Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas
5:17–19
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
GLOSS. (ord.) Having now exhorted His hearers to undergo all things for righteousness’ sake, and also not to hide what they should receive, but to learn more for others’ sake, that they may teach others, He now goes on to tell them what they should teach, as though He had been asked, ‘What is this which you would not have hid, and for which you would have all things endured? Are you about to speak any thing beyond what is written in the Law and the Prophets;’ hence it is He says, Think not that I am come to subvert the Law or the Prophets.
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. And that for two reasons. First, that by these words He might admonish His disciples, that as He fulfilled the Law, so they should strive to fulfil it. Secondly, because the Jews would falsely accuse them as subverting the Law, therefore he answers the calumny beforehand, but in such a manner as that He should not be thought to come simply to preach the Law as the Prophets had done.
REMIGIUS. He here asserts two things; He denies that He was come to subvert the Law, and affirms that He was come to fulfil it.
AUGUSTINE. (Serm. in Mont. i. 8.) In this last sentence again there is a double sense; to fulfil the Law, either by adding something which it had not, or by doing what it commands.
CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. xvi.) Christ then fulfilled the Prophets by accomplishing what was therein foretold concerning Himself—and the Law, first, by transgressing none of its precepts; secondly, by justifying by faith, which the Law could not do by the letter.
AUGUSTINE. (cont. Faust. xix. 7. et seq.) And lastly, because even for them who were under grace, it was hard in this mortal life to fulfil that of the Law, Thou shalt not lust, He being made a Priest by the sacrifice of His flesh, obtained for us this indulgence, even in this fulfilling the Law, that where through our infirmity we could not, we should be strengthened through His perfection, of whom as our head we all are members. For so I think must be taken these words, to fulfil the Law, by adding to it, that is, such things as either contribute to the explanation of the old glosses, or to enable to keep them. For the Lord has shewed us that even a wicked motion of the thoughts to the wrong of a brother is to be accounted a kind of murder. The Lord also teaches us, that it is better to keep near to the truth without swearing, than with a true oath to come near to blasphemy.
AUGUSTINE. But how, ye Manichæans, do you not receive the Law and the Prophets, seeing Christ here says, that He is come not to subvert but to fulfil them? To this the heretic Faustusa replies, Whose testimony is there that Christ spoke this? That of Matthew. How was it then that John does not give this saying, who was with Him in the mount, but only Matthew, who did not follow Jesus till after He had come down from the mount? To this Augustine replies, If none can speak truth concerning Christ, but who saw and heard Him, there is no one at this day who speaks truth concerning Him. Why then could not Matthew hear from John’s mouth the truth as Christ had spoken, as well as we who are born so long after can speak the truth out of John’s book? In the same manner also it is, that not Matthew’s Gospel, but also these of Luke and Mark are received by us, and on no inferior authority. Add, that the Lord Himself might have told Matthew the things He had done before He called him. But speak out and say that you do not believe the Gospel, for they who believe nothing in the Gospel but what they wish to believe, believe themselves rather than the Gospel. To this Faustus rejoins, We will prove that this was not written by Matthew, but by some other hand, unknown, in his name. For below he says, Jesus saw a man sitting at the toll-office, Matthew by name. (Mat. 9:9.) Who writing of himself says, ‘saw a man,’ and not rather ‘saw me?’ Augustine; Matthew does no more than John does, when he says, Peter turning round saw that other disciple whom Jesus loved; and it is well known that this is the common manner of Scripture writers, when writing their own actions. Faustus again, But what say you to this, that the very assurance that He was not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, was the direct way to rouse their suspicions that He was? For He had yet done nothing that could lead the Jews to think that this was His object. Augustine; This is a very weak objection, for we do not deny that to the Jews who had no understanding, Christ might have appeared as threatening the destruction of the Law and the Prophets. Faustus; But what if the Law and the Prophets do not accept this fulfilment, according to that in Deuteronomy, These commandments that I give unto thee, thou shalt keep, thou shalt not add any thing to them, nor take away. Augustine; Here Faustus does not understand what it is to fulfil the Law, when he supposes that it must be taken of adding words to it. The fulfilment of the Law is love, which the Lord hath given in sending His Holy Spirit. The Law is fulfilled either when the things there commanded are done, or when the things there prophesied come to pass. Faustus; But in that we confess that Jesus was author of a New Testament, what else is it than to confess that He has done away with the Old? Augustine; In the Old Testament were figures of things to come, which, when the things themselves were brought in by Christ, ought to have been taken away, that in that very taking away the Law and the Prophets might be fulfilled wherein it was written that God gave a New Testament. Faustus; Therefore if Christ did say this thing, He either said it with some other meaning, or He spoke falsely, (which God forbid,) or we must take the other alternative, He did not speak it at all. But that Jesus spoke falsely none will aver, therefore He either spoke it with another meaning, or He spake it not at all. For myself I am rescued from the necessity of this alternative by the Manichæan belief, which from the first taught me not to believe all those things which are read in Jesus’ name as having been spoken by Him; for that there be many tares which to corrupt the good seed some nightly sower has scattered up and down through nearly the whole of Scripture. Augustine; Manichæus taught an impious error, that you should receive only so much of the Gospel as does not conflict with your heresy, and not receive whatever does conflict with it. We have learned of the Apostle that religious caution, Whoever preaches unto you another Gospel than that we have preached, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8.) The Lord also has explained what the tares signify, not things false mixed with the true Scriptures, as you interpret, but men who are children of the wicked one. Faustus; Should a Jew then enquire of you why you do not keep the precepts of the Law and the Prophets which Christ here declares He came not to destroy but to fulfil, you will be driven either to accept an empty superstition, or to repudiate this chapter as false, or to deny that you are Christ’s disciple. Augustine; The Catholics are not in any difficulty on account of this chapter as though they did not observe the Law and the Prophets; for they do cherish love to God and their neighbour, on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. And whatever in the Law and the Prophets was foreshown, whether in things done, in the celebration of sacramental rites, or in forms of speech, all these they know to be fulfilled in Christ and the Church. Wherefore we neither submit to a false superstition, nor reject the chapter, nor deny ourselves to be Christ’s disciples. He then who says, that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, the Mosaic rites would have continued along with the Christian ordinances, may further affirm, that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, He would yet be only promised as to be born, to suffer, to rise again. But inasmuch as He did not destroy, but rather fulfil them, His birth, passion, and resurrection, are now no more promised as things future, which were signified by the Sacraments of the Law; but He is preached as already born, crucified, and risen, which are signified by the Sacraments now celebrated by Christians. It is clear then how great is the error of those who suppose, that when the signs or sacraments are changed, the things themselves are different, whereas the same things which the Prophetic ordinance had held forth as promises, the Evangelic ordinance points to as completed. Faustus; Supposing these to be Christ’s genuine words, we should enquire what was His motive for speaking thus, whether to soften the blind hostility of the Jews, who when they saw their holy things trodden under foot by Him, would not have so much as given Him a hearing; or whether He really said them to instruct us, who of the Gentiles should believe, to submit to the yoke of the Law. If this last were not His design, then the first must have been; nor was there any deceit or fraud in such purpose. For of laws there be three sorts. The first that of the Hebrews, called the law of sin and death, (Rom. 8:2.) by Paul; the second that of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature, saying, By nature the Gentiles do the deeds of the law; (Rom. 2:14.) the third, the law of truth, which he names, The law of the Spirit of life. Also there are Prophets some of the Jews, such as are well known; others of the Gentiles as Paul speaks, A prophet of their own hath said; (Tit. 1:12.) and others of the truth, of whom Jesus speaks, I send unto you wise men and prophets. (Mat. 23:34.) Now had Jesus in the following part of this Sermon brought forward any of the Hebrew observances to shew how he had fulfilled them, no one would have doubted that it was of the Jewish Law and Prophets that He was now speaking; but when He brings forward in this way only those more ancient precepts, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, which were promulged of old to Enoch, Seth, and the other righteous men, who does not see that He is here speaking of the Law and Prophets of truth? Wherever He has occasion to speak of any thing merely Jewish, He plucks it up by the very roots, giving precepts directly the contrary; for example, in the case of that precept, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Augustine; Which was the Law and which the Prophets, that Christ came not to subvert but to fulfil, is manifest, to wit, the Law given by Moses. And the distinction which Faustus draws between the precepts of the righteous men before Moses, and the Mosaic Law, affirming that Christ fulfilled the one but annulled the other, is not so. We affirm that the Law of Moses was both well suited to its temporary purpose, and was now not subverted, but fulfilled by Christ, as will be seen in each particular. This was not understood by those who continued in such obstinate error, that they compelled the Gentiles to Judaize—those heretics, I mean, who were called Nazarenes.
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. But since all things which should befal from the very beginning of the world to the end of it, were in type and figure foreshewn in the Law, that God may not be thought to be ignorant of any of those things that take place, He therefore here declares, that heaven and earth should not pass till all things thus foreshewn in the Law should have their actual accomplishment.
REMIGIUS. Amen is a Hebrew word, and may be rendered in Latin, ‘vere,’ ‘fidenter,’ or ‘fiat;’ that is, ‘truly,’ ‘faithfully,’ or ‘so be it.’ The Lord uses it either because of the hardness of heart of those who were slow to believe, or to attract more particularly the attention of those that did believe.
HILARY. From the expression here used pass, we may suppose that the constituting elements of heaven and earth shall not be annihilatedb.
REMIGIUS. But shall abide in their essence, but pass through renewal.
AUGUSTINE. (Serm. in Mont. i. 8.) By the words, one iota or one point shall not pass from the Law, we must understand only a strong metaphor of completeness, drawn from the letters of writing, iota being the least of the letters, made with one stroke of the pen, and a point being a slight dot at the end of the same letter. The words there shew that the Law shall be completed to the very least matter.
RABANUS. He fitly mentions the Greek iota, and not the Hebrew jod, because the iota stands in Greek for the number ten, and so there is an allusion to the Decalogue of which the Gospel is the point and perfection.
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. If even an honourable man blushes to be found in a falsehood, and a wise man lets not fall empty any word he has once spoken, how could it be that the words of heaven should fall to the ground empty? Hence He concludes, Whoso shall break the least of these commandments, &c. And, I suppose, the Lord goes on to reply Himself to the question, Which are the least commandments? Namely, these which I am now about to speak.
CHRYSOSTOM. He speaks not this of the old laws, but of those which He was now going to enact, of which he says, the least, though they were all great. For as He so oft spoke humbly of Himself, so does He now speak humbly of His precepts.
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Otherwise; the precepts of Moses are easy to obey; Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. The very greatness of the crime is a check upon the desire of committing it; therefore the reward of observance is small, the sin of transgression great. But Christ’s precepts, Thou shalt not be angry, Thou shalt not lust, are hard to obey, and therefore in their reward they are great, in their transgression, ‘least.’ It is thus He speaks of these precepts of Christ, such as Thou shall not be angry, Thou shalt not lust, as ‘the least;’ and they who commit these lesser sins, are the least in the kingdom of God; that is, he who has been angry and not sinned grievously is secure from the punishment of eternal damnation; yet he does not attain that glory which they attain who fulfil even these least.
AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) Or, the precepts of the Law are called ‘the least,’ as opposed to Christ’s precepts which are great. The least commandments are signified by the iota and the point. He, therefore, who breaks them, and teaches men so, that is, to do as he does, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Hence we may perhaps conclude, that it is not true that there shall none be there except they be great.
GLOSS. (ord.) By ‘break,’ is meant, the not doing what one understands rightly, or the not understanding what one has corrupted, or the destroying the perfectness of Christ’s additions.
CHRYSOSTOM. Or, when you hear the words, least in the kingdom of heaven, imagine nothing less than the punishment of hell. For He oft uses the word ‘kingdom,’ not only of the joys of heaven, but of the time of the resurrection, and of the terrible coming of Christ.
GREGORY. (Hom. in Ev. xii. 1.) Or, by the kingdom of heaven is to be understood the Church, in which that teacher who breaks a commandment is called least, because he whose life is despised, it remains that his preaching be also despised.
HILARY. Or, He calls the passion, and the cross, the least, which if one shall not confess openly, but be ashamed of them, he shall be least, that is, last, and as it were no man; but to him that confesses it He promises the great glory of a heavenly calling.
JEROME. This head is closely connected with the preceding. It is directed against the Pharisees, who, despising the commandments of God, set up traditions of their own, and means that their teaching the people would not avail themselves, if they destroyed the very least commandment in the Law. We may take it in another sense. The learning of the master if joined with sin however small, loses him the highest place, nor does it avail any to teach righteousness, if he destroys it in his life. Perfect bliss is for him who fulfils in deed what he teaches in word.
AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) Otherwise; he who breaks the least of these commandments, that is, of Moses’ Law, and teaches men so, shall be called the least; but he who shall do (these least), and so teach, shall not indeed be esteemed great, yet not so little as he who breaks them. That he should be great, he ought to do and to teach the things which Christ now teaches.
Catena Aurea Matthew 5
Jun 9 - St Columba (Columcille): Dove of the Church
Summary: St Columba, abbot, missionary also known as Colum Cille, was born in Gartan, County Donegal in 521 and was of royal lineage. He studied under Finnian of Moville and Finnian of Clonard. He founded monasteries in Deny, Durrow, Iona and possibly Kells. From Iona, which became his principal foundation, missionaries undertook the conversion of Northumbria. Colum Cille is noted for his love for people and for all living creatures. He died in 597.
While his feast-day 9th June passes most years without any great sense of occasion, St Columba is in fact one of the Irish Church’s most significant saints, writes Fr John R Walsh.
Columba, the greatest and earliest of our missionaries, is one of the Patron Saints of Ireland. He was born at Gartan, Co Donegal, on 7 December 521 to parents, Fidlimid and Eithne, who were both of royal descent. Usually designated in Irish, Colum Cille (“dove of the church”), the future saint was given his early education by Cruithnechan, a priest who lived near Kilmacrenan in the same region.
Columba’s mother Eithne, a princess from Leinster, where Christianity was comparatively well established, was doubtless the inspiration for her son’s early identification with the Church.
He became a pupil of St Finnian of Clonard, and later studied for the priesthood under St Mobhi of Glasnevin. It was from there that he returned north in 546 to found a monastery in Derry. He is credited, too, with later establishing another major Irish foundation at Durrow, Co Offaly.
In 563, Columba and twelve companions sailed from Derry via Moville to the island of Iona to establish a new monastery there. This became a base for the conversion of the heathen part of Scotland, peopled by the Picts. St Adomnán, who wrote his Life of Columba in Iona within a century of the saint’s death, gives Columba’s reason for exile as a desire to be “a pilgrim for Christ”.
Iona is a small island south-west of the larger Mull, about eighty miles north of Co Antrim. In Columba’s time, it lay within the Irish territory of Dál Riada, which was divided by the North Channel between Ireland and Scotland.
Using Iona as a base, Columba set up other foundations with the support not only of the Dál Riada but also of Pictish chieftains, with whom he established good relations. Some authorities suggest that he founded thirty establishments in the Hebrides and along the west coast of Scotland, including monasteries on Hinba, Tiree and Skye. It is more likely that disciples of the saint set up these houses in the decades and centuries after his death. They would, then, have belonged to the paruchia Columbae (the federation of Columban religious houses) in Ireland and Britain.
For Columba, personal sanctification took precedence even over preaching the Gospel. Monastic life in Iona was identical to that at home in Ireland: work, mortification, prayer, study, and copying manuscripts, were the order of the day.
Columba was known to be a calligrapher. The Cathach, the earliest surviving manuscript we have in Ireland, probably issued from his pen. He was also the author of a number of Latin hymns, and had a reputation for miracles and visions, as well as prophecies.
Because of Columba’s position and temperament, he was a major figure in the political life of Dál Riada. He certainly played kingmaker in 574, on the death of the king of Dál Riada. His attendance at the important convention of Druim Cett, near Limavady in 575, was as a senior authority on Dál Riada affairs.
This assembly at Druim Cett not only rationalized relations between the two parts of the territory but regularized the position of the filid, the learned class of poets, who preserved oral history and genealogy. As a politician, Columba is held up as an example to present day seekers of reconciliation and accommodation.
By the time the saint died in his 77th year, on Sunday 9 June 597, his work of preaching Christ to the Picts was well in hand. The monastery at Iona had become the supreme Christian centre in Scotland. Columba’s disciples, too, were to play an important part in the evangelizing of Britain through foundations in Lindisfarne, Northumbria, on the east coast, and at Whitby.
In his steadfastness, energy, piety and humanity, Columba represents the early Irish Church better than any of his peers. A man of outstanding gentleness and empathy, he was a kindly individual with a practical concern for people. His biographer recalls how he helped the unfortunate; interested himself in the plight of a hostage; rehabilitated a reformed robber; cured a nun with a broken hip; assisted a woman in the pangs of child-birth with his prayers; provided destitute men with the means of feeding themselves. Even as his death approached, he comforted others rather than seek to be comforted.
Columba had a profound sense of the worth of each person and of the contribution each makes to society. At one with God, he was also at one with nature. Like all genuine followers of Christ, Columba could see through hypocrites. He did not tolerate evil-doers, though he invariably welcomed and reconciled the truly repentant. And so we find him castigating miscreants, and yet welcoming the sincerely contrite. Above all, Columba was a man of prayer.
Coming as he did from a princely background and having a commanding and practical personality, he was bound to make an enormous impact on the affairs of his generation. His real greatness, however, was that he was able to combine the advantages given him by temperament and birth with the ambition of sainthood.
Columba is remembered with particular affection in the three places where he himself founded monasteries – Derry, Durrow and Iona – and in the areas in Ireland where his followers established houses. Some of the most notable of these later foundations were Kells, Swords, Drumcliffe, Moone and Tory.
This article first appeared in The Word (June 2004), a Divine Word Missionary Publication.
catholicireland.net
NAVARRE BIBLE COMMENTARY (RSV) Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (To the Greater Glory of God) From: 2 Corinthians 3:4-11
Christian Ministry is Superior to that of the Old Covenant
----------------------------------------------------------
[4] Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. [5] Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God, [6] who has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.
[7] Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses' face because of its brightness, fading as this was, [8] will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? [9] For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. [10] Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. [11] For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor.
*********************************************************************** Commentary:
3:1-6:10. St Paul is accused of pride by his opponents, who have misinterpreted his references in letters to his apostolic journeys (cf., e.g.1 Cor 2:7-16; 4:14-21). Because he realizes that what he said above (cf. 2:14-16) may give rise to further charges, and before going on to confront his adversaries directly--as he does in chapters 10-13 particularly--he begins a long exposition on apostolic ministry. He explains the superiority of his ministry over that of the Old Covenant (3:4-18), the authority and sincerity with which that ministry is carried out (4:1-6), and the trials and sufferings it involves (4:7-5:10); and he goes on to justify his own conduct and the principles which inspire it (cf. 5:11-6:10).
4-11. In these verses St Paul deals with a subject which he discusses more fully in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians--the superiority of the New Covenant, through which Christ reconciles men to God their Father, over the Old Covenant which God made with Moses. Here he just outlines the superiority of the Apostles' ministry over that of Moses. The latter was a dispensation of death and condemnation (vv. 6,7,9) and it was temporary (vv. 7, 11); that of the Apostles, on the other hand, is a dispensation of life and salvation (vv. 6-9) and it is permanent (v. 11). So, if the ministry of Moses was splendid, that of the Apostles will be all the more splendid.
When St Paul speaks of a ministry of "death" and "condemnation" (vv. 7, 9), this does not mean that the Old Covenant was not something in itself holy and just, but that the Law of Moses--part of that Covenant--although it pointed the way to righteousness, was inadequate because it did not give people the resources to conquer sin. It is in this sense that the Old Law can be said to have involved death and condemnation: for it made the sinner more conscious of the gravity of his sin, thereby increasing his guilt (cf. Romans, chapter 7-8 and corresponding notes): "For," St Thomas Aquinas explains, "it is more serious to sin against the natural law when that law is written down, than against the natural law on its own" (Commentary on 2 Cor, ad loc.).
5. The Magisterium of the Church quotes these words when teaching the need for the Holy Spirit to enlighten and inspire man to enable him to accept the truths of faith or choose some good connected with eternal salvation (cf. Second Council of Orange, can. 7). Therefore, anyone is foolish who thinks he can claim as his own the good deeds he does or the apostolic results he obtains: they are in fact a gift from God. As St Alphonsus says, "the spiritual man dominated by pride is the worst kind of a thief because he is stealing not earthly things but the glory that belongs to God [...] For, as the Apostle tells us, we, on our own, cannot do anything good or even have a good thought (cf. 2 Cor 3:5) [...]. Therefore, whenever we do something good, let us say to the Lord, 'We return to thee, 0 Lord, what we have received from thee' (cf. 1 Chron 29:14)" (Treasury of Preaching Material, II, 6).
6. Taking up again the simile he has used in v. 3, St Paul speaks about the "letter" and the "Spirit" (cf. Rom 2:29; 7:6) to show the difference between the Law of the Old Testament and that of the New. The Law of Moses is the "letter" insofar as it simply publishes the precepts which man must keep, without providing the grace necessary for keeping them. The New Law, on the other hand, is the "Spirit", because it is the Holy Spirit himself who, through grace, spreads charity in the hearts of the faithful (cf. Rom 5:5), and charity is the fullness of the Law (cf. Rom 13:10). "What is predominant in the law of the New Testament," St Thomas Aquinas explains, "and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Spirit, which is given to those who believe in Christ" (Summa Theologiae, I-Il, q. 106, a. 1). Hence the law of the Gospel can also be called the law of the Spirit (cf. Rom 8:2), the law of grace or the law of charity.
After pointing out how the Law of Moses laid down the death penalty for certain sins, St John Chrysostom comments: "The Law, if it lays hold of a murderer, puts him to death; the Gospel, if it lays hold of a murderer, enlightens him and gives him life [...]. How lofty is the dignity of the Spirit, seeing that his tables are better than those former ones [the "tables" of the Law], for they do even greater things than raising a dead man to life! For the death from which grace delivers us is much more lamentable than physical death' (Hom, on 2 Cor. 6).
7-10. In the Book of Exodus (34:29-35), we are told that the face of Moses, when he came down from Mount Sinai, where he had been speaking to God, was radiant with light. So bright was it--for it reflected the splendor of God--that the Israelites were afraid to go near him.
St Paul here refers to that event to show the superiority of the New Covenant.
