Home ... the One, True, Holy, Catholic
Church
“That
understanding of its sacred dogmas must
be perpetually retained,
which Holy Mother Church once declared; and there
must never be a recession from that meaning under
the specious name of a deeper understanding”
(Blessed Pope Pius IX, 1st
Vatican Council, S.3, C.2 on Revelation, 1870
ex cathedra)
|
_________________________
LESSONS NOT LEARNED
It happened
right here!
Remember? Boston 2002!
Silence on the part of
the cardinal, the bishops, the seminary rectors,
the Religious orders — followed by
Scandal. Horrible scandal.
Scandal of the most hateful, despicable, vicious
perversion that swept away — but not too thoroughly
— miters, defrocked priests, caused the closing
of hundreds of parishes and the selling off of quite
nearly everything Catholic to pay off the lawsuits
against predatory priests and silent superiors.
Millions upon millions to pay victims and their
lawyers, and most sadly to psychologically treat
and medicate its victims who are now adults ...
It continues to this day!
Most of what you
put in the basket at church almost certainly goes
to pay for the crimes of predatory homosexual priests
who molested young boys — committed the most depraved
sexual predation on the most trusting of youth …
our children.
Under the euphemism
of “consolidating parishes” countless church buildings
and facilities were sold off to become condominiums
and even mosques.
$35 million on
counseling, psychiatric medications, and other services
for survivors. Since 2003, it has paid about $215
million to settle legal claims, church officials
say (Boston
Globe January 2017).
Here in Boston
we are STILL paying for a disgraceful and unutterably
shameful SILENCE that not simply “rocked” the Church,
but literally caused much of it to be torn down
to its foundations.
The
Dubia: Five Vital Questions that Encounter
Obstinate Silence
The following five questions were
respectfully submitted to Pope Francis following
the ambiguity inherent in his Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia:
-
“It is asked whether, following the
affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305),
it has now become possible to grant absolution
in the sacrament of penance and thus to
admit to holy Communion a person who,
while bound by a valid marital bond,
lives together with a different
person more uxorio [as husband and
wife] without fulfilling the conditions
provided for by Familiaris Consortio,
84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum
Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in
certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of
the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be
applied to divorced persons who are in a
new union and who continue to live more
uxorio?”
SIMPLIFIED: Can adulterers
go to Confession and receive Holy Communion?
Can a man or woman who are living together
as though married to each other having been
civilly divorced, but who nonetheless still
remain married to their original spouses
in the eyes of the Church and according
to clear and unequivocal Holy Scripture,
be considered as not living
in adultery: that is to say, as not living
with another man's wife and another woman's
husband?”
-
“After the publication of
the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia
(304),
does one still need to regard as valid
the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical
Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on
sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of
the Church, on
the
existence of absolute
moral norms that prohibit intrinsically
evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?”
SIMPLIFIED: Are there acts
so evil that under every possible condition
or circumstance they must be, without exception,
considered intrinsically evil?
-
“After Amoris Laetitia
(301)
is it still possible to affirm that
a person who habitually lives in contradiction
to a commandment of God’s law, as
for instance the one that prohibits adultery
(Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself
in an objective situation of grave habitual
sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative
Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?”
SIMPLIFIED: In light of
what is stated in Amoris Laetitia,
is there any longer any objective situation
of grave habitual sin?
-
“After the affirmations
of Amoris Laetitia (302)
on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,”
does one still need to regard as
valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s
encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81,
based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition
of the Church, according to which
“circumstances or intentions can never
transform an act intrinsically evil
by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’
good or defensible as a choice”?”
SIMPLIFIED: Given that
“circumstances or intentions can never transform
an act intrinsically evil into one that
is subjectively good”, how can it be affirmed,
as it is in Amoris Laetitia, that
there are “circumstances which mitigate
moral responsibility”? Can, then, circumstances
or intentions transform an act intrinsically
[objectively] evil into one that is subjectively
good?
-
“After Amoris Laetitia
(303) does one still need to regard
as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s
encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56,
based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition
of the Church, that excludes a creative
interpretation of the role of conscience
and that emphasizes
that conscience can never be authorized
to legitimate exceptions to
absolute moral norms that prohibit
intrinsically evil acts by virtue
of their object?”
SIMPLIFIED: Can the (subjective)
conscience be appealed to abrogate or cancel
intrinsically evil acts?
To date, Pope Francis has obstinately,
if not arrogantly refused to deign to answer these
vital questions necessary necessary to the integrity
of our Holy Catholic Faith. This certainly does
not accord with his widely publicized
“humility”
... Indeed, in a recent interview, he he went so
far as to characterize those who so much as questioned
his questionable theology as
“fanatici”
— fanatics.
Enigmatic?
So often silence
is hiding, concealing, refusing to disclose.
If confusion
arises it calls for clarity — especially
as it pertains to matters of the Faith; if apparent
equivocation threatens sound doctrine it must
be clarified for the sake of the faithful. If answering
five questions that involve both — equivocation
and confusion — promotes unity through a clearly
articulated understanding, why refuse? Why obstinate
silence, which only underscores the likelihood of
an inability to answer in conformity with sound
Catholic doctrine and Sacred Scripture? In a word
what is to be gained through silence? It
is hardly a mark of humility to hold oneself above
questioning. Should the word enigmatic even
be predicated of a pope?
“The Silent Card” — AMORIS LAETITIA
— a Case in Point
Much like Cardinal Law and countless superiors in
Boston, Pope Francis is playing the “Silent Card”.
But it is a far more perilous gambling. Much as
in the famous Emperor's New Clothes, the
Church has, figuratively speaking, no vestments
and is shockingly unaware that the crowds perceive
this. Sanctimony proved too costly and where the
ecclesiastical authorities had yawned, the doggedly
vicious secular prosecutors and courts were not
nearly so lenient or forgiving to just let these
atrocities pass. Lives needed mending (some never)
and yes, there was money to be made. Lots of it.
Sanctimony, ecclesiastics came to realize, was not
only meretricious but quite costly.
In a humiliating
denouement, it took Caesar to correct what
the Church refused to. We still sting from that
justice, even as we finally savor it.
Once again, however,
a gambit of a similar sort is being played by Francis
as he tampers with not only the Sacred Deposit
of Faith of 2000 years, but Holy Scripture
itself!
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
(Exodus 20:14,
Saint Matthew 5:27-28)
“Whoever unworthily partakes
of the Body and Blood of Christ is guilty of it”
(1 Corinthians
11.27)
Pretty clear,
yes? And for over 2000 years.
The Straw Man:
“The
Prize for the Perfect”
Not so for Francis who casts
more than a shadow of doubt upon it by approving
sexually active cohabitation — adultery — and even
holding it to be sacramental in a way equal to
… well, sacramental marriages — which of
course brings up the question of why bother to marry
sacramentally at all if the grace is given as it
were, a priori? In the infamous “Footnote
351”, Francis magnanimously proclaims that:
“In certain cases,
this can include the help of
the sacraments. Hence, I want
to remind priests that the confessional
must not be a torture chamber,
but rather an encounter with
the Lord’s mercy … I would also
point out that the Eucharist
is not a prize for the perfect,
but a powerful medicine and
nourishment for the weak.”
Indeed, whoever approached Holy Communion
with a sense of entitlement as receiving in all
justice a “prize” for their perfection? Who ever
experienced the Sacrament of Penance — Confession
— as a
“Torture Chamber”
with a priest as a Grand Inquisitor? This is a Straw
Man, and we know it. And what is more, Francis knows
it, too. It is offensive to even suggest this. On
the other hand it may be a rare insight into the
thought processes of one who would utter this, especially
to justify sacrilege. Does forgiveness precede sorrow,
or is it necessary to forgiveness (in realms
human and divine)? Is it really an act of
“Mercy” to justify adultery and sacrilege? Indeed,
are they then sins at all if they are to be repeated
ad mortem under the aegis of “Mercy”? Indeed
how is sorrow possible as long as the intent
to continue in sin remains?
Francis:
“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity
in these cohabitations, and
I am sure that this is a real
marriage, they have the grace
of a real marriage because of
their fidelity … It’s provisional,
and because of this the great
majority of our sacramental
marriages are null ... Because
they say “yes, for the rest
of my life!” but they don’t
know what they are saying. Because
they have a different culture.
They say it, they have good
will, but they don’t know ...
They prefer to cohabitate, and
this is a challenge, a task.
Not to ask “why don’t you marry?”
No, to accompany, to wait, and
to help them to mature, help
fidelity to mature.’ ”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church,
on the other hand states:
“Some today claim a “right to
a trial marriage” where there
is an intention of getting married
later. However firm the purpose
of those who engage in premature
sexual relations may be, “the
fact is that such liaisons can
scarcely ensure mutual sincerity
and fidelity in a relationship
between a man and a woman, nor,
especially, can they protect
it from inconstancy of desires
or whim.” Carnal union is morally
legitimate only when a definitive
community of life between a
man and woman has been established.
Human love does not tolerate
“trial marriages.”It demands
a total and definitive gift
of persons to one another.”
CCC 2391
Sacramental Adultery?
Of course, if sacramental adultery
is not a sacrilegious concept, then neither are
other Sacraments protected from sacrilege.
Sacred Scripture,
Tradition, and the Sacred Deposit of Faith — neither
Pope Francis or any other pope has the authority
to violate any of the three … let
alone abrogate them.
The Dialogue
in place of the Decalogue:
What of the other Commandments? What of the
other 5 Sacraments?
What is evident
to all but the most myopic is the prospect that
if, indeed, Francis can equivocate about long established
and clearly articulated concepts of marriage, adultery,
cohabitation, the efficacy of grace, the notion
of validity as it is predicated of each — what else,
we ask, is up for grabs? What else
has been misunderstood for 2000 years? What else
has God hidden from the faithful until the
accession of Francis to the Seat of Peter and subsequent
to that accession subjected dogma and doctrine to
his penetrating gaze that dispels all the
myths of pre-enlightened (pre-Bergoglian, pre-Vatican
II — you choose) Catholicism?
 |
The
Ten Commandments “Suggestions”
|
The proscription
against adultery dates to the 12th century
— BC. To preclude any misunderstanding, it was inscribed
in stone! Little can be more definitive
than that. In fact it is an adage: “It is written
in stone”, that is to say, absolutely clear
and unalterable. That was one- thousand-two-hundred
years before Christ. But now — 3000 years
later — we are suddenly unclear about what constitutes
adultery?
Of course
Pope Francis has an affinity for Luther to whom,
after 1400 years of deceit and duplicity on the
part of God in failing to reveal the “real
truth” to the Church, finally revealed it
to Luther in the fullness of time. It would appear
that Francis has that singular privilege as well.
Not only had God Himself had it wrong (or had misspoken),
but the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the 21 Church
Councils, the Saints, the Martyrs, and of course
the “less educated” as well had it wrong. The Ten
Commandments are not Commandments after all, or
at least binding in any remotely coherent way. They
are actually The Ten Suggestions that require
“accompaniment” by Team Bergoglio who will parse
them psycho-theologically in order to be
reveal their “real meaning” to the
unenlightened masses — so that sin will no longer
be an impediment to union with God.
The Last and Most Frightening “S”
If Francis persists in effectively
amending Scripture to accord with his clearly progressive
and dangerously liberal agenda, or in disregard
of Tradition, and prescinding from the Sacred Deposit
of the Faith, the only apparent logical sequitur
is also an “S” word, for it would likely
provoke a monumental schism within the Church: not
a “breaking away from” by Catholics
faithful to Holy Mother Church,
but a “having already broken away
from” Holy Mother Church by disaffected
Catholics who put liberal ideology in place of theology,
man before God, their ambitions before their obligations,
and their temporal gains before their eternal losses.
But — we protest — this must
not happen!
As Cardinal Raymond
Burke emphatically noted:
“There
can be no place in our thinking or acting
for schism which is always and everywhere
wrong,” he said. “Schism is the
fruit of a worldly way of thinking, of thinking
that the Church is in our hands, instead
of in the hands of Christ. The Church
in our time has great need of the purification
of any kind of worldly thinking,” he added.
The Cardinal warned Catholics in anguish
over the current situation within the Church
against even thinking about schism, that
is, separating themselves from the Catholic
Church headed by the Pope in the hope of
creating a better Church.
Code
of Canon Law Article 1 §3
Of course, there are others issues
at stake, especially pertaining to the office of
the Petrine Ministry in the Code of Canon Law
for which no such apparently facile remedy is immediately
available, especially as it pertains to CCL Art
1 §3.
“No appeal or recourse
is permitted against a sentence or decree of
the Roman Pontiff.”
According to the 1917
Code of Canon Law: “Prima Sedes a nemine
iudicatur” (Canon 1556) — “The First See [the
pope] is judged by no one.”
The clarity and concision of this law is deliberately
rigorous and for good reason — especially in light
of the past 50 years which have witnessed widespread
and regular dissent and disobedience vis-à-vis the
papacy on the part of cardinals, ordinaries, national
“Catholic Conferences”, seminary rectors, priests,
theologians, and Religious. Widespread as these
have been, much-needed correction on the
part of the pontiffs preceding Francis has been
rare, tempered, and even rescinded. Francis’s shocking
authoritarian and peremptory character has no precedent
in modern times. The question confronting thoughtful
Catholics is why? Why is the
full canonical weight of the papacy being
exercised so vigorously by Pope Francis and “Team
Bergoglio” — and if it is divinely ordained
why are the consequences so deleterious to the Church
and the faithful? Why such confusion and apparent
subterfuge (the infamous “St. Gallen Group”)? Why
such a pervasive atmosphere of fear permeating the
Vatican as never before — and as is routinely
reported?
No implied
“judgment”
in the Dubia or Questions requiring Clarification
Much more to the point, there is
no implied
“judgment” of Pope Francis in what is simply, correctly,
and canonically termed “The Dubia”, or the
questions placed before the
pope for clarification are simply
that: questions — not judgments of
the pope. Issues are involved that stand in dire
need of clarification and consensus. Indeed, far
from presuming to judge the pope in any way, they
are questions requiring his judgment
since no universal interpretive consensus is agreed
upon — for which reason the dubia were presented
to him! Bishops and priests in different countries
are in diametric opposition to one another in their
understanding of the questions involved. This
is a scandalous state of affairs. Definitively
answering the questions — which is the prerogative
and responsibility of the pope alone — is
the only way to settle these divisions, misunderstandings,
and misinterpretations not only among the clergy,
but the faithful. What is permitted in Poland is
not permitted in Canada. Even within one country
— America — what is permitted in Los Angeles is
not permitted in Philadelphia. In a word, what
is sinful in one place is not sinful
in another.
That — if nothing else — is the scandal. No casuistry
will ever overcome the Law of the Excluded Middle
(or the law of non-contradiction): X cannot,
at one and the same time, both be
X and not-X. It is inconsistent
with reason and irreconcilable with logic. It is
also a terrible chaos in a universe of immortal
souls and Divine pronouncements.
The
Church is God’s — to do with as He wills
These are real and ultimately vital
questions. To simply reply with Canon Law that
“No appeal or recourse is
permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman
Pontiff”
is sufficient ... ultimately is not.
We must remember — with a faith straitened
as perhaps never before — that ultimately the Church
is God’s
to do with as He wills. He chooses — or permits
— Whom He will. Who are we to question God? In the
end His ways are not our ways. And perhaps — just
perhaps — He has given or permitted us
to have what and whom we will — if
only to teach us that there is a better ... but
only at a cost we have proven ourselves unwilling
to pay.
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
August 24, 2017
Printable
PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
We strongly encourage you to read
The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical
Pope — As many as 30 Cardinals implicated in Vote-Canvassing
Scandal
“Salus
Animarum”
the
Salvation of Souls
Whatever became of this most Fundamental Imperative
…
indeed, the very reason for the establishment
and existence of the Church?
It
is unlikely that the vast,
indeed, the overwhelming majority of today’s Catholics
have not so much as heard of this phrase as old as the
Church itself; certainty, not in English — and with
greater certainty still, not from the pulpit. The very
concept of “the salvation of the soul” appears
to be non grata in homiletics for quite nearly
50 years (corresponding, unsurprisingly, to the implementation
of Vatican II) — despite the fact that the imperative
itself is clearly and unambiguously codified as the
supremus lex (the supreme law) in Canon Law (1752):
“Salus
animarum supemus lex esto”
“The
salvation of souls must be the supreme law in the Church.”
It is nothing less than the sole reason
for the Incarnation … the Suffering,
Crucifixion, Death, and
Resurrection … of Christ: the salvation
of souls!
Christ as Savior; Christ as Redeemer, cannot be understood
apart from this most fundamental and utterly simple
concept: He came to save souls — not to
heal bodies (although He did), not to rectify injustices,
not to rehabilitate politics, not to instruct us on
economics, and certainly not save the environment.
He came with only two purposes that are really one:
-
To do the will of the Father
-
And the will of the Father is this: to save souls
for all eternity in Heaven (and in so doing,
to deliver them from Hell).
It is really that simple; in fact, so simple that it
eludes us in our pretensions to sophistication, and
our preferences for sophistry.
For 2000 years the mission of the Church (and its
raison d’etre , the very reason for its being) could
be summed up in two words instantiating that same beautiful
simplicity: “Salus animarum — the Salvation
of souls”. Through Christ in the Sacraments
this is its sole mission.
No
other Mandate
The Church has no other mandate from
Christ. Even healing the sick, raising the dead, delivering
men from demonic possession, and all that He taught
in the Sermon on the Mount were means only to
the principle end: the salvation of the soul.
Christ Himself emphatically asks:
“What does it profit a man to
gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
(St. Matthew 16.26).
The purpose of all that He said and did
was always eschatological, that is to say, pertaining
to the Four Last Things:
-
Death
-
Judgment
-
Heaven
-
Hell
Everything else pales in significance. Two come once
only, and two are at once everlasting.
To pretend that we really do not fully understand what
Christ was talking about, and which He proclaimed in
the clearest terms, is just that: pretension.
We know very well what Christ said and did — but to
our own devious and often deviant ends, we assume an
air of erudite perplexity concerning them:
“Despite what He appears to say; indeed actually
says — this is what He really
means …” What follows seldom has anything to do with
what He means. And we recognize it.
Our
own interpretation merely
accords with what we wish He had said,
for this would provide us with excuses for our sins
or alternatives for His extremely unsettling pronouncements.
We go from the reality of: “If only He had
said …” to the fiction: “This is what He
really means … because I am much more comfortable
with this interpretation — which, rather coincidentally,
allows me to continue in sin.” In short, it
is nothing more than wishful thinking, because they
cannot both be true.
However contradictory to what Jesus and His Apostles
really said and taught, we choose to believe another
narrative, however factitious; a simulacrum that borrows
the vocabulary of the real but with connotations
utterly incongruous with it. It is disingenuous, a sham.
There is a pathos of similitude but the depiction is
counterfeit. We have not entered the mythical: we have
fabricated it. Shamelessly. It pleases us … and this
is the first clue that it is deceptive. We have both
an aversion and an affinity for the truth. It is the
patrimony of our broken heritage from the beginning.
We ineluctably desire the true, but when it indicts
us we demur from it; unable to accommodate both we resort
to dissimilation, to a semblance of the real that is,
despite our collusion with pretensions, a defection
from it. Hence our penchant for comfortable and spurious
“interpretations”.
For all our carefully fabricated allusions to what Christ
really said and meant, we know
the truth — because He is the Truth Who
does not deceive nor can be deceived. We are not
pleased with all He said, especially concerning things
that frighten us because they describe us
… and convict us — and we know it!
Despite this, we insist that so many
vitally important things that Jesus clearly uttered
are nevertheless not true — because
they are not “inclusive” and do not accord
with our delicate post-modern sensitivities that any
real deity would surely ascribe to. That some,
perhaps many, are left in “outer darkness”, excluded
from Heaven because of their depravity and perversion,
their penchant for sin and their obstinate predilection
for evil, is unacceptable to our presently enlightened
humanity. The list of our objections would be too long
to enumerate and ultimately too tedious. Let us be satisfied
with a few:
The Short List:
-
Not everyone goes to Heaven (St.
Matthew 7:14)
-
People — indeed, many people — go to Hell (St. Matthew
7:14)
-
Hell is a real place of punishment, torment, and
eternal suffering beyond our comprehension. It is
the abode of the devil and demons. It is eternal
and eternally devoid of any hope. (St. Matthew 5.29-10;
Luke 16:19-31, 13.42; 25.41; St. Mark 9:42-44 etc.)
-
No one “goes to the Father” — enters Heaven — except
though Christ (St. John 14:6)
-
If you deny Him before men on earth, He will deny
you before His Father in Heaven (Matthew 10:33)
-
Not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord!” will enter
the Kingdom of Heaven (St. Matthew 7:21)
-
Not any and every religion will bring you to Heaven
(St. John 6.26-70)
-
Being a “nice person” does not suffice to bring
you to Heaven or exempt you from Hell (St. Matthew
5.20; St. Mark 16.15-16)
Such pernicious nonsense has no place in our mythologized
concept of God. We will have Heaven …
“dammit” ... but on our
terms — despite what Jesus Christ says
… much to our consternation, and quite likely to our
damnation. We prefer other interpretations;
more comfortable and convenient exegeses ... and sadly
they abound.
For my part, fool that I am, I will take Christ at His
word. In fact, I stake my life on it.
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable
PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
THE SACRED RULE
for
Properly Celebrating the Most Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass
DO NOT DO
at Mass
—
what you would
never have done
were you standing at the foot of the Cross with Christ
visibly before you.
DO at the
Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
— what you would
have done were you
standing before Christ hanging on the Cross in front
of you — for at Holy Mass you are
at the crucifixion of Christ on the Cross —
really and truly.
Had you closed your eyes for a moment while standing
immediately before Christ upon the Cross,
you would be where you are this day
at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
DO, then,
what you would have done
... and DO NOT DO
what you would never
have done.
THIS
is the
proper disposition of the soul at every single Mass.
|
The Complete Martyrology
in
English
ROMAN MARTYROLOGY
Monday September 18th
in the Year of Grace 2017
Season after Pentecost
This Day, the Eighteenth Day of September
At Osimo, St. Joseph of Cupertino, confessor
of the Order of the Friars Minor Conventual, who was placed among the
Saints by Clement XIII.
The same day, the birthday of St. Methodius, bishop
of Olympius in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre, most renowned for eloquence
and learning. St. Jerome says that he won the martyr's crown at Chalcis,
in Greece, at the end of the last persecution.
In the diocese of Vienne, the holy martyr Ferreol,
a tribune, who was arrested by order of the impious governor Crispinus,
most cruelly scourged, then loaded with heavy chains, and cast into
a dark dungeon. A miracle having broken his bonds, and opened the doors
of the prison, he made his escape, but being taken again by his pursuers,
he received the palm of martyrdom by being beheaded.
Also, the Saints Sophia and Irene, martyrs.
At Milan, St. Eustorgius, first
bishop of that city, highly commended by
blessed Ambrose.
At Gortyna, in Crete, St. Eumenus, bishop and
confessor.
And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs, confessors,
and holy virgins.
Omnes sancti Mártyres,
oráte pro nobis. ("All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us", from the
Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany of the Saints)
Response: Thanks be to God.
|
Roman Martyrology by Month
Why the Martyrs
Matter
Each
day
we bring you a calendar,
a list really, of the holy
Martyrs who had suffered
and died for Christ,
for His Bride the Church,
and for our holy Catholic
Faith; men and women for
whom — and well they knew
— their Profession of Faith
would cost them their lives.
They could have repudiated
all three (Christ, Church,
and Catholic Faith) and
kept their lives for a short
time longer (even the
lapsi only postponed
their death — and at so
great a cost!).1
What would motivate men,
women, even children and
entire families to willingly
undergo the most evil and
painfully devised tortures;
to suffer death rather than
denial?
Why did they not renounce
their Catholic Faith when
the first flame licked at
their feet, after the first
eye was plucked out, or
after they were “baptized”
in mockery by boiling water
or molten lead poured over
their heads? Why did they
not flee to offer incense
to the pagan gods since
such a ritual concession
would be merely perfunctory,
having been done, after
all, under duress, exacted
by the compulsion of the
state? What is a little
burned incense and a few
words uttered without conviction,
compared to your own life
and the lives of those you
love? Surely God knows that
you are merely placating
the state with empty gestures
…
Did they love their wives,
husbands, children — their
mothers, fathers and friends
less than we do? Did they
value their own lives less?
Were they less sensitive
to pain than we are? In
a word, what did they possess
that we do not?
Nothing. They possessed
what we ourselves are given
in the Sacrament of Confirmation
— but cleaved to it in far
greater measure than we
do: Faith and faithfulness;
fortitude and valor, uncompromising
belief in the invincible
reality of God, of life
eternal in Him for the faithful,
of damnation everlasting
apart from Him for the unfaithful;
of the ephemerality of this
passing world and all within
it, and lives lived in total
accord with that adamant
belief.
We are the Martyrs to
come. What made them
so will make us so. What
they suffered we will suffer.
What they died for, we will
die for. If only we will!
For most us, life will be
a bloodless martyrdom, a
suffering for Christ, for
the sake of Christ, for
the sake of the Church in
a thousand ways outside
the arena. The road to Heaven
is lined on both sides with
Crosses, and upon the Crosses
people, people who suffered
unknown to the world, but
known to God. Catholics
living in partibus infidelium,
under the scourge of Islam.
Loveless marriages. Injustices
on all sides. Poverty. Illness.
Old age. Dependency.
They are the cruciform!
Those whose lives became
Crosses because they would
not flee God, the Church,
the call to, the demand
for, holiness in the most
ordinary things of life
made extraordinary through
the grace of God. The Martyrology
we celebrate each day is
just a vignette, a small,
immeasurably small, sampling
of the martyrdom that has
been the lives of countless
men and women whom Christ
and the Angels know, but
whom the world does not
know.
“Exemplum
enim dedi vobis”,
Christ said to His Apostles
2
“I
have given you an example.”
And His Martyrs give one
to us — and that is why
the Martyrs matter.
Joseph Mary del Campos
Editor, Boston Catholic
Journal
Note: We suggest
that you explore our newly
edited and revised
“De
SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus
— The Torments and Tortures
of the Christian Martyrs”
for an in-depth historical
account of the sufferings
of the Martyrs.
INTRODUCTION TO THE
ROMAN MARTYROLOGY
by
J. Cardinal Gibbons,
Archbishop of Baltimore
THE ROMAN
MARTYROLOGY is an
official and accredited
record, on the pages
of which are set forth
in simple and brief,
but impressive words,
the glorious deeds of
the Soldiers of Christ
in all ages of the Church;
of the illustrious Heroes
and Heroines of the
Cross, whom her solemn
verdict has beatified
or canonized. In making
up this long roll of
honor, the Church has
been actuated by that
instinctive wisdom with
which the Spirit of
God, who abides in her
and teaches her all
truth, has endowed her,
and which permeates
through and guides all
her actions. She is
the Spouse of Christ,
without spot or wrinkle
or blemish, wholly glorious
and undefiled, whom
He loved, for whom He
died, and to whom He
promised the Spirit
of Truth, to comfort
her in her dreary pilgrimage
through this valley
of tears, and to abide
with her forever. She
is one with Him in Spirit
and in love, she is
subject to Him in all
things; she loves what
He loves, she teaches
and practices what He
commands.
If the world has its
"Legions of Honor,"
why should not also
the Church of the Living
God, the pillar and
the ground of the truth?
If men who have been
stained with blood,
and women who have been
tainted with vice, have
had their memory consecrated
in prose and in verse,
and monuments erected
to their memory, because
they exhibited extraordinary
talents, achieved great
success, or were, to
a greater or less extent,
benefactors of their
race in the temporal
order, which passeth
away, why should not
the true Heroes and
Heroines of Jesus, who,
imitating His example,
have overcome themselves,
risen superior to and
trampled upon the world,
have aspired, in all
their thoughts, words,
and actions, to a heavenly
crown, and have moreover
labored with disinterested
zeal and self-forgetting
love for the good of
their fellow-men, have
their memories likewise
consecrated and embalmed
in the minds and hearts
of the people of God?
If time have its heroes,
why should not eternity;
if man, why should not
God? “Thy
friends, O Lord, are
exceedingly honored;
their principality is
exceedingly exalted.”
Whom His Father so dearly
loved, the world crucified;
whom the world neglects,
despises, and crucifies,
God, through His Church,
exceedingly honors and
exalts. Their praises
are sung forth, with
jubilation of heart,
in the Church of God
for ages on ages.
The wisdom of the Church
of God in honoring her
Saints is equaled only
by the great utility
of the practice thus
consecrated. The Saints
are not merely heroes;
they are models. Christ
lived in them, and Christ
yet speaks through them.
They were the living
temples of the Holy
Ghost, in whose mortal
bodies dwelt all the
riches of His wisdom
and grace. They were
in life consecrated
human exemplars of divine
excellence and perfection.
Their example still
appeals to our minds
and to our hearts, more
eloquently even than
did their words to the
men of their own generation,
while they were in the
tabernacle of the flesh.
Though dead, they still
speak. Their relics
are instinct with sanctity,
and through them they
continue to breathe
forth the sweet odor
of Christ. The immortality
into which they have
entered still lingers
in their bones, and
seems to breathe in
their mortal remains.
As many an ardent, spirit
has been induced to
rush to the cannon’s
mouth by reading the
exploits of earthly
heroes, so many a generous
Christian soul has been
fired with heavenly
ardor, and been impelled
to rush to the crown
of martyrdom, by reading
the lives and heroic
achievements of the
Saints and Martyrs of
Christ. Example, in
its silent appeal, is
more potent in its influence
on the human heart and
conduct than are words
in their most eloquent
utterances.
The Church knows and
feels all this, in the
Spirit of God with whom
she is replenished ;
and hence she sets forth,
with holy joy and exultant
hope, her bright and
ever-increasing Calendar
of Sanctity of just
men and women made perfect
and rendered glorious,
under her unearthly
and sublime teachings.
In reading this roll
of consecrated holiness,
our instinctive conclusion
is, precisely that which
the great soul of St.
Augustine reached at
the very crisis of his
life, the moment of
his conversion
“If
other men like me have
attained to such sanctity,
why not I? Shall the
poor, the afflicted,
the despised of the
World, bear away the
palm of victory, the
crown of immortality,
while I lie buried in
my sloth and dead in
my sins, and thus lose
the brilliant and glorious
mansion already prepared
for me in heaven? Shall
all the gifts, which
God has lavished upon
me, be ingloriously
spent and foolishly
wasted, in the petty
contest for this world’s
evanescent honors and
riches, while the poor
and contemned lay up
treasures in heaven,
and secure the prize
of immortal glory? Shall
others be the friends
of God, whom He delights
to honor, while I alone
remain His enemy, and
an alien from His blessed
Kingdom?”
It is a consoling evidence
of progress in the spiritual
life in this country
to find the Martyrology
here published, for
the first time, in English,
and thereby made accessible,
in its rich treasures
of Sanctity, to all
classes of our population.
It will prove highly
edifying and useful,
not only to the members
of our numerous religious
Communities of both
sexes, but also to the
laity generally. Every
day has here its record
of Sanctity; and there
is scarcely a Christian,
no matter how lowly
or how much occupied,
who may not be able
to daily peruse, with
faith and with great
profit, the brief page
of each day’s models
of Holiness. These belong
to all classes and callings
of life; from the throne
to the hovel, from the
Pontiff to the lowest
cleric, from the philosopher
to the peasant, from
the busy walks of life
to the dreary wastes
of the desert.
Let all, then, procure
and read daily the appropriate
portions of this Martyrology.
Its daily and pious
perusal will console
us in affliction, will
animate us in despondency,
will make our souls
glow with the love of
God in coldness, and
will lift up our minds
and hearts from this
dull and ever-changing
earth to the bright
and everlasting mansions
prepared for us in Heaven!
Imprimatur,
J. Cardinal Gibbons,
Archbishop Baltimore,
Maryland 1916
Printable PDF Version
______________________________
1
The
Lapsi were early
Catholics who renounced
the Faith and either
sacrificed to the Roman
gods by edict from the
emperor, or offered
incense to them to escape
Imperial persecution
and death, and who later
returned to the Faith
when persecution subsided.
However, Christ warns
us,
“Every one therefore
that shall confess Me
before men, I will also
confess him before My
Father who is in Heaven.
But he that shall deny
Me before men, I will
also deny him before
My Father Who is in
Heaven.” (St.
Matthew 10.3-33)
2 St. John 13.15
Comments?
Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
|
|
