Posted on 10/05/2025 4:06:12 AM PDT by Cronos
The readings for this Sunday’s Mass richly describe some essential qualities of faith and living in this world as a Christian. There are five fundamentals that can be seen: Working <)b>– The Gospel teaches, Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, “Come here immediately and take your place at table”? Would he not rather say to him, “Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished”? Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded? So should it be with you. When you have done all you have been commanded, say, “We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do” (Luke 17:6-10).
Wanting – The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith” (Luke 17:5-6). There’s an old saying that what you want, you get. Many doubt this, thinking that they have wanted many things that they did not get. The reason for this, however, is usually because they didn’t want it enough. When we really want something (provided it is not an impossibility) we usually get it, because we have a passion for it and work at it.
Waiting – The first reading speaks of our need to wait for the Lord’s action: How long, O LORD? I cry for help, but you do not listen! I cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not intervene. Why do you let me see ruin; why must I look at misery? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and clamorous discord. … Then the LORD answered me and said, Write down the vision clearly upon the tablets, so that one can read it readily. For the vision still has its time, presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint; if it delays, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not be late. The rash one has no integrity (Hab 1:2-3; 2:2-4).
Many people who say that they don’t have time to pray or to go to Mass still find time to golf and watch TV television. They find the time because they want to do these things. They don’t find time to pray or to go to Mass because they do not want to do these things enough.
When the apostles ask the Lord to increase their faith, they are asking for a deeper desire to know Him. Too often we miss a step in our prayer. We might ask the Lord to help us to pray when we really should be asking Him to give us the desire to pray. When we want to pray, we will pray. When we want to be holy, we will naturally strive for holy practices. It is about what we truly desire. Ask the Lord to help you want Him and His kingdom. Ask the Lord for a new heart that has proper wants and desires. Ask the Lord for a new mind that has the proper priorities and prefers to think about what is good, true, and beautiful. What you want, you get. Waiting is one of the great mysteries of the Christian life. It is not always clear why God makes us wait. Perhaps He is trying to strengthen our faith. Perhaps He is helping us to clarify or confirm our desires. Scripture consistently tells us that we must learn to wait for the Lord and that there are blessings for those of us who do. Here are some examples:
Withstanding – The second reading counsels us, God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God (2 Tim 1:6-8).
Waiting is a fundamental of firm faith. Gospel music is replete with waiting themes. One song says, “You can’t hurry God, you just have to wait, trust, and never doubt him, no matter how long it takes. He may not come when you want him but he’s always right on time.” Another song says, “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy will come with the morning light.” Other songs counsel that we must hold on and hold out:
The reading from Habakkuk above warns that the rash man has no integrity. That is another way of saying that waiting is integral to the Christian life; it is a fundamental of faith. To have integrity means to have all the necessary parts that make up the whole. To lack patience, then, is to lack integrity, to lack a fundamental of the Christian faith. This passage tells us that life has difficulties and challenges. Becoming a Christian does not necessarily make things easier. In fact, things often get harder, because we must endure the hatred and ridicule of the world. A fundamental of the Christian Faith is that being able to withstand such trials with courage.
Notice that this courage, power, and love come from God, not from us. Hence, it is grace that is being described here. This is not a moral slogan. Withstanding means that God is “standing with” us, and we with Him. Such withstanding is only possible by the relationship with God that comes by faith. In this way, we discover the power, the capacity, to withstand, to live the Christian faith courageously in a hostile world. This teaching of the Lord’s can irritate us and even seem hurtful if we misunderstand grace and seek to understand this text by the flesh. Our flesh is self-centered and thinks we deserve praise and good things from God in return for the good things we do. The flesh expects—even demands—rewards, but God can never be indebted to us, never. Our good works are not our gift to God; they are His gift to us.
Winning – We conclude with a reference back to the first reading: For the vision still has its time, it presses on to fulfillment and it will not disappoint. If it delays, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not be late (Hab 2:3).
All our works of charity and faith, for which our flesh wants credit, are God’s work and His gift. This is made clear in this passage from the Letter to the Ephesians: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God– not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10).
If I think that I did something deserving of praise and reward, I am thinking in terms of the flesh, not the Spirit. When I have done something good all I can really do is to say, “Thank you” to God. His grace alone permitted me to do it. God may speak elsewhere of rewarding us, but that is His business. He is not indebted to us in any way. When we have done everything we ought, our one disposition should be gratitude. We are useless servants in the sense that we can do nothing without God’s grace. We can only do what He enables us to do.
That said, it is clear that work is a pillar of faith. The text from today’s Gospel and the text from Ephesians above both make clear that work is something God has for us. So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead (James 2:17). Likewise, Jesus says, “It was not you who chose me. It was I who chose you that you should go and bear fruit that will last” (Jn 15:16). Yes, work is a fundamental of faith.
See what the end shall be! It is true that we must want, wait, withstand, and work, but we do not do so for no reason. We have a cross to carry, but if we carry it with the Lord, we carry it to glory. There is an old gospel song with these lyrics:This is just what Habakkuk describes: we will win with Jesus. He describes a victory that isHarder yet may be the fight,
Right may often yield to might,
Wickedness awhile may reign,
Satan’s cause may seem to gain,
There is a God that rules above, With hand of power and heart of love,
If I am right, He’ll fight my battle,
I shall have peace some day.
I do not know how long ’twill be, nor what the future holds for me.
But this I know, if Jesus leads me, I shall get home someday.For all those who walk with Jesus on the way of the cross, there is victory ahead. Even here in this life we already enjoy the fruits of crosses past. Our withstanding in the past has given us strength for today. Our waiting in the past has had its fulfillment and provides the hope that our current waiting will also be fruitful. Our past work, by God’s grace, has already granted benefits to us and to others.
- Future – the vision still has its time; it presses on to fulfillment
- Fantastic – it will not disappoint
- Firm – it will surely come
- Fixed – it will not be late
These are but a small foretaste of a greater glory to come, the glory that waits for us in Heaven. Yes, if we want, wait, withstand, and work, we will win! I promise it to you in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice that this courage, power, and love come from God, not from us.
I’ve always like Monseigneur Pope. His sermons are Biblical and sensible.
I’m not RCC, but am happy to see Msgr Pope back on FR.
Thank You.
In preparation for my weekly Saturday Bible study on the Sunday readings this last week, I've been doing kind of a deep dive in Habakkuk this week. This includes a series of YouTube videos about Habakkuk being put out by Fr. Tim Peters:
Romans tell us all the time you cannot have a personal interprtation of the Bible.
Thank you for that link!
Oh, Ealgeone, bless your heart—the Monsignor’s sermon aligns with Church teaching (1 Tim 3:15: Church as “pillar of truth”), not rogue opinion. Catholics interpret personally within the Spirit-guided Magisterium (Jn 16:13: “Guide you into all truth”)—why twist 2 Pet 1:20 (”No prophecy of Scripture comes from private interpretation”) to fit your solo chaos?
Nope....unless the Vatican has sent out an official message, which we know they haven't, it's just his private interpretation of the text.
And here's the kicker on this....every priest today offered a different message.
Worldwide chaos, cronos.....worldwide chaos using your obtuse definition.
Comical....each priest develops his own homily.
There are an estimated 406,000 Roman Catholic priests in the world as of 2023.
Imagine...406k different messages based on their own private interpretation of what the text means. And Romans like to try and cite 42k denominations.
Ya'll have everyone beat.
It's his opinion on what the message will be for that particular day.
If you want to put your head in the sand and deny it....go ahead.
The rest of your Kamala word salad is just more salad talk by you to try and weasel out of the harsh dose of reality.
Baloney and you know it. No Catholic believes that and the Church doesn't teach it so like usual you're just making things up to support your rabid anti-Catholic hatred. There is nothing in Church teaching that says "the Vatican" has interpreted every verse in Scripture. In fact, over the centuries, the Church has issued detailed guidelines for biblical interpretation so that all Catholics, properly educated, can confidently interpret Scriptures and not fall into the error of "personal interpretation" which Peter condemned in 2 Peter 3:16 and about which Martin Luther complained after he created the error of Sola Scriptura, "Every milkmaid in Europe now thinks herself an expert on the Holy Scriptures!" Here is just one fairly recent example:
"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission)
But it remains true.
And you correctly noted "There is nothing in Church teaching that says "the Vatican" has interpreted every verse in Scripture."
Unfortunately for Roman Catholics that number is less than 40 and will vary depending on the source...so even there Roman Catholics cannot even agree on which verses have been dogmatically defined!
And there in lies the issue for the Roman Catholic....be it priest or layman.
The individual priest has to read the text and attempt to explain it. As there are 406,000+ priests, that means there will be a multitude of opinions on what they think the text says and each homile will be different.
The same goes when Roman Catholics attempt to study their bibles. IF they study one of the verses not dogmatically defined by Roman Catholicism, they are on their on as far as interpretation goes.
Roman Catholics are doing the very thing they condemn everyone else for.
Not this Catholic. I enjoy the freedom the Church teaches Catholics have when reading the Scriptures.
Unfortunately for Roman Catholics that number is less than 40 and will vary depending on the source...so even there Roman Catholics cannot even agree on which verses have been dogmatically defined!
LOL. That's because it isn't a big deal to Catholics. It only matters if you run up against established Church teaching in your interpretation AND go around teaching it as if it were correct. That's where Luther made his mistake.
The individual priest has to read the text and attempt to explain it. As there are 406,000+ priests, that means there will be a multitude of opinions on what they think the text says and each homile will be different.
The same goes when Roman Catholics attempt to study their bibles. IF they study one of the verses not dogmatically defined by Roman Catholicism, they are on their on as far as interpretation goes.
Which normally doesn't matter because, as you point out, there are a miniscule amount of verses that the Church as interpreted in a definitive way.
Roman Catholics are doing the very thing they condemn everyone else for.
The difference being that at least Catholics have a defined standard against they can measure their interpretations against. Non-Catholics have no such standard so their interpretations are essentially a free-for-all. Whose interpretations are correct? The Anglicans? The Baptists? The Fundamentalists? The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses? Some kook living alone in his shack with just him and his 1611 KJV with no knowledge of biblical and historical background or recourse to the original languages? Extend this to the 30,000 Protestant churches that disagree enough to prefer one church over another depending on taste. They may say they agree on essentials, but who defines what is essential or not? Who's to say? There is no definitive way to say so.
Yet, some of your fellow RCs seem to want to deny that freedom to others.
The difference being that at least Catholics have a defined standard against they can measure their interpretations against. Non-Catholics have no such standard so their interpretations are essentially a free-for-all.
Whoa...hold on....what's your standard if, as you freely admit, that Rome has only dogmatically defined less than 40 verses.
Is it your priest? Because he's in the same boat you are in this matter.
Whose interpretations are correct? The Anglicans? The Baptists? The Fundamentalists?
The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses?
I think we can both agree neither of those two are in the Christian circle at all.
Some kook living alone in his shack with just him and his 1611 KJV with no knowledge of biblical and historical background or recourse to the original languages?
Are you formally trained in either Hebrew or Greek?
You might want to go easy on the KJV as it and the DR have similar backgrounds.
Interesting you bring up the lack of historical background or the original languages. In my research of RC seminaries I don't find a whole lot of emphasis on the Hebrew or Greek for RC priests. In fact, rarely do I see the average RC appeal to either. So your argument fails for the RC as it does the "kook" in his shack.
Extend this to the 30,000 Protestant churches that disagree enough to prefer one church over another depending on taste.
You were doing pretty good until you raised perhaps the most debunked of all RC talking points....30k protestant churches. Romans really embarrass themselves with that one.
I can easily turn that around and accuse Rome of 406k private interpretations.
They may say they agree on essentials, but who defines what is essential or not? Who's to say? There is no definitive way to say so.
Same can be said for Roman Catholicism.
As I've already said, the standard is holding our own interpretation to the established teaching of the Church.
Is it your priest? Because he's in the same boat you are in this matter.
I've already addressed this as well.
The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses?
I think we can both agree neither of those two are in the Christian circle at all.
Well I can, because their teachings go against the established and clear teachings of the Church. Otherwise, who's to say?
Are you formally trained in either Hebrew or Greek?
Nope, but I can effectively use a lexicon and concordance and I can easily check my interpretation against Catholic teaching and good commentaries and scholars. Mr. Meandmybible has no such recourse.
You might want to go easy on the KJV as it and the DR have similar backgrounds.
It wasn't a slur against the KJV or the DRV; I like both versions in certain instances. But any biblical scholar can tell you they were based on inferior original manuscripts and not the greatest scholarship.
Interesting you bring up the lack of historical background or the original languages. In my research of RC seminaries I don't find a whole lot of emphasis on the Hebrew or Greek for RC priests. In fact, rarely do I see the average RC appeal to either. So your argument fails for the RC as it does the "kook" in his shack.
That only shows your limited or outdated knowledge of Catholic scholarship. In fact, especially in our day, Catholic biblical scholarship is bourgeoning, including in seminaries. Young priests of today have a much more well rounded training than they did, even 30 years ago.
Extend this to the 30,000 Protestant churches that disagree enough to prefer one church over another depending on taste.
You were doing pretty good until you raised perhaps the most debunked of all RC talking points....30k protestant churches. Romans really embarrass themselves with that one.
In fact, I know that's an old chestnut but like Jesus, I like to use hyperbole to make a point. The point is, even if there were only 1000 Protestant denominations (not even counting the spin off sects that all agree have taken private interpretation to an absurd level), that would still be a heck of a lot of division based on differing (supposedly Holy Spirit led) Bible interpretations. Surely that's enough division to scandalize non-Christians and frustrate our Lord's desire that we all be as o one and Paul's command that there be no division or disagreement among Christians.
I can easily turn that around and accuse Rome of 406k private interpretations.
I have addressed this.
They may say they agree on essentials, but who defines what is essential or not? Who's to say? There is no definitive way to say so.
Same can be said for Roman Catholicism.
I have effectively demonstrated that is not the case. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but to any reasonable unbiased person.
If Rome hasn’t taken a position on one of the many verses it hasn’t defined….against what are you measuring your understanding against?
You do realize what you’re saying about the DR….right?
Some simple Google search shows the truth:
The World Christian Encyclopedia reported around 9,000 Protestant denominations, a figure later revised by some sources to tens of thousands globally, with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimating over 47,000 Christian denominations in total. These high figures often result from counting distinct national branches of the same denomination as separate entities.
Thousands of sects, thousands of different dogma. From Anglicans to the guy who started his own “non denominational” church down the street.
Also you forget the teaching authority of the church and her sacred tradition. That has been guiding us for 2000 years. We have a catechism as well, so there is no free for all. In Protestantism if you don’t think a particular section meets your expectations then you walk down the street until you find that fits your expectations.
For the VAST majority of verses or passages in Scripture, this isn't an issue, just like it isn't for non-Catholics. In 1 Tim 4:13 Paul says he forgot his cloak in Troas. How are you going to misinterpret that?
For Catholics, if you're trying to interpret Scripture, if you are literate, use basic sound methods of exegesis, and don't contradict the rest of Scripture or the teaching of the Church, you're good to go.
I do. And about the KJV too. I like them both and enjoy reading them and quoting them occasionally, and they are beloved traditional translations, but I would never use them as my primary Bible or as some kind of definitive last word in biblical translation. The Church doesn't require me to, and there are lots of more accurate and more easily understandable translations to choose from today and I use a variety, including a few non-Catholic Bibles.
What I’ve encountered on these forums is a lack of exegesis but a whole lot of eisegesis from Roman Catholics.
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.