Treatise on Obedience (Part V):
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
Of the excellence of the obedient, and of the misery of the disobedient members of the religious orders.
[Note: Since it was already pointed out that these two ways of obedience cannot be separated, it goes without saying that what will be outlined here will apply to all peoples to some degree. It may not be the rule of an order but there is still the general rule of the Church where the same principles are to be implemented. - ISM]
"Now that places suitable for obedience have been found, namely, these ships commanded by the Holy Spirit through the medium of their superiors, for, as I told you, the Holy Spirit is the true Master of these ships, which are built in the light of the most holy faith by those who have the light to know that My clemency, the Holy Spirit, will steer them, and having thus shown you the place of obedience and its perfection, I will speak to you of the obedience and of the disobedience of those who travel in such a ship, speaking of all together and not of one ship -- that is, one order -- in particular, showing you the sin of the disobedient and the virtue of the obedient, so that a man may better know the one by contrast with the other, and how he should walk if he would enter the ship of a religious order.
How should he walk who wishes to enter this state of perfect and particular obedience? With the light of holy faith, by which he will know that he must slay his self-will with the knife of hatred of every sensual passion, taking the spouse which charity gives him, together with her sister. The spouse is true and prompt obedience, and the sister, patience; and he must also take the nurse of humility, for without this nurse obedience would perish of hunger, for obedience soon dies in a soul deprived of this little virtue of humility.
"Humility is not alone but has the handmaid of contempt of self and of the world, which causes the soul to hold herself vile, and not to desire honor but shame. Thus dead to himself, should he who is old enough enter the ship of a religious order, but however he may enter it (for I have told you that I call souls in diverse ways), he should acquire and preserve this affection, hurrying generously to seize the key of the obedience of his order, which will open the little door which is in the panel of the door of Heaven. Such as these have undertaken to open the little door, doing without the great key of general obedience, which opens the door of Heaven, as I have said to you. They have taken a little key, passing through a low and narrow opening in the great door. This small door is part of the great door, as you may see in any real door. They should keep this key when they have got it, and not throw it away.
And because the truly obedient have seen with the light of faith that they will never be able to pass through this little door with the load of their riches and the weight of their own will without great fatigue and without losing their life, and that they cannot walk with head erect without breaking their neck; whether they wish to or not, they cast from them the load of their riches, and of their own will observing the vow of voluntary poverty, refusing to possess anything, for they see by the light of faith to what ruin they would come if they transgressed obedience, and the and of poverty which they promised to keep.
The disobedient walk in pride, holding their heads erect, and if sometimes it suits their convenience to obey they do not incline their heads with humility, but proudly do so, because they must, which force breaks the neck of their will, for they fulfill their obedience with hatred of their order and of their superior. Little by little they are ruined on another point, for they transgress the vow of continence, for he who does not constrain his appetite or strip himself of temporal substance makes many relations and finds plenty of friends who love him for their own profit.
From these relations they go on to close intimacies, their body they tend luxuriously, for being without either the nurse of humility or her sister, self-contempt, they live in their own pleasure richly and delicately, not like religious but like nobles, without watching or prayer.
This and many other things happen to them because they have money to spend, for if they had it not they could not spend it. They fall into mental and physical impurity, for if sometimes from shame or through lack of means they abstain physically, they indulge themselves mentally, for it is impossible for a man with many worldly relations, of delicate habits and disordinate greediness, who watches not nor prays, to preserve his mind pure.
Wherefore the perfectly obedient man sees from afar with the light of holy faith the evil and the loss which would come to him from temporal possessions and from walking weighed down by his own will; he also sees that he is obliged to pass by this narrow door, and that in such a state he would die before he would be able to pass it, having no key of obedience wherewith to open it, for as I said to you, he is obliged to pass through it. Wherefore it is that whether he will or no he should not leave the ship of the order, but should walk the narrow path of obedience to his superior.
"Wherefore the perfectly obedient man rises above himself and his own sensuality, and rising above his own feelings with living faith, places self-hatred as servant in the house of his soul to drive out the enemy of self-love, for he does not wish that his spouse, Obedience, given him with the light of faith by her mother, Charity, should be offended; so he drives out the enemy and puts in his place the nurse and companions of his spouse.
"The love of obedience places in the house of his soul the lovers of his spouse, Obedience, who are the true and royal virtues, the customs and observances of his order, so that this sweet spouse enters his soul with her sister, Patience, and her nurse, Humility, together with Self-contempt and Self-hatred, and when she has entered she possesses peace and quiet, for her enemies have been exiled. She dwells in the garden of true continence, with the sun of intellectual light shining in, the eye of holy faith fixed on the object of My Truth, for her object is My Truth, and the fire of love with which she observes the rules of the order, warms all her servants and companions.
"Who are her enemies who have been expelled? The chief is self-love, producing pride, the enemy of humility and charity. Impatience is the enemy of patience, disobedience of true obedience, infidelity of faith, presumption and self-confidence do not accord with the true hope which the soul should have in Me; injustice cannot be conformed to justice, nor imprudence to prudence, nor intemperance to temperance, nor the transgression of the commandments of the order to perfect observance of them, nor the wicked conversation of those who live in sin to the good conversation of My servants.
These are a man's enemies, causing him to leave the good customs and traditions of his order. He has also those other cruel enemies, anger, which wars against his benevolence; cruelty, against his kindness; wrath, against his benignity; hatred of virtue, against the love of virtue; impurity, against chastity; negligence, against solicitude; ignorance, against knowledge; and sloth against watchfulness and continued prayer.
"And since he knew by the light of faith that all these were his enemies who would defile his spouse, holy obedience, he appointed hatred to drive them out, and love to replace them with her friends. Wherefore with the knife of hatred he slew his perverse self-will, who, nourished by self-love, gave life to all these enemies of true obedience, and having cut off the source by which all the others are preserved in life, he remains free and in peace without any war, for there is no one to make war on him, for the soul has cut off from herself that which kept her in bitterness and in sadness.
What makes war on obedience? Injuries? No, for the obedient man is patient, patience being the sister of obedience. The weight of the observances of the order? No, for obedience causes him to fulfill them. Does the weight of obedience give him pain? No, for he has trampled on his own will, and does not care to examine or judge the will of his superior, for with the light of faith he sees My will in him, believing truly that My clemency causes him to command according to the needs of his subject's salvation.
Is he disgusted and angry at having to perform the humble duties of the order or to endure the mockeries, reproofs, jibes, and insults which are often cast at him, or to be held at little worth? No, for he has conceived love for self-contempt and self-hatred. Wherefore he rejoices with patience, exulting with delight and joy in the company of his spouse, true obedience, for the only thing which saddens him is to see Me, his Creator, offended. His conversation is with those who truly fear Me, and if he should converse with those who are separated from My Will, it is not in order to conform himself to their sins, but to draw them out of their misery, for through the brotherly love which he has in his heart towards them he would like to give them the good which he possesses, seeing that more glory and praise would be given to My name by many observing aright their order than by him doing so alone.
Wherefore he endeavors to convert religious and seculars by his words and by prayer, and by every means by which he can draw them out of the darkness of mortal sin. Thus the conversations of a truly obedient man are good and perfect, whether they be with just men or with sinners, through his rightly ordered love and the breadth of his charity.
Of his cell he makes a heaven, delighting there to converse with Me, his supreme and eternal Father, with the affection of love, flying idleness with humble and continual prayer, and when, through the illusion of the Devil, thoughts come crowding into his cell, he does not sit down on the bed of negligence embracing idleness, nor care to examine by reason the thoughts or opinions of his heart, but he flies sloth, rising above himself and his senses with hatred and true humility, patiently enduring the weariness which he feels in his mind, and resisting by watching and humble prayer, fixing the eye of his intellect on Me, and seeing with the light of faith that I am his helper, and both can and will help him, and open to him the eyes of My kindness, and that it is I who permit this suffering in order that he may be more eager to fly himself and come to Me.
And if it should seem to him that on account of his great weariness and the darkness of his mind, mental prayer is impossible, he recites vocal prayers, or busies himself with some corporal exercises, so that by these means he may avoid idleness. He looks at Me with the light which I give him through love, which draws forth true humility, for he deems himself unworthy of the peace and quiet of mind of My other servants, but rather worthy of pain, for he despises himself in his own mind with hatred and self-reproach, thinking that he can never endure enough pain, for neither his hope nor My providence fail him, but with faith and the key of obedience he passes over this stormy sea in the ship of his order, dwelling thus in his cell as has been said, and avoiding idleness.
"The obedient man wishes to be the first to enter choir and the last to leave it, and when he sees a brother more obedient than himself he regards him in his eagerness with a holy envy, stealing from him the virtue in which he excels, not wishing, however, that his brother should have less thereof, for if he wished this he would be separated from brotherly love. The obedient man does not leave the refectory, but visits it continually and delights at being at table with the poor.
And as a sign that he delights therein, and so as to have no reason to remain without, he has abandoned his temporal substance, observing so perfectly the vow of poverty that he blames himself for considering even the necessities of his body. His cell is full of the odor of poverty, and not of clothes; he has no fear that thieves will come to rob him, or that rust or moths will corrupt his garments; and if anything is given to him, he does not think of laying it by for his own use, but freely shares it with his brethren, not thinking of the morrow, but rather depriving himself today of what he needs, thinking only of the kingdom of heaven and how he may best observe true obedience.
"And in order that he may better keep to the path of humility, he submits to small and great, to poor and rich, and becomes the servant of all, never refusing labor, but serving all with charity. The obedient man does not wish to fulfill his obedience in his own way, or to choose his time or place, but prefers the way of his order and of his superior. All this the truly and perfectly obedient man does without pain and weariness of mind. He passes with this key in his hand through the narrow door of the order, easily and without violence, because he observes the vows of poverty, true obedience, and continence, having abandoned the heights of pride, and bowed his head to obedience through humility.
He does not break his neck through impatience, but is patient with fortitude and enduring perseverance, the friends of obedience. Thus he passes by the assaults of the devils, mortifying and macerating his flesh, stripping it bare of all pleasures and delights and clothing it with the labors of the order in a faith which despises nothing, for as a child who does not remember the blows and injuries inflicted on him by his father, so this child of the spirit does not remember the injuries, pains, or blows inflicted on him by his superior in the order, but calling him humbly, turns to him without anger, hatred, or rancor, but with meekness and benevolence.
"These are those little ones of whom My Truth spoke to the disciples, who were contending among themselves which of them should be the greater, for calling a child, He said: 'Allow the little ones to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven to be; whoever will not humble himself like this child (that is, who will not keep this childlike condition), shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. For he who humbles himself, dearest daughter, will be exalted, and he who exalts himself will be humbled,' which also was said to you by My Truth.
Justly, therefore, are these humble little ones, humiliated and subjected through love, with true and holy obedience, who do not kick against the pricks of their order or superior, exalted by Me, the supreme and eternal Father, with the true citizens of the blessed life, when they are rewarded for all their labors, and in this life also do they taste eternal life."
To be Continued...
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Treatise on Obedience (Part IV):
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
Of those who have such love for obedience that they do not remain content with the general obedience of precepts, but take on themselves a particular obedience.
"There are some, My dearest daughter, in whom the sweet and amorous fire of love towards obedience burns so high (which fire of love cannot exist without hatred of self-love, so that when the fire increases so does this self-hatred), that they are not content to observe the precepts of the Law with a general obedience as you are all obliged to do if you will have life and not death, but take upon themselves a particular obedience, following the greatest perfection, so that they become observers of the counsels both in deed and in thought. Such as these wish to bind themselves more tightly through self-hatred, and in order to restrain in everything their own will.
They either place themselves under the yoke of obedience in holy religion, or, without entering religion, they bind themselves to some creature, submitting their will to his, so as more expeditiously to unlock the door of Heaven. These are they, as I have told you, who have chosen the most perfect obedience.
I have already spoken to you of obedience in general, and as I know it to be your will that I should speak to you of this particular and most perfect obedience, I will now relate to you somewhat of this second kind, which is not divided from the first, but is more perfect, for, as I have already told you, these two kinds of obedience are so closely united together that they cannot be separated. I have told you where general obedience is to be found and whence it proceeds, and the cause of its loss. Now I will speak to you of this particular obedience, not altering, however, the fundamental principle of the virtue."
How a soul advances from general to particular obedience; and of the excellence of the religious orders.
"The soul who with love has submitted to the yoke of obedience, to the Commandments, following the doctrine of My truth virtuously exercising herself, as has been said, in this general kind of obedience will advance to the second kind by means of the same light which brought her to the first, for by the light of the most holy faith she would have learnt, in the blood of the humble Lamb, My truth -- the ineffable love which I have for her, and her own fragility, which cannot respond to Me with due perfection. So she wanders, seeking by that light in what place and in what way she can pay her debt, trampling on her own fragility, and restraining her own will. Enlightened in her search by faith, she finds the place -- namely, holy religion -- which has been founded by the Holy Spirit, appointed as the ship to receive souls who wish to hasten to perfection, and to bring them to the port of salvation.
The Captain of this ship is the Holy Spirit, who never fails in Himself through the defects of any of His religious subjects who may transgress the rule of the order. The ship itself cannot be damaged, but only the offender. It is true that the mistake of the steersman may send her down into the billows, and these are wicked pastors and prelates appointed by the Master of the ship. The ship herself is so delightful that your tongue could not narrate it.
I say, then, that the soul, on fire with desire and a holy self-hatred, having found her place by the light of faith, enters there as one dead, if she is truly obedient; that is to say, if she have perfectly observed general obedience. And even if she should be imperfect when she enters, it does not follow that she cannot attain perfection. On the contrary, she attains it by exercising herself in the virtue of obedience; indeed, most of those who enter are imperfect.
There are some who enter already in perfection, others in the childhood of virtue, others through fear, others through penance, others through allurements, everything depends on whether after they have entered they exercise themselves in virtue, and persevere till death, for no true judgment can be made on a person's entrance into religion, but only on their perseverance, for many have appeared to be perfect who have afterwards turned back, or remained in the order with much imperfection, so that, as I have said, the act of entrance into this ship ordained by Me, who call men in different ways, does not supply material for a real judgment, but only the love of those who persevere therein with true obedience.
This ship is rich, so that there is no need for the subject to think about his necessities either temporal or spiritual, for if he is truly obedient, and observes his order, he will be provided for by his Master, who is the Holy Spirit, as I told you when I spoke to you of My providence, saying that though your servants might be poor, they were never beggars. No more are these, for they find everything they need, and those who observe this order find this to be indeed true.
Wherefore, see that in the days when the religious orders lived virtuously, blossoming with true poverty and fraternal charity, their temporal substance never failed them, but they had more than their needs demanded. But because the stench of self-love has entered and caused each to keep his private possessions and to fail in obedience, their temporal substance has failed, and the more they possess to the greater destitution do they come. It is just that even in the smallest matters they should experience the fruit of disobedience, for had they been obedient and observed the vow of poverty, each would not have taken his own, and lived privately.
See the riches of these holy rules, so thoughtfully and luminously appointed by those who were temples of the Holy Spirit. See with what judgment Benedict ordered his ship; see with what perfection and order of poverty Francis ordered his ship, decked with the pearls of virtue, steering it in the way of lofty perfection, being the first to give his order for spouse, true and holy poverty, whom he had chosen for himself, embracing self-contempt and self-hatred, not desiring to please any creature but only your will; desiring rather to be thought vile by the world, macerating his body and slaying his will, clothing himself in insults, sufferings, and jibes, for love of the humble Lamb, with whom he was fastened and nailed to the cross by love, so that by a singular grace there appeared in his body the very wounds of your Truth, showing in the vessel of his body that which was in the love of his soul, so he prepared the way.
"But you will say, 'Are not all the other religious orders equally founded on this point?' Yes, but though they are all founded on it, in no other is this the principal foundation; as with the virtues, though all the virtues draw their life from charily, nevertheless, as I explained to you in another place, one virtue belongs especially to one man, and another to another, and yet they all remain in charity, so with the principal foundation of the religious orders.
Poverty belonged especially to My poor man Francis, who placed the principal foundation of his order in love for this poverty, and made it very strict for those who were perfect, for the few and the good, not for the majority. I say few because they are not many who choose this perfection, though now through their sins they are multiplied in numbers and deficient in virtue, not through defect of the ship, but through disobedient subjects and wicked rulers.
Now look at the ship of your father Dominic, My beloved son: he ordered it most perfectly, wishing that his sons should apply themselves only to My honor and the salvation of souls, with the light of science, which light he laid as his principal foundation, not, however, on that account, being deprived of true and voluntary poverty, but having it also. And as a sign that he had it truly, and that the contrary displeased him, he left as an heirloom to his sons his curse and Mine, if they should hold any possessions, either privately or in community, as a sign that he had chosen for his spouse Queen Poverty.
But for his more immediate and personal object he took the light of science in order to extirpate the errors which had arisen in his time, thus taking on him the office of My only-begotten Son, the Word. Rightly he appeared as an apostle in the world, and sowed the seed of My Word with much truth and light, dissipating darkness and giving light. He was a light which I gave the world by means of Mary, placed in the mystical body of the Holy Church as an extirpator of heresies.
Why do I say by means of Mary? Because Mary gave him his habit -- this office was committed to her by My goodness. At what table does he feed his sons with the light of science? At the table of the cross, which is the table of holy desire, when souls are eaten for My honor. Dominic does not wish his sons to apply themselves to anything, but remaining at this table, there to seek with the light of science, the glory and praise of My name alone, and the salvation of souls. And in order that they might do nothing else, he chose poverty for them, so that they might not have the care of temporal things.
It is true that some failed in faith, fearing that they would not be provided for, but he never. Being clothed in faith, and hoping with firm confidence in My providence, He wishes his sons to observe obedience and do their duty, and since impure living obscures the eye of the intellect, and not only the eye of the intellect, but also of the body, he does not wish them to obscure their physical light with which they may more perfectly obtain the light of science; wherefore he imposed on them the third vow of continence, and wishes that all should observe it, with true and perfect obedience, although today it is badly observed. They also prevent the light of science with the darkness of pride, not that this light can be darkened in itself, but only in their souls, for there, where pride is, can be no obedience.
I have already told you that a man's humility is in proportion to his obedience, and his obedience to his humility, and similarly, when he transgresses the vow of obedience, it rarely happens that he does not also transgress the vow of continence, either in thought or deed; so that he has rigged his ship with the three ropes of obedience, continence, and true poverty; he made it a royal ship, not obliging his subjects under pain of mortal sin, and illuminated by Me the true light, he provided for those who should be less perfect, for though all who observe the order are perfect in kind, yet one possesses a higher degree of perfection than another, yet all perfect or imperfect live well in this ship.
He allied himself with My truth, showing that he did not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live. Wherefore his religion is a delightful garden, broad and joyous and flagrant, but the wretches who do not observe the order, but transgress its vows, have turned it into a desert and defiled it with their scanty virtue and light of science, though they are nourished at its breast. I do not say that the order itself is in this condition, for it still possesses every delight, but in the beginning its subjects were not as they are now, but blooming flowers, and men of great perfection. Each scented to be another St. Paul, their eyes so illuminated that the darkness of error was dissipated by their glance.
Look at My glorious Thomas, who gazed with the gentle eye of his intellect at My Truth, whereby he acquired supernatural light and science infused by grace, for he obtained it rather by means of prayer than by human study. He was a brilliant light, illuminating his order and the mystical body of the Holy Church, dissipating the clouds of heresy. Look at My Peter, virgin and martyr, who by his blood gave light among the darkness of many heresies, and the heretics hated him so that at last they took his life; yet while he lived he applied himself to nothing but prayer, preaching, and disputation with heretics, hearing confessions, announcing the truth, and spreading the faith without any fear, to such an extent that he not only confessed it in his life but even at the moment of his death, for when he was at the last extremity, having neither voice nor ink left, having received his death-blow, he dipped his finger in his blood, and this glorious martyr, having not paper on which to write, leaned over, confessing the faith, and wrote the Credo on the ground.
His heart burnt in the furnace of My charity, so that he never slackened his pace nor turned his head back, though he knew that he was to die, for I had revealed to him his death, but like a true knight he fearlessly came forth on to the battlefield; and I could tell you the same of many others, who though they did not actually experience martyrdom, were martyrs in will like Dominic; great laborers were these sent by My Father to labor in His vineyard to extirpate the thorns of vice, planting the virtues in their stead. Of a truth Dominic and Francis were two columns of the holy Church. Francis with the poverty which was specially his own, as has been said, and Dominic with his learning."
To be Continued...
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
Of those who have such love for obedience that they do not remain content with the general obedience of precepts, but take on themselves a particular obedience.
"There are some, My dearest daughter, in whom the sweet and amorous fire of love towards obedience burns so high (which fire of love cannot exist without hatred of self-love, so that when the fire increases so does this self-hatred), that they are not content to observe the precepts of the Law with a general obedience as you are all obliged to do if you will have life and not death, but take upon themselves a particular obedience, following the greatest perfection, so that they become observers of the counsels both in deed and in thought. Such as these wish to bind themselves more tightly through self-hatred, and in order to restrain in everything their own will.
They either place themselves under the yoke of obedience in holy religion, or, without entering religion, they bind themselves to some creature, submitting their will to his, so as more expeditiously to unlock the door of Heaven. These are they, as I have told you, who have chosen the most perfect obedience.
I have already spoken to you of obedience in general, and as I know it to be your will that I should speak to you of this particular and most perfect obedience, I will now relate to you somewhat of this second kind, which is not divided from the first, but is more perfect, for, as I have already told you, these two kinds of obedience are so closely united together that they cannot be separated. I have told you where general obedience is to be found and whence it proceeds, and the cause of its loss. Now I will speak to you of this particular obedience, not altering, however, the fundamental principle of the virtue."
How a soul advances from general to particular obedience; and of the excellence of the religious orders.
"The soul who with love has submitted to the yoke of obedience, to the Commandments, following the doctrine of My truth virtuously exercising herself, as has been said, in this general kind of obedience will advance to the second kind by means of the same light which brought her to the first, for by the light of the most holy faith she would have learnt, in the blood of the humble Lamb, My truth -- the ineffable love which I have for her, and her own fragility, which cannot respond to Me with due perfection. So she wanders, seeking by that light in what place and in what way she can pay her debt, trampling on her own fragility, and restraining her own will. Enlightened in her search by faith, she finds the place -- namely, holy religion -- which has been founded by the Holy Spirit, appointed as the ship to receive souls who wish to hasten to perfection, and to bring them to the port of salvation.
The Captain of this ship is the Holy Spirit, who never fails in Himself through the defects of any of His religious subjects who may transgress the rule of the order. The ship itself cannot be damaged, but only the offender. It is true that the mistake of the steersman may send her down into the billows, and these are wicked pastors and prelates appointed by the Master of the ship. The ship herself is so delightful that your tongue could not narrate it.
I say, then, that the soul, on fire with desire and a holy self-hatred, having found her place by the light of faith, enters there as one dead, if she is truly obedient; that is to say, if she have perfectly observed general obedience. And even if she should be imperfect when she enters, it does not follow that she cannot attain perfection. On the contrary, she attains it by exercising herself in the virtue of obedience; indeed, most of those who enter are imperfect.
There are some who enter already in perfection, others in the childhood of virtue, others through fear, others through penance, others through allurements, everything depends on whether after they have entered they exercise themselves in virtue, and persevere till death, for no true judgment can be made on a person's entrance into religion, but only on their perseverance, for many have appeared to be perfect who have afterwards turned back, or remained in the order with much imperfection, so that, as I have said, the act of entrance into this ship ordained by Me, who call men in different ways, does not supply material for a real judgment, but only the love of those who persevere therein with true obedience.
This ship is rich, so that there is no need for the subject to think about his necessities either temporal or spiritual, for if he is truly obedient, and observes his order, he will be provided for by his Master, who is the Holy Spirit, as I told you when I spoke to you of My providence, saying that though your servants might be poor, they were never beggars. No more are these, for they find everything they need, and those who observe this order find this to be indeed true.
Wherefore, see that in the days when the religious orders lived virtuously, blossoming with true poverty and fraternal charity, their temporal substance never failed them, but they had more than their needs demanded. But because the stench of self-love has entered and caused each to keep his private possessions and to fail in obedience, their temporal substance has failed, and the more they possess to the greater destitution do they come. It is just that even in the smallest matters they should experience the fruit of disobedience, for had they been obedient and observed the vow of poverty, each would not have taken his own, and lived privately.
See the riches of these holy rules, so thoughtfully and luminously appointed by those who were temples of the Holy Spirit. See with what judgment Benedict ordered his ship; see with what perfection and order of poverty Francis ordered his ship, decked with the pearls of virtue, steering it in the way of lofty perfection, being the first to give his order for spouse, true and holy poverty, whom he had chosen for himself, embracing self-contempt and self-hatred, not desiring to please any creature but only your will; desiring rather to be thought vile by the world, macerating his body and slaying his will, clothing himself in insults, sufferings, and jibes, for love of the humble Lamb, with whom he was fastened and nailed to the cross by love, so that by a singular grace there appeared in his body the very wounds of your Truth, showing in the vessel of his body that which was in the love of his soul, so he prepared the way.
"But you will say, 'Are not all the other religious orders equally founded on this point?' Yes, but though they are all founded on it, in no other is this the principal foundation; as with the virtues, though all the virtues draw their life from charily, nevertheless, as I explained to you in another place, one virtue belongs especially to one man, and another to another, and yet they all remain in charity, so with the principal foundation of the religious orders.
Poverty belonged especially to My poor man Francis, who placed the principal foundation of his order in love for this poverty, and made it very strict for those who were perfect, for the few and the good, not for the majority. I say few because they are not many who choose this perfection, though now through their sins they are multiplied in numbers and deficient in virtue, not through defect of the ship, but through disobedient subjects and wicked rulers.
Now look at the ship of your father Dominic, My beloved son: he ordered it most perfectly, wishing that his sons should apply themselves only to My honor and the salvation of souls, with the light of science, which light he laid as his principal foundation, not, however, on that account, being deprived of true and voluntary poverty, but having it also. And as a sign that he had it truly, and that the contrary displeased him, he left as an heirloom to his sons his curse and Mine, if they should hold any possessions, either privately or in community, as a sign that he had chosen for his spouse Queen Poverty.
But for his more immediate and personal object he took the light of science in order to extirpate the errors which had arisen in his time, thus taking on him the office of My only-begotten Son, the Word. Rightly he appeared as an apostle in the world, and sowed the seed of My Word with much truth and light, dissipating darkness and giving light. He was a light which I gave the world by means of Mary, placed in the mystical body of the Holy Church as an extirpator of heresies.
Why do I say by means of Mary? Because Mary gave him his habit -- this office was committed to her by My goodness. At what table does he feed his sons with the light of science? At the table of the cross, which is the table of holy desire, when souls are eaten for My honor. Dominic does not wish his sons to apply themselves to anything, but remaining at this table, there to seek with the light of science, the glory and praise of My name alone, and the salvation of souls. And in order that they might do nothing else, he chose poverty for them, so that they might not have the care of temporal things.
It is true that some failed in faith, fearing that they would not be provided for, but he never. Being clothed in faith, and hoping with firm confidence in My providence, He wishes his sons to observe obedience and do their duty, and since impure living obscures the eye of the intellect, and not only the eye of the intellect, but also of the body, he does not wish them to obscure their physical light with which they may more perfectly obtain the light of science; wherefore he imposed on them the third vow of continence, and wishes that all should observe it, with true and perfect obedience, although today it is badly observed. They also prevent the light of science with the darkness of pride, not that this light can be darkened in itself, but only in their souls, for there, where pride is, can be no obedience.
I have already told you that a man's humility is in proportion to his obedience, and his obedience to his humility, and similarly, when he transgresses the vow of obedience, it rarely happens that he does not also transgress the vow of continence, either in thought or deed; so that he has rigged his ship with the three ropes of obedience, continence, and true poverty; he made it a royal ship, not obliging his subjects under pain of mortal sin, and illuminated by Me the true light, he provided for those who should be less perfect, for though all who observe the order are perfect in kind, yet one possesses a higher degree of perfection than another, yet all perfect or imperfect live well in this ship.
He allied himself with My truth, showing that he did not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live. Wherefore his religion is a delightful garden, broad and joyous and flagrant, but the wretches who do not observe the order, but transgress its vows, have turned it into a desert and defiled it with their scanty virtue and light of science, though they are nourished at its breast. I do not say that the order itself is in this condition, for it still possesses every delight, but in the beginning its subjects were not as they are now, but blooming flowers, and men of great perfection. Each scented to be another St. Paul, their eyes so illuminated that the darkness of error was dissipated by their glance.
Look at My glorious Thomas, who gazed with the gentle eye of his intellect at My Truth, whereby he acquired supernatural light and science infused by grace, for he obtained it rather by means of prayer than by human study. He was a brilliant light, illuminating his order and the mystical body of the Holy Church, dissipating the clouds of heresy. Look at My Peter, virgin and martyr, who by his blood gave light among the darkness of many heresies, and the heretics hated him so that at last they took his life; yet while he lived he applied himself to nothing but prayer, preaching, and disputation with heretics, hearing confessions, announcing the truth, and spreading the faith without any fear, to such an extent that he not only confessed it in his life but even at the moment of his death, for when he was at the last extremity, having neither voice nor ink left, having received his death-blow, he dipped his finger in his blood, and this glorious martyr, having not paper on which to write, leaned over, confessing the faith, and wrote the Credo on the ground.
His heart burnt in the furnace of My charity, so that he never slackened his pace nor turned his head back, though he knew that he was to die, for I had revealed to him his death, but like a true knight he fearlessly came forth on to the battlefield; and I could tell you the same of many others, who though they did not actually experience martyrdom, were martyrs in will like Dominic; great laborers were these sent by My Father to labor in His vineyard to extirpate the thorns of vice, planting the virtues in their stead. Of a truth Dominic and Francis were two columns of the holy Church. Francis with the poverty which was specially his own, as has been said, and Dominic with his learning."
To be Continued...
Treatise on Obedience (Part III):
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
Here both the misery of the disobedient and the excellence of the obedient are spoken of.
"All this, dearest daughter, has been done by My goodness and providence as I have told you, for by My providence the Word repaired the key of obedience, but worldly men devoid of every virtue do the contrary; they, like unbridled horses, without the bit of obedience, go from bad to worse, from sin to sin, from misery to misery, from darkness to darkness, from death to death, until they finally reach the edge of the ditch of death, gnawed by the worm of their conscience, and though it is true that they can obey the precepts of the law if they will, and have the time repenting of their disobedience, it is very hard for them to do so, on account of their long habit of sin. Therefore let no man trust to this, putting off his finding of the key of obedience to the moment of his death, for although everyone may and should hope as long as he has life, he should not put such trust in this hope as to delay repentance.
What is the reason of all this, and of such blindness that prevents them recognizing this treasure? The cloud of self-love and wretched pride, through which they abandoned obedience, and fell into disobedience. Being disobedient they are impatient, as has been said, and in their impatience endure intolerable pain, for it has seduced them from the way of Truth, leading them along a way of lies, making them slaves and friends of the devils with whom, unless indeed they amend themselves with patience, they will go to the eternal torments. Contrariwise, My beloved sons, obedient and observers of the law, rejoice and exult in My eternal vision with the Immaculate and humble Lamb, the Maker, Fulfiller, and Giver of this law of obedience.
Observing this law in this life they taste peace without any disturbance, they receive and clothe themselves in the most perfect peace, for there they possess every good without any evil, safety without any fear, riches without any poverty, satiety without disgust, hunger without pain, light without darkness, one supreme infinite good, shared by all those who taste it truly.
What has placed them in so blessed a state? The blood of the Lamb, by virtue of which the key of obedience has lost its rust, so that, by the virtue of the blood, it has been able to unlock the door. Oh! fools and madmen, delay no longer to come out of the mud of impurity, for you seem like pigs to wallow in the mire of your own lust. Abandon the injustice, murders, hatreds, rancors, detractions, murmurings, false judgments, and cruelty, with which you use your neighbors, your thefts and treacheries, and the disordinate pleasures and delights of the world; cut off the horns of pride, by which amputation you will extinguish the hatred which is in your heart against your neighbors.
Compare the injuries which you do to Me and to your neighbor with those done to you, and you will see that those done to you are but trifles. You will see that remaining in hatred you injure Me by transgressing My precept, and you also injure the object of your hate, for you deprive him of your love, whereas you have been commanded to love Me above everything, and your neighbor as yourself.
No gloss has been put upon these words as if it should have been said, if your neighbor injures you do not love him; but they are to be taken naturally and simply, as they were said to you by My Truth, who Himself literally observed this rule. Literally also should you observe it, and if you do not you will injure your own soul, depriving it of the life of grace. Take, oh! take, then, the key of obedience with the light of faith, walk no longer in such darkness or cold, but observe obedience in the fire of love, so that you may taste eternal life together with the other observers of the law."
To be Continued...
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
Here both the misery of the disobedient and the excellence of the obedient are spoken of.
"All this, dearest daughter, has been done by My goodness and providence as I have told you, for by My providence the Word repaired the key of obedience, but worldly men devoid of every virtue do the contrary; they, like unbridled horses, without the bit of obedience, go from bad to worse, from sin to sin, from misery to misery, from darkness to darkness, from death to death, until they finally reach the edge of the ditch of death, gnawed by the worm of their conscience, and though it is true that they can obey the precepts of the law if they will, and have the time repenting of their disobedience, it is very hard for them to do so, on account of their long habit of sin. Therefore let no man trust to this, putting off his finding of the key of obedience to the moment of his death, for although everyone may and should hope as long as he has life, he should not put such trust in this hope as to delay repentance.
What is the reason of all this, and of such blindness that prevents them recognizing this treasure? The cloud of self-love and wretched pride, through which they abandoned obedience, and fell into disobedience. Being disobedient they are impatient, as has been said, and in their impatience endure intolerable pain, for it has seduced them from the way of Truth, leading them along a way of lies, making them slaves and friends of the devils with whom, unless indeed they amend themselves with patience, they will go to the eternal torments. Contrariwise, My beloved sons, obedient and observers of the law, rejoice and exult in My eternal vision with the Immaculate and humble Lamb, the Maker, Fulfiller, and Giver of this law of obedience.
Observing this law in this life they taste peace without any disturbance, they receive and clothe themselves in the most perfect peace, for there they possess every good without any evil, safety without any fear, riches without any poverty, satiety without disgust, hunger without pain, light without darkness, one supreme infinite good, shared by all those who taste it truly.
What has placed them in so blessed a state? The blood of the Lamb, by virtue of which the key of obedience has lost its rust, so that, by the virtue of the blood, it has been able to unlock the door. Oh! fools and madmen, delay no longer to come out of the mud of impurity, for you seem like pigs to wallow in the mire of your own lust. Abandon the injustice, murders, hatreds, rancors, detractions, murmurings, false judgments, and cruelty, with which you use your neighbors, your thefts and treacheries, and the disordinate pleasures and delights of the world; cut off the horns of pride, by which amputation you will extinguish the hatred which is in your heart against your neighbors.
Compare the injuries which you do to Me and to your neighbor with those done to you, and you will see that those done to you are but trifles. You will see that remaining in hatred you injure Me by transgressing My precept, and you also injure the object of your hate, for you deprive him of your love, whereas you have been commanded to love Me above everything, and your neighbor as yourself.
No gloss has been put upon these words as if it should have been said, if your neighbor injures you do not love him; but they are to be taken naturally and simply, as they were said to you by My Truth, who Himself literally observed this rule. Literally also should you observe it, and if you do not you will injure your own soul, depriving it of the life of grace. Take, oh! take, then, the key of obedience with the light of faith, walk no longer in such darkness or cold, but observe obedience in the fire of love, so that you may taste eternal life together with the other observers of the law."
To be Continued...
Treatise on Obedience (Part II):
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
How obedience is the key with which Heaven is opened, and how the soul should fasten it by means of a cord to her girdle, and of the excellences of obedience.
"Now that I have shown you where obedience is to be found, and whence she comes, and who is her companion, and who her foster-mother, I will continue to speak of the obedient and of the disobedient together, and of obedience in general, which is the obedience of the precepts; and in particular, which is that of the counsels.
The whole of your faith is founded upon obedience, for by it you prove your fidelity. You are all in general by My truth to obey the commandments of the law, the chief of which is to love Me above everything, and your neighbor as yourself, and the commandments are so bound up together, that you cannot observe or transgress one without observing or transgressing all. He who observes this principal commandment observes all the others; he is faithful to Me and his neighbor, for he loves Me and My creature, and is therefore obedient, becoming subject to the commandments of the law, and to creatures for My sake, and with humble patience he endures every labor, and even his neighbor's detraction of him. This obedience is of such excellence that you all derive grace from it, just as from disobedience you all derive death.
Wherefore it is not enough that it should be only in word, and not practiced by you. I have already told you that this word is the key which opens heaven, which key My Son placed in the hands of His vicar. This vicar placed it in the hands of everyone who receives holy baptism, promising therein to renounce the world and all its pomps and delights, and to obey.
So that each man has in his own person that very same key which the Word had, and if a man does not unlock in the light of faith, and with the hand of love the gate of heaven by means of this key, he never will enter there, in spite of its having been opened by the Word; for though I created you without yourselves, I will not save you without yourselves.
Wherefore you must take the key in your hand and walk by the doctrine of My Word, and not remain seated, that is to say, placing your love in finite things, as do foolish men who follow the first man, their first father, following his example, and casting the key of obedience into the mud of impurity, breaking it with the hammer of pride, rusting it with self-love.
It would have been entirely destroyed had not My only-begotten Son, the Word, come and taken this key of obedience in His hands and purified it in the fire of divine love, having drawn it out of the mud, and cleansed it with His blood, and straightened it with the knife of justice, and hammered your iniquities into shape on the anvil of His own body. So perfectly did He repair it that no matter how much a man may have spoiled his key by his free-will, by the self-same free-will, assisted by My grace, he can repair it with the same instruments that were used by My Word.
Oh! blinder than the blind, for, having spoiled the key of obedience, you do not think of mending it! Do you think, forsooth, that the disobedience which closed the door of Heaven will open it? that the pride which fell can rise? Do you think to be admitted to the marriage feast in foul and disordered garments? Do you think that sitting down and binding yourself with the chain of mortal sin, you can walk? or that without a key you can open the door? Do not imagine that you can, for it is a fantastical delusion; you must be firm, you must leave mortal sin by a holy confession, contrition of heart, satisfaction, and purpose of amendment. Then you will throw off that hideous and defiled garment and, clothed in the shining nuptial robe, will hasten, the key of obedience in your hand, to open the door.
But bind this key with the cord of self-contempt, and hatred of yourself and of the world, and fasten it to the love of pleasing Me, Your creator, of which you should make a girdle to yourself to bind your loins with it, for fear you lose it.
Know, My daughter, there are many who take up this key of obedience, having seen by the light of faith that in no other way can they escape eternal damnation; but they hold it in their hand without wearing this girdle, or fastening the key to it with the cord of self-contempt, that is to say that they are not perfectly clothed with My pleasure, but still seek to please themselves; they do not wear the cord of self-contempt, for they do not desire to be despised, but rather take delight in the praise of men. Such as these are apt to lose their key; for if they suffer a little extra fatigue, or mental or corporal tribulation, and if, as often happens, the hand of holy desire loosens its grasp, they will lose it. They can indeed find it again if they wish to while they live, but if they do not wish they will never find it, and what will prove to them, that they have lost it? Impatience, for patience was united to obedience, and their impatience proves that obedience does not dwell in their soul.
Oh! how sweet and glorious is this virtue, which contains all the rest, for she is conceived and born of charity, on her is founded the rock of the holy faith. She is a queen whose consort will feel no trouble, but only peace and quiet; the waves of the stormy sea cannot hurt her, nor can any tempest reach the interior of the soul in whom she dwells.
Such a one feels no hatred when injured, because he wishes to obey the precept of forgiveness, he suffers not when his appetites are not satisfied, because obedience has ordered him to desire Me alone, who can and will satisfy all his desires, if he strip himself of worldly riches. And so in all things which would be too long to relate, he who has chosen as spouse Queen Obedience, the appointed key of heaven, finds peace and quiet.
Oh! blessed obedience! you voyage without fatigue, and reach without danger the port of salvation, you are conformed to My only-begotten Son, the Word, you board the ship of the holy cross, forcing yourself to endure, so as not to transgress the obedience of the Word, nor abandon His doctrine, of which you make a table when you eat the food of souls, dwelling in the love of your neighbor, being anointed with true humility, which saves you from coveting, contrary to My will, his possessions, you walk erect, without bending, for your heart is sincere and not false, loving generously and truly My creatures, you are a sunrise drawing after you the light of divine grace, you are a sun which makes the earth, that is to say, the organs of the soul, to germinate with the heat of charity, all of which as well as those of the body produce life-giving fruit for yourself and your neighbor.
You are even cheerful, for your face is never wrinkled with impatience, but smooth and pleasant with the happiness of patience, and even in its fortitude you are great by your long endurance, so long that it reaches from earth to heaven and unlocks the celestial door. You are a hidden pearl, trampled by the world, abasing yourself, submitting to all creatures. Yet your kingdom is so great that no one can rule you, for you have come out of the mortal servitude of your own sensuality, which destroyed your dignity, and having slain this enemy with hatred and dislike of your own pleasure have re-obtained your liberty."
To be Continued...
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. The beginning of the series starts HERE.
How obedience is the key with which Heaven is opened, and how the soul should fasten it by means of a cord to her girdle, and of the excellences of obedience.
"Now that I have shown you where obedience is to be found, and whence she comes, and who is her companion, and who her foster-mother, I will continue to speak of the obedient and of the disobedient together, and of obedience in general, which is the obedience of the precepts; and in particular, which is that of the counsels.
The whole of your faith is founded upon obedience, for by it you prove your fidelity. You are all in general by My truth to obey the commandments of the law, the chief of which is to love Me above everything, and your neighbor as yourself, and the commandments are so bound up together, that you cannot observe or transgress one without observing or transgressing all. He who observes this principal commandment observes all the others; he is faithful to Me and his neighbor, for he loves Me and My creature, and is therefore obedient, becoming subject to the commandments of the law, and to creatures for My sake, and with humble patience he endures every labor, and even his neighbor's detraction of him. This obedience is of such excellence that you all derive grace from it, just as from disobedience you all derive death.
Wherefore it is not enough that it should be only in word, and not practiced by you. I have already told you that this word is the key which opens heaven, which key My Son placed in the hands of His vicar. This vicar placed it in the hands of everyone who receives holy baptism, promising therein to renounce the world and all its pomps and delights, and to obey.
So that each man has in his own person that very same key which the Word had, and if a man does not unlock in the light of faith, and with the hand of love the gate of heaven by means of this key, he never will enter there, in spite of its having been opened by the Word; for though I created you without yourselves, I will not save you without yourselves.
Wherefore you must take the key in your hand and walk by the doctrine of My Word, and not remain seated, that is to say, placing your love in finite things, as do foolish men who follow the first man, their first father, following his example, and casting the key of obedience into the mud of impurity, breaking it with the hammer of pride, rusting it with self-love.
It would have been entirely destroyed had not My only-begotten Son, the Word, come and taken this key of obedience in His hands and purified it in the fire of divine love, having drawn it out of the mud, and cleansed it with His blood, and straightened it with the knife of justice, and hammered your iniquities into shape on the anvil of His own body. So perfectly did He repair it that no matter how much a man may have spoiled his key by his free-will, by the self-same free-will, assisted by My grace, he can repair it with the same instruments that were used by My Word.
Oh! blinder than the blind, for, having spoiled the key of obedience, you do not think of mending it! Do you think, forsooth, that the disobedience which closed the door of Heaven will open it? that the pride which fell can rise? Do you think to be admitted to the marriage feast in foul and disordered garments? Do you think that sitting down and binding yourself with the chain of mortal sin, you can walk? or that without a key you can open the door? Do not imagine that you can, for it is a fantastical delusion; you must be firm, you must leave mortal sin by a holy confession, contrition of heart, satisfaction, and purpose of amendment. Then you will throw off that hideous and defiled garment and, clothed in the shining nuptial robe, will hasten, the key of obedience in your hand, to open the door.
But bind this key with the cord of self-contempt, and hatred of yourself and of the world, and fasten it to the love of pleasing Me, Your creator, of which you should make a girdle to yourself to bind your loins with it, for fear you lose it.
Know, My daughter, there are many who take up this key of obedience, having seen by the light of faith that in no other way can they escape eternal damnation; but they hold it in their hand without wearing this girdle, or fastening the key to it with the cord of self-contempt, that is to say that they are not perfectly clothed with My pleasure, but still seek to please themselves; they do not wear the cord of self-contempt, for they do not desire to be despised, but rather take delight in the praise of men. Such as these are apt to lose their key; for if they suffer a little extra fatigue, or mental or corporal tribulation, and if, as often happens, the hand of holy desire loosens its grasp, they will lose it. They can indeed find it again if they wish to while they live, but if they do not wish they will never find it, and what will prove to them, that they have lost it? Impatience, for patience was united to obedience, and their impatience proves that obedience does not dwell in their soul.
Oh! how sweet and glorious is this virtue, which contains all the rest, for she is conceived and born of charity, on her is founded the rock of the holy faith. She is a queen whose consort will feel no trouble, but only peace and quiet; the waves of the stormy sea cannot hurt her, nor can any tempest reach the interior of the soul in whom she dwells.
Such a one feels no hatred when injured, because he wishes to obey the precept of forgiveness, he suffers not when his appetites are not satisfied, because obedience has ordered him to desire Me alone, who can and will satisfy all his desires, if he strip himself of worldly riches. And so in all things which would be too long to relate, he who has chosen as spouse Queen Obedience, the appointed key of heaven, finds peace and quiet.
Oh! blessed obedience! you voyage without fatigue, and reach without danger the port of salvation, you are conformed to My only-begotten Son, the Word, you board the ship of the holy cross, forcing yourself to endure, so as not to transgress the obedience of the Word, nor abandon His doctrine, of which you make a table when you eat the food of souls, dwelling in the love of your neighbor, being anointed with true humility, which saves you from coveting, contrary to My will, his possessions, you walk erect, without bending, for your heart is sincere and not false, loving generously and truly My creatures, you are a sunrise drawing after you the light of divine grace, you are a sun which makes the earth, that is to say, the organs of the soul, to germinate with the heat of charity, all of which as well as those of the body produce life-giving fruit for yourself and your neighbor.
You are even cheerful, for your face is never wrinkled with impatience, but smooth and pleasant with the happiness of patience, and even in its fortitude you are great by your long endurance, so long that it reaches from earth to heaven and unlocks the celestial door. You are a hidden pearl, trampled by the world, abasing yourself, submitting to all creatures. Yet your kingdom is so great that no one can rule you, for you have come out of the mortal servitude of your own sensuality, which destroyed your dignity, and having slain this enemy with hatred and dislike of your own pleasure have re-obtained your liberty."
To be Continued...
Monday, June 09, 2003
Treatise on Obedience (Part I):
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. Divisions have been made in the section for easier reading - as well as the occasional underlining for emphasis - but the rest remains untouched. Scriptural references will be in italics throughout this series.
Here begins the treatise of obedience, and first of where obedience may be found, and what it is that destroys it, and what is the sign of a man's possessing it, and what accompanies and nourishes obedience.
THE Supreme and Eternal Father, kindly turning the eye of His mercy and clemency towards her, replied: "Your holy desire and righteous request, oh! dearest daughter, have a right to be heard, and inasmuch as I am the Supreme Truth, I will keep My word, fulfilling the promise which I made to you, and satisfying your desire. And if you ask Me where obedience is to be found, and what is the cause of its loss, and the sign of its possession, I reply that you will find it in its completeness in the sweet and amorous Word, My only-begotten Son.
So prompt in Him was this virtue, that, in order to fulfill it, He hastened to the shameful death of the Cross. What destroys obedience? Look at the first man and you will see the cause which destroyed the obedience imposed on him by Me, the Eternal Father. It was pride, which was produced by self-love, and desire to please his companion. This was the cause that deprived him of the perfection of obedience, giving him instead disobedience, depriving him of the life of grace, and slaying his innocence, wherefore he fell into impurity and great misery, and not only he, but the whole human race, as I said to you. The sign that you have this virtue is patience, and impatience the sign that you have it not, and you will find that this is indeed so, when I speak to you further concerning this virtue. But observe that obedience may be kept in two ways, of which one is more perfect than the other, not that they are on that account separated, but united as I explained to you of the precepts and counsels.
The one way is the most perfect, the other is also good and perfect; for no one at all can reach eternal life if he be not obedient, for the door was unlocked by the key of obedience, which had been fastened by the disobedience of Adam. I, then, being constrained by My infinite goodness, since I saw that man whom I so much loved, did not return to Me, his End, took the keys of obedience and placed them in the hands of My sweet and amorous Word -- the Truth -- and He becoming the porter of that door, opened it, and no one can enter except by means of that door and that Porter. Wherefore He said in the Holy Gospel that 'no one could come to Me, the Father, if not by Him.' When He returned to Me, rising to Heaven from the conversation of men at the Ascension, He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place.
Now I wish you to see and know this most excellent virtue in that humble and immaculate Lamb, and the source whence it proceeds. What caused the great obedience of the Word? The love which He had for My honor and your salvation. Whence proceeded this love? From the clear vision with which His soul saw the divine essence and the eternal Trinity, thus always looking on Me, the eternal God. His fidelity obtained this vision most perfectly for Him, which vision you imperfectly enjoy by the light of holy faith. He was faithful to Me, His eternal Father, and therefore hastened as one enamored along the road of obedience, lit up with the light of glory. And inasmuch as love cannot be alone, but is accompanied by all the true and royal virtues, because all the virtues draw their life from love, He possessed them all, but in a different way from that in which you do. Among the others he possessed patience, which is the marrow of obedience, and a demonstrative sign, whether a soul be in a state of grace and truly love or not.
Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her as a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either you have them both or you have neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience. This humility is the foster-mother and nurse of charity, and with the same milk she feeds the virtue of obedience. Her raiment given her by this nurse is self-contempt, and insult, desire to displease herself, and to please Me.
Where does she find this? In sweet Christ Jesus, My only-begotten Son. For who abased Himself more than He did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility.
The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death. All this you should read in that glorious book, where you find described this and every other virtue."
To be Continued...
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. Divisions have been made in the section for easier reading - as well as the occasional underlining for emphasis - but the rest remains untouched. Scriptural references will be in italics throughout this series.
Here begins the treatise of obedience, and first of where obedience may be found, and what it is that destroys it, and what is the sign of a man's possessing it, and what accompanies and nourishes obedience.
THE Supreme and Eternal Father, kindly turning the eye of His mercy and clemency towards her, replied: "Your holy desire and righteous request, oh! dearest daughter, have a right to be heard, and inasmuch as I am the Supreme Truth, I will keep My word, fulfilling the promise which I made to you, and satisfying your desire. And if you ask Me where obedience is to be found, and what is the cause of its loss, and the sign of its possession, I reply that you will find it in its completeness in the sweet and amorous Word, My only-begotten Son.
So prompt in Him was this virtue, that, in order to fulfill it, He hastened to the shameful death of the Cross. What destroys obedience? Look at the first man and you will see the cause which destroyed the obedience imposed on him by Me, the Eternal Father. It was pride, which was produced by self-love, and desire to please his companion. This was the cause that deprived him of the perfection of obedience, giving him instead disobedience, depriving him of the life of grace, and slaying his innocence, wherefore he fell into impurity and great misery, and not only he, but the whole human race, as I said to you. The sign that you have this virtue is patience, and impatience the sign that you have it not, and you will find that this is indeed so, when I speak to you further concerning this virtue. But observe that obedience may be kept in two ways, of which one is more perfect than the other, not that they are on that account separated, but united as I explained to you of the precepts and counsels.
The one way is the most perfect, the other is also good and perfect; for no one at all can reach eternal life if he be not obedient, for the door was unlocked by the key of obedience, which had been fastened by the disobedience of Adam. I, then, being constrained by My infinite goodness, since I saw that man whom I so much loved, did not return to Me, his End, took the keys of obedience and placed them in the hands of My sweet and amorous Word -- the Truth -- and He becoming the porter of that door, opened it, and no one can enter except by means of that door and that Porter. Wherefore He said in the Holy Gospel that 'no one could come to Me, the Father, if not by Him.' When He returned to Me, rising to Heaven from the conversation of men at the Ascension, He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place.
Now I wish you to see and know this most excellent virtue in that humble and immaculate Lamb, and the source whence it proceeds. What caused the great obedience of the Word? The love which He had for My honor and your salvation. Whence proceeded this love? From the clear vision with which His soul saw the divine essence and the eternal Trinity, thus always looking on Me, the eternal God. His fidelity obtained this vision most perfectly for Him, which vision you imperfectly enjoy by the light of holy faith. He was faithful to Me, His eternal Father, and therefore hastened as one enamored along the road of obedience, lit up with the light of glory. And inasmuch as love cannot be alone, but is accompanied by all the true and royal virtues, because all the virtues draw their life from love, He possessed them all, but in a different way from that in which you do. Among the others he possessed patience, which is the marrow of obedience, and a demonstrative sign, whether a soul be in a state of grace and truly love or not.
Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her as a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either you have them both or you have neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience. This humility is the foster-mother and nurse of charity, and with the same milk she feeds the virtue of obedience. Her raiment given her by this nurse is self-contempt, and insult, desire to displease herself, and to please Me.
Where does she find this? In sweet Christ Jesus, My only-begotten Son. For who abased Himself more than He did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility.
The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death. All this you should read in that glorious book, where you find described this and every other virtue."
To be Continued...
Treatise on Obedience (Introduction):
In light of an email received from a good friend last night, I was indirectly reminded that I have been remiss in actually starting the thread on obedience that was mentioned earlier. The previous addition to the ongoing points to ponder series will therefore serve as a prologue of sorts to what we are about to delve into.
To set up in this brief introduction a bit of background information on what will now be presented, St. Catherine of Siena is the subject and her Dialogues the primary source which will be utilized in this particular thread. St. Catherine is a revered figure - particularly amongst the Dominicans as she was a Dominican. (Thus as I attend mass and other functions at a Dominican priory, she seemed a natural ally to bring to the table for a discussion on obedience.)
St. Catherine is often appealed to by those who live in a state of sinful disobedience as a model to follow. But in this appeal, those who seek to utilize her as an ally do so in a deceitful manner. For you see, they focus on her rebuking certain popes and consider this to be some kind of pattern for themselves to follow. This is done without bothering to consider (i) the particular circumstances that occasioned the rebukes and (ii) without considering St. Catherine's weltanschauung when it came to the issue of obedience in general. And finally (iii) by people who show in their actions as well as their words that they are thoroughly ill-equipped spiritually for the task to which they arrogantly take upon themselves to do. Indeed, these kinds of faithless children are too busy cherry picking statements or incidents isolated from context and seeking to spin them in the worst light possible all the while lacking the proper disposition of a traditional Catholic. Others could be listed as well whose spiritual state is about as well afloat as the Titanic but I think the readers get the idea by now. Therefore, let us listen to the Dominican St. Catherine of Siena and one of her dialogues with God the Father. The subject: obedience.
To quote from the introduction to one of the editions, I have in my possession The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena was dictated to her secretaries by the Saint in ecstasy. This is considered to be one of the finest volumes from the treasury of Catholic mystical literature. It will therefore serve as a good start in resuming the thread of spiritual instruction that we have resurrected at intermittent times at this humble weblog. Unlike other series though, in this one from this point on until the end of this thread, the dark blue coloured words will not be the sources themselves but instead my words. Without further ado, let us get to it.
To be Continued...
In light of an email received from a good friend last night, I was indirectly reminded that I have been remiss in actually starting the thread on obedience that was mentioned earlier. The previous addition to the ongoing points to ponder series will therefore serve as a prologue of sorts to what we are about to delve into.
To set up in this brief introduction a bit of background information on what will now be presented, St. Catherine of Siena is the subject and her Dialogues the primary source which will be utilized in this particular thread. St. Catherine is a revered figure - particularly amongst the Dominicans as she was a Dominican. (Thus as I attend mass and other functions at a Dominican priory, she seemed a natural ally to bring to the table for a discussion on obedience.)
St. Catherine is often appealed to by those who live in a state of sinful disobedience as a model to follow. But in this appeal, those who seek to utilize her as an ally do so in a deceitful manner. For you see, they focus on her rebuking certain popes and consider this to be some kind of pattern for themselves to follow. This is done without bothering to consider (i) the particular circumstances that occasioned the rebukes and (ii) without considering St. Catherine's weltanschauung when it came to the issue of obedience in general. And finally (iii) by people who show in their actions as well as their words that they are thoroughly ill-equipped spiritually for the task to which they arrogantly take upon themselves to do. Indeed, these kinds of faithless children are too busy cherry picking statements or incidents isolated from context and seeking to spin them in the worst light possible all the while lacking the proper disposition of a traditional Catholic. Others could be listed as well whose spiritual state is about as well afloat as the Titanic but I think the readers get the idea by now. Therefore, let us listen to the Dominican St. Catherine of Siena and one of her dialogues with God the Father. The subject: obedience.
To quote from the introduction to one of the editions, I have in my possession The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena was dictated to her secretaries by the Saint in ecstasy. This is considered to be one of the finest volumes from the treasury of Catholic mystical literature. It will therefore serve as a good start in resuming the thread of spiritual instruction that we have resurrected at intermittent times at this humble weblog. Unlike other series though, in this one from this point on until the end of this thread, the dark blue coloured words will not be the sources themselves but instead my words. Without further ado, let us get to it.
To be Continued...
Saturday, June 07, 2003
Points to Ponder:
[Update: This is now part of a series on obedience, the previous installment of which can be read HERE. -ISM (6/09/03)]
I do not have to generally set up a quote in this feature but this particular one requires it to some extent. Cardinal Rampolla for those who do not know was nearly elected pope in 1903 back in the days when certain secular authorities had a veto they could cast in conclave elections. In 1903 the Austrian government vetoed Cardinal Rampolla's eligibility and the conclave elected Cardinal Sarto afterwards - who upon approval took the name of Pope Pius X. In short, this quote is from a man who escaped election as pope by the conclave due to an accident of history. But there is much more to this puzzle than that.
Cardinal Rampolla was one of the most influential prelates of his time. He was Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, assisted the Holy Father in his liberalization of the papal administration. Cardinal Rampolla was also one of the primary assistants to Pope Leo XIII in the drafting of the landmark encyclical letter Rerum Novarum - from which this humble weblog took its name. Pope Pius X appointed Cardinal Rampolla as Prefect of the Holy Office in 1908. In layman's terms, his position and authority was the same then as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's is today as prefect of the CDF.
Pope Pius X's campaign against modernism is not unknown; however what is often unknown is the extremist reaction to the modernists which was referred to as "integralism." Many of us refer to certain self-styled "traditionalists" today as Integrists because of the pattern that they share with the aforementioned extremists. But getting back to Cardinal Rampolla and to summarize he was (i) Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State (ii) highly influential in the changing attitude of the papacy in Pope Leo's pontificate (iii) the primary draftsman of Pope Leo's Rerum Novarum. Further still, he was (iv) Pope Pius X's choice to head the Holy Office. So this is a man whose opinion is deserving of respect on matters pertaining to the faith. What did he have to say about those who were "more anti-modernist than the pope and college of bishops"??? The following is from Cardinal Rampolla as quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. This is taken from the chapter titled Modernists and Integralists and is his criticism of the Integralists:
Words can not describe the sad impressions that have been made on me by the agitation continually growing among Catholics, by these intolerable polemics, by this confusion of ideas, and above all by this lack of respect and of obedience to the Holy Father. I regard this as the worst of all the damage, and I offer most earnest prayers for this to come to an end.For us Catholics the name of the Pope is sacred and untouchable. The confusion which dominates minds, the doubts which arise from it, the judgment of the press, sometimes so unjust,and finally, the outbursts of emotions constitute a state of affairs which is deplorable. It behooves all of us to pray to God that some remedy be found. [Cardinal Rampolla: As quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. (c. 1959)]
Those who wonder why web writings such as this, this, this, and this (among others) exist need to look no further than what His Eminence noted above. (The same is the case for weblogs such as The Lidless Eye Inquisition.)
Consider this a prologue of sorts for the upcoming series on obedience - the next installment of which can be read HERE.
[Update: This is now part of a series on obedience, the previous installment of which can be read HERE. -ISM (6/09/03)]
I do not have to generally set up a quote in this feature but this particular one requires it to some extent. Cardinal Rampolla for those who do not know was nearly elected pope in 1903 back in the days when certain secular authorities had a veto they could cast in conclave elections. In 1903 the Austrian government vetoed Cardinal Rampolla's eligibility and the conclave elected Cardinal Sarto afterwards - who upon approval took the name of Pope Pius X. In short, this quote is from a man who escaped election as pope by the conclave due to an accident of history. But there is much more to this puzzle than that.
Cardinal Rampolla was one of the most influential prelates of his time. He was Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, assisted the Holy Father in his liberalization of the papal administration. Cardinal Rampolla was also one of the primary assistants to Pope Leo XIII in the drafting of the landmark encyclical letter Rerum Novarum - from which this humble weblog took its name. Pope Pius X appointed Cardinal Rampolla as Prefect of the Holy Office in 1908. In layman's terms, his position and authority was the same then as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's is today as prefect of the CDF.
Pope Pius X's campaign against modernism is not unknown; however what is often unknown is the extremist reaction to the modernists which was referred to as "integralism." Many of us refer to certain self-styled "traditionalists" today as Integrists because of the pattern that they share with the aforementioned extremists. But getting back to Cardinal Rampolla and to summarize he was (i) Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State (ii) highly influential in the changing attitude of the papacy in Pope Leo's pontificate (iii) the primary draftsman of Pope Leo's Rerum Novarum. Further still, he was (iv) Pope Pius X's choice to head the Holy Office. So this is a man whose opinion is deserving of respect on matters pertaining to the faith. What did he have to say about those who were "more anti-modernist than the pope and college of bishops"??? The following is from Cardinal Rampolla as quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. This is taken from the chapter titled Modernists and Integralists and is his criticism of the Integralists:
Words can not describe the sad impressions that have been made on me by the agitation continually growing among Catholics, by these intolerable polemics, by this confusion of ideas, and above all by this lack of respect and of obedience to the Holy Father. I regard this as the worst of all the damage, and I offer most earnest prayers for this to come to an end.For us Catholics the name of the Pope is sacred and untouchable. The confusion which dominates minds, the doubts which arise from it, the judgment of the press, sometimes so unjust,and finally, the outbursts of emotions constitute a state of affairs which is deplorable. It behooves all of us to pray to God that some remedy be found. [Cardinal Rampolla: As quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. (c. 1959)]
Those who wonder why web writings such as this, this, this, and this (among others) exist need to look no further than what His Eminence noted above. (The same is the case for weblogs such as The Lidless Eye Inquisition.)
Consider this a prologue of sorts for the upcoming series on obedience - the next installment of which can be read HERE.
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
The subject of obedience is at the heart of the discord between self-styled "traditionalists" and those they often deride with epithets such as "Neo-Catholic." Often have I thought that the best way to address the issue of obedience would be to try and peek into the mind of God on the issue. For many are the excuses used to jusify disobedience and the epithet of "blind obedience" is commonly sung as a refrain by the dissident - whomever they are.
Cardinal Newman dealt with it in his day when responding to the the Anglican Gladstone and there is no shortage today of those who furl the banner of "traditionalist" who are in reality nothing more than "neo-Gladstones" if you will. However, at the same time, it is pointless to simply tell people to read a bunch of books even if this would help to solve a lot of the problems that those who argue on these points tend to have.
These are presuppositional flaws if you will. And as long as they exist, the individual will err in the same manner on any subject they endeavour to discuss that pertains to this subject. It is not without reason that I have recently seized on the William Blake statement "an altered eye alters all."{1}
Rather than refute these errors myself -as I am nothing special- it seems appropriate to do so with the assistance of a Doctor of the Church who lived many centuries ago. In doing this, the points can be made that I would make - and arguably a lot better to boot - and they would carry an authority that nothing I say would to someone who would claim the banner of "traditionalist."{2}
As a ressourcement-minded individual, it seems appropriate to me to yet again go "back to the sources" on this one. So that is what We at Rerum Novarum will do in the coming days. We will cover the subject of obedience from the standpoint of a revered saint and doctor. The reader can then discern whom and whose weltanschauung either mirrors or comes closest to what will be covered. Stay tuned for more details...
Notes:
{1} For examples, see the links from Rerum Novarum located HERE,HERE, and HERE. It first hit me to use this metaphor when composing a response to CAIraqi leader Robert Sungenis which can be read HERE. I had in mind Blake's dictum when writing the line I was not inclined to want to challenge my sanity in responding to someone whose eye is so clearly altered. Granted this is not an insight that is exactly new but it is a very descriptive way of explaining the problem of trying to have a discussion with someone whose frame of reference is so diametrically different. By logical extension the metaphor "an altered mind alters all" could also be used and indeed in the example above, who could credibly argue that it is not applicable???
{2} This is not to diminish anything I have done mind you but simply to note that those who want to ignore my arguments can simply tag me with "Neo-Catholic", "liberal", "modernist", "reactionary", "fundamentalist", "traditionalist", "Satan's schill", etc. (Believe me, I have heard them all before.) These arguments cannot be applied by anyone claiming to be a "traditionalist" to someone who was canonized centuries ago and who is recognized as living a saintly life and also as possessing of fidelity to the Church.
To be Continued...
Cardinal Newman dealt with it in his day when responding to the the Anglican Gladstone and there is no shortage today of those who furl the banner of "traditionalist" who are in reality nothing more than "neo-Gladstones" if you will. However, at the same time, it is pointless to simply tell people to read a bunch of books even if this would help to solve a lot of the problems that those who argue on these points tend to have.
These are presuppositional flaws if you will. And as long as they exist, the individual will err in the same manner on any subject they endeavour to discuss that pertains to this subject. It is not without reason that I have recently seized on the William Blake statement "an altered eye alters all."{1}
Rather than refute these errors myself -as I am nothing special- it seems appropriate to do so with the assistance of a Doctor of the Church who lived many centuries ago. In doing this, the points can be made that I would make - and arguably a lot better to boot - and they would carry an authority that nothing I say would to someone who would claim the banner of "traditionalist."{2}
As a ressourcement-minded individual, it seems appropriate to me to yet again go "back to the sources" on this one. So that is what We at Rerum Novarum will do in the coming days. We will cover the subject of obedience from the standpoint of a revered saint and doctor. The reader can then discern whom and whose weltanschauung either mirrors or comes closest to what will be covered. Stay tuned for more details...
Notes:
{1} For examples, see the links from Rerum Novarum located HERE,HERE, and HERE. It first hit me to use this metaphor when composing a response to CAIraqi leader Robert Sungenis which can be read HERE. I had in mind Blake's dictum when writing the line I was not inclined to want to challenge my sanity in responding to someone whose eye is so clearly altered. Granted this is not an insight that is exactly new but it is a very descriptive way of explaining the problem of trying to have a discussion with someone whose frame of reference is so diametrically different. By logical extension the metaphor "an altered mind alters all" could also be used and indeed in the example above, who could credibly argue that it is not applicable???
{2} This is not to diminish anything I have done mind you but simply to note that those who want to ignore my arguments can simply tag me with "Neo-Catholic", "liberal", "modernist", "reactionary", "fundamentalist", "traditionalist", "Satan's schill", etc. (Believe me, I have heard them all before.) These arguments cannot be applied by anyone claiming to be a "traditionalist" to someone who was canonized centuries ago and who is recognized as living a saintly life and also as possessing of fidelity to the Church.
To be Continued...
Monday, June 02, 2003
Points to Ponder:
The Church is going through a terrible crisis. But crisis is its essential condition. God wishes it so. The Church was already in crisis when St. John wrote the Apocalypse...Look, ours is an age of decadence. It's like shooting an arrow. The arrow must be drawn backwards before it can be shot forwards. See, today we are being pressed backwards. But we are on the eve of many changes. The next century will be the age of new evangelization, and light will fill the Church once more. But my eyes will no longer be there to see it. [Jean Guitton: From his interview with La Stampa on the 30th anniversary of Vatican II (10/11/92)]
The Church is going through a terrible crisis. But crisis is its essential condition. God wishes it so. The Church was already in crisis when St. John wrote the Apocalypse...Look, ours is an age of decadence. It's like shooting an arrow. The arrow must be drawn backwards before it can be shot forwards. See, today we are being pressed backwards. But we are on the eve of many changes. The next century will be the age of new evangelization, and light will fill the Church once more. But my eyes will no longer be there to see it. [Jean Guitton: From his interview with La Stampa on the 30th anniversary of Vatican II (10/11/92)]
More From the "Altered Eye Alters All" Dept.
This comprised the postscript notes to the previous post in the discussion forum. Again my sources will be in darkblue.
In TGF we also point out that "Cardinal Ratzinger provided no proof that what 'seems' to be the complete identity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ in the teaching of Pius XII is 'not the case.'"
If Mr. Ferrara knew how to read magisterial texts and avoided prooftexting, he might see the forest for the trees.
Moreover, there was no demonstration that Pius XII "shared" the view that the Orthodox churches are "authentic local churches," an assertion that also appears in DI 17, which calls the Orthodox Churches "true particular churches."
A true Church is one with valid episcopacy and valid sacraments. Are Mssrs. Ferrara and Woods claiming that Pius XII denied the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments??? Because if he claims the pope affirmed their validity then he affirms that the Orthodox Churches are true particular churches. It is that simple really. In fact, if Mr. Ferrara actually read Dominus Iesus (rather than simply hunt and peck it for proof texts) he would see this very distinction made in section 17:
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense...[Declaration Dominus Iesus §17]
I hope it is becoming clear why it is a waste of time to involve oneself too much in refuting the kind of nonsense put forward by individuals such as Mr. Ferrara.
If Pius XII or the other preconciliar Popes had ever taught such a thing, one supposes their teaching would have been cited rather prominently in DI to show its continuity with the perennial Magisterium.
Not really. It is a given to anyone moderately versed in ecclesiology so there is no need to cite references for support of the assertion.
On the contrary, as we point out in TGF, Leo XIII taught the following about the ecclesial status of non-Catholic sees in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:
[I]t must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.
When did any of the Orthodox bishops "deliberately secede" from the Roman Church in the past five hundred years??? Since this did not happen, Mr. Ferrara's quote is irrelevant. Further still, to argue on the basis of second millennium developments is anachronistic to the core. It suffices to say that the Orthodox churches have valid episcopate and valid sacraments but according to Catholic understanding they exercise them illicitly. But at least unlike some "trad" groups which lack validity to certain sacraments (penance and matrimony) and liceity to the others, the Orthodox have all valid sacraments.
Likewise, in his letter on reunion with the Eastern churches, St. Pius X declared as follows:
Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return to Catholic unity, and, united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.
Two points:
1) The "ecumenism of return" approach is ecclesiologically and methodologically faulty. St. Pius X had good intentions but was promoting a faulty method functionally speaking.
2) I have yet to see any authentic charity from Mr. Ferrara or the Remnant crowd. The very manner whereby they attribute the worst motives to the popes and the Council, to those who strive to implement properly the teaching of the Council, and other factors (such as their serial suspicion of anything that is not Counter-reformational in attitude or approach) is not the benchmark of a true and charitable outlook.
St. Pius X would have lowered the boot on people like Mr. Ferrara and company and would not have looked kindly on those who profess to love the Church, to follow the Church, and yet who showed clear and unmistakably that they despised the bishops of the church and the pope. He would have blasted these sophists as the hypocrites that they are for claiming to "withhold obedience" to the post Pius XII magisterium. In fact, let the Holy Father himself from a speech given in 1909 express his mind about such people:
Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). [Pope St. Pius X (c. May 10, 1909)]
Here are two terms that apply to the Integrist bunch:
Suspicion - St. Thomas distinguishes three degrees of suspicion: when one begins to question anothers goodness on slight grounds, usually a venial fault; when one thinks on slight ground that another is certainly wicked, and this is a mortal sin in the case of grave matter; and when one condemns another outright merely on suspicion, and this is a sin against justice. "If we cannot avoid suspicion, because we are men, we should at least avoid judgments, that is, definite and positive opinions" (St. Augustine)". [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 510 (c. 1941)]
Pride, a capital vice opposed to humility (q.v.) consisting in excessive love of one's own excellence, exhibited in three ways: (a) Contempt for lawful authority - a mortal sin; (b) Contempt for equals or inferiors - mortal or venial according to the depth of contempt; (c) Desire to surpass one's equals - a venial sin. St. Thomas and many other spiritual writers put pride in a class by itself as the most deadly and devastating of all vices, which has its part in every sin, of whatever sort that is committed; for every sin is in its degree a contempt of God and often our superior and our neighbour as well. Pride feeds and thrives itself, continually stirring up the mind and will of man to rebellion against the moral law and against his lawful and qualified teachers, whether religious or civil. Ambition, presumption, and vainglory (qqv) are among the most immediate handmaids of pride".{Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 422 (c. 1941)]
Both of these apply in spades to Mr. Ferrara and his cohorts.
In TGF we state our view that there is an urgent need for the Magisterium to clarify how churches that lack all jurisdiction, are separated from the very foundation of the Church, are outside the edifice of the Church, not within the fold, exiled from the Kingdom, and not yet in the port of everlasting salvation, can be "true particular churches" or "authentic local churches" in any sense that matters.
Already dealt with in this response.
YT completely ignores these astonishing statements in his defense of Ratzinger and his attack on TGF. But Cardinal Ratzinger has never retracted this opinion. Perhaps this explains why DI, of which Ratzinger was the principal author, contains not a single reference to the Catholic doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Declaration Dominus Iesus was subtitled On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. The subject was not on the juridical concept of "mystical body". Likewise, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, which this text draws heavily from, was concerned with sketching out in detail the nature of the Church and its universal mission. As the nature of the Church transcends by far the mere visible parameters, the subject matter goes beyond the expositions of previous magisterial texts.{1} Maybe if Mr. Ferrara paid attention to the purpose of certain texts he might be able to answer some of his own questions. As my good friend Dr. Art Sippo noted once "a burro can ask more questions than a wise man can answer."
DI 16 does refer to "a single body of Christ," but makes no mention of the Mystical Body of preconciliar teaching, identified so precisely with the Roman Catholic Church by Pius XII and Leo XIII.
This oversimplification was dealt with in the previous installment of this series.
In TGF we ask: "Are we witnessing the "shedding" of more "terminological armor" for the sake of ecumenism?
No, we are witnessing two burros (Ferrara and Woods) asking more questions than this present semi informed writer has time to answer.
Note:
{1} Though Mystici Corporis was a source heavily drawn on in Lumen Gentium, the particular subject matter dealt with in Dominus Iesus did not pertain to the subject of the mystical body except by ancillary extension at best.
This comprised the postscript notes to the previous post in the discussion forum. Again my sources will be in darkblue.
In TGF we also point out that "Cardinal Ratzinger provided no proof that what 'seems' to be the complete identity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ in the teaching of Pius XII is 'not the case.'"
If Mr. Ferrara knew how to read magisterial texts and avoided prooftexting, he might see the forest for the trees.
Moreover, there was no demonstration that Pius XII "shared" the view that the Orthodox churches are "authentic local churches," an assertion that also appears in DI 17, which calls the Orthodox Churches "true particular churches."
A true Church is one with valid episcopacy and valid sacraments. Are Mssrs. Ferrara and Woods claiming that Pius XII denied the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments??? Because if he claims the pope affirmed their validity then he affirms that the Orthodox Churches are true particular churches. It is that simple really. In fact, if Mr. Ferrara actually read Dominus Iesus (rather than simply hunt and peck it for proof texts) he would see this very distinction made in section 17:
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense...[Declaration Dominus Iesus §17]
I hope it is becoming clear why it is a waste of time to involve oneself too much in refuting the kind of nonsense put forward by individuals such as Mr. Ferrara.
If Pius XII or the other preconciliar Popes had ever taught such a thing, one supposes their teaching would have been cited rather prominently in DI to show its continuity with the perennial Magisterium.
Not really. It is a given to anyone moderately versed in ecclesiology so there is no need to cite references for support of the assertion.
On the contrary, as we point out in TGF, Leo XIII taught the following about the ecclesial status of non-Catholic sees in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:
[I]t must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.
When did any of the Orthodox bishops "deliberately secede" from the Roman Church in the past five hundred years??? Since this did not happen, Mr. Ferrara's quote is irrelevant. Further still, to argue on the basis of second millennium developments is anachronistic to the core. It suffices to say that the Orthodox churches have valid episcopate and valid sacraments but according to Catholic understanding they exercise them illicitly. But at least unlike some "trad" groups which lack validity to certain sacraments (penance and matrimony) and liceity to the others, the Orthodox have all valid sacraments.
Likewise, in his letter on reunion with the Eastern churches, St. Pius X declared as follows:
Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return to Catholic unity, and, united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.
Two points:
1) The "ecumenism of return" approach is ecclesiologically and methodologically faulty. St. Pius X had good intentions but was promoting a faulty method functionally speaking.
2) I have yet to see any authentic charity from Mr. Ferrara or the Remnant crowd. The very manner whereby they attribute the worst motives to the popes and the Council, to those who strive to implement properly the teaching of the Council, and other factors (such as their serial suspicion of anything that is not Counter-reformational in attitude or approach) is not the benchmark of a true and charitable outlook.
St. Pius X would have lowered the boot on people like Mr. Ferrara and company and would not have looked kindly on those who profess to love the Church, to follow the Church, and yet who showed clear and unmistakably that they despised the bishops of the church and the pope. He would have blasted these sophists as the hypocrites that they are for claiming to "withhold obedience" to the post Pius XII magisterium. In fact, let the Holy Father himself from a speech given in 1909 express his mind about such people:
Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). [Pope St. Pius X (c. May 10, 1909)]
Here are two terms that apply to the Integrist bunch:
Suspicion - St. Thomas distinguishes three degrees of suspicion: when one begins to question anothers goodness on slight grounds, usually a venial fault; when one thinks on slight ground that another is certainly wicked, and this is a mortal sin in the case of grave matter; and when one condemns another outright merely on suspicion, and this is a sin against justice. "If we cannot avoid suspicion, because we are men, we should at least avoid judgments, that is, definite and positive opinions" (St. Augustine)". [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 510 (c. 1941)]
Pride, a capital vice opposed to humility (q.v.) consisting in excessive love of one's own excellence, exhibited in three ways: (a) Contempt for lawful authority - a mortal sin; (b) Contempt for equals or inferiors - mortal or venial according to the depth of contempt; (c) Desire to surpass one's equals - a venial sin. St. Thomas and many other spiritual writers put pride in a class by itself as the most deadly and devastating of all vices, which has its part in every sin, of whatever sort that is committed; for every sin is in its degree a contempt of God and often our superior and our neighbour as well. Pride feeds and thrives itself, continually stirring up the mind and will of man to rebellion against the moral law and against his lawful and qualified teachers, whether religious or civil. Ambition, presumption, and vainglory (qqv) are among the most immediate handmaids of pride".{Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 422 (c. 1941)]
Both of these apply in spades to Mr. Ferrara and his cohorts.
In TGF we state our view that there is an urgent need for the Magisterium to clarify how churches that lack all jurisdiction, are separated from the very foundation of the Church, are outside the edifice of the Church, not within the fold, exiled from the Kingdom, and not yet in the port of everlasting salvation, can be "true particular churches" or "authentic local churches" in any sense that matters.
Already dealt with in this response.
YT completely ignores these astonishing statements in his defense of Ratzinger and his attack on TGF. But Cardinal Ratzinger has never retracted this opinion. Perhaps this explains why DI, of which Ratzinger was the principal author, contains not a single reference to the Catholic doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Declaration Dominus Iesus was subtitled On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. The subject was not on the juridical concept of "mystical body". Likewise, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, which this text draws heavily from, was concerned with sketching out in detail the nature of the Church and its universal mission. As the nature of the Church transcends by far the mere visible parameters, the subject matter goes beyond the expositions of previous magisterial texts.{1} Maybe if Mr. Ferrara paid attention to the purpose of certain texts he might be able to answer some of his own questions. As my good friend Dr. Art Sippo noted once "a burro can ask more questions than a wise man can answer."
DI 16 does refer to "a single body of Christ," but makes no mention of the Mystical Body of preconciliar teaching, identified so precisely with the Roman Catholic Church by Pius XII and Leo XIII.
This oversimplification was dealt with in the previous installment of this series.
In TGF we ask: "Are we witnessing the "shedding" of more "terminological armor" for the sake of ecumenism?
No, we are witnessing two burros (Ferrara and Woods) asking more questions than this present semi informed writer has time to answer.
Note:
{1} Though Mystici Corporis was a source heavily drawn on in Lumen Gentium, the particular subject matter dealt with in Dominus Iesus did not pertain to the subject of the mystical body except by ancillary extension at best.
"An Altered Eye Alters All" Dept.
This is a sequel in some respects to the thread located HERE. Apparently Mr. Ferrara was not too keen on a recent review from The Wanderer on his book. Nor was he too keen on a review from Michelle of the And Then? weblog either.
After musing on the matter for a bit, I decided not to link to either Omar Gutierrez' review or Mr. Ferrara's response to it. In the case of the former, I have only read parts of it in detail and have scanned the rest. As for the latter, the problem is one I pointed out that is common with Integrist screeds in my previous entry. The essence of the point was [how] easy it must be for Mr. Ferrara to make such wide sweeping indictments which he knows his opponent would have to take some time and energy to unpack in order to refute properly. Indeed one would have to write a book to respond to it all. I do not have that time nor do I plan to set aside time to do so. However, as a friend of mine indicated an intention to do a more complete response of one of Mr. Ferrara's articles, these notes of mine from a May discussion list on this subject (taken from the article my friend plans to respond to) are posted for his assistance and also for the musing of the readers of this humble weblog.
As in the last response, Mr. Ferrara's parts will be in dark yellow font with his sources italicized. My sources will be in darkblue font. "TGF" is a reference to Mr. Ferrara's book The Great Facade. "YT" is shorthand for "young theologian". This is Mr. Ferrara's snide deriding of Mr. Gutierrez - presumably because of the latter's age.
In order to expose YT's error and its relation to his critique of TGF, some preliminaries are necessary. I begin by noting that in his monumental encyclical Mystici corporis, Pope Pius XII, citing the teaching of his great predecessor Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, expounded with great force and clarity the Church’s traditional ecclesiology, according to which the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are held to be one and the same thing.
Satis Cognitum is an encyclical letter on the unity of the Church. Besides, for one who wants to reference SC, there is a passage that Ferrara and the Remnant sorts do not seem to want to focus on:
The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head" (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. "There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church" (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25). [Satis Cognitum §10}]
I go over this in more detail HERE. In brief though, Satis Cognitum is concerned with pointing out the doctrine of the Church pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the entire hierarchial structure of the Church and how it safeguards the unity of the Church. The intention to deal with those who had long been separated from the Apostolic See was not the intention of the encyclical. Nor was the subject of salvation for those not in visible communion with the Church a subject covered in that encyclical. But much as proof texters do, Mr. Ferrara will cite whatever he thinks can make his case - proper context of the statements themselves be damned.
As Pius XII declared: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ'—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.
I am surprised that so-called "traditionalists" make this error continually. I mean Pius XII's magisterium is supposed to be so "perspicuous" according to them. Notice thought where these guys go astray.
Mr. Ferrara quotes Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Pius XII "seemed" to say that the Mystical Body of Christ was identified solely with the Catholic Church in complete identity. This is the core of the very error that snared Fr. Leonard Feeney after Mystici Corporis Christi was published. Meanwhile, Mr. Ferrara proof texts Pius XII a few times to claim there is a contradiction. As usual, Mr. Ferrara failed to do his homework. Here is what Pius XII's encyclical actually says. I will highlight the key points and add the word implied by the text in brackets.
As He hung upon the Cross, Christ Jesus not only appeased the justice of the Eternal Father which had been violated, but He also won for us, His brethren, an ineffable flow of graces. it was possible for Him of Himself to impart these graces to mankind directly; but He willed to do so only through a visible Church made up of men, so that through her all might cooperate with Him in dispensing the graces of Redemption. As the Word of God willed to make use of our nature, when in excruciating agony He would redeem mankind, so in the same way throughout the centuries He makes use of the Church that the work begun might endure.
If we would define and describe this true [visible] Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.
The visible church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church. This is not the complete identity that pundits such as Mr. Ferrara seem to want to make. The distinction between body and soul of this period resulted in the mystical body metaphor often being applied to the visible church in a predominantly juridical manner. This was the manner in which it was applied in the encyclical Humani Generis:
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. [Humani Generis §27]
If one notes the footnote at the end of this statement in the text, it is Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq. In reference speak, "Cf" and "Cfr" mean "paraphrase" or "approximation." If not for the fact that the encyclical footnote specifically denotes a paraphrase, one could possibly impute some error to the encyclical Humani Generis (HG) since Mystici Corporis does not say exactly what HG §27 is asserting it does. It is also important to pay attention to context. The error that those who were being corrected was addressed in Mystici Corporis Christi (MCC) and reference to the encyclical duly footnoted would reveal the following:
[T]hey err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
In short, the proscribed error in HG §27 is the one condemned in MCC about the Church being something solely invisible or "merely peumatological" as if there is not a visible structure also to the Mystical Body. Those who used the term "Mystical Body" in this context were committing an error.
In one simple, elegant sentence Pius XII made it perfectly clear that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. In other words: Church of Christ = Roman Catholic Church = Mystical Body of Christ.
The visible Church of Christ is indeed the Catholic Church. And the Mystical Body is the Catholic Church. But to refer to it as the "Roman Catholic Church" is to limit it to the west since the Eastern Catholics are not "Roman Catholics" as that term is generally understood. The problem for Mr. Ferrara is that he does not seem to recognize the shift in emphasis in Lumen Gentium to the Church as predominantly mystery with the visible elements understood as integrated into the whole. It is in essence an inversion of MCC where the emphasis was primarily on the visible Church with a secondary thread devoted to the Church's mystery.
However, the exposition as such in MCC had one weakness to it and that was how to explain those of good will who were not part of the visible church who were nonetheless of good will were saved. The dichotomistic concept of "body" and "soul" was a common analogy at this time. Before concluding the encyclical, here is how Pius XII sought to bridge the chasm:
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.
Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God" is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will." Therefore whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act. For men must be effectively drawn to the truth by the Father of light through the Spirit of His beloved Son, because, endowed as they are with free will, they can misuse their freedom under the impulse of mental agitation and base desires. Unfortunately many are still wandering far from Catholic truth, being unwilling to follow the inspirations of divine grace, because neither they nor the faithful pray to God with sufficient fervor for this intention. Again and again we beg all who ardently love the Church to follow the example of the Divine Redeemer and to give themselves constantly to such prayer. [Mystici Corporis §103-104}]
In short, Pius XII by admitting that "they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" had set the stage for Paul VI's musings on the matter in Ecclesiam Suam and Lumen Gentium's further explanation of how this relationship was to be properly understood.
The distinction was in short between body and soul in Pius' exposition. Lumen Gentium went about expounding on this subject in a different and more complete matter - and was prefigured on this by Pope Paul's first encyclical letter Ecclesiam Suam. In Lumen Gentium, the use of subsistare was making a distinction between the visible church and salvific efficacy. To quote from my treatise on the subject of subsistare:
Subsistence is a specific kind of existence. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines it as "that perfection whereby a being is capable of existing in itself" (Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg. 507). Subsistence (Lat. subsistare) is an old Scholastic term used to explain the manner whereby God exists. Unlike all other entities, God does not depend on another source for His existence. Instead, He is fully subsistent. Likewise the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in such wise as she does not depend on any other Church or ecclesial community for she possesses the fullness of grace and truth. The same cannot be said of other Churches or ecclesial communities which depend on the Catholic Church for what degrees of truth that they possess.
So the Church of Christ can be properly said to subsist in the Catholic Church as this denotes existence to the fullest possible extent. Of course since the Church had never fully specified her boundaries explicitly prior to VC II, there was no way of knowing what the exact boundaries of the Church were. This is why the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church would insist on the necessity of belonging to the Church for one to be saved but they never at the same time declared anyone individually not in the visible Catholic Church to be damned. Think about that for a moment: not one Father said that it was not necessary to belong to the Church for one to be saved. At the same time no one who died outside the Church was ever declared to be damned by the Church in all of history (not even Judas). What this says about the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is that while it is a necessity surely that nevertheless God in the end is the final judge of who is inside the Church (be they implicitly or explicitly so) because only He knows the inner person. Here is the context of the term subsistare from Lumen Gentium (LG) §8.
The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complete reality which comes together from a human and a divine element. For this reason the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (cf. Eph. 4:15).
This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." [Lumen Gentium §8]
For an example of an "element of sanctification" that can be found outside the visible confines of the Church, consider the sacrament of baptism. When Pope St. Stephen in the mid third century decreed (against the protestations of St. Cyprian) that heretics were not to be re-baptized and the baptisms of heretics even by heretics were valid (as long as they baptized by water in a Trinitarian fashion), consider what he was saying about the Church as the custodian of the sacraments. The Church has always taught that only she was the custodian of the sacraments but heretics can validly baptize as long as they use the proper formula (Trinitarian formula). What this says is that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church always recognized implicitly that God's grace flowed through the Church and that God did not punish those outside the Church who (through no culpable fault of their own) were ignorant. In short, if they were good people who did as best as they knew how the will of God, then they would be justified in God's eyes (Acts 10:34). God only holds us accountable for what we know and only actual unrepented sins bring about our condemnation.
God is infinitely merciful; therefore He cannot judge someone without taking all aspects into account including that they may have been born in a disadvantaged situation. (Being a cradle Catholic is a blessing that far too many people do not realize.) The knowledge of the truth may through situations beyond their control be limited. As long as they are not knowingly resisting the truth then they can in some cases perhaps be saved in spite of the beliefs they hold and not because of them. The rationale here being that a person who knew the necessity of explicit membership in the Catholic Church if they were of good will and desirous of doing as God wills, they would join the Church. This was the rationale behind the concept of baptism of desire and also an implicit witness to the bounds of the Church which for the first time was explicitly set forth in Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church.
The exposition of the Church in LG is a true development of doctrinal terminology and not an innovation as 'traditionalists' claim it is. However, such an exposition in no way implies that our separated brethren are not to be evangelized of course. Far from it, the Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. And if they deny the rigorous interpretation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus - which they claim to (Archbishop Lefebvre was a defender of baptism of desire), then they by default profess that the Church of Christ can exist outside the visible boundaries. And to do this is to accept the notion of subsistare.
Traditional terminology of "body" and "soul" sought to explain this mystery but the analogy was flawed in some aspects. By contrast the term subsistare explains the traditional teaching in a manner that fully takes into account the maxim of St. Thomas that God is not bound by the sacraments. (By logical extension, He is not bound to the visible boundaries of the Church in order to save people either.) To accept this principle is to be in accordance with Tradition and also by default to accept subsistare. To reject subsistare is to reject by default Tradition and implicitly accept Feeneyism. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part X (c. 2003, 2000)}]
The biggest problem Mr. Ferrara has is one which is common to those of a more rationalistic mindset. Like all obnoxious Integrists, Mr. Ferrara has no apparent understanding that the mystery of the Church and the relationship of people to her transcends mere theological cogitations. Paul VI noted this in his first Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam where many of the pointers were put down which would be developed by the Council in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium:
The mystery of the Church is not a mere object of theological knowledge; it is something to be lived, something that the faithful soul can have a kind of connatural experience of, even before arriving at a clear notion of it. Moreover, the community of the faithful can be profoundly certain of its participation in the Mystical Body of Christ when it realizes that by divine institution, the ministry of the Hierarchy of the Church is there to give it a beginning, to give it birth, to teach and sanctify and direct it. It is by means of this divine instrumentality that Christ communicates to His mystical members the marvels of His truth and of His grace, and confers to His Mystical Body as it travels its pilgrim's way through time its visible structure, its sublime unity, its ability to function organically, its harmonious complexity, its spiritual beauty.
Images do not suffice to translate into meaningful language the full reality and depth of this mystery. [Ecclesiam Suam §37]
The inability to understand traditional ecclesiology by Mr. Ferrara continues.
Yet, as we show in TGF, it was none other than Fr. Ratzinger who lauded the "shedding" of the term "membership" at Vatican II, calling that term "terminological armor." It was necessary to shed this "terminological armor," wrote Fr. Ratzinger, because "The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality...Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches…" —meaning, Protestant sects.
What idiocy!!! Fr. Ratzinger as a good ressourcement theologian was not referring to Protestants as Churches because they are properly speaking not Churches. To be a Church there has to be episcopacy and valid sacraments. The argument by Fr. Ratzinger was that the Catholic needed to understand that the Church is more than just the Latin rite. This was a problem before the Second Vatican Council and even today it still is - albeit not nearly as much as it was previously.
The theology of communio (communion) recognizes a collection of Churches diverse in expression but professing one faith and united with the See of Peter - the source of communion of the universal church. Protestant groups could not be included in this vision without first the establishment of an episcopate and then unity in doctrine. With the Orthodox Churches, the degree of unity is over 95% in doctrine even if theological expositions on that unity of doctrine differ in some respects. As the Orthodox are already Churches properly speaking, all that is needed is unity in profession, not absorption of them into the Latin rite as Indian Reservations called "rites."{1}
Fr. Ratzinger even went so far as to say that "A basic unity—of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church—must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.
This is correct. In dealing with the Churches, the emphasis must be towards the individual Churches retaining their own liturgies and devotions and other traditions as far as this is possible. "Conversion" is a term that applies as much to Catholics as to anyone else. Hence the idea that others have to convert and Catholics do not is implied and this is erroneous because all of us are in need of repentance and turning back from sin. What is conversion but "turning back" after all right??? The types of sins may differ but we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (cf. Rom iii,23). A theology that recognizes this is indespensable when it comes to the subject of Christian reunion.
Based on these considerations, TGF expressed the concern that Cardinal Ratzinger's opinions appear to be irreconcilable with the teaching of Pius XII and his predecessors that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. And this is no mere academic dispute. The doctrine of the Mystical Body affirmed by Pius XII (and even Vatican II!) is essential to preserving the vital distinction between the inside and the outside of the Church (for purposes of the dogma "no salvation outside the Church"), and membership and non-membership in her.
Aah but Mr. Ferrara supports schismatics. By the doctrine of Pius XII, he is therefore not to be accounted as a member of the Church. (See MC §22). At least our separated brethren have a ton of potentially inculpable ignorance they have to plow through to see the Church as she really is. What is Mr. Ferrara's excuse???
If these distinctions are lost, Pius warned, the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation will be reduced to "a meaningless formula"—one of the signal errors of neo-modernism.
What is so meaningless about "those who are ignorant of Christ and his Church and are incapable of removing their obstacles through the use of ordinary diligence are not held as liable for it"??? This is not a declaration of anyone in particular being invincibly ignorant. Nor is it an excuse for people to remain where they are using this as a "loophole" if you will. There is no "meaningless formula" being espoused as per the serial suspicions of Mr. Ferrara.
As we have seen over the past forty years, this error leads inevitably to a drastic waning of the Church's missionary zeal.
In the past ten plus years there has been a resurgence in conversions. In 1997 for example there were over 150,000 Catholics brought into the Church including baptisms, reversions, and conversions in America alone. And half of that total was converts.{2} Throughout the 1990's this was the trend. It may not be as quantitative as in a few of the years preceding the Council but it is comperable to that period. And as far as the qualitative nature of converts today, it is on the whole arguably of greater import than in the nineteenth century through early twentieth centuries - to say nothing about the mid twentieth century period.{3}
For why should anyone be terribly concerned about making converts if formal membership in the Church—being inside the Church as a visible Mystical Body—is no longer viewed as crucial to anyone’s prospect of salvation?
And who has claimed that there is "no concern" on the matter??? To again quote myself:
[T]he Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part X (c. 2003,2000)]
Mr. Ferrara can continue to whine, disingenuously misrepresent magisterial teaching, promote factionalist uncharitable behaviours, and undermine the credibility of the Church if he wants to. (For his pride continually feeds on itself and spurs him to rebellion against the magisterium and thus against the Church he claims to defend.) The rest of us will carry the weight of bringing the Gospel to others each according to their abilities. Hopefully in time Mr. Ferrara can "spiritually become a man and put away the things of a child" (cf. Cor.xiii). Until then prayer is probably our best recourse in his case.
If interested in reading more on the follies of Mr. Ferrara, see the thread located here to read a postscript to the above materials.
Notes:
{1} Or functionally speaking as as defacto "Satellites" of the Western Patriarch.
{2} Sometimes entire parishes have been received into the communion of the Catholic Church.
{3} If the converts of the past were properly taught certain key distinctions, the "traditionalist" movement would not have arisen as it did sapping the Mystical Body of needed energy in the immediate period after the Council.
This is a sequel in some respects to the thread located HERE. Apparently Mr. Ferrara was not too keen on a recent review from The Wanderer on his book. Nor was he too keen on a review from Michelle of the And Then? weblog either.
After musing on the matter for a bit, I decided not to link to either Omar Gutierrez' review or Mr. Ferrara's response to it. In the case of the former, I have only read parts of it in detail and have scanned the rest. As for the latter, the problem is one I pointed out that is common with Integrist screeds in my previous entry. The essence of the point was [how] easy it must be for Mr. Ferrara to make such wide sweeping indictments which he knows his opponent would have to take some time and energy to unpack in order to refute properly. Indeed one would have to write a book to respond to it all. I do not have that time nor do I plan to set aside time to do so. However, as a friend of mine indicated an intention to do a more complete response of one of Mr. Ferrara's articles, these notes of mine from a May discussion list on this subject (taken from the article my friend plans to respond to) are posted for his assistance and also for the musing of the readers of this humble weblog.
As in the last response, Mr. Ferrara's parts will be in dark yellow font with his sources italicized. My sources will be in darkblue font. "TGF" is a reference to Mr. Ferrara's book The Great Facade. "YT" is shorthand for "young theologian". This is Mr. Ferrara's snide deriding of Mr. Gutierrez - presumably because of the latter's age.
In order to expose YT's error and its relation to his critique of TGF, some preliminaries are necessary. I begin by noting that in his monumental encyclical Mystici corporis, Pope Pius XII, citing the teaching of his great predecessor Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, expounded with great force and clarity the Church’s traditional ecclesiology, according to which the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are held to be one and the same thing.
Satis Cognitum is an encyclical letter on the unity of the Church. Besides, for one who wants to reference SC, there is a passage that Ferrara and the Remnant sorts do not seem to want to focus on:
The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head" (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. "There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church" (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25). [Satis Cognitum §10}]
I go over this in more detail HERE. In brief though, Satis Cognitum is concerned with pointing out the doctrine of the Church pertaining to the Roman Pontiff, the Bishops in communion with him, and the entire hierarchial structure of the Church and how it safeguards the unity of the Church. The intention to deal with those who had long been separated from the Apostolic See was not the intention of the encyclical. Nor was the subject of salvation for those not in visible communion with the Church a subject covered in that encyclical. But much as proof texters do, Mr. Ferrara will cite whatever he thinks can make his case - proper context of the statements themselves be damned.
As Pius XII declared: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ—which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church—we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ'—an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.
I am surprised that so-called "traditionalists" make this error continually. I mean Pius XII's magisterium is supposed to be so "perspicuous" according to them. Notice thought where these guys go astray.
Mr. Ferrara quotes Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Pius XII "seemed" to say that the Mystical Body of Christ was identified solely with the Catholic Church in complete identity. This is the core of the very error that snared Fr. Leonard Feeney after Mystici Corporis Christi was published. Meanwhile, Mr. Ferrara proof texts Pius XII a few times to claim there is a contradiction. As usual, Mr. Ferrara failed to do his homework. Here is what Pius XII's encyclical actually says. I will highlight the key points and add the word implied by the text in brackets.
As He hung upon the Cross, Christ Jesus not only appeased the justice of the Eternal Father which had been violated, but He also won for us, His brethren, an ineffable flow of graces. it was possible for Him of Himself to impart these graces to mankind directly; but He willed to do so only through a visible Church made up of men, so that through her all might cooperate with Him in dispensing the graces of Redemption. As the Word of God willed to make use of our nature, when in excruciating agony He would redeem mankind, so in the same way throughout the centuries He makes use of the Church that the work begun might endure.
If we would define and describe this true [visible] Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.
The visible church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church. This is not the complete identity that pundits such as Mr. Ferrara seem to want to make. The distinction between body and soul of this period resulted in the mystical body metaphor often being applied to the visible church in a predominantly juridical manner. This was the manner in which it was applied in the encyclical Humani Generis:
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. [Humani Generis §27]
If one notes the footnote at the end of this statement in the text, it is Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq. In reference speak, "Cf" and "Cfr" mean "paraphrase" or "approximation." If not for the fact that the encyclical footnote specifically denotes a paraphrase, one could possibly impute some error to the encyclical Humani Generis (HG) since Mystici Corporis does not say exactly what HG §27 is asserting it does. It is also important to pay attention to context. The error that those who were being corrected was addressed in Mystici Corporis Christi (MCC) and reference to the encyclical duly footnoted would reveal the following:
[T]hey err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
In short, the proscribed error in HG §27 is the one condemned in MCC about the Church being something solely invisible or "merely peumatological" as if there is not a visible structure also to the Mystical Body. Those who used the term "Mystical Body" in this context were committing an error.
In one simple, elegant sentence Pius XII made it perfectly clear that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. In other words: Church of Christ = Roman Catholic Church = Mystical Body of Christ.
The visible Church of Christ is indeed the Catholic Church. And the Mystical Body is the Catholic Church. But to refer to it as the "Roman Catholic Church" is to limit it to the west since the Eastern Catholics are not "Roman Catholics" as that term is generally understood. The problem for Mr. Ferrara is that he does not seem to recognize the shift in emphasis in Lumen Gentium to the Church as predominantly mystery with the visible elements understood as integrated into the whole. It is in essence an inversion of MCC where the emphasis was primarily on the visible Church with a secondary thread devoted to the Church's mystery.
However, the exposition as such in MCC had one weakness to it and that was how to explain those of good will who were not part of the visible church who were nonetheless of good will were saved. The dichotomistic concept of "body" and "soul" was a common analogy at this time. Before concluding the encyclical, here is how Pius XII sought to bridge the chasm:
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.
Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God" is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will." Therefore whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act. For men must be effectively drawn to the truth by the Father of light through the Spirit of His beloved Son, because, endowed as they are with free will, they can misuse their freedom under the impulse of mental agitation and base desires. Unfortunately many are still wandering far from Catholic truth, being unwilling to follow the inspirations of divine grace, because neither they nor the faithful pray to God with sufficient fervor for this intention. Again and again we beg all who ardently love the Church to follow the example of the Divine Redeemer and to give themselves constantly to such prayer. [Mystici Corporis §103-104}]
In short, Pius XII by admitting that "they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" had set the stage for Paul VI's musings on the matter in Ecclesiam Suam and Lumen Gentium's further explanation of how this relationship was to be properly understood.
The distinction was in short between body and soul in Pius' exposition. Lumen Gentium went about expounding on this subject in a different and more complete matter - and was prefigured on this by Pope Paul's first encyclical letter Ecclesiam Suam. In Lumen Gentium, the use of subsistare was making a distinction between the visible church and salvific efficacy. To quote from my treatise on the subject of subsistare:
Subsistence is a specific kind of existence. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines it as "that perfection whereby a being is capable of existing in itself" (Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary pg. 507). Subsistence (Lat. subsistare) is an old Scholastic term used to explain the manner whereby God exists. Unlike all other entities, God does not depend on another source for His existence. Instead, He is fully subsistent. Likewise the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in such wise as she does not depend on any other Church or ecclesial community for she possesses the fullness of grace and truth. The same cannot be said of other Churches or ecclesial communities which depend on the Catholic Church for what degrees of truth that they possess.
So the Church of Christ can be properly said to subsist in the Catholic Church as this denotes existence to the fullest possible extent. Of course since the Church had never fully specified her boundaries explicitly prior to VC II, there was no way of knowing what the exact boundaries of the Church were. This is why the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church would insist on the necessity of belonging to the Church for one to be saved but they never at the same time declared anyone individually not in the visible Catholic Church to be damned. Think about that for a moment: not one Father said that it was not necessary to belong to the Church for one to be saved. At the same time no one who died outside the Church was ever declared to be damned by the Church in all of history (not even Judas). What this says about the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is that while it is a necessity surely that nevertheless God in the end is the final judge of who is inside the Church (be they implicitly or explicitly so) because only He knows the inner person. Here is the context of the term subsistare from Lumen Gentium (LG) §8.
The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complete reality which comes together from a human and a divine element. For this reason the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (cf. Eph. 4:15).
This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." [Lumen Gentium §8]
For an example of an "element of sanctification" that can be found outside the visible confines of the Church, consider the sacrament of baptism. When Pope St. Stephen in the mid third century decreed (against the protestations of St. Cyprian) that heretics were not to be re-baptized and the baptisms of heretics even by heretics were valid (as long as they baptized by water in a Trinitarian fashion), consider what he was saying about the Church as the custodian of the sacraments. The Church has always taught that only she was the custodian of the sacraments but heretics can validly baptize as long as they use the proper formula (Trinitarian formula). What this says is that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church always recognized implicitly that God's grace flowed through the Church and that God did not punish those outside the Church who (through no culpable fault of their own) were ignorant. In short, if they were good people who did as best as they knew how the will of God, then they would be justified in God's eyes (Acts 10:34). God only holds us accountable for what we know and only actual unrepented sins bring about our condemnation.
God is infinitely merciful; therefore He cannot judge someone without taking all aspects into account including that they may have been born in a disadvantaged situation. (Being a cradle Catholic is a blessing that far too many people do not realize.) The knowledge of the truth may through situations beyond their control be limited. As long as they are not knowingly resisting the truth then they can in some cases perhaps be saved in spite of the beliefs they hold and not because of them. The rationale here being that a person who knew the necessity of explicit membership in the Catholic Church if they were of good will and desirous of doing as God wills, they would join the Church. This was the rationale behind the concept of baptism of desire and also an implicit witness to the bounds of the Church which for the first time was explicitly set forth in Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church.
The exposition of the Church in LG is a true development of doctrinal terminology and not an innovation as 'traditionalists' claim it is. However, such an exposition in no way implies that our separated brethren are not to be evangelized of course. Far from it, the Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. And if they deny the rigorous interpretation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus - which they claim to (Archbishop Lefebvre was a defender of baptism of desire), then they by default profess that the Church of Christ can exist outside the visible boundaries. And to do this is to accept the notion of subsistare.
Traditional terminology of "body" and "soul" sought to explain this mystery but the analogy was flawed in some aspects. By contrast the term subsistare explains the traditional teaching in a manner that fully takes into account the maxim of St. Thomas that God is not bound by the sacraments. (By logical extension, He is not bound to the visible boundaries of the Church in order to save people either.) To accept this principle is to be in accordance with Tradition and also by default to accept subsistare. To reject subsistare is to reject by default Tradition and implicitly accept Feeneyism. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part X (c. 2003, 2000)}]
The biggest problem Mr. Ferrara has is one which is common to those of a more rationalistic mindset. Like all obnoxious Integrists, Mr. Ferrara has no apparent understanding that the mystery of the Church and the relationship of people to her transcends mere theological cogitations. Paul VI noted this in his first Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam where many of the pointers were put down which would be developed by the Council in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium:
The mystery of the Church is not a mere object of theological knowledge; it is something to be lived, something that the faithful soul can have a kind of connatural experience of, even before arriving at a clear notion of it. Moreover, the community of the faithful can be profoundly certain of its participation in the Mystical Body of Christ when it realizes that by divine institution, the ministry of the Hierarchy of the Church is there to give it a beginning, to give it birth, to teach and sanctify and direct it. It is by means of this divine instrumentality that Christ communicates to His mystical members the marvels of His truth and of His grace, and confers to His Mystical Body as it travels its pilgrim's way through time its visible structure, its sublime unity, its ability to function organically, its harmonious complexity, its spiritual beauty.
Images do not suffice to translate into meaningful language the full reality and depth of this mystery. [Ecclesiam Suam §37]
The inability to understand traditional ecclesiology by Mr. Ferrara continues.
Yet, as we show in TGF, it was none other than Fr. Ratzinger who lauded the "shedding" of the term "membership" at Vatican II, calling that term "terminological armor." It was necessary to shed this "terminological armor," wrote Fr. Ratzinger, because "The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality...Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches…" —meaning, Protestant sects.
What idiocy!!! Fr. Ratzinger as a good ressourcement theologian was not referring to Protestants as Churches because they are properly speaking not Churches. To be a Church there has to be episcopacy and valid sacraments. The argument by Fr. Ratzinger was that the Catholic needed to understand that the Church is more than just the Latin rite. This was a problem before the Second Vatican Council and even today it still is - albeit not nearly as much as it was previously.
The theology of communio (communion) recognizes a collection of Churches diverse in expression but professing one faith and united with the See of Peter - the source of communion of the universal church. Protestant groups could not be included in this vision without first the establishment of an episcopate and then unity in doctrine. With the Orthodox Churches, the degree of unity is over 95% in doctrine even if theological expositions on that unity of doctrine differ in some respects. As the Orthodox are already Churches properly speaking, all that is needed is unity in profession, not absorption of them into the Latin rite as Indian Reservations called "rites."{1}
Fr. Ratzinger even went so far as to say that "A basic unity—of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church—must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.
This is correct. In dealing with the Churches, the emphasis must be towards the individual Churches retaining their own liturgies and devotions and other traditions as far as this is possible. "Conversion" is a term that applies as much to Catholics as to anyone else. Hence the idea that others have to convert and Catholics do not is implied and this is erroneous because all of us are in need of repentance and turning back from sin. What is conversion but "turning back" after all right??? The types of sins may differ but we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (cf. Rom iii,23). A theology that recognizes this is indespensable when it comes to the subject of Christian reunion.
Based on these considerations, TGF expressed the concern that Cardinal Ratzinger's opinions appear to be irreconcilable with the teaching of Pius XII and his predecessors that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. And this is no mere academic dispute. The doctrine of the Mystical Body affirmed by Pius XII (and even Vatican II!) is essential to preserving the vital distinction between the inside and the outside of the Church (for purposes of the dogma "no salvation outside the Church"), and membership and non-membership in her.
Aah but Mr. Ferrara supports schismatics. By the doctrine of Pius XII, he is therefore not to be accounted as a member of the Church. (See MC §22). At least our separated brethren have a ton of potentially inculpable ignorance they have to plow through to see the Church as she really is. What is Mr. Ferrara's excuse???
If these distinctions are lost, Pius warned, the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation will be reduced to "a meaningless formula"—one of the signal errors of neo-modernism.
What is so meaningless about "those who are ignorant of Christ and his Church and are incapable of removing their obstacles through the use of ordinary diligence are not held as liable for it"??? This is not a declaration of anyone in particular being invincibly ignorant. Nor is it an excuse for people to remain where they are using this as a "loophole" if you will. There is no "meaningless formula" being espoused as per the serial suspicions of Mr. Ferrara.
As we have seen over the past forty years, this error leads inevitably to a drastic waning of the Church's missionary zeal.
In the past ten plus years there has been a resurgence in conversions. In 1997 for example there were over 150,000 Catholics brought into the Church including baptisms, reversions, and conversions in America alone. And half of that total was converts.{2} Throughout the 1990's this was the trend. It may not be as quantitative as in a few of the years preceding the Council but it is comperable to that period. And as far as the qualitative nature of converts today, it is on the whole arguably of greater import than in the nineteenth century through early twentieth centuries - to say nothing about the mid twentieth century period.{3}
For why should anyone be terribly concerned about making converts if formal membership in the Church—being inside the Church as a visible Mystical Body—is no longer viewed as crucial to anyone’s prospect of salvation?
And who has claimed that there is "no concern" on the matter??? To again quote myself:
[T]he Council actually urges Catholics to be more zealous in actively evangelizing our separated brethren as our predecessors in the Faith did. However, the reader needs to ask themselves if they actually see 'traditionalist' groups doing this. Evangelization does not mean (i) getting in people's faces and shouting at them (ii) insulting them by lying about their beliefs or (iii) using coercive means of persuasion. How often do the SSPX or other so-called 'traditionalist' groups engage in true evangelical outreaches??? For those who claim to hold the faith, they are not exactly generous in sharing it with others. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism', Part X (c. 2003,2000)]
Mr. Ferrara can continue to whine, disingenuously misrepresent magisterial teaching, promote factionalist uncharitable behaviours, and undermine the credibility of the Church if he wants to. (For his pride continually feeds on itself and spurs him to rebellion against the magisterium and thus against the Church he claims to defend.) The rest of us will carry the weight of bringing the Gospel to others each according to their abilities. Hopefully in time Mr. Ferrara can "spiritually become a man and put away the things of a child" (cf. Cor.xiii). Until then prayer is probably our best recourse in his case.
If interested in reading more on the follies of Mr. Ferrara, see the thread located here to read a postscript to the above materials.
Notes:
{1} Or functionally speaking as as defacto "Satellites" of the Western Patriarch.
{2} Sometimes entire parishes have been received into the communion of the Catholic Church.
{3} If the converts of the past were properly taught certain key distinctions, the "traditionalist" movement would not have arisen as it did sapping the Mystical Body of needed energy in the immediate period after the Council.
Sunday, June 01, 2003
The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog has been rather active in the past couple of weeks. I posted a new entry to it today on the subject of "sola fide trads." Here is the link if you are interested:
The Lidless Eye Inquisition
The Lidless Eye Inquisition
Friday, May 30, 2003
Some very intriguing insights from my friend Pete Vere on a recent event that may signal an unfortunate trend in the SSPX and their negotiations with Rome. After almost two hours on the phone tonight with Pete discussing this subject (among others) let us just say what he notes here is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Points to Ponder:
It is impossible that the precious blood should not in some measure overflow the chalice at Mass and some day--at least at the moment of death-- purify those straying souls who do not resist divine attentions or the actual prevenient graces that inspire their conversion. [Fr. Reginand Garrigou-Lagrange OP: Our Savior and His Love for Us]
It is impossible that the precious blood should not in some measure overflow the chalice at Mass and some day--at least at the moment of death-- purify those straying souls who do not resist divine attentions or the actual prevenient graces that inspire their conversion. [Fr. Reginand Garrigou-Lagrange OP: Our Savior and His Love for Us]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)