SAINT AGABUS
Martyr and one of the seventy-two disciples mentioned by St. Luke. He was a Jewish convert to the faith, noted as a prophet. Agabus predicted a famine in the Roman Empire and probably Paul’s imprisonment. Agabus was unable to dissuade Paul from going to Jerusalem. The martyr died for the faith in the city of Antioch. Died: 1st. Century, Feastday: February 13.
rosary.team
SAINT PAUL, APOSTLE
Saint Paul was born into a well-to-do Jewish family of Tarsus, the son of a Roman citizen, Saul, as we shall call him until after his conversion, was sent to Jerusalem to be trained in the famous rabbinical school headed by Gamaliel.
In the year 35 Saul appears as a self-righteous young Pharisee, almost fanatically anti-Christian. He believed that the trouble-making new sect should be stamped out. We are told in Acts vii that he was present, although not a participator in the stoning, when Stephen, the first martyr, met his death. On the road to the Syrian city of Damascus, where he was going to continue his
persecutions against the Christians, he was struck blind. On arriving in Damascus the disciple Ananias cured him of his blindness and he was baptized. Paul accepted the commission to
preach the Gospel of Christ, but like many another called to a great task he felt his
unworthiness and withdrew from the world to spend three years in “Arabia” in meditation and prayer before beginning his apostolate. From the moment of his return, Paul who assumed this Roman name never paused in his labors. He himself tells us he was stoned, thrice scourged, thrice shipwrecked, endured hunger and thirst, sleepless nights, perils and hardships; besides these physical trials, he suffered many disappointments and almost constant anxieties over the weak and widely-scattered communities of Christians.
The orthodox Jews were against Paul and he had to make his escape by having himself let down
from the city wall in a basket. In Jerusalem he was there looked on with suspicion by the Jewish Christians. They could not at first believe that he who had so lately been their persecutor had turned advocate. Back in his native city of Tarsus he was joined by Barnabas and together they journeyed to Syrian Antioch where they were so successful in finding followers that a church. It was here that the disciples of Jesus were first given the name of Christians. Returning to Jerusalem to bring aid to members of the sect who were suffering from famine, these two missionaries went back to Antioch. At Antioch in Pisidia Paul delivered a memorable discourse to the Jews, concluding with these words (Acts xiii, 46-47): “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we now turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord commanded us, I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles, to be a means of salvation to the very ends of the earth.”
The second missionary journey which lasted from 49 to 52 took Paul and Silas, his new assistant, to Phrygia and Galatia, to Troas, and across to the mainland of Europe, to Philippi in Macedonia. The physician Luke was now a member of the party and in the book of Acts he gives us the record. They made their way to Thessalonica, then down to Athens and Corinth. It was during
his first winter at Corinth that Paul wrote the earliest extant missionary letters. They show his supreme concern for conduct and his belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which gives men power for good.
The third missionary journey covered the period of 52 to 56. At Ephesus where the cult of the Greek-Ionic goddess Diana was very popular. Paul raised a disturbance against the cult and the trade in silver images of the goddess which flourished there. In Jerusalem he caused a commotion by visiting the temple. He was arrested, roughly handled, and bound with chains. When he was brought before the tribune he defended himself in a way that impressed his captors. He was taken to Caesarea and was kept in prison awaiting trial for about two years.
The Roman governors, Felix and Festus, apparently wished to avoid trouble with both Jews and Christians and so postponed judgment from month to month. Paul at last appealed to the Emperor and demanded the legal right of a Roman citizen to have his case heard by Nero himself. He was placed in the custody of a centurion and was taken to Rome.
On this last visit to the various Christian communities, it is believed that he appointed Titus bishop in Crete and Timothy at Ephesus. Returning to Rome, he was once more arrested, and after two years in chains suffered martyrdom, presumably at about the same time as the Apostle Peter, bishop of the Roman Church. Inscriptions of the second and third century in the catacombs give
evidence of a cult of SS. Peter and Paul. This devotion has never diminished in popularity. In Christian art Saint Paul is usually depicted as a bald man with a black beard, rather stocky, but vigorous and intense. His relics are venerated in the basilica of Saint Paul and in the Lateran Church at Rome.
A man of action, Paul reveals the dynamic of his whole career when he writes, “I press on towards the goal, to the prize of God’s heavenly calling in Christ Jesus.” Although he himself was
forever pressing onwards, his letters often invoked a spirit of quiet meditation, as when he ends his epistle to the Philippians with the beautiful lines: “Whatever things are true, whatever honorable, whatever just, whatever holy, whatever lovable, whatever of good repute, if there be any virtue, if anything worthy of praise, think upon these things.”
rosary.team
SAINT ABBO OF FLEURY
Monastic leader and papal representative, sometimes called Abbo of Fleury and Abbon. He was born in the region of Orléans, France, circa 945, and entered the Benedictine order at Fleury-sur-Loire after studying at Orléans, Paris, and Remis. St. Oswald of Worcester, England, brought Abbo to Ramsey, Huntingdonshrine, England, in 986. Abbo worked with Oswald but was elected abbot of Fleury in 988. This election was contested by a monk with the patronage of the bishop of Orléans and with royal favor. Gerbert, who became Pope Sylvester II in 999, had to resolve the issue, deciding on Abbo. As abbot of Fleury, Abbo attended the Synod of Basel and assisted Pope Gregory V, who had been expelled by the antipope John XVI. Abbo was also instrumental in
calming thousands who believed the world would come to a catastrophic end at the start of the year 1000. Monastic affairs were also in turmoil in that era. In 1004, Abbo tried to reform the monastery of La Reole, in Gascony, France. He was caught in a severe confrontation between competing groups and was stabbed. He died as a result of his wound on November 13. Abbo was noted as a philosopher and scholar, especially in the fields of astronomy and mathematics, and wrote a life of St. Edmund. Feastday: November 13.
rosary.team
SAINT AGERICUS
Bishop and miracle worker of Verdun, France. Born about 521 in that city, he is sometimes listed as Airy or Algeric. In 554, after serving in a local parish, Agericus succeeded St. Desiderius as bishop of Verdun. He became an advisor to King Childebert II and a patron of the poor of the region. Agericus witnessed the murder of Bertefroi, a local rebel leader, who had taken refuge in the bishop’s own chapel. The king’s men violated sanctuary laws to slay the rebel. Died: 588, Feastday: December 1.
rosary.team
SAINT ADALGOTT of DISSENTIS
Saint Adalgott, a monk of Einsiedeln, became abbot of Dissentis Monastery in Switzerland in 1012. Died: 1031.
rosary.team
SAINT CAMILLUS de LELLIS
Saint Camillus de Lellis was born in 1550 in the Abruzzi region of Italy. He grew to be 6’6″ tall and of large stature. When old enough, Camillus went to fight with the Venetians against the Turks. However, he was struck with an ailment that would persist with him the rest of his days. He was
sent to the San Giancomo hospital of the incurables in Rome, but was later discharged for his quarrelsomeness, and returned to fighting.
Saint Camillus always referred to himself as a great sinner, but in fact his only vice seem to be gambling. He gambled away everything he had after returning to the fight, and remembering his vow to join the Franciscans in a fit of remorse, he went to work as a labourer on the new Capuchin buildings in Manfredonia. Here, after a moving exhortation from the Friar,
he completed his conversion and begged God for mercy, at the age of twenty-five.
Saint Camillus sought to join the Capuchins, but the leg ailment precluded entry into that order, so he returned to the hospital of San Giancomo as a servant. Repulsed by the slack character of the attendants, he sought to reform the hospitals staff by finding people of character wishing to serve in charity. This was met with much resistance, but he also resolved with the help of his confessor, Saint Phillip Neri, to receive Holy Orders, in order to more completely help the sick.
He was raised to Holy Orders, being ordained by Thomas Goldwell, the last bishop of the exiled English hierarchy. He severed ties with San Giancomo, against the advice of Saint Phillip Neri, and formed what would be the Ministers of the Sick. The next twenty years would see great expansion of the Congregation, with 15 houses of priests and brothers, and also 8 hospitals being erected. Two major houses were established, and he oversaw the Congregations involvement in helping the sick on quarantined galleys in the harbor of Naples, from which several of his ministers died, becoming the first martyrs of charity. Also accomplished was involvement in the
wars in Croatia and Hungary, giving rise to the first military field ambulance. In 1591 Gregory XIV at last promoted the Congregation to an Order.
Saint Camillus laid down control of the Order in 1607, but assisted in the first general chapter of 1613, and afterwards visited each house for final exhortations. His lifetime of maladies: the leg ailment, two sores to one foot causing great pain, a rupture for 38 years, and for some time a
distaste of food that greatly reduced his stature and strength all combined to wear out the saints body, as he passed on July 14, 1614. For his pain though, he received gifts of miracles, healing and prophecies.
Saint Camillus de Lellis, with St. John-of-God, are the Patron Saints of the sick, and he is also the patron of nurses and nursing associations.
rosary.team
SAINT ADALBERT of PRAGUE
The first bishop of Prague to have been born in Bohemia, St. Adalbert was born Voytech c. 956 into a noble family. He was sent to Magdeburg to be educated and took the name of his
catechist when he was baptized. After the death of his mentor in 981, Adalbert, who had grand visions of missionary work and clerical reform, returned to Prague, and in the following year, he became the second bishop of Prague. Conflict developed between the bishop and the duke of Bohemia, Boleslaus II, and in 990, Adalbert travelled to Rome, where he became a monk. John XV ordered him back to Prague two years later, and Gregory V released him from his episcopal duties in 995, after the massacre, at the order of Boleslaus, of Adalbert’s family at Libice. During these five years in Prague, Adalbert founded the abbey of Brevnov. Boleslaus I, duke of Poland, invited him to evangelize the Prussians of Pomerania; Adalbert was killed on the suspicion of being a Polish spy. Boleslaus I buried Adalbert’s body at Gniezno, Poland, whence it was translated in 1039 to Prague. Adalbert was canonized in 999.
rosary.team
SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST
The principal sources of information
concerning the life and ministry of St. John the Baptist are the
canonical Gospels. Of these St. Luke is the most complete, giving
as he does the wonderful circumstances accompanying the birth of
the Precursor and items on his ministry and death. St. Matthew’s
Gospel stands in close relation with that of St. Luke, as far as
John’s public ministry is concerned, but contains nothing in
reference to his early life. From St. Mark, whose account of the
Precursor’s life is very meager, no new detail can be gathered.
Finally, the fourth Gospel has this special feature, that it gives
the testimony of St. John after the Saviour’s baptism. Besides the
indications supplied by these writings, passing allusions occur in
such passages as Acts, xiii, 24; xix, 1-6; but these are few and
bear on the subject only indirectly. To the above should be added
that Josephus relates in his Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, v, 2), but
it should be remembered that he is woefully erratic in his dates,
mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to
his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what
he tells us regarding the Precursor’s popularity, together with a
few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian’s
attention. The same cannot be said of the apocryphal gospels,
because the scant information they give of the Precursor is either
copied from the canonical Gospels (and to these they can add no
authority), or else is a mass of idle vagaries.
Zachary, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest of the course
of Abia, the eighth of the twenty-four courses into which the
priests were divided (I Par., xxiv, 7-19); Elizabeth, the
Precursor’s mother, “was of the daughters of Aaron”, according to
St. Luke (I, 5); the same Evangelist, a few verses farther on (I,
26), calls her the “cousin” (syggenis) of Mary. These two
statements appear to be conflicting, for how, it will be asked,
could a cousin of the Blessed Virgin be “of the daughters of
Aaron”? The problem might be solved by adopting the reading given
in an old Persian version, where we find “mother’s sister”
(metradelphe) instead of “cousin”. A somewhat analogous
explanation, probably borrowed from some apocryphal writing, and
perhaps correct, is given by St. Hippolytus (in Nicephor., II,
iii). According to him, Mathan had three daughters: Mary, Soba,
and Ann. Mary, the oldest, married a man of Bethlehem and was the
mother of Salome; Soba married at Bethlehem also, but a “son of
Levi”, by whom she had Elizabeth; Ann wedded a Galilean (Joachim)
and bore Mary, the Mother of God. Thus Salome, Elizabeth, and the
Blessed Virgin were first cousins, and Elizabeth, “of the daughters
of Aaron” on her father’s side, was, on her mother’s side, the
cousin of Mary. Zachary’s home is designated only in a vague
manner by St. Luke: it was “a city of Juda”, “in the hill-country”
(I, 39). Reland, advocating the unwarranted assumption that Juda
might be a misspelling of the name, proposed to read in its stead
Jutta (Jos., xv, 55; xxi, 16; D.V.; Jota, Jeta), a priestly town
south of Hebron. But priests did not always live in priestly towns
(Mathathias’s home was at Modin; Simon Machabeus’s at Gaza). A
tradition, which can be traced back to the time before the
Crusades, points to the little town of Ain-Karim, five miles south-
west of Jerusalem.
The birth of the Precursor was announced in a most striking manner.
Zachary and Elizabeth, as we learn from St. Luke, “were both just
before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of
the Lord without blame; and they had no son, for that Elizabeth was
barren” (i, 6-7). Long they had prayed that their union might be
blessed with offspring; but, now that “they were both advanced in
years”, the reproach of barrenness bore heavily upon them. “And it
came to pass, when he executed the priestly function in the order
of his course before God, according to the custom of the priestly
office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of
the Lord. And all the multitude of the people was praying without,
at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the
Lord, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And
Zachary seeing him, was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the
angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and
they wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his
name John: and thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall
rejoice in his nativity. For he shall be great before the Lord;
and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled
with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And he shall
convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. And
he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias; that he
may turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the
incredulous to the wisdom of the just, to prepare unto the Lord a
perfect people” (i, 8-17). As Zachary was slow in believing this
startling prediction, the angel, making himself known to him,
announced that, in punishment of his incredulity, he should be
stricken with dumbness until the promise was fulfilled. “And it
came to pass, after the days of his office were accomplished, he
departed to his own house. And after those days, Elizabeth his
wife conceived, and hid herself five months” (i, 23-24).
Now during the sixth month, the Annunciation had taken place,
and, as Mary had heard from the angel the fact of her cousin’s
conceiving, she went “with haste” to congratulate her. “And it
came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the
infant” — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — “leaped for
joy in her womb”, as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord.
Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the
child should “be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s
womb”. Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible
with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that
at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.
When “Elizabeth’s full time of being delivered was come,. . .she
brought forth a son” (i, 57); and “on the eighth day they came to
circumcise the child, and they called him by his father’s name
Zachary. And his mother answering, said: Not so, but he shall be
called John. And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred
that is called by this name. And they made sign to his father, how
he would have him called. And demanding a writing table, he wrote,
saying: John is his name. And they all wondered” (i, 59-63). They
were not aware that no better name could be applied (John, Hebr.;
Jehohanan, i.e. “Jahweh hath mercy”) to him who, as his father
prophesied, was to “go before the face of the Lord to prepare his
ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto remission
of their sins: through the bowels of the mercy of our God” (i, 76-
78). Moreover, all these events, to wit, a child born to an aged
couple, Zachary’s sudden dumbness, his equally sudden recovery of
speech, his astounding utterance, might justly strike with
wonderment the assembled neighbours; these could hardly help
asking: “What an one, think ye, shall this child be?” (i, 66).
As to the date of the birth of John the Baptist, nothing can be
said with certainty. The Gospel suggests that the Precursor was
born about six months before Christ; but the year of Christ’s
nativity has not so far been ascertained. Nor is there anything
certain about the season of Christ’s birth, for it is well known
that the assignment of the feast of Christmas to the twenty-fifth
of December is not grounded on historical evidence, but is possibly
suggested by merely astronomical considerations, also, perhaps,
inferred from astronomico-theological reasonings. Besides, no
calculations can be based upon the time of the year when the course
of Abia was serving in the Temple, since each one of the twenty-
four courses of priests had two turns a year. Of John’s early life
St. Luke tell us only that “the child grew, and was strengthened in
spirit; and was in the deserts, until the day of his manifestation
to Israel” (i, 80). Should we ask just when the Precursor went
into the wilderness, an old tradition echoed by Paul Warnefried
(Paul the Deacon), in the hymn, “Ut queant laxis”, composed in
honour of the saint, gives an answer hardly more definite than the
statement of the Gospel: “Antra deserti teneris sub annis. . .petiit
. . .” Other writers, however, thought they knew better. For
instance, St. Peter of Alexandria believed St. John was taken into
the desert to escape the wrath of Herod, who, if we may believe
report, was impelled by fear of losing his kingdom to seek the life
of the Precursor, just as he was, later on, to seek that of the
new-born Saviour. It was added also that Herod on this account had
Zachary put to death between the temple and the altar, because he
had prophesied the coming of the Messias (Baron., “Annal.
Apparat.”, n. 53). These are worthless legends long since branded
by St. Jerome as “apocryphorum somnia”.
Passing, then, with St. Luke, over a period of some thirty years,
we reach what may be considered the beginning of the public
ministry of St. John (see CHRONOLOGY, BIBLICAL). Up to this he had
led in the desert the life of an anchorite; now he comes forth to
deliver his message to the world. “In the fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberius Caesar. . .the word of the Lord was made unto John,
the son of Zachary, in the desert. And he came into all the
country about the Jordan, preaching” (Luke, iii, 1-3), clothed not
in the soft garments of a courtier (Matt., xi, 8; Luke, vii, 24),
but in those “of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle about his
loins”; and “his meat” — he looked as if he came neither eating nor
drinking (Matt., xi, 18; Luke, vii, 33)-“was locusts and wild
honey” (Matt. iii, 4; Mark, i, 6); his whole countenance, far from
suggesting the idea of a reed shaken by the wind (Matt., xi, 7;
Luke, vii, 24), manifested undaunted constancy. A few incredulous
scoffers feigned to be scandalized: “He hath a devil” (Matt. xi,
18). Nevertheless, “Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country
about Jordan” (Matt., iii, 5), drawn by his strong and winning
personality, went out to him; the austerity of his life added
immensely to the weight of his words; for the simple folk, he was
truly a prophet (Matt., xi, 9; cf. Luke, i, 76, 77). “Do penance:
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt., iii, 2), such was the
burden of his teaching. Men of all conditions flocked round him.
Pharisees and Sadducees were there; the latter attracted perhaps by
curiosity and scepticism, the former expecting possibly a word of
praise for their multitudinous customs and practices, and all,
probably, more anxious to see which of the rival sects the new
prophet would commend than to seek instruction. But John laid bare
their hypocrisy. Drawing his similes from the surrounding scenery,
and even, after the Oriental fashion, making use of a play on words
(abanimbanium), he lashed their pride with this well-deserved
rebuke: “Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the
wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance.
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our
father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise
up children to Abraham. For now the axe is laid to the root of the
trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall
be cut down, and cast into the fire” (Matt., iii, 7-10; Luke, iii,
7-9). It was clear something had to be done. The men of good will
among the listeners asked: “What shall we do?” (Probably some were
wealthy and, according to the custom of people in such
circumstances, were clad in two tunics.-Joseph., “Antiq.”, XVIII,
v, 7). “And he answering, said to them: He that hath two coats,
let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him
do in like manner” (Luke, iii, 11). Some were publicans; on them
he enjoined not to exact more than the rate of taxes fixed by law
(Luke, iii, 13). To the soldiers (probably Jewish police officers)
he recommended not to do violence to any man, nor falsely to
denounce anyone, and to be content with their pay (Luke, iii, 14).
In other words, he cautioned them against trusting in their
national privileges, he did not countenance the tenets of any sect,
nor did he advocate the forsaking of one’s ordinary state of life,
but faithfulness and honesty in the fulfillment of one’s duties,
and the humble confession of one’s sins.
To confirm the good dispositions of his listeners, John baptized
them in the Jordan, “saying that baptism was good, not so much to
free one from certain sins [cf. St. Thom., “Summ. Theol.”, III, A.
xxxviii, a. 2 and 3] as to purify the body, the soul being already
cleansed from its defilements by justice” (Joseph., “Antiq.”,
XVIII, vii). This feature of his ministry, more than anything
else, attracted public attention to such an extent that he was
surnamed “the Baptist” (i. e. Baptizer) even during his lifetime
(by Christ, Matt., xi, 11; by his own disciples, Luke, vii, 20; by
Herod, Matt., xiv, 2; by Herodias, Matt., xiv, 3). Still his right
to baptize was questioned by some (John, i, 25); the Pharisees and
the lawyers refused to comply with this ceremony, on the plea that
baptism, as a preparation for the kingdom of God, was connected
only with the Messias (Ezech., xxxvi, 25; Zach., xiii, 1, etc.),
Elias, and the prophet spoken of in Deut., xviii, 15. John’s reply
was that he was Divinely “sent to baptize with water” (John, i,
33); to this, later on, our Saviour bore testimony, when, in answer
to the Pharisees trying to ensnare him, he implicitly declared that
John’s baptism was from heaven (Mark, xi, 30). Whilst baptizing,
John, lest the people might think “that perhaps he might be the
Christ” (Luke, iii, 15), did not fail to insist that his was only
a forerunner’s mission: “I indeed baptize you with water; but
there shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I
am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost
and with fire: whose fan is in his hand and he will purge his
floor; and will gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he
will burn with unquenchable fire” (Luke, iii, 16, 17). Whatever
John may have meant by this baptism “with fire”, he, at all events,
in this declaration clearly defined his relation to the One to come.
Here it will not be amiss to touch on the scene of the Precursor’s
ministry. The locality should be sought in that part of the Jordan
valley (Luke, iii, 3) which is called the desert (Mark, i, 4). Two
places are mentioned in the Fourth Gospel in this connection:
Bethania (John, i, 28) and Ennon (A. V. AEnon, John, iii, 23). As
to Bethania, the reading Bethabara, first given by Origen, should
be discarded; but the Alexandrine scholar perhaps was less wrong in
suggesting the other reading, Bethara, possibly a Greek form of
Betharan; at any rate, the site in question must be looked for
“beyond the Jordan” (John, i, 28). The second place, Ennon, “near
Salim” (John, iii, 23), the extreme northern point marked in the
Madaba mosaic map, is described in Eusebius’s “Onomasticon” as
being eight miles south of Seythopolis (Beisan), and should be
sought probably at Ed-Deir or El-Ftur, a short distance from the
Jordan (Lagrange, in “Revue Biblique”, IV, 1895, pp. 502-05).
Moreover, a long-standing tradition, traced back to A.D. 333,
associates the activity of the Precursor, particularly the Baptism
of the Lord, with the neighbourhood of Deir Mar-Yuhanna (Qasr el-
Yehud).
The Precursor had been preaching and baptizing for some time (just
how long is not known), when Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan,
to be baptized by him. Why, it might be asked, should He “who did
no sin” (I Pet., ii, 22) seek John’s “baptism of penance for the
remission of sins” (Luke, iii, 3)? The Fathers of the Church
answer very appropriately that this was the occasion preordained by
the Father when Jesus should be manifested to the world as the Son
of God; then again, by submitting to it, Jesus sanctioned the
baptism of John. “But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be
baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?” (Matt., iii, 14). These
words, implying, as they do, that John knew Jesus, are in seeming
conflict with a later declaration of John recorded in the Fourth
Gospel: “I knew him not” (John, i, 33). Most interpreters take it
that the Precursor had some intimation of Jesus being the Messias:
they assign this as the reason why John at first refused to baptize
him; but the heavenly manifestation had, a few moments later,
changed this intimation into perfect knowledge. “And Jesus
answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it
becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him. And
Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the
heavens were opened to him. . .And, behold, a voice from heaven,
saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt.,
iii, 15-17).
After this baptism, while Jesus was preaching through the towns of
Galilee, going into Judea only occasionally for the feast days,
John continued his ministry in the valley of the Jordan. It was at
this time that “the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to
him, to ask him: Who are thou? And he confessed, and did not
deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ. And they asked him:
What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the
prophet? And he answered: No. They said, therefore, unto him:
Who are thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us?
What sayest thou of thyself? He said: I am the voice of one
crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as
said the prophet Isaias” (John, i, 19-23). John denied he was
Elias, whom the Jews were looking for (Matt., xvii, 10; Mark, ix,
10). Nor did Jesus admit it, though His words to His disciples at
first sight seem to point that way; “Elias indeed shall come, and
restore all things. But I say to you, that Elias is already come”
(Matt., xvii, 11; Mark, ix, 11-12). St. Matthew notes “the
disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the
Baptist” (Matt., xvii, 13). This was equal to saying, “Elias is
not to come in the flesh.” But, in speaking of John before the
multitude, Jesus made it plain that he called John Elias
figuratively: “If you will receive it, he is Elias that is to
come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt., xi, 14,
15). This had been anticipated by the angel when, announcing
John’s birth to Zachary, he foretold that the child would go before
the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke, i, 17). “The
next day, John saw Jesus coming to him and he saith: Behold the
Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. This
is he of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is
preferred before me: because he was before me. . .that he may be
made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water..
..And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water,
said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and
remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God”
(John, i, 20-34).
Among the many listeners flocking to St. John, some, more deeply
touched by his doctrine, stayed with him, thus forming, as around
other famous doctors of the law, a group of disciples. These he
exhorted to fast (Mark, ii, 18), these he taught special forms of
prayer (Luke, v, 33; xi, 1). Their number, according to the
pseudo-Clementine literature, reached thirty (Hom. ii, 23). Among
them was Andrew of Bethsaida of Galilee (John, i, 44). One day, as
Jesus was standing in the distance, John, pointed Him out, repeated
his previous declaration: “Behold the Lamb of God”. Then Andrew,
with another disciple of John, hearing this, followed Jesus (John,
i, 36-38). The account of the calling of Andrew and Simon differs
materially from that found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke;
yet it should be noticed that St. Luke, in particular, so narrates
the meeting of the two brothers with the Saviour, as to let us
infer they already knew Him. Now, on the other hand, since the
Fourth Evangelist does not say that Andrew and his companions
forthwith left their business to devote themselves exclusively to
the Gospel or its preparation, there is clearly no absolute
discordance between the narration of the first three Gospels and
that of St. John.
The Precursor, after the lapse of several months, again appears on
the scene, and he is still preaching and baptizing on the banks of
the Jordan (John, iii, 23). Jesus, in the meantime, had gathered
about Himself a following of disciples, and He came “into the land
of Judea: and there He abode with them, and baptized” (John, iii,
22), — “though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples”
(John, iv, 2). — “There arose a question between some of John’s
disciples and the Jews [the best Greek texts have “a Jew”]
concerning purification” (John, iii, 25), that is to say, as is
suggested by the context, concerning the relative value of both
baptisms. The disciples of John came to him: “Rabbi, he that was
with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold
he baptizeth, and all men come to him” (John, iii, 26-27). They
undoubtedly meant that Jesus should give way to John who had
recommended Him, and that, by baptizing, He was encroaching upon
the rights of John. “John answered and said: A man cannot receive
anything, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do
bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent
before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the
friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth
with joy because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy,
therefore, is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.
He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth,
of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh
from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that
he testifieth. . .” (John, iii, 27-36).
The above narration recalls the fact before mentioned (John, i,
28), that part of the Baptist’s ministry was exercised in Perea:
Ennon, another scene of his labours, was within the borders of
Galilee; both Perea and Galilee made up the tetrarchy of Herod
Antipas. This prince, a son worthy of his father Herod the Great,
had married, likely for political reasons, the daughter of Aretas,
king of the Nabathaeans. But on a visit to Rome, he fell in love
with his niece Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Philip (son
of the younger Mariamne), and induced her to come on to Galilee.
When and where the Precursor met Herod, we are not told, but from
the synoptic Gospels we learn that John dared to rebuke the
tetrarch for his evil deeds, especially his public adultery.
Herod, swayed by Herodias, did not allow the unwelcome reprover to
go unpunished: he “sent and apprehended John and bound him in
prison”. Josephus tell us quite another story, containing perhaps
also an element of truth. “As great crowds clustered around John,
Herod became afraid lest the Baptist should abuse his moral
authority over them to incite them to rebellion, as they would do
anything at his bidding; therefore he thought it wiser, so as to
prevent possible happenings, to take away the dangerous
preacher. . .and he imprisoned him in the fortress of Machaerus”
(Antiq., XVIII, v, 2). Whatever may have been the chief motive of
the tetrarch’s policy, it is certain that Herodias nourished a
bitter hatred against John: “She laid snares for him: and was
desirous to put him to death” (Mark, vi, 19). Although Herod first
shared her desire, yet “he feared the people: because they
esteemed him as a prophet” (Matt., xiv, 5). After some time this
resentment on Herod’s part seems to have abated, for, according to
Mark, vi, 19,20, he heard John willingly and did many things at his
suggestion.
John, in his fetters, was attended by some of his disciples, who
kept him in touch with the events of the day. He thus learned of
the wonders wrought by Jesus. At this point it cannot be supposed
that John’s faith wavered in the least. Some of his disciples,
however, would not be convinced by his words that Jesus was the
Messias. Accordingly, he sent them to Jesus, bidding them say:
“John the Baptist hath sent us to thee, saying: Art thou he that
art to come; or look we for another? (And in that same hour, he
cured many of their [the people’s] diseases, and hurts, and evil
spirits; and to many that were blind he gave sight.) And
answering, he said to them: Go and relate to John what you have
hard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are made
clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the poor the gospel
is preached: and blessed is he whosoever shall not be scandalized
in me” (Luke, vii, 20-23; Matt., xi, 3-6).
How this interview affected John’s disciples, we do not know; but
we do know the encomium it occasioned of John from the lips of
Jesus: “And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to
speak to the multitudes concerning John. What went ye out into the
desert to see? A reed shaken with the wind?” All knew full well
why John was in prison, and that in his captivity he was more than
ever the undaunted champion of truth and virtue.-“But what went you
out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are
in costly apparel, and live delicately, are in the houses of kings.
But what went you out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say to you, and
more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I
send my angel before they face, who shall prepare thy way before
thee. For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women,
there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist” (Luke, vii,
24-28). And continuing, Jesus pointed out the inconsistency of the
world in its opinions both of himself and his precursor: “John the
Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say:
He hath a devil. The Son of man is coming eating and drinking:
and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine,
a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by all
her children” (Luke, vii, 33-35).
St. John languished probably for some time in the fortress of
Machaerus; but the ire of Herodias, unlike that of Herod, never
abated: she watched her chance. It came at the birthday feast
which Herod, after Roman fashion, gave to the “princes, and
tribunes, and chief men of Galilee. And when the daughter of the
same Herodias [Josephus gives her name: Salome] had come in, and
had danced, and pleased Herod and them that were at table with him,
the king said to the damsel: Ask of me what thou wilt, and I will
give it thee. . .Who when she was gone out, said to her mother, what
shall I ask? But she said: The head of John the Baptist. And
when she was come in immediately with haste to the king, she asked,
saying: I will that forthwith thou give me in a dish, the head of
John the Baptist. And the king was struck sad. Yet because of his
oath, and because of them that were with him at table, he would not
displease her: but sending an executioner, he commanded that his
head should be brought in a dish: and gave it to the damsel, and
the damsel gave it to her mother” (Mark, vi, 21-28). Thus was done
to death the greatest “amongst them that are born of women”, the
prize awarded to a dancing girl, the toll exacted for an oath
rashly taken and criminally kept (St. Augustine). At such an
unjustifiable execution even the Jews were shocked, and they
attributed to Divine vengeance the defeat Herod sustained
afterwards at the hands of Aretas, his rightful father-in-law
(Joseph., loc. cit.). John’s disciples, hearing of his death,
“came, and took his body, and laid it in a tomb” (Mark, vi, 29),
“and came and told Jesus” (Matt., xiv, 12).
The lasting impression made by the Precursor upon those who had
come within his influence cannot be better illustrated than by
mentioned the awe which seize upon Herod when he heard of the
wonders wrought by Jesus who, in his mind, was not other than John
the Baptist come to life (Matt., xiv, 1, 2, etc.). The Precursor’s
influence did not die with him. It was far-reaching, too, as we
learn from Acts, xviii, 25; xix, 3, where we find that proselytes
at Ephesus had received from Apollo and others the baptism of John.
Moreover, early Christian writers speak of a sect taking its name
from John and holding only to his baptism. The date of John the
Baptist’s death, 29 August, assigned in the liturgical calendars
can hardly be relied upon, because it is scarcely based upon
trustworthy documents. His burial-place has been fixed by an old
tradition at Sebaste (Samaria). But if there be any truth in
Josephus’s assertion, that John was put to death at Machaerus, it
is hard to understand why he was buried so far from the Herodian
fortress. Still, it is quite possible that, at a later date
unknown to us, his sacred remains were carried to Sebaste. At any
rate, about the middle of the fourth century, his tomb was there
honoured, as we are informed on the testimony of Rufinus and
Theodoretus. These authors add that the shrine was desecrated
under Julian the Apostate (c. A.D. 362), the bones being partly
burned. A portion of the rescued relics were carried to Jerusalem,
then to Alexandria; and there, on 27 May, 395, these relics were
laid in the gorgeous basilica just dedicated to the Precursor on
the site of the once famous temple of Serapis. The tomb at Sebaste
continued, nevertheless, to be visited by pious pilgrims, and St.
Jerome bears witness to the miracles there wrought. Perhaps some
of the relics had been brought back to Sebaste. Other portions at
different times found their way to many sanctuaries of the
Christian world, and long is the list of the churches claiming
possession of some part of the precious treasure. What became of
the head of the Precursor is difficult to determine. Nicephorus
(I, ix) and Metahrastes say Herodias had it buried in the fortress
of Machaerus; others insist that it was interred in Herod’s palace
at Jerusalem; there it was found during the reign of Constantine,
and thence secretly taken to Emesa, in Phoenicia, where it was
concealed, the place remaining unknown for years, until it was
manifested by revelation in 453. In the many and discordant
relations concerning this relic, unfortunately much uncertainty
prevails; their discrepancies in almost every point render the
problem so intricate as to baffle solution. This signal relic, in
whole or in part, is claimed by several churches, among them
Amiens, Nemours, St-Jean d’Angeli (France), S. Silvestro in Capite
(Rome). This fact Tillemont traces to a mistaking of one St. John
for another, an explanation which, in certain cases, appears to be
founded on good grounds and accounts well for this otherwise
puzzling multiplication of relics.
The honour paid so early and in so many places to the relics of St.
John the Baptist, the zeal with which many churches have maintained
at all times their ill-founded claims to some of his relics, the
numberless churches, abbeys, towns, and religious families placed
under his patronage, the frequency of his name among Christian
people, all attest the antiquity and widespread diffusion of the
devotion to the Precursor. The commemoration of his Nativity is
one of the oldest feasts, if not the oldest feast, introduced into
both the Greek and Latin liturgies to honour a saint. But why is
the feast proper, as it were, of St. John on the day of his
nativity, whereas with other saints it is the day of their death?
Because it was meant that the birth of him who, unlike the rest,
was “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”,
should be signalized as a day of triumph. The celebration of the
Decollation of John the Baptist, on 29 August, enjoys almost the
same antiquity. We find also in the oldest martyrologies mention
of a feast of the Conception of the Precursor on 24 September. But
the most solemn celebration in honour of this saint was always that
of his Nativity, preceded until recently by a fast. Many places
adopted the custom introduced by St. Sabas of having a double
Office on this day, as on the day of the Nativity of the Lord. The
first Office, intended to signify the time of the Law and the
Prophets which lasted up to St. John (Luke, xvi, 16), began at
sunset, and was chanted without Alleluia; the second, meant to
celebrate the opening of the time of grace, and gladdened by the
singing of Alleluia, was held during the night. The resemblance of
the feast of St. John with that of Christmas was carried farther,
for another feature of the 24th of June was the celebration of
three masses: the first, in the dead of night, recalled his
mission of Precursor; the second, at daybreak, commemorated the
baptism he conferred; and the third, at the hour of Terce, honoured
his sanctity. The whole liturgy of the day, repeatedly enriched by
the additions of several popes, was in suggestiveness and beauty on
a part with the liturgy of Christmas. So sacred was St. John’s day
deemed that two rival armies, meeting face to face on 23 June, by
common accord put off the battle until the morrow of the feast
(Battle of Fontenay, 841). “Joy, which is the characteristic of
the day, radiated from the sacred precincts. The lovely summer
nights, at St. John’s tide, gave free scope to popular display of
lively faith among various nationalities. Scared had the last rays
of the setting sun died away when, all the world over, immense
columns of flame arose from every mountain-top, and in an instant,
every town, and village, and hamlet was lighted up” (Guéranger).
The custom of the “St. John’s fires”, whatever its origin, has, in
certain regions, endured unto this day.
rosary.team
SAINT ACCA
Bishop and scholar, a companion of early English saints and missionaries. Acca was born in Northumbria, England, and was educated in the company of St. Bosa, a Benedictine apostle of great courage. He also met St. Wilfrid, who appointed him the abbot of St. Andrew’s Monastery in Hexham, England. Acca joined St. Wilfrid as early as 678 and accompanied him to Rome in 692. When Wilfred died in 709, Acca succeeded him as the bishop of Hexham. He spent his monastic and episcopal years erecting parish churches in the area. He also introduced Christian arts and promoted learning. Acca brought a famous cantor, a man named Maban, to Hexham, and with him introduced the Roman Chants. St. Bede dedicated several of his works to Acca, who also promoted other Christian writers. For reasons undocumented, Acca was driven out of Hexham in 732. He retired to a hermitage in Withern, in Galloway. Just before his death in 742 he returned to Hexham and was unanimously revered. When he was buried, two Celtic crosses were recreated at his gravesite. One still stands in Hexham. When his body was moved sometime later, his
vestments were found intact. The accounts of Acca’s miracles were drawn up by St. Aelred
and by the historian Simeon of Durham.
Died: 742 Feastday: October 20.
rosary.team
SAINT AGNELLUS of PISA
Franciscan founder and diplomat. He was born in Pisa, a member of the noble Agnelli clan. St. Francis of Assisi personally received Agnellus into his order and sent him to Paris to start a Franciscan mission there. Agnellus also attended the “Chapter of Mats” and was then sent by St. Francis to England. Agnellus was only a deacon at the time. He and nine other Franciscans landed in Dover on September 12, 1224. They obtained a house in Oxford and began the Franciscan English Province. He became a friend of King Henry Ill (r. 1216-1272), who admired the saint’s purity and holiness, calling upon Agnellus to avert a civil war between the throne and the Earl Marshal. Agnellus worked to calm the situation, contracting a serious illness in the process. He died in Oxford on May 7, 1236, and the body remained incorrupt, venerated in Oxford until the reign of King Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547) and the dissolution of the English religious houses. Pope Leo XIII declared Agnellus’ beatification in 1882. Died: 1236, Feastday: March 13.
rosary.team
