To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of Baptism, and the deadly sin of gluttony. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.
God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
Dogmatic Subject: Baptism:
Its Nature and Institution.—And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and
in the sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2).—Go you also into my vineyard,
and I will give you what shall be just (Matthew 20: 4).
Definition of Baptism
With regard to the definition
of Baptism although many can be given from sacred writers, nevertheless that
which may be gathered from the words of our Lord recorded in John, and of the
Apostle to the Ephesians, appears the most appropriate and suitable. Unless,
says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God; (John 3: 5) and, speaking of the Church, the
Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.
(Ephesians 5: 26) Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately
defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word. By nature we are born from Adam children of
wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy. (Ephesians
2: 3) For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that
believe in his name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1: 12, 13)
Constituent Elements of Baptism
But define Baptism as we may,
the faithful are to be informed that this Sacrament consists of ablution,
accompanied necessarily, according to the institution of our Lord, by certain
solemn words. This is the uniform
doctrine of the holy Fathers, as is proved by the following most explicit
testimony of Saint Augustine: The word is joined to the element, and it
becomes a Sacrament.
It is all the more necessary
to impress this on the minds of the faithful lest they fall into the common
error of thinking that the baptismal water, preserved in the sacred font,
constitutes the Sacrament. The Sacrament
of Baptism can be said to exist only when we actually apply the water to someone
by way of ablution, while using the words appointed by our Lord.
Matter of Baptism
Now since we said above, when
treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter
and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes
each of these in Baptism. The matter,
then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is
simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river
water, water from a pond, well or fountain.
Form of Baptism
Pastors should teach, in
clear, unambiguous language, intelligible to every capacity, that the true and
essential form of Baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
For so it was delivered by our Lord and Saviour when, as we read in
Saint Matthew He gave to His Apostles the command: Going, . . . teach ye all
nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)
By the word baptizing,
the Catholic Church, instructed from above, most justly understood that the
form of the Sacrament should express the action of the minister; and this takes
place when he pronounces the words, I baptize thee.
Besides the minister of the
Sacrament, the person to be baptized and the principal efficient cause of
Baptism should be mentioned. The pronoun
thee, and the distinctive names of the Divine Persons are therefore
added. Thus the complete form of the
Sacrament is expressed in the words already mentioned: I baptize thee in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Baptism is the work not of
the Son alone, of whom Saint John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1:
33) but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together. By saying, however, in the name, not in
the names, we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one
Nature and Godhead. The word name
is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and
power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.
ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL WORDS OF THE FORM
It is, however, to be
observed that of the words contained in this form, which we have shown to be
the complete and perfect one, some are absolutely necessary, so that the
omission of them renders the valid administration of the Sacrament impossible;
while others on the contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.
Of the latter kind is the
word ego (I), the force of which is included in the word baptizo
(I baptize). Nay more, the Greek
Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being of
opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister, omits the
pronoun altogether. The form universally
used in the Greek Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It appears, however, from the decision and
definition of the Council of Florence, that those who use this form administer
the Sacraments validly, because the words sufficiently express what is
essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes
place.
BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST
If at any time the Apostles
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, (Acts 2: 38; 8: 2) we can
be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the
infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name
of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite
power. If, however, we examine the
matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the
Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ
implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom,
He was anointed.
And yet, the use of this form
by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and
Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism
in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our
Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not
depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of
the Three Persons. [Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 61) says that Christians were
baptized in the name of the entire Trinity] Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians,
seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many
of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that
they were baptized in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that
which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.
Administration of Baptism
What has been said on the
matter and form, which are required for the essence of the Sacrament, will be
found sufficient for the instruction of the faithful; but as in the
administration of the Sacrament the legitimate manner of ablution should also
be observed, pastors should teach the doctrine of this point also.
They should briefly explain
that, according to the common custom and practice of the Church, Baptism may be
administered in three ways,—by immersion, infusion or aspersion.
Whichever of these rites be
observed, we must believe that Baptism is rightly administered. For in Baptism water is used to signify the
spiritual ablution which it accomplishes, and on this account Baptism is called
by the Apostle a laver. (Ephesians 5: 26) Now this ablution is not more really
accomplished by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in
the early ages of the Church, than by infusion, which we now see in general
use, or by aspersion, which there is reason to believe was the manner in which
Peter baptized, when on one day he converted and gave Baptism to about three
thousand souls. (Acts 2: 41)
It is a matter of
indifference whether the ablution be performed once or thrice. For it is evident from the Epistle of Saint
Gregory the Great to Leander that Baptism was formerly and may still be validly
administered in the Church in either way.
The faithful, however, should follow the practice of the particular
Church to which they belong.
Pastors should be
particularly careful to observe that the baptismal ablution is not to be
applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head,
which is the seat of all the internal and external senses; and also that he who
baptizes is to pronounce the sacramental words which constitute the form, not
before or after, but when performing the ablution.
Institution of Baptism
When these things have been
explained, it will also be expedient to teach and remind the faithful that, in
common with the other Sacraments, Baptism was instituted by Christ the
Lord. On this subject the pastor should
frequently teach and point out that there are two different periods of time
which relate to Baptism—one the period of its institution by the Redeemer; the
other, the establishment of the law regarding its reception.
BAPTISM INSTITUTED AT CHRIST’S BAPTISM
With regard to the former, it
is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been
baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying. Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Augustine
testify that to water was there imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual
life. In another place Saint Augustine
says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away
all sins. And again: The Lord is
baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the
contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the
power of cleansing.
A very strong argument to
prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the
fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its
divine presence on that occasion. The
voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy
Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are
enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.
Should anyone desire to know
how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed
transcends the power of the human understanding. Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was
baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated
to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although
instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all
its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it
were, of all the actions of Christ.
BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST’S RESURRECTION
The second period to be
distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits
of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous
in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles
the command to go and teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 28: 19) the law of
Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
This is inferred from the
authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated
us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; (1
Peter 1: 3) and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself
up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the
word of life. (Ephesians 5: 25, 26) By both Apostles the obligation of
Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our
Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that
the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3: 5) refer also to
the same time which was to follow after His Passion.
The effects of the sacrament
are remission of sin, remission of all punishment due to sin, grace of
regeneration, infused virtues and incorporation with Christ, character of
Christian, opening the gates of heaven. (Catechism of Trent – COT)
After Baptism we should like to keep our souls
unspotted. Sins of the flesh, the reason
why most souls go to Hell, are the result, in no small part by:
THE VICE OF GLUTTONY
Everyone that striveth for
the master, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may
receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one (1 Corinthians 9: 25)
Intemperance is carefully to
be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they
committed adultery. (Jeremias 5: 7) An overloaded stomach begets
impurity. This our Lord intimates in
these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. (Luke 21: 34) Be not drunk
with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury. (Ephesians 5: 18)
(COT p. 437)
MORTIFICATION
The body is to be mortified
and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly,
by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages,
and other works of austerity. By these
and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested. In connection with this subject Saint Paul,
writing to the Corinthians says: I chastise my body and bring it into
subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should
become a castaway. And in another
place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence. (1
Corinthians 5: 27; Romans 13: 14) (COT p. 439)
FASTING AND ALMSDEEDS SHOULD BE JOINED TO PRAYER
To prayer let us unite
fasting and almsdeeds. Fasting is most
intimately connected with prayer. For
the mind of one who is filled with food and drink is so borne down as not to be
able to raise itself to the contemplation of God, or even to understand what
prayer means.
Almsdeeds have also an
intimate connection with prayer. For
what claim has he to the virtue of charity, who, possessing the means of
affording relief to those who depend on the assistance of others, refuses help
to his neighbor and brother? How can he,
whose heart is devoid of charity, demand assistance from God unless, while
imploring the pardon of his sins, he at the same time humbly beg of God to
grant him the virtue of charity?
This triple remedy was,
therefore, appointed by God to aid man in the attainment of salvation. For by sin we offend God, wrong our neighbor,
or injure ourselves. The wrath of God we
appease by pious prayer; our offences against man we redeem by almsdeeds; the
stains of our own lives we wash away by fasting. Each of these remedies, it is true, is
applicable to every sort of sin; they are, however, peculiarly adapted to those
three which we have specially mentioned.
(COT p. 500)
The COT teaches us that the Our Father is also a
remedy against gluttony:
WE ASK THAT WE MAY NOT YIELD TO OUR OWN INORDINATE DESIRES
When we say, Thy will be
done, we express our detestation of the works of the flesh, of which the
Apostle writes: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication,
uncleanness, immodesty, lust, etc.; (Galatians 5: 19) if you live
according to the flesh you shall die. (Romans 8: 13) We also beg of God not
to suffer us to yield to the suggestions of sensual appetite, of our lusts, of
our infirmities, but to govern our will by His will.
The sensualist, whose every
thought and care is absorbed in the transient things of this world, is
estranged from the will of God. Borne
along by the tide of passion, he indulges his licentious appetites. In this gratification he places all his
happiness, and considers that man happy who obtains whatever he desires. We, on the contrary, beseech God in the
language of the Apostle that we make not provision for the flesh in its
concupiscence, (Romans 13: 14) but that His will be done.
We are not easily induced to
entreat God not to satisfy our inordinate desires. This disposition of soul is difficult of
attainment, and by offering such a prayer we seem in some sort to hate
ourselves. To those who are slaves to
the flesh such conduct appears folly; but be it ours cheerfully to incur the
imputation of folly for the sake of Christ who has said: If any man will
come after me, let him deny himself. (Matthew 16: 24; Luke 9: 23) This is
especially so since we know that it is much better to desire what is right and
just, than to obtain what is opposed to reason and religion and to the laws of God. Unquestionably the condition of the man who
attains the gratification of his rash and inordinate desires is less enviable
than that of him who does not obtain the object of his pious prayers. (COT p.
534 - 535)
To reinforce and expand up this I should like to
quote from A Companion to the Summa, Volume 3, by Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.D.,
S.T.M.:
Roots of freedom: Proximate and remote source
We have missed the intimate
interrelation between purity and humanity.
In some mysterious way we have overlooked the obvious fact that since
human life is a reasonable life and human activity is a rational activity, of
course human passion is passion under reason.
The name of the supreme passion under reason is its defense in the name
of purely physical considerations is itself an attack on the humanity and
freedom of man.
Internal and external
The key to the whole
situation is spirituality. The proximate
sources of man’s freedom are his soul, his intellect and his will behind them
stands the sole possible author of spiritual substance, the infinitely powerful
God. Because a man is spiritual he has
liberty; because he is spiritual that liberty has eternal significance. That is, the use or the abuse of liberty is
for eternity, for the spiritual, as incorruptible, exists for eternal ends.
A man’s will or intellect
cannot be handcuffed. As long as he
remains a spiritual being with reason in control, he can never be
enslaved. He possesses an internal
liberty much more important than any external, civic freedom: an emperor, after
all, can be a slave to himself, while a slave can be completely master of
himself, can be most free. External
liberty is as perilous a thing as a heart worn on one’s sleeve; it can be lost,
whereas internal liberty can only be surrendered. No force, intrigue, trickery can take it away
from us. And this is precisely the
liberty over which purity maintains such a jealous guard.
It is unfortunate that men
and women today are inclined to look upon the fight for purity as a little
abstract and academic. Like so many
moral questions, it apparently has no immediate pertinence to individual
life. A man instantly and vigorously
resists an attack on his property, his children, his wife; but an attack on
virtue is different. Here he considers
himself off to one side, to a spectator not greatly interested in the winner of
the argument. The thing is important, for these questions have a profound
personal significance for every individual.
The drastic consequences of modern attacks on the spiritual soul, the
intellect and the will of man, the bitter attacks on God, are much more serious
than any physical attack on a man himself, his family or his property. This attack on the realm of the spiritual is
not so much a matter of beating a man to the ground as of disemboweling him.
Surely what threatens the
spiritual and rational in a man threatens his freedom, for it is precisely upon
that spiritual foundation that he builds his claim to freedom. When the body, the sense appetite, and the
world of the present take precedence over the soul, the will and the world of
eternity, man is no longer free. He is a slave; that is, he is no longer a man.
In this material of
temperance there are three serious threats to the sovereignty of man’s
reason. The threats are extremely
serious because the material is so extremely necessary that nature attaches to
it the greatest sense rewards, lest its primary ends be overlooked or
neglected. To take care of the possible
sorties against his reason from this material, man is equipped with a garrison
of virtues specially equipped for this kind of enemy and this type of
warfare. There are only three in that
garrison—abstinence, sobriety and chastity—but their fighting qualities more
than make up for their numbers.
Still these three are not
enemies of man’s nature, not even of his sensitive nature. They can be rightly understood only when they
are seen as guardians and protectors of man and his nature. Their presence in a man has exactly the effect
of a well-disciplined garrison in a stronghold of restless subjects. They prevent mob-rule within a man and turn
the violently restless energies of his passions to the common good of the man
himself. Understand, this is not a
question of using these subjects as a tyrannous master might use slaves merely
for his own end. Reason is not working
against the passions; it allows, indeed, insists upon their attainment of their
own proper ends. Those proper ends of
the passions, with their rich contributions to the welfare of the whole man,
are defeated and trampled underfoot by the rioting of the mob of undisciplined
passions.
The garrison protecting freedom:
From the abuse of
food—abstinence; Its nature
If it were a virtue merely to
abstain from food, then by implication, the taking of food would be
sinful. It is this sort of absurdity
that is somehow wrapped up in the defense and attack of the modern negative
“protectors” of liberty. A man can and
does refuse food; perhaps because he has no appetite or is starving himself to
death. Neither case involves a question
of abstinence; the whole point of the virtue is the note of reason it insists
upon in the use of food. The man who
gives up coffee as a penance, even though it makes life miserable for his
family, is not an abstinent man; neither is the ascetical tyro who stays up
night after night praying only to fall asleep over his work during the
day. These things are unreasonable so
they cannot be virtuous. The virtue of
abstinence is in operation only when the bounds of reason are carefully
observed; its precise work is to restrain man’s use of food to reasonable
limits.
Its act—fasting;
Purposes
Abstinence holds a man back
from abusing food. Fasting, an act of
abstinence, goes a step further and holds a man back from what might very well
be eaten without any abuse whatever.
Again we must insist that this is not a condemnation of food. Eating enough certainly cannot be anything
but a cause of joy, except perhaps to a grateful beggar to whom the experience
is astonishing in its novelty. To refuse
to eat what is no more than enough, if it is to be virtuous must be reasonable;
and it can be reasonable only because it is aimed at ends higher than its
immediate purpose.
If I have a healthy appetite
for a bit of steak, an entirely reasonable amount in entirely reasonable
circumstances, yet I refuse to eat it, then I have some explaining to do. If the refusal was for no reason whatever it
would be an act of insanity; if it proceeded from a conviction that food itself
is evil and to be avoided, then it would be vicious; but if it is for some
higher end, like training the soul or satisfying for sins, it might well be
virtuous.
We get a realistically
concrete view of the higher ends of fasting by looking back to the first week
of any Lent. After a few days of highly
successful mortification, we have a definite sense of satisfaction, of pride in
ourselves, of highly human accomplishment.
You see, we have been fully in control.
That is the really solid basis of that sense of satisfaction and
superiority over our old selves. We are
being super-eminently human and we know it.
We are experiencing something of the joy of being human.
To recognize those high ends
in detail no more is necessary than to see them. By fasting we let our
appetites know beyond any doubt that reason is the head of this household; and
by that very fact, we give our appetites invaluable practice in subjection. This practice is important, for it is always
important for a man to be rational, to have his reason in control. Going up a step higher, fasting is clearly a
kind of restitution. Every sin is a
stolen pleasure, for every sin is at least an overindulgence of will; fasting
surrenders a legitimate pleasure, thus both satisfying for the debt of sin and
impressing us with the true nature of sin.
We cannot fast very long and not realize that no one ever gets anything
out of sin, not even a pickpocket or a bank robber; everything that apparently
comes out of it must be given back, even though that restitution take all of an
eternity.
Looking at fasting on a still
higher plane, it is not hard to see in it a disposition to contemplation. In the old public school schedule, a singing
class was held immediately after lunch.
The schedule was good, however bad the singing might be; for surely it
would not be as bad as the thinking turned out on a full stomach. Whatever the physical background may be,
psychologically it is sure that full satisfaction of the appetite for food
makes the mind dull; it is apt to act like a puppy, crawl off to some warm
corner and go to sleep. Thus monastic
fasts are not idle gestures of melancholy or of distaste for the pleasures of
sense. The primary business of monastic
life is always contemplation, and fasting is an excellent disposition for
it. The evening meal in a Dominican
House of Studies is usually light; from September to Easter it is
extraordinarily light. It is not
coincidence that the most fruitful periods of study are the morning (after a
positively feather-weight breakfast) and the evening or, as far as that goes,
the rest of the night. There may be
elements of discomfort; but, after all, a monastery does not exist for comfort
but for contemplation. The very
discomfort becomes eminently reasonable as a means to the higher ends of truth.
Let us
summarize the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on vice of gluttony with the help of
our friend Monsignor Glenn in his “A Tour of the Summa”.
GLUTTONY
1. Gluttony is excess in
eating and drinking. It is an immoderate
indulgence in the delights of the palate.
Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.
2. Gluttony is usually not a
serious sin, bit it could be such a sin.
It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating
and drinking that he is ready to abandon, virtue, and God himself, to obtain
this pleasure.
3. Gluttony is a sin of the
flesh, a carnal sin. Hence, in
itself, it is not as great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.
5. Gluttony denotes
inordinate desire in eating and drinking. It shows itself in the avidity
with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and
expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities
in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or
drinking too much. Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in
what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.
A capital sin is a
source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now
gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh
which is the most alluring of all pleasures.
Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.
6. Gluttony leads to
inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind injudiciousness of speech, to
levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. (A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Glenn)
Conclusion
Let us clear our minds, and dull our inclination
to sin through prayer, fasting and almsdeeds.