Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings 24-May-2024

Mark
	English: Douay-Rheims	Latin: Vulgata Clementina	Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
	Mark 10
1.	AND rising up from thence, he cometh into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan: and the multitudes flock to him again. And as he was accustomed, he taught them again.	Et inde exsurgens venit in fines Judææ ultra Jordanem : et conveniunt iterum turbæ ad eum : et sicut consueverat, iterum docebat illos.	κακειθεν αναστας ερχεται εις τα ορια της ιουδαιας δια του περαν του ιορδανου και συμπορευονται παλιν οχλοι προς αυτον και ως ειωθει παλιν εδιδασκεν αυτους
2.	And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.	Et accedentes pharisæi interrogabant eum : Si licet vero uxorem dimittere : tentantes eum.	και προσελθοντες [οι] φαρισαιοι επηρωτησαν αυτον ει εξεστιν ανδρι γυναικα απολυσαι πειραζοντες αυτον
3.	But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you?	At ille respondens, dixit eis : Quid vobis præcepit Moyses ?	ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις τι υμιν ενετειλατο μωσης
4.	Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.	Qui dixerunt : Moyses permisit libellum repudii scribere, et dimittere.	οι δε ειπον μωσης επετρεψεν βιβλιον αποστασιου γραψαι και απολυσαι
5.	To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.	Quibus respondens Jesus, ait : Ad duritiam cordis vestri scripsit vobis præceptum istud :	και αποκριθεις ο ιησους ειπεν αυτοις προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υμων εγραψεν υμιν την εντολην ταυτην
6.	But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.	ab initio autem creaturæ masculum et feminam fecit eos Deus.	απο δε αρχης κτισεως αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους ο θεος
7.	For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.	Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem, et adhærebit ad uxorem suam :	ενεκεν τουτου καταλειψει ανθρωπος τον πατερα αυτου και την μητερα και προσκολληθησεται προς την γυναικα αυτου
8.	And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.	et erunt duo in carne una. Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro.	και εσονται οι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν ωστε ουκετι εισιν δυο αλλα μια σαρξ
9.	What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.	Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet.	ο ουν ο θεος συνεζευξεν ανθρωπος μη χωριζετω
10.	And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.	Et in domo iterum discipuli ejus de eodem interrogaverunt eum.	και εν τη οικια παλιν οι μαθηται αυτου περι του αυτου επηρωτησαν αυτον
11.	And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.	Et ait illis : Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit super eam.	και λεγει αυτοις ος εαν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται επ αυτην
12.	And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.	Et si uxor dimiserit virum suum, et alii nupserit, mœchatur.	και εαν γυνη απολυση τον ανδρα αυτης και γαμηθη αλλω μοιχαται
13.	And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them.	Et offerebant illi parvulos ut tangeret illos. Discipuli autem comminabantur offerentibus.	και προσεφερον αυτω παιδια ινα αψηται αυτων οι δε μαθηται επετιμων τοις προσφερουσιν
14.	Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.	Quos cum videret Jesus, indigne tulit, et ait illis : Sinite parvulos venire ad me, et ne prohibueritis eos : talium enim est regnum Dei.	ιδων δε ο ιησους ηγανακτησεν και ειπεν αυτοις αφετε τα παιδια ερχεσθαι προς με μη κωλυετε αυτα των γαρ τοιουτων εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου
15.	Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.	Amen dico vobis : Quisquis non receperit regnum Dei velut parvulus, non intrabit in illud.	αμην λεγω υμιν ος εαν μη δεξηται την βασιλειαν του θεου ως παιδιον ου μη εισελθη εις αυτην
16.	And embracing them, and laying his hands upon them, he blessed them.	Et complexans eos, et imponens manus super illos, benedicebat eos.	και εναγκαλισαμενος αυτα τιθεις τας χειρας επ αυτα ευλογει αυτα

Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas

10:1–12

1. And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judæa by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

2. And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

11. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

12. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

BEDE. (in Marc. 3, 40) Up to this time Mark hath related what our Lord said and did in Galilee; here he begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judæa, and first indeed across the Jordan on the east; and this is what is said in these words: And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Jadœa, by the farther side of Jordan; then also on this side Jordan, when He came to Jericho, Bethany, and Jerusalem. And though all the province of the Jews is generally called Judæa, to distinguish it from other nations, more especially, however, its southern portion was called Judæa, to distinguish it from Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the other regions in the same province.

THEOPHYLACT. But He enters the region of Judæa, which the envy of the Jews had often caused Him to leave, because His Passion was to take place there. He did not, however, then go up to Jerusalem, but to the confines of Judæa, that He might do good to the multitudes, who were not evil; for Jerusalem was, from the malice of the Jews, the worker of all the wickedness. Wherefore it goes on: And the people resort unto him again, and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

BEDE. (ubi sup.) Mark the difference of temper in the multitude and in the Pharisees. The former meet together, in order to be taught, and that their sick may be healed, as Matthew relates; the latter come to Him, to try to deceive their Saviour by tempting Him. Wherefore there follows, And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting Him. (Matt. 19:2)

THEOPHYLACT. They come to Him indeed, and do not quit Him, lest the multitudes should believe on Him; and by continually coming to Him, they thought to bring Him into difficulty, and to confuse Him by their questions. For they proposed to Him a question, which had on either side a precipice, so that whether He said that it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, or that it was not lawful, they might accuse Him, and contradict what He said, out of the doctrines of Moses. Christ, therefore, being Very Wisdom, in answering their question, avoids their snares.

CHRYSOSTOM. (Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc. et v. Chrys. Hom. 62) For being asked, whether it is lawful, he does not immediately reply, it is not lawful, lest they should raise an outcry, but He first wished them to answer Him as to the sentence of the law, that they by their answer might furnish Him with what it was right to say. Wherefore it goes on, And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And afterwards, And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. They put forward indeed this that Moses had said either on account of the question of our Saviour, or wishing to excite against Him a multitude of men. For divorce was an indifferent thing among the Jews, and all practised it, as though it were permitted by the law.

AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Evan. 2. 62) It makes nothing, however, to the truth of the fact, whether, as Matthew says,1 they themselves addressed to the Lord the question concerning the bill of divorcement, allowed to them by Moses, on our Lord’s forbidding the separation, and confirming His sentence from the law, or whether it was in answer to a question of His, that they said this concerning the command of Moses, as Mark here says. For His wish was to give them no reason why Moses permitted it, before they themselves had mentioned the fact; since then the wish of the parties speaking, which is what the words ought to express, is in either way shewn, there is no discrepancy, though there be a difference in the way of relating it. It may also be meant that, as Mark expresses it, the question put to them by the Lord, What did Moses command? was in answer to those who had previously asked His opinion concerning the putting away of a wife; and when they had replied that Moses permitted them to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away, (Matt. 19:4) His answer was concerning that same law, given by Moses, how God instituted the marriage of a male, and a female, saying those things which Matthew relates; on hearing which they again rejoined what they had replied to Him when He first asked them, namely, Why then did Moses command?

AUGUSTINE. (cont. Faust. xix. 26) Moses, however, was against a man’s dismissing his wife, for he interposed this delay, that a person whose mind was bent on separation, might be deterred by the writing of the bill, and desist; particularly, since, as is related, among the Hebrews, no one was allowed to write Hebrew characters but the scribes. The law therefore wished to send him, whom it ordered to give a bill of divorcement, before he dismissed his wife, to them, who ought to be wise interpreters of the law, and just opponents of quarrel. For a bill could only be written for him by men, who by their good advice might overrule him, since his circumstances and necessity had put him into their hands, and so by treating between him and his wife they might persuade them to love and concord. But if a hatred so great had arisen that it could not be extinguished and corrected, then indeed a bill was to be written, that he might not lightly put away her who was the object of his hate, in such a way as to prevent his being recalled to the love, which he owed her by marriage, through the persuasion of the wise. For this reason it is added, For the hardness of your heart, he wrote this precept; for great was the hardness of heart which could not be melted or bent to the taking back and recalling the love of marriage, even by the interposition of a bill in a way which gave room for the just and wise to dissuade them.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. (Cat. in Marc. Oxon.) Or else, it is said, For the hardness of your hearts, because it is possible for a soul purged from desires and from anger to bear the worst of women; but if those passions have a redoubled force over the mind, many evils will arise from hatred in marriage. (Chrys. ubi sup.). Thus then, He saves Moses, who had given the law, from their accusation, and turns the whole upon their head. But since what He had said was grievous to them, He at once brings back the discourse to the old law, saying, But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

BEDE. (ubi sup.) He says not male and females, which the sense would have required had it referred to the divorce of former wives, but male and female, so that they might be bound by the tie of one wife.

CHRYSOSTOM. (ubi sup.) If however he had wished one wife to be put away and another to be brought in, He would have created several women. Nor did God only join one woman to one man, but He also bade a man quit his parents and cleave to his wife. Wherefore it goes on: And he said, (that is, God said by Adam,) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. From the very mode of speech, shewing the impossibility of severing marriage, because He said, He shall cleave.

BEDE. (ubi sup.) And in like manner, because He says, he shall cleave to his wife, not wives. It goes on: And they twain shall be one flesh.

CHRYSOSTOM. (ubi sup.) Being framed out of one root, they will join into one body. It goes on: So then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

BEDE. (ubi sup.) The reward then of marriage is of two to become one flesh. Virginity being joined to the Spirit, becomes of one spirit.

CHRYSOSTOM. (ubi sup.) After this, bringing forward an awful argument, He said not, do not divide, but He concluded, What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

AUGUSTINE. (cont. Faust. xix. 29) Behold the Jews are convinced out of the books of Moses, that a wife is not to be put away, while they fancied that in putting her away, they were doing the will of Moses. In like manner from this place, from the witness of Christ Himself, we know this, that God made and joined male and female, for denying which the Manichees are condemned, resisting now not the books of Moses, but the Gospel of Christ.

BEDE. (ubi sup.) What therefore God hath conjoined by making one flesh of a man and a woman, that man cannot separate, but God alone. Man separates, when we dismiss the first wife because we desire a second; but it is God who separates, when by common consent, for the sake of serving God, we so have wives as though we had none.n

CHRYSOSTOM. (non occ.) But if two persons, whom God has joined together, are not to be separated; much more is it wrong to separate from Christ, the Church, which God has joined to Him.

THEOPHYLACT. But the disciples were offended, as not being fully satisfied with what had been said; for this reason they again question Him, wherefore there follows, And in the house, his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

PSEUDO-JEROME. This second question is said to be asked again by the Apostles, because it is on the subject of which the Pharisees had asked Him, that is, concerning the state of marriage; and this is said by Mark in his own person.

GLOSS. (non occ.) For a repetition of a saying of the Word, produces not weariness, but thirst and hunger; (Ecclus. 24:29) wherefore it is said, They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty; for the tasting of the honied words of wisdom yields all manner of savour to them who love her. Wherefore the Lord instructs His disciples over again; for it goes on, And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery upon her.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. (Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) The Lord calls by the name of adultery cohabitation with her who is not a man’s wife; she is not, however, a wife, whom a man has taken to him, after quitting his first; and for this reason he commits adultery upon her, that is, upon the second, whom he brings in. And the same thing is true in the case of the woman; wherefore it goes on, And if a woman shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery; for she cannot be joined to another as her own husband, if she leave him who is really her own husband. The law indeed forbade what was plainly adultery; but the Saviour forbids this, which was neither plain, nor known to all, though it was contrary to nature.

BEDE. (ubi sup.) In Matthew it is more fully expressed, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication. (Matt. 19:9.) The only carnal cause then is fornication; the only spiritual cause is the fear of God, that a man should put away his wife to enter into religiono, as we read that many have done. But there is no cause allowed by the law of God for marrying another, during the lifetime of her who is quitted.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. (Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.) There is no contrariety in Matthew’s relating that He spoke these words to the Pharisees, though Mark says that they were spoken to the disciples; for it is possible that He may have spoken them to both.

Catena Aurea Mark 10

St. Vincent of Lérins

Feast on 24 May, an ecclesiastical writer in Southern Gaul in the fifth century. His work is much better known than his life. Almost all our information concerning him is contained in Gennadius, "De viris illustribus" (lxiv). He entered the monastery of Lérins (today Isle St. Honorat), where under the pseudonym of Peregrinus he wrote his "Commonitorium" (434). He died before 450, and probably shortly after 434. St. Eucherius of Lyons calls him a holy man, conspicuous for eloquence and knowledge; there is no reliable authority for identifying Vincent with Marius Mercator, but it is likely, if not certain, that he is the writer against whom Prosper, St. Augustine's friend, directs his "Responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum". He was a Semipelagian and so opposed to the doctrine of St. Augustine. It is believed now that he uses against Augustine his great principle: "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true". Living in a centre deeply imbued with Semipelagianism, Vincent's writings show several points of doctrine akin to Casian or to Faustus of Riez, who became Abbot of Lérins at the time Vincent wrote his "Commonitorium"; he uses technical expressions similar to those employed by the Semipelagians against Augustine; but, as Benedict XIV observes, that happened before the controversy was decided by the Church. The "Commonitorium" is Vincent's only certainly authentic work extant. The "Objectiones Vincentianae" are known to us only through Prosper's refutation. It seems probable that he collaborated, or at least inspired, the "Objectiones Gallorum", against which also Prosper writes his book. The work against Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius, etc., which he intended to compose (Commonitorium, xvi), has not been discovered, if it was ever written. The "Commonitorium", destined to help the author's memory and thus guide him in his belief according to the traditions of the Fathers, was intended to comprise two different commonitoria, the second of which no longer exists, except in the résumé at the end of the first, made by its author; Vincent complains that it had been stolen from him. Neither Gennadius, who wrote about 467-80, nor any known manuscripts, enable us to find any trace of it.

It is difficult to determine in what the second "Commonitorium" precisely differed from the first. The one preserved to us develops (chapters i-ii) a practical rule for distinguishing heresy from true doctrine, namely Holy Writ, and if this does not suffice, the tradition of the Catholic Church. Here is found the famous principle, the source of so much discussion particularly at the time of the Vatican Council, "Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est". Should some new doctrine arise in one part of the Church, Donatism for example, then firm adherence must be given to the belief of the Universal Church, and supposing the new doctrine to be of such nature as to contaminate almost the entirety of the latter, as did Arianism, then it is to antiquity one must cling; if even here some error is encountered, one must stand by the general councils and, in default of these, by the consent of those who at diverse times and in different places remained steadfast in the unanimity of the Catholic Faith (iii-iv). Applications of these principles have been made by St. Ambrose and the martyrs, in the struggle with the Donatists and the Arians; and by St. Stephen who fought against rebaptism; St. Paul also taught them (viii-ix). If God allows new doctrines, whether erroneous or heretical, to be taught by distinguished men, as for example Tertullian, Origen, Nestorius, Apollinaris, etc. (x-xix), it is but to test us. The Catholic admits none of these new-fangled doctrines, as we see from 1 Timothy 6:20-21 (20-22, 24). Not to remove all chance of progress in the faith, but that it may grow after the manner of the grain and the acorn, provided it be in the same sense, eodem sensu ac sententia; here comes the well known passage on dogmatic development. "crescat igitur. . ." (xxiii). The fact that heretics make use of the Bible in no way prevents them from being heretics, since they put it to a use that is bad, in a way worthy of the devil (xxv-xxvi). The Catholic interprets Scripture according to the rules given above (xxvii-xxviii). Then follows a recapitulation of the whole "Commonitorium" (xxix-xxx).

All this is written in a literary style, full of classical expressions, although the line of development is rather familiar and easy, multiplying digressions and always more and more communicative. The two chief ideas which have principally attracted attention in the whole book are those which concern faithfulness to Tradition (iii and xxix) and the progress of Catholic doctrine (xxiii). The first one, called very often the canon of Vincent of Lérins, which Newman considered as more fit to determine what is not than what is the Catholic doctrine, has been frequently involved in controversies. According to its author, this principle ought to decide the value of a new point of doctrine prior to the judgment of the Church. Vincent proposes it as a means of testing a novelty arising anywhere in a point of doctrine. This canon has been variously interpreted; some writers think that its true meaning is not that which answered Vincent's purpose, when making use of it against Augustine's ideas. It is hardly deniable that despite the lucidity of its formula, the explanation of the principle and its application to historical facts are not always easy; even theologians such as de San and Franzelin, who are generally in agreement in their views, are here at variance. Vincent clearly shows that his principle is to be understood is a relative and disjunctive sense, and not absolutely and by uniting the three criteria in one: ubique, semper, ab omnibus; antiquity is not to be understood in a relative meaning, but in the sense of a relative consensus of antiquity. When he speaks of the beliefs generally admitted, it is more difficult to settle whether he means beliefs explicitly or implicitly admitted; in the latter case the canon is true and applicable in both senses, affirmative (what is Catholic), and negative or exclusive (what is not Catholic); in the former, the canon is true and applicable in its affirmative bearing; but may it be said to be so in its negative or exclusive bearing, without placing Vincent completely at variance with all he says on the progress of revealed doctrine?

The "Commonitorium" has been frequently printed and translated. We may quote here the first edition of 1528 by Sichardus and that of Baluze (1663, 1669, 1684, Paris), the latter being the best of the three, accomplished with the help of the four known manuscripts; these have been used again in a new accurate collation by Rauschen, for his edition ("Florilegium patristicum", V, Bonn, 1906); a school-edition has been given by Julicher (Frieburg, 1895), and by Hurter (Innsbruck, 1880, "SS. Patrum opuscula selecta", IX) with useful notes.

Sources

BARDENHEWER-SHAHAN, Patrology (St. Louis, 1908), 520-2; Kiln, Patrologie, II (1908), 371-5; KOCH, Vincent von Lérins und Gennadius in Texte und Untersuchungen, XXXI, 2 (1907); BUNETIERE, and DE LABRIOLLE, S. Vincent de Lérins; La pensee chretienne (Paris, 1906).

About this page

APA citation. Ghellinck, J. (1912). St. Vincent of Lérins. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm MLA citation. Ghellinck, Joseph de. "St. Vincent of Lérins." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. . Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Barbara Jane Barrett. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

newadvent.org

NAVARRE BIBLE COMMENTARY (RSV)

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (To the Greater Glory of God)

First Reading:

From: James 5:9-12

A Call for Constancy
------------------------
[9] Do not grumble, brethren, against one another, that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the doors. [10] As an example of suffering and patience, brethren, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. [11] Behold, we call those happy who were steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

The Value of Prayer. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick
---------------------------------------------------------------
[12] But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation.

***********************************************************************
Commentary:

7-11. Just before he ends his letter, St James again (cf. 1:2-4, 12) exhorts his readers to be patient, perhaps in case some are tempted to avenge themselves: on the rich. He uses the simile of the farmer, who patiently waits for the earth; to yield the fruits of his work: in the same kind of way the oppressed will be rewarded for all their afflictions when the Lord comes. St James encourages them also by reminding them of the patience and long-suffering of the prophets and of Job.

Christian hope, and the patience it induces, enables people to put up with injustice in this present life; but it is not an easy way out of one's responsibilities nor an invitation to be passive. A Christian should strive to make this world a place of justice and peace, but should realize it is a transient place, and not make these temporal ideals an absolute goal. "God did not create us to build a lasting I city here on earth. [...]. Nevertheless, we children of God ought not to remain aloof from earthly endeavors, for God has placed us here to sanctify them and , make them fruitful with our blessed faith, which alone is capable of bringing true peace and joy to all men wherever they may be [...]. We urgently need to christianize society. We must imbue all levels of mankind with a supernatural outlook, and each of us must strive to raise his daily duties, his job or profession, to the order of supernatural grace. In this way all human occupations will be lit up by a new hope that transcends time and the inherent transience of earthly realities" (St J. Escriva, "Friends of God", 210).

7-9. St James' words show how vividly the early Christians realized that the Christian life should be a time for watchfulness and for looking forward to the Parousia of the Lord, when our redemption will be finally sealed (cf. Lk 21:28). Jesus did not choose to reveal the precise moment of his coming (cf. Mt 24:36); he stressed. rather, the need to be watchful, to make sure it found us ready (cf. Mt 24:42, 44; 25:13). Therefore, every Christian should live in the expectation of that event which surely will come, though he knows not when. This is also what the Apostle means when he says "the coming of the Lord is at hand" and "the Judge is standing at the doors", for he may come at any moment.

10-11. The lives of the prophets are a very good model of patience and endurance in the adversity. Some of them in particular (Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah) underwent great suffering on account of their obedience to God. "You have seen the purpose of the Lord ": this is the interpretation of St Bede and St Augustine, referring to the example of patience set by Jesus in his passion and death on the cross. Most commentators prefer the other possible translation, "You have seen the outcome the Lord gave him", referring to Job, who bore patiently the trials God sent to him (cf. Job 42:10ff), because, for one thing, it avoids having to give the term "Lord", which appears twice in the same verse (v.11), two different meanings—Jesus Christ and God one and three.

12. This exhortation is almost an exact echo of the words of the Lord: "Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, anything more than that comes from evil” (Mt 5:37). The Jews of the time tended to take oaths far too readily and had developed an elaborate casuistry about them (cf. note on Mt 5:33-37); our Lord criticized these abuses, and St James repeats his teaching. However, that does not mean that oath-taking is always wrong: in fact Sacred Scripture itself praises it when it is done in the right way for good reasons (cf. Jer 4:2), and St Paul sometimes resorts to it (cf., e.g., Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23). Hence the Church teaches that it is lawful and even does honor to God to take an oath when it is strictly necessary and provided one acts in accordance with truth and justice.

St James’ “let your yes be yes and your no be no” is in fact a summing up of the virtue of sincerity, a virtue which is very pleasing to God (cf. Jn 1:47) and essential in human relationships.

Gospel Reading:

From: Mark 10:1-12

The Indissolubility of Marriage
-------------------------------
[1] And He (Jesus) left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to Him again; and again, as His custom was, He taught them.

[2] And Pharisees came up and in order to test Him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" [3] He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" [4] They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." [5] But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment. [6] But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'; [7] `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, [8] and the two shall become one.' So they are no longer two but one. [9] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

[10] And in the house the disciples asked Him about this matter. [11] And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; [12] and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

***********************************************************************
Commentary:

1-12. This kind of scene occurs often in the Gospel. The malice of the Pharisees contrasts with the simplicity of the crowd, who listen attentively to Jesus' teaching. The Pharisees' question aimed at tricking Jesus into going against the Law of Moses. But Jesus Christ, Messiah and Son of God, has perfect understanding of that Law. Moses had permitted divorce because of the hardness of that ancient people: women had an ignominious position in those primitive tribes (they were regarded almost as animals or slaves); Moses, therefore, protected women's dignity against these abuses by devising the certificate of divorce; this was a real social advance. It was a document by which the husband repudiated his wife and she obtained freedom. Jesus restores to its original purity the dignity of man and woman in marriage, as instituted by God at the beginning of creation. "A man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24): in this way God established from the very beginning the unity and indissolubility of marriage. The Church's Magisterium, the only authorized interpreter of the Gospel and of the natural law, has constantly guarded and defended this teaching and has proclaimed it solemnly in countless documents (Council of Florence, "Pro Armeniis"; Council of Trent, "De Sacram. Matr."; Pius XI, "Casti Connubi"; Vatican II, "Gaudium Et Spes", 48; etc.).

Here is a good summary of this doctrine: "The indissolubility of marriage is not a caprice of the Church nor is it merely a positive ecclesiastical law. It is a precept of natural law, of divine law, and responds perfectly to our nature and to the supernatural order of grace" (St J. Escriva, "Conversations", 97). Cf. note on Matthew 5:31-32.

5-9. When a Christian realizes that this teaching applies to everyone at all times, he should not be afraid of people reacting against it: "It is a fundamental duty of the Church to reaffirm strongly [...] the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. To all those who, in our times, consider it too difficult, or indeed impossible, to be bound to one person for the whole of life, and to those caught up in a culture that rejects the indissolubility of marriage and openly mocks the commitment of spouses to fidelity, it is necessary to reaffirm the good news of the definitive nature of that conjugal love that has in Christ its foundation and strength (cf. Ephesians 5:25).

"Being rooted in the personal and total self-giving of the couple, and being required by the good of the children, the indissolubility of marriage finds its ultimate truth in the plan that God has manifested in His revelation: He wills and He communicates the indissolubility of marriage as a fruit, a sign and a requirement of the absolutely faithful love that God has for man and that the Lord Jesus has for the Church.

"Christ renews the first plan that the Creator inscribed in the hearts of man and woman, and in the celebration of the sacrament of matrimony offers `a new heart': thus the couples are not only able to overcome `hardness of heart' (Matthew 19:8), but also and above all they are able to share the full and definitive love of Christ, the new and eternal Covenant made flesh. Just as the Lord Jesus is the `faithful witness' (Revelation 3:14), the `yes' of the promises of God (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:20) and thus the supreme realization of the unconditional faithfulness with which God loves His people, so Christian couples are called to participate truly in the irrevocable indissolubility that binds Christ to the Church, His bride, loved by Him to the end (cf. John 13:1).

"To bear witness to the inestimable value of the indissolubility and fidelity of marriage is one of the most precious and most urgent tasks of Christian couples in our time" (John Paul II, "Familiaris Consortio", 20).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Readings at Mass

Do not ask for judgement, or you may receive it

What God has united, man must not divide

Universalis podcast: The week ahead – from 26 May to 1 June

Christian Art

Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas

St. Vincent of Lérins

Sources

About this page