Readings & Reflections: Wednesday of the Twentieth Week in Ordinary Time & Pope St. Pius X, August 21,2019

Readings & Reflections: Wednesday of the Twentieth Week in Ordinary Time & Pope St. Pius X, August 21,2019

Born in 1835 A.D. in the village of Riese, Italy, to a seamstress mother and cobbler father, Giusseppe Sarto spent most of his priestly life ministering to the people in and around Venice. As pastor, he gave to the poor from his own modest household. As bishop and then Patriarch of Venice, he reformed lax seminaries, yet still found time to teach catechism to children. Elected Pope Pius X in 1903, he led the Church with forthright teachings on the importance of catechesis, Catholic Action, and the errors of Modernism. He condemned the Modernist heresy and promoted the catechesis of adults and children, priestly formation, and frequent reception of the Eucharist. He extended the age of First Communion to children as young as seven. “I was born poor, I lived poor, I die poor,” was his final testament. Many miraculous cures were attributed to this “pope of the Eucharist” during his lifetime. He died in 1914 A.D.

AMDG+

Opening Prayer

Lord God, make me realize, at all times, that I should have the right motivation in serving You and my neighbor. Lord, may I serve you and my neighbor with a glad and generous heart, not looking for how much I can get but rather looking for how much I can give. In Jesus’ Name I pray. Amen.

Reading I
Jgs 9:6-15

All the citizens of Shechem and all Beth-millo came together and proceeded to make Abimelech kingby the terebinth at the memorial pillar in Shechem.

When this was reported to him, Jotham went to the top of Mount Gerizim and, standing there, cried out to them in a loud voice: “Hear me, citizens of Shechem, that God may then hear you! Once the trees went to anoint a king over themselves. So they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’ But the olive tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my rich oil, whereby men and gods are honored, and go to wave over the trees?’ Then the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come; you reign over us!’ But the fig tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?’ Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come you, and reign over us.’ But the vine answered them, ‘Must I give up my wine that cheers gods and men, and go to wave over the trees?’ Then all the trees said to the buckthorn, ‘Come; you reign over us!’ But the buckthorn replied to the trees, ‘If you wish to anoint me king over you in good faith, come and take refuge in my shadow. Otherwise, let fire come from the buckthorn and devour the cedars of Lebanon.’”

The word of the Lord.

Responsorial Psalm
Ps 21:2-3, 4-5, 6-7
R. (2a) Lord, in your strength the king is glad.
O LORD, in your strength the king is glad;
in your victory how greatly he rejoices!
You have granted him his heart’s desire;
you refused not the wish of his lips.
R. Lord, in your strength the king is glad.
For you welcomed him with goodly blessings,
you placed on his head a crown of pure gold.
He asked life of you: you gave him
length of days forever and ever.
R. Lord, in your strength the king is glad.

Great is his glory in your victory;
majesty and splendor you conferred upon him.
You made him a blessing forever,
you gladdened him with the joy of your face.
R. Lord, in your strength the king is glad.

Gospel
Mt 20:1-16

Jesus told his disciples this parable:
“The Kingdom of heaven is like a landowner
who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage,
he sent them into his vineyard.
Going out about nine o’clock,
he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard,
and I will give you what is just.’

So they went off.
And he went out again around noon,
and around three o’clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o’clock,
he found others standing around, and said to them,
‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’
They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’
He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman,
‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay,
beginning with the last and ending with the first.’
When those who had started about five o’clock came,
each received the usual daily wage.
So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more,
but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying,
‘These last ones worked only one hour,
and you have made them equal to us,
who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’
He said to one of them in reply,
‘My friend, I am not cheating you.
Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go.
What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?
Are you envious because I am generous?’
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

The Gospel of the Lord.

Reflection 1 – Do you begrudge my generosity

Jesus teaches us that our relationship with God is founded on His grace and generosity. Jesus reveals to everyone who shall endeavor to do work for Him not to take the posture, that the harder one works, the greater the reward will be. It is not self-efforts that count but responsiveness to His Word which is important. Openness to His Spirit is what matters.

In today’s gospel parable, I can very well feel for those who worked hard all day and receive the same as those who worked less. My human instinct is also to say that it was grossly unfair for the master to do. But as I ask our Lord to guide me and open my heart, I slowly am able to realize that each man had done exactly what the master had asked of him and that the truth of the matter is rewards were based on the goodwill of the master. What was paid to the workers was based on the master’s generosity and not on the amount of work one has done.

Within God’s church, all who have professed faith and believed in our Lord are expected to contribute to His cause. As such, tasks are different among God’s people and blessings can come in different forms, not according to the amount of work one has done but on how one has faithfully responded to God’s will. Blessings are God’s gift, which translates to His generosity and grace.

Often times, we equate service to what is received and it is so easy for us to blurt out, ‘what’s in it for me?’ Have we served God and His people with an expectation of something in return? Have we ever felt that church elders should recognize our “good deeds” and that the people we have ministered to should duly acknowledge our work and sacrifice? If ever we have entertained such thoughts, then our motives are wrong and not according to God’s will. Then our service is not aligned to the ideal spiritual leadership we have in Jesus, the Good Shepherd Who was fully committed to God’s people even up to the cross. Have we ever thought of spiritual leadership as a way of getting ahead of others and being on top of people and not as a way of serving God and His flock? As a food for our hearts, we should remember that those who struggle to always be on top and ahead of others will be greatly disappointed as Jesus Himself said: “Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last”

God is good all the time and because of His love and generosity, He still blesses us and makes us whole despite our imperfections. God wants us to be aware that we may be in for a big surprise if our motive in serving Him is for personal gain as we have to account for the people He has sent into our lives- to guide, love, care and minister. He said: “I swear I am coming against these shepherds. I will claim my sheep from them and put a stop to their shepherding my sheep so that they may no longer pasture themselves. I will save my sheep, that they may no longer be food for their mouths. For thus says the Lord God: I myself will look after and tend my sheep.”

Direction

To receive God’s blessings, we have to follow the servanthood of Jesus. It is the way to greatness in God kingdom.

Prayer

Heavenly Father, thank you for the people whom You have sent to minister to me and guide me and to let me experience your endless love. Imperfect, broken and sinful as I am, give me chance to contribute my share in your vineyard. Let me be a bearer of your mercy, love and healing. In Jesus, I pray. Amen.

Reflection 2 – Do you begrudge my generosity?

What can work and wages, welfare and the unemployed tell us about the kingdom of God? In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard we see the extraordinary generosity and compassion of God (Matthew 20:1-16). There is great tragedy in unemployment, the loss of work, and the inability to earn enough to live and support oneself or one’s family. In Jesus’ times laborers had to wait each day in the marketplace until someone hired them for a day’s job. No work that day usually meant no food on the family table. The laborers who worked all day and received their payment complain that the master pays the late afternoon laborers the same wage. The master, undoubtedly, hired them in the late afternoon so they wouldn’t go home payless and hungry.

God is generous and gives us work for his kingdom
God is generous in opening the doors of his kingdom to all who will enter, both those who have labored a life-time for him and those who come at the last hour. While the reward is the same, the motive for one’s labor can make all the difference. Some work only for reward. They will only put in as much effort as they think they will get back. Others labor out of love and joy for the opportunity to work and to serve others. The Lord Jesus calls each one of us to serve God and his kingdom with joy and zeal and to serve our neighbor with a generous spirit as well.

Empowered to serve with a joyful and generous spirit
The Lord Jesus wants to fill each one of us with the power and strength of the Holy Spirit so we can bear great fruit for God’s kingdom (the fruit of peace, joy, righteousness, and love) and also bring the fruit of his kingdom to our neighbor as well. We labor for the Lord to bring him praise, honor, and glory. And we labor for our neighbor for their welfare with the same spirit of loving-kindness and compassion which the Lord has shown to us.

Paul the Apostle reminds us, “Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not others, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward – you are serving the Lord Christ” (Colossians 3:23-24). Do you perform your daily tasks and responsibilities with cheerfulness and diligence for the Lord’s sake? And do you give generously to others, especially to those in need of your care and support?

“Lord Jesus, fill me with your Holy Spirit that I may serve you joyfully and serve my neighbor willingly with a generous heart, not looking for how much I can get, but rather looking for how much I can give.” – Read the source: http://dailyscripture.servantsoftheword.org/readings/2019/aug21.htm

Reflection 3 – God’s compassion

Many of us have known someone like Ruby Turpin. She considers herself a good, hard-working, church-going Christian who will one day wear a heavenly crown. She judges others according to their skin color, their wealth and their social standing. In Ruby’s book, everyone is a servant or a master, a worthy or an unworthy soul.

In a short story by Flannery O’Connor, Mrs. Ruby Turpin gets just the “Revelation” she needs. God sends her a vision of a “horde of souls” processing into heaven. But Ruby and her family are at the back of the line, while those she categorizes as unworthy lead the way. She is stunned to discover that the self-righteous do not come first in the family of God.

Before the ancient Israelites established a monarchy, they lived together as members of one family equally blessed by God. But with the kings came economic injustice, dishonest political systems, and religious practices that oppressed the poor and showed favoritism to the ruling class.

Jesus offends the scribes and Pharisees by acting as though there were no distinctions between people of various classes. He dines with tax collectors and prostitutes. He befriends lepers and moral outcasts. He eventually includes even the gentiles among his followers.

To illustrate the inclusiveness of God, Jesus tells the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Despite the objections of the righteous laborers who arrived first, the owner of the vineyard pays them the same wage as the latecomers. “Are you envious because I am generous?” he asks. They do not grasp that God’s compassion knows no bounds.

We may find this parable just as hard to swallow as Ruby Turpin found her own revelation that God’s mercy excludes no one. But if we picture ourselves as more worthy than others, she might well remind us, “The last will be first, and the first will be last.” (Source: Gloria Hutchinson. Weekday Homily Helps. Ohio: St. Anthony Messenger Press, August 19, 2009).

Reflection 4 – Arriving Late

The last will be first, and the first last. —Matthew 20:16

Eddie, an outspoken atheist, spent his entire life of 50 years denying the existence of God. Then he contracted a debilitating disease, and his health slowly deteriorated. As he lay in a hospice house awaiting death, Eddie was visited almost every day by some Christian friends he had known in high school. They told him again of Christ’s love. But the closer Eddie came to dying, the more it appeared he was not interested in God.

One Sunday, a pastor stopped by to visit. To everyone’s surprise, Eddie prayed with him and asked Jesus for forgiveness and salvation. A few weeks later, he died.

Eddie denied Christ for 50 years and spent just 2 weeks loving and trusting Him. But because of his faith, he will experience forever God’s presence, glory, love, majesty, and perfection. Some may argue that this isn’t fair. But according to Jesus’ parable in Matthew 20, it’s not about fairness. It’s about God’s goodness and grace (vv.11-15).

Have you waited such a long time to trust Jesus for salvation that you think it might be too late? Consider the thief on the cross, who put his faith in Jesus just before he died (Luke 23:39-43). Trust Jesus now, and receive His gift of eternal life. It’s not too late!  — Dave Branon

If God is calling you today,
Then trust in Christ without delay;
Tomorrow it will be too late
If death occurs and seals your fate. —Sper

It is a dangerous presumption to say, “Tomorrow,” when God says, “Today!” (Source: Our Daily Bread, RBC Ministries)

Reflection 5 – Bellyaching And Its Cure

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up. —1 Corinthians 13:4

A mentally impaired man always shook hands with his pastor after each service. But he often made critical comments like these: “You preach too long.” “Your sermons are boring.” “You talk about yourself too much.” Distressed, the pastor mentioned this to a deacon, who replied, “Oh, don’t worry about him. All he does is parrot what he hears others say.”

Grumbling is an all-too-common sin among Christians, and some are chronic complainers. They are skilled at finding something wrong with anyone who is actively trying to serve the Lord. And undoubtedly all of us have done some bellyaching.

The best cure for this sinful habit is Christian love—something easy to talk about but difficult to practice. First, we must consciously desire God’s best for everyone. This love “suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; . . . love does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil” (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). Then, as we depend on the Lord, we must put these attitudes into practice.

The next time you feel like finding fault with someone, resist that impulse and look for a way to do good to that person (Galatians 6:10). Do this diligently, and in time you will be cured of your bellyaching.  — Herbert Vander Lugt

I would not criticize the one who works,
The one who listens to God’s Word and heeds;
But I would criticize myself, dear Lord,
Confess to You my faithless words and deeds. —Hess

Don’t find a fault—find a remedy (Source: Our Daily Bread, RBC Ministries).

Reflection 6 – Christian maturity

We have a problem with today’s parable. It seems so unfair, yet we know it can’t be because it comes from Jesus, who is wisdom incarnate. We judge by our common experiences. What do we see in daily life? Good people are taken advantage of. Hard work is not appreciated. People who have learned how to take advantage of “the system” get ahead. Promotions are made on the basis of who you know, not what you do. This is what we see and hear, and so the parable seems unfair. We identify with the laborers who worked all day. This is understandable, but we judge by fallen human nature about fallen human nature. Jesus was teaching about what should be; about what will be when the kingdom of God is fully realized and the damage done by sin in the Garden of Eden is undone.

The Scripture readings today prompt me to again say something about Christian maturity and how it relates to daily life. We live and struggle, praying for the coming of God’s Kingdom but knowing it is not fully realized and will not be until Christ comes again in glory. Christian maturity begins with a clear understanding of the brevity of life. The Psalmist prays, “Teach us (Lord) to number our days aright, that we may gain wisdom of heart” (Ps 90:12). Our years pass quickly and life slips away imperceptibly. People often say they are in “a rat race” because they are so busy with routine affairs that they do not have time to plan for the future. Most often our immediate bodily needs absorb us so much that we forget our souls, salvation and eternal destiny, happiness with God. Our Lord therefore advised us to seek first the Kingdom of God and he will provide the rest (Mt 6:33).

Our second concern should be to get our priorities right. Awareness of the brevity of life and of our eternal destiny helps us, but there is much more to order correctly in our daily lives, matters that affect our personal and family welfare. We often put off decisions about vocation, saving for the future and marriage. We may take for granted the religious education of children and then forget about it altogether. We may fail to provide for their further education. We may ignore our basic health requirements and become comfortable with a lifestyle that can only end in ruined health and premature death. We put off making a will.

Last year newspaper reported the Leona Helmsley left her dog $12 million and directed that the dog, after its death, should be buried alongside her in mausoleum. Two of her grandchildren got nothing, and two who did receive millions would lose half of their inheritance if they failed to visit their father’s grave at least once a year.

We cannot help but speculate about the family relationships that led to such a will. The lady obviously had a right to do whatever she wished with her money, but there must have been countless experiences that influenced her decision – loneliness, disappointment, ingratitude, irresponsibility, immaturity. We are in no position to judge, but we wonder if Leona Helmsley paid enough attention to her personal priorities.

Christian maturity also demands that we take into account our sinfulness. Sin is an offense against God and many times there are repercussions that affect our neighbors. Moreover, we forget that every sin exacts a price from our physical and mental well being, not to mention the spiritual harm we suffer. Sin, deliberate sin, makes us immature whether we are willing to admit it or not. It obscures the malice of sin; it weakens the will; it lessens fear of sin and leads to repeated falls; it spawns habits of sin and ignores the need for forgiveness; it excuses even serious sin on any pretext. Finally it denies the existence of sin and culpability. What has happened? Sin blurred our moral vision and deadened our consciences. Sooner or later we pay a price. St. Paul said, “When I was a child I used to talk like a child, think life a child, reason like a child. When I became a man I put childish ways aside” (1 Cor 13:11). Have we?

All of us aspire to live to “ripe old age,” and there are countless proposals about how we should enjoy “the golden years.” At the same time we worry about whether Social Security will be solvent, whether it will be able to provide for an aging population. The good news and the bad news baffle us. What awaits the mature Christian who has reached “a ripe old age”?

How shall he respond to the new challenges? Without a doubt decisions will have to be made, perhaps the most important decision of a lifetime. A ripe old age does not guarantee ripe judgment. In the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel we read of the dastardly scheme to entrap an innocent woman, Susanna, the wife of Joakim, a God-fearing Jew. Two judges tried to seduce her and when they failed, they tried to have her put to death. Fortunately a young boy, Daniel, was able to uncover the plot and save the woman. Who were the two judges? Two lecherous old men!

Old age brings many dangers along with it, dangers to clear thinking and good judgment. It is not a question of senility. Older people, men and women, are particularly susceptible to self-pity. There is loneliness to contend with. They can easily be swayed by the skewed opinions of others, by the biases of cronies. They must guard against rash judgments and hasty decisions. There are so many regrets in old age – dreams unfulfilled, failed ventures, sins committed. If maturity means anything at all, it is in old age that I must prove itself. It is hard.

The prophet Isaiah told us in the first reading (Is 55:6-9), “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.” Safeguards of Christian maturity are in the end the reading of Scripture, prayer and frequent confession. (Source: Rev. George M. Franko, “Homilies on the Liturgies of Sundays and Feasts,” Homiletics & Pastoral Review, Vol. CVIII, No. 11-12, New Jersey: Ignatius Press, Aug/Sept 2008, pp. 37-39; Suggested reading:Catechism of the Catholic Church, 671, 2014-2016).

Reflection 7 – Motivation for discipleship

Like so many of the Lord’s stories, this parable plunges us into daily life in ancient Palestine. It is worth observing that the Lord was a student of life. His stories have the ring of authenticity because they happen where people live. We should notice that this story is not designed to teach us about labor-management relations or about salvation, or even about rewards. The Lord wants us to think about the attitude of heart with which a disciple should serve Him.

Day laborers were a common fact of life in the Lord’s time. In this agricultural society, there were no labor unions and few contract employees. Men looking for work would gather at a convenient spot in the town’s marketplace, and those requiring help would recruit the men they needed. A rate of pay would be arranged, the work would be done, and workers would be paid at day’s end, in accordance with Old Testament law (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14-15).

The story itself is straightforward. At six in the morning, a vineyard owner went into the marketplace to hire workers. They agreed to fair wage and set off to do the work. There is no suggestion that they possessed any particular skills or abilities that made them more desirable employees than the others. They were available, agreed to terms, and set about their task.

But, for some reason, the landowner felt the need for more workers. Perhaps bad weather threatened the crop or a contract required immediate harvesting. More likely, he saw the unemployed and desired to help them. For whatever reason, he returned at 9:00 a.m. and saw men who were willing to work but unemployed. He made them a simple offer: “Go and work… and I will pay you whatever is right.” They agreed and went with no contractual agreement, but simply with an opportunity to trust the landowner’s promise and character. Three more times the process was repeated – at noon, at 3:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m.

When the day was done, the owner ordered his foreman to pay the workers, beginning with those who had worked for only one hour and continuing to those who had worked for a full day. When the one-hour workers were paid, they were astonished to discover that they had received a full day’s wage, a denarius. Obviously, they hadn’t earned that much. But a family could not live on less than a denarius a day, so, in generosity, the owner had paid them not what they deserved but what they needed. Apparently in his view, people mattered more than profits.

News of their good fortune quickly spread down through the line, and the twelve-hour workers excitedly anticipated receiving a bonanza. “If they got one denarius, we should get twelve!” By the time they reached the front, they had already spent their bonuses in their minds. Imagine their chagrin to discover that their pay envelopes also contained one denarius! This was exactly what they had contracted for (Mt 20:2), butf it hardly seemed fair. “They only worked one hour and we’ve put in twelve full hours in the burning heat of the day. How can you call that fair?

The owner’s answer was straightforward: in effect, “It’s not meant to be fair. You received exactly what you worked for. So your pay is absolutely fair. But I’m paying them generously, not fairly.”

In the landowner’s voice we hear our Lord’s gentle rebuke of Peter. It is a warning against three dangers in the service of a disciple. First, there is the danger of a commercial spirit. An old rabbinic story is very similar to the Lord’s parable, but the punch line is entirely different. When the protest is made, the answer silences the objectors: “This man has done more in two hours than you did all day.” We understand that response. It is fair that wages earned should correspond to work done. Unions may protest, but we understand they equity principle – pay equal to work done.

But kingdom economics are very different. If we work for wages, we will get exactly what we desire, no more and no less. We become hirelings, dependent upon our bargaining skills. How much better to be children, dependent upon our Father’s generosity. Our service does not put us in His debt. If we leave the reward to Him, we will be overwhelmed by His generosity.

Rees Howell, the Welsh coal miner turned revival preacher had a heart to serve his Lord. Every day, after a long twelve-hour shift in the mines, he would walk two miles to lead a Bible study in a neighboring village, then return home to sleep. One night he came home in a downpour, completely soaked. “I wouldn’t have walked there and back tonight for twenty pounds,” his father said when he saw him. “Neither would I,” answered Rees quietly. Money was not his motive. People like that don’t need salary, because they don’t serve for wages. They serve an amazing Savior out of love.

Second, the Lord is warning against the danger of a competitive spirit. When the twelve-hour workers saw the one-hour workers and compared themselves to them, “they expected to receive more.” When their eyes focused on what others had received, they were unable to receive their own wages with joy. Saul delighted in his victory over the Philistines, but when he heard David praised more highly than he had been, his heart turned to stone (1 Sam. 18:1-16). Nothing is less appropriate in disciples than comparison and competition.

Once, when driving with a friend through his home town, we came to a bewildering intersection with a confusing array of signals and lights. When I commented to my friend about it, he pointed to a sign that read, “Obey your signals.” That’s always good advice. I would love to evangelized like Billy Graham, preach like Chuch Swindoll, pray like George Mueller, organize like Bill Bright, write like Elizabeth Elliot, and sing like Steve Green. But those are not my signals. When I set my eyes on what the master is giving to other servants, joy evaporates. When I focus on His fairness and abounding generosity to me, joy fills my heart.

Third, there is the danger of a complaining spirit. “They began to grumble against the landowner.” Such grumbling, the Lord reveals, is an attack on the goodness and generosity of God Himself. Furthermore, it exposes the corruption of our hearts. “Are you envious because I am generous?” Who do we think we are to complain about the eternally holy, righteous God? It was the continual murmuring and complaining of Israel in the wilderness that aroused God’s anger. Murmuring is an infectious social disease that robs us and all those around us of joy. Those who focus on their supposed deprivation and lament the cost of their discipleship have missed the wonder of the grace and generosity of our God.

F.B. Meyer once found himself involved in a ministry where the work of two well-known preachers overshadowed his own efforts. It was not easy to deal with the relative unimportance of what he was doing, but his solution reveals the response of a true disciple. “I find in my own ministry that supposing I pray for my own little flock, ‘God bless me, God fill my pews, God send me a revival,’ I miss the blessing; but as I pray for my brother on the right-hand side of my church, ‘God bless him,’ I am sure to get a blessing without paying for it, for the overflow of their cups fills my little bucket.”

The Lord concludes His parable with a statement reminiscent of Mat. 19:30: “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Here, however, the contrast is not between disciples and non-disciples. It is rather a reminder that external circumstances are not the key to eternal rewards. The “first,” here, are the 6:00 a.m. workers. As someone save as a child, brought up to love Christ, and given the privilege of ministry at an early age, I am much like those people. Friends of mine were not saved until much later in life than I, and their opportunities for Christian ministry are sometimes smaller than mine. Will those circumstances of life qualify them only for a lesser reward? No, says the Savior, emphatically not. God rewards the faithful heart, and generously touches all He does.

Why do I serve the Lord? Because of fear? Duty? Prestige? Reward? Motives are never entirely pure, and a variety of factors propel us. But we are not hirelings, serving for wages. We are children, delighting in our Father’s work and trusting in His generosity. Peter’s great mistake was that he counted the cost and computed the reward without considering the privilege of service. On December 4, 1857, on the threshold of his return to Africa, David Livingstone tried to put into words the motives that shaped his life:

I personally have never ceased to rejoice that God has entrusted me with His service. People talk a lot about the sacrifice involved in devoting my life to Africa. But can this be called a sacrifice at all if we give back to God a “little of what we owe Him?” And we owe Him so much that we shall never be able to pay off our debt. Can that be called sacrifice which gives us the deepest satisfaction, which develops our best powers, and gives us the greatest hopes and expectations? Away with this word. It is anything but a sacrifice. Rather, call it a “privilege!” (Source: Gary Inrig, “Getting My Due,” The Parables: Understanding What Jesus Meant, Michigan: Discovery House Publishers, 1991, pp. 173-186).

Reflection 8- The Parable of the Workers Hired Late

We have a problem in this today’s parable of the workers hired late (Mt 20:1-16). It seems so unfair because we judge by our common experiences. What do we see in daily life? Good people are taken advantage of. Hard work is not appreciated. People who have learned how to take advantage of “the system” get ahead. Promotions are made on the basis of who you know, not what you do. This is what we see and hear, and so the parable seems unfair. We identify with the laborers who worked all day. Then, what is the meaning of this parable? St. Thomas Aquinas explains this parable: “The head of the household is God, whose family is the whole world…. Those are called “hired” who should work for a reward, wageworkers…. But to be a good wageworker, he must labor for his lord’s benefit; thus if we labor in the vineyard of the Church, we should return the whole thing to God…. God did not make an agreement with the workers hired late because he always returns more than he promises…. The Lord knew that if he had called them before, they would not have stood. So they are hired at the time when they consent, and they arise more efficaciously…. A reward was owed to these only out of mercy…. Beginning from the last…. It could be that, from fervor, they recovered a thing previously lost, as is written of the thief… Chrysostom says that a man does more freely what he does out of pity than a man does in another way; for this reason, a certain joy and show of kindness is designated. ‘There will be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance’ (Lk 15:10)…. Will all have glory equally? I say that there will be an equal repayment in a certain respect, but in a certain respect not. For beatitude can be considered as regards the object, and in this way there is one beatitude for all; or it can be considered as regards participation in the object, and in this way not all will participate equally…. He who has a soul more enlarged with charity will accept more…. He is properly ‘evil’ who sorrows over goodness” (St. Thomas Aquinas, +1274 A.D).

When I am confronted with this reality, do I enlarge myself with charity or succumb to envy in my complaining attitude, or competitive attitude? Why do I serve the Lord? Is it because of fear, duty, prestige or reward? Motives are never entirely pure, and a variety of factors propel us. But we are not hirelings, serving for wages. We are children, delighting in our Father’s work and trusting in His generosity. Thus, the best cure for this sinful habit is Christian love. This love “suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; . . . love does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil” (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). Then, as we depend on the Lord, we must put these attitudes into practice – don’t find a fault without a remedy. What are your remedies of your inner grumblings in the service of the Lord?

Reflection 9 – The joy of being last instead of first

[ Listen to the podcast of this reflection ]

The landowner that Jesus describes in the Gospel reading today seems as unfair to us today as he seemed to the Jews who first heard this parable. We can better understand the point Jesus is making if we think of it in terms of parenthood. A loving mother cares about each of her children equally. Although she gives more attention to those who need it more, she loves the last born no less than the first born, even if she has a large household.

God the Father is like a vineyard owner who gives equally to all, regardless of how long anyone has worked in his service. Since we cannot earn our way into heaven, equal benefits are not an injustice to those who labored for his kingdom all of their lives.

Rather, God’s been giving us complete and perfect love since the moment of our conception in our mother’s womb. Although we’ve become aware of his goodness a lot sooner than those who only discover a relationship with him at the last minute (and this is a benefit we enjoy, but they lack), he has been loving them since the moment of their conception, too. He can do no less.

Early in life, we learned that we can get more approval from Mom or Dad if we get more A’s on the report card or more trophies in sports than our siblings. Such competition affects us after we grow up. When God blesses us, we think: “I earned it!”

And when we feel unblessed because bad things happen to us, we think: “I’m not sure God loves me as much as he loves others. Why? Because I have to earn God’s approval and no matter how hard I try, I’m just not good enough.” Or: “My prayer hasn’t been answered yet because I haven’t said enough Rosaries.”

But none of that is necessary with God. God is so generous in his love that we don’t have to do anything to receive blessings from him. Well, actually, there is one thing we do have to do: We have to approach the vineyard owner with our hands open.

In God’s vineyard, the last is put first, because the one who is last is the one who’s not competing with others to earn first position. This is the person who knows that God’s love is always available simply because God is love. We don’t have to climb any ladder of heavenly success; we’re instantly on the top rung the moment we discover that God already loves us fully. The only reason we serve him and work hard for him, giving him our best, unwilling to be mediocre, is simply because we love him so very much.

What happens next is so awesome; it’s saintly. We lose the selfishness that has kept us from putting others first. We find joy in helping our brothers and sisters receive the Father’s assistance ahead of us, happily praying for them more than we pray for ourselves. And we get excited when the “lazy bums” in the family, the ones who’ve been rebelling against God all their lives, finally join the Christian workforce and benefit from God’s love as much as we do. – Read the source: http://gnm.org/good-news-reflections/?useDrDate=2017-08-23

Reflection 10 – Signs of a good shepherd (and what to do about the bad ones)

A “shepherd” is anyone who’s had the responsibility of guiding us and protecting us. What is a good shepherd?

He (or she) is caring.

He protects his flock.

He guides his sheep to safer pastures.

He goes after the lost and finds them.

He carries the weak ones over the rough spots.

He fights off the wolves and defeats them with the power of God.

Always alert to do his job well, he is closely connected to the Lord who empowers him.

What an awesome calling!

Have you ever been hurt by one of God’s shepherds? Indirectly and directly, we’ve all suffered from priests who’ve abused their vocations.

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Ez 34:1-11) makes it clear how upsetting it is to the Lord when shepherds fail to do what they’re called to do. Just because they’ve been given authority over us does not automatically give them a special place in God’s kingdom. The sheep are held higher in God’s esteem than shepherds who are not like Christ the Good Shepherd. As Jesus says in today’s Gospel reading, “Thus the last shall be first and the first shall be last.”

Pope Francis said (April 14, 2014) that priests who are not willing to be shaped by the Holy Spirit, “meditating every day on the Gospel … experiencing the mercy of God in the Sacrament of Reconciliation … eating the Eucharist with faith and with love … being men of prayer … it would be better for you to have the courage to seek another path.”

However, when they don’t and we get hurt by shepherds who fail to be good shepherds, we do not need to run from them and from the Church. Indeed, we are called to stay and be Christ’s instrument of healing and restoration. The first step of healing is to remember how God feels about it: “I myself will look after [my sheep] and tend to their needs.” Jesus is the perfectly Good Shepherd. He picks us up and gently embraces us, kisses our wounds, and carries us where we need to go, while we safely rest and recover.

To truly rest in the Divine Shepherd’s arms, we need to forgive the human shepherds who pastured us poorly. We need to remember that they, too, have been pastured poorly by someone in their background, and often their selfishness comes from an all-consuming need to pasture themselves — a need that only Jesus can successfully fill if they let him.

We also need to forgive those who are hardest to forgive. Yes, even those who molested children. Without negating their responsibility in choosing the path of terrible sin instead of holiness, we need to pray for their souls as much as we need to pray for their victims. When there is nothing else we can do, we can pray that the victorious power of Christ will reclaim what the devil has stolen. Satan wants to destroy the Church, of course. Christ’s shepherds are the devil’s first target. If we’re not careful, our righteous anger can be used by the devil to further undermine the Church. With Christ’s help, our willingness to forgive will defeat the Enemy.

All human shepherds (even the best of them) are imperfect and will fail us from time to time. If we seek perfect love and guidance from them, insisting that they give us all that we need, we take our eyes off of Jesus and what he can do for us. Only with Jesus can we, like it says in today’s responsorial psalm, be wanting for nothing, fully satisfied. Only with Jesus can we find lush pastures, restful waters, and refreshment for our soul. Only with Jesus can we find the right path through dark valleys. Only with Jesus can our lives overflow with goodness.

Keep your eyes on Jesus!

Read the source: http://gnm.org/good-news-reflections/?useDrDate=2018-08-22

Reflection 11 – The sin of the envious workers

“Being the principle, the exemplar, and the end of man and of all creatures, God wishes men to return to him as to their origin, to imitate him, to model their life and their actions on him as their exemplar, to follow him as their rule, to work towards him with all their strength, by every thought, word, and actions, as to their last end. To render him capable of doing this, God has given man a mind, a heart, and a will to know and love him, to return to him, to imitate him, and to tend unceasingly to him as to his center. And in order that man may do so with joy and facility, God has enlightened his mind with the light of faith, has poured divine grace into his soul, and enkindled love in his heart.

“But what has ungrateful man done? He has become separated from God and devoted his interests to self. Instead of employing his love for God, he has devoted it to himself and developed self-love. Instead of returning to God as to his principle, he has turned away from him. Instead of referring to God all the blessings of nature and grace, man appropriates them to himself by complacency and self-esteem, as if they came from himself, who is only nothingness. Instead of following God as his exemplar and his rule, he follows the rule of passions. Instead of allowing himself to be led by the spirit of God, he desires no other guidance than that of his own inclination. Instead of tending to God as to his end, taking his repose in him and doing everything for him, man wishes to tend wholly to himself, and to do everything for self.

“Who is God? God is he whose will, interest, pleasure, and honor should be preferred before every other will, interest, pleasure, and honor. What does the sinner do? He prefers his own will, interest, pleasure, and honor to the will, interest, pleasure, and honor of God. Thus he usurps the place of God, makes a God of self, falls into self-adoration, and pays self the homage which belongs to God alone. This is what we have done every time and as often as we have sinned.” – (Source: St. John Eudes, +1680 A.D., Magnificat, Vol. 17, No. 6, August 2015, pp. 290-291).

Reflection 12 – St. Pius X (1835-1914 A.D.)

Please click this link to read the Legacy of St. Pope Pius X: From reforms to World War I

Pope Pius X is perhaps best remembered for his encouragement of the frequent reception of Holy Communion, especially by children.

The second of 10 children in a poor Italian family, Joseph Sarto became Pius X at 68, one of the 20th century’s greatest popes.

Ever mindful of his humble origin, he stated, “I was born poor, I lived poor, I will die poor.” He was embarrassed by some of the pomp of the papal court. “Look how they have dressed me up,” he said in tears to an old friend. To another, “It is a penance to be forced to accept all these practices. They lead me around surrounded by soldiers like Jesus when he was seized in Gethsemani.”

Interested in politics, he encouraged Italian Catholics to become more politically involved. One of his first papal acts was to end the supposed right of governments to interfere by veto in papal elections—a practice that reduced the freedom of the 1903 conclave which had elected him.

In 1905, when France renounced its agreement with the Holy See and threatened confiscation of Church property if governmental control of Church affairs were not granted, Pius X courageously rejected the demand.

While he did not author a famous social encyclical as his predecessor had done, he denounced the ill treatment of indigenous peoples on the plantations of Peru, sent a relief commission to Messina after an earthquake and sheltered refugees at his own expense.

On the 11th anniversary of his election as pope, Europe was plunged into World War I. Pius had foreseen it, but it killed him. “This is the last affliction the Lord will visit on me. I would gladly give my life to save my poor children from this ghastly scourge.” He died a few weeks after the war began and  was canonized in 1954.

Comment:

His humble background was no obstacle in relating to a personal God and to people whom he loved genuinely. He gained his strength, his gentleness and warmth for people from the source of all gifts, the Spirit of Jesus. In contrast, we often feel embarrassed by our backgrounds. Shame makes us prefer to remain aloof from people whom we perceive as superior. If we are in a superior position, on the other hand, we often ignore simpler people. Yet we, too, have to help “restore all things in Christ,” especially the wounded people of God.

Quote:

Describing Pius X, a historian wrote that he was “a man of God who knew the unhappiness of the world and the hardships of life, and in the greatness of his heart wanted to comfort everyone.”

Read the source:  http://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1114

SAINT OF THE DAY
Catholic saints are holy people and human people who lived extraordinary lives. Each saint the Church honors responded to God’s invitation to use his or her unique gifts. God calls each one of us to be a saint.

Published on Sep 8, 2016

http://www.catholic.com

Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of Christian televangelists. Soon after, Tim joined the Marine Corps.

During his four-year tour, he became involved in ministry with various Assemblies of God communities. Immediately after his tour of duty, Tim enrolled in Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and became a youth minister in an Assembly of God community. During his final year in the Marines, however, Tim met a Marine who really knew his faith and challenged Tim to study Catholicism from Catholic and historical sources. That encounter sparked a two-year search for the truth. Tim was determined to prove Catholicism wrong, but he ended up studying his way to the last place he thought he would ever end up: the Catholic Church!

He converted to Catholicism in 1988 and spent the following six years in formation for the priesthood, earning a degree in philosophy from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, Pennsylvania. He then studied theology on a graduate level at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, for two years. Realizing that his calling was not to the priesthood, Tim left the seminary in 1994 and has been working in Catholic apologetics and evangelization ever since.

Following Rorate Caeli, SPL has included the headnotes of “one of the most well-known commentators of the Syllabus of Lamentabili, Monsignor Franz Heiner.” The good monsignor sets the sixty-five errors into seven distinct categories. The added headnotes are below in red. In addition, SPL has inserted a few footnotes where further context and reading may help more fully discern the modernist error.


LAMENTABILI SANE EXITU

Pius X
July 3, 1907

With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.

I. Errors 1 to 8: Attacks to the Magisterium of the Church, to its authority, and to the obedience it is owed.

1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

2. The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.

3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.

4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.

5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.

6. The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning.”

7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

II. Errors 9 to 19: False exegetic propositions, opposed to the divine origin of Sacred Scripture.

9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.

14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.

15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.

16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.

17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word lncarnate.

18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century.

19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.

III. Errors 20 to 26: False exegetic propositions, which falsify the origin and the intrinsic value of Divine Revelation.

20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.

21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.

23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.

24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .

25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities .

26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.

27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.

IV. Errors 27 to 38: Denials of the most important dogmas of Christianity, related to the Person of the Divine Redeemer, to his Divinity, to his supernatural knowledge, to the expiatory character of his sufferings, Passion, and Death, and to his bodily Resurrection.

28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.

29. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.

30 In all the evangelical texts the name “Son of God” is equivalent only to that of “Messias.” It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.

31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.

32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.2

33 Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.

34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.

35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.

36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.

37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God.

38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical.

V. Errors 39 to 51: Denials of the institution of the means of salvation by Christ through his Church, particularly the Sacraments, and of their efficacy.

39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity.

40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.

41. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man’s mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator.

42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession.

43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance.

44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.

45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11:23-25) is to be taken historically.

46. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament.

47. The words of the Lord, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say.

48. In his Epistle (Ch. 5:14-15) James did not intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the Sacraments.

49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.

50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.

51. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament.

VI. Errors 52 to 63: Attacks on the divine foundation of the Church, of her essential constitution, and activities.

52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.

55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.3

56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.

57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.4

61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.

VII. Errors 64 and 65: Calls for the “reform” of the Church.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.

PETER PALOMBELLI, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition


Modernism is a most pernicious heresy, because it is not the corruption of a single orthodox belief; rather, modernism corrupts the believer’s mode of thinking, coloring everything a person believes with a heretical shade. Modernism has also been assumed into the general culture of modernity; thus, any individual born in the West is ingratiated into this heretical way of thinking – even from childhood. The worst part, however, is that since the Second Vatican Council, the Church – at least in the majority – has dropped her campaigns against modernism and has continued on as if it were a conquered thing of the past. In reality, modernism is probably the greatest threat to the Church and has claimed the majority of the faithful – not because they self-described as modernists, but because they are suffering from a disease no one has ever told them even exists. As Rorate Caeli states,  “It is painful to notice that so many of these errors (condemned by Saint Pius X under pain of excommunication, as he would expressly establish in the aforementioned motu proprio) persist to this day, and have become even dominant interpretations among ordinary Catholics, and especially among theologians, under the eyes of the successors of the Apostles: Kyrie eleison!”

Further Reading:

  1. Restore All Things to Christ: 12 Memes on Pope St. Pius X with Explanations & Sources
  2. 4 Steps to Understand the Crisis of Modernity
  1. Rorate CaeliThe Pascendi Centennial Year: 100 years of Lamentabili sane exitu. – All Rorate Caeli quotes are pulled from this article. []
  2. SPL Note: Errors #32-35 deal specifically with the identity of Christ and Christ’s own knowledge of that identity. For an example of an error, many held (and still hold) that Christ was not aware he was God or even aware he was the Messiah. His statements that would seem to import that he did know these realities were really Christ just speaking in faith. SPL’s HH Ambrose has written a detailed list walking the reader through St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings on Christ’s knowledge. For example, in Scriptures, Christ as times seems to know everything, even what people are thinking, at other times, he seems to not know certain things only the Father knows, and finally, Scripture speaks of Christ “growing” in wisdom. How then do we properly speak of Christ’s knowledge as the Second Person of the Trinity with both a human and divine nature? See 8 Considerations on Whether Christ has Acquired, Infused, or Beatific Knowledge. []
  3. SPL Note: Regarding the papacy, SPL has submitted a 12 Step Biblical Guide to the Papacy & Infallibility. The list demonstrates that the Son of David, Christ the King, selecting a Vicar to watch over his Kingdom would have been an intelligible and arguably an expected move by a people, the Jews, who were expecting the return of the Davidic Kingdom. The concept of a Vicar of the Davidic Kingdom is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. []
  4. SPL Note: Unfortunately, this modernist error persists even today, and its pernicious character has led many astray. The premiere rebuke of this theory was submitted by Pope Benedict XVI in his (in)famousRegensburg Address. In short, His Holiness laid out three stages of “de-hellenization,” in which he showed the original Jewish and Greek culture that gave rise to the New Testament had been jettisoned by the West in three stages. Most important, the idea that there is a “pure” Hebrew faith apart from its historical context of a hellenized culture was a rallying cry for the Protestant Reformation – entire protestant heresies are predicated upon this modernist error. In fact, this modernist error is arguably one of the first errors and a foundation for many others.

 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_X

POPE SAINT
PIUS X
Bishop of Rome
Pope Pius X (Retouched).jpg
PAPACY BEGAN 4 August 1903
PAPACY ENDED 20 August 1914
PREDECESSOR Leo XIII
SUCCESSOR Benedict XV
ORDERS
ORDINATION 18 September 1858
by Giovanni Antonio Farina
CONSECRATION 16 November 1884
by Lucido Maria Parocchi
CREATED CARDINAL 12 June 1893
by Leo XIII
PERSONAL DETAILS
BIRTH NAME Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto
BORN 2 June 1835
RieseTrevisoLombardy-VenetiaAustrian Empire
DIED 20 August 1914 (aged 79)
Apostolic PalaceRome, Kingdom of Italy
PREVIOUS POST
MOTTO Instaurare Omnia in Christo (restore all things in Christ)[1]
SIGNATURE {{{signature_alt}}}
COAT OF ARMS {{{coat_of_arms_alt}}}
SAINTHOOD
FEAST DAY 21 August
3 September (General Roman Calendar 1955–1969)
BEATIFIED 3 June 1951
Saint Peter’s BasilicaVatican City
by Pius XII
CANONIZED 29 May 1954
Saint Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City
by Pius XII
PATRONAGE Society of Saint Pius X[2]
Archdiocese of Atlanta, GeorgiaDiocese of Des Moines, Iowa; first communicants; Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, MontanaArchdiocese of Kottayam, IndiaEsperantists;[3] pilgrimsSanta Luċija, MaltaDiocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MissouriArchdiocese of Zamboanga, Philippines; emigrants from TrevisoPatriarchy of VeniceCatechists[4]
Other popes named Pius

Pope Saint Pius X (ItalianPio X), born Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto,[a](2 June 1835 – 20 August 1914) was Popefrom August 1903 to his death in 1914. He was canonized in 1954. Pius X is known for vigorously opposing modernist interpretations of Catholic doctrine, promoting traditional devotional practices and orthodox theology. His most important reform was to order the codification of the first Code of Canon Law, which collected the laws of the Church into one volume for the first time. He was also considered a pastoral pope, in the sense of encouraging personal holiness, piety and a daily lifestyle reflecting deep Christian values. He was born in the town of Riese, which would later append “Pio X” (Pius X’s name in Italian) to the town’s name.

Pius X was particularly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary under the specific title of Our Lady of Confidence; his papal encyclical Ad diem illum expresses his desire through Mary to renew all things in Christ, which he had defined as his motto in his first encyclical. Pius X believed that there was no surer or more direct road than by the Virgin Mary to achieve this goal.[5] Pius X was the only pope in the 20th century with extensive pastoral experience and implementation at the parish level, which led him to favor the use of the vernacular language in teaching catechesis, while the encouragement for frequent reception of holy communion became a lasting innovation of his papacy. His immediate predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, had actively promoted a synthesis between the Catholic Church and secular culture; faith and science; and divine revelation and reason.[6] Pius X defended the Catholic faith against popular 19th-century attitudes and views such as indifferentism and relativism which his predecessors had warned against as well.[7] He followed the example of Leo XIII by promoting Thomas Aquinas and Thomism as the principal philosophical method to be taught in Catholic institutions. Pius X vehemently opposed modernism, which claimed that Roman Catholic dogmashould be modernized and blended with nineteenth-century philosophies. He viewed modernism as an import of secular errors affecting three areas of Roman Catholic belief: theology, philosophy, and dogma.[6]

Personally, Pius X combined within himself a strong sense of compassionbenevolence and poverty, but also stubbornness and a certain stiffness.[8] He wanted to be pastoral in the sense that he was the only pope in the 20th century who gave Sunday homily sermons in the pulpit every week.[b] After the 1908 Messina earthquake he filled the Apostolic Palace with refugees, long before the Italian government acted.[8] He rejected any kind of favours for his family; his brother remained a postal clerk, his favourite nephew stayed on as village priest, and his three sisters lived together close to poverty in Rome.[8] He often referred to his own humble origins, taking up the causes of poor people. I was born poor, I have lived poor, and I wish to die poor.[9] During his papacy, some of the world-renowned Marian images were granted a Canonical Coronation, namely the Our Lady of AparecidaOur Lady of the PillarOur Lady of the CapeOur Lady of the Rosary of ChiquinquiráOur Lady of the Lake of MexicoOur Lady of La Naval de ManilaVirgin of Help of VenezuelaOur Lady of Carmel of New York, and the Immaculate Conceptionwithin the Chapel of the Choir inside Saint Peter’s Basilica were granted its prestigious honors.

Considered a holy person by many, public veneration of Pope Pius X began soon after his death. Numerous petitions resulted in an early process of beatification which started in the 1920s, and which resulted in his canonization on 29 May 1954.[9] The Society of Saint Pius X, a Traditionalist Catholic group, is named in his honor. St. Peter’s Basilica holds a monumental statue of him and the town of his birth was renamed after his canonization.

Early life and ministry[edit]

Kitchen of the Sarto family in Riese

Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto was born in Riese, Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, Austrian Empire (now Italy, province of Treviso) in 1835. He was the second born of ten children of Giovanni Battista Sarto (1792–1852) and Margarita Sanson (1813–94). He was baptised 3 June 1835. Giuseppe’s childhood was one of poverty, being the son of the village postman. Though poor, his parents valued education, and Giuseppe walked 3.75 miles (6.04 km) to school each day.

Giuseppe had three brothers and six sisters: Giuseppe Sarto, 1834 (died after six days); Angelo Sarto, 1837–1916; Teresa Parolin-Sarto, 1839–1920; Rosa Sarto, 1841–1913; Antonia Dei Bei-Sarto, 1843–1917; Maria Sarto, 1846–1930; Lucia Boschin-Sarto, 1848–1924; Anna Sarto, 1850–1926; Pietro Sarto, 1852 (died after six months).[10] He rejected any kind of favours for his family; his brother remained a postal clerk, his favourite nephew stayed on as village priest, and his three single sisters lived together close to poverty in Rome, in the same way as other people of the same humble background lived.

At a young age, Giuseppe studied Latin with his village priest, and went on to study at the gymnasium of Castelfranco Veneto. “In 1850 he received the tonsure from the Bishop of Treviso, and was given a scholarship [from] the Diocese of Treviso” to attend the Seminary of Padua, “where he finished his classical, philosophical, and theological studies with distinction”.[11]

A young Giuseppe Sarto

On 18 September 1858, Sarto was ordained a priest, and became chaplain at Tombolo. While there, Father Sarto expanded his knowledge of theology, studying both Saint Thomas Aquinas and canon law, while carrying out most of the functions of the parish pastor, who was quite ill. In 1867, he was named archpriest of Salzano. Here he restored the Church and expanded the hospital, the funds coming from his own begging, wealth and labour. He became popular with the people when he worked to assist the sick during the choleraplague that swept into northern Italy in the early 1870s. He was named a canon of the cathedral and chancellor of the Diocese of Treviso, also holding offices such as spiritual director and rector of the Treviso seminary, and examiner of the clergy. As chancellor he made it possible for public school students to receive religious instruction. As a priest and later bishop, he often struggled over solving problems of bringing religious instruction to rural and urban youth who did not have the opportunity to attend Catholic schools.

In 1878, Bishop Zanelli died, leaving the Bishopric of Treviso vacant. Following Zanelli’s death, the canons of cathedral chapters (of which Monsignor Sarto was one) inherited the episcopal jurisdiction as a corporate body, and were chiefly responsible for the election of a vicar-capitular who would take over the responsibilities of Treviso until a new bishop was named. In 1879, Sarto was elected to the position, in which he served from December of that year to June 1880.

After 1880, Sarto taught dogmatic theology and moral theology at the seminary in Treviso. On 10 November 1884 he was appointed bishop of Mantua by Leo XIII. He was consecrated six days later in Rome in the church of Sant’Apollinare alle Terme Neroniane-AlessandrineRome, by Lucido Cardinal Parocchi, assisted by Pietro Rota, and by Giovanni Maria Berengo. He was appointed to the honorary position of assistant at the pontifical throne on 19 June 1891. Father Sarto required papal dispensation from Pope Leo XIII before episcopal consecration as he lacked a doctorate,[12] making him the last Pope without a doctorate.

Cardinal and Patriarch[edit]

Cardinal Sarto

Pope Leo XIII made him a cardinal in an open consistory on 12 June 1893. He was created and proclaimed as Cardinal-Priest of San Bernardo alle Terme. Three days after this, Cardinal Sarto was privately named Patriarch of Venice. His name became public two days later. This caused difficulty, however, as the government of the reunified Italy claimed the right to nominate the patriarch based on its previous alleged exercise by the Emperor of Austria. The poor relations between the Roman Curia and the Italian civil government since the annexation of the Papal States in 1870 placed additional strain on the appointment. The number of vacant sees soon grew to 30. Sarto was finally permitted to assume the position of patriarch in 1894.

As cardinal-patriarch, Sarto avoided political involvement, allocating his time for social works and strengthening parochial banks. However, in his first pastoral letter to the Venetians, Cardinal Sarto argued that in matters pertaining to the pope, “There should be no questions, no subtleties, no opposing of personal rights to his rights, but only obedience.”

Papal election[edit]

Luigi Macchi announces the election of Cardinal Sarto

On 20 July 1903, Leo XIII died, and at the end of that month the conclaveconvened to elect his successor. According to historians, the favorite was the late pope’s secretary of state, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla. On the first ballot, Rampolla received 24 votes, Gotti had 17 votes, and Sarto five votes. On the second ballot, Rampolla had gained five votes, as did Sarto. The next day, it seemed that Rampolla would be elected. However, the veto (jus exclusivae) against Rampolla’s nomination, by Polish Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko from Kraków in the name of Emperor Franz Joseph (1848–1916) of Austria-Hungary, was proclaimed. Many in the conclave, including Rampolla, protested against the veto, and it was even suggested that he be elected pope despite the veto.

However, the third vote had already begun, and thus the conclave had to continue with the voting, which resulted in no clear winner, though it did indicate that many of the conclave wished to turn their support to Sarto, who had 21 votes upon counting. The fourth vote showed Rampolla with 30 votes and Sarto with 24. It seemed clear that the cardinals were moving toward Sarto.

On the following morning, the fifth vote of the conclave was taken, and the count had Rampolla with 10 votes, Gotti with two votes, and Sarto with 50 votes.[citation needed] Thus, on 4 August 1903, Cardinal Sarto was elected to the pontificate. This marked the last time a veto would be exercised by a Catholic monarch in the proceedings of the conclave.

At first, it is reported, Sarto declined the nomination, feeling unworthy. Additionally, he had been deeply saddened by the Austro-Hungarian veto and vowed to rescind these powers and excommunicateanyone who communicated such a veto during a conclave. With the cardinals asking him to reconsider, it is further reported, he went into solitude, and took the position after deep prayer in the Pauline chapel and the urging of his fellow cardinals.

In accepting the papacy, Sarto took as his papal name Pius X, out of respect for his recent predecessors of the same name, particularly that of Pope Pius IX(1846–78), who had fought against theological liberals and for papal supremacy. Pius X’s traditional coronationtook place on the following Sunday, 9 August 1903. Upon being elected pope he was also formally the Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Officeprefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches and prefect of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation. There was however a cardinal-secretary to run these bodies on a day-to-day basis.

Pontificate[edit]

PAPAL STYLES OF
POPE PIUS X
Coat of arms of Pope Pius X.svg
REFERENCE STYLE His Holiness
SPOKEN STYLE Your Holiness
RELIGIOUS STYLE Holy Father
POSTHUMOUS STYLE Saint

Pope Pius X in the Vatican Gardens

The pontificate of Pius X was noted for its conservative theology and reforms in liturgy and church law. In what became his motto, the Pope stated in 1903 that his papacy would undertake Instaurare Omnia in Christo, or “to restore all things in Christ.” In his first encyclical (E supremi apostolatus, 4 October 1903), he stated his overriding policy as follows: “We champion the authority of God. His authority and Commandments should be recognized, deferred to, and respected.”

His simple origins became clear right after his election, when he wore a pectoral cross made of gilded metal on the day of his coronation and when his entourage was horrified, the new pope complained that he always wore it and that he had brought no other with him.[13] He was well known for cutting down on papal ceremonies. He also abolished the custom of the pope dining alone (which had been established by Pope Urban VIII), and the pope invited his friends to eat with him.[c]

He was also on one occasion chided by Rome’s social leaders for refusing to make his (Pius X’s) peasant sisters Papal countesses, to which he responded “I have made them sisters of the Pope; what more can I do for them?”[13]

He developed a reputation as being very friendly with children. He carried candy in his pockets for the street urchins in Mantua and Venice, and taught catechism to them. During papal audiences, he would gather children around him and talk to them about things that interested them. His weekly catechism lessons in the courtyard of San Damaso in the Vatican always included a special place for children, and his decision to require the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in every parish was partly motivated by a desire to reclaim children from religious ignorance.[13]

Church reforms and theology[edit]

Restoration in Christ and Mariology[edit]

Pius X promoted daily communion for all Catholics, a practice that was criticized for introducing irreverence. In his 1904 encyclical Ad diem illum, he views Mary in the context of “restoring everything in Christ”.

He wrote:

Spiritually we all are her children and she is the mother of us, therefore, she is to be revered like a mother.[5] Christ is the Word made Flesh and the Savior of mankind. He had a physical body like every other man: and as savior of the human family, he had a spiritual and mystical body, the Church. This, the Pope argues has consequences for our view of the Blessed Virgin. She did not conceive the Eternal Son of God merely that He might be made man taking His human nature from her, but also, by giving him her human nature, that He might be the Redeemer of men. Mary, carrying the Savior within her, also carried all those whose life was contained in the life of the Savior. Therefore, all the faithful united to Christ, are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones[15] from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head. Through a spiritual and mystical fashion, all are children of Mary, and she is their Mother. Mother, spiritually, but truly Mother of the members of Christ (S. Aug. L. de S. Virginitate, c. 6).[5]

Tra le sollecitudini and Gregorian chant[edit]

Within three months of his coronation, Pius X published his motu proprio Tra le sollecitudiniClassical and Baroque compositions had long been favoured over Gregorian chant in ecclesiastical music.[16]The Pope announced a return to earlier musical styles, championed by Don Perosi. Since 1898, Perosi had been Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir, a title which Pius X upgraded to “Perpetual Director.” The Pope’s choice of Dom Joseph Pothier to supervise the new editions of chant led to the official adoption of the Solesmes edition of Gregorian chant.

Liturgical changes[edit]

The pope photographed on 14 August 1903

In his papacy, Pius X worked to increase devotion in the lives of the clergy and laity, particularly in the Breviary, which he reformed considerably, and the Holy Mass.

Besides restoring to prominence Gregorian Chant, he placed a renewed liturgical emphasis on the Eucharist, saying, “Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven.” To this end, he encouraged frequent reception of Holy Communion. This also extended to children who had reached the “age of discretion”, though he did not permit the ancient Eastern practice of infant communion. He also emphasized frequent recourse to the Sacrament of Penance so that Holy Communion would be received worthily. Pius X’s devotion to the Eucharist would eventually earn him the honorific of “Pope of the Blessed Sacrament”, by which he is still known among his devotees.

In 1910, he issued the decree Quam Singulari, which changed the age at which communion could be received from 12 to 7 years old, the age of discretion. The pope lowered the age because he wished to impress the event on the minds of children and stimulate their parents to new religious observance; this decree was found unwelcome in some places due to the belief that parents would withdraw their children early from Catholic schools, now that First Communion was carried out earlier.[13]

Pius X said in his 1903 motu proprio Tra le sollecitudine:

The primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit is participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public, official prayer of the church.[13]

Anti-modernism[edit]

1911

Pope Leo XIII had sought to revive the inheritance of Thomas Aquinas, ‘the marriage of reason and revelation’, as a response to secular ‘enlightenment’. Under the pontificate of Pius X neo-Thomismbecame the blueprint for an approach to theology.[17] Pius X’s papacy featured vigorous condemnation of what he termed ‘modernists‘ and ‘relativists‘ whom he regarded as dangers to the Catholic faith(see for example his Oath Against Modernism). This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of his papacy. He also encouraged the formation and efforts of Sodalitium Pianum (or League of Pius V), an anti-Modernist network of informants, which was seen negatively by many people due to its accusations of heresy against people on the flimsiest evidence.[13] This campaign against Modernism was run by Umberto Benigni in the Department of Extraordinary Affairs in the Secretariat of State, distributing anti-Modernist propaganda and gathering information on “culprits”. Benigni had his own secret code—Pius X was known as Mama.[18]

Pius X in his study

Pius X’s attitude toward the Modernists was uncompromising. Speaking of those who counseled compassion to the “culprits” he said: “They want them to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can.[18]

The movement was linked especially with certain Catholic French scholars such as Louis Duchesne, who questioned the belief that God acts in a direct way in the affairs of humanity, and Alfred Loisy, who denied that some parts of Scripture were literally rather than perhaps metaphorically true. In contradiction to Thomas Aquinas they argued that there was an unbridgeable gap between natural and supernatural knowledge. Its unwanted effects, from the traditional viewpoint, were relativism and scepticism.[19] Modernism and relativism, in terms of their presence in the Church, were theological trends that tried to assimilate modern philosophers like Kant as well as rationalism into Catholic theology.[citation needed]Modernists argued that beliefs of the Church have evolved throughout its history and continue to evolve[citation needed] Anti-modernists viewed these notions as contrary to the dogmas and traditions of the Catholic Church.

In a decree, entitled Lamentabili Sane Exitu[20] (or “A Lamentable Departure Indeed”), issued 3 July 1907, Pius X formally condemned 65 modernist or relativist propositions concerning the nature of the Church, revelationbiblical exegesis, the sacraments, and the divinity of Christ. This was followed by the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (or “Feeding the Lord’s Flock”), which characterized Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.” Following these, Pius X ordered that all clerics take the Sacrorum antistitum, an oath against Modernism. Pius X’s aggressive stance against modernism caused some disruption within the Church. Although only about 40 clerics refused to take the oath, Catholic scholarship with modernistic tendencies was substantially discouraged. Theologians who wished to pursue lines of inquiry in line with secularism, modernism, or relativism had to stop, or face conflict with the papacy, and possibly even excommunication.

Catechism of Saint Pius X[edit]

In 1905, Pius X in his letter Acerbo Nimis mandated the existence of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (catechism class) in every parish in the world.[13]

The Catechism of Pius X is his realisation of a simple, plain, brief, popular catechism for uniform use throughout the whole world; it was used in the ecclesiastical province of Rome and for some years in other parts of Italy; it was not, however, prescribed for use throughout the universal church.[21] The characteristics of Pius X were “simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, Pius X’s catechism might have friends in the future.”[22][23] The catechism was extolled as a method of religious teaching in his encyclical Acerbo Nimis of April 1905.[24]

The Catechism of Saint Pius X was issued in 1908 in Italian, as Catechismo della dottrina Cristiana, Pubblicato per Ordine del Sommo Pontifice San Pio X. An English translation runs to more than 115 pages.[25]

Asked in 2003 whether the almost 100-year-old Catechism of Saint Pius X was still valid, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said: “The faith as such is always the same. Hence the Catechism of Saint Pius X always preserves its value. Whereas ways of transmitting the contents of the faith can change instead. And hence one may wonder whether the Catechism of Saint Pius X can in that sense still be considered valid today.”[23]

Reform of Canon Law[edit]

Canon Law in the Catholic Church varied from region to region with no overall prescriptions. On 19 March 1904, Pope Pius X named a commission of cardinals to draft a universal set of laws that was to be the Code of Canon Law for most of the twentieth century. Two of his successors worked in the commission, G. della Chiesa, who became Pope Benedict XV and Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII. The first-ever definitive Code of Canon Law was promulgated by Benedict XV on 27 May 1917, obtained the force of law on 19 May 1918[26] and was in effect until Advent 1983.[27]

Reform of Church administration[edit]

Pius X reformed the Roman Curia with the constitution Sapienti Consilio, and specified new rules enforcing a bishop’s oversight of seminaries in the encyclical Pieni L’Animo. He established regional seminaries (closing some smaller ones), and promulgated a new plan of seminary study. He also barred clergy from administering social organizations.

Church policies towards secular governments[edit]

Monsignor Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII, at left) and Cardinal Secretary Merry del Val at the signing ceremony of the Serbian concordat underneath the picture of Pius X, 24 June 1914

Pius X reversed the accommodating approach of Leo XIII towards secular governments, appointing Rafael Merry del Valas Cardinal Secretary of State (Rafael Merry del Val would later have his own cause opened for canonization in 1953, but still has not been beatified[13]). When the French president Émile Loubet visited the Italian monarch Victor Emmanuel III(1900–46), Pius X, still refusing to accept the annexation of the Papal territories by Italy, reproached the French president for this visit and refused to meet him. This led to a diplomatic break with France, and in 1905 France issued a Law of Separation, which separated church and state, and which the Pope denounced. The effect of this separation was the Church’s loss of its government funding in France. Two French bishops were removed by the Vatican for recognising the Third Republic. Eventually, France expelled the Jesuits and broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

The Pope adopted a similar position toward secular governments in other parts of the world: in Portugal, Ireland, Poland, Ethiopia, and a number of other states with large Catholic populations. His actions and statements against international relations with Italy angered the secular powers of these countries, as well as a few others, like the UK and Russia. In Ulster, Protestants were increasingly worried that a proposed Home Rule Ireland run by Catholics inspired by Pius X would result in Rome Rule.

In 1908, the papal decree Ne Temere came into effect which complicated mixed marriages. Marriages not performed by a Roman Catholic priest were declared legal but sacramentally invalid, worrying some Protestants that the Church would counsel separation for couples married in a Protestant church or by civil service.[28] Priests were given discretion to refuse to perform mixed marriages or lay conditions upon them, commonly including a requirement that the children be raised Roman Catholic. The decree proved particularly divisive in Ireland, which has a large Protestant minority, contributing indirectly to the subsequent political conflict there and requiring debates in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.[29]

As secular authority challenged that of the papacy, Pius X became more aggressive. He suspended the Opera dei Congressi, which coordinated the work of Catholic associations in Italy, as well as condemning Le Sillon, a French social movement that tried to reconcile the Church with liberal political views. He also opposed trade unionsthat were not exclusively Catholic.

Pius X partially lifted decrees prohibiting Italian Catholics from voting; however, he never recognised the Italian government.

Relations with the Kingdom of Italy[edit]

Initially, Pius maintained his prisoner in the Vatican stance but with the rise of socialism he began to allow the Non Expedit to be relaxed. In 1905, in his encyclicalIl Fermo Proposito he allowed Catholics to vote when they were “helping the maintenance of social order” by voting for deputies who were not socialist.[citation needed]

Relations with Poland and Russia[edit]

Under Pius X, the traditionally difficult situation of Polish Catholics in Russia did not improve. Although Nicholas II of Russia issued a decree 22 February 1903, promising religious freedom for the Catholic Church, and, in 1905, promulgated a constitution, which included religious freedom,[30] the Russian Orthodox Churchfelt threatened and insisted on stiff interpretations. Papal decrees were not permitted and contacts with the Vatican remained outlawed.

Activities for the United States[edit]

In 1908, Pius X lifted the United States out of its missionary status, in recognition of the growth of the American church.[13] Fifteen new dioceses were created in the US during his pontificate, and he named two American cardinals. He was very popular among American Catholics, partly due to his poor background, which made him appear to them as an ordinary person who was on the papal throne.[13]

In 1910, the pope refused an audience with former Vice-PresidentCharles W. Fairbanks, who had addressed the Methodist association in Rome, as well as with former President Theodore Roosevelt, who intended to address the same association.[13]

On 8 July 1914, Pope Pius X approved the request of Cardinal James Gibbons to invoke the patronage of the Immaculate Conception for the construction site of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.[citation needed]

Miracles during the pope’s lifetime[edit]

Other than the stories of miracles performed through the pope’s intercession after his death, there are also stories of miracles performed by the pope during his lifetime. On one occasion, during a papal audience, Pius X was holding a paralyzed child who wriggled free from his arms and then ran around the room. On another occasion, a couple (who had made confession to him while he was bishop of Mantua) with a two-year-old child with meningitis wrote to the pope and Pius X then wrote back to them to hope and pray. Two days later, the child was cured.[13]

Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini (later the Archbishop of Palermo) had visited the pope after Ruffini was diagnosed with tuberculosis, and the pope had told him to go back to the seminary and that he would be fine. Ruffini gave this story to the investigators of the pontiff’s cause for canonization.[13]

Other activities[edit]

Pius X consecrates Bishop Giacomo Paolo Giovanni Battista della Chiesa, the future Pope Benedict XV, in the Vatican in 1907

In addition to the political defense of the Church, liturgical changes, anti-modernism, and the beginning of the codification of Canon law, the papacy of Pius X saw the reorganisation of the Roman Curia. He also sought to update the education of priests, seminaries and their curricula were reformed. In 1904 Pope Pius X granted permission for diocesan seminarians to attend the College of St. Thomas. He raised the college to the status of Pontificium on May 2, 1906, thus making its degrees equivalent to those of the world’s other Pontifical universities.[31][32] By Apostolic Letter of November 8, 1908, signed by the Supreme Pontiff on November 17, the college was transformed into the Collegium Pontificium Internationale Angelicum. It would become the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in 1963.

Pius X beatified ten individuals and canonized four. Those beatified during his pontificate, were Marie Genevieve Meunier(1906), Rose Chretien (1906), Valentin Faustino Berri Ochoa (1906), Saint Clarus(1907), Zdislava Berka (1907), John Bosco (1907), John of Ruysbroeck (1908), Andrew Nam Thung (1909), Agatha Lin (1909), Agnes De (1909), Joan of Arc(1909), and John Eudes (1909). Those canonized by him were Alexander Sauli (1904), Gerard Majella(1904), Clement Mary Hofbauer (1909), and Joseph Oriol (1909).

Pius X published 16 encyclicals; among them was Vehementer nos on 11 February 1906, which condemned the 1905 French law on the separation of the State and the Church. Pius X also confirmed, though not infallibly,[33] the existence of Limbo in Roman Catholic theology in his 1905 Catechism, saying that the unbaptized “do not have the joy of God but neither do they suffer… they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they deserve Hell or Purgatory.”[34] On 23 November 1903, Pius X issued a papal directive, a motu proprio, that banned women from singing in church choirs (i.e. the architectural choir).

In the Prophecy of St. Malachy, the collection of 112 prophecies about the popes, Pius X appears as Ignis Ardens or “Burning Fire.”

In November 1913, Pope Pius X declared tango dancing as immoral and off-limits to Catholics.[35] Later, in January 1914, when tango proved to be too popular to declare off-limits, Pope Pius X tried a different tack, mocking tango as “one of the dullest things imaginable,” and recommending people take up dancing the furlana, a Venetian dance, instead.[36]

Death and burial[edit]

Pius X on his deathbed

In 1913, Pius X suffered a heart attack, and subsequently lived in the shadow of poor health. In 1914, the pope fell ill on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary (15 August 1914), an illness from which he would not recover. His condition was worsened by the events leading to the outbreak of World War I (1914–18), which reportedly sent the 79-year-old pope into a state of melancholy. He died on 20 August 1914 of a heart attack, only a few hours after the death of Jesuit leaderFranz Xavier Wernz and on the very day when German forces marched into Brussels.

Following his death, Pius X was buried in a simple and unadorned tomb in the crypt below St. Peter’s Basilica. Papal physicians had been in the habit of removing organs to aid the embalming process. Pius X expressly prohibited this in his burial and successive popes have continued this tradition.

Canonization[edit]

The statue of Pope St. Pius X in St. Peter’s Basilica

POPE SAINT PIUS X
Papst-Pius-X a.jpg
POPE, CONFESSOR
BORN 2 June 1835
Riese, Treviso, Italy
DIED 20 August 1914 (aged 79)
Apostolic Palace, Rome, Kingdom of Italy
VENERATED IN Roman Catholic Church
BEATIFIED 3 June 1951, Saint Peter’s BasilicaVatican City by Pope Pius XII
CANONIZED 29 May 1954, Saint Peter’s BasilicaVatican City by Pope Pius XII
FEAST 21 August
3 September (General Roman Calendar 1955–1969)
PATRONAGE Archdiocese of Atlanta, Georgiadiocese of Des Moines, Iowa; first communicants; Diocese of Great Falls-Billings, Montanaarchdiocese of Kottayam, India; pilgrims; Santa Luċija, MaltaDiocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MissouriArchdiocese of Zamboanga, Philippines; emigrants from Treviso; Patriarchy of Venice

Although Pius X’s canonisation took place in 1954, the events leading up to it began immediately with his death. A letter of 24 September 1916 by Monsignor Leo, Bishop of Nicotera and Tropea, referred to Pius X as “a great Saint and a great Pope.” To accommodate the large number of pilgrims seeking access to his tomb, more than the crypt would hold, “a small metal cross was set into the floor of the basilica,” which read Pius Papa X, “so that the faithful might kneel down directly above the tomb”.[37] Masses were held near his tomb until 1930.

Devotion to Pius X between the two world wars remained high. On 14 February 1923, in honor of the 20th anniversary of his accession to the papacy, the first moves toward his canonisation began with the formal appointment of those who would carry out his cause. The event was marked by the erecting of a monument in his memory in St. Peter’s Basilica. On 19 August 1939, Pope Pius XII (1939–58) delivered a tribute to Pius X at Castel Gandolfo. On 12 February 1943, a further development of Pius X’s cause was achieved, when he was declared to have displayed heroic virtues, gaining therefore the title “Venerable”.

On 19 May 1944, Pius X’s coffin was exhumed and was taken to the Chapel of the Holy Crucifix in St. Peter’s Basilica for the canonical examination. Upon opening the coffin, the examiners found the body of Pius X remarkably well preserved, despite the fact that he had died 30 years before and had made wishes not to be embalmed. According to Jerome Dai-Gal, “all of the body” of Pius X “was in an excellent state of conservation”.[37] After the examination and the end of the apostolic process towards Pius X’s cause, Pius XII bestowed the title of Venerable Servant of God upon Pius X. His body was exposed for 45 days (Rome was liberated by the allies during this time), before being placed back in his tomb.

Pius X during his lying in state, 21–22 August 1914

Following this, the process towards beatification began, and investigations by the Sacred Congregation of Rites (S.C.R.) into miraclesperformed by intercessory work of Pius X took place. The S.C.R. would eventually recognize two miracles. The first involved Sr. Marie-Françoise Deperras, a nun who had bone cancer and was cured on 7 December 1928 during a novena in which a relic of Pius X was placed on her chest. The second involved Sr. Benedetta De Maria, who had cancer, and in a novena started in 1938, she eventually touched a relic statue of Pius X and was cured.[38]

Pope Pius XII officially approved the two miracles on 11 February 1951; and on 4 March, Pius XII, in his De Tuto, declared that the Church could continue in the beatification of the Venerable Pope Pius X. His beatification took place on 3 June 1951 at St. Peter’s before 23 cardinals, hundreds of bishops and archbishops, and a crowd of 100,000 faithful. During his beatification decree, Pius XII referred to Pius X as “Pope of the Eucharist”, in honor of Pius X’s expansion of the rite to children.

The tomb of Pope Pius X

Following his beatification, on 17 February 1952, Pius X’s body was transferred from its tomb to the Vatican basilica and placed under the altar of the chapel of the Presentation. The pontiff’s body lies within a glass and bronze-work sarcophagus for the faithful to see.[39]

On 29 May 1954, less than three years after his beatification, Pius X was canonized, following the S.C.R.’s recognition of two more miracles. The first involved Francesco Belsami, an attorney from Napleswho had a pulmonary abscess, who was cured upon placing a picture of Pope Pius X upon his chest. The second miracle involved Sr. Maria Ludovica Scorcia, a nun who was afflicted with a serious neurotropicvirus, and who, upon several novenas, was entirely cured. The canonization Mass was presided over by Pius XII at Saint Peter’s Basilica before a crowd of about 800,000[40] of the faithful and church officials at St. Peter’s Basilica. Pius X became the first pope to be canonized since Pius V in 1712.[41]

His canonization ceremony was taped and recorded by early television news broadcasters, including NBC.

Prayer cards often depict the sanctified Pontiff with instruments of Holy Communion. In addition to being celebrated as the “Pope of the Blessed Sacrament,” St. Pius X is also the patron saint of emigrants from Treviso. He is honored in numerous parishes in Italy, Germany, Belgium, Canada, and the United States.

The number of parishes, schools, seminaries and retreat houses named after him in western countries is very large, partly because he was very well known, and his beatification and canonization in the early 1950s was during a period of time following World War II when there was a great deal of new construction in cities and population growth in the era of the baby boom, thus leading to Catholic institutional expansion that correlated with the growing society.[13]

Pius X’s feast day was assigned in 1955 to 3 September, to be celebrated as a Double. It remained thus for 15 years. In the 1960 calendar (incorporated in the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII, whose continued use as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is authorized under the conditions indicated in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum) the rank was changed to Third-Class Feast. The rank in the General Roman Calendar since 1969 is that of Memorialand the feast day is obligatorily celebrated on 21 August, closer to the day of his death (20 August, impeded by the feast day of St Bernard).[42]

The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine was a big supporter of his canonization, partly because he had ordained the need for its existence in every diocese and because it had received a great deal of episcopal criticism, and it was thought that by canonizing the pope who gave them their mandate, this would help inoculate against this criticism.[13] They initiated a prayer crusade for his canonization that achieved the participation of over two million names.[13]

After the Pope’s canonization, another miracle is said to have taken place when a Christian family activist named Clem Lane suffered a major heart attack and was placed in an oxygen tent, where he was given extreme unction. A relic of the Pope was placed over his tent, and he recovered to the great surprise of his doctors.[13] A sister of Loretto at Webster College in St Louis, Missouri, claimed that her priest brother had been cured through the Pope’s intercession as well.[13]

Papal coat of arms[edit]

Coat of arms of Pius X

The personal papal arms of Pius X are composed of the traditional elements of all papal heraldry before Pope Benedict XVI: the shield, the papal tiara, and the keys. The tiara and keys are typical symbols used in the coats of arms of pontiffs, which symbolize their authority.

The shield of Pius X’s coat of arms is charged in two basic parts, as it is per fess. In chief (the top part of the shield) shows the arms of the Patriarch of Venice, which Pius X was from 1893 to 1903. It consists of the Lion of Saint Mark proper and haloed in silver upon a silver-white background, displaying a book with the inscription of PAX TIBI MARCE on the left page and EVANGELISTA MEUS on the right page. Pax tibi Marce Evangelista Meus is the motto of Venice and is Latin for Peace to you, Mark, my evangelist. This motto refers to Venice as the final resting place of Saint Mark. This differed from the arms of the Republic of Venice by changing the background color from red to silver even though that did not conform to heraldic rules.[43] Previous Patriarchs of Venice had combined their personal arms with these arms of the Patriarchate.[44] The same chief can be seen in the arms of the later popes who were Patriarchs of Venice upon election to the See of Rome, John XXIII and John Paul I. Renditions of this part of Pius X’s arms depict the lion either with or without a sword, and sometimes only one side of the book is written on.[citation needed]

The shield displays the arms Pius X took as Bishop of Mantua: an anchor proper cast into a stormy sea (the blue and silver wavy lines), lit up by a single six-pointed star of gold.[43] These were inspired by Hebrews 6:19, which states that the hope we have is the sure and steadfast anchor of the soul. Pius X, then Bishop Sarto, stated that “hope is the sole companion of my life, the greatest support in uncertainty, the strongest power in situations of weakness.”[citation needed]

Although not present upon his arms, the only motto attributed to Pope Pius X is the one for which he is best remembered: Instaurare omnia in Christo (Latin for “To restore all things in Christ”). These words were the last he spoke before he died.[citation needed]

In fiction[edit]

The life of Pope Pius X is depicted in the 1951 movie Gli uomini non guardano il cielo (Italian Wikipedia) by Umberto Scarpelli. The movie is centered on the year 1914, as the Pope grieves over the threat that is incumbent and is consoled by his nephew.

A satirical depiction of Pope Pius X is presented in Flann O’Brien‘s novel The Hard Life, as the Irish characters travel from Dublin to Rome and gain a personal interview with the Pope, which ends very badly.

In poetry[edit]

In the poem “Zone” by Guillaume Apollinaire, Pope Pius X is referred to as “L’Européen le plus moderne.”[45]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up ^ English: Joseph Melchior Sarto
  2. Jump up ^ Homilies in the celebration of the Forma Extraordinaria did not always necessitate a sermon or homily prior to the changes of the Second Vatican Council.
  3. Jump up ^ Pope Pius XI revived and observed the custom of the pope dining alone during his own pontificate but none of the other successors of Pius X is known to have followed this custom.[14]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up ^ “hSarto”. Araldica vaticana. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  2. Jump up ^ http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/why-st-pius-x-societys-patron-4700
  3. Jump up ^ cs:Pius X. Czech Wikipedia
  4. Jump up ^ “Pope joins faithful at altar of St. Pius X”. Vatican Insider. 22 August 2015. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
  5. Jump up to: a b c Sarto 1904.
  6. Jump up to: a b Lortz 1934.
  7. Jump up ^ Sarto, Giuseppe Melchiorre (1832). “Syllabus of Errors“. Gregory XVI Mirari Vos..
  8. Jump up to: a b c Kühner 1960, p. 183.
  9. Jump up to: a b Pius X. Franciscan SFO..
  10. Jump up ^ “Pope Pius X”. Greenspun. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  11. Jump up ^ Wikisource-logo.svg Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). “Pope Pius X“. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  12. Jump up ^ “The Pope Who Had No doctorate”The Catholic HeraldUK. 11 May 1956. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  13. Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Avella, Steven M; Zalar, Jeffrey (Fall 1997), “Sanctity in the Era of Catholic Action: The Case of St. Pius X”, Catholic Historian (Spirituality and Devotionalism ed.), US, 15(4), pp. 57–80
  14. Jump up ^ “‘Pope And Mussolini’ Tells The ‘Secret History’ Of Fascism And The Church : NPR”NPR. Retrieved 4 February 2014.
  15. Jump up ^ Ephes. v., 30.
  16. Jump up ^ J. de Luca, Disharmony among bishops: on the binding nature of a papal motu proprio on music, Journal of the Australian Catholic Historical Society 35 (2014), 28-37.
  17. Jump up ^ Noel 2009, p. 8.
  18. Jump up to: a b Cornwell 2008, p. 37
  19. Jump up ^ Cornwell 2008, p. 35
  20. Jump up ^ Sarto, Giuseppe Melchiorre (1907-07-03). “Lamentabili Sane”. Papal encyclicals. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  21. Jump up ^ Sarto 1905, p. 3.
  22. Jump up ^ Joseph Ratzinger (2 May 2003). “On the Abridged Version of Catechism”Zenit..
  23. Jump up to: a b Ratzinger, Joseph, InterviewIT: 30 giorni, The text… was characterized by simplicity of exposition and depth of content. That is also a reason why the Catechism of Saint Pius X may still find friends in the future.
  24. Jump up ^ Sarto, Giuseppe Melchiorre (15 April 1905). “Acerbo Nimis”. Rome, IT: Vatican. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  25. Jump up ^ Sarto 1905, p. 2.
  26. Jump up ^ Ap. Const. Providentissima Mater Ecclesia
  27. Jump up ^ Ap. Const. Sacrae Disciplinae Leges
  28. Jump up ^ Moir, John S. “Canadian Protestant Reaction to the Ne Temere Decree”CAU Manitoba. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  29. Jump up ^ “Debate on ‘Ne Temere’”Hansard. Mill Bank Systems. 1911. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  30. Jump up ^ Schmidlin 1904.
  31. Jump up ^ Acta Sanctae Sedis (PDF). Ephemerides Romanae39Rome, IT: Vatican. 1906. Retrieved 9 June 2011..
  32. Jump up ^ Renz 2009, p. 43.
  33. Jump up ^ “Out On A Limbo”. Catholic. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  34. Jump up ^ “Past Roman Catholic statements about Limbo and the destination of unbaptised infants who die?”. Religious tolerance. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  35. Jump up ^ “100 Years Ago You Would Have Been Talking About the Tango”. New England Historical Society.
  36. Jump up ^ “Do the Furiana”. The Milwaukee Journal.
  37. Jump up to: a b Thouvenot, Fr. Christian (April 2004). “Canonization of Pope Pius X by Pope Pius XII”The Angelus. Retrieved 3 November2013.
  38. Jump up ^ Walter Diethelm (1956). Saint Pius X: The Farm Boy who Became Pope. pp. 160–161. ISBN 0-89870-469-3.
  39. Jump up ^ Christine Quigley (2006) [First published 1998]. Modern Mummies: The Preservation of the Human Body in the Twentieth CenturyMcFarland & Company. p. 204. ISBN 0-7864-2851-1.
  40. Jump up ^ “The Canon Process – Museo San Pio X”. IT: Museo san Pio X. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
  41. Jump up ^ “Life on the Newsfronts of the World”Life. 18 January 1954: 42.
  42. Jump up ^ Calendarium Romanum (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1969), pp. 101, 137
  43. Jump up to: a b Papal Heraldry, Donald Lindsay Galbreath, page 105.
  44. Jump up ^ A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry, John Woodward, page 128
  45. Jump up ^ “Alcools”. Chez.

Bibliography[edit]

In his lifetime[edit]

  • Monsignor Hartwell de la Garde Grissell (1903). Sede Vacante: Being a Diary Written During the Conclave of 1903Oxford: James Parke & Co.
  • Schmidlin, Edward (1904). Life of His Holiness, Pope Pius X. (this was an apologetic work intended for American audiences, where criticism of ‘popery’ was very common in society, and it contained a preface by James Cardinal Gibbons).
  • Schmitz, Monsignor E Canon (1907). Life of Pius XNew YorkThe American Catholic Publication Society.
  • Monsignor Anton de Waal (1904). Life of Pope Pius X. trans. Joseph William Berg. Milwaukee: The M.H. Wiltzius Co.

After his death[edit]

  • F. A. Forbes (1924) [1918]. Life of Pius X (2nd ed.). New York: PJ Kenedy & Sons. Merry del Val (above) considered this work to be the most authoritative written on him.
  • René Bazin (1928). Pius X. St Louis: B Herder.
  • Katherine Burton (1950).