http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/15Jul/6pentsun.htm#haydock


If we die to sin we will always be nourished

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

        For the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost we are reminded that through baptism we die to sin and are crucified with Christ, confident in knowing that if we are faithful to Him He will always be faithful to us, and, as St. Mark's Gospel illustrates in the loaves and the fishes, there is no end to His mercy and promises. We will always have nourishment for the soul.


Epistle: Romans 6: 3-11

3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death?

    Commentary on Verse 3 We. . .are baptized in His death. Greek, unto His death. The apostle here alludes to the manner of administering the sacrament of baptism, which was then done by immersion or by plunging the person baptized under the water, in which he finds a resemblance of Christ's death and burial under ground, and of His resurrection to an immortal life. So must we after baptism rise to lead a quite different life: having been also, when we were baptized and made Christians, planted as branches ingrafted in Christ, let us endeavour to bring forth the fruits of a virtuous life. Wi. Old man. . . body of sin. Our corrupt state, subject to sin and concupiscence, coming to us from Adam, is called out old man, as our state, reformed in and by Christ, is called the new man. And the vices and sins which then ruled in us, are named the body of sin. Ch. The old and sinful man we must look upon as crucified with Him, and the body of sin, or our sinful body, destroyed. We must look upon ourselves as dead to sin, and that we must sin no more, as Christ being once risen, dies no more. Wi.

4 For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer.

7 For he that is dead is justified from sin.

    Commentary on Verse 7 He that is dead from sin. Some translate, is freed from sin: this is true; but perhaps it is better to retain the word justified, which is observed to be a law-word used in courts of justice, where to be justified is to be acquitted, so that a man cannot be questioned again on that account; and so are sinners, when their sins are forgiven. W.

8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ:

9 Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him.

10 For in that He died to sin, He died once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God:

    Commentary on Verse 10 For in that He died to sin.? But the sense must be for sins, or to destroy other men?s sins, He Himself being incapable of sinning. W.

11 So do you also reckon, that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Gospel: St. Mark 8: 1-9

1 At that time, when there was a great multitude, and had nothing to eat; calling His disciples together, He saith to them:

2 I have compassion on the multitude, for behold they have now been with Me three days, and have nothing to eat.

3 And if I shall send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way; for some of them came from afar off.

4 And His disciples answered Him: From whence can any one fill them here with bread in the wilderness?

5 And He asked them: How many loaves have ye? Who said: Seven.

6 6 And taking the seven loaves, giving thanks, He broke, and gave to His disciples for to set before them; and they set them before the people.

7 And they had a few little fishes; and He blessed them, and commanded them to be set before them.

8 And they did eat and were filled; and they took up that which was left of the fragments, seven baskets.

    Commentary on Verse 8 After the multitude had eaten and were filled, they did not take the remains; but these the disciples collected, as in the former miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. By this circuмstance we are taught to be content with what is sufficient, and to seek no unnecessary supplies. We may likewise learn from this stupendous miracle the providence of God and His goodness, Who sends us not away fasting, but wishes all to be nourished and enriched with his grace. Theop. Thus does our Lord verify in His works what He has promised in His instructions; that if we will seek in the first instance the kingdom of God and His justice, that all necessary things shall be added unto us. By the gathering up of the fragments that remained, He not only made the miracle more striking to the multitude and to the apostles, but has also left us a practical lesson, how, in the midst of plenty, which proceeds from the munificence of Heaven, we must suffer no waste. H.

9 And they that had eaten were about four thousand; and He sent them away.

    Commentary on Verse 9 St. Matthew 15: 38 adds, without counting either the women or the children.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2020.htm#article3

Article 3. Whether the goodness and malice of the external action are the same as those of the interior act?

Objection 1. It would seem that the goodness and malice of the interior act of the will are not the same as those of the external action. For the principle of the interior act is the interior apprehensive or appetitive power of the soul; whereas the principle of the external action is the power that accomplishes the movement. Now where the principles of action are different, the actions themselves are different. Moreover, it is the action which is the subject of goodness or malice: and the same accident cannot be in different subjects. Therefore the goodness of the interior act cannot be the same as that of the external action.

Objection 2. Further, "A virtue makes that, which has it, good, and renders its action good also" (Ethic. ii, 6). But the intellective virtue in the commanding power is distinct from the moral virtue in the power commanded, as is declared in Ethic. i, 13. Therefore the goodness of the interior act, which belongs to the commanding power, is distinct from the goodness of the external action, which belongs to the power commanded.

Objection 3. Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect; since nothing is its own cause. But the goodness of the interior act is the cause of the goodness of the external action, or vice versa, as stated above (1,2). Therefore it is not the same goodness in each.

On the contrary, It was shown above (Question 18, Article 6) that the act of the will is the form, as it were, of the external action. Now that which results from the material and formal element is one thing. Therefore there is but one goodness of the internal and external act.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 17, Article 4), the interior act of the will, and the external action, considered morally, are one act. Now it happens sometimes that one and the same individual act has several aspects of goodness or malice, and sometimes that it has but one. Hence we must say that sometimes the goodness or malice of the interior act is the same as that of the external action, and sometimes not. For as we have already said (1,2), these two goodnesses or malices, of the internal and external acts, are ordained to one another. Now it may happen, in things that are subordinate to something else, that a thing is good merely from being subordinate; thus a bitter draught is good merely because it procures health. Wherefore there are not two goodnesses, one the goodness of health, and the other the goodness of the draught; but one and the same. On the other hand it happens sometimes that that which is subordinate to something else, has some aspect of goodness in itself, besides the fact of its being subordinate to some other good: thus a palatable medicine can be considered in the light of a pleasurable good, besides being conducive to health.

We must therefore say that when the external action derives goodness or malice from its relation to the end only, then there is but one and the same goodness of the act of the will which of itself regards the end, and of the external action, which regards the end through the medium of the act of the will. But when the external action has goodness or malice of itself, i.e. in regard to its matter and circuмstances, then the goodness of the external action is distinct from the goodness of the will in regarding the end; yet so that the goodness of the end passes into the external action, and the goodness of the matter and circuмstances passes into the act of the will, as stated above (1,2).

Reply to Objection 1. This argument proves that the internal and external actions are different in the physical order: yet distinct as they are in that respect, they combine to form one thing in the moral order, as stated above (Question 17, Article 4).

Reply to Objection 2. As stated in Ethic. vi, 12, a moral virtue is ordained to the act of that virtue, which act is the end, as it were, of that virtue; whereas prudence, which is in the reason, is ordained to things directed to the end. For this reason various virtues are necessary. But right reason in regard to the very end of a virtue has no other goodness than the goodness of that virtue, in so far as the goodness of the reason is participated in each virtue.

Reply to Objection 3. When a thing is derived by one thing from another, as from a univocal efficient cause, then it is not the same in both: thus when a hot thing heats, the heat of the heater is distinct from the heat of the thing heated, although it be the same specifically. But when a thing is derived from one thing from another, according to analogy or proportion, then it is one and the same in both: thus the healthiness which is in medicine or urine is derived from the healthiness of the animal's body; nor is health as applied to urine and medicine, distinct from health as applied to the body of an animal, of which health medicine is the cause, and urine the sign. It is in this way that the goodness of the external action is derived from the goodness of the will, and vice versa; viz. according to the order of one to the other.