Navarre Bible Commentary:Friday, 7th Week in Ordinary Time

Source: USCCB

Mark 10:1-12

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

Teaching about Divorce

10 And he 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 you 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,[a] 8 and the two shall become one.’[b] So they are no longer two but one.[c] 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

10 And in the house the disciples asked him again 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.”

Footnotes:

1. Mark 10:7 Other ancient authorities omit and be joined to his wife
2. Mark 10:8 Greek one flesh
3. Mark 10:8 Greek one flesh

Cited in the Catechism:  In promulgating the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Blessed John Paul II explained that the Catechism "is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium."  He went on to "declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" (Fidei Depositum). Passages from this Gospel reading are cited in the Catechism, paragraphs 1639, 1650, 2364, 2380 and 2382.

Commentary

The indissolubility of marriage

10:1–12. 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’ questions are 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” (Gen 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 connubii; 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 Josemaría Escrivá, Conversations, 97). Cf. the note on Mt 5:31–32.

10:5–9. When a Christian realizes that this teaching applies to everyone at all times, he should not be afraid about 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. Eph 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’ (Mt 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’ (Rev 3:14), the ‘yes’ of the promises of God (cf. 2 Cor 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. Jn 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).

Source: The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries. Biblical text from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries by members of the Faculty of Theology, University of Navarre, Spain.

Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland, and by Scepter Publishers in the United States. We encourage readers to purchase The Navarre Bible for personal study. See Scepter Publishers for details.

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." St Jerome

Navarre Bible Commentary:Thursday, 7th Week of Ordinary Time

The Millstone by Angie Whitson

Mark 9:41-50

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

Temptations to Sin

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin,[b] cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell,[c] to the unquenchable fire.[d]45 And if your foot causes you to sin,[e] cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.[f][g] 47 And if your eye causes you to sin,[h] pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,[i] 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 49 For every one will be salted with fire.[j] 50 Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

Footnotes:

1. Mark 9:42 Greek stumble
2. Mark 9:43 Greek stumble
3. Mark 9:43 Greek Gehenna
4. Mark 9:43 Verses 44 and 46 (which are identical with verse 48) are omitted by the best ancient authorities
5. Mark 9:45 Greek stumble
6. Mark 9:45 Greek Gehenna
7. Mark 9:45 Verses 44 and 46 (which are identical with verse 48) are omitted by the best ancient authorities
8. Mark 9:47 Greek stumble
9. Mark 9:47 Greek Gehenna
10. Mark 9:49 Other ancient authorities add and every sacrifice will be salted with salt

Cited in the Catechism:  In promulgating the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Blessed John Paul II explained that the Catechism "is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium."  He went on to "declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" (Fidei Depositum). Passages from this Gospel reading are cited in the Catechism, paragraph 1034. See also citations for Luke 17:1-6.

Commentary

9:41. The value and merit of good works lies mainly in the love of God with which they are done: “A little act, done for love, is worth so much” (St J. Escrivá, The Way, 814). God regards in a special way acts of service to others, however small: “Do you see that glass of water or that piece of bread which a holy soul gives to a poor person for God’s sake; it is a small matter, God knows, and in human judgment hardly worthy of consideration: God, notwithstanding, recompenses it, and forthwith gives for it some increase of charity” (St Francis de Sales, Treatise on the Love of God, book 2, chap. 2).

9:42. “Scandal is anything said, done or omitted which leads another to commit sin” (St Pius X, Catechism, 417). Scandal is called, and is, diabolical when the aim of the scandal-giver is to provoke his neighbour to sin, understanding sin as offence against God. Since sin is the greatest of all evils, it is easy to understand why scandal is so serious and, therefore, why Christ condemns it so roundly. Causing scandal to children is especially serious, because they are so less able to defend themselves against evil. What Christ says applies to everyone, but especially to parents and teachers, who are responsible before God for the souls of the young.

9:43–48. After teaching the obligation everyone has to avoid giving scandal to others, Jesus now gives the basis of Christian moral teaching on the subject of “occasions of sin”—situations liable to lead to sin. He is very explicit: a person is obliged to avoid proximate occasions of sin, just as he is obliged to avoid sin itself; as God already put it in the Old Testament: “Whoever lives in danger will perish by it” (Sir 3:26–27). The eternal good of our soul is more important than any temporal good. Therefore, anything that places us in proximate danger of committing sin should be cut off and thrown away. By putting things in this way our Lord makes sure we recognize the seriousness of this obligation.

The Fathers see, in these references to hands and eyes and so forth, people who are persistent in evil and ever-ready to entice others to evil behaviour and erroneous beliefs. These are the people we should distance ourselves from, so as to enter life, rather than accompany them to hell (cf. St Augustine, De consensu Evangelistarum, 4, 16; St John Chrysostom, Hom. on St Matthew, 60).

9:43. “Hell”, literally “Gehenna” or Gehinnom, was a little valley south of Jerusalem, outside the walls and below the city. For centuries it was used as the city dump. Usually garbage was burned to avoid it being a focus of infection. Gehenna was, proverbially, an unclean and unhealthy place: our Lord used this to explain in a graphic way the unquenchable fire of hell.

9:44. “Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”: these words constituting v. 44 are not in the better manuscripts. They are taken from Isaiah 66:24 and are repeated as a kind of refrain in vv. 46 (omitted for the same reason as v. 44) and 48. Our Lord uses them to refer to the torments of hell. Often “the worm that does not die” is explained as the eternal remorse felt by those in hell; and the “fire which is not quenched”, as their physical pain. The Fathers also say that both things may possibly refer to physical torments. In any case, the punishment in question is terrible and unending.

9:49–50. “Everyone will be salted with fire.” St Bede comments on these words: “Everyone will be salted with fire, says Jesus, because spiritual wisdom must purify all the elect of any kind of corruption through carnal desire. Or he may be speaking of the fire of tribulation, which exercises the patience of the faithful to enable them to reach perfection” (In Marci Evangelium expositio, in loc.).

Some codexes add: “and every sacrifice will be salted with salt”. This phrase in Leviticus (2:12), prescribed that all sacrificial offerings should be seasoned with salt to prevent corruption. This prescription of the Old Testament is used here to teach Christians to offer themselves as pleasing victims, impregnated with the spirit of the Gospel, symbolized by salt. Our Lord’s address, which arises out of a dispute over who is the greatest, ends with a lesson about fraternal peace and charity. On salt which has lost its taste see the note on Mt 5:13 BELOW.

Note: Mt 5:13

Salt of the earth and light of the world

5:13–16. These verses are calling to that apostolate which is part and parcel of being a Christian. Every Christian has to strive for personal sanctification, but he also has to seek the sanctification of others. Jesus teaches us this, using the very expressive simile of salt and light. Salt preserves food from corruption; it also brings out its flavour and make it more pleasant; and it disappears into the food; the Christian should do the same among the people around him.

“You are salt, apostolic soul. ‘Bonum est sal: salt is a useful thing’, we read in the holy Gospel; ‘si autem sal evanuerit: but if the salt loses its taste’, it is good for nothing, neither for the land nor for the manure heap; it is thrown out as useless. You are salt, apostolic soul. But if you lose your taste …” (St Josemaría Escrivá, The Way, 921).

Good works are the fruit of charity, which consists in loving others as God loves us (cf. Jn 15:12). “I see now,” St Thérèse of Lisieux writes, “that true charity consists in bearing with the faults of those about us, never being surprised at their weaknesses, but edified at the least sign of virtue. I see above all that charity must not remain hidden in the bottom of our hearts: ‘nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.’ It seems to me that this lamp is the symbol of charity; it must shine out not only to cheer up those we love best but all in the house” (The Autobiography of a Saint, chap. 9).

Apostolate is one of the clearest expressions of charity. The Second Vatican Council emphasized the Christian’s duty to be apostolic. Baptism and Confirmation confer this duty, which is also a right (cf. Lumen gentium, 33), so much so that, because the Christian is part of the Mystical Body, “a member who does not work at the growth of the body to the extent of his possibilities must be considered useless both to the Church and to himself” (Apostolicam actuositatem, 2). “Laymen have countless opportunities for exercising the apostolate of evangelization and sanctification. The very witness of a Christian life, and good works done in a supernatural spirit, are effective in drawing men to the faith and to God; and that is what the Lord has said: ‘Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven’ ” (ibid., 6).

“The Church must be present to these groups [those who do not even believe in God] through those of its members who live among them or have been sent to them. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man, which they put on in Baptism, and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation, so that others, seeing their good works, might glorify the Father and more perfectly perceive the true meaning of human life and the universal solidarity of mankind” (Ad gentes, 11; cf. 36).

Source: The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries. Biblical text from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries by members of the Faculty of Theology, University of Navarre, Spain.

Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland, and by Scepter Publishers in the United States. We encourage readers to purchase The Navarre Bible for personal study. See Scepter Publishers for details.

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." St Jerome

Saint Talk:St. Alexander of Alexandria

Source: Adoremus Books

Confessor and Patriarch

St. Alexander of Alexandria died on April 17, 326. He is best known for fighting against the heresy of arianism and for excommunicating the Arius, who had been spreading the heresy. Alexander is credited with drawing of the acts for the First General Council of Nicaea. He was a pre-congregation saint and no information is available indicating a particular patronage.

The Lives of the Fathers
St. Alexander succeeded St. Achillas in the see of Alexandria, in 313. He was a man of apostolic doctrine and life, mild, affable, exceeding charitable to the poor, and full of faith, zeal, and fervor. He assumed to the sacred ministry chiefly those who had first sanctified themselves in holy solitude, and was happy in the choice of bishops throughout all Egypt. The devil, enraged to see the havoc made in his usurped empire over mankind, by the disrepute idolatry was generally fallen into, used his utmost endeavors to repair the loss to his infernal kingdom, by procuring the establishment of a most impious, heresy. Arius, a priest of Alexandria, was his principal instrument for that purpose. This heresiarch was well versed in profane literature, was a subtle dialectician, had an exterior show of virtue, and an insinuating behavior; but was a monster of pride, vain-glory, ambition, envy, and jealousy. Under an affected modesty he concealed a soul full of deceit, and capable of all crimes. He joined Meletius, the bishop of Lycopolis, in the beginning of his schism against St. Peter, our saint’s predecessor, in 300; but quitting that party after some time, St. Peter was so well satisfied of the sincerity of his repentance, that he ordained him deacon. Soon after Arius discovered his turbulent spirit, in accusing his archbishop, and raising disturbances in favor of the Meletians. This obliged St. Peter to excommunicate him, nor could he ever be induced to revoke that sentence. But his successor, St. Achillas, upon his repentance, admitted him to his communion, ordained him priest, and made him curate of the church of Baucales, one of the quarters of Alexandria. Giving way to spite and envy, on seeing St. Alexander preferred before him to the see of Alexandria, he became his mortal enemy: and as the saint’s life and conduct were irreproachable, all his endeavors to oppose him were levelled at his doctrine, in opposition to which the heresiarch denied the divinity of Christ. This error he at first taught only in private; but having, about the year 319 gained followers to support him, he boldly advanced his blasphemies in his sermons, affirming, with Ebion, Artemas, and Theodotus, that Christ was not truly God; adding, what no heretic had before asserted in such a manner, that the Son was a creature, and made out of nothing; that there was a time when he did not exist, and that he was capable of sinning, with other such impieties. St. Athanasius informs us,2 that he also held that Christ had no other soul than his created divinity, or spiritual substance, made before the world: consequently, that it truly suffered on the cross, descended into hell, and rose again from the dead. Arius engaged in his errors two other curates of the city, a great many virgins, twelve deacons, seven priests, and two bishops.

One Colluthus, another curate of Alexandria, and many others, declaimed loudly against these blasphemies. The heretics were called Arians, and these called the Catholics Colluthians. St. Alexander, who was one of the mildest of men, first made use of soft and gentle methods to recover Arius to the truth, and endeavored to gain him by sweetness and exhortations. Several were offended at his lenity, and Colluthus carried his resentment so far as to commence a schism; but this was soon at an end, and the author of it returned to the Catholic communion. But St. Alexander, finding Arius’s party increase, and all his endeavors to reclaim him ineffectual, he summoned him to appear in an assembly of his clergy, where, being found obstinate and incorrigible, he was excommunicated, together with his adherents. This sentence of excommunication the saint confirmed soon after, about the end of the year 320, in a council at Alexandria, at the head of near one hundred bishops, at which Arius was also present, who, repeating his former blasphemies, and adding still more horrible ones was unanimously condemned by the synod, which loaded him and all his followers with anathemas. Arius lay hid for some time after this in Alexandria, but being discovered, went into Palestine, and found means to gain over to his party Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, also Theognis of Nice, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, which last was, of all others, his most declared protector, and had great authority with the emperor Constantine, who resided even at Nicomedia, or rather with his sister Constantia. Yet it is clear, from Constantine himself, that he was a wicked, proud, ambitious, intriguing man. It is no wonder, after his other crimes, that he became an heresiarch, and that he should have an ascendant over many weak, but well-meaning men, on account of his high credit and reputation at court. After several letters that had passed between these two serpents, Arius retired to him at Nicomedia, and there composed his Thalia, a poem stuffed with his own praises, and his impious heresies.

Alexander wrote to the pope, St. Sylvester, and, in a circular letter, to the other bishops of the church, giving them an account of Arius’s heresy and condemnation. Arius, Eusebius, and many others, wrote to our saint, begging that he would take off his censures. The emperor Constantine also exhorted him by letter to a reconciliation with Arius, and sent it by the great Osius to Alexandria, with express orders to procure information of the state of the affair. The deputy returned to the emperor better informed of the heresiarch’s impiety and malice, and the zeal, virtue, and prudence of St. Alexander: and having given him a just and faithful account of the matter, convinced him of the necessity of a general council, as the only remedy adequate to the growing evil, and capable of restoring peace to the church. St. Alexander had already sent him the same advice in several letters.* That prince, accordingly, by letters of respect, invited the bishops to Nice, in Bithynia, and defrayed their expenses. They assembled in the imperial palace of Nice, on the 19th of June, in 325, being three hundred and eighteen in number, the most illustrious prelates of the church, among whom were many glorious confessors of the faith. The principal were our saint, St. Eustathius, patriarch of Antioch, St. Macarius of Jerusalem, Cecilian, archbishop of Carthage, St. Paphnutius, St. Potamon, St. Paul of Neocesarea, St. James of Nisibis, &c. St. Sylvester could not come in person, by reason of his great age; but he sent his legates, who presided in his name.† The emperor Constantine entered the council with out guards, nor would he sit till he was desired by the bishops, says Eusebius. Theodoret says,4 that he asked the bishops’ leave before he would enter.

The blasphemies of Arius, who was himself present, were canvassed for several days. Marcellus of Ancyra, and St. Athanasius, whom St. Alexander had brought with him, and whom he treated with the greatest esteem, discovered all the impiety they contained, and confuted the Arians with invincible strength. The heretics, fearing the indignation of the council, used a great deal of dissimulation in admitting the Catholic terms. The fathers, to exclude all their subtleties, declared the Son consubstantial to the Father, which they inserted in the profession of their faith, called the Nicene creed, which was drawn up by Osius, and to which all subscribed, except a small number of Arians. At first they were seventeen, but Eusebius of Cæsarea received the creed the day following, as did all the others except five, namely, Fusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas and Secundus of Lybia, the two bishops who had first joined Arius. Of these also Eusebius, Maris, and Theognis conformed through fear of banishment. The Arian historian Philostorgius pretends to excuse his heroes, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis, by saying they inserted an iota, and signed6 like in substance, instead of of the same substance; a fraud in religion which would no way have excused their hypocrisy. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus, with some Egyptian priests, were banished by the order of Constantine, and lllyricum was the place of their exile. The council received Meletius and his sehismatical adherents upon their repentance; but they afterwards relapsed into their schism, and part of them joined the Arians. The council added twenty canons of discipline, and was closed about the 25th of August.* Constantine gave all the prelates a magnificent entertainment, and dismissed them with great presents to their respective sees. St. Alexander, after this triumph of the faith, returned to Alexandria; where, after having recommended St. Athanasius for his successor, he died in 326, on the 26th of February, on which day he is mentioned in the Roman Martyrology.

A true disciple of Christ, by a sincere spirit of humility and distrust in himself, is, as it were, naturally inclined to submission to all authority appointed by God, in which he finds his peace, security, and joy. This happy disposition of his soul is his secure fence against the illusions of self-sufficiency and blind pride, which easily betrays men into the most fatal errors. On the contrary, pride is a spirit of revolt and independence: he who is possessed with this devil is fond of his own conceits, self-confident, and obstinate. However strong the daylight of evidence may be in itself, such a one will endeavor to shut up all the avenues of light, though some beams force themselves into his soul to disturb his repose, and strike deep the sting of remorse: jealousy and a love of opposition foster the disorder, and render it incurable. This is the true portraiture of Arius, and other heresiarchs and firebrands of the universe. Can we sufficiently detest jealousy and pride, the fatal source of so great evils? Do we not discover, by fatal symptoms, that we ourselves harbor this monster in our breasts? Should the eve be jealous that the ear hears, and disturb the functions of this or the other senses, instead of regarding them as its own and enjoying their mutual advantage and comfort, what confusion would ensue! (Lives of the Fathers)