http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/14Apr/eastrsun.htm#haydock

The Rising of the Unleavened Bread

    Those who would revise the scriptures would point to contradictions in the various versions of the Evangelists. But, thanks to St. Austin and St. John Chrysostom, all variables are accounted for and explained quite easily that in truth the inspired authors of the Gospels were most accurate in portraying the events of the day of Resurrection. For indeed, Surrexit Christus.

Comprehensive Catholic Commentary
by
Fr. George Leo Haydock
provided by
John Gregory

        As St. Paul asserts in one of the shortest epistles of the year, the old leaven, meaning the Old Testament, has been fulfilled. The old rites have been superseded by the new rite instituted by the Son of man on Maundy Thursday. Through the new unleavened Bread we receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ our Lord and become heirs of the kingdom of Heaven, Jєω and Gentile alike who abide in Him and all He has taught through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Reason indeed to exclaim with great jubilation: Alleluia, alleluia. For further discernment on this, Fr. Haydock provides more food for thought in his commentary as John shows below.


Epistle: 1 Corinthians 5: 7-8

7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ, our Pasch, is sacrificed.

8 Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

    Commentary on Verse 7 and 8: Purge out the old leaven. He alludes to the precept given to the Jєωs of having no leaven in their houses during the seven days of the Paschal feast. For our Pasch, i.e. Paschal lamb, Christ is sacrificed: and Christians, says St. John Chrysostom, must keep this feast continually, by always abstaining from the leaven of sin. Wi.


Gospel: St. Mark 16: 1-7

1 At that time when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.

    Commentary on Verse 1: Saturday evening, after the sun was set, for the Sabbath began and ended with the setting sun.

2 And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen.

    Commentary on Verse 2: St. Mark says very early, the sun being now risen, whereas St. John tells us that it was yet dark. But when St. Mark says the sun was risen, he means that it began, by its approach to the horizon, to enlighten the heavens, at which time there is still darkness remaining, (according to St. John) which decreases as light approaches the earth. St. Austin.

3 And they said one to another: Who shall roll us back the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4 And looking, they saw the stone rolled back. For it was very great.

5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed with a white robe: and they were astonished.

    Commentary on Verse 5: St. Matthew says the angel was sitting on the stone, whilst St. Mark says that they saw him sitting on the right side of the sepulcher. This must not surprise us; for the angel which first appeared sitting upon the stone, might have been afterwards seen by him sitting on the right side of the sepulcher. Theophy. - Perhaps the angel mentioned by St. Matthew is different from the one mentioned by St. Mark. Or it may be understood, that the women entering the monument, which may mean the enclosure of it, saw the angel sitting on the stone, which was placed on the right side of the sepulcher. St. Austin.

6 Who saith to them: Be not affrighted; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, Who was crucified: He is risen, He is not here, behold the place where they laid Him.

7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, as He told you.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2018.htm#article11

Whether every circuмstance that makes an action better or worse, places a moral action in a species of good or evil?

Objection 1. It would seem that every circuмstance relating to good or evil, specifies an action. For good and evil are specific differences of moral actions. Therefore that which causes a difference in the goodness or malice of a moral action, causes a specific difference, which is the same as to make it differ in species. Now that which makes an action better or worse, makes it differ in goodness and malice. Therefore it causes it to differ in species. Therefore every circuмstance that makes an action better or worse, constitutes a species.

Objection 2. Further, an additional circuмstance either has in itself the character of goodness or malice, or it has not. If not, it cannot make the action better or worse; because what is not good, cannot make a greater good; and what is not evil, cannot make a greater evil. But if it has in itself the character of good or evil, for this very reason it has a certain species of good or evil. Therefore every circuмstance that makes an action better or worse, constitutes a new species of good or evil.

Objection 3. Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "evil is caused by each single defect." Now every circuмstance that increases malice, has a special defect. Therefore every such circuмstance adds a new species of sin. And for the same reason, every circuмstance that increases goodness, seems to add a new species of goodness: just as every unity added to a number makes a new species of number; since the good consists in "number, weight, and measure" (I, 5, 5).

On the contrary, More and less do not change a species. But more and less is a circuмstance of additional goodness or malice. Therefore not every circuмstance that makes a moral action better or worse, places it in a species of good or evil.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 10), a circuмstance gives the species of good or evil to a moral action, in so far as it regards a special order of reason. Now it happens sometimes that a circuмstance does not regard a special order of reason in respect of good or evil, except on the supposition of another previous circuмstance, from which the moral action takes its species of good or evil. Thus to take something in a large or small quantity, does not regard the order of reason in respect of good or evil, except a certain other condition be presupposed, from which the action takes its malice or goodness; for instance, if what is taken belongs to another, which makes the action to be discordant with reason. Wherefore to take what belongs to another in a large or small quantity, does not change the species of the sin. Nevertheless it can aggravate or diminish the sin. The same applies to other evil or good actions. Consequently not every circuмstance that makes a moral action better or worse, changes its species.

Reply to Objection 1. In things which can be more or less intense, the difference of more or less does not change the species: thus by differing in whiteness through being more or less white a thing is not changed in regard to its species of color. In like manner that which makes an action to be more or less good or evil, does not make the action differ in species.

Reply to Objection 2. A circuмstance that aggravates a sin, or adds to the goodness of an action, sometimes has no goodness or malice in itself, but in regard to some other condition of the action, as stated above. Consequently it does not add a new species, but adds to the goodness or malice derived from this other condition of the action.

Reply to Objection 3. A circuмstance does not always involve a distinct defect of its own; sometimes it causes a defect in reference to something else. In like manner a circuмstance does not always add further perfection, except in reference to something else. And, for as much as it does, although it may add to the goodness or malice, it does not always change the species of good or evil.