St. David

"Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off." Isaiah xxxiii. 17.

Though Moses was not permitted to enter the land of promise, he was vouchsafed a sight of it from a distance. We too, though as yet we are not admitted to heavenly glory, yet are given to see much, in preparation for seeing more. Christ dwells among us in His Church really though invisibly, and through its Ordinances fulfils towards us, in a true and sufficient sense, the promise of the text. We are even now permitted to "see the King in His beauty," to "behold the land that is very far off." The words of the Prophet relate to our present state as well as to the state of saints hereafter. Of the future glory it is said by St. John, "They shall see His face, and His name shall be in their foreheads." [Rev. xxii. 4.] And of the present, Isaiah himself speaks in passages which may be taken in explanation of the text: "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall {14} see it together;" and again, "They shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God." [Isa. xl. 5; xxxv. 2.] We do not see God face to face under the Gospel, but still, for all that, it is true that "we know in part;" we see, though it be "through a glass darkly;" which is far more than any but Christians are enabled to do. Baptism, by which we become Christians, is an illumination; and Christ, who is the Object of our worship, is withal a Light to worship by.

Such a view is strange to most men; they do not realize the presence of Christ, nor admit the duty of realizing it. Even those who are not without habits of seriousness, have almost or quite forgotten the duty. This is plain at once: for, unless they had, they would not be so very deficient in reverence as they are. It is scarcely too much to say that awe and fear are at the present day all but discarded from religion. Whole societies called Christian make it almost a first principle to disown the duty of reverence; and we ourselves, to whom as children of the Church reverence is as a special inheritance, have very little of it, and do not feel the want of it. Those who, in spite of themselves, are influenced by God's holy fear, too often are ashamed of it, consider it even as a mark of weakness of mind, hide their feeling as much as they can, and, when ridiculed or censured for it, cannot defend it to themselves on intelligible grounds. They wish indeed to maintain reverence in their mode of speaking and acting, in relation to sacred things, but they are at a loss how to answer objections, or how to resist received customs {15} and fashions; and at length they begin to be suspicious and afraid of their own instinctive feelings. Let us then take occasion from the promise in the text both to describe the religious defect to which I have alluded, and to state the remedy for it.

There are two classes of men who are deficient in awe and fear, and, lamentable to say, taken together, they go far to make up the religious portion of the community. This is lamentable indeed, if so it is: it is not wonderful that sinners should live without the fear of God; but what shall we say of an age or country, in which even the more serious classes, those who live on principle, and claim to have a judgment in religious matters, who look forward to the future, and think that their account stands fair, and that they are in God's favour, when even such persons maintain, or at least act as if they maintained, that "the spirit of God's holy fear" is no part of religion? "If the light that is in us be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

These are the two classes of men who are deficient in this respect: first, those who think that they never were greatly under God's displeasure; next, those who think that, though they once were, they are not at all now for all sin has been forgiven them;—those on the one hand who consider that sin is no great evil in itself, those on the other who consider that it is no great evil in them, because their persons are accepted in Christ for their faith's sake.

Now it must be observed that the existence of fear in religion does not depend on the circumstance of our {16} being sinners; it is short of that. Were we pure as the Angels, yet in His sight, one should think, we could not but fear, before whom the heavens are not clean, nor the Angels free from folly. The Seraphim themselves veiled their faces while they cried, Glory! Even then were it true that sin was not a great evil, or was no great evil in us, nevertheless the mere circumstance that God is infinite and all-perfect is an overwhelming thought to creatures and mortal men, and ought to lead all persons who profess religion to profess also religious fear, however natural it is for irreligious men to disclaim the feeling.

And next let it be observed, it is no dispute about terms. For at first sight we may be tempted to think that the only question is whether the word "fear" is a good or bad word;—that one man makes it all one with slavish dread, and another with godly awe and reverence;—and that therefore the two seem to oppose each other, when they do not,—as if both parties agreed that reverence is right and selfish terror wrong, and the only point between them were, whether by the word fear was meant terror or reverence. This is not the case: it is a question not of words but of things; for these persons whom I am describing plainly consider that state of mind wrong, which the Church Catholic has ever prescribed and her Saints have ever exemplified.

To show that this is so, I will in a few words state what the two sets of opinion are to which I allude; and what that fault is, which, widely as they differ in opinion from each other, they have in common.

The one class of persons consists of those who think {17} the Catholic Creed too strict,—who hold that no certain doctrines need be believed in order to salvation, or at least question the necessity; who say that it matters not what a man believes, so that his conduct is respectable and orderly,—who think that all rites and ceremonies are mere niceties (as they speak) and trifles, and that a man pleases God equally by observing them or not,—who perhaps go on to doubt whether Christ's death is strictly speaking an atonement for the sin of man,—who, when pressed, do not allow that He is strictly speaking and literally God,—and who deny that the punishment of the wicked is eternal. Such are the tenets, more or less clearly apprehended and confessed, which mark the former of the two classes of which I speak.

The other class of men are in their formal doctrines widely different from the former. They consider that, though they were by nature children of wrath, they are now by God's grace so fully in His favour, that, were they to die at once, they would be certain of heaven,—they consider that God so absolutely forgives them day by day their trespasses, that they have nothing to answer for, nothing to be tried upon at the Last Day,—that they have been visited by God's grace in a manner quite distinct from all around them, and are His children in a sense in which others are not, and have an assurance of their saving state peculiar to themselves, and an interest in the promises such as Baptism does not impart;—they profess to be thus beyond the reach of doubt and anxiety, and they say that they should be miserable without such a privilege. {18}

I have alluded to these schools of religion, to show how widely a feeling must be spread which such contrary classes of men have in common. Now, what they agree in is this: in considering God as simply a God of love, not of awe and reverence also,—the one meaning by love benevolence, and the other mercy; and in consequence neither the one nor the other regard Almighty God with fear; and the signs of want of fear in both the one and the other, which I proposed to point out, are such as the following.

For instance:—they have no scruple or misgiving in speaking freely of Almighty God. They will use His Name as familiarly and lightly, as if they were open sinners. The one class adopts a set of words to denote Almighty God, which remove the idea of His personality, speaking of Him as the "Deity," or the "Divine Being;" which, as they use them, are of all others most calculated to remove from the mind the thought of a living and intelligent Governor, their Saviour and their Judge. The other class of men, going into the other extreme, but with the same result, use freely that incommunicable Name by which He has vouchsafed to denote to us His perfections. When He appeared to Moses, He disclosed His Name; and that Name has appeared so sacred to our translators of Scripture, that they have scrupled to use it, though it occurs continually in the Old Testament, substituting the word "Lord" out of reverence. Now, the persons in question delight in a familiar use, in prayers and hymns and conversation, of that Name by which they designate Him before whom Angels tremble. Not even {19} our fellow-men do we freely call by their own names, unless we are at our ease with them; yet sinners can bear to be familiar with the Name by which they know the Most High has distinguished Himself from all creatures.

Another instance of want of fear, is the bold and unscrupulous way in which men speak of the Holy Trinity and the Mystery of the Divine Nature. They use sacred terms and phrases, should occasion occur, in a rude and abrupt way, and discuss points of doctrine concerning the All-holy and Eternal, even (if I may without irreverence state it) over their cups, perhaps arguing against them, as if He were such a one as themselves.

Another instance of this want of fear is found in the peremptory manner in which men lay down what Almighty God must do, what He cannot but do, as if they were masters of the whole scheme of salvation, and might anticipate His high providence and will.

And another is the confidence with which they often speak of their having been converted, pardoned, and sanctified, as if they knew their own state as well as God knows it.

Another is the unwillingness so commonly felt, to bow at the Name of Jesus, nay the impatience exhibited towards those who do; as if there were nothing awful in the idea of the Eternal God being made man, and as if we did not suitably express our wonder and awe at it by practising what St. Paul has in very word prescribed.

Another instance is the careless mode in which men {20} speak of our Lord's earthly doings and sayings, just as if He were a mere man. He was man indeed, but He was more than man: and He did what man does, but then those deeds of His were the deeds of God,—and we can as little separate the deed from the Doer as our arm from our body. But, in spite of this, numbers are apt to use rude, familiar, profane language, concerning their God's childhood, and youth, and ministry, though He is their God.

And another is the familiarity with which many persons address our Lord in prayer, applying epithets to Him and adopting a strain of language which does not beseem creatures, not to say sinners.

And another is their general mode of prayer; I mean, in diffuse and free language, with emphatic and striking words, in a sort of coloured or rich style, with pomp of manner, and an oratorical tone, as if praying were preaching, and as if its object were not to address Almighty God, but to impress and affect those who heard them.

And another instance of this want of reverence is the introduction, in speaking or writing, of serious and solemn words, for the sake of effect, to round, or to give dignity to, a sentence.

And another instance is irreverence in church, sitting instead of kneeling in prayer, or pretending to kneel but really sitting, or lounging or indulging in other unseemly attitudes; and, much more, looking about when prayers are going on, and observing what others are doing.

These are some out of a number of peculiarities {21} which mark the religion of the day, and are instanced some in one class of men, some in another; but all by one or other;—and they are specimens of what I mean when I say that the religion of this day is destitute of fear.

Many other instances might be mentioned of very various kinds. For instance, the freedom with which men propose to alter God's ordinances, to suit their own convenience, or to meet the age; their reliance on their private and antecedent notions about sacred subjects; their want of interest and caution in inquiring what God's probable will is; their contempt for any view of the Sacraments which exceeds the evidence of their senses; and their confidence in settling the order of importance in which the distinct articles of Christian faith stand;—all which shows that it is no question of words whether men have fear or not, but that there is a something they really have not, whatever name we give it.

So far I consider to be plain:—the only point which can be debated is this, whether the feelings which I have been describing are necessary; for each of the two classes which I have named contends that they are unnecessary; the one decides them inconsistent with reason, the other with the Gospel; the one calls them superstitious, and the other legal or Jewish. Let us then consider, are these feelings of fear and awe Christian feelings or not? A very few words will surely be sufficient to decide the question.

I say this, then, which I think no one can reasonably dispute. They are the class of feelings we should{22} have,—yes, have in an intense degree—if we literally had the sight of Almighty God; therefore they are the class of feelings which we shall have, if we realize His presence. In proportion as we believe that He is present, we shall have them; and not to have them, is not to realize, not to believe that He is present. If then it is a duty to feel as though we saw Him, or to have faith, it is a duty to have these feelings; and if it is a sin to be destitute of faith, it is a sin to be without them. Let us consider this awhile.

Who then is there to deny, that if we saw God, we should fear? Take the most cold and secular of all those who explain away the Gospel; or take the most heated and fanatic of those who consider it peculiarly their own; take those who think that Christ has brought us nothing great, or those who think He has brought it all to themselves,—I say, would either party keep from fearing greatly if they saw God? Surely it is quite a truism to say that any creature would fear. But why would he fear? would it be merely because he saw God, or because he knew that God was present? If he shut his eyes, he would still fear, for his eyes had conveyed to him this solemn truth; to have seen would be enough. But if so, does it not follow at once, that, if men do not fear, it is because they do not act as they would act if they saw Him, that is,—they do not feel that He is present? Is it not quite certain that men would not use Almighty God's Name so freely, if they thought He was really in hearing,—nay, close beside them when they spoke? And so of those other instances of want of godly fear, which I mentioned, {23} they one and all come from deadness to the presence of God. If a man believes Him present, he will shrink from addressing Him familiarly, or using before Him unreal words, or peremptorily and on his own judgment deciding what God's will is, or claiming His confidence, or addressing Him in a familiar posture of body. I say, take the man who is most confident that he has nothing to fear from the presence of God, and that Almighty God is at peace with him, and place him actually before the throne of God; and would he have no misgivings? and will he dare to say that those misgivings are a weakness, a mere irrational perturbation, which he ought not to feel?

This will be seen more clearly, by considering how differently we feel towards and speak of our friends as present or absent. Their presence is a check upon us; it acts as an external law, compelling us to do or not do what we should not do or do otherwise, or should do but for it. This is just what most men lack in their religion at present,—such an external restraint arising from the consciousness of God's presence. Consider, I say, how differently we speak of a friend, however intimate, when present or absent; consider how we feel, should it so happen that we have begun to speak of him as if he were not present, on finding suddenly that he is; and that, though we are conscious of nothing but what is loving and open towards him. There is a tone of voice and a manner of speaking about persons absent, which we should consider disrespectful, or at least inconsiderate, if they were present. When that is the case, we are ever thinking more or less, even though {24} unconsciously to ourselves, how they will take what we say, how it will affect them, what they will say to us or think of us in turn. When a person is absent, we are tempted perhaps confidently to say what his opinion is on certain points;—but should he be present, we qualify our words; we hardly like to speak at all, from the vivid consciousness that we may be wrong, and that he is present to tell us so. We are very cautious of pronouncing what his feelings are on the matter in hand, or how he is disposed towards ourselves; and in all things we observe a deference and delicacy in our conduct towards him. Now, if we feel this towards our fellows, what shall we feel in the presence of an Angel? and if so, what in the presence of the All-knowing, All-searching Judge of men? What is respect and consideration in the case of our fellows, becomes godly fear as regards Almighty God; and they who do not fear Him, in one word, do not believe that He sees and hears them. If they did, they would cease to boast so confidently of His favourable thoughts of them, to foretell His dealings, to pronounce upon His revelations, to make free with His Name, and to address Him familiarly.

Now, in what has been said, no account has been taken, as I have already observed, of our being sinners, a corrupt, polluted race at the best, while He is the All-holy God,—which must surely increase our fear and awe greatly, and not at all the less because we have been so wonderfully redeemed. Nor, again, has account been taken of another point, on which I will add two or three words. {25}

There is a peculiar feeling with which we regard the dead. What does this arise from?—that he is absent? No; for we do not feel the same towards one who is merely distant, though he be at the other end of the earth. Is it because in this life we shall never see him again? No, surely not; because we may be perfectly certain we shall never see him when he goes abroad, we may know he is to die abroad, and perhaps he does die abroad; but will any one say that, when the news of his death comes, our feeling when we think of him is not quite changed? Surely it is the passing into another state which impresses itself upon us, and makes us speak of him as we do,—I mean, with a sort of awe. We cannot tell what he is now,—what his relations to us,—what he knows of us. We do not understand him,—we do not see him. He is passed into the land "that is very far off;" but it is not at all certain that he has not some mysterious hold over us. Thus his not being seen with our bodily eyes, while perchance he is present, makes the thought of him more awful. Apply this to the subject before us, and you will perceive that there is a sense, and a true sense, in which the invisible presence of God is more awful and overpowering than if we saw it. And so again, the presence of Christ, now that it is invisible, brings with it a host of high and mysterious feelings, such as nothing else can inspire. The thought of our Saviour, absent yet present, is like that of a friend taken from us, but, as it were, in dream returned to us, though in this case not in dream, but in reality and truth. When He was going away, He said to His disciples, "I will see you again, and your heart {26} shall rejoice." Yet He had at another time said, "The days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast in those days." See what an apparent contradiction, such as attends the putting any high feeling into human language! they were to joy because Christ was come, and yet weep because He was away; that is, to have a feeling so refined, so strange and new, that nothing could be said of it, but that it combined in one all that was sweet and soothing in contrary human feelings, as commonly experienced. As some precious fruits of the earth are said to taste like all others at once, not as not being really distinct from all others, but as being thus best described, when we would come as near the truth as we can, so the state of mind which they are in who believe that the Son of God is here, yet away,—is at the right hand of God, yet in His very flesh and blood among us,—is present, though invisible,—is one of both joy and pain, or rather one far above either; a feeling of awe, wonder, and praise, which cannot be more suitably expressed than by the Scripture word fear; or by holy Job's words, though he spoke in grief, and not as being possessed of a blessing. "Behold, I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive Him: on the left hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold Him: He hideth Himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him. Therefore am I troubled at His presence; when I consider, I am afraid of Him." [Job xxiii. 8, 9, 15.]

To conclude. Enough has been said now to show that godly fear must be a duty, if to live as in God's [presence] {27} is a duty,—must be a privilege of the Gospel, if the spiritual sight of "the King in His beauty" be one of its privileges. Fear follows from faith necessarily, as would be plain, even though there were not a text in the Bible saying so. But in fact, as it is scarcely needful to say, Scripture abounds in precepts to fear God. Such are the words of the Wise Man: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Such again is the third commandment, in which we are solemnly bidden not to take God's Name in vain. Such the declaration of the prophet Habakkuk, who beginning by declaring "The just shall live by his faith," ends by saying, "The Lord is in His Holy Temple; let the whole earth keep silence before Him." Such is St. Paul's, who, in like manner, after having discoursed at length upon faith as "the realizing of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," adds: "Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear." Such St. Luke's account of the Church militant on earth, that "walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost," it was "multiplied." Such St. John's account of the Church triumphant in heaven, "Who shall not fear Thee," they say, "O Lord, and glorify Thy Name; for Thou only art Holy?" Such the feeling recorded of the three Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration, who, when they heard God's voice, "fell on their face, and were sore afraid." [Prov. i. 7. Hab. ii. 4, 20. Heb. xii. 28. Acts ix. 31. Rev. xv. 4. Matt. xvii. 6.] And now, if this be so, can anything be clearer than that the want of fear is nothing else but want of faith, and that in {28} consequence we in this age are approaching in religious temper that evil day of which it is said, "When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" [Luke xviii. 8.] Is it wonderful that we have no fear in our words and mutual intercourse, when we exercise no acts of faith? What, you will ask, are acts of faith? Such as these,—to come often to prayer, is an act of faith; to kneel down instead of sitting, is an act of faith; to strive to attend to your prayers, is an act of faith; to behave in God's House otherwise than you would in a common room, is an act of faith; to come to it on weekdays as well as Sundays, is an act of faith; to come often to the most Holy Sacrament, is an act of faith; and to be still and reverent during that sacred service, is an act of faith. These are all acts of faith, because they all are acts such as we should perform, if we saw and heard Him who is present, though with our bodily eyes we see and hear Him not. But, "blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed;" for, be sure, if we thus act, we shall, through God's grace, be gradually endued with the spirit of His holy fear. We shall in time, in our mode of talking and acting, in our religious services and our daily conduct, manifest, not with constraint and effort, but spontaneously and naturally, that we fear Him while we love him.

Our goal... that heavenly realm...

Sermon of St John Chrysostom (a portion of Homily XX in Vol X, NPNF (1st))

Matthew Chapter 6, Verse 16 

"And when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast." 

Here it were well to sigh aloud, and to wail bitterly: for not only do we imitate the hypocrites, but we have even surpassed them. For I know, yea I know many, not merely fasting and making a display of it, but neglecting to fast, and yet wearing the masks of them that fast, and cloaking themselves with an excuse worse than their sin. 

For "I do this," say they, "that I may not offend the many." What sayest thou? There is a law of God which commands these things, and dost thou talk of offense? And thinkest thou that in keeping it thou art offending, in transgressing it, delivering men from offense? And what can be worse than this folly? 

Wilt thou not leave off becoming worse than the very hypocrites, and making thine hypocrisy double? And when thou considerest the great excess of this evil, wilt thou not be abashed at the force of the expression now before us? In that He did not say, "they act a part," merely, but willing also to touch them more deeply, He saith, "For they disfigure their faces;" that is, they corrupt, they mar them. 

But if this be a disfiguring of the face, to appear pale for vainglory, what should we say concerning the women who corrupt their faces with colorings and paintings to the ruin of the unchaste sort of young men? For while those harm themselves only, these women harm both themselves and them who behold them. Wherefore we should fly both from the one pest and from the other, keeping at distance enough and to spare. For so He not only commanded to make no display, but even to seek to be concealed. Which thing He had done before likewise. 

And whereas in the matter of almsgiving, He did not put it simply, but having said, "Take heed not to do it before men," He added, "to be seen of them;" yet concerning fasting and prayer, He made no such limitation. Why could this have been? Because for almsgiving to be altogether concealed is impossible, but for prayer and fasting, it is possible. 

As therefore, when He said, "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth," it was not of hands that He was speaking, but of the duty of being strictly concealed from all; and as when He commanded us to enter into our closet, not there alone absolutely, nor there primarily, did He command us to pray, but He covertly intimated the same thing again; so likewise here, in commanding us "to be anointed," He did not enact that we positively must anoint ourselves; for then we should all of us be found transgressors of this law; and above all, surely, they who have taken the most pains to keep it, the societies of the monks, who have taken up their dwelling on the mountains. It was not this then that He enjoined, but, forasmuch as the ancients had a custom to anoint themselves continually, when they were taking their pleasure and rejoicing (and this one may see clearly from David and from Daniel); He said that we were to anoint ourselves, not that we should positively do this, but that by all means we might endeavor, with great strictness, to hide this our acquisition. And to convince thee that so it is, He Himself, when by action exhibiting what He enjoined in words, having fasted forty days, and fasted in secret, did neither anoint nor wash Himself: nevertheless, though He did not these things, He most assuredly fulfilled the whole without vainglory. It is this then that He enjoins on us likewise, both bringing before us the hypocrites, and by a twice repeated charge dissuading the hearers. 

And somewhat else He signified by this name, this of hypocrites, I mean. That is, not only by the ridiculousness of the thing, nor by its bringing an extreme penalty, but also by showing that such deceit is but for a season, doth He withdraw us from that evil desire. For the actor seems glorious just so long as the audience is sitting; or rather not even then in the sight of all. For the more part of the spectators know who it is, and what part he is acting. However, when the audience is broken up, he is more clearly discovered to all. Now this, you see, the vainglorious must in all necessity undergo. For even here they are manifest to the majority, as not being that which they appear to be, but as wearing a mask only; but much more will they be detected hereafter, when all things appear "naked and open." 

And by another motive again He withdraws them from the hypocrites, by showing that His injunction is light. For He doth not make the fast more strict, nor command us to practise more of it, but not to lose the crown thereof. So that what seems hard to bear, is common to us and to the hypocrites, for they also fast; but that which is lightest, namely, not to lose the reward after our labors, "this is what I command," saith He; adding nothing to our toils, but gathering our wages for us with all security, and not suffering us to go away unrewarded, as they do. Nay, they will not so much as imitate them that wrestle in the Olympic games, who although so great a multitude is sitting there, and so many princes, desire to please but one, even him who adjudges the victory amongst them; and this, though he be much their inferior. But thou, though thou hast a twofold motive for displaying the victory to Him, first, that He is the person to adjudge it, and also, that He is beyond comparison superior to all that are sitting in the theatre,-thou art displaying it to others, who so far from profiting, do privily work thee the greatest harm. 

However, I do not forbid even this, saith He. Only, if thou art desirous to make a show to men, also, wait, and I will bestow on thee this too in fuller abundance, and with great profit. For as it is, this quite breaks thee off from the glory which is with me, even as to despise these things unites thee closely; but then shalt thou enjoy all in entire security; having, even before that last, no little fruit to reap in this world also, namely, that thou hast trodden under foot all human glory, and art freed from the grievous bondage of men, and an become a true worker of virtue. Whereas now, as long at least as thou art so disposed, if thou shouldest be in a desert, thou wilt be deserted by all thy virtue, having none to behold thee. This is to act as one insulting virtue itself, if thou art to pursue it not for its own sake, but with an eye to the ropemaker, and the brazier, and the common people of the baser sort, that the bad and they that are far removed from virtue may admire thee. And thou art calling the enemies of virtue to the display and the sight thereof, as if one were to choose to live continently, not for the excellency of continence, but that he might make a show before prostitutes. Thou also, it would seem, wouldest not choose virtue, but for the sake of virtue's enemies; whereas thou oughtest indeed to admire her on this very ground, that she hath even her enemies to praise her,-yet to admire her (as is meet), not for others, but for her own sake. Since we too, when we are loved not for our own, but for others' sake, account the thing an insult. Just so I bid thee reckon in the case of virtue as well, and neither to follow after her for the sake of others, nor for men's sake to obey God; but men for God's sake. Since if thou do the contrary, though thou seem to follow virtue, thou hast provoked equally with him who follows her not. For just as he disobeyed by not doing, so thou by doing unlawfully. 

2 "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth." Thus, after He hath east out the disease of vainglory, and not before, He seasonably introduces His discourse of voluntary poverty. For nothing so trains men to be fond of riches, as the fondness for glory. This, for instance, is why men devise those herds of slaves, and that swarm of eunuchs, and their horses with trappings of gold, and their silver tables, and all the rest of it, yet more ridiculous; not to satisfy any wants, nor to enjoy any pleasure, but that they may make a show before the multitude. 

Now above He had only said, that we must show mercy; but here He points out also how great mercy we must show, when He saith, "Lay not up treasure." For it not being possible at the beginning to introduce all at once His discourse on contempt of riches, by reason of the tyranny of the passion, He breaks it up into small portions, and having set free the hearer's mind, instills it therein, so as that it shall become acceptable. Wherefore, you see, He said first "Blessed are the merciful;" and after this "Agree with thine adversary;" and after that again, "If any one will sue thee at the law and take thy coat, give him thy cloak also;" but here, that which is much greater than all these. For there His meaning was, "if thou see a law-suit impending, do this; since to want and be freed from strife, is better than to possess and strive;" but here, supposing neither adversary nor any one at law with thee, and without all mention of any other such party, He teaches the contempt of riches itself by itself, implying that not so much for their sake who receive mercy, as for the giver's sake, He makes these laws: so that though there be no one injuring us, or dragging us into a court of justice, even so we may despise our possessions, bestowing them on those that are in need. 

And neither here hath He put the whole, but even in this place it is gently spoken; although He had in the wilderness shown forth to a surpassing extent His conflicts in that behalf. However He doth not express this, nor bring it forward; for it was not yet time to reveal it; but for a while He searches out for reasons, maintaining the place of an adviser rather than a lawgiver, in His sayings on this subject. 

For after He had said, "Lay not up treasures upon the earth." He added, "where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal." 

For the present He signifies the hurtfulness of the treasure here, and the profit of what is there, both from the place, and from the things which mar it. And neither at this point doth He stop, but adds also another argument. 

And first, what things they most fear, from these He urges them. For "of what art thou afraid?" saith He: "lest thy goods should be spent, if thou give alms? Nay, then give alms, and so they will not be spent; and, what is more, so far from being spent, they will actually receive a greater increase; yea, for the things in heaven are added unto them." 

However, for a time He saith it not, but puts it afterwards. But for the present, what had most power to persuade them, that He brings forward, namely, that the treasure would thus remain for them unspent. 

And on either hand He attracts them. For He said not only, "If thou give alms, it is preserved:" but He threatened also the opposite thing, that if thou give not, it perishes. 

And see His unspeakable prudence. For neither did He say, "Thou dost but leave them to others;" since this too is pleasant to men: He alarms them however on a new ground, by signifying that not even this do they obtain: since though men defraud not, there are those which are sure to defraud, "the moth" and "the rust." For although this mischief seem very easy to restrain, it is nevertheless irresistible and uncontrollable, and devise what thou wilt, thou wilt be unable to check this harm. 

"What then, doth moth make away with the gold?" Though not moth, yet thieves do. "What then, have all been despoiled?" Though not all, yet the more part. 

3. On this account then He adds another argument, which I have already mentioned, saying, 

"Where the man's treasure is, there is his heart also."  

For though none of these things should come to pass, saith He, thou wilt undergo no small harm, in being nailed to the things below, and in becoming a slave instead of a freeman, and casting thyself out of the heavenly things, and having no power to think on aught that is high, but all about money, usuries and loans, and gains, and ignoble traffickings. Than this what could be more wretched? For in truth such an one will be worse off than any slave, bringing upon himself a most grievous tyranny, and giving up the chiefest thing of all, even the nobleness and the liberty of man. For how much soever any one may discourse unto thee, thou wilt not be able to hear any of those things which concern thee, whilst thy mind is nailed down to money; but bound like a dog to a tomb, by the tyranny of riches, more grievously than by any chain, barking at all that come near thee, thou hast this one employment continually, to keep for others what thou hast laid up. Than this what can be more wretched? 

However, forasmuch as this was too high for the mind of His hearers, and neither was the mischief within easy view of the generality, nor the gain evident, but there was need of a spirit of more self-command to perceive either of these; first, He hath put it after those other topics, which are obvious, saying, "Where the man's treasure is, there is his heart also;" and next He makes it clear again, by withdrawing His discourse from the intellectual to the sensible, and saying, 

"The light of the body is the eye."  

What He saith is like this: Bury not gold in the earth, nor do any other such thing, for thou dost but gather it for the moth, and the rust, and the thieves. And even if thou shouldest entirely escape these evils, yet the enslaving of thine heart, the nailing it to all that is below, thou wilt not escape: "For wheresoever thy treasure may be, there is thine heart also." As then, laying up stores in heaven, thou wilt reap not this fruit only, the attainment of the rewards for these things, but from this world thou already receivest thy recompence, in getting into harbor there, in setting thine affections on the things that are there, and caring for what is there (for where thou hast laid up thy treasures, it is most clear thou transferrest thy mind also); so if thou do this upon earth, thou wilt experience the contrary.

Statio ad St Tryphonem

Give heed to our entreaties, Lord,

that we may keep with devout observance

this solemn fast, wholesomely ordained

for healing the body and soul:

through Our Lord...

Coming from the busy streets near Piazza Navona, we find ourselves a quiet square before the graceful façade of today’s station. Originally the liturgy of today was celebrated in the church of St. Tryphon. This was an older church which once stood near here but was demolished to make room for the adjacent Augustinian convent, which was later confiscated by the Italian government after the invasion of Rome in 1870. The church of St. Augustine, under the patronage of the great pastor and author of the fourth and fifth centuries, dates back to the medieval period, with the first church begun in 1296 and construction continuing over the following two centuries, finishing in 1446. Soon after, this was almost completely rebuilt as the present structure, beginning in 1479 and completed in 1483. While the exterior appearance still asserts the Renaissance origins of this church, the interior modifications began almost as soon as it was completed. The pillars of the nave were covered with frescoes in the mid-sixteenth century; the high altar, a work of Bernini, was constructed in 1626-28. A more general renovation took place in 1750 and again in 1860. Through all of these changes the interior has maintained its order and proportions, reminding us of the age in which it was built when the new intellectual ideas of the Renaissance were spreading throughout Europe.

May Thy faithful draw strength from Thy gifts, O God.

In receiving them may they still seek,

and in seeking evermore receive them:

through Our Lord...

Is fasting really worthwhile? Whenever I consider the value of a religious practice, I always look into the earthly life of our Savior. He is our model. He dwelt with us in order to teach us how to form our lives inwardly and outwardly. Christ Himself fasted often and accorded it high praise in His teaching. Recall how He fasted forty days before entering upon His work of teaching. At the beginning of Lent the Church wishes to stamp this fact deep in our hearts: our fasting must be in union with and in imitation of Christ's.

I call to mind the mystery-laden, pregnant words spoken by our Savior when the disciples, unable to cure a possessed boy, asked, "Why could we not cast him out?," and Jesus answered, "This kind can be driven out in no way except by prayer and fasting" (Mark 9:29). This reply has always made the deepest impression on me. Prayer and fasting are extraordinary means (we may call them violent means) when other simpler ways are of no avail against the powers of hell.

Now another saying of Jesus comes to mind. When John's disciples began to reproach Him, "Why do Your disciples not fast?," He replied: "Can you make the wedding guests fast as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; in those days they will fast" (Luke 5:35). There is a hidden depth of meaning in these words. The coming of Christ among men was a wedding feast. Fasting had no place. But it is most proper to fast when the divine Bridegroom is taken away. Fasting on Fridays and during Holy Week, then, is in accord with Christ's own wishes.

I should like to cite one further passage from the Gospel, one which casts light on fasting from another direction. Once our Savior compared Himself with the Baptist in these words, "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, `He has a devil!' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, `Behold a glutton and a wine drinker.'" John was a man devoted to penance, an ascetic, who fasted throughout his life. Not so Christ. His way of living was not based exclusively upon self-denial and mortification, but upon an ordered enjoyment of life. So we learn from the Savior that fasting should be the exception, not the rule, in Christian morality.

To complete the lesson let us consider for a moment the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus speaks of the three important pious exercises of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. He highly recommends all three, but warns against practicing these virtues in a pharisaical manner.

The main points in Jesus' doctrine on fasting, then, are:

1. Fasting is an extremely important means of resisting the inroads of hell (hence Lent).

Excerpted from The Church's Year of Grace, Pius Parsch.

Statio ad St Georgium

O God, who art offended by sin and appeased by penitence,

look favourable upon the prayers of Thy suppliant people,

and though for our sins we deserve it,

turn away the scourge of Thy wrath:

Through Our Lord...

Surrounded by the ruins of the empire that put its patron to death, the humble church of St. George in the Velabrum is a continuing reminder of the faith and sacrifice of that great saint. As we head away from the river in the direction of the church, we see the Arch of Janus (late third/early fourth century after Christ) with its many niches, marking the site of the Forum Boarium, the cattle market of the ancient city. This was located in the area of the city known as the Velabrum, possibly so-called because of the yellow sand (from the Etruscan word velum, “marsh,” and Latin aurum, “gold) that gathered there. Right next to the church itself is a smaller arch built in honor of Septimus Severus by the moneychangers in the market in A.D. 204. This is almost exactly a century before the martyrdom of St. George. While very little of his actual story has come down to us, it can be known for certain that he suffered near the current location of Lod, Israel, most likely in the late third or early fourth century. While many of the stories about him are largely fictional, they seem to indicate that he was a soldier, possibly of Cappadocian descent, and also that he suffered many tortures before his death. He later became a popular patron of soldiers, who looked to him as a model for strength in the spiritual life. His cult became especially popular in Europe when it was brought back with the returning Crusaders.

While the church is currently named for St. George, it has traditionally also been linked with the martyr St. Sebastian. This is due to the church’s proximity to the location where the battered corpse of the saint was thrown into the Cloaca Maxima, the ancient sewer running underneath the site which still functions today. The first Christian structure on this site was a diaconia (deaconry), thought to have been established here in the late fifth century. This was a social services center of the early Roman church, including a distribution center with supplies for the needy, as well as a small chapel. This may have been placed under the patronage of St. George by the first half of the seventh century, when mention of such was made. Pope Leo II undertook a restoration in 682-683 and dedicated the church to Ss. Sebastian and George, a title it would retain into the medieval period. In 741 or 742 a relic of the head of St. George was discovered at the Lateran and brought here by Pope Zachary. Although a popular saint in the East at the time, he was still relatively unknown in the West. Therefore, this church marks one of the first places of devotion to this saint in the Latin Church.

Pope Gregory IV undertook a complete restoration and enlargement of the old deaconry in the years 827-844, effectively turning it into the structure we see today. Although it no longer served as a deaconry, it retained some of its earlier characteristics common to that type of building, such as square clerestory windows and an overall appearance that aimed more for functionality than aesthetic appeal. He also decorated the inside of the basilica with frescoes. Sometime later a marble chancel screen was added, later removed in the thirteenth century. The medieval period left a significant mark on the church, with the addition of a porch and campanile on the outside, and the redecoration of the interior with a ciborium over the altar and new frescoes in the apse, thought to be by Piero Cavallini. Different restorations and minor reconstructions, including roof repairs and a raising of the nave floor, were carried out in subsequent centuries. In 1787, the original columns of the ciborium were taken elsewhere and replaced with the current ones. Structural restorations and strengthening took place throughout the nineteenth century. The current façade is thought to date from this time period as well. In 1909-1910, the apse fresco was restored, and from 1923-1925, a larger restoration was carried out that gave the church the appearance it has today. This included lowering the floor to its original level. In 1993, a bomb placed by the mafia exploded in front of the church, causing heavy damage. A restoration was able to bring the church back to its previous appearance.

Spare, O spare Thy people, Lord!

They have been rightly chastened by Thy scourges;

now, in Thy pity, let them breathe again;

through Our Lord...

Chapter I.     - Connection of Gluttony and Lust. Grounds of Psychical Objections Against the 
                       Montanists.
Chapter II.    - Arguments of the Psychics, Drawn from the Law, the Gospel, the Acts, the
                       Epistles, and Heathenish Practices.
Chapter III.   -The Principle of Fasting Traced Back to Its Earliest Source.
Chapter IV.   -The Objection is Raised, Why, Then, Was the Limit of Lawful Food Extended 
                       After the Flood? the Answer to It.
Chapter V.    -Proceeding to the History of Israel, Tertullian Shows that Appetite Was as 
                       Conspicuous Among Their Sins as in Adam's Case. Therefore the Restraints 
                       of the Levitical Law Were Imposed.
Chapter VI.   -The Physical Tendencies of Fasting and Feeding Considered. The Cases of 
                       Moses and Elijah.
Chapter VII.  -Further Examples from the Old Testament in Favour of Fasting.
Chapter VIII. -Examples of a Similar Kind from the New.
Chapter IX.    -From Fasts Absolute Tertullian Comes to Partial Ones and Xerophagies.
...
Chapter XV.  - Of the Apostle's Language Concerning Food.
Chapter XVI. - Instances from Scripture of Divine Judgments Upon the Self-Indulgent; And 
                        Appeals to the Practices of Heathens.
Chapter XVII -Conclusion.

Chapter I.-Connection of Gluttony and Lust. Grounds of Psychical Objections Against the Montanists.

I should wonder at the Psychics, if they were enthralled to voluptuousness alone, which leads them to repeated marriages, if they were not likewise bursting with gluttony, which leads them to hate fasts. Lust without voracity would certainly be considered a monstrous phenomenon; since these two are so united and concrete, that, had there been any possibility of disjoining them, the pudenda would not have been affixed to the belly itself rather than elsewhere. Look at the body: the region (of these members) is one and the same. In short, the order of the vices is proportionate to the arrangement of the members. First, the belly; and then immediately the materials of all other species of lasciviousness are laid subordinately to daintiness: through love of eating, love of impurity finds passage. I recognise, therefore, animal2 faith by its care of the flesh (of which it wholly consists)-as prone to manifold feeding as to manifold marrying-so that it deservedly accuses the spiritual discipline, which according to its ability opposes it, in this species of continence as well; imposing, as it does, reins upon the appetite, through taking, sometimes no meals, or late meals, or dry meals, just as upon lust, through allowing but one marriage.

It is really irksome to engage with such: one is really ashamed to wrangle about subjects the very defence of which is offensive to modesty. For how am I to protect chastity and sobriety without taxing their adversaries? What those adversaries are I will once for all mention: they are the exterior and interior botuli of the Psychics. It is these which raise controversy with the Paraclete; it is on this account that the New Prophecies are rejected: not that Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla preach another God, nor that they disjoin Jesus Christ (from God), nor that they overturn any particular rule of faith or hope, but that they plainly teach more frequent fasting than marrying. Concerning the limit of marrying, we have already published a defence of monogamy.3 Now our battle is the battle of the secondary (or rather the primary) continence, in regard of the chastisement of diet. They charge us with keeping fasts of our own; with prolonging our Stations generally into the evening; with observing xerophagies likewise, keeping our food unmoistened by any flesh, and by any juiciness, and by any kind of specially succulent fruit; and with not eating or drinking anything with a winey flavour; also with abstinence from the bath, congruent with our dry diet. They are therefore constantly reproaching us with Novelty; concerning the unlawfulness of which they lay down a prescriptive rule, that either it must be adjudged heresy, if (the point in dispute) is a human presumption; or else pronounced pseudo-prophecy, if it is a spiritual declaration; provided that, either way, we who reclaim hear (sentence of) anathema.

Chapter II.-Arguments of the Psychics, Drawn from the Law, the Gospel, the Acts, the Epistles, and Heathenish Practices.

For, so far as pertains to fasts, they oppose to us the definite days appointed by God: as when, in Leviticus, the Lord enjoins upon Moses the tenth day of the seventh month (as) a day of atonement, saying, "Holy shall be to you the day, and ye shall vex your souls; and every soul which shall not have been vexed in that day shall be exterminated from his people."4 At all events, in the Gospel they think that those days were definitely appointed for fasts in which "the Bridegroom was taken away; "5 and that these are now the only legitimate days for Christian fasts, the legal and prophetical antiquities having been abolished: for wherever it suits their wishes, they recognise what is the meaning of" the Law and the prophets until John."6 Accordingly, (they think) that, with regard to the future, fasting was to be indifferently observed, by the New Discipline, of choice, not of command, according to the times and needs of each individual: that this, withal, had been the observance of the apostles, imposing (as they did) no other yoke of definite fasts to be observed by all generally, nor similarly of Stations either, which (they think) have withal days of their own (the fourth and sixth days of the week), but yet take a wide range according to individual judgment, neither subject to the law of a given precept, nor (to be protracted) beyond the last hour of the day, since even prayers the ninth hour generally concludes, after Peter's example, which is recorded in the Acts. Xerophagies, however, (they consider) the novel name of a studied duty, and very much akin to heathenish superstition, like the abstemious rigours which purify an Apis, an Isis, and a Magna Mater, by a restriction laid upon certain kinds of food; whereas faith, free in Christ,7 owes no abstinence from particular meats to the Jewish Law even, admitted as it has been by the apostle once for all to the whole range of the meat-market8 -(the apostle, I say), that detester of such as, in like manner as they prohibit marrying, so bid us abstain from meats created by God.9 And accordingly (they think) us to have been even then prenoted as "in the latest times departing from the faith, giving heed to spirits which seduce the world, having a conscience inburnt with doctrines of liars."10 (Inburnt?) With what fires, prithee? The fires, I ween, which lead us to repeated contracting of nuptials and daily cooking of dinners! Thus, too, they affirm that we share with the Galatians the piercing rebuke (of the apostle), as "observers of days, and of months, and of years."11 Meantime they huff in our teeth the fact that Isaiah withal has authoritatively declared, "Not such a fast hath the Lord elected," that is, not abstinence from food, but the works of righteousness, which he there appends:12 and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel has given a compendious answer to every kind of scrupulousness in regard to food; "that not by such things as are introduced into the mouth is a man defiled, but by such as are produced out of the mouth; "13 while Himself withal was wont to eat and drink till He made Himself noted thus; "Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker: "14 (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that "food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not."15 

By the instrumentalities of these and similar passages, they subtlely tend at last to such a point, that every one who is somewhat prone to appetite finds it possible to regard as superfluous, and not so very necessary, the duties of abstinence from, or diminution or delay of, food, since "God," forsooth, "prefers the works of justice and of innocence." And we know the quality of the hortatory addresses of carnal conveniences, how easy it is to say, "I must believe with my whole heart;16 I must love God, and my neighbour as myself:17 for `on these two precepts the whole Law hangeth, and the prophets, 'not on the emptiness of my lungs and intestines."

Chapter III.-The Principle of Fasting Traced Back to Its Earliest Source.

Accordingly we are bound to affirm, before proceeding further, this (principle), which is in danger of being secretly subverted; (namely), of what value in the sight of God this "emptiness" you speak of is: and, first of all, whence has proceeded the rationale itself of earning the favour of God in this way. For the necessity of the observance will then be acknowledged, when the authority of a rationale, to be dated back from the very beginning, shall have shone out to view.

Adam had received from God the law of not tasting "of the tree of recognition of good and evil," with the doom of death to ensue upon tasting.18 However, even (Adam) himself at that time, reverting to the condition of a Psychic after the spiritual ecstasy in which he had prophetically interpreted that "great sacrament"19 with reference to Christ and the Church, and no longer being "capable of the things which were the Spirit's,"20 yielded more readily to his belly than to God, heeded the meat rather than the mandate, and sold salvation for his gullet! He ate, in short, and perished; saved (as he would) else (have been), if he had preferred to fast from one little tree: so that, even from this early date, animal faith may recognise its own seed, deducing from thence onward its appetite for carnalities and rejection of spiritualities. I hold, therefore, that from the very beginning the murderous gullet was to be punished with the torments and penalties of hunger. Even if God had enjoined no preceptive fasts, still, by pointing out the source whence Adam was slain, He who had demonstrated the offence had left to; my intelligence the remedies for the offence. Unbidden, I would, in such ways and at such times as I might have been able, have habitually accounted food as poison, and taken the antidote, hunger; through which to purge the primordial cause of death-a cause transmitted to me also, concurrently with my very generation; certain that God willed that whereof He nilled the contrary, and confident enough that the care of continence will be pleasing to Him by whom I should have understood that the crime of incontinence had been condemned. Further: since He Himself both commands fasting, and calls "a soul21 wholly shattered "-properly, of course, by straits of diet-" a sacrifice; "who will any longer doubt that of all dietary macerations the rationale has been this, that by a renewed interdiction of food and observation of precept the primordial sin might now be expiated, in order that man may make God satisfaction through the self-same causative material through which he had offended, that is, through interdiction of food; and thus, in emulous wise, hunger might rekindle, just as satiety had extinguished, salvation, contemning for the sake of one unlawful more lawful (gratifications) ?

Chapter IV.-The Objection is Raised, Why, Then, Was the Limit of Lawful Food Extended After the Flood? the Answer to It.

This rationale was constantly kept in the eye of the providence of God-modulating all things, as He does, to suit the exigencies of the times-lest any from the opposite side, with the view of demolishing our proposition, should say: "Why, in that case, did not God forthwith institute some definite restriction upon food? nay, rather, why did He withal enlarge His permission? For, at the beginning indeed, it had only been the food of herbs and trees which He had assigned to man: `Behold, I have given you all grass fit for sowing, seeding seed, which is upon the earth; and every tree which hath in itself the fruit of seed fit for sowing shall be to you for food.'22 Afterwards, however, after enumerating to Noah the subjection (to him) of `all beasts of the earth, and fowls of the heaven, and things moving on earth, and the fish of the sea, and every creeping thing, 'He says, `They shall be to you for food: just like grassy vegetables have I given (them) you universally: but flesh in the blood of its own soul shall ye not eat.'23 For even by this very fact, that He exempts from eating that flesh only the `soul' of which is not out-shed through `blood, 'it is manifest that He has conceded the use of all other flesh." To this we reply, that it was not suitable for man to be burdened with any further special law of abstinence, who so recently showed himself unable to tolerate so light an interdiction- of one single fruit, to wit; that, accordingly, having had the rein relaxed, he was to be strengthened by his very liberty; that equally after the deluge, in the reformation of the human race, (as before it), one law-of abstaining from blood-was sufficient, the use of all things else being allowed. For the Lord had already shown His judgment through the deluge; had, moreover, likewise issued a comminatory warning through the "requisition of blood from the hand of a brother, and from the hand of every beast."24 And thus, preministering the justice of judgment, He issued the materials of liberty; preparing through allowance an undergrowth of discipline; permitting all things, with a view to take some away; meaning to "exact more" if He had "committed more; "25 to command abstinence since He had foresent indulgence: in order that (as we have said) the primordial sin might be the more expiated by the operation of a greater abstinence in the (midst of the) opportunity of a greater licence.

Chapter V.-Proceeding to the History of Israel, Tertullian Shows that Appetite Was as Conspicuous Among Their Sins as in Adam's Case. Therefore the Restraints of the Levitical Law Were Imposed.

At length, when a familiar people began to be chosen by God to Himself, and the restoration of man was able to be essayed, then all the laws and disciplines were imposed, even such as curtailed food; certain things being prohibited as unclean, in order that man, by observing a perpetual abstinence in certain particulars, might at last the more easily tolerate absolute fasts. For the first People had withal reproduced the first man's crime, being found more prone to their belly than to God, when, plucked out from the harshness of Egyptian servitude "by the mighty hand and sublime arm"26 of God, they were seen to be its lord, destined to the "land flowing with milk and honey;27 but forthwith, stumbled at the surrounding spectacle of an incopious desert sighing after the lost enjoyments of Egyptian satiety, they murmured against Moses and Aaron "Would that we had been smitten to the heart by the Lord, and perished in the land of Egypt, when we were wont to sit over our jars of flesh and eat bread unto the full! How leddest thou us out into these deserts, to kill this assembly by famine? "28 From the self-same belly preference were they destined (at last) to deplore29 (the fate of) the self-same leaden of their own and eye-witnesses of (the power of) God, whom, by their regretful hankering after flesh, and their recollection of their Egyptian plenties, they were ever exacerbating: "Who shall feed us with flesh? here have come into our mind the fish which in Egypt we were wont to eat freely, and the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic. But now our soul is arid nought save manna do our eyes see!"30 Thus used they, too, (like the Psychics), to find the angelic bread31 of xerophagy displeasing: they preferred the fragrance of garlic and onion to that of heaven. And therefore from men so ungrateful all that was more pleasing and appetizing was withdrawn, for the sake at once of punishing gluttony and exercising continence, that the former might be condemned, the latter practically learned.

Chapter VI.-The Physical Tendencies of Fasting and Feeding Considered. The Cases of Moses and Elijah.

Now, if there has been temerity in our retracing to primordial experiences the reasons for God's having laid, and our duty (for the sake of God) to lay, restrictions upon food, let us consult common conscience. Nature herself will plainly tell with what qualities she is ever wont to find us endowed when she sets us, before taking food and drink, with our saliva still in a virgin state, to the transaction of matters, by the sense especially whereby things divine are, handled; whether (it be not) with a mind much more vigorous, with a heart much more alive, than when that whole habitation of our interior man, stuffed with meats, inundated with wines, fermenting for the purpose of excremental secretion, is already being turned into a premeditatory of privies, (a premeditatory) where, plainly, nothing is so proximately supersequent as the savouring of lasciviousness. "The people did eat and drink, and they arose to play."32 Understand the modest language of Holy Scripture: "play," unless it had been immodest, it would not have reprehended. On the other hand, how many are there who are mindful of religion, when the seats of the memory are occupied, the limbs of wisdom impeded? No one will suitably, fitly, usefully, remember God at that time when it is customary for a man to forget his own self. All discipline food either slays or else wounds. I am a liar, if the Lord Himself, when upbraiding Israel with forgetfulness, does not impute the cause to "fulness: "" (My) beloved is waxen thick, and fat, and distent, and hath quite forsaken God, who made him, and hath gone away from the Lord his Saviour."33 In short, in the Self-same Deuteronomy, when bidding precaution to be taken against the self-same cause, He says: "Lest, when thou shalt have eaten, and drunken, and built excellent houses, thy sheep and oxen being multiplied, and (thy) silver and gold, thy heart be elated, and thou be forgetful of the Lord thy God."34 To the corrupting power of riches He made the enormity of edacity antecedent, for which riches themselves are the procuring agents.35 Through them, to wit, had "the heart of the People been made thick, lest they should see with the eyes, and hear with the ears, and understand with a heart"36 obstructed by the "fats" of which He had expressly forbidden the eating,37 teaching man not to be studious of the stomach.38 

On the other hand, he whose "heart" was habitually found "lifted up"39 rather than fattened up, who in forty days and as many nights maintained a fast above the power of human nature, while spiritual faith subministered strength (to his body),40 both saw with his eyes God's glory, and heard with his ears God's voice, and understood with his heart God's law: while He taught him even then (by experience) that man liveth not upon bread alone, but upon every word of God; in that the People, though fatter than he, could not constantly contemplate even Moses himself, fed as he had been upon God, nor his leanness, sated as it had been with His glory!41 Deservedly, therefore, even while in the flesh, did the Lord show Himself to him, the colleague of His own fasts, no less than to Elijah.42 For Elijah withal had, by this fact primarily, that he had imprecated a famine,43 already sufficiently devoted himself to fasts: "The Lord liveth," he said, "before whom I am standing in His sight, if there shall be dew in these years, and rain-shower. "44 Subsequently, fleeing from threatening Jezebel, after one single (meal of) food and drink, which he had found on being awakened by an angel, he too himself, in a space of forty days and nights, his belly empty, his mouth dry, arrived at Mount Horeb; where, when he had made a cave his inn, with how familiar a meeting with God was he received!45 "What (doest) thou, Elijah, here? "46 Much more friendly was this voice than, "Adam, where art thou? "47 For the latter voice was uttering a threat to a fed man, the former soothing a fasting one. Such is the prerogative of circumscribed food, that it makes God tent-fellow48 with man-peer, in truth, with peer! For if the eternal God will not hunger, as He testifies through Isaiah,49 this will be the time for man to be made equal with God, when he lives without food.

Chapter VII.-Further Examples from the Old Testament in Favour of Fasting.

And thus we have already proceeded to examples, in order that, by its profitable efficacy, we may unfold the powers of this duty which reconciles God, even when angered, to man.

Israel, before their gathering together by Samuel on occasion of the drawing of water at Mizpeh, had sinned; but so immediately do they wash away the sin by a fast, that the peril of battle is dispersed by them simultaneously (with the water on the ground). At the very moment when Samuel was offering the holocaust (in no way do we learn that the clemency of God was more procured than by the abstinence of the people), and the aliens were advancing to battle, then and there "the Lord thundered with a mighty voice upon the aliens, and they were thrown into confusion, and felt in a mass in the sight of Israel; and the men of Israel went forth out of Mizpeh, and pursued the aliens, and smote them unto Bethor,"-the unfed (chasing) the fed, the unarmed the armed. Such will be the strength of them who "fast to God."50 For such, Heaven fights. You have (before you) a condition upon which (divine) defence will be granted, necessary even to spiritual wars.

Similarly, when the king of the Assyrians, Sennacherib, after already taking several cities, was volleying blasphemies and menaces against Israel through Rabshakeh, nothing else (but fasting) diverted him from his purpose, and sent him into the Ethiopias. After that, what else swept away by the hand of the angel an hundred eighty and four thousand from his army than Hezekiah the king's humiliation? if it is true, (as it is), that on heating the announcement of the harshness of the foe, he rent his garment, put on sackcloth, and bade the elders of the priests, similarly habited, approach God through Isaiah-fasting being, of course, the escorting attendant of their prayers.51 For peril has no time for food, nor sackcloth any care for satiety's refinements. Hunger is ever the attendant of mourning, just as gladness is an accessory of fulness.

Through this attendant of mourning, and (this) hunger, even that sinful state, Nineveh, is freed from the predicted ruin. For repentance for sins had sufficiently commended the fast, keeping it up in a space of three days, starving out even the cattle with which God was not angry.52 Sodom also, and Gomorrah, would have escaped if they had fasted.53 This remedy even Ahab acknowledges. When, after his transgression and idolatry, and the slaughter of Naboth, slain by Jezebel on account of his vineyard, Elijah had upbraided him, "How hast thou killed, and possessed the inheritance? In the place where dogs had licked up the blood of Naboth, thine also shall they lick up,"-he "abandoned himself, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and slept in sackcloth. And then (came) the word of the Lord unto Elijah, Thou hast seen how Ahab hath shrunk in awe from my face: for that he hath shrunk in awe I will not bring the hurt upon (him) in his own days; but in the days of his son I will bring it upon (him)"-(his son), who was not to fast.54 Thus a God-ward fast is a work of reverential awe: and by its means also Hannah the wife of Elkanah making suit, barren as she had been beforetime, easily obtained from God the filling of her belly, empty of food, with a son, ay, and a prophet.55 

Nor is it merely change of nature, or aversion of perils, or obliteration of sins, but likewise the recognition of mysteries, which fasts will merit from God. Look at Daniel's example. About the dream of the King of Babylon all the sophists are troubled: they affirm that, without external aid, it cannot be discovered by human skill. Daniel alone, trusting to God, and knowing what would tend to the deserving of God's favour, requires a space of three days, fasts with his fraternity, and-his prayers thus commended-is instructed throughout as to the order and signification of the dream; quarter is granted to the tyrant's sophists; God is glorified; Daniel is honoured; destined as he was to receive, even subsequently also, no less a favour of God in the first year, of King Darius, when, after careful and repeated meditation upon the times predicted by Jeremiah, he set his face to God in fasts, and sackcloth, and ashes. For the angel, withal, sent to him, immediately professed this to be the cause of the Divine approbation: "I am come," he said, "to demonstrate to thee, since thou art pitiable"56 -by fasting, to wit. If to God he was "pitiable," to the lions in the den he was formidable, where, six days fasting, he had breakfast provided him by an angel.57 

Chapter VIII.-Examples of a Similar Kind from the New.

We produce, too, our remaining (evidences). For we now hasten to modern proofs. On the threshold of the Gospel,58 Anna the prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, "who both recognised the infant Lord, and preached many things about Him to such as were expecting the redemption of Israel," after the pre-eminent distinction of long-continued and single-husbanded widowhood, is additionally graced with the testimony of "fastings" also; pointing out, as she does, what the duties are which should characterize attendants of the Church, and (pointing out, too, the fact) that Christ is understood by none more than by the once married and often fasting.

By and by the Lord Himself consecrated His own baptism (and, in His own, that of all) by fasts;59 having (the power) to make "loaves out of stones,"60 say, to make Jordan flow with wine perchance, if He had been such a "glutton and toper."61 Nay, rather, by the virtue of contemning food He was initiating "the new man" into "a severe handling" of "the old,"62 that He might show that (new man) to the devil, again seeking to tempt him by means of food, (to be) too strong for the whole power of hunger.

Thereafter He prescribed to fasts a law-that they are to be performed "without sadness: "63 for why should what is salutary be sad? He taught likewise that fasts are to be the weapons for battling with the more direful demons:64 for what wonder if the same operation is the instrument of the iniquitous spirit's egress as of the Holy Spirit's ingress? Finally, granting that upon the centurion Cornelius, even before baptism, the honourable gift of the Holy Spirit, together with the gift of prophecy besides, had hastened to descend, we see that his fasts had been heard,65 I think, moreover, that the apostle too, in the Second of Corinthians, among his labours, and perils, and hardships, after "hunger and thirst," enumerates "fasts" also "very many"66 

Chapter IX.-From Fasts Absolute Tertullian Comes to Partial Ones and Xerophagies.

This principal species in the category of dietary restriction may already afford a prejudgment concerning the inferior operations of abstinence also, as being themselves too, in proportion to their measure, useful or necessary. For the exception of certain kinds from use of food is a partial fast. Let us therefore look into the question of the novelty or vanity of xerophagies, to see whether in them too we do not find an operation alike of most ancient as of most efficacious religion. I return to Daniel and his brethren, preferring as they did a diet of vegetables and the beverage of water to the royal dishes and decanters, and being found as they were therefore "more handsome" (lest any be apprehensive on the score of his paltry body, to boot!), sides being spiritually cultured into the bargain.67 For God gave to the young men knowledge and understanding in every kind of literature, and to Daniel in every word, and in dreams, and in every kind of wisdom; which (wisdom) was to make him wise in this very thing also,-namely, by what means the recognition of mysteries was to be obtained from God. Finally, in the third year of Cyrus king of the Persians, when he had fallen into careful and repeated meditation on a vision, he provided another form of humiliation. "In those days," he says, "I Daniel was mourning during three weeks: pleasant bread I ate not; flesh and wine entered not into my mouth; with oil I was not anointed; until three weeks were consummated: "which being elapsed, an angel was sent out (from God), addressing him on this wise: "Daniel, thou art a man pitiable; fear not: since, from the first day on which thou gavest thy soul to recogitation and to humiliation before God, thy word hath been heard, and I am entered at thy word."68 Thus the "pitiable" spectacle and the humiliation of xerophagies expel fear, and attract the ears of God, and make men masters of secrets.

I return likewise to Elijah. When the ravens had been wont to satisfy him with "bread and flesh,"69 why was it that afterwards, at Beersheba of Judea, that certain angel, after rousing him from sleep, offered him, beyond doubt, bread alone, and water?70 Had ravens been wanting, to feed him more liberally? or had it been difficult to the "angel" to carry away from some pan of the banquet-room of the king some attendant with his amply-furnished waiter, and transfer him to Elijah, just as the breakfast of the reapers was carried into the den of lions and presented to Daniel in his hunger? But it behoved that an example should be set, teaching us that, at a time of pressure and persecution and whatsoever difficulty, we must live on xerophagies. With such food did David express his own exomologesis; "eating ashes indeed as it were bread," that is, bread dry and foul like ashes: "mingling, moreover, his drink with weeping"-of course, instead of wine.71 For abstinence from wine withal has honourable badges of its own: (an abstinence) which had dedicated Samuel, and consecrated Aaron, to God. For of Samuel his mother said: "And wine and that which is intoxicating shall he not drink: "72 for such was her condition withal when praying to God.73 And the Lord said to Aaron "Wine and spirituous liquor shall ye not drink, thou and thy son after thee, whenever ye shall enter the tabernacle, or ascend unto the sacrificial altar; and ye shall not die."74 So true is it, that such as shall have ministered in the Church, being not sober, shall "die." Thus, too, in recent times He upbraids Israel: "And ye used to give my sanctified ones wine to drink." And, moreover, this limitation upon drink is the portion of xerophagy. Anyhow, wherever abstinence from wine is either exacted by God or vowed by man, there let there be understood likewise a restriction of food fore-furnishing a formal type to drink. For the quality of the drink is correspondent to that of the eating. It is not probable that a man should sacrifice to God half his appetite; temperate in waters, and intemperate in meats. Whether, moreover, the apostle had any acquaintance with xerophagies- (the apostle) who had repeatedly practised greater rigours, "hunger, and thirst, and fists many," who had forbidden "drunkennesses and revellings"75 -we have a sufficient evidence even from the case of his disciple Timotheus; whom when he admonishes, "for the sake of his stomach and constant weaknesses," to use "a little wine,"76 from which he was abstaining not from rule, but from devotion-else the custom would rather have been beneficial to his stomach-by this very fact he has advised abstinence from wine as "worthy of God," which, on a ground of necessity, he has dissuaded.

Chapter XV.-Of the Apostle's Language Concerning Food.

The apostle reprobates likewise such as "bid to abstain from meats; but he does so from the foresight of the Holy Spirit, precondemning already the heretics who would enjoin perpetual abstinence to the extent of destroying and despising the works of the Creator; such as I may find in the person of a Marcion, a Tatian, or a Jupiter, the Pythagorean heretic of to-day; not in the person of the Paraclete. For how limited is the extent of our "interdiction of meats!" Two weeks of xerophagies in the year (and not the whole of these,-the Sabbaths, to wit, and the Lord's days, being excepted) we offer to God; abstaining from things which we do not reject, but defer. But further: when writing to the Romans, the apostle now gives you a home-thrust, detractors as you are of this observance: "Do not for the sake of food," he says, "undo101 the work of God." What "work? "That about which he says,102 "It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine: ""for he who in these points doeth service, is pleasing and propitiable to our God." "One believeth that all things may be eaten; but another, being weak, feedeth on vegetables. Let not him who eateth lightly esteem him who eateth not. Who art thou, who judgest another's servant? ""Both he who eateth, and he who eateth not, giveth God thanks." But, since he forbids human choice to be made matter of controversy, how much more Divine! Thus he knew how to chide certain restricters and interdicters of food, such as abstained from it of contempt, not of duty; but to approve such as did so to the honour, not the insult, of the Creator. And if he has "delivered you the keys of the meat-market, " permitting the eating of "all things" with a view to establishing the exception of" things offered to idols; "still he has not included the kingdom of God in the meat-market: "For," he says, "the kingdom of God is neither meat nor drink; "103 and, "Food commendeth us not to God"-not that you may think this said about dry diet, but rather about rich and carefully prepared, if, when he subjoins, "Neither, if we shall have eaten, shall we abound; nor, if we shall not have eaten, shall we be deficient," the ring of his words suits, (as it does), you rather (than us), who think that you do "abound" if you eat, and are "deficient if you eat not; and for this reason disparage these observances.

How unworthy, also, is the way in which you interpret to the favour of your own lust the fact that the Lord "ate and drank" promiscuously! But I think that He must have likewise "fasted" inasmuch as He has pronounced, not "the full; "but "the hungry and thirsty, blessed: "104 (He) who was wont to profess "food" to be, not that which His disciples had supposed, but "the thorough doing of the Father's work; "105 teaching "to labour for the meat which is permanent unto life eternal; "106 in our ordinary prayer likewise commanding us to request "bread,"107 not the wealth of Attalus108 therewithal. Thus, too, Isaiah has not denied that God "hath chosen" a "fist; "but has particularized in detail the kind of fast which He has not chosen: "for in the days," he says, "of your fasts your own wills are found (indulged), and all who are subject to you ye stealthily sting; or else ye fast with a view to abuse and strifes, and ye smite with the fists. Not such a fast have I elected; "109 but such an one as He has subjoined, and by subjoining has not abolished, but confirmed.

Chapter XVI.-Instances from Scripture of Divine Judgments Upon the Self-Indulgent; And Appeals to the Practices of Heathens.

For even if He does prefer "the works of righteousness, " still not without a sacrifice, which is a soul afflicted with fasts.110 He, at all events, is the God to whom neither a People incontinent of appetite, nor a priest, nor a prophet, was pleasing. To this day the "monuments of concupiscence" remain, where the People, greedy of "flesh," till, by devouring without digesting the quails, they brought on cholera, were buried. Eli breaks his neck before the temple doors,111 his sons fall in battle, his daughter-in- law expires in child-birth: 112 for such was the blow which had been deserved at the hand of God by the shameless house, the defrauder of the fleshly sacrifices.113 Same as, a "man of God," after prophesying the issue of the idolatry introduced by King Jeroboam-after the drying up and immediate restoration of that king's hand-after the rending in twain of the sacrificial altar,-being on account of these signs invited (home) by the king by way of recompense, plainly declined (for he had been prohibited by God) to touch food at all in that place; but having presently afterwards rashly taken food from another old man, who lyingly professed himself a prophet, he was deprived, in accordance with the word of God then and there uttered over the table, of burial in his fathers' sepulchres. For he was prostrated by the rushing of a lion upon him in the way, and was buried among strangers; and thus paid the penalty of his breach of fast.114 

These will be warnings both to people and to bishops, even spiritual ones, in case they may ever have been guilty of incontinence of appetite. Nay, even in Hades the admonition has not ceased to speak; where we find in the person of the rich feaster, convivialities tortured; in that of the pauper, fasts refreshed; having-(as convivialities and fasts alike had)-as preceptors "Moses and the prophets."115 For Joel withal exclaimed: "Sanctify a fast, and a religious service; "116 foreseeing even then that other apostles and prophets would sanction fasts, and would preach observances of special service to God. Whence it is that even they who court their idols by dressing them, and by adorning them in their sanctuary, and by saluting them at each particular hour, are said to do them service. But, more than that, the heathens recognise every form of tapeinofro/nhsij. When the heaven is rigid and the year arid, barefooted processions are enjoined by public proclamation; the magistrates lay aside their purple, reverse the fasces, utter prayer, offer a victim. There are, moreover, some colonies where, besides (these extraordinary solemnities, the inhabitants) , by an annual rite, clad in sackcloth and besprent with ashes, present a suppliant importunity to their idols, (while) baths and shops are kept shut till the ninth hour. They have one single fire in public-on the altars; no water even in their platters. There is, I believe, a Ninevitan suspension of business! A Jewish fast, at all events, is universally celebrated; while, neglecting the temples, throughout all the shore, in every open place, they continue long to send prayer up to heaven. And, albeit by the dress and ornamentation of mourning they disgrace the duty, still they do affect a faith in abstinence, and sigh for the arrival of the long-lingering evening star to sanction (their feeding). But it is enough for me that you, by heaping blasphemies upon our xerophagies, put them on a level with the chastity of an Isis and a Cybele. I admit the comparison in the way of evidence. Hence (our xerophagy) will be proved divine, which the devil, the emulator of things divine, imitates. It is out of truth that falsehood is built; out of religion that superstition is compacted.Hence you are more irreligious, in proportion as a heathen is more conformable. He, in short, sacrifices his appetite to an idol-god; you to (the true) God will not. For to you your belly is god, and your lungs a temple, and your paunch a sacrificial altar, and your cook the priest, and your fragrant smell the Holy Spirit, and your condiments spiritual gifts, and your belching prophecy.

Chapter XVII-Conclusion.

"Old" you are, if we will say the truth, you who are so indulgent to appetite, and justly do you vaunt your "priority: "always do I recognise the savour of Esau, the hunter of wild beasts: so unlimitedly studious are you of catching fieldfares, so do you come from "the field" of your most lax discipline, so faint are you in spirit.117 If I offer you a paltry lentile dyed red with must well boiled down, forthwith you will sell all your "primacies: "with you "love" shows its fervour in sauce-pans, "faith" its warmth in kitchens, "hope" its anchorage in waiters; but of greater account is "love," because that is the means whereby your young men sleep with their sisters! Appendages, as we all know, of appetite are lasciviousness and voluptuousness. Which alliance the apostle withal was aware of; and hence, after premising, "Not in drunkenness and revels," he adjoined, "nor in couches and lusts."118 

To the indictment of your appetite pertains (the charge) that "double honour" is with you assigned to your presiding (elders) by double shares (of meat and drink); whereas the apostle has given them "double honour" as being both brethren and officers.119 Who, among you, is superior in holiness, except him who is more frequent in banqueting, more sumptuous in catering, more learned in cups? Men of soul and flesh alone as you are, justly do you reject things spiritual. If the prophets were pleasing to such, my (prophets) they were not. Why, then, do not you constantly preach, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die? "120 just as we do not hesitate manfully to command, "Let us fast, brethren and sisters, lest to-morrow perchance we die." Openly let us vindicate our disciplines. Sure we are that "they who are in the flesh cannot please God; "121 not, of course, those who are in the substance of the flesh, but in the care, the affection, the work, the will, of it. Emaciation displeases not us; for it is not by weight that God bestows flesh, any more than He does "the Spirit by measure."122 More easily, it may be, through the "strait gate"123 of salvation will slenderer flesh enter; more speedily will lighter flesh rise; longer in the sepulchre will drier flesh retain its firmness. Let Olympic cestus-players and boxers cram themselves to satiety. To them bodily ambition is suitable to whom bodily strength is necessary; and yet they also strengthen themselves by xerophagies. But ours are other thews and other sinews, just as our contests withal are other; we whose "wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the world's124 power, against the spiritualities of malice." Against these it is not by robustness of flesh and blood, but of faith and spirit, that it behoves us to make our antagonistic stand. On the other hand, an over-fed Christian will be more necessary to bears and lions, perchance, than to God; only that, even to encounter beasts, it will be his duty to practise emaciation.

1 [Written, say, circa a.d. 208.]
2 i.e., Psychic.
3 [Which is a note of time, not unimportant. ] 
4 Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 26-29.
5 Matt. ix. 14, 15; Mark ii. 18-20; Luke v. 33-35.
6 Luke xvi. 16; Matt. xi. 13.
7 Comp. Gal. v. 1.
8 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 25.
9 Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3.
10 So Oehler punctuates. The reference is to 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.
11 See Gal. iv. 10; the words kai kairouj Tertullian omits.
12 See Isa. lviii. 3-7.
13 See Matt. xv. 11; Mark vii. 15.
14 Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 34.
15 1 Cor. viii. 8.
16 Rom. x. 10.
17 Comp. Matt. xxii. 37-40, and the parallel passages.
18 See Gen. ii. 16, 17.
19 Comp. Eph. v. 32 with Gen. ii. 23, 24.
20 See 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
21 The references is to Ps. li. 17 (in LXX. Ps. l. 19).
22 Gen. i. 29.
23 See Gen. ix. 2-5 (in LXX.).
24 See Gen. ix. 5, 6.
25 See Luke xii. 48.
26 Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 12 (in LXX. cxxxv. 12). 
27 See Ex. iii. 8.
28 See Ex. xvi. 1-3.
29 Comp. Num. xx. 1-12 with Ps. cvi. 31-33 (in LXX. cv. 31-33).
30 See Num. xi. 1-6.
31 See Ps. lxxviii. 25 (in LXX. lxxvii. 25).
32 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 7 with Ex. xxxii. 6.
33 See Deut. xxxii. 15.
34 See Deut. viii. 12-14.
35 Comp. Eccles. vi. 7; Prov. xvi. 26. (The LXX. render the latter quotation very differently from the Eng. ver. or the Vulg.)
36 See Isa. vi. 10; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 26, 27.
37 See Lev. iii. 17.
38 See Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4; Luke iv. 4.
39 See Ps. lxxxvi. 4 (in LXX. lxxxv. 4); Lam. iii. 41 (in LXX. iii. 40).
40 Twice over. See Ex. xxiv. 18 and xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 11, 25.
41 See Ex. xxxiii. 18, 19, with xxxiv. 4-9, 29-35.
42 See Matt. xvii. 1-13; Mark ix. 1-13; Luke ix. 28-36.
43 See Jas. vi. 17. 
44 See 1 Kings xvii. 1 (in LXX. 3 Kings ib.).
45 See 1 Kings xix. 1-8. But he took two meals: see vers. 6, 7, 8.
46 Vers. 9, 13.
47 Gen. iii. 9 (in LXX.).
48 Comp. Matt. xvii. 4; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33.
49 See Ps. xl. 28 in LXX. In E. V., "fainteth not."
50 See Zech. vii. 5.
51 See 2 Kings xviii. xix.; 2 Chron. xxxii.; Isa. xxxvi. xxxvii.
52 See Jonah iii. Comp. de Pa., c. x.
53 See Ezek. xvi. 49; Matt. xi. 23, 24; Luke x. 12-14.
54 See 1 Kings xxi. (in the LXX. it is 3 Kings xx).
55 See 1 Sam. i. 1, 2, 7-20, iii. 20 (in LXX. 1 Kings). 
56 Dan. ix. 23, x. 11.
57 See Bel and the Dragon (in LXX.) vers. 31-39. "Pitiable" appears to be Tertullian's rendering of what in the E. V. is rendered "greatly beloved." Rig. (in Oehler) renders: "of how great compassion thou hast attained the favour;" but surely that overlooks the fact that the Latin is "miserabilis es," not "sis."
58 See Luke ii. 36-38. See de Monog., c. viii.
59 Matt. iv. 12; Luke iv. 1, 2; comp. de Bapt., c. xx.
60 See Matt. iv. 3; Luke iv. 3.
61 See c. ii.
62 Comp. Eph. iv. 22, 23; and, for the meaning of sugillationem ("severe handling"), comp. 1 Cor. ix. 27, where St. Paul's word upwpiazw (= "I smite under the eye," Eng. ver. "I keep under") is perhaps exactly equivalent in meaning.
63 Matt. vi. 16-18.
64 See Matt. xvii. 21; Mark ix. 29.
65 See Acts x. 44-46, 1-4 and 30.
66 2 Cor. xi. 27.
67 Dan. i.
68 See Dan. x. 1-3, 5, 12. 
69 See 1 Kings xvii. (in LXX. 3 Kings xvii.) 1-6.
70 1 Kings xix. 3-7.
71 See Ps. cii. (in LXX. ci.) 9.
72 1 Sam. (in LXX. 1 Kings) i. 11.
73 1 Sam. i. 15.
74 See Lev. x. 9.
75 See Rom. xiii. 13.
76 1 Tim. v. 23.
...
101 Rom. xiv. 20.
102 Ver. 21.
103 Rom. xiv. 17.
104 Comp. Luke vi. 21 and 25, and Matt. v. 6.
105 John iv. 31-34.
106 John vi. 27.
107 Matt. vi. 11; Luke xi. 3.
108 See Hor., Od., i. 1, 12, and Macleane's note there.
109 See Isa. lviii. 3, 4, 5, briefly, and more like the LXX. than the Vulg. or the Eng. ver. 
110 See Ps. li. (l. in LXX. and Vulg.) 18, 19; see c. iii. above.
111 This seems an oversight; see 1 Sam. (in LXX. and Vulg. 1 Kings) iv. 13.
112 1 Sam. iv. 17-21.
113 1 Sam. ii. 12-17, 22-25.
114 See 1 Kings (in LXX. and Vulg. 3 Kings) xiii.
115 Luke xvi. 19-31.
116 Joel ii. 15.
117 Comp. Gen. xxiii. 2, 3, 4, 31, and xxv. 27-34.
118 Rom. xiii. 13. 
119 1 Tim. v. 17.
120 Isa. xxii. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 32.
121 Rom. viii. 8.
122 John iii. 34.
123 Matt. vii. 13, 14; Luke xiii. 24.
124 Mundi: cf. kosmokratoraj, Eph. vi. 12. 

THE CONVERSION OF ST PAUL, APOSTLE

This great apostle was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin. At his circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, he received the name of Saul. His father was by sect a Pharisee, and a denizen of Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia: which city had shown a particular regard for the cause of the Caesars; on which account Cassius deprived it of its privileges and lands; but Augustus when conqueror, made it ample amends by honoring it with many new privileges, and with the freedom of Rome, as we read in the two Dions and Appian. Hence St. Paul, being born at Tarsus, was by privilege a Roman citizen, to which quality a great distinction and several exemptions were granted by the laws of the empire.[1]His parents sent him young to Jerusalem, where he was educated and instructed in the strictest observance of the law of Moses, by Gamaliel,[2] a learned and noble Jew, and probably a member of the Sanhedrin; and was a most scrupulous observer of it in every point. He appeals even to his enemies to bear evidence how conformable to it his life had been in every respect.[3] He embraced the sect of the Pharisees, which was of all others the most severe, though by its pride the most opposite to the humility of the gospel.[4] It was a rule among the Jews that all their children were to learn some trade with their studies, were it but to avoid idleness, and to exercise the body, as well as the mind, in something serious.[5] It is therefore probable that Saul learned in his youth the trade which he exercised even after his apostleship, of making tents.[6]

Saul, surpassing all his equals in zeal for the Jewish law and their traditions, which he thought the cause of God, became thereby a blasphemer, a persecutor, and the most outrageous enemy of Christ.[7] He was one of those who combined to murder St. Stephen, and by keeping the garments of all who stoned that holy martyr, he is said by St. Austin to have stoned him by the hands of all the rest to whose prayers for his enemies he ascribes the conversion of St.Paul:[8] "If Stephen," said he, "had not prayed, the church would never have had St. Paul."

After the martyrdom of the holy deacon, the priests and magistrates of the Jews raised a violent persecution against the church at Jerusalem, in which Saul signalized himself above others. By virtue of the power he had received from the high priest, he dragged the Christians out of their houses, loaded them with chains, and thrust them into prison.[9] He procured them to be scourged in the synagogues, and endeavored by torments to compel them to blaspheme the name of Christ. And as our Saviour had always been represented by the leading men of the Jews as an enemy to their law, it was no wonder that this rigorous Pharisee fully persuaded himself that <he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.>[10]

By the violences he committed, his name became everywhere a terror to the faithful. The persecutors not only raged against their persons, but also seized their estates and what they possessed incommon,[11] and left them in such extreme necessity, that the remotest churches afterwards thought it incumbent on them to join in charitable contributions to their relief. All this could not satisfy the fury of Saul; he breathed nothing but threats and the slaughter of the other disciples." Wherefore, in the fury of his zeal, he applied to the high priest and Sanhedrin for a commission to take up all Jews at Damascus who confessed Jesus Christ, and bring them bound to Jerusalem, that they might serve as public examples for the terror of others. But God was pleased to show forth in him his patience and mercy: and, moved by the prayers of St. Stephen and his other persecuted servants. for their enemies, changed him, in the very heat of his fury, into a vessel of election, and made him a greater mall in his church by the grace of the apostleship, than St.Stephen had ever been, and a more illustrious instrument of his glory.

He was almost at the end of his journey to Damascus, when, about noon, he and his company were all of a sudden surrounded by a great light from heaven, brighter than the sun.[12] They all saw the light, and being struck with amazement, fell to the ground.. Then Saul heard a voice, which to him was articulate and distinct; but not understood, though heard by the rest : <Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me>? Christ said not: Why dost thou persecute my disciples? but me: for it is he, their head, who is chiefly persecuted in his servants. Saul answered: <Who art thou, Lord>? Christ said: <Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutes. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad>:—" tocontend with one so much mightier than thyself. By persecuting my church you make it flourish, and only prick and hurt yourself." This mild expostulation of our Redeemer, accompanied with a powerful interior grace, strongly affecting his soul, cured his pride, assuaged his rage, and wrought at once a total change in him. Wherefore, trembling and astonished, he cried out: <Lord, what wilt thou have me to do>? What to repair the past? What to promote your glory? I make a joyful oblation of myself to execute your will in every thing, and to suffer for your sake afflictions, disgraces, persecutions, torments, and every sort of death. The true convert expressed this, not in a bare form of words, nor with faint languid desires, nor with any exception lurking in the secret recesses of his heart; but with an entire sacrifice of himself, and an heroic victory over the world with its frowns and charms, over the devils with their snares and threats, and over himself and all inclinations of self-love; devoting himself totally to God. A perfect model of a true conversion, the greatest work of almighty grace!

Christ ordered him to arise and proceed on his journey to the city, where he should be informed of what he expected from him. Christ would not instruct him immediately by himself, but St.Austin observes,[13] sent him to the ministry[14] which he had established in the church, to be directed in the way of salvation by those whom he had appointed for that purpose. He would not finish the conversion and instruction of this great apostle, whom he was pleased to call in so wonderful a manner, but by remitting him to the guidance of his ministers; showing us thereby that his holy providence has so ordered it, that all who desire to serve him, should seek his will by listening to those whom he has commanded us to hear, and whom he has sent in his own name and appointed to be our guides. So perfectly would he abolish in his servants all self-confidence and presumption, the source of error and illusion.

The convert, rising from the ground, found that, though his eyes were open, he saw nothing. Providence sent this corporal blindness to be an emblem of the spiritual blindness in which he had lived, and to signify to him that he was henceforward to die to the world, and learn to apply his mind totally to the contemplation of heavenly things.. He was led by the hand into Damascus, whither Christ seemed to conduct him in triumph. He was lodged in the house of a Jew named Judas, where he remained three days blind, and without eating or drinking. He doubtless spent his time in great bitterness of soul, not yet knowing what God required of him. With what anguish he bewailed his past blindness and false zeal against the church, we may conjecture both from his taking no nourishment during those three days, and from the manner in which he ever after remembered and spoke of his having been a blasphemer and a persecutor. Though the entire reformation of his heart was not gradual, as in ordinary conversions, but miraculous in the order of grace, and perfect in a moment; yet a time of probation and a severe interior trial (for such we cannot doubt but he went through on this occasion) was necessary to crucify the old man and all other earthly sentiments in his heart, and to prepare it to receive the extraordinary graces which God designed him.

There was a Christian of distinction in Damascus, much respected by the Jews for his irreproachable life and great virtue; his name was Ananias. Christ appeared to this holy disciple, and commanded him to go to Saul, who was then in the house of Judas at prayer: Ananias trembled at the name of Saul, being no stranger to the mischief he had done in Jerusalem, or to the errand on which he was set out to Damascus. But our Redeemer overruled his fears, and charged him a second time to go to him, saying: <Go, for he is a vessel of election to carry my name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: and I will show him how much he has to suffer for my name.> For tribulation is the test and portion of all the true servants of Christ. Saul in the mean time saw in a vision a man entering, and laying his hands upon him, to restore his sight. Ananias, obeying the divine horder, arose, went to Saul, and laying his hands upon him, said: <BrotherSaul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to thee on thy journey, hath sent me that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.> Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he recovered his eyesight. Ananias added: <The God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldst know his will and see the just one, and shouldst hear the voice from his mouth: and thou shalt be his witness unto all men to publish what thou hast seen and heard. Arise, therefore, be baptized and washed from thy sins, invoking the name of the Lord.> Saul then arose, was baptized, and took some refreshment. He stayed some few days with the disciples at Damascus, and began immediately to preach in the synagogues, that Jesus was the Son of God, to the great astonishment of all that heard him, who said: <Is not this he who persecuted at Jerusalem those who invoked the name of Jesus, and who is come hither to carry them away prisoners>? Thus a blasphemer and a persecutor was made an apostle, and chosen to be one of the principal instruments of God in the conversion of the world.

St. Paul never recalled to mind this his wonderful conversion, without raptures of gratitude and praise to the divine mercy. The church, in thanksgiving to God for such a miracle of his grace, from which it has derived such great blessings, and to commemorate so miraculous an instance of his almighty power, and to propose to penitents a perfect model of a true conversion has instituted this festival, which we find mentioned in several calendars and missals of the eighth and ninth centuries, and which Pope Innocent III commanded to be observed with great solemnity. It was for some time kept a holyday of obligation in most churches in the West; and we read it mentioned as such in England in the council of Oxford in 1222 in the reign of king Henry III.[14]

Endnotes

1 Acts, xxi. 29, xxii. 3.

2 Ibid, xxvi 3.

3 Ibid, xxvi 4.

4 Ibid, xxvi 5.

5 Rabbi Juda says, "That a parent who neglects his duty, is as criminalas if he taught his son to steal." See Grotius and Sanctius on Acts xviii.3.

6 These tents were for the use of soldiers and mariners, and were made ofskins sewn together. Some think that his business was that of making tapestryand hangings for theatres.

7 Ga. i. 14.

8 Serm. 301.

9 Ibid. 116, c. 4. Acts, vi.

10 Acts, viii. 3, xxii. 4, xxvi. 10.

11 Acts, xxvi. 9.

12 Heb. x. 32.

13 Acts, x. 1.

14 Acts, ix. xxii. xxvi.

15 Qn. Evang. 1, 2, c. 40, et praef. 1, de doctr. Christ. p. 32.

16 St. Austin doubts not but Ananias was a bishop, or at least a priest. TheGreeks give him a place on their calendar on the 1st of October, and style himbishop of Damascus and martyr.

17 Conc. Labbe, t. xi. p. 274.

At the Mass of the Vigil of the Nativity...

TUESDAY JANUARY 4th 2010 545pm Domus Ecclesia

SOLEMN BLESSING OF WATER - With the commemoration of Christ's baptism there was associated in the Orient from ancient times not only the custom of blessing baptismal water in the churches but also of solemnly blessing a nearby river or fountain in honor of the Lord's baptism. In Palestine it was the Jordan, of course, that received this blessing in a most colorful and solemn ceremony. Thousands of pilgrims would gather on its shores to step into the water after the rite, submerging three times to obtain the great blessing. In Egypt the Nile was thus blessed for many centuries...

In the cities of East Rome [Byzantium], Epiphany water was blessed in the church and given to the people to take home. Saint John Chrysostom claimed that this water was known to stay fresh through the whole year and even longer.

The Russians and other Slavs of the Greek Rite [Byzantine rite] observe the "blessing of water" on the twenty-fifth day after Easter (always a Wednesday) which they call "Mid-Pentecost." Priests and people walk in procession to a well or river, the water is solemnly blessed, and the faithful fetch a good supply to keep during the year.

In the Latin Church this blessing of water was introduced in the fifteenth century. The present rite of solemn blessing is to be performed on the vigil of Epiphany. The prayers, replacing older formulas, date from the year 1890. After the texts of the blessing the Roman Ritual gives the following instruction: "This blessed water should be distributed to the faithful, to be devoutly used by them in their homes, and also for the sick ones."

At the Mass of the Feast of the Epiphany...

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 6th 2010 6pm Domus Ecclesia

PROCLAMATION OF FEASTS - One of the special traditions connected with Epiphany was the publication on January 6 of the annual letter of the Patriarch of Alexandria announcing the date of Easter for the current year (epistola festalis). The scholars of Alexandria wereconsidered most competent to make the difficult computations and observations necessary to determine this date, and thus the whole East followed their findings, which were sent to all churches by the Patriarch. In the sixth century, the fourth Council of Orleans (541) ordered the same procedure in the West. During the Middle Ages the dates of other movable feasts used to be added to the date of Easter and be solemnly read to the people on Epiphany Day. This ancient custom is still observed in some cathedrals as a traditional solemnity on January 6 at the end of Pontifical Mass.

BLESSING OF HOMES - The Roman Ritual also provides a beautiful and impressive rite of blessing the homes of the faithful on the Feast of the Epiphany. This blessing is usually given by the pastor. After reciting the Magnificat, the priest sprinkles the rooms with holy water and incenses them, then recites the prayers... After the blessing the initials of the legendary names of the Magi -- Gaspar, Melchior and Baltasar -- are written with white chalk on the inside of the door, framed by the number of the year, and all symbols are connected by the cross: 20+G+M+B+__. To sanctify even the chalk for this writing, there is a special "Blessing of Chalk on the Feast of the Epiphany" in the Rituale Romanum.

If you would like your home blessed or would like Epiphany Water &/or Chalk to bless your home yourself, please contact the Parish Office on 01273 774889 to arrange either for a member of the Clergy to attend your home and bless it for you, or to collect Water/Chalk from Domus Ecclesia if you are unable to attend Mass on the 6th.

The Worldwide Family of Catholic Apostolic National Churches mourns the death of the Patriarch, Dom Luis Fernando Castillo-Mendez

Patriarch +Dom Luis Fernando Castillo-Mendez (Seated) with

Our Archbishop-Metropolitan, Bishops and visiting Bishops.

On the morning of October 29, 2009, at approximately 9am, His Beatitude, Dom Luis Fernando Castillo-Mendez, the Patriarch of the Worldwide Family of Catholic Apostolic National Churches passed away, at the age of 87.  Patriarch Mendez was the last living bishop, of the original bishops consecrated by former Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, who founded the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (ICAB). Patriarch Mendez was personally responsible for the spread of the National Catholic Church movement around the world, and is survived by the Brazilian Church, as well as the National Churches ministering to the lost sheep around the world.

Our own Archbishop Andre Queen SCR served as Patriarch Mendez’ Apostolic Delegate to the United States from 2005 to 2007, and the Patriarch himself consecrated (sub conditione) our Archbishop-Metropolitan and Archbishop Queen, to ensure a direct transmission of “Duarte-Costa” Apostolic Lines of Succession. His Eminence, Archbishop-Metropolitan Robert M. Gubala SCR, sent condolences on behalf of the entire Church to the Episcopal Council of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (ICAB), which can be read here.

The Catholic Apostolic National Church received official notification of the Patriarch’s passing from the Episcopal Council of ICAB (translated from Portuguese):

“The church is in mourning, beginning at 9am today with the death of the Honorable and Reverend Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, who presided over the four seats, and Council proclaimed its patriarch and became, later, also Worldwide Patriarch serving all of the Catholic Apostolic National Churches who have communion with ICAB.

TheEminent Professor of the Diocese of Brasilia, which was the founder, died at 87 years of age, as of December 3 and leaves an example of tenacity, sacrifice, courage and determination, a deep and irrepressible yearning in all those deprived of their friendship or were directed by him and grazing. A great characteristic of Dom Luis Castillo was undoubtedly his indomitable courage, the strength he brought to the primacy of the church and the incredible ability he displayed, to build and manage knowledge, a born leader, a man geared to high-flying and high altitude.

Without him, the Church where she exisits, would not possess the assets that it holds today, because it has always been possible to notice, besides being a profound idealist, he has put love in everything realizou. He was a creator of dioceses, and in the history of ICAB, was the Bishop who developed carefully the hierarchy to ensure the continuity of certain ideals of the San Carlos of Brazil. Detractors have always shown a taste for pomp and circumstances, but Dom Castillo-Mendez, personally, was a man of simple life and deeds humility.

The Patriarch of the Church in Brazil was the third Bishop consecrated by St. Carlos of Brazil, of receiving, directly, his  apostolic succession. Working much of his life with the founder of the Church and did his best at a certain point of time, in fulfilling the mission to consecrate the followers of the Apostolic College left by Jesus in differentcountries, taking with them the principles of the National Church. For in recognition of this that, assembled in council, the diocesan and primates of several countries that joined the faith nationally elected and gave him the title of World Patriarch that he displayed with great care and was able to honorably execute until death.

The Mass will be celebrated BURIAL OF THE 10am THIS SUNDAY AT THE CATHEDRAL OF OURLADY OF MIRACULOUS MEDAL, OFFICE BRASILIA, a gathering of bishops, clerics,families and faithful from various parts of BRAZIL AND THE WORLD FOR THE LASTGOODBYE TO THE PATRIARCH OF THE CHURCH.”

Congratulations to our own Rev. Dr. Ericjon Thomas! Fr. Thomas recently had an article published by the Victoria Press, Mishawaka, IN,and contained in the publication: Foundation Theology 2009.

The publication Foundation Theology is widely circulated throughout North America, the United Kingdom, and Rome. The title of Fr. Thomas' article is: Development of Religious Consciousness: Bridging the Gap between Science and Religion.

Fr. Thomas is actively engaged in ongoing research pertaining toPaleoanthropolgy, Religious Consciosness, Neurotheology (a division ofNeuroscience), Natural Law, Existential Meaning, etc.

Foundation Theology 2009 is available through the Graduate Theological Foundation: www.gtfeducation.org or Victoria Press, Mishawaka, IN.     

We commend our priests who are making scholarly contributions in the various disciplines of academia and are grateful to all our priests serving with their gifts and talents in the vineyard of the Lord.

By Fr Dwight Longenecker at Monday, October 05, 2009

Married Catholic Priests

The Longenecker family at my ordination. Wife Alison,
Benedict (16) Madeleine (15) Theodore (12) Elias (11)

From time to time I am asked to justify or explain the fact that I am a married man with four children, and also a Catholic priest. There are strong feelings in the 'celibate priests' debate on both sides, and people expect me to have all the answers. I hate to disillusion those who wish to recruit me for either side of the debate. My own views are a mixture of common sense and loyalty to the traditions and teachings of Mother Church.

First let us dispose of some red herrings. Some favor celibacy of priests for utilitarian reasons. The most common argument one hears for celibacy is that 'the celibate man has more time for God and for his flock'. A married man cannot really serve the Lord with the total dedication that is required. Well, yes and no. Of course, this is one of the arguments put forward by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 7.32-33. However, in saying this, common sense also prevails.

Does marriage mean that I do not have time for the parish or my priestly work? No. My wife and children are very supportive. I have a job as a school chaplain (not a parish priest) that is very suitable to the married state. Am I busy? Yes, do I sometimes have to work hours that put pressure on the family? Yes, but then so do many other men in other professions, and their hours and time away are much worse than mine. I think of truck drivers, fire fighters, soldiers and sailors and doctors on call. Many jobs take the man away from home. Many travel for days and weeks at at time. People cope. Furthermore, I'm afraid I can think of a good number of celibate men who are not available at all times for all the people everywhere. For some celibacy leads them to a life of selfishness, self absorbtion and isolation. Celibacy does not automatically produce the Cure d'Ars.

Another red herring: the church cannot (or can) afford married priests. Or course some churches cannot afford married men with families, but many can afford married priests. There are plenty of chaplaincy posts available that provide an adequate salary. Any decent medium sized parish can easily support a married man and his family. Catholics should get over the idea that their priests work for $5,000.00 a year. If a married man were to get the benefits in kind that most parish priests receive (house, insurance, expenses, food allowance, utilities etc) plus a rewarding job for life, many men (from a purely practical view) would jump at the chance. However, the married man and his wife and family must be prepared to live the life of faith filled poverty if need be, and many married men and their wives are prepared to do just that in order to serve the church. The support of the married clergy is simply a practical problem to be solved, and it is just as easily solved as finding a salary for any lay person as we do in our parishes, our schools, our diocesan offices etc.

There is a complication which many who are in favor of married priests do not think of: While it may be possible to support married men with families, if they are living according to church teaching and are young and fertile this might mean many children. It is possible to afford married clergy and they can find the time to be priests too, but what if they have a dozen children? I believe it is still possible, but the larger the family, the more the questions of affordability and division of vocation and time availability become an issue.

A third red herring: Celibacy is mandatory because sex is dirty. This is alien to Catholic teaching. Marriage is sacred and so is the marriage bed. Yes, you can find some witnesses from the early church who teach that the marriage act defiles the priest, but just because it is primitive doesn't mean it is correct. Support for both married and celibate clergy is found in the primitive tradition. The primitive tradition is considered in the light of the whole teaching of the church on marriage and sexuality.

A fourth red herring: married priests make better pastors because they have a wife and children. They understand the stresses and strains of marriage and parenting and so they understand most people's situation better. This assumes that the man is a good husband and father. I can assure you from my experience as a Protestant that this is by no means the case. When clergy marriages hit the rocks they hit hard. There are all sorts of difficulties and levels of complexity that most marriages never have to face. Just as there are celibate priests who fail to live up to their vow, there are married clergy who have disastrous marriages and are terrible fathers. Likewise, there are many celibate men who understand marriage and family life perfectly well. Remember, they were brought up in a family. They're not stupid, and as C.S.Lewis said, "The referee can see the game better than the players." A wise celibate priest can offer advice and direction to married couples and families.

A fifth red herring: Marriage will solve the priest child abuse problem. This assumes that all celibates are frustrated sexually and are secret perverts while married men are all well adjusted, sexually mature and satisfied men. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out. Again, common sense prevails. Some celibate men are sexually immature, perverted and twisted. So are some married men. Likewise, many celibate men are confident, content and fulfilled within their vow just as many married men are. Celibacy actually pre-empts a whole range of nightmarish problems for the clergy: divorce and re-marriage, homosexual unions, support of divorced clergy wives and children, mixed marriages etc.

So what is my position and why? Simply this: I support the present discipline of the church. It is a discipline not a dogma. It could be changed tomorrow. It could be changed in any number of ways: the Eastern discipline could be adopted. Married older men could be invited to apply for ordination. Men who were laicized to be married could be invited back into active ministry. I can see practical advantages to both positions, but whatever happens it is not for me to say. Therefore, I support the present discipline of the church.

Finally, what is the real reason for celibacy? All of the utilitarian reasons are red herrings for the reasons I have outlined above. Instead the core argument for celibacy is theological. The celibate (priest or religious) pictures for us the 'Bride of Christ'. The male priest and male or female religious are bethrothed to Jesus Christ, and thus become icons of what all of us are intended to be in Christ. Each one of us are supposed to put Christ absolutely first in our lives and have no greater love than him. The married, in their turn, remind the celibate what marriage is like, and what their relationship to Christ consists of: daily, nitty gritty, self sacrifice. Then the celibate, reciprocate by reminding the married that their marriage is a sacrament that is a mystery that reflects and incarnates the unity between Christ and his Church.

This is why some are called to the self sacrifice of celibacy...not essentially for practical reasons, but for theological reasons, and those theological reasons become practical as they are lived out in the daily sacrifice.

UPDATE: Go here for my latest article for National Catholic Register on Convert Clergy.

St Francis of Assisi

Francis of Assisi is honored by the Catholic Church as the patron saint of animals and ecology.  Francis was born at Assisi in Umbria in 1181 or 1182.  His father was a prosperous merchant, and Francis planned to follow him in his trade, although he also had dreams of being a troubadour or a knight.  In 1201 he took part in an attack on Perugia, was taken hostage, and remained a captive there for a year.  As a result of his captivity and a severe illness his mind began to turn to religion, but around 1205 he enlisted in another military expedition, to Apulia.  However, he had a dream in which God called him to his service, and he returned to Assisi and began to care for the sick.  In 1206, he had a vision in which Christ called him to repair His Church.  Francis interpreted this as a command to repair the church of San Damiano, near Assisi.  He resolved to become a hermit, and devoted himself to repairing the church.  His father, angry and embarrassed by Francis' behavior, imprisoned him and brought him before the bishop as disobedient.  Francis abandoned all his rights and possessions, including his clothes.  Two years later he felt himself called to preach, and was soon joined by companions.  When they numbered eleven he gave them a short Rule and received approval from Pope Innocent III for the brotherhood, which Francis called the Friars Minor.    

The friars traveled throughout central Italy and beyond, preaching for people to turn from the world to Christ.  In his life and preaching, Francis emphasized simplicity and poverty, relying on God's providence rather than worldly goods.  The brothers worked or begged for what they needed to live, and any surplus was given to the poor.  Francis turned his skills as a troubadour to the writing of prayers and hymns. 

In 1212 Saint Clara Sciffi, a girl from a noble family of Assisi, left her family to join Francis.  With his encouragement she founded a sisterhood at San Damiano, the Poor Ladies, later the Poor Clares.

One of Francis's most famous sermons is one he gave to a flock of birds.  One day while Francis and some friars were traveling along the road, Francis looked up and saw the trees full of birds.  Francis "left his companions in the road and ran eagerly toward the birds" and "humbly begged them to listen to the word of God."  One of the friars recorded the sermon, which overflows with Francis's love for creation and its Creator: "My brothers, birds, you should praise your Creator very much and always love him; he gave you feathers to clothe you, wings so that you can fly, and whatever else was necessary for you.  God made you noble among his creatures, and he gave you a home in the purity of the air; though you neither sow nor reap, he nevertheless protects and governs you without any solicitude on your part."

Thomas of Celano records that the birds stretched their necks and extended their wings as Francis walked among them touching and blessing them.  This event was a turning point of sorts for Francis.  "He began to blame himself for negligence in not having preached to the birds before" and "from that day on, he solicitously admonished the birds, all animals and reptiles, and even creatures that have no feeling, to praise and love their Creator."    

In time the brotherhood became more organized.  As large numbers of people, attracted to the preaching and example of Francis, joined him, Francis had to delegate responsibility to others.  Eventually he wrote a more detailed Rule, which was further revised by the new leaders of the Franciscans.  He gave up leadership of the Order and went to the mountains to live in secluded prayer.  There he received the Stigmata, the wounds of Christ.  He returned to visit the Franciscans, and Clara and her sisters, and a few of his followers remained with him.  He died at the Porziuncula on October 3, 1226.

Francis called for simplicity of life, poverty, and humility before God.  He worked to care for the poor, and one of his first actions after his conversion was to care for lepers.  Thousands were drawn to his sincerity, piety, and joy.  In all his actions, Francis sought to follow fully and literally the way of life demonstrated by Christ in the Gospels.  His respect and appreciation for creation was so profound because it always led him to the Creator.    

For Francis, the Eucharist became the deepest source of support for his desire for cosmic peace and reconciliation.  Just two years before he died, St. Francis said:  "I beseech all of you, by whatever charity I can, that you show reverence and all honor to the most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, because (in Him) all things, whether on earth or in heaven have been pacified and reconciled with Almighty God".

Every year on the Sunday nearest his October 4 feast day, Catholic and other Christian churches around the world host services where animals are blessed.  These services are a powerful way to celebrate both Francis's and God's compassionate concern for all creatures.

Francis is well known for the "Canticle of Brother Sun."  Written late in the saint's life, when blindness had limited his sight of the outside world, the canticle shows that his imagination was alive with love for creation.  Visit our Prayers I section to read this wonderful prayer.

Though never ordained, Francis' impact on religious life since his times has been enormous.  Probably no saint has affected so many in so many different ways as the gentle Saint of Assisi who, born to wealth, devoted his life to poverty, concern for the poor and the sick, and so delighted in God's works as revealed in nature.

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men."

-St. Francis of Assisi

By Fr Dwight Longenecker

Sexual Healing and Sanctity

That got your attention didn't it?

I got involved in an interesting discussion the other day with some fellow Catholics about the effects of sanctity in one's life and how it touches human sexuality. The saints are individuals who, by the grace of God, have been purified in this life. They are sanctified completely and have become perfect. That is to say, they have become whole. They are all that God created them to be. In psychological terms they are 'totally self actualized'. In Catholic speak, 'grace has perfected nature.'

If this is so, then you would expect the area of their sexual identity to be whole as well. Jung uses the language of anima and animus. Anima being the female aspect of human personality and animus the male. Each of us have within us both anima and animus. This would make sense as we are, both male and female, created in God's image, and although we relate to God as masculine Father, he must have within himself all the feminine attributes as well. This is not to say that God is feminine, but that God's 'masculinity' is complete, and therefore the feminine is integrated within and through the full 'masculinity'.  We would expect, therefore in Our Lord, to see a full integration and wholeness of masculinity, and that would include some strengths normally thought of as 'feminine.'  And so we see that he is able to weep freely. He weeps over Jerusalem and 'would gather them under his wings as a mother hen her chicks.' He is able to relate emotionally. He is able to love the little children and not reject them. He understands women just as well as he understands men.

If this theory of mine is true, then we should see a similar fulfillment of the anima within male saints and a fulfillment of the animus within the growth of the female saints. My friends immediately pointed out the 'toughness' of St Catherine of Siena, St Teresa of Avila, St Joan of Arc, Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, St Therese of Lisieux and proposed with me that the same would be true of all female saints in their own way, and that the beauty of this sanctification is not that the females became 'masculine' but that through the process of sanctification the integration and blossoming of the animus in their lives completed and fulfilled their femininity. If this theory is true, then Catholic spirituality and the lives of the saints has some pretty trenchant things to say about feminist ideology. Radical feminism seeks not a subtle and naturally grace filled integration of the animus with femininity, but a destruction of femininity by an exaltation of the animus.

This also shows up another aspect of contemporary sexual imagery: what I call the Barbie doll female. The woman who is so giggly and girly and vain is not yet fully female. She is a shallow typecast female exhibiting everything female, but without the depth and completion of the animus.

There are similar observations, therefore to be made for the male saints. My friends observed the full blossoming and integration of the anima within male saints: St Dominic who wept freely when celebrating Mass,and dealt with his brothers with tenderness of heart and soft compassion; St Benedict who treats his charges with similar tenderness and sensitivity; even the most manly of saints like Ignatius Loyola and Thomas More and Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas display a tenderness of heart, compassion and sensitivity that shows the proper flowering of the anima within the male soul. Again, this is not to say that they were effeminate; instead their masculinity is fulfilled and completed with a beautiful integration of the anima rather than a rejection of it.

As the female saints shed light on the feminist movement, so the male saints shed light on the homosexualist movement. This complex maladjustment of the masculine soul is a false feminization which mocks both true masculinity and true femininity. As the Barbie Doll female is a shallow travesty of true fulfilled femininity, so the 'macho man' is a shallow and immature realization of the masculine.

You will find no saints who are one step above the gorilla. Instead male saints show us true masculinity which is completed by a fearless acceptance and integration of the anima in the correct way.

Finally, this work is not something that can be accomplished by analysis or therapy or self help or 'behavior modification'. It is something that can only be accomplished by the supernatural work of grace in a person's life. Only through a life of prayer and discipline and humility and self sacrifice can one hope to attain this supreme gift.

For women perhaps a greater devotion to the Seven sorrows of the Blessed Mother will help. There you see the Blessed Virgin in the face of suffering being both as soft and tenderhearted as a caramel chocolate and just as tough as old boots at the same time.

For my part, as a man, I sense that a devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus helps. "O Lord who wears your heart on the outside, take away my heart of stone and give me a heart of fire. Help me to be vulnerable and learn the lessons of love before it's too late. Help me not to be ashamed to love and be loved. AMEN."

Fr Z [wdtprs.com] responds (red inserts) to an article by a Franciscan Nun on her reaction to the Vatican visitation to Religious Sisters Orders in the USA...

The Vatican visitation prompts reflection on a religious divide.
Ilia Delio | OCTOBER 12, 2009

Religious life among women is undergoing a massive evolutionary change that can only be described as cataclysmic. The Vatican’s apostolic visitation of congregations of women religious in the United States and the recent investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious indicate that Rome is unhappy with so-called post-Vatican II nuns who have donned secular clothes and abandoned traditional community life. The current statistics show a trend. The number of religious sisters and cloistered nuns in the United States was almost 180,000 in 1965. In 2009 there are just over 59,000, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. A steady decline in the number of women religious, together with the fact that their median age is 75, is a sign that religious life in the United States is a dying institution. Yet new communities have sprouted up in which women religious don a traditional habit and follow a daily schedule of prayer and service. These communities are attracting youthful, vibrant vocations. On the surface, the future of religious life seems to be on their side.

Those who have taken off the habit and those who are putting on the habit mark two distinct paths in religious life today. What is happening? Did most women religious misinterpret the documents of the Second Vatican Council? Is what some see as a rebellious streak taking its toll? Have women defied the church? Some interpret empty novitiates and an aging membership as evidence that women religious have made the wrong choice—for secularization. Others maintain that their intent was to live more authentically as women religious in a world of change.  [Lemme see… some are growing… others are dying.  Those that are growing are traditional… those shrinking are secularized.  Hmmm…]

The chasm between traditional and progressive religious life was made evident in 1992 with the publication of The Transformation of the American Catholic Sisterhood by Lora Ann Quiñonez, C.D.P., and Mary Daniel Turner, S.N.D.deN. The book impelled Cardinal James Hickey, bishop of Washington, D.C., at the time, to travel to Rome to fight for the establishment of a congregation of women religious that would be more faithful to the church. [Good info here:] Hence the Conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious was formed with membership based on wearing the habit, communal prayer, eucharistic adoration and fidelity to the church. Meanwhile, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious continued in the spirit of Vatican II to be open to the world, exploring avenues of liberation theology, feminist theology and the plight of the poor, among others. Although dialogue was sought between L.C.W.R. (to which the majority of women religious communities still belong) and C.M.S.W.R., that desire for dialogue was not mutual. Rome has thrown its weight on the side of C.M.S.W.R., giving its members top ecclesiastical positions.

While the two groups of women religious seem to oppose each other, they form what Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., the former master general of the Dominicans, calls in What Is the Point of Christian Life? two different theologies based on different interpretations of Vatican II. [Interesting distinction coming about Communio and Concilium poles… this is helpful.] Members of the Leadership Conference embrace modernity and the work of the council as the Holy Spirit breathing new life in the church. They fall under what Father Radcliffe identifies as the Concilium group, who focus on the Incarnation as the central point of renewal. Members of the Conference of Major Superiors, by contrast, are Communio Catholics, who emphasize communion through proclamation of the faith, a clear Catholic identity and the centrality of the cross. Members of the Conference of Major Superiors, by contrast, are Communio Catholics, who emphasize communion through proclamation of the faith, a clear Catholic identity and the centrality of the cross. (Concilium and Communio are the names of two periodicals founded in the postconciliar era. The first stressed conciliar reforms; the second stressed the continuity of the council documents with the community of the faithful through past centuries.) Thus, one group focuses on doxology and adoration (Communio), the other on practice and experience (Concilium). One sees Christ as gathering people into community (Communio); the other sees Christ as traversing boundaries (Concilium). The C.M.S.W.R. recently held its eucharistic congress under the title “Sacrifice of Enduring Love,” while the L.C.W.R. continues to work on systemic change. The former sees religious life as divine espousal with Christ; the latter sees Christ in solidarity with the poor and justice for the oppressed.  [So… CMSWR is into adoration and divine espousal while the LCWR sounds like, what, .... adherents of Liberation theology?]

As Father Radcliffe states, this is not a conflict between those who are faithful to the council and those who would return to a preconciliar church. Nor is it between those who are faithful to the tradition and those who have succumbed to the modern world. Rather, the conflict is about two different understandings of the council and how to carry its work forward. [Indeed yes.   This is what Pope Benedict described in his 2005 Christmas address to the Curia.  This is about a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture against a hermeneutic of reform in continuity.  The writer was on target with that Communio/Concilium comparison.  You have the Rahner/Kung faction and their adherents (LCWR) and the John Paul/Benedict faction (CMSWR).  There is a conflict between the two.  This is not just a matter of hermeneutics which we haven’t yet figured out how to harmonize.] While I appreciate Father Radcliffe’s thoughtful distinctions, my own experience of women religious tells me that the root of the differences between the two associations [NB:] is fear of change. I say this not by way of judgment but from personal experience.

[I think she is suggesting that the new liberation theology – Communio – Rahner/Kung – feministic – Chardin sisters are the courageous prophets gazing with hope into the future (while their communities age and dwindle) while the other, traditional sisters are mired in the old ways because of fear of change.  Is that it?  Let’s keep reading!]

My Journey to a New Theology

When I entered religious life in 1984, [okay… so she never had the old formation sisters had or had the traditional habit?  Read on…] I had a newly minted Ph.D. in pharmacology and an opportunity for a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Yet I had discovered Thomas Merton’s The Seven Storey Mountain and could not let go my desire to renounce the world and live for Christ. [Why couldn’t one live for Christ as a pharmacologist?  Or as a traditional sister?] My understanding of theology, church and religious life then was rudimentary. I flourished in the 1970s as a budding scientist, [wait for it…] writing manifestos of liberation. [So, you can see her starting points.] Though I attended Mass weekly, I did not appreciate the liturgical changes of Vatican II. Instead I longed for the mystical ritual of the Latin Mass I knew as a child, even though I had never understood a word the priest said. [You mean… you were smart enough to get a PhD in Pharmacology but not smart enough to follow the book?] When I made the decision to enter religious life, I sought an austere community where I could make a lifetime sacrifice to live for God alone. Wearing a habit was important to me because it represented holiness and religious identity. I entered a Carmelite cloister of nuns who wore a long, traditional habit and followed a set schedule of daily prayer, silence, adoration and the rosary.  [So… she did have the traditional experience.]

My idealized view of religious life began to collapse in the cloister. Day in and day out I recognized how far I was from any noble aspiration of sanctity. I lived with women who suffered manic-depression, came from alcoholic families or were widowed early in life. [So, you are saying,... they were human beings?] There was little personal sharing and little contact with the world. [What did you expect in a cloistered Carmelite monastery?] The God to whom I had once felt so drawn began to melt into the darkness. I wondered whether I had chosen solitary confinement. I asked for a leave to discern my path and was sent to a Franciscan community near a university where I could resume my research. This community also wore a habit and followed a similar daily schedule, but the sisters’ openness to the world was liberating. I studied theology at Fordham University, wearing a full habit and feeling separate from my classmates. On weekdays, I lived in the Bronx with Ursuline sisters. 

[Interesting description follows…] My first conversion in religious life centered around the final examination in a New Testament course. I had no computer or place to work until an Ursuline sister offered me her office and computer—and a cooked dinner. Sister Jeanne’s attentiveness to my needs, which included waiting up with me until after midnight, opened my eyes to the meaning of Incarnation. [?] For the first time I saw God humbly present in jeans and a sweatshirt. Next I saw God in frail Sister Catherine, who carried out an extensive outreach to the local poor, and in Sister Lucy, whose 40 years as a missionary in Alaska gave me more than just the entertainment of her fascinating dinnertime stories. In the simple common life of the Ursuline sisters, I saw God fully alive. I saw the same God among the Allegany Franciscans who provided me a home where I could write my doctoral dissertation. They drew me out of my study cell, took me to the park and out to eat and listened to my woes. By graduation, I had resided at three different motherhouses among sisters whose congregations were all members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  [See?]

Through the study of theology I began to reflect on the Incarnation and the two different ways of religious life I had experienced. [And now we get to the conclusions.. the insights…] I realized that Jesus practiced Jewish customs and rituals, lived the humble life of a carpenter and felt called to public ministry around age 30, but he did not separate himself from others by dress or occupation. Engaging in the sociopolitical and economic struggles of his day, [We need a better theology of Christ as Liberator than this, folks…] he reached out to the poor and showed compassion for the sick and dying. Jesus proclaimed the reign of God and gave his life as witness to the fidelity of God’s love. For that he died the public death of a criminal, without honor or glory. The early Christians who experienced the risen Lord were empowered to proclaim it. They had to be: until the conversion of Constantine, living as a Christian was a recipe for martyrdom. Today, too, Gospel life means giving witness to God’s goodness in Christ. In 2005 Dorothy Stang, of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, gave her life as a martyr for the impoverished people of the Amazon.

Both contemporary groups of women religious—the Conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious—witness to the Gospel revealed in Jesus Christ, but their trajectories differ. The former primarily seeks to be espoused to Christ; their focus is a heavenly nuptial union. The latter group primarily follows Christ the liberator, [just as I said…] witnessing to Christ amid the struggles of history. [A little tinge of a marxist view there?] In both groups one can find idols, secrets and dysfunction as well as saints, prophets and mystics. Both groups are sinful and redeemed. Both follow canon law; both maintain health insurance, car insurance, retirement funds and plots for burial.  [And one group is growing and the other is dying off.]

Teilhard’s Evolutionary Vision  [You knew he had to come in here somewhere.]

What difference does religious life make to the world? Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., brought light to this question by understanding Christianity in an evolutionary universe. What we do and the decisions we make in history, Teilhard said, influence the genesis of Christ. [... the genesis of Christ… ] Christ is the goal of the universe, the new creation, the future of what we are coming to be. We who are baptized into Christ must let go in love and descend into solidarity with the earth. Teilhard noted that there is nothing profane on earth for those who know how to see. Adoration means seeing the depths of divine love in ordinary reality and loving what we see. [Adoration of the Eucharist?  Maybe not so much…  McBrien would be pleased.] This universe is holy because it is grounded in the Word of God. [Wait for it…] It [the universe] is Christ, the living one, who is coming to be.  [The universe is Christ.  Sound right to you?  The universe is evolving and therefore Christ is evolving… ]

For many years I wondered whether women religious had misread the signs of the time.  [Are they missing their shrinking numbers?] Yet as I have pondered the mystery of God, I have come to believe that the evolutionary universe is moving forward in part because women religious are working in the trenches of humanity among those who are poor, oppressed and forgotten. [This is some pretty amazing navel gazing.] Today world religions are playing a greater role in the synthesis of a new religious consciousness. [Let’s read that again: "world religions are playing a greater role in the synthesis of a new religious consciousness."] The women of L.C.W.R. have risked their lives [Oh brother….] in the pursuit of authentic Incarnation and have proclaimed prophetically that the love of God cannot be exterminated or suppressed. They continue to fight for systemic change on behalf of oppressed people. [Liberation theology fused with Chardin.] Congregations may die out, [and they are!... but we are going to hear now how that is really a good thing!  It is probably even more liberating!]  but the paths inscribed in history by the women religious of Vatican II are nothing less than the evolutionary shoots of a new future.  [Another step toward a new synthesis of religious consciousness with other world religions, as a matter of fact!  How liberating!]

[Watch now the incredible multiplication of buzz words.]

As Teilhard noted, suffering and sacrifice are part of the evolutionary process. Isolated structures must give way to more complex unions. [Here is a nice way of spinning the dying of religious orders and justify that dying…] To live with an evolutionary spirit is to let go of old structures and to engage new structures when the right time comes. The new heaven and earth promised by God will not come about by cutting ourselves off from the world or [get this…] forming Catholic ghettos. [Like those other women, locked up in fear as brides of Christ (and not an evolving Christ either!) as they refuses to evolve into liberated… synthetic… um… you know… maybe … Cylons?] It will not unfold through the triumph of ecclesiastical power. It will come about as we follow the footprints of the crucified one, descending into the darkness of humanity and rising in the power of love. This is the path to a new creation symbolized by Christ. [I need to go wash after this.]

We believe that what happened between God and the world in Christ points to the future of the cosmos. That future involves a radical transformation of created reality through the unitive power of God’s love. To be a Christbearer is to focus on the inner depth of love. [And the sure sign of Christbearing is the wearing of jeans, I think.] It is love that puts flesh on the face of God, love that makes Christ alive; love is the power of the future and the unfolding of Christ. History will not remember what we wore, where we lived or how we prayed, whether as Concilium or Communio Catholics. In the evening of life we all shall be judged on love alone. [True.]

Ilia Delio, O.S.F., of the Franciscan Sisters of Washington, D.C., is professor and chair of the department of spirituality studies at Washington Theological Union.

Pope Benedict XVI is to visit Britain next year in the first ever official visit by a pontiff.

The Holy See will announce soon the first papal visit to Britain since Pope John Paul II made a pastoral visit in 1982.

The historic event will overshadow even the triumphant visit of Pope John Paul II, which almost did not take place at all because of the Falklands War.

During his time in the country, expected to take place in September next year, Pope Benedict will have a meeting with the Queen, Supreme Governor of the Church of England and will be accorded the full panoply of a state visit. It is possible the Pope will also stay with the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Gordon Brown extended a formal invitation during a private audience in February and preparations have been under way for some time.

A draft itinerary is understood to include London, Birmingham, Oxford and Edinburgh.

As part of the visit next year Pope Benedict XVI is not expected to visit Northern Ireland, according to British officials.

It is thought he will visit Ireland on a separate occasion.

One issue likely to be central to the celebrations will be the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman, a ceremony that could take place with Benedict in Birmingham, where Newman founded his Oratory.

It will be a triumphant beginning for Archbishop Vincent Nichols, near the start of his ministry leading the Westminster diocese. It will also provide a boost for Conservative leader David Cameron, likely to be Prime Minister then. As a practising member of the Church of England attending an Anglo-Catholic parish in Kensington, Cameron is expected to find a soulmate in the conservative-minded and doctrinally sound German Pope.

The visit comes after repeated overtures from Downing Street and Catholic leaders in recent years. Tony Blair, the Church’s most famous living convert, also offered an invitation while he was Prime Minister and, in 2006, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, then Archbishop of Westminster, wrote to the Pope asking him to consider a visit.

When John Paul II visited he met the Queen but did not visit Downing Street or meet the Prime Minister.

The visit is expected to include an invitation to the Pope to address both houses of parliament at Westminster, in the same Westminster Hall where St Thomas More was tried and condemned in 1535 for opposing the Act of Supremacy.

This was the act that made King Henry VIII "supreme head" of the emerging new Protestant body, the Church of England, signalling the formal breach with Rome.

Although there was no official confirmation from Downing Street or the Holy See last night, senior Government figures are confident an announcement from the Vatican is expected soon. Responding to speculation earlier this year a Downing Street spokesman said: "When the Prime Minister visited the Pope at the Vatican recently he extended an invitation for the Pope to visit all parts of the UK and the invitation was warmly received. The response from the Vatican spokesman was very positive."

Pope John Paul II's six-day trip to Britain in 1982 attracted huge crowds and the Church’s leaders will hope from a similar response from the country’s 4 million Catholics.

A key architect in the plans is understood to have been Britain's ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell, himself a Catholic. Campbell's tenure in Rome comes to an end in October, shortly after the visit. He has raised the profile of the job to the extent that for the first time ever it is likely to become a political appointment.

One of his achievements includes facilitating the closest relations ever since the Reformation between Rome and Britain. The visits to Rome by Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown have led to an unprecedented warmth in relations between the Holy See and Britain and next year's official Papal visit to Britain is one result of that.

Senior figures already being talked about as future ambassadors include the convert from Anglicanism, Ann Widdecombe and Ampleforth-educated Michael Ancram QC.