the vine and the branches - federico suarez

8/15/2019 The Vine and the Branches - Federico Suarez

1/80


2/80

The Vine and the Branches

Federico Suarez

ginal title in Spanish: "La Vid y los Sarmientos"1992 Original by Federico Suarez © 1995 translation: Four Courts Press.s Nigerian edition is published in 1999 by Criterion Publishers Ltd., with special permissionm Four Courts Press, Limited, Kill Lane, Blackrock, County Dublin, Ireland.hil Obstat: J.M. Chapuli, Censor Deputatus Imprimatur: *A. O. Okogie, Archbishop of Lagos. 11tober 1999

BN 978-35129-0-0

ntentslogue

e Resurrectione Vine And The Branchese Teaching Of The Apostlese Living BreadA Man Examine Himself

Ought To Pray Alwaysaven In The MassNo Man Put Asunder

e Worse Parte Light Of The WorldCaesar What Is Caesar'sWho Believes


3/80

PROLOGUE

memory serves me rightly it was St Francis de Sales who said that one of the worst evils Godounters in the world is ignorance. It is easy to grasp the truth of that statement when we remember t it is impossible to love a person whom we do not know. Perhaps for this reason there is so littlee of God in the world.

viously when I speak of God I am referring to the one true, living God, to the Most Blessed Trinity

the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Creator and Rewarder, infinite and eternal, whoealed himself to us through Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. There is no other God. Either weow him, or we don't know him—him and no other God. There may be people who have a certaina of the divinity, who believe in some superior being, in a god fashioned by the thought of such andh a philosopher or inventor of such and such a religion. But I don't think we can say of these

ople that they know God in the light of what he has revealed to us about himself. In other words,y don't know God at all because what they think they know about him in no way corresponds toat he actually is. We are sure that this Revelation, as interpreted by the infallible Magisterium oChurch, is true, because Jesus Christ has risen from among the dead. A person who does not

ieve in Revelation cannot strictly speaking be called a Christian, irrespective of how much he or may admire the person of Jesus.

ly when we know God can we love him and, as love is deeds not sweet words, love of God isnifested by our doing what is good in his eyes: faithfully fulfilling his commandments—'He whomy commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me' (Jn 14:21)—struggling to put into

ctice the spirit of the Gospel, drinking in its teaching, frequenting the sacraments so that grace maynsform us into the image of Christ, serving God (and not ourselves) with the talents and qualities he

bestowed upon us: life, intelligence, sight and the other senses, free will, etc. In a word, living for

d, because that is what love means, to live for the person one loves.

make known, therefore, in one way or another, what the Lord has wanted to teach us through Jesusrist is an important task, always but more so nowadays when the doctrinal environment is sontaminated. No effort to make known Catholic teaching will ever be too much.

e truth is, as St Gregory the Great so rightly said, 'if the Spirit does not assist the hearer, then therd of the teacher is in vain.' Teaching must be given, but it must be imparted to each and everyividual. Openness of heart to the teaching of the Apostles is the work of grace, not the result of

cussion or controversy, because here we are concerned with believing. But such opennesficult where resistance is encountered. God's word can slide over us and leave us empty andrile, as if it had never been spoken.

y the Blessed Virgin obtain for us this grace of the Holy Spirit so that God's word, as taughtways and everywhere by the Church, may so enter into our lives that we become holy and pleasing

he Lord.

THE RESURRECTION

ose of you who have read Chesterton's stories about Fr. Brown may remember the story about the


4/80

ef, disguised as a priest, who journeyed with Fr. Brown planning to steal from him a valuablever cross studded with sapphires which Fr. Brown was bringing to a Eucharistic congress.turally he did not succeed in stealing it, because Fr. Brown recognized almost immediately that hes not a priest: 'you attacked reason', he said, 'and that's bad theology.'

s indeed bad theology. The Church has always held reason in high esteem—for it is a spark of theine intelligence, a quality which makes man the image and likeness of God; in fact the Firstican Council canonized reason by declaring, in a dogmatic statement, that man can, by applying his

ural reason in the right way, arrive at a knowledge of God's existence and of some of his attributes.e Council did this because, in reaction against the disastrous results of rationalism, some well-entioned people went as far as affirming that reason always went wrong and was incapable oaining knowledge of religious truth (forgetting that some of the early Greek philosophers didnage to know God by using natural reason properly).

r faith in Jesus Christ is not an irrational faith, or a mind-boggling puzzle or a blind decision of thell with no foundation other than the will itself. We do not believe in what is technically calledholic faith', that is, in those things which the Church proposes to us as matters of faith, simply

ause the Church proposes them. True, this is not to say that faith is a conclusion drawn fromticular premises: that would not be faith, but science. What I mean is that we have a rational basisgiving our assent to what God has revealed to man—that is, we can apply tests to check the

thfulness of Revelation.

re I should like to refer to one of these tests, the most important one of all and the one which hasn attacked most persistently over the centuries, perhaps because it is the cornerstone for the

ongest arguments in support of our faith.

efer to the resurrection of Jesus after his death and burial. To get some idea of the scale andportance of this fact—I repeat: this fact —let us listen to what St Paul says about it to thrinthians:

Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is noresurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not beenraised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. Weare even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ,whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised,

then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you arestill in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for thislife only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied' (1 Cor 15: 12-19).

far as the event, the fact, of Jesus' resurrection is concerned: how can we know about it?doubtedly through faith. This truth is one which has been guarded and passed on by the Churchthout a break ever since the resurrection happened. The Church teaches us that Jesus really andy did rise, that is, that the same Jesus who died nailed to the cross came back to life, that his soul

urned to his body, the same body which had gone through the Passion and been buried in the

ulchre from the Friday to the Sunday. In other words: the resurrection of Jesus Christ is antorical fact, in the full and proper sense of the word historical. It was something which happened


5/80

ime and space; it was not a matter of his dying, and rising and leaving behind an empty tomb andappearing without trace never to be seen again. No. After he rose he lived on earth for some timere; he was seen by other people, people who were able to check that it really was he because theyke to him and saw him eat and could see the trace of the nails in his hands and feet and of the lancehe side of his now glorious body.

s important to stress that we are dealing here with an historical fact, an historically proven fact.hammed, for example, alleged that he received a revelation from the angel Gabriel. His statement

historical, but is it historical that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and communicated theelations Mohammed said he received? Is there any way of knowing that it is?

ere is not. But in the case of the resurrection there is. It is not just that there were witnesses: therere plenty of witnesses, and there are written sources, of such quality that they stand despite all thenute sittings done. Had such sittings been done on what we call in general 'ancient history' I fear t we would not be so certain about many of the events that occurred before the second century A.D.

deal with the matter in an orderly way we should focus on three points, one of which is prior to

actual event. This prior point is the death of Jesus, and the only thing we will say about it is thatryone agrees he died. Another point is what is generally called 'the empty tomb', that is, theence of Jesus' body which had been placed in a new tomb in a garden near Calvary. This is, we

ght say, the first indication that something has happened. True, it is a negative indicator, but it iso a fact: Jesus' body was not in the tomb on the Sunday morning. The stone which blocked therance was there, but rolled to one side. What St Luke calls 'the linen cloths' in which the body hadn wrapped were there and St John tells us that 'the napkin, which had been on his head,' was there,t lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.' (John had been there first thing on thenday morning and had seen it.)

this fact of the empty tomb there is no argument either, nor any discrepancies between theounts, at least no major discrepancies, and therefore there is no need to go into it any further.

s from this point onwards that we get positive testimony about Christ's resurrection. The firstson to see him was Mary Magdalen, who went running to tell 'those who had been with him, asy mourned and wept'. How did they react to the news? By being cheered up and filled with joy?parently not, for St Mark—who was living in Jerusalem at the time and was also a disciple ous—says: 'When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.'

the same Sunday, in the evening, or perhaps after nightfall while the two disciples who had goneEmmaus earlier on in the day were reporting on their meeting with Jesus, he himself 'stood amongm, and said to them, "Peace to you!". But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they

w a spirit.'

is is really very significant, if you think about it: the disciples did not believe Mary Magdaleneen she told them she had seen Jesus; and when Jesus stood among the two on the road to Emmausy were frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost. Their whole attitude, as we can see, was far m being one of credulity. They were not so deluded or so subject to self-suggestion about Jesusng to rise from the dead, that they were easily deceived by rumours or hallucinations.


6/80

the contrary: they were so convinced that it was impossible for a dead man to rise of his ownord that when they found him alive, in the same room as themselves, they took him for a ghost. I

u remember the Gospel you will notice that their realistic approach—quite the opposite olucination or readiness to believe anything—had precedents. Jesus had foretold three times that then of Man would be given over to the Gentiles and mocked and crucified, but would rise on therd day. And each time the evangelist adds: 'they did not understand the saying, and they were afraidask him.' It never entered their minds that a dead man could rise by his own power. And whenus walked on the waters of the lake of Gennesaret to meet their boat, did they react with total

enity and admit that Jesus was walking on the water like someone taking a walk in the garden? No,y became afraid and shouted, 'It is a ghost!' Did they believe Jesus when he said to them: 'It is I,

ve no fear'? They wanted to check it out; they wanted spectacular proof, for Peter said: 'If it is you,me come to you on the water.' Another instance of their not taking a ghost for something real: quitecontrary, they took something real to be a ghost.

we can see that Jesus' disciples were not inclined to be hysterical or credulous. They were men ofields and the sea, full of solid common sense, with not much imagination and not at all inclined toept things which were outside the range of their experience, not the sort of people who could even

nceive that a dead man could rise through his own power. So much so that Jesus had to domething to convince them that it really was he they were seeing and hearing:

'"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh andbones as you see that I have". And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and hisfeet' (Lk 24:39-40).

fficient proof, you might think. But apparently not: 'While they still disbelieved for joy, andndered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of boiled fish,

d he took it and ate it before them' (Lk 24:41-43).

ll, that did convince them ... except for one of them. Thomas was not there when Jesus showedmself to them, and when they told him what had happened he left them in no doubt about what he

s thinking: 'Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of thels, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe' (Jn 20:25). Obviously not the reaction of an who is ready to seize hold of any thread of evidence to be able to state under oath that a man hassed himself from the dead. Rather he remains completely unconvinced by what he is told by theciples, by these good friends of his, people with whom he has been living for almost three years in

us' company, people who like himself witnessed the raising of Lazarus, people whom he reallyuld trust. That Jesus could raise others from the dead, he did not doubt, because he had seen itppen with his own eyes. But that his power could extend to raising himself was something quiteyond the scope of his imagination. Once more Jesus submitted himself docilely to the proof, and,pearing to the disciples, he forced Thomas to fulfil the conditions he had laid down for believing.

out fifty days after the resurrection, Peter spoke in public, in the middle of Jerusalem, to a hugewd, and said quite clearly: 'This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses' 2). About twenty-six years after that, St Paul, writing to the Corinthians, stated that, in accordance

th what the Scriptures had foretold, Jesus rose on the third day, and 'appeared to Cephas, then totwelve. Then he appeared to more than three hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still


7/80

ve ...' (1 Cor 15:5ff) and last of all he showed himself to St Paul.

is then is the explanation the disciples gave, from the day the tomb was found to be empty, whyus' body was not to be found in it, and it is the explanation the Church has been teachingnterruptedly ever since.

om the historical point of view, the strictly historical point of view, there are three possible waysfact of the resurrection can be rejected: by rejecting the sources, that is, by rejecting their

henticity, and therefore their validity; by rejecting the witnesses, which is the same as saying thaty are not truthful, either because they were mistaken or because they deliberately set out to tell; and, finally, by claiming that those passages which speak of the resurrection—be they in thespels, in the Acts of the Apostles or in the letters of St Paul, St Peter and St John— are

ocryphal.

e first way is really so difficult that it is practically impossible. If one denies the authenticity of theurces, how is it possible to know anything about Jesus? For the source which states that Jesus rosem the dead is the same source which tells us that he was born in Bethlehem. If you reject this

urce and are consistent about it you end up having to deny that Jesus ever existed. This is therxist approach: denying or setting aside facts which do not fit their thesis, or which undermine it.least, so it would seem if one goes by an article published in Pravda on 7 April 1972 in whics, in all seriousness: 'The Easter ideas are pernicious and reactionary: they have no historicalis whatever. Christ never died, nor did he ever rise from the dead. He never existed.' Theblem about this approach is that you need to demonstrate that the sources are not authentic, and up

now no one has ever managed to do so, though very many people have tried very hard. In fact theyve not weakened the Scriptures in any way. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that Sacredipture is as solid a source as any other documentary source of ancient history.

e second way, that of impugning the truthfulness of the witnesses while admitting the authenticity of documents which report what they have to say, has been more successful, because it is easier.

us take, first, what is called the 'fraud theory'. This makes out that the evangelists told a pack os: it was the disciples, deceived by Jesus' death and deluded in their hopes, who stole the body andn invented the whole story. Reimarus was the author of this 'brilliant' theory. He did not explainr is it possible to explain without witnesses) how they managed to get hold of the body in spite osentinels guarding the tomb, or what they did with it, or how they could all have been so stupid as

give their lives in support of a lie of their own making, or how they managed to get so many of their ntemporaries to believe in the resurrection. Really, Reimarus explained nothing (that is, he offeredreasonable explanation of his theory): he simply refused to admit the testimony of eye-witnesses

d, since he could not destroy it scientifically, he invented a new version without proving a singlee of his premises.

this general area we also get the 'disappearance theory', which takes a number of forms but doesattack the good faith of the disciples. For example, some people say that it was the Jews who

le the body—in which case, why did they not produce it when the disciples, on the Sunday itself,

gan to say that Jesus had risen? (They would have nipped the whole Christian thing in the bud.)hers say that Joseph of Arimathea broke the Sabbath, took the body (with the guards' permission),


8/80

d put it in a more dignified tomb, without telling even the disciples. But it is impossible to provet he did so. It just does not make sense. Others say that the earthquake referred to in the Gospelied the body even deeper. But it must have been a very odd sort of earthquake, because beforeying the body even deeper it took the trouble to take off the embalming cloths and fold the linen

pkin very neatly.

en there is the theory of the 'apparent death', which another rationalist critic, Paulus, proposes.us, he says, did not die; he lay in the tomb in a state of deep coma, from which he emerged due to

combined effect of favourable circumstances—the cool atmosphere of the tomb, the effects of thebalming, humidity after a downpour of rain, the wound made by the lance in his side. Quite so, butat downpour is he referring to? And what embalming? For the women went to the tomb early onSunday morning precisely to embalm the body, because they had been prevented from doing it onFriday due to the start of the Sabbath rest. And what proof is there, or what witness, or what

ication, that he was not in fact dead?

ally, the third method adopts a very odd but completely anti-historical method. By and large its, if I may use the expression, the cart before the horse. First they decide on the conclusion they

nt to arrive at, and then they set about arranging things to produce that result. This method was firstd by Strauss, and this was his line of argument: the apostles had subjective visions of Jesus after death. But since this is not compatible with the disciples' resistance towards believing in the risenus— as the Gospels show—Strauss has to fix up this point, which he does in this way: in order tove these subjective visions the disciples had to have psychological dispositions of a kind that werepossible in the days immediately after Christ's death because they were so depressed and so hencludes: There was no empty tomb on the third day. The empty tomb was conjured up later, to help

Christian argument. The subjective visions began to occur when the disciples went to Galilee. Theole business of the appearances on the third day in Jerusalem was also conjured up later. Yes, but

en? By whom? How do we know about them? How can you prove it? The Strauss-type theory hashistorical basis whatever.

e modernists of the turn of the century, very much influenced by Science and Evolution (both withital letters) went along the same lines but they worked out a very simple route for themselves.

ey calmly invented new rules of historical criticism and by applying these rules they got the resulty wanted. All religious facts, they said, are transformed and disfigured by the faith of the believer ich elevates historical events on to a higher plane. They then apply this unproven principle, iner to discover the real historical element in the religious fact of the resurrection. They manhandle

ts in order to cut out the inventions and disfigurements which they say faith has added to the basicts. But even leaving aside the unjustified principle they use as their starting point, for they simplyte without proof that what the Gospels narrate is not true (because they start from the basis that theurrection is impossible), the arbitrary way they reject, add on, and alter the content of historical

urces, using rules they themselves have invented for the very purpose of 'demonstrating' theccuracy of the testimonies concerned, is completely invalid for checking the authenticity of any

urce or whether something actually happened in history or did not happen.

e modernists in fact seem to be in the business of forgery.

leave no stone unturned, I will mention the recent theory that Jesus did not really, historically,


9/80

m the dead: he rose spiritually in the faith of his disciples. But this line of argument would nos muster even with a fourth-year history student, so I do not think I need go into it.

Paul argued: 'If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised'. But Christ dide; therefore, there is resurrection of the dead. In the passage from the letter to the Corinthiansich I quoted at the beginning, we can easily see how much importance S t Paul gave to theurrection: 'If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. Weeven found to be misrepresenting God'. But since Christ did rise, our faith is not in vain; on

ntrary: if there ever was a faith firmly fixed to a solid foundation and, as far as possible, aifiable foundation, it is the Christian religion as taught by the Catholic Church, the Church—they Church—founded by Jesus Christ who is risen from the dead.

portant consequences flow from this. If you accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ then you have toept what he says he is—the Son of the living God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holyrit. It is not surprising that people have particularly sought to undermine this truth, because if it istroyed then Christ is despoiled of his divinity and reduced to a mere man, and the religion hended becomes just one more religion, a mere human invention; wonderful but human, with no more

ue than something human, and no power to exert moral authority.

the course of her long journey to the Catholic faith, Sigrid Undset described very accurately thetudes of certain intellectuals of her time: 'They had given up believing in Jesus Christ, God andn, but they continued honouring Jesus, the son of the carpenter, seeing in him the ideal man and adel for men to copy. They could not believe in dogmas— revealed truth, coming from another rld and formulated in human language—but they believed in religious intuition and man's religious

nius'. I think that what she says holds good for our own time.

e Acts of the Apostles say that the disciples 'with great power gave their testimony to theurrection of Jesus.' With that same power and with joy they all gave their lives for the faith,ause they knew that they too would rise from the dead and live forever. But I am afraid that

wadays those of us who profess to believe in Jesus Christ offer a sorry spectacle—entertaining, asdo, pseudo-redemptive theories, false religions invented by men, of the kind which, in

esterton's words, trot out the same tired rhetoric about greater brotherhood and a higher life.tead of believing to the point of laying our lives on the line, it rather looks as though what St Pauls has come true: 'If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.'

hat are all the different kinds of 'theologies of liberation' but using Jesus Christ with our sights

y on this present life? And is this not the same as voluntarily ignoring or denying the fact of theurrection and therefore consciously separating ourselves from the Catholic faith? For if Christ hasrisen, our faith is in vain.

. Our hope in the resurrection is well founded. Christ rose from the dead, and we will rise withm ... if we stay faithful to the end. That is what the Church teaches, and that is the way it is.

saying all this, I do not mean that a person must believe necessarily —there being no possiernative—in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, for if that were so there would be no room for faith.

hat I mean is that neither are the existence of Socrates nor the deeds of Cyrus the Great facts whichpose themselves on our minds by their own intrinsic weight and that there is as rational and


10/80

sonable a basis for believing in the resurrection as for knowing about Socrates and Cyrus. And of urse much more than is on offer from the ideologies in fashion—Marx and Freud included, peopleo espouse astrology and arcane oriental religions, or the Jehovah's Witnesses. That is why everyn is constrained to adopt some attitude or other to Jesus Christ: either he believes in what Christd about himself, in which case he is confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, or he does not believen which case he sees our Lord as an imposter or a deluded visionary.

d given that the resurrection is a fact, given that it is something true and not a theory or an opinion,

have to go along with all its consequences, which are formidable. Jesus is alive, there is anrnal life after physical death, there is a resurrection of the flesh which will come about on the lasty, and those who die in Christ will live forever as distinct, individual people, each with his or her n body joined to his or her own soul. Because only he is way, truth and life, and there is no onee by whom we can be saved, no other who, by triumphing over death, can base our hope on anestructible foundation.

d if you think about it a little, you will see that what God revealed to us and what the Churchches us explains what the world is, what life and man are, what the meaning of creation, what the

mate reason and purpose of everything. And perhaps you will understand the awful position of se who do not believe, because without faith there is no hope. What has a man or woman withoutpe to live for? That, in my view, is the basic problem which confronts the so-called 'modern man'.d his very eternal salvation depends on whether or not he manages to solve it.

THE VINE AND THE BRANCHES

ar the end of his life, only a few hours before he was to be violently separated from his disciples,us spoke to them at some considerable length and in an intimate and affectionate tone which he had

ver used before. It happened during the Last Supper, when he was fully conscious that the timeotted him was nearing its end. Then, as he taught with admonitions, promises and warnings, he tolde last parable, or to be more precise, an allegory, with which all of you, no doubt, are quitemiliar. What he said was:

m the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takesay, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes that it may bear more fruit. You are alreadyde clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot

ar fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine,

u are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart fromyou can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and thenches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in

u, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you' (Jn 15: 1-7).

hough theologians may, I suppose, be able to draw from this text very profound lessons, you and Ill fix our attention on the most obvious and clear meaning of Jesus' words, but without for ament losing sight of the time and place in which they were spoken. Jesus had little time left, and helized perfectly well that as soon as he was gone the disciples would have to fend for themselves.

th his help, but by themselves, nevertheless. Thus he gave them a formula to ensure that all wouldwell with them, telling them where they had to be careful and reminding them of what was really


11/80

portant.

hat he told them was this: that what was absolutely necessary was that they abide in him; that if theyso they would bear fruit; that if they did not they would wither without fail because without him

y could do nothing.

s easy to see that, when Jesus said that without him they could do nothing, he was referring to whaty, as his disciples and as Christians, might do. He was not referring to what ordinary men as men

n do, but to what they, in the future, could do, and which would have a value and an effect beyondmerely natural, for they were no longer merely men, but Christians, with a supernature that raisedm above their ordinary human condition and that, in some way, set a seal on their actions. Whaty did was not limited in worth to this fleeting life on earth, but would transcend in itself theitations of this mortal life.

d so, to us also, who are disciples of Jesus and Christians, he also says: 'Abide in me, and I in youHe who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can dohing.' This, then, is what you and I, and every Christian, must do, now and at all times.

ide in him. Indeed. But how?

magine he told the allegory in its present form to teach us in a very graphic way. As the branchdes in the vine, so too we must abide in him. I suppose that, if we examine how the branch abideshe vine and why a branch remains united to the vine, we will come to have some idea of how weto abide in Christ.

us, we must see first of all what happens between the vine and branch. At first sight it seems thatat unites the branch to the vine is a series of small canals (they are not seen from the outside sincey run through the interior of the plant). Through these canals the sap, that is to say, the life of thee, goes from root to branch. The branch receives food from the sap and so can live, grow and bear it. The branch is strong and powerful because the food it receives not only keeps it alive butows it to bear fruit. To be more accurate we would have to say that, strictly speaking, it is not thench which bears fruit but the vine that bears fruit in and through the branch by the life it

mmunicates to it.

w, as they say in mathematics, if we replace the terms, and follow the path marked out for us by theegory, where we have vine we can put Jesus Christ, and in place of the branches we can putselves. The result we get is this: the way of abiding in Christ, the way of remaining united to him,o ensure that we have channels of grace running from him to us. By receiving food in a regular y, the life of Christ will abide in us, will enable us to grow, will strengthen us, and eventually willduce fruit in us.

hen these channels are cut the sap does not reach the branch, and through lack of food it will wither e by little until it dies. Then it is cut off, thrown in a bundle with other dead branches and burned.hese channels are half blocked then only a very small amount of sap can pass through, an amountich is altogether insufficient for the branch to develop normally or even to sustain itself as it is.

ck of sap leads to its inevitable withering. The process may take longer, but bearing fruit is just not


12/80

sible.

Christian who breaks these channels clearly does not receive grace. When the soul is not nourishednds up dying at the hands of mortal sin, because its reserves of energy dry up and there comes ament when there is hardly any need for a strong temptation to make it fall. It falls by itself becauseas not the energy to stand up straight. It dies because its life has been choked. If the channels oce are blocked by unwillingness, laziness, love of comfort, fear of what others might say,ibitions in the face of today's society, neglect or over-attention to other interests (and they are,

ways, less important), then the life of the soul languishes and eventually dies. Inevitably itsitlessness is total. To abide in Jesus Christ is the guarantee of life; to separate from him is a wayich leads to death.

what I have said so far is clear, then no doubt each of us will have no difficulty in drawing the rightnclusions. A living, healthy person can do many things; in fact, the world progresses or regressesording as living, healthy persons do what is right or do what is wrong. A person who is alive, but

poor health, can do less, cannot do it as well as a healthy person, and at times is just about able tonage. A dead person can do nothing, because he is no longer in the body; all that remains of him is

at he has done during his lifetime.

sides the natural life which every Christian has by the fact of being a human being, he has another d of life which is not natural but supernatural. This second life has its origin in the grace we wereen in Baptism. At the same time we were also given a very definite character which lasts for alle. A Christian who possesses this life can do many things because he is spiritually healthy and

ong. If he is in the state of grace, as we say, alive, but does not nourish his soul, or only nourishes ita very partial way, then he is like a man in a coma, or is a paralytic or a quadriplegic. Although hetill alive, he can do no more than simply get by, with the help of others. If he is spiritually dead, he

no more than the appearance of being Christian, he is a corpse, and is of no use to anyone.

cordingly, the basic question we have before us, whether we like it or not, whether we pay it theention we should or do not, is the matter of interior life. I know that this expression, traditional iristian terminology for centuries and perfectly intelligible to anyone who has once learned thedamental tenets of the faith he professes, is today somewhat unfamiliar. Nowadays, unfortunately,s necessary to say a few words about this notion because today's world is ignorant of its meaningd because, inexplicably, there is a tendency among those whose task it is to teach the baptized toard it as a useless and outmoded idea from the past, a notion that has been supplanted by new

velopments.

as I imagine, many of you watch television; if you go to the cinema from time to time and take aod look at the characters who appear in 80% or 90% of the films; if you read the odd modernvel, those with literary value and those which are mass-produced for our consumer society, youll inevitably see that most of these characters are superficial, that is, they are two-dimensionalople. They lack a third dimension, depth.

the world today it is easy to find spineless, sapless people who every time they open their mouths

speak spout banalities. Why? Because that is all they have learned; from the way to earn money toir preoccupation with sex. They give the impression that they have never thought. Their lives are


13/80

mere reproduction of the utterly superficial; their topics of conversation are light in the extreme;ir horizons are desperately limited. They are accustomed to a scale of values whose apex is tomph through possessing money and what money can buy. And that is that. Unless, of course, in the

d case, we find some vague humanitarian ideal which brings them to make the odd donation tome international philanthropic fund.

erior life is found in a person who thinks, who goes beyond the surface, who relates things one toother. A person has interior life when there is interior activity, like using one's intellect, memory

d will. But not—in the words of Priestley—'to carry on a mad rush of activity, so as to sell menms they didn't know they needed, in order to earn money and so buy, for myself, things that I don'tve the time to enjoy' [unsourced]. The interior activity I am referring to is, above all, to stop and

yourself the meaning of what you are doing and seeing; to inquire what life in this world is allout; to try and get to know yourself. Interior life is about facing these fundamental questions whichnfront each and every person by the mere fact of their being human.

t, in a Christian, interior life is more than that. For a Christian to have interior life means, in thet place, to have clear and adequate knowledge of what being a Christian entails. In other words: to

ow the truths of faith, that is, to know supernatural reality, and among these truths to know thatce is the principle of supernatural life. Grace is to the Christian what the soul is to man. Aristian has interior life not only when he is in the state of grace but when he is actively engaged inintaining it and making it grow, so as to be able to live in it and with it, in ever greater intensity,epting all the consequences of being a follower of Jesus. A Christian who does nothing to nourishsoul spiritually does not have interior life in the sense we usually give this expression and whend by the Church to teach the way of salvation. To sum up: to have interior life implies maintainingole and intact, through attention and care, the channels by which Christ communicates his life to us

grace is not something we can produce by ourselves, from our own human resources.

ealize that, undoubtedly, there are people who argue that all this talk about interior life isiquated. But until proof is supplied, this argument merely shows that those who hold such annion do not have interior life, do not know what it is, do not appreciate it and, even perhaps, givedence that the Gospel is not for them what it is for the Church. Perhaps, also, it will be said thatk of interior life is not what really concerns many Christians; that such talk is not on target; and Iee. But what I want you to see is that shots should not be fired where there is no target; that thoseoting ought to take good aim, because, in the heel of the hunt, what matters is not that the Church,th her Head Jesus Christ (and he is her Head), should follow the world, but just the opposite, that

world should follow the Church, because if it does not it will not be saved. And neither will we.may also be said that all this talk about interior life is boring, and it may even make people scoff is not spoken of at the right moment and in the right tone of voice. But better not to speak of interior

jokingly because such talk only reveals what the speaker is, that is, someone without interior life,only such people can find the topic of interior life boring.

m not exaggerating. What is known as interior life is not boring. I would go so far as to say that it iscinating for it has a facet to it that does not allow it to become boring. The facet I refer to the factt struggle is necessary. Insofar as there is struggle there is interior life, and where there is no

uggle there is no interior life. 'It's hard! — Yes. I know. But forward! No one will be rewarded —


14/80

d what a reward — except those who fight bravely' (Blessed Josemaria Escriva, The Way,0).

ssert that struggle is necessary for there to be interior life because, although all things arehievable, not all are easy. Or at least they are not always easy. I am always struck by theermined attempt, made with as much cleverness as persistence, to wipe out even the slightest

minder of original sin, so much so that each new generation has a less precise and more hazy notionit. The existence in a Christian of the effects of original sin—not of the sin itself, for it is cleansed

Baptism, but its effects—is the reason why we rational creatures find it difficult to do what is wellthin our nature. It is as if we had in us a weight that is dragging us down; as if we were subject tome moral force equivalent to the physical force of gravity; as if there were some current, easilysed, pulling us in a direction which we know not to be right. In most cases it is not enough to at we ought to do, what we are obliged to do. To actually do it we need to overcome a cert

uctance. And even when a Christian wants to abide in Christ and have life, to be successfuluires a daily struggle, which is sometimes easy and other times not at all easy; and the moreures there are the harder it gets, just as the more frequently we win today's battle, the easier it is ton the next day, because the repetition of acts gives rise to habits, virtues. Any athlete will tell you

same thing.

garding the channels which ensure Christ's abiding in us, the Acts of the Apostles set us on the rightck. When St Luke comes to speak of the life of the first Christians, not long after the Ascension of

Lord, he simply says: 'They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to theaking of bread and the prayers' (Acts 2:42). I do not mean to say that these are the only ways inich God's grace reaches us (we have all the other sacraments, mortification and penance, theritual and corporal works of mercy, etc.) but it seems to me that these are the really importantes, the chief ones. I am sure it is not by chance that they are mentioned in a writing which, because

s inspired, is the word of the Lord.

e cannot live without roots. The roots ground the tree in the earth from which it receives itsurishment. Without roots the tree withers and dies, and will fall with the wind. Hollow and dry, itomes wood for the fire. If you open your eyes you will see men and women (especially young men

d women) who are rootless, meandering from place to place, directionless and without anective in life, empty inside, clinging to whatever belief, superstition or theory promises to fill their ptiness. In recent times some have taken to calling themselves hippies, others revolutionaries, anders are simply nameless.

Christian who does not abide in Christ is like a tree without roots. He has not the slightest chancesurvival. A Christian without interior life is empty, as hollow as a corpse which has begun to rot.most, if, separated from the root, he remains standing, he is a mere caricature of a Christian. I fear t today there are so many such caricatures in the Church that we ought to feel ashamed. These manyicatures make the world laugh at the Church—at our Holy Mother Church which can attract or el, but never be the object of laughter. We come across Homer-like guffaws at the antics of somelesiastics who try to accommodate the Gospel to what they presume are the latest trends inence, at the ridiculous spectacle of Christians who abandon their interior life and put in its place

tems, theories or essays which carry with them their proper dosage of Marx or Freud so that they


15/80

n call themselves adult Christians in the world today. And I hardly dare mention those Christianso struggle not with their hope in the resurrection of the body but with the hope of seeing a better rld 'liberated' from capitalist alienations, for these people are hardly Christian at all.

peak not for the pleasure of hearing my own voice. The question of interior life is of the utmostportance and you have the right to hear the truth; you have the right to be taught without deceit. Justphysically it is impossible to live without eating, so in what has to do with eternal salvation we

n do nothing, absolutely nothing, if we do not abide in Christ, as the branch remains in the vine.

parated from Christ there is no chance of eternal life.hink that, in general, we Christians show little interest in having interior life—and I refer to eternal—because I fail to see such interest around me, and it is only on this earth that we can acquirernal life. You all know that St Thomas Aquinas was not given to many words where few would do.was concise in writing and he wrote quite an amount. A sister of his once asked him what sheuld do to be holy. St Thomas answered smartly: 'Want to be!' And, as we are reminded iny , to want is to use the means. To want to have life, to want to abide in Christ, to want to live as aristian and not to put yourself out in the slightest to ensure that your soul has the necessary

urishment is like wanting to build an edifice simply by whistling the music of the latest pop tune.

I go into class, or pass by a theatre at the end of a lecture and find a crowd of people in thesageway, or when I am walking along in the street, I often ask myself: how many of all these

ople I see have interior life, and how many are dead inside? I cannot stop myself because that is thest fundamental truth about them, about us. All other things, what in general can be seen, is no moren the make-up we all wear. What men appear to be is not always what they really are.

o not know whether many of us have taken the trouble to look at ourselves sincerely, from the

spective of our life of faith. How could I know? But what I do know is that, if a person does it, ll discover, firstly, that he is less sincere than he thought he was; but this ought not frighten anyone.happens to us all. We are always more hypocritical than we like to acknowledge. Secondly, thiscovery, if it is sincerely accepted, will bring peace; it will not cause unease. It is always nice top walking on your toes and with your neck stretched out so as to appear taller than you really are.ways wearing make-up is a bit of a nuisance. Sincerity with ourselves leads to peace, because theth, once it is seen and accepted, no matter what it is, gets rid of troubles and disturbances.

e problem, then, for us, and indeed for every Christian, is to see if, as Christians, we have life in us

not, to see, that is, if we are alive or dead. Once this is seen, we can decide what we will do in theure: whether to continue wearing a mask to hide the fact that we are corpses, or once and for all toide resolutely to take on the world, our own selfishness and anything which comes between us andd and inhibits our union with Christ— to take them on, even if the world begins to fall apart (relax,

won't!). If we are really as free and as sincere as we think we are, we will know which choice toke.

THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES

he first of his letters, which some scholars say was written as a prologue to his Gospel, St John theostle betrays a marked historical consciousness, due no doubt to the privilege he had of being an


16/80

-witness to events whose importance he perceived with extraordinary insight and whose impact hensidered decisive for the human race. He begins with these words:

'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the lifewas made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life whichwas with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard weproclaim to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the

Father and with his Son Jesus Christ' (1 Jn 1:1-4).hat his eyes saw, what his ears heard, what his hands touched. St John is no intellectual elaboratingcheme or postulating a theory. He is a very ordinary person, a fisherman by trade, who describes,a subjective experience, but real events which he saw and, what is even more important, which he

ed. Another of the evangelists, St Matthew, could write in the same vein because he too was aciple of Jesus and a witness of the Resurrection and of many other things besides.

Mark, a disciple of St Peter, wrote the second Gospel. In all probability he knew Jesus and

dition has it that the Last Supper was celebrated in his home. Be that as it may, St Mark gives us inGospel the preaching of St Peter and in one of his letters the head of the Apostles reminds us: 'Wenot follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our

rd Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty' (2 Pet 1:16).

Luke, as is well known, did not know Jesus personally, but he did know the Apostles and probablyo the Blessed Virgin. His Gospel gives us the preaching of St Paul, but he also presents himself asaccomplished historian. While he was not a witness of the events he narrates in his Gospel, he

es relate happenings about which the others are silent, but not without first taking great care to

nsult trustworthy sources. He begins his Gospel telling us:'Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have beenaccomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginningwere eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed allthings closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellentTheophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have beeninformed' (Lk 1: 1-4).

ese are the (human) authors of the Gospels: two, St Matthew and St John, were disciples of Jesusd witnesses of the Resurrection; the third, St Mark, a Jew like the first two, knew Jesus and passedto us the preaching of Peter who was a disciple of the Master, a witness of his Resurrection andVicar and head of the Apostles. The fourth, St Luke, was a gentile, not a Jew. He did not witnessevents he relates but he does pass on the preaching of St Paul (who in turn had received his

ormation, or at least some of it, from Peter and the other Apostles), and investigates at first handsources who were none other than eye-witnesses of all that had occurred.

John was the last to write. He did so near the end of the first century, some thirty years after theer three Gospels had been written. The rise of some heresies and false interpretations moved himwrite, placing special stress on the divinity of Jesus. Unlike the other three, he does not follow a


17/80

tern already fixed in its basic outlines and which was the nucleus of the apostolic preachingrygma ). He deliberately goes his own way in order to underline essential aspects of the life ous threatened by interpretations at variance with what the Apostles had taught from the very

ginning.

ave just written: what the Apostles had taught from the very beginning. This is most important.

e mission to teach was entrusted officially to the Apostles with Peter as their head. They were the

n Jesus chose, after he had spent a night in prayer, to rule the Church under the authority of Peter;y were the witnesses chosen officially to proclaim the Resurrection. Thus, the successors of Peter d the Apostles, that is, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, are those who, by God'sn, have the official mission of teaching in the Church. Theirs is a public teaching office or gisterium (the bishop for his diocese, the Pope for the whole Church) and this Magisterium of theurch has as its purpose to teach the doctrine of the Apostles, that is to say, to teach what theostles taught, with the same meaning they gave it, and not to deviate one iota from it.

t as St John in his Gospel confronted erroneous interpretations of what had been taught from the

ginning, so the Church has always exercised officially, through the Pope and bishops, its duty totch over the teachings of Jesus so that God's Revelation may not be falsified by private authorso can give no guarantee. What the Church is obliged to teach is what has always been seen to be inmony with the apostolic preaching. So much is this the case that, in the first few centuries, when aal church had to decide whether some particular teaching or interpretation of Scripture wasrect or not, what it did was to compare it with the teaching of the apostolic churches, that is, withchurches founded by the Apostles, and more specifically, with the teaching of the Church of Rome,head church.

w often has the Church been accused of curtailing what is popularly known as 'freedom of thought'.s an accusation which so-called free-thinkers take to as they would to a sport. But it only serves toderline their narrowmindedness.

hen someone, who is, by Baptism, a member of the Church, teaches a doctrine which does notord with the teaching of the Apostles—and the decision as to whether it does or does not accord within the Church's competence alone—what the Church does is ask him or her not to teach whatalse and to study the matter more deeply in the light of what they have learned. She asks him or her consider what has been officially taught by the Church in matters of faith and morals, under the

ndate of Christ, that is of course, if they do not wish to be separated from Christ, the Head of theurch and from the Church herself, which is his Mystical Body. When some new philosophicalory is put forward and poses a danger to the faith of her children, the Church informs the faithful

d puts them on their guard so that they may not fall away. The Church does not curtail the thinking on and women. What she does is to try and ensure, with the means available to her, that people dosay or write nonsense, or harm others with errors, lies or falsehoods. No State in the world

ows men to be taught that we breathe through our fingers and toes, or that a child is a flower, or t voltage is a measurement of humidity, or that Napoleon's father was Queen Elizabeth I of gland. No one is surprised that a State does not permit this type of freedom of thought. Free-

nkers and unprejudiced intellectuals do not decry such 'oppression'. But enough about that.


18/80

u will recall how in the first of his temptations in the desert, when the devil suggested to Jesus thatturn stones into bread, our Lord replied: 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word thatceeds from the mouth of God' (Mt 3:4). And he, the Logos, is the Word of God on whom men must

e. 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away' (Mt 24:35). His words areo God's words, for he is God. And when anyone teaches as the word of God what is his or her n personal opinion, or something which is not in accord with the doctrine the Church has alwaysght, you can be absolutely sure that such teaching, no matter from what angle it is looked at, is notword of God, but the word of men and does not nourish or save.

hat the Church must teach is Revelation, and the way we human beings can attain salvation. Asnisters of God in the economy of salvation, priests cannot, must not, place their priesthood at thevice of purely human goals for the simple reason that they have been ordained for a spiritualssion. As priests, they have no right to restrict the freedom of the faithful, indoctrinating them intters of a political, economic or sociological nature, where God has left each person free to formor her own opinion. The only restriction on this freedom is the doctrinal and moral teaching of theurch which the believer freely accepts in faith. For priests to act otherwise entails an abuse of thehority they have as God's ministers, an authority given them to preach the teaching of the Apostles,

Good News, in the way the Church officially proclaims it.

uld that I might convince you of the need to read the Good News each day. What kind of atholic is a person who is not immersed in, and imbued with, the Gospel or who knows little or hing of it, while at the same time finds time to inform himself of a thousand and one different thingsich are not even worth the paper they are written on? We have absolutely no excuse for not

owing Christ because those who knew and lived with him, who saw him risen from the dead anded him dearly and with a loyalty which brought them to give their lives in witnessing to the truth oat they had heard and seen, have left us in the Gospels an account of his life on earth, such that we

n contemplate him as they did.

ey did not do it immediately. At first they only preached the Good News. With the passage of timed the growth in the number of believers, the teaching of the Apostles, whether passed on orally or notes jotted down, was exposed to the danger of inaccuracies, downright mistakes, make-believeracles and fanciful details. God, then, inspired some disciples to put in writing what the Apostlesght. And so we come to a fundamental point, namely, inspiration.

not confuse it with what we might call the poet's inspiration —the moment when something occurs

him and he rushes off feverishly to write it all down so as not to lose an iota of it. Inspiration doesmean that God dictated to the evangelist what he was to write, thus making the writer a mereretary, or, in modern parlance, a mere typewriter or a word processor. Divine inspiration does notle (if I can use that word) the intellect and will of the writer, it does not annul or take their place.doubtedly the writer serves God as his instrument but he remains a free and intelligent instrument.

hat God does, and this is the essence of inspiration, is to move the will of someone to write; hemines their mind and assists them in the task (in their operative faculties, according toologians) so as to preserve them from the slightest danger of error. Thus, the evangelist is truly thecondary) author of the text he has written, while God is truly the principal author. The written

rd is then the Word of God; these are the words which will not pass away.


19/80

u can see then that the Gospels (although I use the term Gospel, you will realize that I am referringall the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments) are not like any other book. It is a unique book;some respects it is like other books, but it is different from them and unlike them because it hasat no other book has. Behind it lies God's inspiration which guarantees, more firmly than anysonal experience can, the truth and the absolute reality of what is taught in it.

you hear tell of a philologist who states that in the Scriptures there are only words and nothingre, and that this word means one thing, and that word something else, you ought to believe him. In

t. Without a doubt there are words, and each one means something, but there is something elseich the philologist cannot perceive because the method he employs is not up to it. His method onlyes a certain distance and is only valid when applied to philological matters. I think it was R.chow, one of the founders of pathology, who stated emphatically, and as if it were a conclusiveof, that in all the autopsies he had ever performed he had never come across the soul at the pointhis scalpel. It is almost as stupid a statement as the one made by Gagarin who said that he hadnt three days in outer space without ever finding God. I would give good odds that Virchow didfind a single thought or a single sound at the point of his scalpel either. And as for the things

garin did not find in space, they would fill thousands of libraries. If the page I am writing on at this

y moment were analyzed by a chemist, with chemical methods, he would not find a single word, or ngle idea. He could only find what makes ink ink and paper paper. I doubt if a physiologist, usingthods proper to that science, would find anything at all. In regard to revealed realities—and thepiration of the Sacred Books is one of them— the proper instrument is faith, not philology or mistry.

he Gospels are considered as simple writings in no way different from the other writings of men,n we run the risk of not understanding very much, and what we do understand will more than likelymisunderstood. One cannot judge the Gospel as one would any other book, for the simple reason

t it is unlike any other book. A person who has no faith, and who is also intellectually arrogant,ll see Jesus Christ as an itinerant preacher, as an altruist with high ideals, who in the end died for good reason; as a sort of visionary, with little idea of what men are really like and with no sensereality, who allowed himself to be crucified for an idea which some people hold in high esteem butich is more like a fanciful dream. On the other hand, a simple straight- forward person, even oneo has no faith, will see in Christ something and someone who does his soul good and leads him on

wards faith.

u, however, as believers, cannot read the Gospel out of mere curiosity or for the sake of erudition,

with the condescending indifference of an atheist or a pagan. A Catholic reads the Gospel withpect and gratitude, convinced from the start that everything said there is absolutely true, because ithe word of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. But because we can be mistaken west read Sacred Scripture in Church, that is to say, according to the mind and teaching of the Church.r this reason the Church mandates that all editions of the Bible be accompanied by relevant notes,as to avoid the danger of personal interpretations. It is here that one can verify by one's own

perience what only the believer can understand. I do not mean to say, and nobody ever said this,t you will understand it all completely, otherwise St Augustine would never have made this

mark: 'Let him who can understand, understand, and let him who cannot, believe.' What I mean to

is that the person who does not have faith cannot understand the Gospel because, unless God


20/80

es him an actual grace, the substance of it is beyond his comprehension.

believe, to profess faith in the teaching of the Apostles, means to make the Gospel the benchmark seeing what amount of truth is contained in the theories and fashions in vogue, irrespective of their

gin. It means making the Gospel the standard for assessing the worth and the validity of the normswhich a person lives. In this respect the Church has given very clear teaching: 'We define thatry assertion opposed to the enlightened truth of faith is entirely false'(Vatican Council I). A few

ars later Pope Leo XIII stated: 'Every statement contrary to revealed faith is completely false,

ause truth cannot be opposed to truth.'a Christian is not ready for this, if he leaves to one side the teaching of the Apostles, if he adapts

behaviour or his mind to theories opposed to what the Church teaches as revealed by God,eging that these new ideas or modes of behaviour are truly scientific and proper to 'modern man',n I fear that what we have is not a Christian but a fraud and a trickster. Officially such a person is aristian but does not in fact profess the Christian faith in its entirety, which is the same as his sayingt, with respect to certain matters at least, the Gospel does not tell us the truth. And this in turn is

uivalent to stating that either Jesus Christ made a mistake or that what the Church has been teaching

almost two thousand years as revealed by Christ is in fact erroneous.

e further point remains to be dealt with. The Church is infallible in her teaching when she definesnterprets for men the Revelation she has received from God and which she is to hold as a deposit.

hatever the Church teaches in regard to faith and morals is true and certain, and there can be noor in it. This is itself a truth of faith and like all such truths is not totally comprehensible to humanson, although it does not therefore cease to be reasonable, in the sense that it is not opposed toson but is rather fully congruent with it.

hen I first read Cardinal Newman's Apologia pro vita sua' I was astounded by the opurageous and indeed impassioned defence he made of the infallible Magisterium of the Church, andt he did so in a hostile environment (Victorian England of the second half of the 19th century)ere the very word 'infallible' sounded like an insult to reason. He reasons to the possibility oallibility by starting with a truth of faith, namely the existence of original sin, which seems to himbe 'almost as certain as that the world exists, or as the existence of God'.

Newman's view human history gives eloquent testimony to the existence of original sin:

"To consider the world in its length and breadth, its various history, the many races of man,their starts, their fortunes, their mutual alienation, their conflicts; and then their ways, habits,government, forms of worship; their enterprises, their aimless courses, their randomachievements and acquirements, the impotent conclusion of long-standing facts, the tokens sofaint and broken of a superintending design, the blind evolution of what turns out to be greatpowers or truths, the progress of things, as if from unreasoning elements, not towards finalcauses, the greatness and the littleness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short duration, thecurtain hung over his futurity, the disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the success of evil, physical pain, mental anguish, the prevalence and intensity of sin, the pervading

idolatries, the corruptions, the dreary hopeless irreligion, that condition of the whole race, sofearfully yet exactly described in the Apostle's words, 'having no hope and without God in the


21/80

world',—all this is a vision to dizzy and appal; and inflicts upon the mind the sense of aprofound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution.What shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can only answer, thateither there is no Creator, or this living society of men is in a true sense discarded from Hispresence."

rdinal Newman then proceeds to look at an individual and is forced to the same conclusion,mely, that original sin exists.

"Did I see a boy of good make and mind, with the tokens on him of a refined nature, cast uponthe world without provision, unable to say whence he came, his birth-place or his familyconnexions, I should conclude that there was some mystery connected with his history, and thathe was one, of whom, from one cause or other, his parents were ashamed. Thus only should Ibe able to account for the contrast between the promise and the condition of his being. And soI argue about the world; if there be a God, since there is a God, the human race is implicatedin some terrible aboriginal calamity."

e next step in Newman's process is to examine the effect of original sin on man's intellect. Hencludes:

"I do not think I am wrong in saying that its [the intellect's] tendency is towards a simpleunbelief in matters of religion. No truth, however sacred, can stand against it, in the long run;and hence it is that in the pagan world, when our Lord came, the last traces of the religiousknowledge of former times were all but disappearing from those portions of the world inwhich the intellect had been active and had had a career."

s extremely striking that Newman, who had so pure an intellect and so critical an insight, shouldak of the corrosive power of reason when applied to religious affairs, of its capacity to dissolvegreat revealed truths, when left to its own devices. To avoid any misunderstandings he adds:

"I have no intention at all of denying that truth is the real object of our reason, and that, if itdoes not attain to truth, either the premise or the process is in fault; but I am not speaking hereof right reason, but of reason as it acts in fact and concretely in fallen man. I know that eventhe unaided reason, when correctly exercised, leads to a belief in God, in the immortality of the soul, and in a future retribution."

t it was a fact and continues to be one that reason makes mistakes, that it can err, that it can deformtruth with an overlay of nuances and interpretations in its effort to make progress. And then whatuld happen to God's Revelation, to the whole body of revealed truths, when abandoned to thends of personal opinion and private interpretations? How could anybody be sure that what theyieved and accepted as the word of God was really his word; and in what sense were they tofess it? Let me quote Newman again:

"Supposing then it be the Will of the Creator to interfere in human affairs, and to make

provisions for retaining in the world a knowledge of Himself, so definite and distinct as to bea proof against the energy of human scepticism, in such a case,—I am far from saying that there


22/80

was no other way,— but there is nothing to surprise the mind, if He should think fit tointroduce a power into the world, invested with the prerogative of infallibility in religiousmatters. Such a provision would be a direct, immediate, active, and prompt means of withstanding the difficulty; it would be an instrument suited to the need; and, when I find thatthis is the very claim of the Catholic Church, not only do I feel no difficulty in admitting theidea, but there is a fitness in it, which recommends it to my mind. And thus I am brought tospeak of the Church's infallibility, as a provision, adapted by the mercy of the Creator, topreserve religion in the world, and to restrain that freedom of thought, which of course in itself

is one of the greatest of our natural gifts, and to rescue it from its own suicidal excesses."

is, then, is the reason for the infallibility of the Church insofar as she is the lawful interpreter ovelation: God's infinite mercy. Through this gift he preserves us in this most vital of areas from thengers to which the wound inflicted upon human reason by original sin could lead us. This too is theson why we ought to accept, as coming from God, the doctrines which the Church's Magisteriumches us as being revealed truths. One cannot adopt a flippant attitude towards this Magisteriumce its teachings have the guarantee of truth and certainty which no other person or institution in therld has. In times of confusion as the ones we live in, when many speak in their own name under the

se of being oracles of revealed truth, fidelity to the Magisterium is to stand on firm ground. In therds of St Augustine: 'You will struggle securely, as a person who walks in the light, against theumnies of horrid heresies.'

a novel about the Spanish Civil War Bernanos wrote: ' Are you able to rejuvenate the world, yesno? The Gospel is always young; you are the old ones.' Whoever Bernanos was addressing, hisrds are applicable to us all, and most certainly to all young people, those of today and those of any

och, and indeed to all older people, be they intellectuals, politicians, business executives,usewives or hairdressers. After two thousand years the Gospel retains its full fruitfulness; it has

mained intact when so many civilizations, so many theories, so many philosophies have rusted asthings do when left forgotten in a corner, as old clothes are gradually consumed by moths. But

e, with all its power, is unable to corrode one single Gospel truth. Today, as in times gone by, thespel is the only force which can rejuvenate the world for it alone possesses all the vitality outh. It is like a breath of pure, fresh air that can sweep away the asphyxiating atmosphere oeebled ideas, old and out-of-date theories, pretentious teachings and pseudo-religious imitationsich for a very brief spell fill the environment like a cheap perfume only to leave, shortly

erwards, the sour smell of piled up garbage.

ail to understand how we Catholics are going to rejuvenate a world which is ever more bitter ands human, if we are as interiorly aged and enfeebled as the world itself due to our ignorance of thespel.

we do not read it over and over again, until it has filled us and taken deep root within us, we willve nothing to pass on to others, and our activity in the world will not go beyond the uselessmplaints of any weakened person, the sterile lamentations of those who have no solution to offer, or

fraudulent efforts to be up-to-date, thinking foolishly that in this way the world will be convertedChrist even if it does not believe the whole Gospel truth.


23/80

THE LIVING BREAD

recent times and under the shelter of a climate of confusion which is itself caused by a whole hostdifferent factors there has come to the fore an idea about the Blessed Eucharist which was alreadyng the rounds about 400 years ago. The process has been helped by the mass media with itserficial and, at times, very subjective comments. I am not sure whether it was this idea whichped spread a new terminology or whether it was the new terminology which fomented the idea, butfact is that words like assembly and community gathering were very useful in misguiding

ltitude of Christians whose only theological bag and baggage was the old penny catechism. Theyddenly found themselves confronted with teaching which did not fit at all well with what they hadginally learned.

fer to the fact that the Blessed Eucharist has come to be spoken of as an agape, a banquet of d unity among brethren who have come together to call to mind the Lord's Supper. Now it was notd outrightly that the Mass was not a sacrifice; one just emphasized the notion of the Supper. Thehering, presided over by the priest, prayed as a community and then shared the bread and wine

nsecrated by the priest. Did not our Lord himself say at the Last Supper: 'Do this in memory of me?'

ll, that is what they do: they do it in his memory; they call him to mind.

u know well how such things can happen. A theologian who works well can be very precise andanced in what he says and writes, as indeed he ought to be. But the vast majority of the faithfulnnot catch the nuances because they have not been educated to do so. What the faithful need is to beght in clear, simple and unambigous terms. And that, for the most part, will serve them well.

tle by little, through the influence of books which are readily available, the latest theologicalories and discoveries have taken root in the minds of many Christians. What this has meant

arding the Eucharist is that it is looked on as a commemoration of the Supper, and not theramental renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross; it is a memorial, a kind of reminiscence, and notmething actually happening on the altar at that moment. This idea, even if somewhat vague, exists,

spread and has flourished in some sectors of the Church.

e freedom which sprang from Vatican Council II and which the Church allowed to be substitutedthe former ritual fixity (where every minute gesture was regulated, and where every word was

ariable) has given way to a greater breadth of formulas and gestures. The greater importance givenhe Liturgy of the Word has lead to a wider diet of Scripture and the choice of passages to be read

dictated by the needs of the faithful. The laity were encouraged to take a more active role in thered mysteries. All this is excellent but at times things have gone too far. All too often it hasgenerated into abuse of, and even disdain for, anything which smacks of discipline or regulationsanating from Church authority.

me few clerics, backed up by their unconditional supporters, threw themselves into what has beenled 'liturgical experiments or experiences'. Closing their eyes and using their imagination, it wasy to remove oneself to the first century, and see oneself presiding over the assembly gatherednd the table, in the room of some private house, as the first Christians had to. There they

ebrated the Eucharist—the act of thanksgiving—in whatever clothes they happened to be wearinge Apostles did not put on special vestments), reading some liturgical text or charismatically


24/80

provising one (as they imagined the first Christians used do). And then, without more ado, usinginary bread and wine, they had their agape of love and fraternity, in memory of the Last Supper.ing so, they thought they were carrying out a great renewal in the Church, preparing her for themediate future.

ounds wonderful, does it not? But since then, different Sacred Congregations of the Church haved to send reminders that we have had enough of liturgical experiences and experiments; that weuld carefully and reverently gather up the particles of the Sacred Host which might have fallen

ause each one of them is the Body of the Lord; that it is obligatory to wear sacred vestments; thatmission is needed before celebrating Mass in a private house, outside of a church; that Holymmunion cannot be given in the hand without the express permission of the Holy See, etc. I mustthat these guidelines do not seem to have had much effect. I even have the impression that at times

eferee in a sports contest, who has much less authority, has been listened to with more respect.

this juncture I should remind you that it is the Church alone who can tell what exactly Christ didch, what is a word of salvation because it is the word of God. It is this and not something else west believe if we wish to remain in Christ. And since it is also through the Blessed Eucharist that the

of Christ reaches us, it is essential for us to know well what exactly we do believe regarding thisrament, what we ought to do, and how we ought do it.

e catechism of Pope St Pius X, published in 1905, spoke of the Eucharist as follows:

'The Eucharist is the sacrament in which, by the wonderful conversion of the whole substanceof bread into the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into his Precious Blood, iscontained, really, truly and substantially, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christhimself, under the species of bread and wine, for our spiritual nourishment.'

is short statement outlines the truths of faith we believe regarding the Blessed Eucharist: the Realsence of Christ, transubstantiation and the enduring nature of the appearances of bread and wine— Eucharistic species, as they are called.

ars ago it used happen—at least sometimes— that, when one had a difficulty in a matter of faith or rals and was fearless enough to ask for clarification, an answer was given in such a way that itounted to our 'being clobbered with the Church'. Then something along these lines was added:

ow that's the end of the matter. That is what the Church teaches.'

hat was wrong with such behaviour is that it clarified nothing and at times was quite irritating. Itd, however, the advantage of letting one know very precisely what had to be believed, because inny cases we were dealing with questions which were infallibly defined.

sum, the Church teaches the mysteries of faith, and a mystery, if difficult to understand, is evenre difficult to explain. As you know, the mysteries of faith transcend the natural ability of our mind,the fact that they are supernatural does not entail their being opposed to reason. They are a

son. A mystery is not an absurdity. Just because we do not understand something is no reasonto to reject it as false. If that were the case then children could reject everything and they would

ver learn anything. And all of us would be continually rejecting things like the theory of relativity,


25/80

w the brain functions, etc. There are truths and facts which very few minds can take in andderstand. And all this occurs in the natural order of things.

wadays, an altogether different attitude is adopted. Or rather certain groups adopt a differenttude. Instead of giving us now what the Church teaches, and thereby letting us know what we are toieve on the authority of the Church's infallible Magisterium, we are given 'explanations' which thest intelligible person can grasp. The data of faith are interpreted in such a way that there is nostery left. This happens with all, or nearly all, the content of our faith, but it happens in a very

cial way with the Eucharist. Supernatural mysteries are reduced to a purely human level anddered useless.

e end result of this way of teaching the faith, done not by the Church but by some theologicaliters, produces no novelties. More often than not they reach conclusions condemned as heretical byChurch centuries ago. For example, there is a current of thought which carefully avoids the word

nsubstantiation and highlights, no less carefully and with a vast gamut of nuances which eliminateat is essential, the words transignification (already employed by Zwingli in the sixteenth century)transfinalization . It is not—they say—that in the Eucharist the whole substance of bread and wine

ome the Body and Blood of Christ— that runs counter to what physics, chemistry and biologych. No, what happens is that to bread and wine, which are ordinary food for our bodies, is given aw meaning or signification, a new and different purpose or finality.

s true that Jesus said: 'My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink' (Jn 6:54). It is true that hed: 'I am the living bread which has come down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he wille forever, and the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world' (Jn 6:51). It is truet he said: 'This is my body ... this is my blood' (Mt 26:26 and 28). It is true that he said these things

d others besides but it is easy to get round such statements alleging very, very carefully: 'Yes, but

must be understood in this way. . .' and they then proceed to give an interpretation favourable toir own opinion, disregarding a Tradition of twenty uninterrupted centuries and the officialerpretation of an infallible Church. The more bare-faced simply speak of the need to demythologized undertake the task on the spot.

hat these interpretations mean is that naturally the bread and wine remain, and continue to nourishbody. The soul is nourished by the 'new' meaning and the 'new' finality which the priest has put

re by his words. The only danger is, of course, that the soul will end up becoming a bag of winder being fed on air; that is, on meanings, finalities, symbols and memorials which are neither real

contain any spiritual entity.

nd it saddening and hurtful to have to say all this, but I feel it must be said. On the one hand, youow better than I do, that I am in danger of scandalizing no one, and, on the other hand, if no one tellsu that all this is wrong and that many teachings in vogue today are simple heresies, and does noterate again and again what is the teaching of Jesus, guarded by the Church and passed on by her hfully and without error, then you run a mortal danger. You run the risk of contamination by error,

d of ending up separated from the Communion of Saints and therefore from Christ, because it isolutely impossible to be united to the Body and yet separated from the Head.

he Eucharist is food for our souls it is not because of significations and symbolisms, even though it


26/80


27/80

her). One cannot eat an immolated victim unless it has been sacrificed. We could not nourish our uls by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unless this innocent Victim had died in the sacrificethe Cross which is daily renewed on our altars in the Mass (although in a sacramental manner). Do

be mistaken either about just what exactly a priest is. Treat him for what he is, in a respectfuly, as the designated and empowered instrument chosen by God to consecrate the Body and Bloodhe Lord. The priest is another Christ, independently of his failings and shortcomings.

hen Jesus announced the mystery of the Eucharist in the synagogue in Capharnaum, the Jews did not

derstand his words. They interpreted them in a purely material way. 'This is a hard saying', theyerved. But no, says St Augustine. It is they who are hard, he remarks. If they were not so hard theyght have glimpsed at least that what they did not understand encompassed some mystery, for Jesus'rds if taken in a material sense are just nonsense.

wadays there is a tendency not to accept what one cannot understand, unless, of course, it issented as the conclusion or discovery of some scientist, in which case the majority of people takeon board even if they understand absolutely nothing. When such an attitude takes root in theristian people it usually shows itself in a sort of shame at having to make room for mysteries which

not accord with the usual working of the laws of nature. It leads to wanting to find an explanationich makes the mystery not only reasonable but entirely lucid. It wants to reduce mystery to theits of our poor intelligence. Referring to this attitude Pope Paul VI commented that the Jews of old

parted shaking their heads. Others have tried to explain Jesus' words by having recourse to amparison between the Gospel and the fantastic and fanciful legends and myths of pagans. Stillers, refusing to accept the Real Presence, reduce the Eucharist to a mere ritual supper, to a

mbolic presence or even more prosaically to an elevation of ordinary things to a superior aningful order, like any other primitive superstition.

this may cause much pain and suffering, but we ought not find it strange. On one occasion our rd thanked his Father for having hidden certain things from the wise and learned and revealed themmere children, that is, to those who are humble. Only the humble can freely accept with simplicityat they do not understand. Only they ask questions and are satisfied with the answers given, notause they comprehend them

the vine and the branches - federico suarez

Documents