Seven Dolours. Stronger evidences are discernible in the pious meditations on the Ave Maria and the Salve Regina, usually attributed either to St. Anselm of Lucca (d. 1080) or St. Bernard; and also in the large book "De laudibus B. Mariae Virginis" (Douai, 1625) by Richard de Saint-Laurent, Penitentiary of Rouen in the thirteenth century. In St. Mechtilde (d. 1298) and St. Gertrude (d. 1301) the devotion had two earnest adherents. A little earlier it had been included by St. Thomas Becket in the devotion to the joys and sorrows of Mary, by Blessed Hermann (d.1245), one of the first spiritual children of Saint Dominic, in his other devotions to Mary, and somewhat later it appeared in St. Bridget's "Book of Revelations". Johannes Tauler (d. 1361) beholds in Mary the model of a mystical soul, just as St. Ambrose perceived in her the model of a virginal soul. St. Bernardine of Siena (d.1444) was more absorbed in the contemplation of the virginal heart, and it is from him that the Church has borrowed the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast of the Heart of Mary. St. Francis de Sales speaks of the perfections of this heart, the model of love for God, and dedicated to it his "Theotimus."
During this same period one finds occasional mention of devotional practices to the Heart of Mary, e.g., in the "Antidotarium" of Nicolas du Saussay (d. 1488), in Julius II, and in the "Pharetra" of Lanspergius. In the second half of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth, ascetic authors dwelt upon this devotion at greater length. It was, however, reserved to Saint Jean Eudes (d. 1681) to propagate the devotion, to make it public, and to have a feast celebrated in honor of the Heart of Mary, first at Autun in 1648 and afterwards in a number of French dioceses. He established several religious societies interested in upholding and promoting the devotion, of which his large book on the Coeur Admirable (Admirable Heart), published in 1681, resembles a summary. Jean Eudes' efforts to secure the approval of an office and feast failed at Rome, but, notwithstanding this disappointment, the devotion to the Heart of Mary progressed. In 1699 Father Pinamonti (d. 1703) published in Italian a short work on the Holy Heart of Mary, and in 1725, Joseph de Gallifet combined the cause of the Heart of Mary with that of the Heart of Jesus in order to obtain Rome's approbation of the two devotions and the institution of the two feasts. In 1729, his project was defeated, and in 1765, the two causes were separated, to assure the success of the principal one.
Alliance with the Sacred Heart
The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary is based on the historical, theological and spiritual links in Catholic devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The joint devotion to the hearts was first formalized in the 17th century by Saint Jean Eudes who organized the scriptural, theological and liturgical sources relating to the devotions and obtained the approbation of the Church, prior to the visions of Saint Marguerite Marie Alacoque.
In the 18th and 19th centuries the devotions grew, both jointly and individually through the efforts of figures such as Saint Louis de Montfort who promoted Catholic Mariology and Saint Catherine Labouré's Miraculous Medal depicting the Heart of Jesus thorn-crowned and the Heart of Mary pierced with a sword. The devotions, and the associated prayers, continued into the 20th century, e.g. in the Immaculata prayer of Saint Maximillian Kolbe and in the reported messages of Our Lady of Fatima which stated that the Heart of Jesus wishes to be honored together with the Heart of Mary.
Popes supported the individual and joint devotions to the hearts through the centuries. In the 1956 encyclical Haurietis Aquas, Pope Pius XII encouraged the joint devotion to the hearts. In the 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis Pope John Paul II explained the theme of unity of Mary's Immaculate Heart with the Sacred Heart. In his Angelus address on September 15, 1985 Pope John Paul II coined the term The Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and in 1986 addressed the international conference on that topic held at Fátima, Portugal.
Feast days
Fatima Statue of Pope Pius XII, who consecrated Russia and the World: Just as a few years ago We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart...
In 1799 Pius VI, then in captivity at Florence, granted the Bishop of Palermo the feast of the Most Pure Heart of Mary for some of the churches in his diocese. In 1805 Pius VII made a new concession, thanks to which the feast was soon widely observed. Such was the existing condition when a twofold movement, started in Paris, gave fresh impetus to the devotion. The two factors of this movement were, first of all, the revelation of the "miraculous medal" in 1830 and all the prodigies that followed, and then the establishment at Notre-Dame-des-Victoires of the Archconfraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, which spread rapidly throughout the world and was the source of numberless alleged graces. On 21 July 1855, the Congregation of Rites finally approved the Office and Mass of the Most Pure Heart of Mary without, however, imposing them upon the Universal Church.
During the third apparition at Fátima, Portugal on 13 July 1917, the Virgin Mary allegedly said that "God wishes to establish in the world devotion to her Immaculate Heart" in order to save souls from going into the fires of hell and to bring about world peace, and also asked for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Letter of 7 July 1952, Sacro Vergente consecrated Russia to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.
On 25 March 1984, Pope John Paul II fulfilled this request again, when he made the solemn act of consecration of the world, and implicitly Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary before the miraculous statue of the Virgin Mary of Fatima brought to Saint Peter's Square in the Vatican for the momentous occasion. Sister Lucia, OCD, then the only surviving visionary of Fatima, confirmed that the request of Mary for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was accepted by Heaven and therefore, was fulfilled. Again on 8 October 2000, Pope John Paul II made an act of entrustment of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the new millennium.
Roman Catholic feast days
Pope Pius XII instituted the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1944 to be celebrated on 22 August, coinciding with the traditional octave day of the Assumption. In 1969, Pope Paul VI moved the celebration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the day, Saturday, immediately after the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This means in practice that it is now held on the day before the third Sunday after Pentecost.
At the same time as he closely associated the celebrations of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Pope Paul VI moved the celebration of the Queenship of Mary from 31 May to 22 August, bringing it into association with the feast of her Assumption.
Those who use the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal or an earlier one (but not more than 17 years before 1962) observe the day established by Pius XII.
References:
- This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Today's Snippet V: Acts of Reparation
(Morning offering First Friday and First Saturday Devotions)
In the Roman Catholic tradition, an Act of Reparation is a prayer or devotion with the intent to repair the "sins of others", e.g. for the repair of the sin of blasphemy, the sufferings of Jesus Christ or as Acts of Reparation to the Virgin Mary.[1] These prayers do not usually involve a petition for a living or deceased beneficiary, but aim to repair sins.
In his encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor Pope Pius XI defined reparation as follows:
The creature's love should be given in return for the love of the Creator, another thing follows from this at once, namely that to the same uncreated Love, if so be it has been neglected by forgetfulness or violated by offense, some sort of compensation must be rendered for the injury, and this debt is commonly called by the name of reparation.[2]
Pope John Paul II referred to reparation as the "unceasing effort to stand beside the endless crosses on which the Son of God continues to be crucified".[3]
Theological basis and history
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2157 states:
- The Christian begins his day, his prayers, and his activities with the Sign of the Cross: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." The baptized person dedicates the day to the glory of God and calls on the Savior's grace which lets him act in the Spirit as a child of the Father.
"All that we do without offering it to God is wasted," Saint John Mary Vianney preached. According to Catholic theology, the worth of an action in the eyes of God is found in the intention, i.e. what takes place in the heart of each person, on whether the person lives based on the love for God (the greatest commandment) or love for self. Thus, Catholic spirituality encourages the practice of fixing one's intention towards loving God at the very beginning of the day, through the morning offering. Catholic authors also encourage repeating this offering throughout the day, especially at the start of one's professional work which takes a large part of each day.
The morning offering is an essential part of the theology of sanctification of work, or the use of work, secular or otherwise, as a means of arriving at personal sanctity. The other element in this theology is the actual work done with spirit of excellence in consonance with the intention of offering something "worthy" to the sanctity, majesty and the goodness of the Father God.
"All that we do without offering it to God is wasted." - Saint John Mary Vianney
This theology is also supported by private revelation to some saints. For example, Sister Josefa Menéndez (1890-1923) reported that she heard Jesus Christ tell her: "When you awake, enter at once into My Heart, and when you are in it, offer My Father all your actions united to the pulsations of My Heart . . . If [a person is] engaged in work of no value in itself, if she bathes it in My Blood or unites it to the work I Myself did during My mortal life, it will greatly profit souls . . . more, perhaps, than if she had preached to the whole world. You will be able to save many souls that way."
Saint Mechtilde (1241-1298), a popular saint during the time of Dante and who was mentioned in his Divine Comedy, also had visions of Jesus Christ and transmitted the following words of Jesus: "When you awake in the morning, let your first act be to salute My Heart, and to offer Me your own . . . Whoever shall breathe a sigh toward Me from the bottom of his heart when he awakes in the morning and shall ask Me to work all his works in him throughout the day, will draw Me to him . . . For never does a man breathe a sigh of longing aspiration toward Me without drawing Me nearer to him than I was before." It is also said that the morning offering helps "refresh and recharge" the soul, preparing the soul to face each day with the help of God himself.[1]
The morning offering has been an old practice in the Church but it started to spread largely through the Apostleship of Prayer, started by Fr. Francis X. Gautrelet, S.J, and specially through the book written by another Jesuit, Reverend Henry Ramière, S.J., who in 1861, adapted the Apostleship of Prayer for parishes and various Catholic institutions, and made it known by his book "The Apostleship of Prayer", which has been translated into many languages.
Duty of Reparation and Devotion
In the encyclical Miserentissimus Redemptor Pope Pius XI called acts of reparation a duty for Roman Catholics:We are holden to the duty of reparation and expiation by a certain more valid title of justice and of love, of justice indeed, in order that the offense offered to God by our sins may be expiatedThe pontiff further emphasized, "Moreover this duty of expiation is laid upon the whole race of men"
Prayers of Reparation
A number of prayers as an Act of Reparation to the Virgin Mary appear in the Raccolta Catholic prayer book (approved by a Decree of December 15 1854, and published in 1898 by the Holy See). The Raccolta includes a number of diverse prayers for reparation.[4]
- The Rosary of the Holy Wounds (which does not include the usual rosary mysteries) focuses on specific redemptive aspects of Christ's suffering in Calvary, with emphasis on the souls in purgatory.[5]
- A well known Act of Reparation to Jesus Christ and for the reparation of blasphemy is The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer) first introduced by Sister Marie of St Peter in 1844. This devotion (started by Sister Marie and then promoted by the Venerable Leo Dupont) was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885.[6]
- A frequently offered Act of Reparation to The Holy Trinity is based on the messages of Our Lady of Fatima and is usually called the Angel Prayer.[7][8]
Morning Offering Devotion
John Paul II: Morning Offering is “of fundamental importance in the life of each and every one of the faithful."
In Roman Catholicism, the Morning Offering is a prayer said by an individual at the start of the day in order to consecrate the day to Jesus Christ. It serves the purpose of preparing the Catholic to focus completely on Christ and give to him all that he or she does during the day. There are several different forms of Offering.
Pope John Paul II said that the Morning Offering is “of fundamental importance in the life of each and every one of the faithful."
The Morning offering is meant to be prayed first thing in the morning, upon waking up. Throughout the day, a Christian offers up everything – joys and successes, difficulties and sacrifices, to Jesus, uniting them to His sufferings and merits so that one’s works gain the merit they can never have apart from Him.
The Morning Offering is suggested to be renewed many times throughout the day with simple short prayers (called "aspirations"), e.g. "I will serve!"; "I offer my work unto you."
A specific Morning offering to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was composed by Fr. François-Xavier Gautrelet in 1844. It reflects the Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary and is also an Acts of reparation for sins:
- O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
- I offer you my prayers, works, joys, sufferings of this day,
- in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world.
- I offer them for all the intentions of your Sacred Heart;
- the salvation of souls, the reparation for sin, the reunion of all Christians;
- I offer them for the intentions of our bishops and of all members of the Apostleship of Prayer,
- and in particular for those recommended by the Holy Father this month.
- Amen.
First Friday Devotions
The First Friday Devotions are a set of Catholic devotions to especially recognize the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and through it offer reparations for sins. In the visions of Christ reported by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, several promises were made to those people that practiced the First Fridays Devotions, one of which included final perseverance.[1]
According to the words of Christ through His apparitions to St. Margaret Mary, there are several promises to those that practice the First Friday Devotions:
"In the excess of the mercy of my Heart, I promise you that my all powerful love will grant to all those who will receive Communion on the First Fridays, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance: they will not die in my displeasure, nor without receiving the sacraments; and my Heart will be their secure refuge in that last hour."[2]
The devotion consists of several practices that are performed on the first Fridays of nine consecutive months. On these days, a person is to attend Holy Mass and receive communion.[3] If the need arises in order to receive communion in a state of grace, a person should also make use of the Sacrament of Penance before attending Mass. In many Catholic communities the practice of the Holy Hour of meditation during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament during the First Fridays is encouraged. [4]
First Friday - Communion of Reparation
Receiving Holy Communion as part of First Friday Devotions is a Catholic devotion to offer reparations for sins through the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the visions of Christ reported by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, several promises were made to those people that practiced the First Fridays Devotions, one of which included final perseverance.[9]
The devotion consists of several practices that are performed on the first Fridays of nine consecutive months. On these days, a person is to attend Holy Mass and receive communion.[10] In many Catholic communities the practice of the Holy Hour of meditation during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament during the First Fridays is encouraged. [11]
First Friday Promises
- I will give them all of the graces necessary for their state of life.
- I will establish peace in their houses.
- I will comfort them in all their afflictions.
- I will be their strength during life and above all during death.
- I will bestow a large blessing upon all their undertakings.
- Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and the infinite ocean of mercy.
- Tepid souls shall grow fervent.
- Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection.
- I will bless every place where a picture of my heart shall be set up and honored.
- I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts.
- Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in My Heart, never to be blotted out.
- I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that My all-powerful love will grant to all those who communicate on the First Friday in nine consecutive months the grace of final penitence; they shall not die in My disgrace nor without receiving their sacraments; My Divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment.[5]
First Saturday Devotions
The First Saturdays Devotion (or Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Blessed Virgin Mary) is a Catholic practice which, according to the visionaries, has been requested by the Virgin Mary in several visitations, notably Our Lady of Fátima and the subsequent Pontevedra apparitions. This devotion, and the marian apparitions, have been officially embraced by the Roman Catholic Church.The devotion fits on the Catholic tradition to venerate the Virgin Mary particularly on Saturdays, which originated in the scriptural account that, as the Mother of Jesus Christ, her heart was to be pierced with a sword, as prophesied during the presentation of Jesus in the temple; such sword was the bitter sorrow during the Crucifixion of Jesus (which Catholic devotees understand as the union of the Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart of Jesus -- see Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Apparitions). Such sorrow is particularly bitterly endured on Holy Saturday after Jesus was placed on the Sepulcher (before the Resurrection on Easter). Devotees of Fátima believe that the First Saturdays help to console the sorrows of God, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary for the sins against Her Immaculate Heart.
The Act of First Saturday Reparation
When Lúcia Santos experienced the Pontevedra apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she heard her promise to grant great graces, especially at the hour of death, in particular the salvation of the soul, for the believer who for Five Consecutive First Saturdays of Month (5 Saturdays in 5 months) receives Holy Communion and practices the following exercises as an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven:- Sacramental confession
- To receive Holy Communion
- A 5 Decades Rosary is recited
The activities of the Five First Saturdays devotions are different from similar devotions on other days in that all should be done with the specific intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives.
Sister Lúcia, the only Fátima visionary to survive into adulthood reported that the Blessed Mother came to her in her convent at Pontevedra, Spain with the following statement:
- Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary.
Acts of Reparation to The Holy Trinity
Roman Catholic tradition include specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for insults and blasphemies against the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Sacrament. Similar prayers as Acts of Reparation to the Virgin Mary and Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ also existFatima prayer to the Holy Trinity
This prayer is based on the 20th century apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, and is attributed to an angel who appeared to the visionaries. It is sometimes called the Angel Prayer. The apparitions of Fatima have been approved by the Holy Catholic Church, thus deemed worthy of belief.In Catholic tradition, Saint Michael is the prince of the church of Jesus Christ and also the defender of Israel. Having revealed the Chaplet of Saint Michael to a Portuguese nun in the 18th Century, Saint Michael is often associated with being the angel that prepared the children shepherds for the visit of the Blessed Mother of God in Fatima, and thus to him it is attributed the prayer.
Words of the prayer:
- O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary I beg the conversion of poor sinners.
Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ
Roman Catholic tradition includes specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for insults and blasphemies against Jesus Christ and the Holy Name of Jesus. These include the sufferings during the Passion of Jesus. Similar prayers as Acts of Reparation to the Virgin Mary and Acts of Reparation to The Holy Trinity also exist.These prayers are recited with the intent to repair the sins of others, e.g. when the name of Jesus Christ is taken in vain, for the repair of the sin of blasphemy or the insults against and sufferings of Jesus in Calvary. Pope John Paul II referred to reparation as the "unceasing effort to stand beside the endless crosses on which the Son of God continues to be crucified".
Specific Roman Catholic organizations with this purpose exist. For instance, the Archconfraternity of Reparation for blasphemy and the neglect of Sunday was founded by Msgr. Pierre Louis Parisis in 1847 and the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face was founded in 1851 by the Venerable Leo Dupont, the "Holy Man of Tours". In 1950, the Venerable Abbot Hildebrand Gregori formed the organization "Prayerful Sodality" which in 1977 became the Pontifical Congregation of the Benedictine Sisters of the Reparation of the Holy Face.
The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion
Sister Marie of St Peter with the Golden Arrow. The three rings symbolize the Holy Trinity
On March 16, 1844 Jesus reportedly told Sr. Marie:
"Oh if you only knew what great merit you acquire by saying even once, Admirable is the Name of God , in a spirit of reparation for blasphemy."
Sister Mary stated that Jesus told her that the two sins which offend him the most grievously are blasphemy and the profanation of Sunday. He called this prayer the "Golden Arrow", saying that those who would recite it would pierce Him delightfully, and also heal those other wounds inflicted on Him by the malice of sinners. Sr. Mary of St. Peter saw, "streaming from the Sacred Heart of Jesus, delightfully wounded by this 'Golden Arrow,' torrents of graces for the conversion of sinners.[2][1][3]
The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer)
This prayer is part of the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus and appears in the book “The Golden Arrow”, the autobiography of Sr. Marie of St Peter. In her book she wrote that in her visions Jesus told her that an act of sacrilege or blasphemy is like a "poisoned arrow", hence the name “Golden Arrow” for this reparatory prayer. [1] Words of the prayer:[2][1]- May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable,
- most incomprehensible and ineffable Name of God
- be forever praised, blessed, loved, adored
- and glorified in Heaven, on earth,
- and under the earth,
- by all the creatures of God,
- and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
- in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
- Amen.
Rosary of the Holy Wounds
Venerable Marie Martha Chambon.
She reported that Jesus Christ appeared to her asked her to unite her sufferings with His as an Act of Reparation for the sins of the world. It also has special applicability to the souls in purgatory.[6][7]
Prayer of reparation for insults and blasphemies
Words of the prayer:[8]- O Jesus, my Savior and Redeemer, Son of the living God, behold, we kneel before Thee and offer Thee our reparation; we would make amends for all the blasphemies uttered against Thy holy name, for all the injuries done to Thee in the Blessed Sacrament, for all the irreverence shown toward Thine immaculate Virgin Mother, for all the calumnies and slanders spoken against Thy spouse, the holy Catholic and Roman Church. O Jesus, who hast said: "If you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you", we pray and beseech Thee for all our brethren who are in danger of sin; shield them from every temptation to fall away from the true faith; save those who are even now standing on the brink of the abyss; to all of them give light and knowledge of the truth, courage and strength for the conflict with evil, perseverance in faith and active charity! For this do we pray, most merciful Jesus, in Thy name, unto God the Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Spirit world without end. Amen
Acts of Reparation to the Virgin Mary
Roman Catholic tradition and Mariology include specific prayers and devotions as acts of reparation for insults and blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary. Similar prayers as Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ and Acts of Reparation to The Holy Trinity also exist.m Some such prayers are provided in the Raccolta Roman Catholic prayer book, first published in association with the Roman Catholic Congregation of Indulgences in 1807.The Raccolta is a book, published from 1807 to 1950, that listed Roman Catholic prayers and other acts of piety, reparation, such as novenas, for which specific indulgences were granted by Popes. The Raccolta (literally meaning "collection" in Italian) is an abbreviation of its full title: Raccolta delle orazioni e pie opere per le quali sono sono concedute dai Sommi Pontefici le SS. Indulgenze ("Collection of Prayers and Good Works for Which the Popes Have Granted Holy Indulgences"). The text was in Italian, with the prayers themselves given in Latin. By his bull Indulgentiarum Doctrina of 1 January 1967, Pope Paul VI ordered a revision of the collection of indulgenced prayers and works "with a view to attaching indulgences only to the most important prayers and works of piety, charity and penance". In 1968 it was replaced by the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, listing fewer specific prayers but including new general grants that apply to a wide range of prayerful actions.
The Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which is in Latin, differs from the Italian-language Raccolta in listing "only the most important prayers and works of piety, charity and penance". On the other hand, it includes new general grants of partial indulgences that apply to a wide range of prayerful actions, and it indicates that the prayers that it does list as deserving veneration on account of divine inspiration or antiquity or as being in widespread use are only examples of those to which the first these general grants applies: "Raising the mind to God with humble trust while performing one's duties and bearing life's difficulties, and adding, at least mentally, some pious invocation". In this way, the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, in spite of its smaller size, classifies as indulgenced an immensely greater number of prayers than were treated as such in the Raccolta.
Reparation for insults to the Blessed Virgin Mary
Words of the Prayer from Raccolta:- O blessed Virgin, Mother of God, look down in mercy from Heaven, where thou art enthroned as Queen, upon me, a miserable sinner, thine unworthy servant. Although I know full well my own unworthiness, yet in order to atone for the offenses that are done to thee by impious and blasphemous tongues, from the depths of my heart I praise and extol thee as the purest, the fairest, the holiest creature of all God's handiwork. I bless thy holy name, I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-Redemptrix of the human race. I bless the Eternal Father who chose thee in an especial way for His daughter; I bless the Word Incarnate who took upon Himself our nature in thy bosom and so made thee His Mother; I bless the Holy Spirit who took thee as His bride. All honor, praise and thanksgiving to the ever-blessed Trinity who predestined thee and loved thee so exceedingly from all eternity as to exalt thee above all creatures to the most sublime heights. O Virgin, holy and merciful, obtain for all who offend thee the grace of repentance, and graciously accept this poor act of homage from me thy servant, obtaining likewise for me from thy Divine Son the pardon and remission of all my sins. Amen.
Reparation for blasphemy against the Blessed Virgin Mary
Words of the Prayer from Raccolta:
- Most glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Mother, turn thine eyes in pity upon us, miserable sinners; we are sore afflicted by the many evils that surround us in this life, but especially do we feel our hearts break within us upon hearing the dreadful insults and blasphemies uttered against thee, O Virgin Immaculate. O how these impious sayings offend the infinite Majesty of God and of His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ! How they provoke His indignation and give us cause to fear the terrible effects of His vengeance! Would that the sacrifice of our lives might avail to put an end to such outrages and blasphemies; were it so, how gladly we should make it, for we desire, O most holy Mother, to love thee and to honor thee with all our hearts, since this is the will of God. And just because we love thee, we will do all that is in our power to make thee honored and loved by all men. In the meantime do thou, our merciful Mother, the supreme comforter of the afflicted, accept this our act of reparation which we offer thee for ourselves and for all our families, as well as for all who impiously blaspheme thee, not knowing what they say. Do thou obtain for them from Almighty God the grace of conversion, and thus render more manifest and more glorious thy kindness, thy power and thy great mercy. May they join with us in proclaiming thee blessed among women, the Immaculate Virgin and most compassionate Mother of God.
- Recite Hail Mary three times.
Acts of Reparation Mentioned in Apparitions
The need for reparation has been mentioned in some Marian apparitions. The messages of Our Lady of Akita, which were formally approved by the Holy See in 1988 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) include the following statement attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary:
Roman Catholic theology asserts that it was by voluntary submission that Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for man's disobedience and sin and that his death made reparation for the sins and offenses of the world. Catholicism professes that by adding their prayers, labours, and trials to the redemption won by Christ's death, Christians can attempt to make reparation to God for their own offenses and those of others. Protestant Christians believe that the prize is already won by Christ for those who believe, wholly apart from their merit, or lack thereof, and that obedience and service to Christ is an outflowing of the new life that he purchased for them in his death on the cross.
The theological doctrine of reparation is the foundation of the numerous confraternities and pious associations which have been founded, especially in modern times, to make reparation to God for the sins of men. The Archconfraternity of Reparation for blasphemy and the neglect of Sunday was founded 28 June, 1847, in the Church of St. Martin de La Noue at St. Dizier in France by Mgr. Parisis, Bishop of Langres. With a similar object, the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face was established at Tours, about 1851, through the piety of M. Dupont, the "holy man of Tours". In 1883 an association was formed in Rome to offer reparation to God on behalf of all nations. The idea of reparation is an essential element in the devotion of the Sacred Heart, and acts of reparation were once common public devotions in Roman Catholic churches. One of the ends for which the Eucharist is offered is for reparation. A pious widow of Paris conceived the idea of promoting this object in 1862. By the authority of Pope Leo XIII the erection of the Archconfraternity of the Mass of Reparation was sanctioned in 1886.
- "Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates."
Organizations for Reparation
Specific Catholic organizations (including Pontifical Congregations) whose focus is reparation have been formed:[13][14]- The Archconfraternity of Reparation for blasphemy and the neglect of Sunday was founded by Msgr. Pierre Louis Parisis in 1847.
- The Archconfraternity of the Holy Face was founded in 1851 by the Venerable Leo Dupont, the "Holy Man of Tours".
- In 1886 Pope Leo XIII authorized the formation of the Archconfraternity of the Mass of Reparation in Rome.
- In 1950, the Venerable Abbot Hildebrand Gregori formed the organization "Prayerful Sodality" which in 1977 became the Pontifical Congregation of the Benedictine Sisters of the Reparation of the Holy Face.
Theological issues
From a theological view, reparation is closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction, and thus belonging to some of the deepest mysteries of the Christian Faith. Christian theology teaches that man is a creature who has fallen into original sin from an original state of grace in which he was created, and that through the Incarnation, Passion, and Death of Jesus Christ, he has been redeemed and restored again in a certain degree to the original condition.Roman Catholic theology asserts that it was by voluntary submission that Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for man's disobedience and sin and that his death made reparation for the sins and offenses of the world. Catholicism professes that by adding their prayers, labours, and trials to the redemption won by Christ's death, Christians can attempt to make reparation to God for their own offenses and those of others. Protestant Christians believe that the prize is already won by Christ for those who believe, wholly apart from their merit, or lack thereof, and that obedience and service to Christ is an outflowing of the new life that he purchased for them in his death on the cross.
The theological doctrine of reparation is the foundation of the numerous confraternities and pious associations which have been founded, especially in modern times, to make reparation to God for the sins of men. The Archconfraternity of Reparation for blasphemy and the neglect of Sunday was founded 28 June, 1847, in the Church of St. Martin de La Noue at St. Dizier in France by Mgr. Parisis, Bishop of Langres. With a similar object, the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face was established at Tours, about 1851, through the piety of M. Dupont, the "holy man of Tours". In 1883 an association was formed in Rome to offer reparation to God on behalf of all nations. The idea of reparation is an essential element in the devotion of the Sacred Heart, and acts of reparation were once common public devotions in Roman Catholic churches. One of the ends for which the Eucharist is offered is for reparation. A pious widow of Paris conceived the idea of promoting this object in 1862. By the authority of Pope Leo XIII the erection of the Archconfraternity of the Mass of Reparation was sanctioned in 1886.
References
- ^ Acts of Reparation http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Reparation_HN.htm
- ^ Miserentissimus Redemptor Encyclical of Pope Pius XI [1]
- ^ Vatican archives http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html
- ^ Joseph P. Christopher et al., 2003 The Raccolta, St Athanasius Press ISBN 978-0-9706526-6-9
- ^ Michael Freze, 1993, Voices, Visions, and Apparitions, OSV Publishing ISBN 0-87973-454-X
- ^ Dorothy Scallan. The Holy Man of Tours. (1990) ISBN 0-89555-390-2
- ^ Our Lady of Fatima http://www.fatima.org/
- ^ Story of Fatima http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-104.html
- ^ Peter Stravinskas, 1998, OSV's Catholic Encyclopedia, OSV Press ISBN 0-87973-669-0 page 428
- ^ Roman Catholic worship: Trent to today by James F. White 2003 ISBN 0-8146-6194-7 page 35
- ^ Meditations on the Sacred Heart by Joseph McDonnell 2008 ISBN 1-4086-8658-9 page 118
- ^ Lucia Santos, Memoir 1, pp. 45-48, and Memoir 2, p. 82 and 93, in Fatima in Lucia's Own Words, entire text online.
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia
- ^ Byzantine Catholic Church in America - Hildebrand Gregori a Step Closer to Canonization
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Featured Item from Litany Lane
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
FEATURED BOOK
THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD
Mystical City of God, the miracle of His omnipotence and the abyss of His grace the divine history and life of the Virgin Mother of God our Queen and our Lady, most holy Mary expiatrix of the fault of eve and mediatrix of grace. Manifested to Sister Mary of Jesus, Prioress of the convent of the Immaculate Conception in Agreda, Spain. For new enlightenment of the world, for rejoicing of the Catholic Church, and encouragement of men. Completed in 1665.
THE DIVINE HISTORY AND LIFE OF THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD
Venerable Mary of Agreda
Translated from the Spanish by Reverend George J. Blatter
1914, So. Chicago, Ill., The Theopolitan; Hammond, Ind., W.B. Conkey Co., US..
IMPRIMATUR: +H.J. Alerding Bishop of Fort Wayne
Translation from the Original Authorized Spanish Edition by Fiscar Marison (George J. Blatter). Begun on the Feast of the Assumption 1902, completed 1912.
This work is published for the greater Glory of Jesus Christ through His most Holy Mother Mary and for the sanctification of the Church and her members.
Book 6, Chapter 11
THE RESURRECTION
The fullness of wisdom in the soul of our great Queen and Lady amid all her sorrows permitted no defect or remissness in noticing and attending to all the duties of each occasion and at all times. By this heavenly foresight She met her obligations and practiced the highest and most eminent of all the virtues. As I have said, the Queen retired, after the burial of Christ, to the house of the Cenacle. Remaining in the hall of the last Supper in the company of saint John, the Marys, and the other women who had followed Christ from Galilee, She spoke to them and the Apostle, thanking them in profound humility and abundant tears for persevering with Her up to this time throughout the Passion of her beloved Son and promising them in his name the reward of having followed Him with so much constancy and devotion. At the same time She offered Herself as a servant and as a friend to those holy women. All of them with Saint John acknowledged this great favor, kissed her hands and asked for her blessing. They also begged her to take some rest and some bodily refreshment. But the Queen answered: “My rest and my consolation shall be to see my Son and Lord arisen from the dead. Do you, my dearest friends, satisfy our wants according to your necessities, while I retire alone with my Son.” In her retirement during this evening the great Lady contemplated the doings of the most holy soul of her Son after it left the sacred body. For from the first the blessed Mother knew that the soul of Christ, united to the Divinity, descended to limbo in order to release the holy Fathers from the subterranean prison, where they had been detained since the death of the first just man that had died in expectance of the advent of the Redeemer of the whole human race. By the presence of the most holy Soul this obscure cavern was converted into a heaven and was filled with a wonderful splendor; and to the souls therein contained was imparted the clear vision of the Divinity. In one instant they passed from the state of long–deferred hope to the possession of glory, and from darkness to the inaccessible light, which they now began to enjoy. All of them recognized their true God and Redeemer, and gave him thanks and glory, breaking forth in canticles of praise saying: “The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and Divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory and benediction. Thou hast redeemed us, Lord, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth (Apoc. 59, 12). Thine is, O Lord, the power, thine the reign, and thine is the glory of thy works.” Then the Lord commanded the angels to bring all the souls in purgatory, and this was immediately done. As if in earnest of the human Redemption they were absolved then and there by the Redeemer from the punishments still due to them, and they were glorified with the other souls of the just by the beatific vision. Thus on that day of the presence of the King were depopulated the prisonhouses of both limbo and purgatory.
The divine soul of Christ our Redeemer remained in limbo from half past three of Friday afternoon, until after three of the Sunday morning following. During this hour He returned to the Sepulchre as the victorious Prince of the angels and of the saints, whom had delivered from those nether prisons as Spoils of His victory and as an earnest of His glorious triumph over the chastised and prostrate rebels of hell. In the sepulchre were many angels as its guard, venerating the sacred body united to the Divinity. Some of them, obeying the command of their Queen and Mistress, had gathered the relics of the sacred blood shed by her divine Son, the particles of flesh scattered about, the hair torn from his divine face and head, and all else that belonged to the perfection and integrity of his most sacred humanity. On these the Mother of prudence lavished her solicitous care. The angels took charge of these relics, each one filled with joy at being privileged to hold the particles, which he was able to secure. Before any change was made, the body of the Redeemer was shown to the holy Fathers, in the same wounded, lacerated and disfigured state in which it was left by the cruelty of the Jews. Beholding Him thus disfigured in death, the Patriarchs and Prophets and other saints adored Him and again confessed Him as the incarnate Word, who had truly taken upon Himself our infirmities and sorrows (Is. 53, 4) and paid abundantly our debts, satisfying in his innocence and guiltlessness for what we ourselves owed to the justice of the eternal Father. There did our first parents Adam and Eve see the havoc wrought by their disobedience, the priceless remedy it necessitated, the immense goodness and mercy of the Redeemer. As they felt the effects of his copious Redemption in the glory of their souls, they praised anew the Omnipotent and Saints of saints, who had with such marvelous wisdom wrought such a salvation.
Then, in the presence of all those saints, through the ministry of those angels, were united to the sacred body all the relics, which they had gathered, restoring it to its natural perfection and integrity. In the same moment the most holy soul reunited with the body, giving it immortal life and glory. Instead of the winding–sheets and the ointments, in which it had been buried, it was clothed with the four gifts of glory, namely: with clearness, impassibility, agility and subtility (John 19, 40). These gifts overflowed from the immense glory of the soul of Christ into the sacred body. Although these gifts were due to it as a natural inheritance and participation from the instant of its conception, because from that very moment his soul was glorified and his whole humanity was united to the Divinity; yet they had been suspended in their effects upon the purest body, in order to permit it to remain passable and capable of meriting for us our own glory. In the Resurrection these gifts were justly called into activity in the proper degree corresponding to the glory of his soul and to his union with the Divinity. As the glory of the most holy soul of Christ our Savior is incomprehensible and ineffable to man, it is also impossible entirely to describe in our words or by our examples the glorious gifts of his deified body; for in comparison to its purity, crystal would be obscure. The light inherent and shining forth from his body so far exceeds that of the others, as the day does the night, or as many suns the light of one star; and all the beauty of creatures, if it were joined, would appear ugliness in comparison with his, nothing else being comparable to It in all creation.
The excellence of these gifts in the Resurrection were far beyond the glory of his Transfiguration or that manifested on other occasions of the kind men mentioned in this history. For on these occasions He received it transitorily and for special purposes, while now He received it in plenitude and forever. Through impassibility his body became invincible to all created power, since no power can ever move or change Him. By subtility the gross and earthly matter was so purified, that it could now penetrate other matter like a pure spirit. Accordingly He penetrated through the rocks of the sepulchre without removing or displacing them, as He had issued forth from the womb of his most blessed Mother. Agility so freed Him from the weight and slowness of matter, that it exceeded the agility of the immaterial angels, while He himself could move about more quickly than they, as shown in his apparitions to the Apostles and on other occasions. The sacred wounds, which had disfigured his body, now shone forth from his hands and feet and side so refulgent and brilliant, that they added a most entrancing beauty and charm. In all this glory and heavenly adornment the Savior now arose from the grave; and in the presence of the saints and Patriarchs He promised universal resurrection in their own flesh and body to all men, and that they moreover, as an effect of his own Resurrection, should be similarly glorified. As an earnest and as a pledge of the universal resurrection, the Lord commanded the souls of many saints there present to reunite with their bodies and rise up to immortal life. Immediately this divine command was executed, and their bodies arose, as is mentioned by saint Matthew, in anticipation of this mystery (Matthew 27, 52). Among them were saint Anne, saint Joseph and saint Joachim, and others of the ancient Fathers and Patriarchs, who had distinguished themselves in the faith and hope of the Incarnation, and had desired and prayed for it with greater earnestness to the Lord. As a reward for their zeal, the resurrection and glory of their bodies was now anticipated.
Of all these mysteries the great Queen of heaven was aware and She participated in them from her retreat in the Cenacle. In the same instant in which the most holy soul of Christ entered and gave life to his body the joy of her immaculate soul, which I mentioned in the foregoing chapter as being restrained and, as it were, withheld, overflowed into her immaculate body. And this overflow was so exquisite in its effects, that She was transformed from sorrow to joy, from pain to delight from grief to ineffable jubilation and rest. It happened that just at this time the Evangelist John, as he had done on the previous morning, stepped in to visit and console Her in her bitter solitude, and thus unexpectedly, in the midst of splendor and glory, met Her whom he had before scarcely recognized on account of her overwhelming sorrow. The Apostle now beheld Her with wonder and deepest reverence and concluded that the Lord had risen, since his blessed Mother was thus transfigured with joy.
In this new joy and under the divine influences of her supernatural vision the great Lady began to prepare herself for the visit of the Lord, which was near at hand. While eliciting acts of praise, and in her canticles and prayers, She immediately felt within Her a new kind of jubilation and celestial delight, reaching far beyond the first joy, and corresponding in a wonderful manner to the sorrows and tribulations She had undergone in the Passion; and this new favor was different and much more exalted than the joys overflowing naturally from her soul into her body. Moreover She perceived within Herself another third and still more different effect, implying new divine favors.
The blessed Mary being thus prepared, Christ our Savior, arisen and glorious, in the company of all Saints and Patriarchs, made his appearance. The ever humble Queen prostrated Herself upon the ground and adored her divine Son; and the Lord raised Her and drew Her to Himself. In this contact, which was more intimate than the contact with the humanity and the wounds of the Savior sought by Magdalen, the Virgin Mother participated in an extraordinary favor, which She alone, as exempt from sin, could merit. Although it was not the greatest of the favors She attained on this occasion, yet She could not have received it without failing of her faculties, if She had not been previously strengthened by the angels and by the Lord himself. This favor was, that the glorious body of the Son so closely united itself to that of his purest Mother, that He penetrated into it or She into his, as when, for instance, a crystal globe takes up within itself the light of the sun and is saturated with the splendor and beauty of its light. In the same way the body of the most holy Mary entered into that of her divine Son by this heavenly embrace; it was, as it were, the portal of her intimate knowledge concerning the glory of the holy soul and body of her Lord. As a consequence of these favors, constituting higher and higher degrees of ineffable gifts, the spirit of the Virgin Mother rose to the knowledge of the most hidden sacraments. In the midst of them She heard a voice saying to Her: “My beloved, ascend higher!” (Luke 18, 10). By the power of these words She was entirely transformed and saw the Divinity clearly and intuitively, wherein She found complete, though only temporary, rest and reward for all her sorrows and labors. Silence alone here is proper, since reason and language are entirely inadequate to comprehend or express what passed in the blessed Mary during this beatific vision, the highest She had until then enjoyed. Let us celebrate this day in wonder and praise, with congratulations and loving and humble thanks for what She then merited for us, and for her exaltation and joy.
For some hours the heavenly Princess continued to enjoy the essence of God with her divine Son, participating now in his triumph as She had in his torments. Then by similar degrees She again descended from this vision and found Herself in the end reclining on the right arm of the most sacred humanity and regaled in other ways by the right hand of his Divinity (Cant. 2, 6). She held sweetest converse with her Son concerning the mysteries of his Passion and of his glory. In these conferences She was again inebriated with the wine of love and charity, which now She drank unmeasured from the original fount. All that a mere creature can receive was conferred upon the blessed Mary on this occasion; for, according to our way of conceiving such things, the divine equity wished to compensate the injury (thus I must call it, because I cannot find a more proper word), which a Creature so pure and immaculate had undergone in suffering the sorrows and torments of the Passion. For, as I have mentioned many times before, She suffered the same pains as her Son, and now in this mystery She was inundated with a proportionate joy and delight.
WORDS OF THE QUEEN
The Virgin Mary speaks to Sister Mary of Agreda, Spain
Each of these gifts are correspondingly augmented in him who in the state of grace performs the least meritorious work, even if it be no more than removing a straw or giving a cup of water for the love of God (Matth. 10, 42). For each of the most insignificant works the creature gains an increase of these gifts; an increase of clearness exceeding many times the sunlight and added to its state of blessedness an increase of impassibility, by which man recedes from human and earthly corruption farther than what all created efforts and strength could ever effect in resistance separating itself from such infirmity or changefulness; an increase of subtility, by which he advances beyond all that could offer it resistance and gains new power of penetration; an increase of agility, surpassing all the activity of birds, of winds, and all other active creatures, such as fire and the elements tending to their centre. From this increase of the gifts of the body merited by good works, thou wilt understand the augmentation of the gifts of the soul; for those of the body are derived from those of the soul and correspond with them. In the beatific vision each merit secures greater clearness and insight into the divine attributes and perfections than that acquired by all the doctors and enlightened members of the Church. Likewise the gift of apprehension, or possession of the divine Object, is augmented; for the security of the possession of the highest and infinite Good makes the tranquility and rest of its enjoyment more estimable than if the soul possessed all that is precious and rich, desirable and worthy of attainment in all creation, even if possessed all at one time. Fruition, the third gift of the soul, on account of the love with which man performs the smallest acts, so exalts the degrees of functional love, that the greatest love of men here on earth can never be compared thereto; nor can the delight resulting therefrom ever be compared with all the delights of this mortal life.
Book 6, Chapter 12
THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST
A few days before the Ascension of the Lord while the blessed Mary was engaged in the one of the above–mentioned exercises, the eternal Father and the Holy Ghost appeared in the Cenacle upon a throne of ineffable splendor surrounded by the choirs of angels and saints there present and other heavenly spirits, which had now come with the divine Persons. Then the incarnate Word ascended the throne and seated Himself with the other Two. The ever humble Mother of the Most High, prostrate in a corner of a room, in deepest reverence adored the most blessed Trinity, and in it her own incarnate Son. The eternal Father commanded two of the highest angels to call Mary, which they did by approaching Her, and in sweetest voices intimating to Her the divine will. She arose from the dust with the most profound humility, modesty and reverence. Accompanied by the angels She approached the foot of the Throne, humbling herself anew. The eternal Father said to Her: “Beloved, ascend higher!” (Luke 14, 10). As these words at the same time effected what they signified, She was raised up and placed on the throne of royal Majesty with the three divine Persons. New admiration was caused in the saints to see a mere Creature exalted to such dignity. Being made to understand the sanctity and equity of the works of the Most High, they gave new glory and praise proclaiming Him immense, Just, Holy and Admirable in all his counsels.
The Father then spoke to the blessed Mary saying: “My Daughter, to Thee do I entrust the Church founded by my Onlybegotten, the new law of grace He established in the world, and the people, which He redeemed: to Thee do I consign them all.” Thereupon also the Holy Ghost spoke to Her: “My Spouse, chosen from all creatures, I communicate to Thee my wisdom and grace together with which shall be deposited in thy heart the mysteries, the works and teachings and all that the incarnate Word has accomplished in the world.” And the Son also said: “My most beloved Mother, I go to my Father and in my stead I shall leave Thee and I charge Thee with the care of my Church; to Thee do I commend its children and my brethren, as the Father has consigned them to Me.” Then the three Divine Persons, addressing the choir of holy angels and the other saints, said: “This is the Queen of all created things in heaven and earth; She is the Protectress of the Church, the Mistress of creatures, the Mother of piety, the Intercessor of the faithful, the Advocate of sinners, the Mother of beautiful love and holy hope (Eccli. 24, 24); She is mighty in drawing our will to mercy and clemency. In Her shall be deposited the treasures of our grace and her most faithful heart shall the tablet whereon shall be written and engraved our holy law. In her are contained the mysteries of our Omnipotence for the salvation of mankind. She is the perfect work of our hands, through whom the plenitude of our desires shall be communicated and satisfied without hindrance in the currents of our divine perfections. Whoever shall call upon Her from his heart shall not perish; whoever shall obtain her intercession shall secure for himself eternal life. What She asks of Us, shall be granted, and We shall always hear her requests and prayers and fulfill her will; for She has consecrated Herself perfectly to what pleases Us.” The most blessed Mary, hearing Herself thus exalted, humiliated Herself so much the deeper the more highly She was raised by the right hand of the Most High above all the human and angelic creatures. As if She were the least of all, She adored the Lord and offered Herself, in the most prudent terms and in the most ardent love, to work as a faithful servant in the Church and obey promptly all the biddings of the divine will. From that day on She took upon Herself anew the care of the evangelical Church, as a loving Mother of all children; She renewed all the petitions She had until then made, so that during the whole further course of her life they were most fervent and incessant, as we shall see in the third part, where will appear more clearly what the Church owes to this great Queen and Lady, and what blessings She gained and merited for it.
On that same day, by divine dispensation, while the Lord was at table with the eleven Apostles, other disciples and pious women gathered at the Cenacle to the number of one hundred and twenty; for the divine Master wished them to be present at his Ascension. Moreover, just as He had instructed the Apostles, so He now wanted to instruct these faithful respectively in what each was to know before his leaving them and ascending into heaven. All of them being thus gathered and united in peace and charity within those walls in the hall of the last Supper, the Author of life manifested Himself to them as a kind and loving Father and said to them:
“My sweetest children, I am about to ascend to my Father, from whose bosom I descended in order to rescue and save men. I leave with you in my stead my own Mother as your Protectress, Consoler and Advocate, and as your Mother, whom you are to hear and obey in all things. Just as I have told you, that he who sees Me sees my Father, and he who knows Me, knows also Him; so I now tell you, that He who knows my Mother, knows Me; he who hears Her, hears Me; and who honors Her, honors Me. All of you shall have Her as your Mother, as your Superior and Head, so shall also your successors. She shall answer doubts, solve your difficulties; in Her, those who seek Me shall always find Me; for I shall remain in Her until the end of the world, and I am in Her now, although you do not understand how.” This the Lord said, because He was sacramentally present in the bosom of his Mother; for the sacred species, which She had received at the last Supper, were preserved in Her until consecration of the first Mass, as I shall relate further on. The Lord thus fulfilled that which He promised in saint Matthew: “I am with you to the consummation of the world” (Matth. 28, 20). The Lord added and said: “You will have Peter as the supreme head of the Church, for I leave him as my Vicar; and you shall obey him as the chief highpriest. Saint John you shall hold as the son of my Mother; for I have chosen and appointed him for this office on the Cross.” The Lord then looked upon his most beloved Mother, who was there present and intimated his desire of expressly commanding that whole congregation to worship and reverence Her in a manner suited to the dignity of Mother of God, and of leaving this command under form of a precept for the whole Church. But the most humble Lady besought her Onlybegotten to be pleased not to secure Her more honor than was absolutely necessary for executing all that He had charged Her with; and that the new children of the Church should not be induced to show Her greater honor than they had shown until then. On contrary, She desired to divert all the sacred worship of the Church immediately upon the Lord himself and to make the propagation of the Gospel redound entirely to the exaltation of his holy name. Christ our Savior yielded to this most prudent petition of his Mother, reserving to Himself the duty of spreading the knowledge of Her at a more convenient and opportune time yet in secret He conferred upon Her new extraordinary favors, as shall appear in the rest of this history.
In considering the loving exhortations of their Divine Master, the mysteries which He had revealed them, and the prospect of his leaving them, that whole congregation was moved to their inmost hearts; for He had enkindled in them the divine love by the vivid faith of his Divinity and humanity. Reviving within them the memory of his words and his teachings of eternal life, the delights of his most loving companionship, and sorrowfully realizing, that they were now all at once to be deprived of these blessings, they wept most tenderly and sighed from their inmost souls. They longed to detain Him, although they could not, because they saw it was not befitting; words of parting rose to their lips, but they could not bring themselves to utter them; each one felt sentiments of sorrow arising amid feelings both of joy and yet also of pious regret. How shall we live without such a Master? they thought. Who can ever speak to us such words of life and consolation as He? Who will receive us so lovingly and kindly? Who shall be our Father and protector? We shall be helpless children and orphans in this world. Some of them broke their silence and exclaimed: “O most loving Lord and Father! O joy and life of our souls! Now that we know Thee as our Redeemer, Thou departest and leavest us! Take us along with Thee, O Lord; banish us not from thy sight. Our blessed Hope, what shall we do without thy presence? Whither shall we turn, if thou goest away? Whither shall we direct our steps, if cannot follow Thee, our Father, our Chief, and our Teacher?” To these and other pleadings the Lord answered by bidding them not to leave Jerusalem and to persevere in prayer until He should send the Holy Spirit, the Consoler, as promised by the Father and as already foretold to the Apostles at the last Supper. Thereupon happened, what I shall relate in the next chapter.
The most auspicious hour, in which the Onlybegotten of the eternal Father, after descending from heaven in order to assume human flesh, was to ascend by his own power and in a most wonderful manner to the right hand of God, the Inheritor of his eternities, one and equal with Him in nature and infinite glory. He was to ascend, also, because He had previously descended to the lowest regions of the earth, as the Apostle says (Ephes. 4, 9), having fulfilled all that had been written and prophesied concerning his coming into the world, his Life, Death and the Redemption of man, and having penetrated, as the Lord of all, to the very centre of the earth. By this Ascension he sealed all the mysteries and hastened the fulfillment of his promise, according to which He was, with the Father, to send the Paraclete upon his Church after He himself should have ascended into heaven (John 16, 7). In order to celebrate this festive and mysterious day, Christ our Lord selected as witnesses the hundred and twenty persons, to whom, as related in the foregoing chapter, He had spoken in the Cenacle. They were the most holy Mary, the eleven Apostles, the seventy–two disciples, Mary Magdalen, Lazarus their brother, the other Marys and the faithful men and women making up the above–mentioned number of one hundred and twenty.
With this little flock our divine Shepherd Jesus left the Cenacle, and, with his most blessed Mother at his side, He conducted them all through the streets of Jerusalem. The Apostles and all the rest in order, proceeded in the direction of Bethany, which was less than half a league over the brow of mount Olivet. The company of angels and saints from limbo and purgatory followed the Victor with new songs of praise, although Mary alone was privileged to see them. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was already divulged throughout Jerusalem and Palestine. Although the perfidious and malicious princes and priests had spread about the false testimony of his being stolen by disciples, yet many would not accept their testimony nor give it any credit. It was divinely provided, that none of the inhabitants of the city, and none of the unbelievers or doubters, should pay any attention to this holy procession, or hinder it on its way from the Cenacle. All, except the one hundred and twenty just, who were chosen by the Lord to witness his Ascension into heaven, were justly punished by being prevented from noticing this wonderful mystery, and the Chieftain and Head of this procession remained invisible to them.
The Lord having thus secured them this privacy, they all ascended mount Olivet to its highest point. There they formed three choirs, one of the angels, another of the saints, and a third of the Apostles and faithful, which again divided into two bands, while Christ the Savior presided. Then the most prudent Mother prostrated Herself at the feet of her Son worshipping Him with admirable humility, She adored Him as the true God and as the Redeemer of the world, asking his last blessing. All the faithful there present imitated Her and did the same. Weeping and sighing, they asked the Lord, whether He was now to restore the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1, 6). The Lord answered, that this was a secret of the eternal Father and not to be made known to them; but, for the present, it was necessary and befitting, that they receive the Holy Ghost and preach, in Jerusalem, in Samaria and in all the world, the mysteries of the Redemption of the world.
Jesus, having taken leave of this holy and fortunate gathering of the faithful, his countenance beaming forth peace and majesty, joined his hands and, by his own power, began to raise himself from the earth, leaving thereon the impression of his sacred feet. In gentlest motion He was wafted toward the aerial regions, drawing after Him the eyes and the hearts of those first–born children, who amid sighs and tears vented their affection. And as, at the moving of the first Cause of all motion, it is proper that also the nether spheres should be set in motion, so the Savior Jesus drew after Him also the celestial choirs of the angels, the holy Patriarchs and the rest of the glorified saints, some of them with body and soul, others only as to their soul. All of them in heavenly order were raised up together from the earth, accompanying and following their King, their Chief and Head. The new and mysterious sacrament, which the right hand of the Most High wrought on this occasion for his most holy Mother, was that He raised Her up with Him in order to put Her in possession of the glory, which He had assigned to Her as his true Mother and which She had by her merits prepared and earned for Herself. Of this favor the great Queen was capable even before it happened; for her divine Son had offered it to Her during the forty days which He spent in her company after his Resurrection. In order that this sacrament might be kept secret from all other living creatures at that time, and in order that the heavenly Mistress might be present in the gathering of the Apostles and the faithful in their prayerful waiting upon the coming of the Holy Ghost (Acts 1, 14), the divine power enabled the blessed Mother miraculously to be in two places at once; remaining with the children of the Church for their comfort during their stay in the Cenacle and at the time ascending with the Redeemer of the world to His heavenly throne, where She remained for three days. There She enjoyed the perfect use of all her powers and faculties, whereas She was more restricted in the use of them during that time in the Cenacle.
Amidst this jubilee and other rejoicings exceeding all our conceptions that new divinely arranged procession approached the empyrean heavens. Between the two choirs of angels and saints, Christ and his most blessed Mother made their entry. All in their order gave supreme honor to Each respectively and to Both together, breaking forth in hymns of praise in honor of the Authors of grace and of life. Then the eternal Father placed upon the throne of his Divinity at His right hand, the incarnate Word, and in such glory and majesty, that He filled with new admiration and reverential fear all the inhabitants of heaven. In clear and intuitive vision they recognized the infinite glory and perfection of the Divinity inseparably and substantially united in one personality to the most holy humanity, beautified and exalted by the pre–eminence and glory due to this union, such as eyes have not seen, nor ears heard, nor ever has entered into the thoughts of creatures (Is. 54, 4).
On this occasion the humility and wisdom of our most prudent Queen reached their highest point; for, overwhelmed by such divine and admirable favors, She hovered at the footstool of the royal throne, annihilated in the consciousness of being a mere earthly creature. Prostrate She adored the Father and broke out in new canticles of praise for the glory communicated to his Son and for elevating in Him the deified humanity to such greatness and splendor. Again the angels and saints were filled with admiration and joy to see the most prudent humility of their Queen, whose living example of virtue, as exhibited on that occasion, they emulated among themselves in copying. Then the voice of the eternal Father was heard saying: “My Daughter, ascend higher!” Her divine Son also called Her, saying: “My Mother rise up and take possession of the place, which I owe Thee for having followed and imitated Me. The Holy Ghost said: “My Spouse and Beloved, come to my eternal embraces!” Immediately was proclaimed to all the blessed the decree of the most holy Trinity, by which the most blessed Mother, for having furnished her own life–blood toward the Incarnation and for having nourished, served, imitated and followed Him with all the perfection possible to a creature, was exalted and placed at the right hand of her Son for all eternity. None other of the human creatures should ever hold that place or position, nor rival Her in the unfailing glory connected with it; but it was to be reserved to the Queen and to be her possession by right after her earthly life, as of one who pre–eminently excelled all the rest of the saints.
In fulfillment of this decree, the most blessed Mary was raised to the throne of the holy Trinity at the right hand of her Son. At the same time She, with all the saints, was informed, that She was given possession of this throne not only for all the ages of eternity, but that it was left to her choice to remain there even now and without returning to the earth. For it was the conditional will of the divine Persons, that as far as they were concerned, She should now remain in that state. In order that She might make her own choice, She was shown anew the state of the Church upon earth, the orphaned and necessitous condition of the faithful, whom She was left free to assist. This admirable proceeding of the divine Providence was to afford the Mother of mercy an occasion of going beyond, so to say, even her own Self in doing good and in obliging the human race with an act of love similar to that of her Son in assuming a passible state and in suspending the glory due to his body during and for our Redemption. The most blessed Mother imitated Him also in this respect, so that She might be in all things like the incarnate Word. The great Lady therefore, having clearly before her eyes all the sacrifices included in this proposition, left the throne and, prostrating Herself at the feet of the Three Persons, said: “Eternal and almighty God, my Lord, to accept at once this reward, which thy condescending kindness offers me, would be to secure my rest; but to return to the world and continue to labor in mortal life for the good of the children of Adam and the faithful of thy holy Church, would be to the glory and according to the pleasure of thy Majesty and would benefit my sojourning and banished children on earth. I accept this labor and renounce for the present the peace and joy of thy presence. Well do I know, what I possess and receive, but I will sacrifice it to further the love Thou hast for men. Accept, Lord and Master of all my being, this sacrifice and let thy divine strength govern in the undertaking confided to me. Let faith in Thee be spread, let thy holy name be exalted, let thy holy Church be enlarged, for Thou hast acquired it by the blood of thy Onlybegotten and mine; I offer myself anew to labor for thy glory and for the conquest of the souls, as far as I am able.”
Such was the sacrifice made by the most loving Mother and Queen, one greater than ever was conceived by creature, and it was so pleasing to the Lord, that He immediately rewarded it by operating in Her those purifications and enlightenments, which I have at other times mentioned as necessary to the intuitive vision of the Divinity; for so far She had on this occasion seen only by abstractive vision. Thus elevated She partook of the beatific vision and was filled with splendor and celestial gifts, altogether beyond the power of man describe or conceive in mortal life.
In order to finish this chapter, and with it this second part, I return to the congregation of the faithful, whom we left so sorrowful on mount Olivet. The most holy Mary did not forget them in the midst of her glory; as they stood weeping and lost in grief and, as it were, absorbed in looking into the aerial regions, into which their Redeemer and Master had disappeared, She turned her eyes upon them from the cloud on which She had ascended, in order to send them her assistance. Moved by their sorrow, She besought Jesus lovingly to console these little children, whom He had left as orphans upon the earth. Moved by the prayers of his Mother, the Redeemer of the human race sent down two angels in white and resplendent garments, who appeared to all the disciples and the faithful and spoke to them: “Ye men of Galilee, do not look up to heaven in so great astonishment, for this Lord Jesus, who departed from you and has ascended into heaven, shall again return with the same glory and majesty in which you have just seen him” (Acts 1, 11). By such words and others which they added they consoled the Apostles and disciples and all the rest, so that they might not grow faint, but in their retirement hope for the coming and the consolation of the Holy Ghost promised by their divine Master.
WORDS OF THE QUEEN
The Virgin Mary speaks to Sister Mary of Agreda, Spain
My daughter, thou wilt appropriately close this second part of my life by remembering the lesson concerning the most efficacious sweetness of the divine love and the immense liberality of God with those souls, that do not hinder its flowing. It is in conformity with the inclinations of his holy and perfect will to regale rather than afflict creatures, to console them rather than cause them sorrow, to reward them rather than to chastise them, to rejoice rather than grieve them. But mortals ignore this divine science, because they desire from the hands of the Most high such consolations, delights and rewards, as are earthly and dangerous, and they prefer them to the true and more secure blessings. The divine Love then corrects this fault by the lessons conveyed in tribulations and punishments. Human nature is slow, coarse and uneducated; and if it is not cultivated and softened, it gives no fruit in season, and on account of its evil inclinations, will never of itself become fit for the most loving and sweet interactions with the highest Good. Therefore it must be shaped and reduced by the hammer of adversities, refined in the crucible of tribulation, in order that it may become fit and capable of the divine gifts and favors and may learn to despise terrestrial and fallacious goods, wherein death is concealed.
I counted for little all that I endured, when I saw the reward which the divine Goodness had prepared for me; and therefore He ordained, in his admirable Providence that I should return to the militant Church of my own free will and choice. This I knew would redound to my greater glory and to the exaltation of his holy name, while it would provide assistance to his Church and to his children in an admirable and holy manner (I Tim. 1, 17). It seemed to me a sacred duty, that I deprive myself of the eternal felicity of which I was in possession and, returning from heaven to earth, gain new fruits of labor and love for the Almighty; this I owed to the divine Goodness, which had raised me up from the dust. Learn therefore, my beloved, from my example, and excite thyself to imitate me most eagerly during these times, in which the holy Church so disconsolate and overwhelmed by tribulations and in which there are none of her children to console her. In this cause I desire that thou labor strenuously, ready to suffer in prayer and supplication, and crying from the bottom of thy heart to the Omnipotent. And if it were necessary thou shouldst be willing to give thy life. I assure thee, my daughter, thy solicitude shall be very pleasing in the eyes of my divine Son and in mine.
Let it all be for the glory and honor of the Most high, the King of the ages, the Immortal and Invisible (I Tim. 1, 17), and for that of his Mother, the most blessed Mary, through all the eternities!
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Featured Item from Litany Lane
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬♥▬●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Catholic Catechism
PART ONE
Part One: The Profession of Faith
(14 -Those who belong to Christ through faith and Baptism must confess their baptismal faith before men.16 First therefore the Catechism expounds revelation, by which God addresses and gives himself to man, and the faith by which man responds to God (Section One). The profession of faith summarizes the gifts that God gives man: as the Author of all that is good; as Redeemer; and as Sanctifier. It develops these in the three chapters on our baptismal faith in the one God: the almighty Father, the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, in the Holy Church (Section Two).)
PROLOGUE
- "FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.
1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5
3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6
II. HANDING ON THE FAITH: CATECHESIS
4 Quite early on, the name catechesis was given to the totality of the Church's efforts to make disciples, to help men believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that believing they might have life in his name, and to educate and instruct them in this life, thus building up the body of Christ.7
5 "Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life."8\
6 While not being formally identified with them, catechesis is built on a certain number of elements of the Church's pastoral mission which have a catechetical aspect, that prepare for catechesis, or spring from it. They are: the initial proclamation of the Gospel or missionary preaching to arouse faith; examination of the reasons for belief; experience of Christian living; celebration of the sacraments; integration into the ecclesial community; and apostolic and missionary witness.9
7 "Catechesis is intimately bound up with the whole of the Church's life. Not only her geographical extension and numerical increase, but even more her inner growth and correspondence with God's plan depend essentially on catechesis."10
8 Periods of renewal in the Church are also intense moments of catechesis. In the great era of the Fathers of the Church, saintly bishops devoted an important part of their ministry to catechesis. St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, and many other Fathers wrote catechetical works that remain models for us.11
9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. . . ."12 The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church's catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.
10 It is therefore no surprise that catechesis in the Church has again attracted attention in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which Pope Paul VI considered the great catechism of modern times. The General Catechetical Directory (1971) the sessions of the Synod of Bishops devoted to evangelization (1974) and catechesis (1977), the apostolic exhortations Evangelii nuntiandi (1975) and Catechesi tradendae (1979), attest to this. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 asked "that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed"13 The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, made the Synod's wish his own, acknowledging that "this desire wholly corresponds to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches."14 He set in motion everything needed to carry out the Synod Fathers' wish.
III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".15
12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.
IV. STRUCTURE OF THIS CATECHISM
13 The plan of this catechism is inspired by the great tradition of catechisms which build catechesis on four pillars: the baptismal profession of faith (the Creed), the sacraments of faith, the life of faith (the Commandments), and the prayer of the believer (the Lord's Prayer).
Part One: The Profession of Faith
14 Those who belong to Christ through faith and Baptism must confess their baptismal faith before men.16 First therefore the Catechism expounds revelation, by which God addresses and gives himself to man, and the faith by which man responds to God (Section One). The profession of faith summarizes the gifts that God gives man: as the Author of all that is good; as Redeemer; and as Sanctifier. It develops these in the three chapters on our baptismal faith in the one God: the almighty Father, the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, in the Holy Church (Section Two).
Part Two: The Sacraments of Faith
15 The second part of the Catechism explains how God's salvation, accomplished once for all through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, is made present in the sacred actions of the Church's liturgy (Section One), especially in the seven sacraments (Section Two).
Part Three: The Life of Faith
16 The third part of the Catechism deals with the final end of man created in the image of God: beatitude, and the ways of reaching it - through right conduct freely chosen, with the help of God's law and grace (Section One), and through conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity, specified in God's Ten Commandments (Section Two).
Part Four: Prayer in the Life of Faith
17 The last part of the Catechism deals with the meaning and importance of prayer in the life of believers (Section One). It concludes with a brief commentary on the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer (Section Two), for indeed we find in these the sum of all the good things which we must hope for, and which our heavenly Father wants to grant us.
V. PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS FOR USING THIS CATECHISM
18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. Numerous cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to view each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.
19 The texts of Sacred Scripture are often not quoted word for word but are merely indicated by a reference (cf.). For a deeper understanding of such passages, the reader should refer to the Scriptural texts themselves. Such Biblical references are a valuable working-tool in catechesis.
20 The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.
21 The quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical use.
22 At the end of each thematic unit, a series of brief texts in small italics sums up the essentials of that unit's teaching in condensed formula. These IN BRIEF summaries may suggest to local catechists brief summary formula that could be memorized.
VI. NECESSARY ADAPTATIONS
23 The Catechism emphasizes the exposition of doctrine. It seeks to help deepen understanding of faith. In this way it is oriented towards the maturing of that faith, its putting down roots in personal life, and its shining forth in personal conduct.17
24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:
- Whoever teaches must become "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers. . . . Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct.18
25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:
- The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.19
1 Jn 17 3.
2 1 Tim 2:3-4.
3 Acts 4:12.
4 Mt 28:19-20.
5 Mk 16:20.
6 Cf. Acts 2:42.
7 Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi tradendae 1; 2.
8 CT 18.
9 CT 18.
10 CT 13.
11 Cf. CT 12.
12 CT 13.
13 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops 1985, Final Report, II B a, 4.
14 John Paul II, Discourse at the Closing Of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, 7 December 1985: AAS 78, (1986).
15 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops 1985, Final Report II B a, 4.
16 Cf. Mt 10:32; Rom 10:9.
17 Cf. CT 20-22; 25.
18 Roman Catechism, Preface II; cf. 1 Cor 9:22; 1 Pt 2:2.
19 Roman Catechism, Preface 10; cf. 1 Cor 13:8.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
Featured Item from Litany Lane
View more Inspirational Designs at Litany Lane.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●
RE-CHARGE: Heaven Speaks to Young Adults
To all tween, teens and young adults, A Message from Jesus: "Through you I will flow powerful conversion graces to draw other young souls from darkness. My plan for young men and women is immense. Truly, the renewal will leap forward with the assistance of these individuals. Am I calling you? Yes. I am calling you. You feel the stirring in your soul as you read these words. I am with you. I will never leave you. Join My band of young apostles and I will give you joy and peace that you have never known. All courage, all strength will be yours. Together, we will reclaim this world for the Father. I will bless your families and all of your relationships. I will lead you to your place in the Kingdom. Only you can complete the tasks I have set out for you. Do not reject Me. I am your Jesus. I love you...Read this book, upload to your phones/ipads.computers and read a few pages everyday...and then Pay It Forward...
Reference
- Recharge: Directions For Our Times. Heaven Speaks to Young Adults. recharge.cc.
●▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬♥▬●▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬●