| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 396 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 393 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
|
|
| 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia: The Blessed Trinity |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2021, 07:28 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
 |
The Blessed Trinity
This article is divided as follows:
- Dogma of the Trinity
- Proof of the doctrine from Scripture
- Proof of the doctrine from Tradition
- The Trinity as a mystery
- The doctrine as interpreted in Greek theology
- The doctrine as interpreted in Latin theology
The dogma of the Trinity
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
Quote:There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.
Proof of doctrine from Scripture
New Testament
The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.
First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.
The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.
The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias.
Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere, it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature.
- He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
- In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
- He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
- He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
- Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.)
In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23).
In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in 2 Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2-3)
But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10).
Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (1 Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, 1 Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philippians 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles.
The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him.
- He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (1 Corinthians 2:10);
- it is He who distributes charismata (1 Corinthians 12:11);
- He is the giver of supernatural life (2 Corinthians 3:8);
- He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19).
- The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 2:17).
To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17).
Old Testament
The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)
Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the angel of great counsel."
A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclesiasticus 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i.e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person. The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclesiasticus 24:8-13).
In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God. . .the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf. Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", lxxiv).
Proof of the doctrine from Tradition
The Church Fathers
In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the One True God," is typical of many such replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf. Justin, First Apology 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.4.2).
(1) Baptismal formulas
We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by Christ (Matthew 28:19) clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration of the baptised to the one true God (Tertullian, De Spectaculis 4; Justin, First Apology 4). The act of consecration was the invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as created beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever. Amen" (Sermon on Theophany 10).
(2) The doxologies
The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii).
It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians 58-59; Justin, First Apology 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Hebrews 13:15).
But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use.
- In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to come" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14; cf. 22).
- Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit" (The Pedagogue III.12).
- St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Against Noetus 18).
- Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour and glory forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 29.72).
- St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to God with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God").
(3) Other patristic writings
The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, First Apology 6; Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.
Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus (Against Heresies I.22 and IV.20.1-6). In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in The Pedagogue I.6, and somewhat later Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his Creed.
(4) As contrasted with heretical teachings
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.
The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.
It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared — at Smyrna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt. On the other hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum", claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary to save man."
Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in which he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P.G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality.
The information we possess regarding another heresy — that of Montanus — supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist (Against Praxeas 2); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (Against Praxeas 27). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on a point so vital.
Later controversy
Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The Socinian writers of the seventeenth century (e.g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not with Athanasius, but with Arius. Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his great theological work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by Bossuet, Thomassinus, and other Catholic theologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene belief of the Church:
- That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and not equal to the Father;
- that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament, inasmuch as the Father is essentially invisible, the Son, however, not so;
- that the Son is a created being;
- that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time.
We shall examine these four points in order.
(1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the Son with the Father, passages are cited from Justin (First Apology 13, 32), Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.8.3), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.2), Hippolytus (Against Noetus 14), Origen (Against Celsus VIII.15). Thus Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.8.3) says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were established. And Origen (Against Celsus VIII.15) says: "We declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself: "The Father who sent me is greater than I."
Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being the sole source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat our Lord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to His Godhead (cf. Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. The expression is not one which would have been employed by Latin writers who insist that creation and all God's works proceed from Him as One and not from the Persons as distinct from each other. But this truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers.
(2) Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 60) Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV.20.7-11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; Against Praxeas 15-16), Novatian (On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus (To Autolycus II.22), are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world; through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was believed by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work.
(3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata V.14 and VI.7), Tatian (Address to the Greeks 5), Tertullian (Against Praxeas 6; Against Hermogenes 18-20), Origen (Commentary on John I.22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), and Tatian terms the Word the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) the Father."
Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In Colossians 1:16, St. Paul says that all things were created in the Son. This was understood to signify that creation took place according to exemplar ideas predetermined by God and existing in the Word. In view of this, it might be said that the Father created the Word, this term being used in place of the more accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar ideas of creation were communicated by the Father to the Son. Or, again, the actual Creation of the world might be termed the creation of the Word, since it takes place according to the ideas which exist in the Word. The context invariably shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses.
The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never have been employed but for the verse, Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created (ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to the Son, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom was created (Origen, De Principiis I.2.3). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three Persons was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned with Arianism, and employed expressions which in the light of subsequent errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous.
(4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to the Creation of the world the Word was not a distinct hypostasis from the Father. These are found in Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 61), Tatian (Address to the Greeks 5), Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians 10), Theophilus (To Autolycus II.10); Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10); Tertullian (Against Praxeas 5-7; Against Hermogenes 18). Thus Theophilus writes (To Autolycus II.22):
What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word of God Who is also His Son? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought [i.e. as the logos endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the uttered Word [logos prophorikos], the firstborn of all creation, not, however, Himself being left without Reason (logos), but having begotten Reason, and ever holding converse with Reason.
Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of the Stoic philosophy: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these apologists were seeking to explain the Christian Faith to their pagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some Catholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although the Church herself was never involved in the error. Yet it does not seem necessary to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatible with orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded Proverbs 8:22, and Colossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which the Word, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in time. This temporal generation they conceived to be none other than the act of creation. They viewed this as the complement of the eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creative ideas which from all eternity the Father has communicated to the Eternal Word. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly the eternity of the Son, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense.
It should further be remembered that throughout this period theologians, when treating of the relation of the Divine Persons to each other, invariably regard them in connection with the cosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question of creation and deal with the threefold Personality exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible.
The Trinity as a Mystery
The [First] Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.
The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae — "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil, Against Eunomius I.14; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures VI; St. John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.2, etc.).
At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Günther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915).
The Doctrine as interpreted in Greek Theology
Nature and personality
The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology.
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect.
This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them.
The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Against Heresies I.22, II.4.4-5, II.30.9 and IV.20.1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, On the Holy Spirit 38; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Against Noetus 10) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief "in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost."
The Divine Unity
The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenæus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, "His two hands" (Against Heresies IV.20.1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha — P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him.
This doctrine supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. The Greek Fathers regarded the Son as the Wisdom and power of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like manner, the Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from the Son the Father would be without His Wisdom; apart from the Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the Son and the Spirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and faculties are mere accidental perfections, in the Godhead they are subsistent hypostases. Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and Third Persons as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the First Person as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of Deity alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them.
The Arian controversy led to insistence on the Homoüsia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective analysis. The sonship of the Second Person implies that He has received the Divine Nature in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in nature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine Essence is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same nature which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the Divine Nature as communicated to the Holy Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and the Son. Unity of nature was understood by the Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the Three Persons to possess (Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, Epistle 189, no. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom., " John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith III.14). Here we see an important advance in the theology of the Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the Three Persons as each exercising a distinct and separate function.
Finally we have the doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three Persons. The term perichoresis is first used by St. John Damascene. Yet the doctrine is found much earlier. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Son is called the Word and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the mind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen). St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of the Persons. In some passages he explains it by the doctrine already mentioned, that the Son and the Spirit are dynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of the doctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity of essence, will, and action in the Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to the individual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separate existence (kechorismenos einai). In the Godhead the essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separate existence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in the Homoüsia.
It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developed by St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of Latin theology. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the Three Persons to be but one. Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like the Latins, conceived the Nature as logically antecedent to the Persons. He understands the term God as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When we pray, whether we say 'Kyrie eleison', or 'O God aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix).
Mediate and Immediate Procession
The doctrine that the Spirit is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek theology. It is asserted by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his Creed. It is assumed by St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his controversy with the Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orations 31.31-32), of the Three Divine Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in St. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), St. John Damascene (Of the Orthodox Faith I.13), etc. This supposes that the procession of the Son from the Father is immediate; that of the Spirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the Divine Procession as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P.G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three Persons one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the same dogmatic truth. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Son
The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 29.8, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XI.19; John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental thought; but of the uttered word (Athanasius, Dionysius of Alexandria, ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius IV; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 30; Basil, "Hom. xvi"; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi).
We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St. John Damascene (Origen apud Athanasius, De decr. Nic.; Athanasius, Against the Arians I; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.12). It is based on the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No action, transient or immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. God, as the supreme perfection, is from all eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this philosophy as their basis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power — a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink.
The Holy Spirit
A point which in Western theology gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (On the Trinity XV.37). To the Greek Fathers, who developed the theology of the Spirit in the light of the philosophical principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held, reveals to us His distinctive character as the Third Person, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive characters of the First and Second Persons (cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration of Faith; Basil, Epistle 214.4; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 25.16). He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic holiness of God, the holiness by which God is holy. Just as the Son is the Wisdom and Power by which God is wise and powerful, so the Spirit is the Holiness by which He is holy. Had there ever been a time, as the Macedonians dared to say, when the Holy Spirit was not, then at that time God would have not been holy (St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.4).
On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of John 10:22 where Christ, appearing to the Apostles, breathed on them and conferred on them the Holy Spirit. He is the breath of Christ (John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of life by which we enjoy the supernatural life of God's children (Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the supernatural order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that of Western theologians. According to Western doctrine, God bestows on man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that gift the Three Persons come to his soul.
In Greek theology the order is reversed: the Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have received sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we receive the gift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continued existence of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen, Commentary on John II.6; Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the Holy Spirit constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of Christ, He imprints the likeness of Christ upon us; since Christ is the image of the Father, we too receive the true character of God's children (Athanasius, loc. cit.; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the Holy Spirit is termed the Giver of life (zoopoios). In the West we more naturally speak of grace as the life of the soul. But to the Greeks it was the Spirit through whose personal presence we live. Just as God gave natural life to Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of life, so did Christ give spiritual life to us when He bestowed on us the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The Doctrine as interpreted in Latin Theology
The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected.
It received its final and classical form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points:
- He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for him not God the Father, but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of Augustine's genius.
- He insists that every external operation of God is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of appropriation was unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the distinct activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- By indicating the analogy between the two processions within the Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human mind (On the Trinity IX.3.3 and X.11.17), he became the founder of the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer.
In the following exposition of the Latin doctrines, we shall follow St. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is now universally accepted by Catholic theologians. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been proposed. Thus Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, while adhering in the main to Western tradition, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of St. Thomas.
The Son
Among the terms employed in Scripture to designate the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3).
Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to the Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth (cf. Francisco Suárez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; Petavius, VI, i, 7; Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with revealed truth.
The Holy Spirit
Just as the Son proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the intellect, so does the Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. In human love, as St. Thomas teaches (I:27:3), even though the object be external to us, yet the immanent act of love arouses in the soul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thing loved. In virtue of this the object of love is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our intellect. This experience is the term of the internal act. The Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
If the immanent act of the intellect is rightly termed generation, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty by St. Thomas, Richard of St. Victor, and Alexander of Hales are very different. It will be sufficient here to note St. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his love. This difference in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to the act of the intellect. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name.
The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of the Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the Latins before his time. He mentions the opinion with favour in the "De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and in the "De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by the West. The Scholastics seek for Scriptural support for it in the name Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and Son, a name expressive of a relation within the Godhead proper to the Person who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to person or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted to God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a Divine Person as designating the relation uniting Him to the other Persons, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to God. But that by which any person is devoted to God is love. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit (I:36:1). The Latin theory is a noble effort of the human reason to penetrate the verities which revelation has left veiled in mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the truths of faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction of revelation.
The Divine Relations
The existence of relations in the Godhead may be immediately inferred from the doctrine of processions, and as such is a truth of Revelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian doctrine was familiar to the Greek Fathers. In answer to the Eunomian objection, that consubstantiality rendered any distinction between the Persons impossible, Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 9; John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.8). Augustine insists that of the ten Aristotelean categories two, stance and relation, are found in God (On the Trinity V.5). But it was at the hands the Scholastic theologians that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of the dogma, were found to throw great light upon the mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it.
From the fact that there are two processions in Godhead, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between the Persons. They cannot be distinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is common to the Three Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely certain by all theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by St. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and received ecclesiastical sanction in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but Three Persons. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same Divine Nature, so they possess the same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of the Holy Spirit.
Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)
It will be seen that the doctrine of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that the dogma of the Trinity involves the falsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectly true in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in the dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father and Son are alike identical with the Divine Essence, we are affirming that the Supreme Infinite Substance is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their nature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are Three Persons in the Godhead none can be infinite, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like quantity or quality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of the Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence. The Father is that Essence as it eternally regards the Son and the Spirit; the Son is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Son. But the eternal regard by which each of the Three Persons is constituted is not an addition to the infinite perfection of the Godhead.
The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind. Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.
The question was raised by the Scholastics: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the Son; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father and Son breathe forth the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change action, and its reception passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in the Godhead origination is eternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that the Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We know, indeed, that in the Divine Persons there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one Personality, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (I:32:2).
Divine Mission
It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . . his Son into the world" (John 3:17), and "the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? To this it is answered that mission supposes two conditions:
- That the person sent should in some way proceed from the sender and
- that the person sent should come to be at the place indicated.
The procession, however, may take place in various ways — by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The second condition, too, is satisfied either if the person sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. Though God the Son was already present in the world by reason of His Godhead, His Incarnation made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the object of experimental love. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a procession, may be said to be sent into the soul.
|
|
|
| Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: On the Trinity |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2021, 07:03 AM - Forum: Fathers of the Church
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: On the Trinity
Taken from here [slightly adapted]
The following are excerpts of Trinitarian doctrines found in the early Church Fathers writings. The time frame spans from after the Apostles to Saint Augustine.
St. Ignatius A.D. 30–107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV
But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.” And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.” And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.” And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.”
- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX
For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;” and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;” and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles;
- The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I
St. Justin Martyr A.D. 110–165
For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
- The First Apology Chapter LXI
St. Ireneaus A.D. 120–202
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” . . .
- Against Heresies Book I Chapter X
The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.” And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennœa. For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,—He who formed the world (for the world is of all),—He who fashioned man,—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,—He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.
- Against Heresies Book I Chapter XXII
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.
- Against Heresies Book III Chapter VI
For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;” He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.
- Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XX
St. Clement of Alexandria A.D. 153–217
O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .
- The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI
Tertullian A.D. 145–220
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.
But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
- Against Praxeas Chapter II
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.
- Against Praxeas Chapter III
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.
- Against Praxeas Chapter IV
Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.
Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit), so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.”
- Against Praxeas Chapter IX
Origen A.D. 185–254
From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. . . . Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
- Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III
But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness, we have fallen, in what we have said, into a digression, having considered that the subject of the soul, which accidentally came before us, should be touched on, although cursorily, seeing we were discussing a cognate topic relating to our rational nature. We shall, however, with the permission of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, more conveniently consider in the proper place the subject of all rational beings, which are distinguished into three genera and species.
- Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter IV
For the end is always like the beginning: and, therefore, as there is one end to all things, so ought we to understand that there was one beginning; and as there is one end to many things, so there spring from one beginning many differences and varieties, which again, through the goodness of God, and by subjection to Christ, and through the unity of the Holy Spirit, are recalled to one end, which is like unto the beginning: all those, viz., who, bending the knee at the name of Jesus, make known by so doing their subjection to Him: and these are they who are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: by which three classes the whole universe of things is pointed out, those, viz., who from that one beginning were arranged, each according to the diversity of his conduct, among the different orders, in accordance with their desert; for there was no goodness in them by essential being, as in God and His Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself.
- Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter VI
After these points, now, we proved to the best of our power in the preceding pages that all things which exist were made by God, and that there was nothing which was not made, save the nature of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that God, who is by nature good, desiring to have those upon whom He might confer benefits, and who might rejoice in receiving His benefits, created creatures worthy (of this), i.e., who were capable of receiving Him in a worthy manner, who, He says, are also begotten by Him as his sons. He made all things, moreover, by number and measure. For there is nothing before God without either limit or measure. For by His power He comprehends all things, and He Himself is comprehended by the strength of no created thing, because that nature is known to itself alone. For the Father alone knoweth the Son, and the Son alone knoweth the Father, and the Holy Spirit alone searcheth even the deep things of God.
- Origen De Principiis. Book IV Chapter I.35
If the heavenly virtues, then, partake of intellectual light, i.e., of divine nature, because they participate in wisdom and holiness, and if human souls, have partaken of the same light and wisdom, and thus are mutually of one nature and of one essence,—then, since the heavenly virtues are incorruptible and immortal, the essence of the human soul will also be immortal and incorruptible. And not only so, but because the nature of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, whose intellectual light alone all created things have a share, is incorruptible and eternal, it is altogether consistent and necessary that every substance which partakes of that eternal nature should last for ever, and be incorruptible and eternal, so that the eternity of divine goodness may be understood also in this respect, that they who obtain its benefits are also eternal. But as, in the instances referred to, a diversity in the participation of the light was observed, when the glance of the beholder was described as being duller or more acute, so also a diversity is to be noted in the participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the degree of zeal or capacity of mind.
- Origen De Principiis. Book IV Chapter I.36
St. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria A.D. 200–265
The individual names uttered by me can neither be separated from one another, nor parted. I spoke of the Father, and before I made mention of the Son I already signified Him in the Father. I added the Son; and the Father, even although I had not previously named Him, had already been absolutely comprehended in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit; but, at the same time, I conveyed under the name whence and by whom He proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from the Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is, moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other? . . . Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity.
(From the Same Second Book.)In the beginning was the Word. But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For “the Word was with God.” The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for “I was that” says He, “wherein He delighted.” Christ is truth; but “blessed,” says He, “is the God of truth.”
(The Conclusion of the Entire Treatise.)In accordance with all these things, the form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
- The Works of Dionysius. Extant Fragments. Part I Chapter IV
St. Cyprian A.D. 200–258
Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?
- Epistle LXXII.5.18
St. Augustine of Hippo A.D. 354–430
Those holy angels come to the knowledge of God not by audible words, but by the presence to their souls of immutable truth, i.e., of the only-begotten Word of God; and they know this Word Himself, and the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this Trinity is indivisible, and that the three persons of it are one substance, and that there are not three Gods but one God; and this they so know that it is better understood by them than we are by ourselves.
- Augustine The City of God Book 11 Chapter 29
The true objects of enjoyment, then, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are at the same time the Trinity, one Being, supreme above all, and common to all who enjoy Him, if He is an object, and not rather the cause of all objects, or indeed even if He is the cause of all. For it is not easy to find a name that will suitably express so great excellence, unless it is better to speak in this way: The Trinity, one God, of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one substance. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only Holy Spirit. To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.
- On Christian Doctrine Book I. Chapter 5.5
Wherefore, our Lord God helping, we will undertake to render, as far as we are able, that very account which they so importunately demand: viz., that the Trinity is the one and only and true God, and also how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are rightly said, believed, understood, to be of one and the same substance or essence; in such wise that they may not fancy themselves mocked by excuses on our part, but may find by actual trial, both that the highest good is that which is discerned by the most purified minds, and that for this reason it cannot be discerned or understood by themselves, because the eye of the human mind, being weak, is dazzled in that so transcendent light, unless it be invigorated by the nourishment of the righteousness of faith.
- On the Trinity Book I. Chapter 2.4
And I would make this pious and safe agreement, in the presence of our Lord God, with all who read my writings, as well in all other cases as, above all, in the case of those which inquire into the unity of the Trinity, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; because in no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable.
- On the Trinity Book I. Chapter 3.5
All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized; nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when “there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,” the same Trinity “sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire,” but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, “Thou art my Son,” whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;” but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith.
- On the Trinity Book I. Chapter 4.7
Some persons, however, find a difficulty in this faith; when they hear that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and yet that this Trinity is not three Gods, but one God; and they ask how they are to understand this: especially when it is said that the Trinity works indivisibly in everything that God works, and yet that a certain voice of the Father spoke, which is not the voice of the Son; and that none except the Son was born in the flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; and that none except the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove. They wish to understand how the Trinity uttered that voice which was only of the Father; and how the same Trinity created that flesh in which the Son only was born of the Virgin; and how the very same Trinity itself wrought that form of a dove, in which the Holy Spirit only appeared. Yet, otherwise, the Trinity does not work indivisibly, but the Father does some things, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others: or else, if they do some things together, some severally, then the Trinity is not indivisible. It is a difficulty, too, to them, in what manner the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity, whom neither the Father nor the Son, nor both, have begotten, although He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son.
- On the Trinity Book I. Chapter 5.8.
|
|
|
|
| Trinity Sunday |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-30-2021, 06:09 AM - Forum: Pentecost
- Replies (6)
|
|
FEAST OF THE HOLY TRINITY
From Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays, and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year 36th edition, 1880
This festival is celebrated on the Sunday after Pentecost, because as soon as the apostles
were instructed and consoled by the Holy Ghost, they began to preach openly that which Christ had taught them.
Why do we celebrate this festival?
That we may openly profess our faith in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is the first of Christian truths, the foundation of the Christian religion, and the most sublime of all mysteries; and that we may render thanks, to the Father for having created us, to the Son for having redeemed us, and to the Holy Ghost for having sanctified us.
In praise and honor of the most Holy Trinity, the Church sings at the Introit of this day's Mass:
INTROIT Blessed be the holy Trinity and undivided Unity: we will give glory to him, because he hath shown his mercy to us: (Tob. XII.) O Lord, our Lord, how wonderful is thy name in all the earth! (Ps. VIII. 1.) Glory be to the Father, etc.
COLLECT Almighty, everlasting God, who hast granted to Thy servants, in the confession of the true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of Thy, majesty, to adore the Unity: grant that, by steadfastness in the same faith, we may ever be defended from all adversities. Thro'.
EPISTLE (ROM XI. 33-36.) O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory forever. Amen.
Quote:EXPLANATION St. Paul's exclamations, in this epistle, are caused by the inscrutable judgment of God in rejecting the Jews and calling the Gentiles. The Church makes use of these words to express her admiration for the incomprehensible mystery of the most Holy Trinity, which surpasses our understanding, and yet is the worthy object of our faith, hope and love. Although neither angels nor men can fathom this mystery, it cannot be difficult for the sound human intellect to believe it, since it is indubitably and evidently revealed by God, arid we, in many natural and human things, accept for true and certain much that we cannot comprehend. Let us submit our intellect, there fore, and yield ourselves up to faith; as there was indeed a time when men were martyred, when even persons of all ages and conditions preferred to die rather than to abandon this faith, so let us rather wait until our faith is changed to contemplation, until we see the Triune God, face to face, as He is, and in the sight of that countenance become eternally happy. Thither should all our hopes, wishes,' and desires be directed, and we should cease all fruitless investigations, endeavoring by humble faith and active love, to prove worthy of the beatific vision; for if we do not love Him who is our all, our last end and aim, and lovingly desire Him, we will have to hope of one day possessing Him.
ASPIRATION O incomprehensible, Triune God! O Abyss of wisdom, power, and goodness! To Thee all glory and adoration! In Thee I lose myself; I cannot contain Thee, do Thou, contain me. I believe in Thee, though I cannot comprehend Thee; do Thou increase my faith; I hope in. Thee, for Thou art the source of all good; do Thou enliven my hope; I love Thee, because Thou art worthy, of all love; do Thou inflame ever more my love, that in Thy love I may live and die. Amen.
GOSPEL (Matt. XXVIII. 18-20.) At that time Jesus said to His disciples: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going, therefore; teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Quote:EXPLANATION Christ being God had from all eternity the same power that His Father had; being man, He had this same power by the union of His divinity with His humanity, and on account of the infinite merits of His passion. In virtue of this power, He said to His apostles, before the ascension, that, as His Heavenly Father had sent Him, even so He sent them to all nations, without exception, to teach all that He had commanded, and to receive them, by means of baptism, into the Church; at the same time He promised to be with them to the end of the world, that is, that He would console them in suffering, strengthen them in persecution, preserve them from error, and always protect them and their successors, the bishops and priests, even unto the consummation of the world.
(See Instruction on the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church for the first Sunday after Easter.)
ASPIRATION Be with us, O Lord, for without Thee our pastors cannot produce fruit, nor their hearers profit anything from their words. Be with us always, for we always need Thy help. All power is given to Thee, Thou bast then the right to command, and we are bound to obey Thy commands which by Thy Church Thou bast made known to us. This we have promised in baptism, and now before Thee we renew those vows. Grant now that those promises which without Thee we could not have made, and without Thee cannot keep, may be fulfilled in our actions. Leave us not to ourselves, but be Thou with us, and make us obedient to Thee, that by cheerful submission to Thee true may receive happiness.
INSTRUCTION ON THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. XXVIII. 19.)
Is Baptism a Sacrament?
Yes because in it the baptized person receives the grace of God by means of an external sign, instituted by Christ.
What is this external sign?
The immersion, or the pouring of water, accompanied by the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
What does the baptismal grace effect?
It removes original and actual sin; causing ,man to be spiritually born again, made a new creature, a child of God, and joint heir with Christ.
How many kinds of baptism are there?
There are three kinds: The baptism of desire, which consists in a heartfelt desire for the baptism of water, joined with a perfect love of God, or a perfect sorrow for sins committed, and with the purpose to obey all God's commands; the baptism of blood, which is received by those who suffer martyrdom for the true faith, without having received the baptism of water; the baptism of water, which is the Sacrament of Baptism.
What do the different ceremonies of this Sacrament signify?
They are the external signs of the effects which baptism produces inwardly upon the soul, and should impress us with deep reverence for this Sacrament.
Why is it customary to have a godfather or godmother?
That there may be a witness that the child has received baptism; that in case of the death of the parents, the sponsors may assume their place, and have the child instructed in the truths of religion. St. Augustine speaking of the duties of sponsors, very beautifully says: "They should use all care, often to admonish in true love their godchildren that they may strive to lead a pure life; they should warn them against all detraction, all improper songs, and keep them from pride, envy, anger, and revenge; they should watch over them that they may preserve the Catholic faith, attend the church services, listen to the word of God, and obey their parents and their pastors." Sponsors must therefore be true believers, and of unquestionable morality. No one, unless a Catholic can be chosen for a sponsor, because one who is not a Catholic would not instruct the child in the Catholic faith, or see that others do it; but would be more likely, as experience shows, to draw the child over to error.
What results from this sponsorship?
In baptism, as in confirmation, a spiritual affinity originates between, the sponsors, the one who baptizes or confirms, with the one baptized or confirmed, and with the parents, so that, by a decision of the Church a godfather or godmother cannot contract marriage with any of these parties, unless the impediment is removed by dispensation, that is, by a special permission received from a spiritual superior. But the sponsors have no spiritual relationship to each other.
Why has the Church instituted this spiritual relation?
From reverence for these holy Sacraments, and that by this spiritual bond the sponsors may be more closely connected with their godchildren, and be incited earnestly to discharge their obligation.
Why must the person to be baptized wait at the entrance of the church?
To indicate that until he has thrown off the yoke of sin, and submitted to Christ, and His authority, he is unworthy to enter, because Baptism is the door of God's grace, to the kingdom of heaven, and the communion of saints.
Why does the person receive a saint's name?
That by this name he may be enrolled, through baptism, into the number of Christians whom St. Paul calls saints; that he may have a patron and intercessor, and that the saint, whose name he bears, may be his model and example, by which he may regulate his own life.
Why does the priest breathe in the face of the one to be baptized?
In imitation of Christ who breathed on His apostles when He gave them the Holy Ghost. (John XX. 22.) St. Chrysostom says that in baptism supernatural life is given to the soul as God imparted natural life to Adam by breathing on him.
Why does the priest impose his hand so many times upon the head of the person to be baptized?
To show that he is now the property of God and is under His protection.
What do the many exorcisms signify?
That the evil spirit who previous to baptism holds the person in bondage is now commanded in the name of God to depart, that a dwelling?place may be prepared for the Holy Ghost.
Why is the person so often signed with the sign of the cross?
To signify that through the power of Christ's merits and of His death on the cross, baptism washes away original sin; that the person is to be henceforth a follower of Christ the Crucified, and as such must fight valiantly under the banner of the cross, against the enemies of his salvation, and must follow Christ on the way of the cross even unto death.
What does the salt signify which is put into the person's mouth?
It is an emblem of Christian wisdom and of preservation from the corruption of sin.
Why are his ears and nose touched with spittle?
That as Christ put spittle on the eyes. of the man born blind, thus restoring his sight, so by baptism, the spiritual blindness of the soul is removed, and his mind receives light to behold heavenly wisdom. Also, as St. Ambrose says, the candidate is thus instructed to open his ears to priestly, admonitions, and become a sweet odor of Christ.
Why does the priest ask: "Dust thou renounce the devil; and all his works, and all his pomps?"
That the Christian may know that his vocation requires him to renounce and combat the devil, his works, suggestions and pomps. Thus St. Ambrose very beautifully addresses a person just baptized: "When the priest asked: `Dust thou renounce the devil and all his works,' what didst thou reply? `I renounce them.' `Dost thou renounce the world, its lusts and its pomps?' `I renounce them.' Think of these promises, and let them never depart from thy mind. Thou hast given thy hand?writing to the priest,, who stands for Christ; when thou host given thy note to a man, a thou art bound to him. Now thy word is not on earth but preserved in heaven; say not thou knowest nothing of this promise; this exculpates thee no better than the excuse of a soldier who in time of battle should say he knew not that by becoming a soldier he would have to fight."
Why is the person anointed on the shoulder and breast with holy oil?
As SS. Ambrose and Chrysostom explain this is done to strengthen him to fight bravely for Christ; as the combatants of old anointed themselves with oil before they entered the arena, so is he anointed, on the breast, that he may gain courage and force, bravely to combat the world, the flesh, and the devil, and on the shoulder, that he may be strong to bear constantly and untiringly, the yoke of Christ's commands, and persue the toilsome course of life in unwavering. fidelity to God and His holy law.
Why are, the Lord's Prayer, and the Apostles' Creed said at baptism?
That, when the child is a grown person an acknowledgment of faith may by this means be made m the face of the Church; when children are baptized, these prayers are said by the sponsors who are thus reminded to see that their godchildren are well instructed in these as in all other Christian truths.
Why does the priest expressly ask the person if he will be baptized?
Because as man, through Adam, of his own free will obeyed the devil, so now when he would be received among the number of Christ's children, he must, to obtain salvation, of his own free will obey the precepts of God.
Why is water poured three times upon the person's head?
This is done, as St. Gregory the Great writes, in token that man after this thrice-repeated ablution rises from the death of sin, as Christ, after His three days' burial, rose from the dead. (Rom. VI. 4.5.) In early times the candidate for baptism was immersed three times in the water. For many 'reasons this custom has been abolished.
Why is the person anointed on the top of the head with chrism?
This anointing is, so to speak, the crown of the young Christian. As in the Old Law the kings were anointed, (I Kings X. 1.) as Jesus is the Anointed One, and as the Apostle St. Peter calls the Christians a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy people, (I Peter II. 9.) so the baptized by means of this unction is embodied in Christ, the Anointed One, and participates in His priesthood and kingly dignity. What an exalted position is the Christian's! He is the anointed one of the Lord, and in a spiritual sense a priest, because he constantly brings himself to the Lord God as a pleasing sacrifice in prayer, mortification, &c. He is king when he rules over his inclinations, submits them to reason, and reason to the Lord. Besides this he is king by the claims which, through baptism, he possesses to the kingdom of heaven. Through the chrism he becomes the blessed temple of the Holy Ghost, the sacred vessel which in time, through communion, will contain the precious body and blood of Christ. How does he desecrate this temple when, by grievous sin, he tramples this exalted dignity under his feet and. stains the temple of the Holy Ghost, his soul!
What does the white robe signify?
The holy Fathers teach that this represents the glory to which by baptism we are born again; the purity and beauty with which the soul, having been washed from sin in the Sacrament of baptism, is adorned, and the innocence which the baptized should preserve through his whole life.
Why is a lighted candle placed in his hand?
It is an emblem of the Christian doctrine which preserves the baptized from the darkness of error, ignorance, and sin, illumines his understanding, and leads him safely in the way of virtue; it represents the flame of. love for God and our neighbor which the baptized should henceforth continually carry, like the five prudent virgins, (Matt. XXV. 13.) on the path to meet the Lord, that when his life is ended he may be admitted to the eternal wedding feast; it signifies also the light of good example which he should keep ever burning.
Who is the minister of this Sacrament?
The ordinary minister is the priest of the Church; but in case of necessity any layman or woman, even the father or mother can baptize. Parents, however, should not baptize their own child unless no other Catholic can be procured. The reason why lay persons are permitted to baptize is that no one may be deprived of salvation.
What must be observed particularly in private baptism?
The person who baptizes must be careful to use only natural water, which must be poured on the child's head saying at the same time the words: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; having at the same time the intention of baptizing as the Church does, in the manner required by Christ.
INSTRUCTION ON THE RENEWAL OF BAPTISMAL VOWS
All the graces and dignities which we receive in baptism, God secures to us for the future, only on condition that we keep our baptismal vows. Every Christian in baptism makes a bond with God through the meditation of Christ who has sealed it with His blood. This bond consists, on man's part, in the promise to renounce forever the devil, all his works and all his pomps, that is, constantly to suppress the threefold lust of the eyes, the flesh and the pride of life, by which the devil leads us to sin, and to believe all that God has revealed, and all that His holy Church proposes to our belief, and diligently and properly to make use of all the means of salvation. On the part of God this bond consists in cleansing us from all sin, in bestowing the gifts of the Holy Ghost, in adopting us as His children, and. in the assurance to the inheritance of heaven. This bond will never be broken by God who is infinitely true and faithful, but it is often violated by weak and fickle man. In compliance with the desire of the Church we should often reflect upon it, and from time to time renew it in the sight of God. This should be done particularly before receiving the holy Sacrament of Confirmation, before first Communion, on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, at the blessing of baptismal water, on the anniversaries of our baptism and confirmation, before making any solemn vow, before entering into matrimony and when in danger of death. This renewal of baptismal vows can be made in the following manner: Placing ourselves in the presence of God, we kneel down, fold our hands, and say with fervent devotion:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born and suffered for us.
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
I renounce the devil; all his works and all his pomps.
Christ Jesus ! With Thee I am united, to Thee alone I cling, Thee only will I follow, for Thee I desire to live and die. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
DOCTRINE ON THE HOLY TRINITY
What is God?
GOD is the most perfect being, the highest, best Good, who exists, from all eternity, by whom heaven and earth are create, and from whom all things derive and hold life and existence, for of Him, and by Him, and in Him are all things. (Rom. XI. 36.)
What is the Blessed Trinity?
The Blessed Trinity is this one God who is one in nature and threefold in person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Is each of these three persons God?
Yes, because each of them has the divine nature and substance.
Are they not three Gods?
No, because all three of these persons have one and the same divine nature and substance.
Is any one of these three persons older, mightier, or greater than the other?
By, no means, they are all three from eternity entirely equal to each .other in divine omnipotence greatness and majesty, and must, therefore, be equally adored and venerated.
Ought one to give himself up to the investigation of the most Blessed Trinity?
No; "For," says the saintly Bishop Martin, "the mystery of the Trinity cannot be comprehended by the human intellect, no one however eloquent can exhaust it; if entire books were written about it, so that the whole world were filled with them, yet the unspeakable wisdom of God would not be expressed. God who is indescribable, can in no way be described. When the human mind ceases to speak of Him, then it but begins to speak." Therefore the true Christian throws his intellect under the feet of faith, not seeking to understand that which the human mind can as little comprehend, as a tiny hole in the sand can contain the immeasurable sea. An humble and active faith will make us worthy some day in the other world, to see with ' the greatest bliss this mystery as it is, for in this consists eternal life, that by a pious life we may glorify and know the only true God, Christ Jesus His Son, and the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
|
| Researchers develop vaccine technology in ‘wafer’ form, identical to Catholic host used at Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-29-2021, 11:43 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Researchers develop vaccine technology in ‘wafer’ form, identical to Catholic host used at Mass
Should it come to be used as a means to deliver COVID-19 vaccines, comparisons would certainly be drawn between what has been described
as the 'church' of COVID and the Catholic Church’s own sacramental rites.
A polymer wafer that resembles the host at Catholic Mass could one day be used to deliver vaccines.
May 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A team of researchers from the Universities of Minnesota and Texas have developed a polymer “wafer,” which bears a striking resemblance to the host used at a Catholic Mass, that they predict could become the vaccine of the future and harks back to the warnings of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who pointed to COVID adherence as a new religion.
The six-man development team is composed of three scientists from the University of Minnesota, two from the University of Texas, and one from the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. The study, published in the peer reviewed medical journal, Journal of Controlled Release, explained that the membrane on the underside of the tongue leant itself to absorbing drugs very effectively.
While the membrane could easily absorb smaller molecules, the larger molecules used in vaccines and experimental injections, such as Pfizer’s COVID-19 injection, are too large to enter in this manner and hence are delivered via needles in the arm.
However, the research team believes that the wafer will offer a solution to that, having already proved that the wafer works with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) proteins, and has been designed with a potential future HIV vaccine in mind.
The team noted, though, that the wafers could be used in the future to deliver COVID-19 vaccines.
The wafer itself is predominately composed of alginate and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). According to reports, the alginate ensures that the proteins do not disintegrate and the CMC works to keep the wafer connected to the membrane in order for the proteins to be imparted.
In a press release from the University of Minnesota, Chun Wang, one of the study’s authors and associate professor in the university’s College of Science and Engineering, expressed hope that the technology could revolutionise the future of vaccines.
Quote:“This is just a small step in this long journey,” Wang said. “If we continue this line of work, it can bring us to a point where we will have vaccines — they could be based on DNA, RNA, proteins — that can be stored without refrigeration and easily delivered under the tongue at the sublingual site.”
“They will be quickly disseminated throughout the world because they don’t rely on certain equipment and preservation and all of that stuff. This will be particularly good for low-resource regions of the world, even in America — rural areas that are lacking certain essential facilities and infrastructure.”
Catholics commenting on the wafer have noted the obvious and striking similarity to the host used at every Catholic Mass, which after the words of Consecration becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. In fact, the wafer developed by the team of researchers appears physically to be almost identical to those used at Mass.
Should it come to be used as a means to deliver COVID-19 vaccines, comparisons would certainly be drawn between what has been described as the “church” of COVID and the Catholic Church’s own sacramental rites.
Indeed, in January, Archbishop Viganò, former Papal Nuncio to the United States, described the global adherence to the authoritarian COVID measures as being akin to a religious observance. In light of Pope Francis’s reception of the abortion-tainted injections and subsequent dictate that everyone must take the injection, Archbishop Viganò wrote:
Quote:“The bleak Paul VI Audience Hall has been emblematically chosen as the temple in which to celebrate this new sanitary rite, officiated by ministers of the Covid religion in order to assure, certainly not the salvation of souls, but rather the illusory promise of health for the body.”
Indeed, some weeks before, Archbishop Viganò described the COVID-19 measures as being part of a “pseudo-health regime” governed by people both inside and outside of the Church who were “people corrupt in the soul and sold out to Satan.”
“They have thundered at us, using arcane words like 'social distancing' and 'gatherings,' in an endless series of grotesque contradictions, absurd alarms, apocalyptic threats, social precepts and health ceremonies that have replaced religious rites,” he wrote, when summarizing the year 2020.
The archbishop was supported by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Vatican whistleblower and the former head of the Vatican bank. Gotti Tedeschi spoke of the manner in which society turned to the COVID vaccines as though to a new form of religion:
“The apparent result seems to be a new form of scientism, reincarnated to solve the COVID problem with vaccines to be accepted fideistically (with blind faith), and perhaps nominating itself as the new moral authority of this age, one that demands an act of faith towards the modern religion, the scientific one.”
|
|
|
|
| May 29th - St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-29-2021, 07:41 AM - Forum: May
- Replies (1)
|
|
May 29 – St Mary Magdalen de Pazzi, Virgin
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F8c%2F8e%2F70%2F8c8e70f419b58e9dbc3aa7652433b8fd.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Our Paschal Calendar gives us three illustrious Virgins of the beautiful Italy. We have already kept the feast of the valiant Catharine of sienna; in a few days, we shall be honoring the memory of Angela de Merici, surrounded by her school-children; today, it is the fair lily of Florence, Magdalene de Pazzi, who embalms the whole Church with the fragrance of her name and intercession. She was the loving imitatrix of our Crucified Jesus; was it not just that she should have some share in the joy of his Resurrection?
Magdalene de Pazzi was one of the brightest ornaments of the Order of Carmel, by her angelic purity, and by the ardor of her love for God. Like St. Philip Neri, she was one of the grandest manifestations of the Divine Charity that is found in the true Church. Magdalene in her peaceful Cloister, and Philip in his active labors for the salvation of souls—both made it their ambition to satisfy that desire expressed by our Jesus, when he said: I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?
The life of this Spouse of Christ was one continued miracle. Her ecstasies and raptures were almost of every day’s occurrence. The lights given to her regarding the Mysteries were extraordinary; and in order to prepare her for those sublime communications, God would have her go through the severest trials of the spiritual life. She triumphed over them all; and her love having found its nourishment in them, she could not be happy without suffering; for nothing else seemed to satisfy the longings of the love that burned within her. At the same time, her heart was filled to overflowing with charity for her neighbor: she would have saved all mankind, and her charity to all, even for their temporal well-being, was something heroic. God blessed Florence on her account; and as to the City itself, she so endeared herself to its people by he admirable virtues, that devotion to her, even to this day, which is more than two hundred years since her death, is as fervent as ever it was.
One of the most striking proofs of the divine origin and holiness of the Church is to be found in such privileged souls as Magdalene de Pazzi, on whom we see the Mysteries of our salvation acting with such direct influence. God so loved the world, as to give it his Only Begotten Son; and this son of God deigns to love some of his creatures with such special affection, and to lavish upon them such extraordinary favors that all men may have some idea of the love wherewith his Sacred Heart is inflamed for this world, which he redeemed at the price of his Blood. Happy those Christians that appreciate and relish these instances of Jesus’ special love! Happy they that can give him thanks for bestowing such gifts on some of our fellow creatures! They have the true light; whereas they that have an unpleasant feeling at hearing of such things, and are angry at the thought that there can be an intimacy between God and any soul of which they are not worthy—this class of people prove that there is a great deal of darkness mixed up with their faith.
We regret extremely that we have space for a fuller development of the character and life of our Saint. We therefore proceed at once to the Lessons given in her Office. Even they are too short, and give us but an imperfect idea of this admirable Spouse of Christ.
Quote:Mary Magdalene was born at Florence, and was of the illustrious family of the Pazzi. It might be said of her that she entered the way of perfection when a babe. When ten years of age, she took a vow of perpetual virginity; and having taken the habit in the Carmelite Monastery of Our Lady of the Angels, she became a model of every virtue. Such was her purity, that she utterly ignored everything that is opposed to that virtue. She received a command from God, which she fulfilled, of fasting on bread and water for five years, Sundays alone excepted, on which she might partake of Lenten diet. She mortified her body by a hairshirt, discipline, cold, abstinence, watching, want, and every kind of suffering.
Such was the ardor of divine love that burned within her, that not being able to bear the heat, she was obliged to temper it by applying cold water to her breast. She was frequently in a state of rapture, and the wonderful ecstasies she had were almost daily. In these states, she was permitted to penetrate into heavenly mysteries, and was favored by God with extraordinary graces. Thus strengthened, she had to endure a long combat with the princes of darkness, as also aridity, abandonment by all creatures, and divers temptations: God so willed it, that she might become a model of invincible patience and profound humility.
She was remarkable for her charity toward others. She would frequently sit up the whole night, either in doing the work of the Sisters, or in waiting upon the sick, whose sores she sometimes healed by sucking the wounds. She wept bitterly over the perdition of infidels and sinners, and offered to suffer every sort of torment, so that they might be saved. Several years before her death, she heroically besought our Lord to take from her the heavenly delights wherewith he favored her; and was frequently heard saying these words: “To suffer; not to die.” At length, worn out by a long and most painful illness, she passed hence to her Spouse, on the twenty-fifth of May, in the year 1607, having completed the forty-first year of her age. Many miracles having been wrought by her merits, both before and after death, she was canonized by Pope Clement the Ninth. Her body is, even to this day, preserved from corruption.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4F...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4FSfQ67Q1RI%2FSDqBb2bJKHI%2FAAAAAAAACWQ%2Fpkm17jNSW2Y%2Fs400%2FSt%2BMary%2BMagdalene%2Bde%2BPazzi.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Thy life here below, O Magdalene, resembled that of an Angel, who was sent by God to assume our weak and fallen nature, and be subject to its laws. Thy soul was ceaselessly aspiring to a life which was all heavenly, and thy Jesus was ever giving thee that thirst of Love which can only be quenched at the waters of life everlasting. A heavenly light revealed to thee such admirable mysteries, such treasures of truth and beauty, that thy heart—unequal to the sweetness thus given to it by the Holy Ghost—sought relief in sacrifice and suffering. It seemed to thee, as though there was but one way of making God a return to his favors—the annihilation of self.
Seraphic lover of our God!—how are we to imitate thee? what is our love, when we compare it to thine? And yet, we can imitate thee. The year of the Church’s Liturgy was thy very life. Each of its Seasons did its work in thee, and brought thee new light and love. The divine Babe of Bethlehem, the bleeding Victim on the Cross, the glorious Conqueror of Death, the Holy Ghost radiant with his seven gifts—each of these great Realities enraptured thee; and thy soul, renewed by the annual succession of the Mysteries was transformed into Him who, that he might win our hearts, gives these sublime celebrations to his Church. Thy love of souls was great during thy sojourn here; it is more ardent now that thou art in possession of the Sovereign Good;—obtain for us, O Magdalene, light to see the riches which enraptured thee, and love to love the treasures which enamored thee. O riches! O treasures! is it possible that they are ours too?
|
|
|
|
| St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Meditations for the Ember Days for the Week after Pentecost |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-29-2021, 07:20 AM - Forum: Pentecost
- Replies (3)
|
|
St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Meditations for the Ember Days for the Week after Pentecost
Wednesday Ember Day
Morning Meditation
THE GREAT GIFT OF JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT
God is Omnipotent; but after He has given Himself to us in the Blessed Sacrament He has no greater gift to give us. O wonderful prodigy of Divine love!
I.
The love of Jesus was not satisfied with His shedding His Blood and laying down His life for us in the midst of ignominies and torments, in order to make known His affection for us; but, moreover, to oblige us the more to love Him, on the night, before His death, He would leave us His whole Self to be our Food in the Holy Eucharist. God is omnipotent, but, having given Himself to us in this Sacrament, He has nothing more to give. The Council of Trent says that Jesus, in giving Himself to us in the Holy Communion, pours out upon us all the riches of His infinite love. He pours out, as it were, the riches of His love towards men.
O my dear Jesus, what more canst Thou do to make us love Thee? Oh! make us sensible of the excess of Thy love in, reducing Thyself to Food in order to be united with us sinners. Thou, then, my Redeemer, hast had so much love for me as not to refuse to give me Thy whole Self frequently in the Holy Communion, and I have many times had the baseness to expel Thee from my soul! But Thou wilt not despise a contrite and humble heart. Thou didst become Man for my sake; Thou didst die for me; and Thou hast given me Thyself to be my Food; and what more remains for Thee to do to gain my love? Oh! that I might die with grief as often as I remember having despised Thy graces! I am sorry with my whole heart for having offended Thee. I love Thee, 0 infinite Goodness! I love Thee, O infinite Love!
II.
How honoured would that vassal esteem himself, says St. Francis of Sales, to whom his prince at table should offer a portion from his own dish, or of his own very flesh! Jesus, in the Holy Communion, gives us for our Food, not a portion, from His own table, nor a part of His sacred Flesh, but His whole Body: Take and eat¬this is my body. And at the same time that He gives us His Body He gives us also with it, His Soul and Divinity; so that, as St. Chrysostom says, our Lord, in giving us Himself in the Holy Eucharist, gives us all that He has, and nothing more remains that He can give to us. O wonderful prodigy of love! God, Who is the Lord of all, makes Himself entirely ours!
I desire nothing but to love Thee, 0 my Jesus, and I fear nothing but to live without loving Thee. My beloved Jesus, do not refuse to come again into my soul. Come, for I would rather die a thousand deaths than drive Thee from me any more; and I will do all in my power to please Thee. Come, and inflame my whole soul with Thy holy love. Grant that I may forget all things else to think only of Thee, and to aspire after Thee alone, my sovereign and only Good. O Mary, my Mother, pray for me, and by thy holy prayers make me grateful for the great love of Jesus towards me.
Spiritual Reading - THE VISIT TO MARY
And now as to the Visit to the Most Blessed Virgin, the opinion of St. Bernard is well known and commonly accepted: namely, that God dispenses no graces otherwise than through the hands of Mary: “God wills that; we should receive nothing that does not pass through Mary’s hands.” Hence Father Suarez declares that it is now the sentiment of the universal Church, that the intercession of Mary is not only useful, but even necessary to obtain graces. And we may remark that the Church gives us strong grounds for this belief, by applying the words of the Sacred Scripture to Mary, and making her say: In me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to me all ye that desire me–(Ecclus. xxiv. 25, 26). Let all come to me; for I am the hope of all that; you can desire.
Hence she adds: Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors-(Prov. viii. 34). Blessed is he who is diligent in coming every day to the door of my powerful intercession, for by finding me he will find life and eternal salvation: He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord-(Prov. viii. 35). Hence it is not without reason that the Church wills that we should call Mary our common hope, by saluting her with the words: “Hail, our hope!”
“Let us then,” says St. Bernard (who went so far as to style Mary “the whole ground of his hope”), “seek for graces, and seek them through Mary.” For, as St. Antoninus says, if we ask for graces without her intercession, we shall be only making an effort to fly without wings, and obtain nothing. “He who asks without her as his guide, attempts to fly without wings.” In Father Auriemma’s little book, Affetti Scambievoli, we read of innumerable favours granted by the Mother of God to those who practised this most profitable devotion of often visiting her in her churches or before her image.
Do you also, then, be careful to ever join to your daily visit to the Most Blessed Sacrament a visit to the most holy Virgin Mary in some church, or at least before a devout image of her in your own house. St. Andrew of Crete says, that Mary always bestows great gifts on those who offer her even the least act of homage.
Spiritual Communion during Visit
As it is suggested in the following visits to the Most Blessed Sacrament to make a Spiritual Communion after each, it will be well to explain what a Spiritual Communion is, and the great advantages of making it. A Spiritual Communion, according to St. Thomas, consists in an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament, and in lovingly embracing Him as if we had actually received Him.
How pleasing Spiritual Communions are to God, and how many graces He bestows through their means, was manifested by Our Lord Himself to Sister Paula Maresca, the foundress of the Convent of St. Catherine of Sienna, in Naples. It is related in her Life that our Lord showed her two precious vessels, one of gold, another of silver. He then told her that in the gold vessel He preserved her Sacramental Communions, and in the silver her Spiritual Communions. He also told Blessed Jane of the Cross that each time she communicated spiritually she received a grace like in kind to that which she received when she really communicated. But for us it will suffice to know that the holy Council of Trent greatly praises Spiritual Communion, and encourages the faithful to practise it.
Hence devout souls are accustomed often to make use of this holy exercise of Spiritual Communion. Blessed Agatha of the Cross did so two hundred times a day. Father Peter Faber, the first companion of St. Ignatius, used to say that it was of the highest utility to make Spiritual Communions, in order to receive the Sacramental Communion well.
All, therefore, who desire to advance in the love of Jesus Christ are exhorted to make a Spiritual Communion at least once in every visit that they pay to the Most Blessed Sacrament, and once at every Mass that they hear. Better still on these occasions to repeat the Spiritual Communions three times; that is to say, at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end. TIlis devotion is far more profitable than some suppose, and at the same time nothing can be easier to practise. The above-named Jane of the Cross used to say that a Spiritual Communion can be made without anyone remarking it, without being fasting, without the permission of our director, and that we can make it any time we please; an act of love does all.
Evening Meditation
THE PRACTICE OF THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST - XIII.-THE MEANS OF AVOIDING LUKEWARMNESS AND ATTAINING PERFECTION
I.
Alas, my God, how many souls, for want of applying themselves to lead a life of greater recollection and more detachment from earthly things, care not to receive Holy Communion! And this is the true cause of their not wishing to communicate frequently. They are well aware that to wish always to appear, to dress with vanity, to be fond of nice eating and drinking, of bodily comforts, of conversations and amusements, does not harmonise with frequent Communion; they know that more prayer is required, more mortification, as well internal as external, more seclusion; and on this account they are ashamed to approach the altar more frequently. Without doubt, such souls are right to refrain from frequent Communion as long as they find themselves in that unhappy state of lukewarmness; but whoever is called to a more perfect life should lay aside this lukewarmness, if he would not greatly risk his eternal salvation.
II.
It will be found likewise to contribute very much to keep fervour alive in the soul often to make a Spiritual Communion, so much recommended by the Council of Trent, which exhorts all the faithful to practise it. The Spiritual Communion, as St. Thomas says, consists in an ardent desire to receive Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament; and therefore the Saints were careful to make it several times in the day. The method of making it is this: “My Jesus, I believe that Thou art really present in the Most Holy Sacrament. I love Thee and I desire Thee; come into my soul. I embrace Thee; and I beseech Thee never to allow me to be separated from Thee again.” Or more briefly, thus: “My Jesus, come to me; I desire Thee; I embrace Thee; let us remain ever united together.” This Spiritual Communion may be practised several times a day: when we make our prayer, when we make our Visit to the Blessed Sacrament, and especially when we assist at Mass at the moment of the priest’s Communion. The Dominican Sister, Blessed Angela of the Cross, said: “If my confessor had not taught me the method of communicating spiritually several times a day, I should not have trusted myself to live.”
|
|
|
|
| Fauci In 2012: Gain-Of-Function Research Into Bat Viruses Is Worth The Risk Of A Pandemic |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2021, 07:04 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Fauci In 2012: Gain-Of-Function Research Into Bat Viruses Is Worth The Risk Of A Pandemic
The Federalist | MAY 28, 2021
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci defended “gain-of-function” research in 2012 — wherein scientists extract viruses from the wild and engineer them to infect humans in order to study potential therapeutics including vaccines — as research worth risking a pandemic over.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” Fauci wrote in a paper reported on by The Australian. “Scientists working in this field might say — as indeed I have said — that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
The revelation of Fauci’s 2012 defense of the research comes as new reports emerge, breathing new life into the lab-leak theory among the political establishment that dismissed the origin hypothesis, which was always credible, as a conspiracy theory.
Reporting on previously undisclosed intelligence this month, the Wall Street Journal published a story of three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019, preceding the pandemic’s first outbreak in the Hubei province. The lab, known for its relaxed safety protocols, was reportedly collaborating with the Chinese military and conducting gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses, according to the Trump State Department in a fact sheet not disputed by officials in the Biden administration.
Two years after Fauci’s defense of the high-stakes research, the U.S. government deemed the work so dangerous it was banned. According to longtime journalist and former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, however, Fauci circumvented the U.S. moratorium and supported gain-of-function with grant money from the NIAID funneled through EcoHealth Alliance, operated by Dr. Peter Daszak.
“From June 2014 to May 2019 EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Wade reported in a lengthy Medium post.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul pressed Fauci on U.S. tax dollars going to the Wuhan lab during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions earlier this month.
“Gain-of-function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans. To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus’s ability to infect humans,” Paul said.
Fauci denied that the novel coronavirus was a potential byproduct of funding from the NIAID or its parent organization, the National Institutes of Health.
“With all due respect, you are entirely, entirely and completely incorrect,” Fauci told Paul. “The [National Institutes of Health] has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
In later testimony before House lawmakers, Fauci admitted that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a recipient of a $600,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health to study bat coronaviruses that could infect humans. Fauci has continued to vehemently deny the money went toward gain-of-function research.
Fauci’s denial is “surprising,” Wade wrote, given the evidence of experiments “with enhancing coronaviruses and the language of the moratorium statute defining gain of function as ‘any research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.’” Fauci’s denial, Wade explained, is likely a technical one based on the definition of “gain of function.”
Last weekend, Fauci, who has thrown cold water on the lab-leak theory since the start of the pandemic, with corporate media following suit, conceded he is “not convinced” the novel coronavirus, which has killed nearly 3.5 million people worldwide, was an organic disease.
Fauci’s potential role in funding the birth of the pandemic while disputing the claims to Congress has led several lawmakers to demand the NIAID director’s resignation.
|
|
|
|
| A first even in N. O.: Cardinal appoints woman to head office for priestly formation |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2021, 06:02 PM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
German cardinal appoints woman to head diocesan office for priestly formation
Rainer Maria Cardinal Woelki
COLOGNE, Germany, May 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The archbishop of Cologne has appointed a woman as head of priestly formation, making her the first female to take the important role within the archdiocese, and breaking with the tradition of having such a position fulfilled by ordained men exclusively.
Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, who heads the Archdiocese of Cologne, announced the unprecedented decision in a press release Wednesday.
“The hiring of Dr. Breuckmann-Giertz is another important signal of a necessary, distinctive contribution that women are making in a modern, changed training for priests and deacons,” Woelki said. “With her competence and commitment at the interfaces of education and theology, Dr. Breuckmann-Giertz brings with her the best prerequisites for this.”
Woelki used the opportunity to note his longstanding desire to introduce women into historically male roles in church governance: “The promotion of women in various professions in the Church, explicitly also at the leadership level, has long been a great concern of mine. The elaborated votes of our Pastoral Way Forward and the positive suggestions of the ‘Synodal Path’ encourage me on this way.”
Though the cardinal has voiced his support for female leadership within the Church in the past, suggesting that some women should “become the superiors of priests,” and now installing a woman as head of priestly formation in his diocese, he has stood in opposition to calls by some German bishops for the creation of a female diaconate or, indeed, priesthood.
“There is a clear, conclusive no from Pope John Paul II,” Woelki said regarding the ordination of women in a 2020 interview with German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. He added that even “Pope Francis has just confirmed again” the perennial doctrine of a male clergy, in reference to the Pope’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Querida Amazonia.
Carmen Breuckmann-Giertz has a doctorate in theology from the University of Bonn, and before being appointed to the diocesan office was serving as Director of Studies at a Catholic secondary school.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.noz-cdn.de%2Fmedia%...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.noz-cdn.de%2Fmedia%2F2014%2F07%2F10%2Ftansania_half.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Carmen Breuckmann-Giertz - on far right
“I look forward with respect and drive to the challenges and opportunities that await me in my new position.” Breuckmann-Giertz said in response to her appointment. “I look forward to working with those responsible in the seminary, the Collegium Albertinum, and the Institute of Deacons. Above all, I look forward to getting to know the candidates who are preparing for a clerical profession.”
The theologian told Trauer Teilen, a blog dedicated to grief counseling and ethical end-of-life care, that she has rejected “[t]he old doctrine of the separation of body and soul,” when asked for her beliefs about death in a 2020 interview.
The perennial doctrine of the Catholic Church, however, has traditionally taught that bodily death necessarily involves the separation of the body from the soul, expressly contradicting Breuckmann-Giertz’s understanding. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 997) explicitly describes death as “the separation of the soul from the body,” explaining that the “human body decays and the soul goes to meet God.”
Again, in CCC 1016, the Church teaches, “By death the soul is separated from the body.”
Breuckmann-Giertz’s appointment fulfils part of an “8-point plan for improved protection against sexual violence” in the archdiocese. Along with archdiocesan Vicar General Dr. Markus Hoffman, Cardinal Woelki established the plan in response to an investigation into “the handling of sexual violence in the Archdiocese of Cologne.”
Point eight, Changes in the formation of priests, promises that “[i]n the future, women will be much more active in the formation of priests than before.”
Hoffman announced he was pleased “that with the appointment of Dr. Breuckmann-Giertz we can promptly implement another announcement of our plan.” “Further decisions will follow.” The archdiocese offered no explanation for why a female head of priestly formation addresses historic problems of sexual abuse mishandling.
Despite paving the way for female leaders in priestly formation, Woelki stands as one of few voices of criticism among the German episcopate against the now-infamous Synodal Path.
The Synodal Path was established by the German Bishops’ Conference in 2019 and is expected to convene periodically until 2022. The process involves discussions on four major aspects of the Church’s structure and teaching: ecclesiastical hierarchy and authority; the role of women in the Church; the role of the priest; and sexual ethics.
Woelki blasted some of the stated goals, noting particularly the movement towards “the abolition of obligatory celibacy, women deacons, and the reduction of Catholic sexual morality to the sentence: Between adults, voluntary sexual relations of whatever kind are not to be objected to.”
Following the first synodal meeting in early 2020, Woelki commented that his fears about the unorthodox direction of the process had played out in reality. “[M]any arguments put forward at the first synodal assembly are incompatible with the faith and teaching of the universal Church,” the prelate said at the time.
Woelki added that “due to the way this event was conceived and constituted, a Protestant church parliament is being implemented here … My impression is that much of what belongs to the theological body of knowledge is no longer shared by many of us here … The view according to the tradition of the Church no longer plays a major role.”
Archdiocese Of Cologne, Carmen Breuckmann-Giertz, Priestly Formation, Rainer Maria Woelki
K
|
|
|
|
| French court removes 6 children from British parents of 10 after dispute over Catholic schooling |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2021, 10:18 AM - Forum: Against the Children
- No Replies
|
|
French court removes 6 children from British parents of 10 after dispute over Catholic schooling
Clare and David Graham's daughters, age 9 and 10, have been placed in the care of an Algerian man who has been teaching them 'Muslim prayers.’ The Grahams told LifeSiteNews that French social workers repeatedly made rude comments about their family size and laughed with the police about putting the terrified family in cells.
Quatre enfants de la famille Graham / Four of the Graham children
Read this story in French HERE.
ORNE, France, May 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A British couple who hoped a judge could help settle a dispute over their children’s schooling in France was stunned when the court decided to put the children in foster homes instead.
The six children are all Catholics, and the two little girls — age 9 and 10 — have been placed with a couple who, the mother reports, refuses to take them to Mass but has taught them how “to do Muslim prayers.”
One of children’s adult sisters told LifeSiteNews by email that the four older siblings are “very upset” at the seizure of the six minors and that the younger siblings just want to come home.
“Me and my elder brothers and sister are very upset about them being put in care, and it is very hard when the children ask, ‘When can we come home?’ and we don't know the answer,” said Georgina Graham, 21.
David and Clare Graham first moved to France in 2005 for “a better life” as Clare told LifeSiteNews. As Britain was then part of the European Union, Britons were free to live and work in France. The cost of living in the French countryside was cheaper than living in the U.K., and the Grahams could afford a larger house there.
At the time, the couple had four British-born children. Today, they have 10 children in all, six born in France. The eldest four are grown up and two of them, boys, are in Britain. Two of the girls, age 22 and 21, still live in France and help their parents with their four youngest brothers and two little sisters. David has maintained his family by continuing his profession as a builder in France, carrying out renovations and fixing roof, usually for fellow expatriate Britons.
Whereas David, 55, does not have a religion, Clare, 51, is a devout Catholic. Because she objected to the “rubbish” taught in secular state schools in the family’s neighbourhood — and because the schools give contraception to their students, among other reasons — four years ago the Grahams took four of their children out of the state school system.
Clare’s original idea was to home-school her kids. A parent at the children's school then reported her to French social services when the children no longer attended it. After sending the surprised Grahams a letter, the social workers appeared at their home. This was to be the beginning of a long and very rocky relationship between the Grahams and the various arms of the French social welfare apparatus.
‘I did find their questions intrusive, like they desperately wanted to find something wrong with my parents. I believe they didn't like how my mum is religious and has a lot of children, or the fact that my parents are British.’
Georgina Graham told LifeSiteNews that she had experienced racism and bullying in French state schools.
“I went to the local public schools and had very bad experiences with racism and physical and verbal bullying,” she said.
“(This) is one of the reasons my mother wanted to send my younger siblings to Catholic schools, so that they wouldn't have to go through what my older sister and I did.”
Georgina said, “At school I was tormented for being English and experienced racial slurs daily by students and teachers. I was also assaulted on numerous occasions: head-butted, punched, kicked (...) dog feces put in my schoolbag, chewing gum put in my hair. I had things thrown at me during all of my classes, so it was very difficult to concentrate on the lesson.”
Georgina confirmed that the social workers first “came into (their) lives around four years ago” when a parent reported her parents for taking her brothers out of school. Being questioned by them was a disagreeable experience.
“I did find their questions intrusive, like they desperately wanted to find something wrong with my parents,” she said
“I believe they didn't like how my mum is religious and has a lot of children, or the fact that my parents are British,” she continued.
“They have always been very rude to my parents.”
Traditional Catholic schools
Worried about social services removing her children but also that her children would be morally damaged by the state schools, Clare found sympathetic hearts at private Catholic schools. The two boys (now 15 and 12) continued their studies at a Catholic boarding school in the South of France, and the two girls (now 9 and 10) were enrolled in a Catholic boarding school nearer home. The one-income family is not wealthy, and the children were accepted by both schools on very generous terms. When their two youngest sons (now 7 and 5) were old enough to go to school, the Grahams enrolled them in the local primary school. Clare’s hope was that the little boys would also go to their brothers’ school when they were fluent in French.
The parents did not — and still do not — see eye to eye on the children’s education. David Graham told LifeSiteNews that he doesn’t mind his children being Catholic or going to Catholic schools, but he misses them very much when they are at boarding schools, and he knows that they miss being at home. He would prefer them to go to the local state schools nearby until the family returns to England.
Clare and David had separated on a previous occasion, when Clare had taken their children and gone to live in England for nine months. Eventually, tensions at home, exacerbated by the social workers, once again became too much for Clare, and in November 2020, she went to live in a rented house in another district of Normandy, Calvados, closer to the girls’ school, taking the two youngest boys with her. Clare told LifeSiteNews that she just “needed a break.” David told LifeSiteNews that one of the social workers had suggested that Clare move to Calvados so as to “take the heat off” from social services. Only an hour away, the children saw their father often during the brief separation.
Unfortunately, the move exacerbated the Grahams’ money troubles, already strained by an injury the self-employed David had sustained to his back. Because she had changed addresses, Clare’s family allowance and social security payments were blocked. Thanks to red tape, this situation continued from December 5 until May 11. Clare and the children squeaked by in Calvados on loans from her mother in England.
‘They’ve asked me umpteen times why I have so many children’
Clare and David both maintain that their children were healthy, well-cared for, and happy despite their parents’ troubles. Neither Clare nor David is fluent in French, which made dealing with employees of social services, who frequently arrived to interview any children at home, difficult.
Like her daughter Georgina, Clare believes that the social workers despise her Catholic faith and told LifeSiteNews that they had made inappropriate remarks about the size of her family. When social workers first came to the Graham home, they attempted to discuss contraception with the married Catholic mother.
Five of the Graham children after church
“They’ve asked me umpteen times why I have so many children,” Clare said.
In April 2019, French social services passed the Grahams’ file to the “open environment educational action service” (that is, Service d’action éducative en milieu ouvert, or AEMO). AEMO was supposed to check on the family’s welfare overall — for example, to make sure they had enough money for their needs.
The family’s AEMO case worker seemed to befriend Clare, and it was she, Clare says, who advised her to leave her husband and go to Calvados. The AEMO case worker also suggested that Clare and David work out their disagreements about the children’s schooling in front of a children’s judge. When this led to the children being seized, Clare said, the AEMO worker apologized for setting up the hearing. However, David thinks the caseworker is actually responsible for the court’s decision to take his children.
“I am pretty sure the social worker is the one who swayed the judge even before we went to court,” he told LifeSiteNews.
“I got the feeling the judge just wanted an excuse to place our children.”
The hearing, in late November, was a disaster from the start. On the way to court, one of the little girls threw up on her brother, soiling his shoes. As a result, the boy appeared in court without them, which made a bad impression on the judge. The court documents state also that none of the four children wore a coat to the hearing. Two of the boys were not present, as they been sent back to school in the South of France, and when she found out, “the judge went mad,” Clare told LifeSiteNews, “banging the table, really threatening behavior.”
The children who were present huddled together. They were not forthcoming when they were questioned because they were frightened and intimidated by the court, Clare said. This also made a bad impression on the judge.
“They didn’t speak much to the judge because she was very intimidating,” the mother said.
“I found her intimidating, so heaven knows what they thought of her.”
David appeared with a lawyer; Clare did not. Nettled by the lawyer, Clare accused David of throwing a cot at her—which he had, over twenty years earlier, he admits—and of being mentally ill, which David denies. David, stung, accused Clare of throwing a cup and of pointing a knife at him. He also made unwarranted criticism of the elder boys’ school, which he now regrets. Clare regrets badmouthing her husband to the judge, telling LifeSiteNews her motive was to be able to keep her daughters in the Catholic school they love.
“So we really messed up,” David told LifeSiteNews.
“Neither one of us is violent, but I think we could not have made a bigger mess of the hearing that day.”
The court documents—which were never translated into English for the Grahams, and with which the Grahams take issue—make for sad reading. They allege that the family’s financial situation was “extremely precarious,” with many bills unpaid. Social workers alleged in October that the two youngest boys weren’t in school and that the two older boys didn’t want to go back to their boarding school. They also alleged that David thought this school was too strict and even that Clare had announced she wanted to divorce her husband and leave with the children during the October school break. (Clare denies she wants or wanted a divorce.)
The documents discuss the November separation and the state school’s surprise when the boys didn’t turn up for class. They say David had declared he was afraid to object to their removal to Calvados, for he thought Clare might report him as demented to emergency services. They say he was also afraid Clare might leave France with the children. They also say Clare claimed David was psychotic, had a criminal record back in the U.K., and had abused her.
Three of the Graham children
Clare strenuously disagrees with many of the statements in the court papers.
The documents also indicate that the social workers thought Clare’s Catholic objections to the local state schools were to her discredit: “Mrs. Graham says it would be terrible for [child] who can’t read and write to go to a public school... She considers that the teachings of the secular school are inadequate and immoral.”
Clare told LifeSiteNews that the AEMO caseworker she thought was her friend stood up at the hearing and said that Clare did not want her children in the state schools because they gave out contraceptives. Clare felt humiliated by the stares that followed this announcement.
The documents also claim that the children can’t speak French, which Clare says is “a lie,” adding that her youngest daughters had been at the French convent school for three years, and that the teachers have reported the girls are fluent. The two youngest boys, she admits, are not yet fluent as they have not been at school for long. The documents also suggest that the children have had inadequate schooling, which Clare vehemently denies.
The judge’s decision shocked both parents. Instead of siding with one or the other on the schooling issue, the judge ruled that the children should be removed from their care:
Quote:Although separated materially because of the departure of Mrs. Graham in the department of Calvados shortly before the hearing, the usual residence of the minors was not granted to either of the two parents, this situation having vocation to last insofar as Mrs. Graham indicated not to consider a judicial separation for the moment from her husband. She speaks of difficulty in entrusting the children to the father, which the social services were unable to verify. Finally, it must be noted that although Mr. Graham deplores the choices made by his wife, considering them to be contrary to the interests of their common children, he has never taken a position for the protection of the children until now. In these conditions it is impossible to entrust the minors to one or the other of the parents. No person is capable to be designated as a trustworthy third party and no member of the family seems to reside on the national territory, and it should be recalled that the family was very isolated in the Orne region.
The minor children, who are living with their mother in Calvados, will therefore be placed for 6 months. The parents obtain mediate visits (in presence of third parties) every 15 days in alternation, with the possibility of lightening of these measures. [Emphasis added.]
Clare Graham told LifeSiteNews that her eldest daughter, who is 22, asked to take charge of her brothers and sisters so that they could be together, but her plea was refused. At least one of her adult daughters does, in fact, “reside on the national territory.”
Georgina Graham told LifeSiteNews on behalf of all her siblings that their parents have never neglected them.
“We have never been neglected by our parents in any way,” she said via email.
“They have always put their children first.”
‘It was like a nightmare’
The judge’s decision was not immediate, for she had said she needed to think about it. Then Clare was stunned when she received a letter about two weeks later saying that the children would be “placed,” that is, put into foster care. At first there had been a long delay, and Clare thought it was because there was no foster family that would take all six children. Her court-appointed solicitor had also made an appeal, and apparently a court of appeal was willing to suspend the placement if Clare could prove the children were in school. By then, all four of the boys were enrolled in state schools in Calvados, and the youngest were even receiving extra tuition.
“I thought it was done,” Clare said, meaning the threat of the children being taken away.
When the “placement people”—two women—came to Clare’s house on Friday, March 13 to tell her the children would be taken away on Monday, the mother had just received a letter from the court of appeal, asking her to provide certain papers.
The police eventually burst open the bedroom door, and one of the boys was so frightened, he wet himself. Georgina said that as they drove her to the station, the police laughed over the youngest child’s terror. ‘Whilst I was in the police car, I heard the police laughing hysterically at how their colleague had screamed and kicked down the door where my siblings were hiding and scared my five-year-old brother to death,’ she told LifeSiteNews.
“They contacted the judge who told the placement people to split the children up as no family would take six children together,” Clare alleged.
“I told the placement people that everything was well with the children; they were all at school [and] we had no problems. They dismissed me, saying the judge wants them in care so they will be going into care.”
Clare was devastated.
“We ran,” she said. “I couldn’t sit back and let them get taken like that.”
The social workers had told Clare to pack suitcases and prepare the children to leave for their foster homes. Clare and one of her adult daughters did pack up, but they fled the small house in Calvados on Monday with the children. These included the girls, who had come home from their boarding school on Friday.
Clare’s British passport had run out, and although she had applied for them, she hadn’t yet received British passports for the children. As a result, they moved from place to place in France before finally returning to David and the family home in Orne. There they must have let their guard down, Clare believes, for as she looked out the window early on Tuesday, April 6, she saw the police arrive.
“I’ve never been so frightened in my life,” she said.
The house in Orne is made of two dwellings joined together. The police “tore apart” one of them before entering the wing where Clare was hiding with the children in a bedroom.
“We heard them all next door, me and the children, and [the children] were terrified,” she recalled.
Georgina Graham described what it was like to be on the other side of the wall:
Quote:I woke up around 7 a.m. to my dad telling me to hurry downstairs — “The police are here to see you.” When I got down, I was confronted with about ten or twelve police in the kitchen. The chief approached me and was very aggressive and frustrated because they had still not found my mum and the six children after three weeks of searching for them. He raised his voice and said that he has been made a fool of because of me and my family. He then said, ‘I am going to ask you one last time where they are, and if you don't tell me, you will be arrested right now and put in custody until you do.’ I answered, 'I still don't know where they are’ and was then arrested, searched and put in a cell.
The police eventually burst open the bedroom door, and one of the boys was so frightened, he wet himself.
“My [5] children were pulled from my arms by social services and quickly rushed into cars and driven away extremely distressed,” Clare said.
“Nothing prepared me for that; it was like a nightmare.”
The Grahams’ 15-year-old son was taken away by police, alone and frightened, for questioning. Clare and David were arrested and charged with kidnapping their own children, and their adult daughters were also arrested and charged. The latter were kept in police cells for three hours, their mother said.
Georgina said that as they drove her to the station, the police laughed over the youngest child’s terror.
“Whilst I was in the police car, I heard the police laughing hysterically at how their colleague had screamed and kicked down the door where my siblings were hiding and scared my five-year-old brother to death,” she told LifeSiteNews.
The situation did not improve at the separate police stations to which the Grahams were taken.
“My treatment by the police was terrible,” Clare recalled.
“I was kept for 11 hours and not even offered a drink of water. The policeman interviewing me persistently shouted in my face, and two others present with him thought it was amusing.”
Clare accuses the social workers, too, of finding their situation laughable. When the social workers came to her house in March to say they were taking her children, Clare heard them laughing and asking each other who spoke the best English, she said. When the “placement people” came to the police station to take her 15-year-old son, they laughed with the police about putting the family in cells. Later, when social services returned a call by one of the adult daughters, they left a message on her phone, forgot to hang up, and “could be clearly heard to be laughing about it in the background,” Clare said.
The children were divided and put in different families, ones that do not share their faith and do not take them to Sunday Mass. The two girls, aged 9 and 10, were placed with an Algerian Muslim man and his French wife, against Clare’s wishes. Clare’s daughters have told her that their carer has said he wants to take them to visit Algeria. Meanwhile, when Clare expressed surprise that her dress-loving daughter was dressed, on a visit, in black jeans bought by their foster parents, a social worker told her that it was a good thing the children were in placement, for that way they could “express themselves.”
No Catholic schools, no Catholic Mass — but Muslim proselytism from foster parents okay?
Clare says she has seen her children only twice since April 5 even though most people get to visit their children in foster care once a week. The children are permitted to call her and speak to her for only up to 15 minutes, and only on weeks they haven’t seen her. Meanwhile, her request that her children continue to attend Catholic schools has been denied. Last week she was told it would help her case if she would sign a form saying that she will now place all her children in state schools.
“So I’ll get the children back so long as I follow what they say I’ve got to do,” she said.
‘I think it was done deliberately. [The placement workers] knew they were girls from a Catholic convent school, and yet they were placed with a Muslim man and his wife.’
And although the children have not been permitted to go to Mass, two of them are receiving religious instruction from quite a different quarter.
“I spoke with my daughters tonight, and they are not happy at all,” Clare told LifeSiteNews on May 13.
“[They] keep asking when they can come home. Shockingly, they asked if they could attend [Ascension Day] Mass today, but instead they were told how to do Muslim prayers,” she continued.
“I think it was done deliberately. [The placement workers] knew they were girls from a Catholic convent school, and yet they were placed with a Muslim man and his wife.”
Meanwhile, the siblings in the different fostering households are not permitted to see each other, and their sister Georgina’s request to visit them in person has been denied.
The court of appeal in Caen will give a judgement on the case in June.
Friends and family in Britain support the Grahams: ‘They were just a normal family’
An appeal has been made to raise funds for the Grahams to pay a private lawyer to get their children back home. Both parents have told LifeSiteNews that they wish to return to England with the children. Clare intends to homeschool them with the support of her extended family.
Gemma Lloyd, the English woman who set up the fundraiser, told LifeSiteNews that she is a family friend of the Grahams, having known Clare from their church community in Yorkshire since she was a little girl.
“I was told at Mass one week by Clare’s mother that this is happening to Clare, so I thought I should try to help in lots of different ways, contact some people who could help her in France, and then [realized] that she needs financial help,” Lloyd said.
The fundraiser was delayed while Clare worked with the court-appointed lawyer, but when this proved fruitless, Lloyd launched the giving page.
“We wanted to get her the best, really,” she said.
Lloyd last saw Clare and her children when they were last in Yorkshire, when the youngest was a baby, and she said the children were “as normal as they come.”
“They were just a normal family,” she asserted.
Asked why she thought the French state took away the Grahams’ children, Lloyd indicated that she believes secular ideology is behind it.
“They want to control the children’s minds and take away anything to do with God, anything to do with religion,” she continued.
“And to me the Catholic country that France was, is no longer Catholic. It’s more or less communist, like our Lady of Fatima warned us of.” [Emphasis The Catacombs]
Clare’s mother Sheila Campbell told LifeSiteNews that she and her husband are very distressed with the whole situation.
“We have 18 grandchildren and have tried to be involved with them all, as I believe that grandparents have a lot to offer the young ones in giving them a broader experience in life,” Mrs. Campbell said via email.
“George (my husband) and I both had grandparents who passed on a love of our Catholic faith, as well as sound advice on life itself,” the grandmother continued.
“I am therefore so upset that my younger grandchildren have been taken away in these circumstances, for no reason that I can understand. We have been refused permission to speak to them for the reason that we would speak to them in English and they would not understand what was being said. We would hardly be planning to take over the world!”
Campbell was distressed again to hear that her youngest granddaughters were being instructed in Islamic prayers.
“I know it was Eid, but more importantly, it was Ascension Day, and they should have been at Mass, not at a Muslim celebration,” she said.
Like her daughter, she thinks the girls were placed in that particular home because they were just completely their third year in a convent school when they were taken away.
“[The girls] were asking Clare last night why they can’t go back to the nuns, where they were settled and happy,” the grandmother wrote.
“I cannot begin to properly express how distressed and emotional I feel about this situation. We all just want the children back with the family and as soon as possible to be back in Yorkshire with their extended family who are all incredulous about the whole affair.”
Clare Graham has not received help from British authorities, even though her mother has contacted her MP and written to many others, including Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The British Embassy in Paris has been of limited use. Clare told LifeSiteNews that the British Embassy had been helping repatriate the family back to the U.K., but “all that came to a stop” after the hearing. Clare believes that when she contacted the British Embassy, when she was on the run, the official she spoke to called social services to report the conversation. One of the difficulties of the case is that Clare doesn’t believe that her six youngest children are French citizens, but the French bureaucrats they have dealt with say that they are.
Meanwhile, Clare’s medical doctor in France has been supportive and recently wrote two letters to the court to say, Clare says, that the mother “has always looked after the children well and didn’t have any mental health problems.”
According to the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child has, “as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” The Convention states also that the child has the right “to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.” The child also has the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
Article 30 of the Convention is very clear about the rights of ethnic minority children, as the English-speaking Graham children are in France:
Quote: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.”
LifeSiteNews has reached out to the Mother Superior of the convent school in which the girls were pupils, but she would not comment on the case. LifeSiteNews also reached out to the British Embassy in Paris, but its spokeswoman would not speak on record.
To assist the legal fund for the Graham family, click here.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis appoints UK bishop known for criticizing traditional liturgy as head of the CDW |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2021, 09:53 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis appoints UK bishop known for criticizing traditional liturgy as head of the Congregation for Divine Worship
Archbishop Arthur Roche, the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine WorshipLumen Civitatis / YouTube
VATICAN CITY, May 27, 2021 (LifeSiteNews - adapted) – Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Arthur Roche as the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW), replacing Cardinal Robert Sarah and potentially ushering in a new era of active opposition to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. ...
The press release from the Holy See, issued May 27, announced the news of Roche’s appointment, alongside that of the new Secretary and under-Secretary of the Congregation.
Archbishop Roche, formerly bishop of Leeds, U.K., served as Secretary of the Congregation from 2012 through this year, having been appointed to it by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
Roche previously served as bishop of Leeds from 2004 through 2012, and auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Westminster from 2001 through 2002, under Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.
Commenting on the news, CNA Europe editor Luke Coppen wrote that Roche’s appointment demonstrated the level of influence that was enjoyed by Cardinal O’Connor, who was one of the group of clerics dubbed the “St. Gallen mafia,” a group that wished to radically change the Church and make it “much more modern.”
Roche is joined by Bishop Vittoria Francesco Viola, O.F.M., of Tortona as the new Secretary of the Congregation and Monsignor Aurelio Garćia Marćias, the current Head of Office of the Congregation since 2016, as the new under-Secretary, raising him to the episcopate at the same time.
Roche set to lead a new-look CDW
The appointment of Roche comes in light of fears that Pope Francis is about to restrict the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (also referred to as the Traditional Latin Mass, or the Tridentine Mass). Reports have emerged in recent days stating that Francis has spoken to the Italian Bishops Conference, telling them that he has finished the third draft of a document that will restrict the offering of the Extraordinary Form.
Vatican journalist Diane Montagna announced today that Messa in Latino, the original source of the news, had confirmed to her that the information was trustworthy and had come to them from three bishops and two high ranking members of the Roman Curia, who were all present at the event.
Indeed, Pope Francis recently initiated a peculiar investigation into the CDW. Archbishop Roche sought to downplay the news, but Rome sources confirmed to LifeSiteNews at the time that it was far from a regular event. Italian newspaper Il Messagero has called it a “decidedly unusual extraordinary act personally ordered by the Pope to ‘straighten out’ the Congregation of Divine Worship.”
Given that it came shortly after the announcement of new restrictions being placed on celebrating the traditional Mass in the Vatican, the news has led to speculation that it is part of an effort by Francis to remove from the Congregation those members who are more sympathetic the traditional Latin liturgy and its theology.
Roche’s history on the Latin Mass and Vatican II
Various commentators have noted that Archbishop Roche has taken action several times to limit the celebration of the traditional Catholic liturgy.
Following Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, which gave priests permission to offer the traditional Mass without seeking permission from their bishop, Roche swiftly declared that the power of the bishops to prevent the Latin Mass was still in effect, and issued guidelines on the matter.
In 2020, he penned a letter to the bishops of the world attacking the traditional Mass and praising the Second Vatican Council’s paradigm shift in its view of the Church, hailing the fact that the Council had removed the notion of the Church as a “perfect society and a world power to be contended with,” and instead was viewed as “constantly open to reform and conversion.”
The 71-year-old prelate styled the new rite of the Mass, the Novus Ordo, as the “good fruit from the tree of the Church.” He called it an “ecclesiastical duty” to implement the Novus Ordo, criticizing how the Extraordinary Form did not promote the community celebration by the laity, and how the Extraordinary Form had “the priest alone as celebrant.”
Roche called the Novus Ordo missal of Paul VI “a witness to unchanging faith and uninterrupted tradition.”
He also strongly advocated the community celebration over the priestly celebration, condemning the so-called “passive” role played by the congregation at the Traditional Latin Mass.
The Novus Ordo was a result of the “dawning consciousness” that moved away from the “solely clerical version of the liturgy,” wrote Roche.
However, traditional theologians have warned of the dangers of such language around community celebration, warning of a blurring of the lines between priest and people. In his work on the liturgy, The Destruction of the Roman Rite, Don Leone warns that with this teaching, “the congregation no longer unites itself spiritually with the unfathomable mysteries of the Mass, but usurps the functions of the clergy.”
Indeed, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII warned of the dangers of Roche’s view, describing as erroneous the position that “they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a ‘concelebration’ in the literal meaning of that term and consider it more fitting that priests should ‘concelebrate’ with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.”
The “good fruit,” which Roche proclaims, has previously been described by liturgy expert Dr. Peter Kwasniewski as responsible for diminishing belief in the Real Presence. Kwasniewski stated that the “liturgical reform cruelly diminished” the liturgical gestures of love and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, “and introduced other practices, now habitual to the point of being immovable, that suggest we are dealing with common food and drink.”
Commenting on Roche’s 2020 letter, Una Voce Scotland described it as “a feeble attack on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.”
Aside from promoting the new style of liturgy, Archbishop Roche has also declared that Vatican II, described as “pastoral” in the opening address of John XXIII, was in fact of far greater weight, perhaps even than any council before.
“The Second Vatican Council for the first time ever solemnly proclaimed a body of doctrine on the Church which is now part of the Church’s Magisterium,” Roche wrote in February 2020.
Roche and Holy Communion
While acting as Secretary for the CDW, Roche gave his name to a controversial letter sent from the CDW, which supported a U.S. bishop in his decision to ban the faithful from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue during the COVID-19 disruption.
“As has already been enunciated in the circular letter of Card. Robert Sarah of August 15, 2020, and approved for publication by His Holiness Pope Francis, ‘in times of difficulty (e.g., wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed’, even clearly, as in this case, to suspend for whatever time might be required, reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at the public celebration of the Holy Mass,” the letter states.
While missing the all-important signature of Cardinal Sarah, the letter bore the signature of Archbishop Roche instead.
As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, Roche’s letter contradicted a 2009 letter from the same Congregation regarding the same question in the midst of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. At that time, the Vatican under Pope Benedict, wrote that Church law on the subject stipulates, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” and that it may not be abrogated.
Furthermore, Roche was acting in violation of the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which holds that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.”
Speaking to LifeSiteNews at the time, Kwasniewski mentioned that Roche’s letter “undermines the universal norms and tradition of the Church, reiterated many times, concerning the most appropriate and reverent manner for receiving the Holy Eucharist.”
A new era of anti-traditionalism in the Vatican
With the appointment of Archbishop Roche to head the CDW, the Vatican appears set to begin a renewed campaign against the traditional movement in the Church.
The upcoming Vatican conference, entitled “For a fundamental theology of the priesthood,” due to take place in early 2022, is also set to discuss one of Roche’s key interests - the relationship between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful. It is expected by many that the conference may well further undermine traditional teaching regarding the sacrament of holy orders, clerical celibacy, and female deacons.
The conference will take place with the Church is in the midst of Pope Francis’s newly announced Church-wide two-year synod on synodality, following the German example of the synodal church, which has been described by concerned traditional Catholics as “Vatican III.”
Noting his concerns to LifeSiteNews, Kwasniewski called the upcoming “Vatican III” a “continual submersion in bureaucracy, a surrender to the modern mentality of administration as the cure for all evils, which keeps the Church busy gazing at its navel while real evangelization withers and the pews empty out.”
|
|
|
|
| May 28th - St. Augustine of Canterbury |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-28-2021, 08:37 AM - Forum: May
- No Replies
|
|
May 28 – St Augustine, Bishop, Apostle of England
![[Image: 527augustine3.jpg?w=479&ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/sensusfidelium.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/527augustine3.jpg?w=479&ssl=1)
Four hundred years had scarcely elapsed since the glorious death of Eleutherius, when a second Apostle of Britain ascended from this world, and on this same day, to the abode of eternal bliss. We cannot but be struck by the fact that the names of our two Apostles appear on the Calendar together: it shows us that God has his own special reasons in fixing the day for the death of each one among us. We have more than once noticed these providential coincidences, which form one of the chief characteristics of the Liturgical Cycle. What a beautiful sight is brought before us today, of the first, Archbishop of Canterbury, who—after honouring on this day the saintly memoRy of the holy Pontiff from whom England first received the Gospel, himself ascended into heaven, and shared with Eleutherius the eternity of heaven’s joy! Who would not acknowledge in this, a pledge of the predilection wherewith heaven has favoured this Country, which, after centuries of fidelity to the Truth, has now for more than three hundred years been an enemy to her own truest glory?
The work begun by Eleutherius had been almost entirely destroyed by the invasion of the Saxons and Angli; so that a new Mission, a new preaching of the Gospel, had become a necessity. It was Rome that again supplied the want. St. Gregory the Great was the originator of the great design. Had it been permitted him, he would have taken upon himself the fatigues of this Apostolate to our Country. He was deeply impressed with the idea that he was to be the spiritual Father of these poor islanders, some of whom he had seen exposed in the market-place of Rome. that they might be sold as slaves. Not being allowed to undertake the work himself, he looked around him for men whom he might send as Apostles to our Island. He found them in the Benedictine Monastery where he himself had spent several years of his life. There started from Rome forty Monks, with Augustine at their head, and they entered England under the standard of the Cross.
Thus the new race that then peopled the Island received the Faith, as the Britains had previously done, from the hands of a Pope; and Monks were their teachers in the science of salvation. The word of Augustine and his companions fructified in this privileged soil. It was some time of course before he could provide the whole nation with instruction; but neither Rome nor the Benedictines abandoned the work thus begun. The few remnants that were still left of the ancient British Christianity joined the new converts; and England merited to be called, for long ages, the “Island of Saints.”
The history of St Augustine’s Apostolate in England is of thrilling interest. The landing of the Roman Missioners, and their marching through the country, to the chant of the Litany; the willing and almost kind welcome given them by king Ethelbert; the influence exercised by his queen Bertha (who was French and a Catholic), in the establishment of the Faith among the Saxons; the baptism of ten thousand Neophytes, on Christmas Day, and in the bed of a river; the foundation of the metropolitan See of Canterbury, one of the most illustrious Churches of Christendom on account of the holiness and noble doings of its Archbishops; all these admirable episodes of England’s conversion are eloquent proofs of God’s predilection of our dear Land. Augustine’s peaceful and gentle character together with his love of contemplation amidst his arduous Missionary labours, gives an additional charm to this magnificent page of the Church’s history. But who can help feeling sad at the thought that a Country, favoured as ours has been with such graces, should have apostatized from the faith? have repaid with hatred that Rome which made her Christian? and have persecuted with unheard-of cruelties, the Benedictine Order, to which she owed so much of her glory?
![[Image: 5_27_-best_Augustine_Preaching_Before_Ki...=756&ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/sensusfidelium.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/5_27_-best_Augustine_Preaching_Before_King_Ethelbert.jpg?w=756&ssl=1)
We subjoin the following Lessons on the Life of our Apostle, taken from an Office approved by the Holy See:
Quote:Augustine was a Monk of the Monastery of Saint Andrew, in Rome, where also he discharged the office of Prior with much piety and prudence. He was taken from that Monastery by St. Gregory the Great; and sent by him, with about forty Monks of the same monastery, into Britain. Thus would Gregory carry out, by his disciples, the conversion of that country to Christ—a project which he at first resolved to effect himself. They had not advanced far on their journey, when they became frightened at the difficulty of such an enterprise; but Gregory encouraged them by Letters which he sent to Augustine, whom he appointed as their Abbot, and gave him letters of introduction to the kings of the Franks, and to the Bishops of Gaul. Whereupon Augustine and his Monks pursued their journey with haste. He visited the tomb of St. Martin, at Tours. Having reached the town of Pont-de-Cé, not far from Angers, he was badly treated by its inhabitants, and was compelled to spend the night in the open air. Having struck the ground with his staff, a fountain miraculously sprang up; and on that spot, a Church was afterwards built, and called after his name.
Having procured interpreters from the Franks, he proceeded to England and landed at the Isle of Thanet. He entered the Country, carrying, as a standard, a silver Cross, and a painting representing our Saviour. Thus did he present himself before Ethelbert, the king of Kent, who readily provided the heralds of the Gospel with a dwelling in the city of Canterbury, and gave them leave to preach in his kingdom. There was, close at hand, an Oratory which had been built in honour of St. Martin, when the Romans had possession of Britain. It was in this Oratory that his queen Bertha (who was a Christian, as being of the nation of the Franks) was wont to pray. Augustine, therefore, entered into Canterbury with solemn religious ceremony, amidst the chanting of psalms and litanies. He took up his abode for some time near to the said Oratory; and there, together with his Monks, led an apostolic life. Such manner of living, conjointly with the heavenly doctrine that was preached, and confirmed by many miracles, so reconciled the islanders, that many of them were induced to embrace the Christian Faith. The king himself was also converted, and Augustine baptized him and a very great number of his people. On one Christmas Day he baptized upwards of ten thousand English, in a river at York; and it is related that those among them who were suffering any malady, received bodily health, as well as their spiritual regeneration.
Meanwhile, the man of God Augustine received a command from Gregory to go and receive Episcopal ordination in Gaul, at the hands of Virgilius, the Bishop of Arles. On his return he established his See at Canterbury, in the Church of our Saviour, which he had built, and he kept there some of the Monks to be his fellow-labourers. He also built in the suburbs the Monastery of Saint Peter, which was afterwards called “Saint Augustine’s.” When Gregory heard of the conversion of the Angli, which was told to him by the two Monks Laurence and Peter, whom Augustine had sent to Rome,—he wrote letters of congratulation to Augustine. He gave him power to arrange all that concerned the Church in England, and to wear the Pallium. In the same letters he admonished him to be on his guard against priding himself on the miracles which God enabled him to work for the salvation of souls, lest pride should tum them to the injury of him that worked them.
Having thus put in order the affairs of the Church in England, Augustine held a Council with the Bishops and Doctors of the ancient Britons, who had long been at variance with the Roman Church in the keeping of Easter and other rites. And in order to refute, by miracles, these men, whom the Apostolic See had often authoritatively admonished, but to no purpose, Augustine, in proof of the truth of his assertions, restored sight to a blind man in their presence. But on their refusing to yield even after witnessing the miracle, Augustine, with prophetic warning, told them of the punishment that awaited them. At length, after having laboured so long for Christ, and appointed Laurence as his successor, he took his departure for heaven on the seventh of the Calends of June (May 26th) and was buried in the Monastery of Saint Peter, which became the burying-place of the Archbishops of Canterbury, and of several Kings. The Churches of England honoured him with great devotion. They decreed that each year his feast should be kept as a holyday, and that his name should be inserted in the Litany, immediately after that of St. Gregory, together with whom Augustine has ever been honoured by the English as their Apostle, and as the propagator of the Benedictine Order in their Country.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd.lib.rochester.edu%2Fs...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd.lib.rochester.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Flarge%2F172_2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
We also give the following hymn in honour of our Apostle, which has also been approved by the Holy See:
Hymn
Fœcunda sanctis insula,
Tuum canas apostolum;
Et filium Gregorii
Laudes piis concentibus.
O Isle fruitful in Saints, sing a hymn to thine Apostle! Praise, in holy song, the son of Gregory!
Ejus labore fertilis,
Messem dedisti plurimam,
Quæ sanctitatis floribus
Diu refulges inclyta.
Made fertile by his toil, thou gavest a rich harvest, and, for ages, wast famed for thy flowers of Sanctity.
Turma quadragenaria
Stipatus intrat Angliam:
Vexilla Christi proferens,
Dux pacis adfert pignora.
He enters England, having with him his forty Brethren. He bears the Standard of Christ. He is the Leader, and brings the pledges of Peace.
Crucis trophæum promicat,
Verbum salutis spargitur:
Fidem quin ipse barbarus
Rex corde prompto suscipit.
The trophy of the Cross glitters in the air; the word of salvation is spread through the land. Yes, the king himself, though a barbarian, receives the Faith with a ready heart.
Mores feros gens exuit,
Undisque lota fluminis,
Ipsa die renascitur
Qua sol salutis ortus est.
The nation casts aside its savage ways; it is baptized in the river’s stream, and is born to its New Life, on the very Day that the Sun of Justice rose upon our earth.
O Pastor alme, filios
E sede pascas siderum:
In matris ulnas anxiæ
Gregem reducas devium.
O kind Shepherd! from thy heavenly throne, feed thy children. Thy flock has gone astray; lead it back to its anxious Mother’s love.
Præsta, beata Trinitas,
Quæ rore jugi gratiæ
Vitem rigas: ut pristina
Fides resurgens floreat.
Amen.
O Blessed Trinity, that art ever pouring the dew of grace upon thy Vine! grant that the ancient Faith may rise again and flourish in our Land! Amen.
O Jesus, our Risen Lord! thou art the Life of Nations. as thou art the Life of our souls. Thou biddest them know and love and serve thee, for they have been given to thee for thine inheritance; and at thine own appointed time, each of them is made thy possession. Our own dear country was one of the earliest to be called; and when on thy Cross thou didst look with mercy on this far Island of the West, In the second Age of thy Church, thou didst send to her the heralds of thy Gospel; and again in the Sixth, Augustine, thine Apostle, commissioned by Gregory, thy Vicar, came to teach the way of Truth to the new pagan race that had made itself the owner of this highly favoured Land.
How glorious, dear Jesus, was thy Reign in our Fatherland! Thou gavest her Bishops, Doctors, Kings, Monks, and Virgins, whose virtues and works made the whole world speak of her as the “Isle of Saints;” and it is to Augustine, thy disciple and herald, that thou wouldst have us attribute the chief part of the honour of so grand a conquest. Long indeed was thy Reign over this people, whose Faith was lauded throughout the whole world; but, alas! an evil hour came, and England rebelled against thee; she would not have thee to reign over her. By her influence. she led other nations astray. She hated thee in thy Vicar; she repudiated the greater part of the truths thou hast revealed to men; she put out the light of Faith, and substituted in its place the principle of Private Judgment, which made her the slave of countless false doctrines. In the mad rage of her heresy, she trampled beneath her feet and burned the Relics of the Saints, who were her grandest glory; she annihilated the Monastic Order. to which she owed her knowledge of the Christian Faith; she was drunk with the blood of the Martyrs; she encouraged apostasy, and punished adhesion to the ancient Faith as the greatest of crimes.
She, by a just judgement of God, has become a worshipper of material prosperity. Her wealth, her fleet, and her colonies—these are her idols, and she would awe the rest of the world by the power they give her. But the Lord will, in his own time, overthrow this Colossus of power and riches; and as it was in times past, when the mightiest of kingdoms was destroyed by a stone which struck it on its feet of clay,—so will people be amazed, when the time of retribution comes, to find how easily the greatest of modem Nations was conquered and humbled. England no longer forms a part of thy Kingdom, O Jesus! She separated herself from it by breaking the bond that had held her so long in union with thy Church. Thou hast patiently waited for her return; yet she returns not. Her prosperity is a scandal to the weak; so that her own best and most devoted children feel that her chastisement will be one of the severest that thy Justice can inflict.
Meanwhile, thy Mercy, O Jesus, is winning over thousands of her people to the Truth, and their love of it seems fervent in proportion to their having been so long deprived of its beautiful light. Thou hast created a new people in her very midst, and each year the number is increasing. Cease not thy merciful workings; that thus these Faithful ones may once more draw down upon our Country the blessing she forfeited when she rebelled against thy Church.
Thy mission, then, O holy Apostle Augustine! is not yet over. The number of the Elect is not filled up; and our Lord is gleaning some of these from amidst the tares that cover the land of thy loving labours. May thine intercession obtain for her children those graces which enlighten the mind and convert the heart. May it remove their prejudices, and give them to see that the Spouse of Jesus is but One, as he himself calls her; that the Faith of Gregory and Augustine is still the Faith of the Catholic Church at this day; and that three hundred years’ possession could never give Heresy any claim to a country which was led astray by seduction and violence, and which has retained so many traces of ancient and deep-rooted Catholicity.
|
|
|
|
| 18 Connecticut teens hospitalized for heart problems after COVID vaccines |
|
Posted by: Stone - 05-27-2021, 09:36 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
18 Connecticut teens hospitalized for heart problems after COVID vaccines, White House says young people should still get the shots
The mother of 17-year-old Gregory Hatton, diagnosed with pericarditis within days of his second dose of the vaccine, said her son 'basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying.'
May 27, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) — One week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it was investigating heart inflammation in recently vaccinated young adults, Connecticut reported 18 new cases of heart problems among teens who had received a COVID vaccine.
All 18 cases resulted in hospitalization — the vast majority for a couple of days, reported NBC Connecticut. The cases were reported to the Connecticut Department of Public Health by vaccine providers, said Deirdre Gifford, acting health commissioner.
“One individual that we’re aware of is still hospitalized,” Guifford said Monday. “The other 17 have been sent home and they’re doing fine.”
The first case at Connecticut Children’s was Rachel Hatton’s 17-year-old son, Gregory.
“It’s terrifying,” said Hatton. Her son started complaining of severe chest pain three days after his second vaccine dose. It worsened on the fourth day, causing back pain.
After blood work and an x-ray, doctors diagnosed Gregory with pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart that can cause sharp chest pain and other symptoms.
“They hooked him up to a heart monitor, did more EKGs, echocardiograms. Infectious disease actually came and ran their own set of blood work to try to figure out if it could have been caused by something else, some sort of infection, something else, like Lyme disease. They tested him for all sorts of things and one by one those tests came back negative,” said Hatton.
Doctors couldn’t confirm Gregory’s condition was caused by the COVID vaccine, but two more recently vaccinated patients presented to the hospital with similar symptoms. A spokesperson from Connecticut Children’s said patients have presented with both pericarditis and myocarditis
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
Mayo Clinic doctors say treatment focuses on the cause of the condition and symptoms, such as heart failure and shortness of breath.
Hatton said her son is now out of work, on medication and hooked up to a heart monitor. He will have another MRI in June to see if his condition has improved.
“I don’t sleep because … if I hear my son sneeze or if he sounds like he’s out of breath when I call him on my break at work, I get nervous because I just don’t know what else could happen. He basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying,” she said.
NBC Connecticut spoke with other parents of teens who received their first dose of COVID vaccine and are scheduled to get their second.
“I can’t believe the government would really put out a shot that would really negatively impact the health of my child so I’m behind the vaccine 100%,” said Heather Salgado.
“I’m just trusting the science and the recommendation is to get the vaccine,” said Theresa Galizia.
Other parents, like Siobhan Cefarelli, had reservations. “It’s one thing for me to get the vaccine, but for my child to get the vaccine, it’s kind of scary not knowing what’s going to happen and not having a lot of research having been done on it.”
Hatton said she shared her son’s story because she wanted parents to be aware. Despite doctors saying the condition is rare, Hatton explained it doesn’t feel rare when it’s affecting your own child.
The CDC has not determined if vaccines were the cause of the reported heart condition in the Connecticut cases. But the CDC safety committee released an advisory May 17 alerting doctors to reports of myocarditis, which seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday the Biden administration will continue to advise young people to get vaccinated, despite reported cases of myocarditis.
“Our health and medical experts still continue to convey that it is the right step for 12- to 15-year-olds to get vaccinated, that these are limited cases, and that, obviously, the risks of contracting COVID are certainly significant even for people of that age,” Psaki said.
According to CDC data, the death rate among adolescents ages 0 to 17 who get COVID and are subsequently hospitalized is 0.7%, with many experiencing either mild or no symptoms at all. The COVID death rate in all adolescent age categories is less than 0.1%.
While the CDC numbers appear to contradict Psaki’s assessment of young people’s risk of getting COVID, new research suggests that even the CDC’s numbers are too high.
As The Defender reported, two papers published May 19 in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating children.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F0...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F0b%2F40%2F95%2F0b40953a7a237c21840ab80a1da43929.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: christchurchlille.comTrinity1_003-350x290.jpg]](http://apostles-creed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/christchurchlille.comTrinity1_003-350x290.jpg)
![[Image: 800px-Max_F%C3%BCrst_Dreieinigkeit_mit_Krone.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Max_F%C3%BCrst_Dreieinigkeit_mit_Krone.jpg/800px-Max_F%C3%BCrst_Dreieinigkeit_mit_Krone.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicp...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicpriest.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FPietro_Longhi_-_The_Baptism_-_WGA13414.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F4a%2F1c%2F4e%2F4a1c4e73dec3ecbe574fc73eacfc666a.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: wafer1_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/wafer1_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: Dr-Fauci-e1622217638643.jpg]](https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Dr-Fauci-e1622217638643.jpg)
![[Image: Rainer_Maria_Cardinal_Woelki_2014_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Rainer_Maria_Cardinal_Woelki_2014_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: Graham_kids_1_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Graham_kids_1_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: just_been_to_church_1728_1290_75_s_c1.jpeg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/just_been_to_church_1728_1290_75_s_c1.jpeg)
![[Image: Graham_kids2_712_866_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Graham_kids2_712_866_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: aroche27521_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/aroche27521_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicp...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.traditionalcatholicpriest.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2F3568815153_013949c8ec_z.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
