http://www.dailycatholic.org/12penhay.htm


The charge to go and do in like manner

    Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost

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

    Editor's Note: We continue with this special feature provided by John Gregory with the Haydock Commentary found at the bottom of each page of the Douay-Rheims Bible. With the type so small in most bibles, we publish it here in larger type in conjunction with the Epistle and Gospel for the Sunday Mass, with the cogent comprehensive Catholic Commentary penned by Father George Leo Haydock. For the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost Father brings out the importance of the Good Samaritan parable for it is, as the Fathers and early Doctors of the Church all agree, an allegory of the New Covenant. The victim in dire help is Adam, his posterity is Jerusalem. The man, by heading for Jericho is seeking the world, the flesh and the devil, is accommodated by the demons personified in the robbers, who take grace from him by beating him as he succuмbs to sin. Those who pass by him without helping represent the old Law, while the Samaritan is Christ Who represents the New Law. His beast of burden signifies our Lord's humanity and the inn He brings the man to represents the only Church He founded. The wine for the man is the Blood of Christ, the oil is His mercy. The host of the inn represents St. Peter and his succession of true Popes and Hierarchy.


Epistle: 2 Corinthians 3: 4-9

4 And such confidence we have, through Christ, towards God.

5 Not that we are sufficient to think any thing of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God.

6Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

    Commentary on Verse 5-6 To think any thing of ourselves, that may deserve a reward in heaven. - But Christ hath made us fit ministers of His New Testament by the Spirit: for the letter of the Old Testament killeth, but the Spirit of the New Testament giveth life. (Wi.) - The letter. Not rightly understood, and taken without the spirit. (Ch.) - This verse, (6th) refers to that in the last chapter, where he says: And for these things who is so fit? Who is so capable of such a ministry? It is God alone Who gives us strength, light and grace. I am far from giving a part only to God, and a part to myself. It all exclusively belongs to Him. (Saint John Chrysostom)

7 Now if the ministration of death, engraven with letters upon stones, was glorious; so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which is made void:

    Commentary on Verse 7 Now if the ministration of death: he meaneth the former law, which by giving them a greater knowledge, and not giving graces of itself to fulfill those precepts, occasioned death, was notwithstanding glorious, accompanied with miracles on Mount Sinai, and so that the Israelites, when Moses came down from the mountain, could not bear the glory of his countenance, which he was forced to cover with a veil, when he spoke to them. Shall not the ministration of the Spirit in the new law, which worketh our sanctification and salvation, abound with much greater glory? Especially since the old law was to be made void, and pass away. - Neither was that glorified, or to be esteemed glorious, in comparison of the new law, the blessings of the new so far surpassing those of the old law. (Wi.) - If the law of Moses, written on tables of stone, which was only able to cause death, inasmuch as it gave us light sufficient to know what was right, though it did not give us strength or graces to comply with the obligations imposed by it; if this law, nevertheless, was accompanied with so much glory, that Moses was obliged to put a veil over his face, what must we think of the ministry of the Spirit, and of the glorious duties of the apostleship? How ought our glory to be manifest, and who is fit for such an undertaking. If I thus extol the excellency of my ministry, do not imagine that I attribute any thing to myself. I am unworthy of this office, which so far surpasseth that of Moses, that his glory (v. 10.) could not be truly called glory, when compared with this of ours, which so far excelleth his. (Calmet.) - The letter of the New Testament also, not truly taken or expounded by the Spirit of God, which is in His Church, must in the same manner be said to kill. See Saint Austin, sermon 70 & 100 de tempore. & l. de spirit. & lit. c. 5. 6. & dein.

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather in glory?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more the ministration of justice aboundeth in glory.


Gospel: St. Luke 10: 23-37

23 And turning to His disciples, He said: Blessed are the eyes that see the things which you see.

24 For I say to you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.

25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting Him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?

    Commentary on Verse 25 Eternal life? The law of Moses does not expressly promise eternal life to the observers of it, but confines its promises to temporal blessings during this life. Still we always find that the Jєωs hoped in another life after this. This opinion is clearly observable in the books of Scripture, written both before and after the captivity, and in Josephus and Philo. (Calmet.)

26 But He said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And He said to him: Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he willing to justify himself, said to Jesus: And who is my neighbor?

    Commentary on Verse 29 Neighbor? It appears this was a celebrated controversy among the doctors of the law; some probably affirming, that the Jєωs only were so; while others maintained that their friends alone were their neighbours. (Maldonatus.)

30 And Jesus answering, said: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having wounded him went away, leaving him half dead.

    Commentary on Verse 30 A certain man, & c. This would have to be a history: others rather judge it spoken by way of parable, to teach us to perform offices of charity towards all men without exception. (Wi.) - Were we to adhere to the mere words of this parable, it would seem to follow, that only those who do us good were to be esteemed our neighbours; for the context seems to intimate, that the Levite and the priest were not neighbours to the man who fell among the robbers, because they did not assist him. But according to the opinion of most fathers, the intent of this parable is to shew, that every person who has need of our assistance is our neighbour. (Maldonatus.)

31 And it chanced, that a certain priest went down the same way: and seeing him, passed by.

    Commentary on Verse 31 Our Savior here shows the Jєωιѕн priests how preposterous was their behaviour, who, though scrupulously exact in performing all external acts of religion, entirely neglected piety, mercy, and other more essential duties. The Jєωs despised the Samaritans as wicked and irreligious men; but our Savior here tells them that they were less exact in works of charity towards their neighbours than the very Samaritans. (Tirinus.)

32 In like manner also a Levite, when he was near the place and saw him, passed by.

33 But a certain Samaritan being on his journey, came near him; and seeing him, was moved with compassion.

34 And going up to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine: and setting him upon his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

    Commentary on Verse 34 This is the allegorical meaning of the parable: The man that fell among robbers, represents Adam and his posterity; Jerusalem, the state of peace and innocence, which man leaves by going down to Jericho, which means the moon, the state of trouble and sin: the robbers represent the devil, who stripped him of his supernatural gifts, and wounded him in his natural faculties: the priest and Levite represent the old law: the Samaritan, Christ; and the beast, his humanity. The inn means the Church; wine, the blood of Christ; oil, his mercy; whilst the host signifies Saint Peter and his successors, the bishops and priests of the Church. (Origen, Saint Jerome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and others)

35 And the next day he took out two pence, and gave to the host, and said: Take care of him; and whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee.

36 Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbor to him that fell among the robbers?

37 But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2021.htm#article3

Article 3. Whether a human action is meritorious or demeritorious in so far as it is good or evil?

Objection 1. It would seem that a human action is not meritorious or demeritorious on account of its goodness or malice. For we speak of merit or demerit in relation to retribution, which has no place save in matters relating to another person. But good or evil actions are not all related to another person, for some are related to the person of the agent. Therefore not every good or evil human action is meritorious or demeritorious.

Objection 2. Further, no one deserves punishment or reward for doing as he chooses with that of which he is master: thus if a man destroys what belongs to him, he is not punished, as if he had destroyed what belongs to another. But man is master of his own actions. Therefore a man does not merit punishment or reward, through putting his action to a good or evil purpose.

Objection 3. Further, if a man acquire some good for himself, he does not on that account deserve to be benefited by another man: and the same applies to evil. Now a good action is itself a kind of good and perfection of the agent: while an inordinate action is his evil. Therefore a man does not merit or demerit, from the fact that he does a good or an evil deed.

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10-11): "Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him."

I answer that, We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another's advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. Whereas when a man does that which conduces to his own benefit or disadvantage, then again is retribution owed to him, in so far as this too affects the community, forasmuch as he is a part of society: although retribution is not due to him, in so far as it conduces to the good or harm of an individual, who is identical with the agent: unless, perchance, he owe retribution to himself, by a sort of resemblance, in so far as man is said to be just to himself.

It is therefore evident that a good or evil action deserves praise or blame, in so far as it is in the power of the will: that it is right or sinful, according as it is ordained to the end; and that its merit or demerit depends on the recompense for justice or injustice towards another.

Reply to Objection 1. A man's good or evil actions, although not ordained to the good or evil of another individual, are nevertheless ordained to the good or evil of another, i.e. the community.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is master of his actions; and yet, in so far as he belongs to another, i.e. the community, of which he forms part, he merits or demerits, inasmuch as he disposes his actions well or ill: just as if he were to dispense well or ill other belongings of his, in respect of which he is bound to serve the community.

Reply to Objection 3. This very good or evil, which a man does to himself by his action, redounds to the community, as stated above.