http://www.dailycatholic.org/13penhay.htm

 The Faith of the Samaritan

    Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Comprehensive Catholic Commentary
by Fr. George Leo Haydock


    Editor's Note: We continue with this special feature 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 Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost Father continues with the Samaritan, this time in respect to the ten lepers and the only one to return and give thanks for his healing by the miracle of Jesus Christ is a Samaritan. Christ exhibits surprise that this Samaritan is the only one left, but the Son of God knewe and it was another manifestation that He had come for all, not just the Jєωs. He conveys this by assuring this man that the faith he had is what healed him, made him whole.


Epistle: Galatians 3: 16-22

16 To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many: but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

    Commentary on Verse 16 And he said to his seed, to one, i.e. in Christ only, not to his seeds, as it were by many. It is observed, that the word seed being a collective signification, may grammatically be taken for the plural as well as for the singular number; so that we are to have more regard to St. Paul's authority, who expounds to us what is here signified by the word seed, than to the word itself.

17 Now this I say, that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years, doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect.

    Commentary on Verse 17The law which was made after four hundred and thirty years (consult the chronologists) does not make void the testament: nor the promise which God himself made to Abraham, that mankind should be blessed only by Christ.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.

21 Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law.

    Commentary on Verse 18-21These blessings could not be by the law of Moses ordained, or delivered by angels in the hand of a mediator, to wit, of Moses, according to the common interpretation, who, in receiving and publishing the law, was as it were a mediator betwixt God and his people. And a mediator is not of one, (but is called so, as mediating betwixt two parties) but God is one. This is to signify, that when He made the covenant or promise to Abraham, He made this promise Himself, and did not make use of a mediator inferior to Himself, as when He gave the law; and the law, in this respect, was inferior to the promise; but the chief difference was, that true justice and sanctification was not given by the law, for so it would have contradicted and have made void the promise made before to Moses[Abraham?], that the blessings of true sanctification should only be by his seed and by faith in Christ, the Son of Abraham and of David. According to the Scriptures all things (i.e. all men) were shut up together under sin, under the slavery of sin, from which they were not to be redeemed but by the accomplishment of the promise, and by the coming of Christ, by his grace, and faith in him. (Witham) Because of transgressions. To restrain them from sin, by fear and threats. --- Ordained by Angels. The law was delivered by Angels, speaking in the name and person of God to Moses, who was the mediator on this occasion between God and the people. (Challoner) --- The law was established not to occasion sin, but to manifest sin, and to punish sin. Ezechiel (xx. 11.) shews the meaning of the apostle, when he says: that God, after bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, imposed laws upon them that gave life to such as observed them. This was the decalogue, published immediately after the passage of the Red Sea; but violating these commandments, they became guilty of idolatry. To punish them, God imposed upon them precepts which are not good, and which give not life. (ver. 24, 25.) This is the ceremonial law, which was established and published by degrees during the forty years the Israelites sojourned in the desert. It is then evident that this law was given to punish transgressions in the Israelites, and to prevent relapses. This is the sense of St. Paul.

22 But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe.

    Commentary on Verse 22 Hath concluded all under sin; i.e. hath declared all to be under sin, from which they could not be delivered but by faith in Jesus Christ, the promised seed. (Challoner) --- The law was not given to all; but all its precepts and prohibitions were binding under sin, and all violators of the law were guilty of sin.


Gospel: St. Luke 17: 11-19

11 At that time, as He was going to Jerusalem, He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.

12 And as He entered into a certain town, there met Him ten men that were lepers, who stood afar off;

13 And lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.

14 Whom when He saw, He said: Go, shew yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were made clean.

    Commentary on Verse 14 To the priests. Jesus sends them to the priests, to convince the latter of the reality of the cures which he wrought, and oblige them by that to acknowledge him for their Messias; 2ndly, that the lepers might enjoy the fruit of their cure, by returning to the society of their fellow men, after they had been declared clean, and satisfied all the demands of the law; for there were may ceremonies previous to be gone through. (Calmet) --- And lastly, to shew that in the new law, such as are defiled with the leprosy of sin, should apply to the priests. Hence, says St. Augustine, let no one despise God's ordinance, saying that it is sufficient to confess to God alone. (Lib. de visit. infirm.)

15 And one of them, when he saw that he was made clean, went back, with a loud voice glorifying God.

16 And he fell on his face before His feet, giving thanks: and this was a Samaritan.

17 And Jesus answering, said, Were not ten made clean? and where are the nine?

18 There is no one found to return and give glory to God, but this stranger?

19 And He said to him: Arise, go thy way; for thy faith hath made thee whole.

    Commentary on Verse 19 Thy faith hath made thee whole. Were not the others also made whole? They were cleansed indeed from their leprosy, but it no where appears that they were justified in their souls like this Samaritan, of whom it said, thy faith hath made thee whole; whereas it was said of the others, that they were made clean, viz. of their leprosy in their body, though not justified in their soul: this the Samaritan alone seems to have obtained. (Maldonatus)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2006.htm#article2

Article 2. Whether there is anything voluntary in irrational animals?

Objection 1. It would seem that there is nothing voluntary in irrational animals. For a thing is called "voluntary" from "voluntas" [will]. Now since the will is in the reason (De Anima iii, 9), it cannot be in irrational animals. Therefore neither is there anything voluntary in them.

Objection 2. Further, according as human acts are voluntary, man is said to be master of his actions. But irrational animals are not masters of their actions; for "they act not; rather are they acted upon," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 27). Therefore there is no such thing as a voluntary act in irrational animals.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. 24) that "voluntary acts lead to praise and blame." But neither praise nor blame is due to the acts of irrational minds. Therefore such acts are not voluntary.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that "both children and irrational animals participate in the voluntary." The same is said by Damascene (De Fide Orth. 24) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xxxii.].

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold; perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative power.

Consequently perfect knowledge of the end leads to the perfect voluntary; inasmuch as, having apprehended the end, a man can, from deliberating about the end and the means thereto, be moved, or not, to gain that end. But imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the imperfect voluntary; inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once. Wherefore the voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature: whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even irrational animals.

Reply to Objection 1. The will is the name of the rational appetite; and consequently it cannot be in things devoid of reason. But the word "voluntary" is derived from "voluntas" [will], and can be extended to those things in which there is some participation of will, by way of likeness thereto. It is thus that voluntary action is attributed to irrational animals, in so far as they are moved to an end, through some kind of knowledge.

Reply to Objection 2. The fact that man is master of his actions, is due to his being able to deliberate about them: for since the deliberating reason is indifferently disposed to opposite things, the will can be inclined to either. But it is not thus that voluntariness is in irrational animals, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 3. Praise and blame are the result of the voluntary act, wherein is the perfect voluntary; such as is not to be found in irrational animals.