Do We Want Comfort or Do We Want Christ?

The Catholic Exchange ^ | 10.08.2021 | Constance T. Hull

[MurphsLaw]

Do We Want Comfort or Do We Want Christ?

What comforts in our lives could lead us to deny Christ under the right circumstances? All of the Apostles fled from Jesus upon his arrest and crucifixion, except for Judas, who betrayed Him and St. John, who stayed with Him and Our Blessed Mother. These Apostles, who just hours prior sat with Him at the Last Supper where He instituted the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, abandoned Him.

His closest friends and followers. Those men were chosen to be the first bishops of His Church. The men chosen to follow Him on the Way of the Cross. The same men who repeatedly could not understand the fact that Jesus had to be crucified, die, and rise from the dead in order to bring about the work of redemption.

We can easily make the mistake of believing that we would never do any of these things; that we would never abandon Him, betray Him, or flee. Every time we sin, we do exactly that, and in a world marred by darkness, sin, temptation, power, and the lures of comfort, the danger for each one of us is that we will abandon Christ when our hour comes and we too must undergo the test.

St. Peter boldly proclaimed—through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that there is nowhere else to go except to follow Him. Later, when the time of testing came, St. Peter denied Jesus. Here’s what John’s Gospel says:

Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Now the
other disciple was known to the high priest, and he entered
the courtyard of the high priest with Jesus.

But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in.

Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter, “You are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”

Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire that they had made, because it was cold, and were warming themselves. Peter was also standing there keeping warm.

John 18:15-18

This is the first time St. Peter denies Jesus. Notice how he enters the courtyard through the help of another disciple. He isn’t completely alone. He is with a fellow follower of Christ. Rather than seek to stay close to Jesus, St. Peter stays at a safe distance, denies Jesus, and stays at a charcoal fire where others are warming themselves. St. Peter’s distance from Jesus is felt in the description of how cold it was that night. St. Peter chooses to warm himself by the fire in the things of this world, rather than embrace the cold, isolation, and persecution Jesus is experiencing at the hands of the high priest and his men.

St. Peter refuses to accept the path. He refuses in this moment to embrace and accept the Cross. While Jesus is being interrogated and struck inside, St. Peter continues to keep warm from the cold of the events taking place. This is not just a physical cold, but a spiritual cold. He chooses the false flame of a worldly fire over the fire of God’s love. He keeps Jesus at arm’s length, at a safe distance. This leads him to deny Jesus three times.

As he continues to warm himself, he is questioned again:

Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm. And they said to him, “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not.” One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with him?” Again Peter denied it. And immediately the cock crowed.*

John 18:25-27

One of the essential reasons why we should meditate on this passage of Sacred Scripture is because it is not only about St. Peter’s denial. It is about our own. Like St. Peter, we often want to be comfortable and secure in the world, warming ourselves by the fire, and keeping the company of those in power. If St. Peter defended his relationship with Jesus, the servants would report him to the high priest and the officials would have taken him into custody.

In our daily lives, we tend to betray or deny others for much less than to protect our lives. We participate in office or parish gossip, rather than defending innocent victims, because we’d rather not be called out for defending someone. We want our comfort and security. Certainly, we don’t want to be disliked or hated, so we warm ourselves by the fire of gossip or inaction. We betray those innocent people who are not present in order to be liked by people who would turn around and do the same thing to us under different circumstances. We don’t want to be weird, questioned, accused, or cast out by the group.

There will come a day very soon when we will have to give an account for our faith, even to the point of sacrificing our jobs, livelihoods, relationships, and our lives. That is how bad things are getting in our culture. Persecution is here and it will continue to grow in the years to come as our culture becomes more and more radically secular. How we live now will prepare us for when the Cross comes for us. If we cannot be trusted in small matters, how can we expect to be trusted when we are outright threatened for our faith? If we do not boldly live as disciples of Jesus in this life, we will give an account to Him when we die.

All of us have areas of our lives where we have placed comfort, security, and power ahead of Christ. We don’t want to faithfully live the truths of our Catholic faith, so we deny them or hide them. It may be in how we treat other people, our lack of focus on God, or maybe we are addicted to the comforts of food, pleasure, television, sex, social media, status, honor, money, possessions, reputation, and success. Clinging to these things makes us spiritually vulnerable and weak. In our human frailty, it does not take much for us to deny Christ when asked if we are one of His followers. Comfort is the enemy of holiness.

It is only through a life of prayer, the Sacraments, sacrifice, mortification, serving others, and the virtues that we can prepare for these moments in our lives. We must submit to the Cross and embrace it as the ultimate path to joy. If we flee or shirk the Cross, then we will be like St. Peter and deny Our Lord, or worse, we will become Judas and betray Him for thirty pieces of silver. This is why St. Francis of Assisi, whose feast day was this past Monday, taught the following about true joy:

Brother Leo wondered much within himself; and, questioning the saint, he said: “Father, I pray thee teach me wherein is perfect joy.” Saint Francis answered: “If, when we shall arrive at Saint Mary of the Angels, all drenched with rain and trembling with cold, all covered with mud and exhausted from hunger; if, when we knock at the convent-gate, the porter should come angrily and ask us who we are; if, after we have told him, “We are two of the brethren”, he should answer angrily, “What ye say is not the truth; ye are but two impostors going about to deceive the world, and take away the alms of the poor; begone I say”; if then he refuse to open to us, and leave us outside, exposed to the snow and rain, suffering from cold and hunger till nightfall – then, if we accept such injustice, such cruelty and such contempt with patience, without being ruffled and without murmuring, believing with humility and charity that the porter really knows us, and that it is God who maketh him to speak thus against us, write down, O Brother Leo, that this is perfect joy.

St. Francis of Assisi, “Perfect Joy” St. Francis goes on to describe this type of treatment occurring again and again, but that perfect joy is being able to overcome one’s self by God’s grace rather than falling into anger or despair. True freedom and joy rests in sharing in the Cross of Christ, not comfort and security:

But in the cross of tribulation and affliction we may glory,
because, as the Apostle says again, “I will not glory
save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

As Christians, our ultimate joy can only come from sharing in the Cross of Christ. If we flee from the Cross, avoid the Cross, or put our Cross down, then we will never find perfect joy. Instead, we will deny or betray Jesus. Thankfully, all of the Apostles who fled from Christ’s Cross eventually embraced it and were given martyrs’ crowns because they came to understand that they could not live in comfort. To be a disciple is to follow the Crucified One wherever He may lead.

[Mom MD]

Thank you for that reminder from my favorite author

[Mom MD]

stunning breathtaking blasphemy

[Mom MD]

Prove any of that fairy tale from scripture

[ebb tide]

Sorry, I’m not one of your sola scriptura fruitcakes.

[ebb tide]

You probably also use the word “tree” as a verb.

[MHGinTN]

LOL, what a Maroon! Never treed a raccoon?

[ebb tide]

Oh, how you spittle on and on.

Childish.

[MHGinTN]

So sorry about your bitterness.

[ebb tide]

So sorry about your poor grammar.

[MurphsLaw]

One of the best for sure...
Changed my life fave, for me.
Ironically, today, our Gospel reading was the good young man who asked Christ the ultimate question and chooses this world, over the next.

Haunting.

[MurphsLaw]

Whatever.
You hijacked a thoughtful post about the problem of wanting comfort in our culture- antithetical to Christianity, not specific to any faith group.
And you had to do so with a drive by on the Blessed Virgin Mary, classy.
In that I cannot abide.

[daniel1212]

"Whatever"

True to form, blithely dismissing abundant refutation of propaganda and thus post more of the same can be expected.

". You hijacked a thoughtful post about the problem of wanting comfort in our culture- antithetical to Christianity, not specific to any faith group. And you had to do so with a drive by on the Blessed Virgin Mary, classy. In that I cannot abide"

Enough with the recourse to lame protests about hijacking one of the incessant Catholic posts which provocatively listed Mary along with the apostles, as if she was one. That was the "drive by." As long as you and others continue to "hijack" FR by posting provocative Catholic material then you should continually expect to called on such, as should Prots who do likewise. If you do not want to see such just place your caucus label on them. That is what it is there for.

[MurphsLaw]

incessant Catholic posts which provocatively listed Mary along with the apostles, as if she was one. That was the "drive by."

You're too smart for that. You're reacting emotionally.
You decided to misconstrue one paragraph out of 20.

Read it again... no where is the author inferring the Blessed Virgin was an Apostle... only that she and John did not bail on Jesus. The following paragraphs support that, and are consistent in the author's thinking.

The Church, nor the Catechism, do NOT teach that the Virgin Mary was ever considered as one of the 12, or that she was even apostolic. Anyone choosing to write to the contrary- and pushing that silliness onto the unsuspecting against verifiable Church documentation- is wildly incorrect.

And I would bet you already knew that.

[daniel1212]

Mary was not an apostle, but it certainly is consistent with the Catholic practice of exalting "mortals far above what is written" (1 Co. 4:6) and especially Mary to list her as an apostle - whether intentional or not - , though no where is she said to be one and they were all men.

"You're reacting emotionally."

Rather, I am rationally reason-ably reacting out of esteem for the Truth of Scripture against those who are prone to wantonly exalt a holy virtuous Spirit-filled instrument of God far, far, far "above that which is written."

"You decided to misconstrue one paragraph out of 20. Read it again... no where is the author inferring the Blessed Virgin was an Apostle ...only that she and John did not bail on Jesus. The following paragraphs support that.."

No YOU read it again, as well my responses above to the same knee-jerk reaction as yours. The author "- whether intentional or not -" said said, listed Mary with the apostles without any distinction, which class fits with "His closest friends and followers" - which in Scripture were both men and women - in the beginning of the next paragraph before focusing on just the men. "All of the Apostles fled from Jesus upon his arrest and crucifixion, except for Judas, who betrayed Him and St. John, who stayed with Him and Our Blessed Mother. These Apostles, who just hours prior sat with Him at the Last Supper where He instituted the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders, abandoned Him. "

Thus we have "All of the Apostles," Judas and John and Our Blessed being excepted listed as "These Apostles." Thus while as I later said, while I think the author did not intentionally infer this yet as said, this is consistent with the hyper-exaltation of Mary - "Queen of the apostles" (Saint Vincent Pallotti) - far above what is written.

And from a Catholic source (https://catholicnetwork.us/2018/09/03/who-attended-the-last-supper/) we do read this: According to Mark’s gospel, at least fifteen people attended the Last Supper: Jesus, two disciples and “the Twelve”. Since Jesus had male and female disciples, and since meal preparation was a traditionally female role, the two disciples attending the Last Supper easily could have been women.... Since Matthew’s gospel specifies disciples, it also offers the possibility for female attendees. On 1998 Polish artist Bohdan Piasecki painted a LAST SUPPER which included 6 women and 2 children, as well as Jesus and his 12 apostles. It seems highly improbable that Jesus would have excluded his mother, Mary of Magdala and the other women who had followed him up to Jerusalem from this important occasion.

"The Church, nor the Catechism, do NOT teach that the Virgin Mary was ever considered as one of the 12, or that she was even apostolic."

Which charge I did not make, but said "it certainly is consistent with the Catholic practice of exalting "mortals far above what is written" (1 Co. 4:6) and especially Mary to list her as an apostle - whether intentional or not -. And thus I provided a link to examples of this. And if not listing her as one of the 12 apostles, many Catholics do assert that Mary was an apostle. A Catholic blogger reports,

"I researched a third book written in Latin by Albertus Magnus [German Catholic Dominican friar, philosopher, scientist, and bishop. Later canonised as a Catholic saint], Marialae super missus est. In it he argues that the Blessed Virgin Mary is higher in the ecclesiastical hierarchy than any priest, bishop or pope; and that she, therefore, would merit Holy Orders if she had need of them. He further argues that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an apostle, prophet, evangelist and pastor. He admits that women were cursed by the original sin of Eve, but so too were men." - http://lifeofanunorsister.blogspot.com/2018/01/mary-as-high-priest.html

St. John Berchmans @sjbchicago tweeted, The Church celebrates the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene today. Mary was an Apostle of Jesus, and was one of those who stood by the cross of Jesus with his mother

" The following paragraphs support that, and are consistent in the author's thinking."

Meaning after carelessly unconsciously placing Mary as one of the apostles consistent with the hyper veneration of this "Queen of the apostles" before focusing on the apostles proper. This inference is what I reproved, not that it was official RC teaching, though such hyper-exaltation is typically implicitly sanctioned.

[daniel1212]

Sorry, the last post was not to you, but I was using it for formatting.

[CodeToad]

Yet another sit back and take it and “trust” someone or something else instead of taking out own actions.

[MHGinTN]

I wonder if this conflation methodology is due to the huge conflation of the one True Spiritual Church Jesus began on the Day of Pentecost, that real Ekklesia conflated with the catholic organization, as if one and the same? Misdirection, man made rituals to test fealty to the Org, and conflation for deception are hallmarks of the catholic apologists and characteristics of the catholiciism ORG.

[Ken Regis]

“Childish”?

That’s funny.

[MurphsLaw]

Mary was not an apostle, but it certainly is consistent with the Catholic practice of exalting "mortals far above what is written" (1 Co. 4:6) and especially Mary to list her as an apostle - whether intentional or not - , though no where is she said to be one and they were all men. 

Well Friend, you are not being charitable. While I get charitability has become an optionable, albeit still one to immitate, virtue for the modern Christian, I am always willing to listen. Though not to go down your rabbit holes.
What bothers me is my rebuttal to your crazy always requires of me a devil advocating stance to show you the fallacy of your diatribes, carefully crafted as they may be, to the point of throwing out the whole dang Bible.

If you are so adamant to accuse this woman of craftily “conflating” that evil of evils, of Mary being an Apostle - or as you claim "reprove her inference" in what she wrote- you deny her any benefit of the doubt in her referencing the Crucifixion attendees.:

   "All of the Apostles fled from Jesus upon his arrest AND CRUCIFIXION, except for Judas, who betrayed Him and St. John, who stayed with Him and Our Blessed Mother. These Apostles, who just hours prior sat with Him….

  Well then, if THAT "inference "is so offensively purposeful, so Then YOU MUST accept  the Gospel writer intent in “conflating” Apostles in Luke 8 as well....where the word Apostle is not even used.

   Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, 2As well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them[a] out of their resources.

  By your logic the Gospel then adds 3 female "apostles" - possibly even The Virgin Mary- AS WELL to the 12 that were with him. Now of course any rational person knows there were only 12 chosen men, and that 12 was not an arbitrary number. But you can’t have it both ways. If the blogger doesnt get your benefit of the doubt- neither does the Gospel writer get it right.

  Now the proper critique from you for an otherwise clumsy listing of events by the blogger - nevertheless again a rational understanding regarding the Crucifixion reference-  should have been:

  …except for Judas, who betrayed Him and St. John, who stayed with Him and Our Blessed Mother.

  Should have been something like :

  …except for Judas, who betrayed Him and St. John, who stayed with Him and Our Blessed Mother, (who of course is not considered one of the 12 Apostles.).

  Why do you insist on NOT recognizing the Church teaching in these instances? - regardless of those who may say things to the contrary? It does so appear that you are guilty of the same nebulous inferences that would lead someone to overreach the Blessed Virgin Mary Apostle error. Sentences such as this:

  … but it certainly is consistent with the Catholic practice of exalting "mortals far above what is written"

  "Certainly is consistent .... thats a leap. Connecting The Virgin Mary- Ark if the New Covenant...with her being an Apostle? Thats conflation for sure. So having exposed your conflation, Lets take a look a look at the 1 Cor 4 you want to hang your case on, as there is so much there... As if you exalt "do not go beyond what is written".... you better damn well sure exalt ALL of it.
Are you gonna run around yelling everyone "I'm Saved!" Wher Paul painfully says the opposite...AND WRITES:

  I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time,

Going beyond what is written?

But I've digressed. Lets stick with your sola Corinthian kill shot:

  6 I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Now what is Paul referencing? The Old Testament scripture? No obviously problematic for Corinth.  The NEW Testament written word? No...hasn't been written yet...His Epistles to the Church? Maybe... but those are often his personal "I do not say this as a command" or"And in this matter I am giving my advice... and if he is writing " ...."beyond what has been written" how are we to know Paul is not being self referential with his factious, in-fighting Corinthians he spent time with? HOW in the world could you make this claim - INFERENCE- of using Paul to denigrate the Blessed Virgin- the ONLY MORTAL to tell Christ what to do- AND he listened. Yes, she will be called "Blessed" before all ages, because God asked her to transcend her motality.

Back to sola.
"..., but said "it certainly is consistent with the Catholic practice of exalting "mortals far above what is written"

Exalting above, no FAR above, what is written. Well what was Paul referring to as "written". How about some Corinthian context. ....... Fact: The Corinthian church was separated into factions based on who they follow. They made themselves then like  judges -  choosing who or what was faithful,- and what wasn't- personal views for their Church- not unlike Paul's personal preferences as previously mentioned. Paul had ALREADY stated ONLY God was to judge his people. MORTALS cannot see the souls of others - ONLY God can. So THIS is what Paul means to convey to the Corinthians concerning Gods judgement. Then Paul goes on to note that judging others is rooted in pride...and that he will not even judge himself. To infer otherwise whay Paul was possibly saying- or apply if elsewhere is..yep...a "Total INFERENCE" with no foundation - just pure scripture twist to confusecthe Steeler fans oyt there. BUT WAIT THERES MORE. Paul was a traditional guy. Maybe he was referencing not going beyond what he had written and rejoiced in with regard to Tradition. Dubious, but lets see where it goes.

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. 

6 Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us. 

Now aside ftom the obvious- that Paul would NOT CONTRADICT JESUS.... and that his tradition is not of humans, possibly dare we say SACRED Traditon? HE knows  Christ has proclsimed Tradition must NOT CONTRADICT THE WORD OF GOD... (8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”) AND what Commandment is Jesus referring to here?
Honoring thy FATHER AND MOTHER !!!
So aside from holding on to Tradition as a Binding requirement of Salvation, the transmission of what Paul IS "handing down" - while must  NOT be of human tradition. (ie. The Eucharist)- THE word of mouth OR epistle could have easily been the written format not to be exceeded by the Corinthians. We cannot presuppose what exactly is the written part. 1 Co 4:6 is too vague for such an absolute. Stop using that, as you only get in deeper water with Tradition. As it would appear Paul is more so, at a minimum equal to, preaching a non- contradictory Tradition in addition to not exceedinf the written word.

Again - you cant have it both ways.