Bernardin de Piconio’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:20-32 for Holy Thursday (Extraordinary Form)

This post includes comments on verses 33 and 34 as well. Other resources for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms for Holy Thursday (and the entire Holy Week, including the Paschal Triduum) can be found here.For those who don’t know what the Paschal (or Easter) Triduum is, see here.

20. When therefore you assemble together, now it is not to eat the Supper of the Lord.
21. For each one takes first his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry, and another is drunk.
22. Have you not houses for eating and drinking? Or do you despise the Church of God? And put to shame those who have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise not.

(vss 20-21) It would appear that in the days of the Apostles Christian people assembled in the Church early on the Sunday, or other festival days, to receive Holy Communion together; and Saint Paul himself, as is supposed, had instituted at Corinth the feast of charity, or Agape, principally on account of the poor, that they might all eat together, and the poor receive of the superfluities of the rich. Saint Chrysostom, who is followed by Baronius, thinks the Agape followed the communion; Saint Augustine that it preceded it (probably being held before midnight), and this opinion agrees best with the argument of the Apostle in the verses following. The custom quickly degenerated. The rich brought their own provisions, but consumed them without sharing them with their poorer neighbours; and often took more than was good for them; while the poor were not only put to shame, and suffered hunger, but had to look on while others feasted, and they starved.

The Agape was called the Supper of the Lord, in imitation of the Last Supper, at which Christ instituted the Eucharist. The term Supper of the Lord is never applied to the holy Eucharist, by any Christian writer whatever, until heretics in modern times used this phraseology.

(vs 22) Do you despise the Church of God? If you must eat and drink to excess, do so at home, where your doing it would at any rate not occasion scandal or pain to others. Or do you mean deliberately to show contempt to the Church of God? Under which term both the building and those who assembled in it are included. Or do you do it, on purpose to put the poor, qui non habent, to shame? In this I cannot praise you; on the contrary, you are worthy of the severest blame. Now, under these changed conditions, it is not a Supper of the Lord.

11:23.  For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night he was delivered up, took bread.
11:24.  And giving thanks he broke, and said: Take and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered up for you: do this in my commemoration.
11:25.  Likewise also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: do this as often as you shall drink, in my commemoration.
11:26.  For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you will announce the death of the Lord until he comes.

I praised you for observing the commands I gave to you by word of mouth; but sine in regard to this you have failed to remember them, it is necessary for  me to repeat them in writing.  I received (vs 23), by direct communication and revelation from Christ, not from any human teaching.  It is to be observed that it was only by accident that the Apostle wrote this down.  Had the Corinthians remembered what he said, he would in all probability not have written it.  Not only the written words, but the oral traditions, of the Apostles, are to be observed.

Saint Peter, as a fourth Evangelist, records the words of God the Father, This is my beloved son, rehearsed in three Gospels, 2 Pet. 1:17.  Here Saint Paul, as a fourth Evangelist, gives the words of Christ, which are also given by St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke.

In the night he was delivered up to death, he took bread.  Wheat bread, and unleavened, for the seven days of unleavened bread had begun that evening.  By a misunderstanding of John 18:28, the Greeks consider that Christ suffered before the Pasch began, and they accordingly use leavened bread.

(vs 24) Giving thanks.  To God the Father.  From this action is derived the term Eucharist.  The canon of the Mass adds: and lifting up his eyes to heaven, which he frequently did on similar occasions, (Matt 19:19; John 11:41.   Further, he blessed as in St Matthew and St Mark.  Thanksgiving has regard to God, blessing to the creature on which his benediction is implored.

He broke, into twelve portions, and distributing said, by words instantly operative and effectual of what they expressed.  The operative word of Christ is of two kinds.  One is imperative: be cleansed, rise, look up, Lazarus, come forth.  The other affirmative, and present: Thy son liveth; woman, thou art loosed from thy infirmity.  Of this latter kind are the words here used, Hoc est corpus meum.

Take and eat.  Take in the hands.  It was the ancient custom to receive the holy Eucharist in the hands, not as now in the mouth from the hand of the priest.

This is my body.  The Greek has τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα, in a somewhat different order of the words.  The Syriac or Hebrew language (i.e., Aramaic), which Christ spoke, has no substantive verb, and there is no doubt the words he used were only this my body.  See Cornelius a Lapide.  Hoc is most probably the predicate: my body is this.  Similarly, my blood is this chalice, or what is contained in this chalice.

Which shall be delivered up for you.  The Greek and Syriac both read: Which is being broken for you.  Broken, in the species of bread.  The body of our Lord was not otherwise broken (John 19:36. See my note at the end of this paragraph).  by the words do this, Christ conferred upon the Apostles the power of consecrating, or else he would have been enjoining upon them that which was impossible.  for a memorial of me.  Recalling the affection with which I delivered myself up to death for you.

Note: On the basis of manuscript evidence the word “broken” is considered by modern scholars as a scribal insertion (see Raymond F. Collins, FIRST CORINTHIANS, page 432).  Even if original it need not necessarily be seen as a contradiction of John 19:36, for “broken” could be a metaphor for death, i.e., separated from life.  See the image of the olive tree in Romans 11:17-24.

(vs 25) Likewise also the chalice, after he had supped.  Our Lord had first of all, with the Apostles, eaten the paschal lamb, standing, girded, and with a staff in his hands, according to the ritual in Exodus 12:11.  (See my note at end of paragraph).  Then he sat down, or according to the custom of those times, lay down, on a couch, to the ordinary supper.  Then rising, he washed the feet of this disciples; and afterwards lay down again, for the institution and distribution of the most holy Eucharist.  After this he delivered the morsel he had dipped to Judas; so that the remains of the supper must have been at that time still on the table.  Lastly, after speaking a long time, he rose, saying, Rise, let us go.  The supper referred to in the text is the ordinary one.

Note: In light of Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, it seems unlikely that the Passover was celebrated according to the rubrics of Exodus 12:11.  First century Jews had adopted the custom of reclining at the Passover, for in their day this was the mark of a free man; slave ate meals standing, and the Passover was a feast of liberation (see Protestant scholar Robert Gundry, MARK: A COMMENTARY ON HIS APOLOGY FOR THE CROSS, page 827).

The new testament in my blood.  The authentic copy of the new covenant between God and man, sealed with my blood.  The reference to the document is figurative, but the blood is real; for he does not say signed with that which represents my blood, but in my blood.  Do this, as often as you drink.  The command, here, as in the last verse, is addressed to the Apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, as explained by the Council of Trent, Session II, cahpter 1.  Do what I have done.

In commemoration of me.  this memory is in no way inconsistent with the real presence of Christ.  Christ is in this Sacrament his own memorial, as in heaven, bearing the stigma of his wounds, he is himself the memorial of his own passion.  The time, the circumstances of the speaker, the quality of the action, the nature of the action, the actor’s intention, power, the very words he used, all compel us to place a literal interpretation on those words, implying the real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The time: the night before he died.  No one uses tropes and figures at such a moment.

The condition: a loving father, about to die, makes his last will.  clearness and simplicity are always needed in such a case, and no wise man would use figures of speech, speaking of a precious jewel, when he meant the picture of one.

The quality of the act: the Mediator between God and man, making an everlasting covenant to subsist while the world stands, would not use language of metaphor and poetry.

The action itself: ambiguity and equivocation would have been most perilous in the institution of a sacrament and sacrifice of such august dignity, destined to last to the end of the world.

the will and intention: loving his children most ardently, and desirous to give the greatest good in his power.  He loved them to the end.

The power: Knowing that he came out from God, and to God returns, that the Father had given all things into his hands, and he can do all he will.

the words used, are simple and clear, in accordance with these considerations.  Simple, as the words of a loving father, addressing his children before he died: of a faithful mediator, contracting an eternal covenant, of a Supreme Pontiff, a fountain of truth, detesting all false dogma: of a true, zealous, most powerful savior of the race of man, conferring upon them the highest and greatest of all possible or imaginable goods.

My body, which shall be delivered up to death for you.  the body was delivered up to death, not in figure, it was his body of which he spoke.

My blood, which shall be shed.  In reality, not in figure, on the cross.  The blood of the Old Testament was real: so that of the New.  but this is no figure: in a few hours it was terribly fulfilled.

What man could dare to stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and say he did not believe a statement so clear as this?  What Christian, believing it, even if deceived, would not be able to say, if I am deceived, thou hast deceived me, who art truth itself?

(vs 26) You will announce the death of the Lord. The apostle has just called attention to Christ’s institution of the holy Eucharist on the might before his passion, and with direct reference to that event.  The Corinthian Christians had perhaps not sufficiently considered it in that light, as a commemoration, and proclamation of Christ’s death.  You will announce.  The word used in Greek might be either in the present indicative, you announce, or the imperative, announce ye.  The Eucharist represents the death of Christ by the mystical separation of his blood from his body, which is effected by the words of consecration; and which further takes place by the eating of the sacred body, as separated from the blood, and the drinking the precious blood as poured forth and separate from the body.  In either species there is the representation of the death of the Lord, but most perfectly in both together.  And this commemoration of the sacrifice and death of Christ is to continue till he come.

27. Therefore whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

He who communicates unworthily is equally guilty, as if he crucified Christ, and shed his blood. To receive conscious of mortal sin, or half drunk, or in strife, or without feeling for the poor, would render the offender guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord separately, that is, of their separation, and consequently of the death of Christ. He sins in proportion like Judas and the Jews, betrays like Judas, mocks like the Jews. Theodoret. The Apostle would certainly not have used this language of a piece of bread. Catholics reasonably infer 1. That the real body and real blood of Christ are in the Sacrament. 2. That they are really received, even by the wicked. 3. That both are received under each species, because Saint Paul says or drink, v. 27.

28. And let man prove himself: and so eat of that bread, and drink from the chalice.

Let man prove himself, with a view to sacramental confession, if he should be in mortal sin. However highly you may think of yourself, you are man, and all mortal men are liable to sin. Sancta Sanctis was the proclamation made in the ancient liturgies.

29. For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself: not judging the body of the Lord.
30. Therefore among y0u many are infirm and weak, and many sleep.
31. But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32. And when we are judged, we are corrected by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with this world.

Eats and drinks judgment. That is, a temporal judgment. The Greek is κριμα. Damnation is κατακριμα. Judgment and condemnation are not the same thing. (vs 30) Saint Anselm says that even in his time many persons were visited with sickness after making their Easter communion, because they had received the body of the Lord unworthily. Many of the Corinthians were similarly visited, and some of them with death, like Ananias and Sapphira.  (vs 31-32) If we would confess and do penance, we should not incur God’s judgment. But the temporal judgment is not for damnation; on the contrary, it is sent that we may not be condemned with the world. 

33. Therefore, my brethren, when you meet to eat, wait for one another.
34. If any one is hungry, let him eat at home: that you assemble not for judgment. And the rest I will arrange when I come.

(vs 33) When you meet to eat. The Apostle here reverts to the Agape, or feast of charity, or Supper of the Lord, customary at Corinth. Let it be, what was intended, charity towards the poor. (vs 34) If any rich man is hungry, and cannot fast till evening, let him eat at home, and impart to the poor his contribution toward the Agape; and let not the observance be degraded by luxury and revelling, which, in view of the solemn act of religion in which you are about to engage, are likely to bring down upon you a judgment from God. The other matters which you have referred to me, I will determine when I come.

Father Callan’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:20-32 for Holy Thursday (Extraordinary Form)

The Epistle Reading for Holy Thursday in the Extraordinary Form of the Rite is 1 Cor 11:20-32, but this post includes comments on verses 17-34. In addition, I’ve also included Father Callan’s summary of the passage (with the notes following). Other resources for Holy Thursday (and the entire Holy Week, including the Paschal Triduum) can be found here. For those who don’t know what the Paschal (or Easter) Triduum is, see here.

THE APOSTLE CONDEMNS THE ABUSES AT CORINTH THAT WERE CONNECTED WITH THE LOVE-FEASTS AND WITH THE CELEBRATION
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 1 Cor 11:17-34.

A Summary of 1 Cor 11:17-34~Besides the abuse of women’s appearing at the religious assemblies of the faithful in Corinth with uncovered head, there were others of a far more serious nature, namely, those in connection with the love-feasts and with the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.

In imitation of our Lord, who instituted the Holy Eucharist in the evening, after the eating of the Paschal Supper, it seems that the early Christians also, at least in Corinth, held the Eucharistic celebration in the evening and accompanied it by a common supper or feast which, because it was intended to strengthen the bond of charity among the faithful, was called the Agape, or love-feast. The necessaries of this supper or love-feast were contributed by those who could afford to bring something with them, and especially by the rich, who thus came to the assistance of the poor. Soon, however, abuses crept in. The poor were crowded out or prevented from getting their share of the supper, some drank to excess, and divisions and animosities were excited among the brethren. Naturally all this was a bad preparation for, and a great irreverence towards, the Eucharistic celebration which in Corinth at this time appears to have followed the common supper.

St. Paul, therefore, in this section of the present chapter sternly reproves the Corinthian abuses in connection with the love-feasts (verses 17-22); he recalls the fact and purpose of the institution of the Holy Eucharist (verses 23-26); he shows what preparation is required of him who would partake of this great Sacrament (verses 27-29); arguing from effects he points out that due preparation has been wanting in many of the Corinthian faithful (verses 30-32); and finally, he lays down some practical rules to be observed at the love-feasts (verses 33, 34).

It is to be noted here that what has just been said, as well as what will be further said in the following verses with regard to the common meal which the faithful of Corinth were accustomed to take before the Eucharistic celebration when St. Paul wrote the present letter, refers, according to the opinion universally accepted, to the Agape. This traditional view of the Agape as a Christian feast is mainly traceable to what St. Paul says in the verses that follow. But Msgr. Batiffol (Dict, de Theol. Cath., tom. I, col. 551-556) takes a very different view of the question. He holds that there is no trace of the Agape, as we here understand it, either in this Epistle or anywhere else, before the end of the second century, and that St. Paul in the following verses is condemning at most an attempt on the part of the Corinthians to introduce a common meal along with the Eucharistic celebration.

In trying to prove his opinion, however, we feel that Msgr. Batiffol has not done justice to the present passage of St. Paul. His analysis of the text almost entirely overlooks the force of verses 21 and 33, which, we believe, are nearly unintelligible, short of the explanation commonly given of the Agape. Having just condemned (verse 19) the dissensions among the Christians when they came together, the Apostle says in verses 20, 21: “When therefore you come together to the same place it is not to eat the Lord’s supper (implying that previously it was otherwise); for at the repast each one first takes (προλαμβανει) his own supper, and one is hungry, while another is overindulged.” And then, after showing what an injury such actions are to the poor, and in particular what a bad preparation they make for the Eucharistic celebration which was supposed to follow, the Apostle concludes his instructions by saying in verse 33, “Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together for the repast, wait for one another.”

It seems plain from these verses that St. Paul is not imposing a fast on the faithful before Communion. He is taking it for granted that the common meal before the celebration of the Eucharist is according to existing custom in Corinth, and therefore legitimate; but what he is condemning is the uncharitable and unbecoming manner in which this meal came to be held. In verse 21 he is complaining of the private, individual taking of this meal, with the result that some are overindulged while others are deprived; and in verse 33 he points out that these abuses can be corrected, not by giving up the practice of the common meal, but by waiting for one another. What meaning would these two verses convey if at Corinth there were no such thing as a common meal accompanying the Eucharistic celebration, or if St. Paul were resisting any attempt to establish such a custom?

In view of these remarks we see no sufficient reason for departing from the traditional explanation of the present passage.

Notes:

17. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse.

Now this, namely, what I have just said about women veiling their heads in church. Such is the reference of “this,” according to the best interpreters (St. Aug., St. Thomas, Corn., etc.); and the best reading of the verse is as follows : “Now commanding this (concerning women covering their heads) I do not praise (what I am going to speak about) that you come together not unto the better, but unto the worse.”

Not praising you, etc., i.e., I do not praise you for the abuses that take place in your religious assemblies.

The first “you” in this verse ought to be omitted.

18. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it.

First. The Apostle begins with the first more serious abuse, which is in connection with the love-feast; the second grave abuse he begins to discuss in 12:1.

I hear, etc., i.e., he learned it through the letter he had received.

In the church. Literally, “In church,” i.e., in your religious assemblies, whether these took place in a building set apart for the purpose, or not. Most likely the Corinthians had no special buildings at so early a date which they called churches. In fact, it was very probably only about the third century that the name church was given to any building.

There are schisms, etc., i.e., divisions and dissensions. Schisms in a strict sense are not thought of here; neither are the various factions of the first part of the Epistle in question.

In ecclesiam of the Vulgate should be in ecclesia.

19. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

St. Paul says that he is prepared to believe the report that there are divisions among the Corinthians at their religious meetings, because he knows, from his acquaintance with human weakness and perversity, that even heresies, i.e., pertinacious denials of doctrine and ruptures in faith and with the authority of the Church, must also arise. If it is necessary (Matt 18:7; Luke 17:1) that these more serious divisions should occur, it is not wonderful that among the faithful there shoufd be divisions and misunderstandings, bad as these latter also are. The Apostle is speaking in general about heresies, and does not mean that any actually existed at Corinth.

Some authors (MacR., Rick., etc.) hold that “heresies” here means nothing more than sects or factions, since the Greek term, here used occurs in eight other places of the New Testament (Acts 5:17; xv. 5; 26:5; 24:5, 14; 28:22; Gal 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1), and in six of these it means sect.

That they also, etc. “Also” should be omitted. The meaning is that God permits heresies in order to test and purify the faith of true Christians, as gold is tried, but not consumed by fire.

The second et of the Vulgate should be away.

20. When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.

It is not now, etc. Some say the meaning is: It is not possible or lawful to eat the Lord’s Supper. But more probably the Apostle means that, while the Corinthians ostensibly came together for the purpose of showing mutual charity and celebrating the Holy Eucharist, their conduct was such that they violated the whole spirit of the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s supper doubtless embraces both the Agape (verses 21, 33) and the Eucharistic celebration (verse 23). It was a reproduction of our Lord’s Last Supper, which consisted of the Paschal Supper and the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Was it the common practice at that time to partake of the love-feast before receiving Holy Communion? A definite answer to this question cannot be given. According to St. Chrysostom the offering and reception of the Eucharist preceded the Agape; according to others the reverse order was observed. It seems certain that at this early date there was no definite practice in the matter. For from Acts 2:46; 20:11 it appears that the “breaking of bread,” i.e., the celebration of the Eucharist, occurred before the common meal ; while from the present passage of St. Paul it is clear that, at Corinth at least, the same order was observed which our Lord made use of at the Last Supper (Cornely).

After some years, it appears, the love-feast was separated from the Eucharistic celebration, perhaps on account of abuses such as St. Paul is here condemning. The Eucharist was then celebrated in the morning. This was the case in Bithynia in the early part of the second century (Plin., Ep. 96 ad Trajan.). In the middle of the second century Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 67) describes the Eucharistic feast, but is silent about the Agape. Tertullian (De Corona, c. 3) speaks of the Eucharist as celebrated before daylight. The same author in describing the Agape, makes no reference to the Eucharist (Apol. 39).

When the general practice of fasting before receiving Holy Communion began we cannot determine with certainty. St. Aug. (Ep. cxviii., ad Januar.) thought it came down from the Apostles. But if this were so, it would be difficult to explain the contrary custom at Corinth in St. Paul’s time and also the ruling of the 29th canon of the Third Council of Carthage (a.d. 397): Ut sacramenta altaris nonnisi a jejunis hominibus celebretur, excepto uno die anniversario, quo cena Domini celebratur. Sozomen, the historian, says there was no obligation in Egypt in the fifth century to receive Holy Communion fasting. Cf. MacR., h. 1.

21. For every one taketh before his own supper to eat And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.

That the religious celebrations of the Corinthians had become unlike the Lord’s Last Supper, which they were supposed to reproduce, was evident from the way the faithful in their religious assemblies conducted themselves. Those who could afford it brought food and drink for the common meal, as was the proper custom, but they did not have a common meal of which all partook.

For every one, etc. Literally, “For in the eating every one taketh first his own,” etc., i.e., all those who brought provisions ate them in private, and before all had assembled or distribution could be made, with the result that the poor were left hungry. And the rich, instead of helping to feed the poor, gave themselves to excessive drinking. It seems that the members of those cliques spoken of in verse 18 used to share their provisions together to the exclusion of those who belonged to a different clique, some of whom had no provisions.

Is drunk (μεθυει) is softened down by some commentators to signify something short of actual intoxication.

22. What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye
the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.

Indignant over these abuses the Apostle asks the Corinthians if they had not their own homes in which to hold their banquets without injury to the poor.

Despise ye the church of God, etc., i.e., do you despise the assembly of the faithful which is composed of rich and poor, all of whom are equal before God? It is an injury to the poor to exclude them as unworthy from a part in the common meal at the religious assemblies, and thus put them to shame by making more conspicuous their poverty. For such actions the Apostle cannot but blame those who are guilty.

Do I praise you? Better, “Shall I praise you?”

23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
24. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.

St. Paul could not praise the Corinthians for their conduct at the Eucharistic celebration; for their behavior there was a gross profanation of a sacred banquet solemnly instituted by Christ Himself. In order that they may the better understand the gravity of their actions he starts here to recall to their minds what he had taught them when founding the Church at Corinth.

For I have received, etc (ver 23). It is not entirely clear whether St. Paul received from the Lord what follows by direct revelation or through others. But the emphatic use of the pronoun (εγω γαρ = ego gar), together with what he says in 9:1 and in Gal 1:12, makes it almost certain that what he is about to say was vouchsafed to him from the Lord’s own lips, perhaps during his three years’ stay in Arabia (Gal 1:17). He does not say “from the disciples of the Lord,” but “from the Lord” (απο του κυριου = apo to Kurios).

Which also I delivered unto you. (ver 23) He had made known to the Corinthians very exactly what had been revealed to him concerning the Blessed Eucharist. St. Paul’s account agrees very closely with that given by his disciple St. Luke (Luke 22:19, 20), who had learned of this great event directly from the Apostle himself.

That the Lord Jesus, the same night, etc. (ver 23) St. Paul gives this circumstance to show the intimate connection between the Eucharist and the Passion of our Lord, and to set out more in relief the enormous ingratitude and irreverence of the Corinthians who dared to celebrate the august mysteries with so much laxity and neglect.

Took bread, etc., (ver 23) as recorded also in Matt 26:2-29; Mark 14:17-25; Luke 22:10-20.

Giving thanks (ευχαριστησας~ from the Greek εὐχαριστέω = eucharisteō) (ver 24). The same expression is found in St. Luke’s account of the Last Supper (Luke 22:19), and is equivalent to the “blessing” (ευλογησας) of Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22. The blessing contained thanksgiving for that which was blessed (Westm. Ver.), and hence our Lord both gave thanks and blessed the bread before the consecration.

Broke (ver 24). Estius and others say the breaking of the bread was only after the consecration, as in the Mass. Some hold there were two breakings, one into larger pieces before the consecration, and one into smaller pieces afterwards.

The words take ye, and eat are not in any of the best MSS., and are omitted by the Fathers and many of the oldest versions. They were most likely inserted here by a copyist from Matt 26:26. Likewise the words shall be delivered (Vulg. tradetur), having only the Vulgate and Syriac versions with Theodoret in their favor, must be omitted. Somewhat better supported, but still insufficiently so is another reading, “which is broken for you,” (Greek: klasmenon,  E F G K L P, Rec, Peshitto, and some copies of the Old Latin). Two Greek-Latin MSS. (Codex Claromontanus of the 6th cent., and the Codex Sangermanensis of the 9th cent.) render klasmenon here by frangitur.

The best reading, therefore, of this passage in the four oldest and best MSS. is: “This is my body, which is for you” (τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων). The words, which is for you, i.e., which is given for you, taken in conjunction with the clearer words used with the chalice, point unmistakably to the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration at the Last Supper.

This do for the commemoration of me (ver 24).  On this passage the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. can. 2) says: “If anyone say that by the words, ‘This do in remembrance of me” Christ did not constitute His Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema.”

25. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

In like manner, etc. As He had done for the bread, so immediately afterwards He did for the chalice, i.e., He took it, gave thanks to the Father, blessed it, etc.

After he had supped, i.e., after the Paschal supper was in the main over. St. Luke speaks to the same effect, “after he had supped” (Luke 22:20). St. Matthew says, “While they were at supper” (Matt 26:26); and St. Mark has, “Whilst they were eating” (Mark 14:22). The expression, μετα το δειπνησα (after he supped, or dined), which occurs only in St. Paul and in St. Luke, was perhaps added to render more definite the vague indication of time conveyed by the εσθιοντων δε αυτων (as they were eating) of Sts. Matt, and Mark (Cornely). Taking together all four accounts we can plainly see that the institution of the Blessed Eucharist took place while our Lord and the disciples were still at the supper table, but towards the end of the meal. Very probably the fourth cup of wine, which legally terminated the Jewish Paschal supper, was the one consecrated by the Saviour.

This chalice, etc., i.e., the contents of this chalice is “my blood,” as directly stated in Matt 26:28, and in Mark 14:24: “This is my blood.”

The new testament in my blood, i.e., the contents of this chalice is the seal or ratification of the New Covenant through my blood. The reference is clearly to the words of Moses (Exod 24:8) who, after he had read the book of the covenant and the people had promised to observe it, sprinkled them with sacrificial blood saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you.” In like manner Christ’s sacrificial blood, which the disciples drank, is the seal of the New Covenant. As in the case of Moses there was present real sacrificial blood which had been offered in sacrifice, so at the Last Supper there was present real blood—the blood of Christ, which was being offered in sacrifice for the sins of the world (Heb 8:8; Jer 31:31-34).

This do ye . . . for the commemoration of me. These words, in connection with the chalice, are found only in St. Paul. They emphasize the commission given to the Apostles and show the purpose of the Eucharistic celebration.

This, i.e., the whole action which Christ had just performed in changing bread and wine into His body and blood and in giving the sacred species to others for their spiritual nourishment, this the Apostles and their successors were to repeat and continue till the Second Coming of the Lord at the end of the world, as St. Paul indicates in the following verse.

26. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come,

The Apostle now shows what the celebration of the Eucharistic banquet was intended to commemorate or recall. The words eat, drink, and shew are all in the present tense in the original.

You shall shew the death of the Lord. The Eucharist is the commemorative sacrifice of the death of Christ, and this death is mystically signified by the separate consecrations of the two distinct elements of bread and wine.

Until he come, i.e., until Christ comes at the end of the world. This proves that the Eucharistic sacrifice is to be continued till the end of time, and, since sacrifice requires a priest, it also proves that our Lord ordained the Apostles priests at the Last Supper, and at the same time empowered them to provide their successors to the end.

27. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

From the real presence of Christ’s body and blood under the Eucharistic species St. Paul deduces the momentous conclusion that whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice, i.e., any one who receives our Lord’s body and blood under either species unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord, i.e., shall be guilty of an outrage, grave or slight, according to his condition, against the flesh and blood of Christ. It is a proof of the total presence of Christ under either species that the Apostle says whosoever shall eat, or drink, etc. (η πινη, with B א A C D E F G, Vulg., Peshitto, etc.), shall be guilty of both the body and the blood of the Lord. “Many Protestant translators, including those of the A. V., have evaded the force of the or, from a fear lest they should thereby be countenancing the denial of the Cup to the laity” (Lias).

Further, it is a proof of our Lord’s Real Presence in the Eucharist that St. Paul says the unworthy communicant is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. How could these words be true if the Eucharist were only a figure or a sign of Christ’s flesh and blood? Who would say that to show irreverence, however great, to a king’s picture or statue would make the offender guilty of the body and blood of the king? Such language would be ridiculous in its absurdity.

28. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

In order to avoid an unworthy Communion the Apostle now says, let a man prove himself, i.e., let each one before communicating carefully examine his conscience to see whether he is in proper spiritual condition to receive so great a Sacrament. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII. cap. 7) says on this subject: “The custom of the Church declares that such proving is necessary, as that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may think himself, ought to approach the Holy Eucharist without previous sacramental confession.”

That bread should be “the bread”; in the Vulgate illo should be omitted.

29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

This verse brings out still more clearly the thought of verse 27. The words unworthily and of the Lord are not in the four oldest MSS.; but they are found in D E F G, Vulg., Peshitto, which, together with the sense of the verse in itself and from the context, make the meaning clear: He that eateth and drinketh without distinguishing the body (from other food), eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. The implication here, as in verse 27, seems to be that the unworthy, or non-discerning communicant, is guilty of mortal sin, although one guilty of lesser sins would also be liable to judgment, i.e., to chastisement, if he did not duly prepare himself before receiving Holy Communion.

In the Vulgate indigne and Domini should probably be omitted.

30. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Therefore, i.e., because you Corinthians have not communicated
with devout dispositions you have been visited with many afflictions, such as sickness, death, and the like. Many of you are infirm (ασθενεις literally strengthless), i.e., ill, and weak (αρρωστο), i.e., in poor physical condition, and many sleep, (κοιμωνται), i.e., many of you have been taken away by premature death. The word employed for “sleep” here is used to signify the death of those who are finally saved in ten other places of the New Testament. These temporal chastisements visited for unworthy Communions on those who had died in the Lord could mean that the unworthiness was due only to venial sins, or to mortal sins and sacrilegious Communions which had been repented of before death.

31. But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Here the Apostle tells the Corinthians that if they would be more careful to examine and purify their consciences before Communion and do penance for their past sins they would not be visited with so many temporal sufferings and punishments. He includes himself in the first person plural to soften the rebuke he is giving the faithful.

32. But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.

32. A word of consolation is added now. St. Paul tells the faithful that if the Lord chastises them in the present life for their sins of irreverence toward the Holy Eucharist, it is only for the purpose of leading them to repentance and to the avoidance of further sins, so that they may escape eternal condemnation with this wicked world.

This verse, which is evidently addressed to those who are among the saved, is a proof that the term “sleep” of verse 30 refers to the dead that are saved.

33. Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34. If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

Referring again to the abuses connected with the Agape, the Apostle urges the Corinthians, when they assemble for their love-feasts and the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, to have their meal in common. Let them wait to eat, until all are present, so that the rich may not overindulge themselves, nor the poor be deprived of their portion.

If some get so hungry that they cannot wait for the common meal, they should take something at home beforehand; so that they may come together, i.e., to the assembly, with spiritual profit, and not unto judgment, i.e., not to their spiritual ruin and condemnation. The love-feast was not instituted to satisfy hunger, but to nourish charity among the faithful; and likewise, the religious assemblies of the Christians were not the places to have profane banquets, but were for the purpose of celebrating the Holy Eucharist.

And the rest, etc., i.e., the Apostle will complete his instructions to the faithful at Corinth when he arrives there in person; he will supplement his written word by oral teaching: “from which it is evident,” says St. Thomas on this verse, “that the Church has many things from the direction of the Apostles which are not found in Sacred Scripture.”

St Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John 20:1-9 for Easter Sunday

1-9 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb. She runneth, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid Him. Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that was upon His Head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, which came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed. For |650  as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.

This excellent and pious woman would never have endured to remain at home and leave the sepulchre, had not her fear of the law for the Sabbath, and the penalty which impended upon those who transgressed it, curbed the vehemence of her zeal, and had she not, allowing ancient custom to prevail, thought she ought to withdraw her thoughts from the object of her most earnest longings. But, when the Sabbath was already past, and the dawn of the next day was appearing, she hurried back to the spot, and then, when she saw the stone rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, well-grounded suspicions seized her mind, and, calling to mind the ceaseless hatred of the Jews, she thought that Jesus had been carried away, accusing them of this crime in addition to their other misdeeds. While she was thus engaged, and revolving in her mind the probabilities of the case, the woman returned to the men who loved the Lord, anxious to obtain the co-operation of the most intimate of His disciples in her quest. And so deep-rooted and impregnable was her faith that she was not induced to esteem Christ less highly because of His death upon the cross, but even when He was dead called Him Lord, as she had been wont to do, thereby showing a truly God-loving spirit. When these men (I mean Peter, and John the writer of this book, for he gives himself the name of the other disciple) heard these tidings from the woman’s mouth, they ran with all the speed they could, and came to the sepulchre in haste, and saw the marvel with their own eyes, being in themselves competent to testify to the event, for they were two in number, as the Law enjoined. As yet they did not meet Christ risen from the dead, but infer His Resurrection from the bundle of linen clothes, and henceforth believed that He had burst asunder the bonds of death, as Holy Writ had long ago proclaimed that He would do. When, therefore, they looked at the issues of |651 events in the light of the prophecies which turned out true, their faith was henceforth rooted on a firm basis.

Observe that the blessed Evangelist, John, when he tells us the time of the Resurrection, says: On the first day of the week early, while it was yet dark, cometh Mary Magdalene unto the tomb; while Matthew, also, wishing to indicate the time to us, says that the Resurrection took place when the night was far spent. No one, I suppose, will imagine that the inspired writers are at variance, or that they fix the time of the Resurrection differently. For any one that chooses to investigate the meaning of the indications they give of the time, will find that their accounts tally. For early dawn and late night fix the same point of time, that is, the very dead of night, so to say. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between them; for the one, taking as his starting-point the end of night, and the other the beginning, both reach the middle watch, and meet at the same point, that is, as I just now said, the dead of night. (source)

Father Callan’s Commentary on Acts 10:34a, 37-43 for Easter Sunday (Year B)

Text in red are my additions. I’ve also included notes on verses 35-36, not part of the reading.

34. And Peter opening his mouth, said : In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons.
35. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.

In these verses Peter declares that difference of nationality among peoples is of no weight with God, and that all, Jews or Gentiles, are equally acceptable to Him, provided they be equally just and right-living.

36. God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all.)
37. You know the word which hath been published through all Judea: for it began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached,
38. Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

The meaning, in brief, of these verses, as gathered from the Greek, is this: You know the Gospel of salvation and redemption which God, through Jesus Christ (the Lord of all), sent first to the Jewish people, which has been published through all Judea, beginning with Galilee, after John’s baptism,—you know, I mean that the word, the announcement, was made by Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power, etc. Peter wishes to say that the salvation and redemption which Christ brought to the world was for all, Jews and Gentiles, and that Cornelius, living at Caesarea, not far away, must have heard of the preaching and miracles of the Saviour.

How God anointed him. Anointing was a ceremony used in the inauguration of kings and prophets, and in the consecration of priests. It signified the communication of power and authority. Christ, as man, was anointed with the Holy Ghost in the first moment of His incarnation; that is to say, by force of the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures in Christ, the sacred humanity of our Lord, from the first moment of His incarnation, possessed the fulness of the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

39. And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews
and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree.
40. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest.

Father Callan offers no comment on these verses, so I’ve decided to add a few notes.

We are witnesses. An essential element in Luke’s 2 volume narrative of the Gospel and Acts of Apostles from the very start (see Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:16-22. See also Luke 24:44-48; Acts 2:32, Acts 3:15, Acts 5:32).

That he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. What happened in Jerusalem was not meant to stay in Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:39).

Whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. Him God raised up. The essential kerygma (proclamation) of the witnesses (Acts 2:23-24; Acts 3:13-15; Acts 4:10; Acts 5:30).

And gave him to be made manifest. I.e., allowed or caused him to be seen.

41. Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead;

From this verse we learn that God chose beforehand the witnesses of the truth of our Lord’s Resurrection. To be a witness of so great an event was not the privilege of those who had been perverse and stubborn in rejecting the light, but of that limited number who had been made worthy.

Not to all the people, but to the witnesses preordained by God….who did eat and drink with him after he arose…Included in the “not to all” would be Judas who was not “preordained” to eat and drink with Jesus after he arose.

42. And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead.

He who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. The Greek word translated here as “appointed” is ωρισμενος, from the root ὁρίζω.  The word recalls our Lord’s statement in Luke 22:22~The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined (ωρισμενον): but yet, woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed. The word is used again in Acts 2:23~This same being delivered up, by the determinate ( ωρισμενη) counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Judas and those he joined in league with will have to face the Risen Lord as judge, as will all who reject the witness of his messengers, for that witness is a judgement-for good or ill-depending upon the response (Luke 10:8-16; Luke 11:29-32; Acts 13:38-41; Acts 13:46-48; Acts 17:30-31). In this last passage note the use of the word “appointed” in reference to Jesus as judge: Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed (ωρισεν)….

43. To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.

All the prophets; i.e., many of them, such as Jeremias, Isaias, Ezechiel, etc., or all of them, either directly or indirectly, bore testimony to Christ, and affirmed that His salvation should be for all, Jews and Gentiles, and that all could participate in the fruits of the redemption provided they believed in Jesus Christ. Peter, therefore, to prepare Cornelius and his household for the grace of Baptism, gives a brief outline (verses 37-43) of the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the conditions necessary whereby both Jews and Gentiles may have part in the redemption wrought by Jesus.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 28:1-7

Mat 28:1  And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

In the evening of the Sabbath (Vulg. see my note further below), when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, &c. How could it be called evening if day was dawning, or even if, as S. Mark says, the sun were risen? Firstly, S. Jerome answers that these women had gone forth frequently to the sepulchre, both in the evening and in the morning, so that the Evangelists refer to different occasions of their going forth.

Secondly, S. Ambrose thinks that they were different women who went out in the evening and in the morning. So Nyssen (Orat. 2, on the Resurrection) thinks that the women went four times to the sepulchre. But it is clear to any one who compares the different accounts, that the Evangelists speak of the same visit made by the same women to the sepulchre of Christ.

Thirdly, Baronius by the evening understands the star of Venus, which is called Lucifer, so that the meaning will be, “When Lucifer was risen in the morning before the sun, Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre of Christ.” But this star is not denoted by the Greek word όψε, or by the Latin word Vespere.

I say, therefore, that by the evening of the Sabbath is signified the night which followed the Sabbath. That it was so clear, first, from S. Mark, who says, and when the Sabbath was passed; secondly, because S. Matthew is wont to sum up many things in a few words. Accordingly, he here sums up the time when the women came together and made preparations for visiting and anointing Christ, which was in the evening, or immediately the Sabbath was passed; and he also wished to indicate the time when they came to the sepulchre, which was at the dawn of the Lord’s day. For this is what S. Luke says (Lk 23:56), “And they returned (after Christ had been buried), and prepared spices and ointments, and rested on the Sabbath day, according to the commandment; and on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared.” And S. Mark 16:1 says, “When the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning on the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre.” Mark is generally the interpreter of Matthew. S. Augustine says, “Thus, on the evening of the Sabbath is just the same as if he had said on the night of the Sabbath, that is, the night which follows the day of the Sabbath, which is sufficiently proved by the words which follow, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week.” This could not be if we understood only the first portion of the night, its beginning, to be signified by the word evening. For the evening, or beginning of the night, does not begin to dawn towards the first day of the week, but only the night which is concluded by the dawn. For the end of the first part of the night is the beginning of the second; and the dawn is the end of the whole night. Whence the evening could not be said to dawn towards the first day of the week, unless by the word evening the night itself is understood, which is concluded by the dawn.

Matthew, therefore, declares that these women had prepared ointments at night, but came to the sepulchre at the rising of the dawn, as Luke, John, and Mark say. But John adds that they came early in the morning, while it was yet dark. I answer, That also is true, because it was dawn, since the sun not having yet appeared, but only his rays reflected from the hills or clouds, there still remained a measure of darkness in the air.

Peter Chrysologus, in a sermon on the resurrection, gives another symbolical reason. “According to nature,” he says, “it was dark, and yet it is said that the sun had risen, because on that day the sun, rejoicing as it were at the resurrection of Christ, rose before the wonted time.” Remigius agrees with Chrysologus, “The dignity of that night is declared, for according to the course of nature evening does not dawn towards day, but darkness towards night; but the Lord by the light of His resurrection made the whole of that night joyful and brilliant.”

It is clear that these women came to the sepulchre early in the morning; for their love for Christ urged them on to hasten to this, and anticipate the day; and also their fear of his crucifiers, lest if they had come by daylight, and had been seen by those who were hostile to Him, they should have been ill-treated by them.

Further, Matthew here only mentions directly the time of the coming of the women to the sepulchre, yet he indirectly signifies also the time at which Christ rose, namely, in the early morning, a little before the arrival of the women, according to the common opinion of the Doctors and the Church, which S. Jerome and S. Augustine prove from Ps 57:9, I myself will awake early.

The general sense, then, is, that Christ rose after the middle of the night before sunrise on the Lord’s day, for otherwise He would have been found dead by the women; and as He was born at the same time thirty-three years before of the Blessed Virgin, so now He was born again through the resurrection, that He might as a new Sun of Righteousness shine upon the world. Whence also in former times, Christians, after the middle of the night on the day of the Passover, broke of their fast and keeping of vigil, and began to rejoice greatly.

Further, Christ does not seem to have risen immediately after the middle of the night. For Mark more exactly says that Christ rose early in the morning. And most of the Fathers teach this, whom Suarez quotes (3. p. disp. 46, sect. 2), and the Church in the Paschal hymn, Aurora lucis (Lyrics in English and Latin).

Note: The Greek οψε (English transliteration: opse, pronounced: op-seh’) means the back part, the end, etc., its normal “time” sense being “evening”. Jews reckoned the days from sundown to sundown, thus “evening” would be late afternoon to sunset. However, the word can also refer to the later part of a time period (i.e., the end of a specified time, e.g., “the evening of life”). The Greek is οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων, which the Douay Rheims Challoner translates as: And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week. The KJV is almost identical: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. The second part of the clause (when it began to dawn) determine the time period of the first (in the end of the sabbath). In modern English: After sundown on Saturday when the sabbath ended, but before sunrise on Sunday...

The first day of the week. That is, on the first day after the Sabbath, on the Lord’s day; about the religious observance of which day S. Augustine thus writes (Serm. 251, de Temp.), “The Apostles and apostolic men appointed that day to be observed with holy solemnity, because on it our Redeemer rose from the dead; and it is called on that account the Lord’s day, that abstaining on it from earthly works, we may devote ourselves only to the study of divine things, giving to this day honour and reverence, on account of the hope of our resurrection, which we have in it. For, as the Lord rose from the dead, so also we hope that we shall rise.”

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. That is, the wife of Cleophas and mother of James. These were the leaders and standard-bearers of the rest who were wont to follow Christ; for that there were several others is clear from Luke 23:55, where, among others, he names Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward: and Mark adds Salome. The Blessed Virgin Mother of God did not come with them, because she certainly knew and expected that Christ would rise on that same day; whence she knew that the anointing would be useless.

Morally: Learn from this that Christ reveals Himself and His grace and glory to those souls who hasten to anoint Him with the good works of prayer, penance, and charity. Whence S. Gregory (Hom. 21) says, “Those women who came with spices see the angels; and so those souls behold the heavenly citizens who, with the sweet odours of their virtues, approach the Lord in holy desires.”

To see the sepulchre. It is very probable that they were ignorant of the watch of the soldiers that had been posted by the Jews at the sepulchre, and also of the sealing. For if they had known of these two things, they would not have dared to come to the sepulchre, lest they should fall into the hands of the watch, much less to break the seal. But God removed both of these hindrances out of their way. Hence learn courageously to undertake works for the glory of God, and certainly to trust that God will either remove, or cause us to surmount, all hindrances that lie in our way.

Mystically: Bede (on Luke 24:1.) says, “By the women coming early in the morning to the sepulchre, we have an example given to us, that, having cast away the darkness of our vices, we should come to the body of the Lord. For that sepulchre also bore the figure of the altar of the Lord, wherein the mysteries of Christ’s body, not in silk or purple cloth, but in pure white linen, like that in which Joseph wrapped it, ought to be consecrated, that as He offered up to death for us the true substance of His earthly nature, so we also, in commemoration of Him, should place on the altar the flax, pure from the plant of the earth, and white, and in many ways refined by a kind of crushing to death. But the spices which the women bring signify the odour of virtue and the sweetness of prayers, by which we ought to approach the latter.”

The following was the order of events:—First, Christ was in His Passion during about eighteen hours. For on the Thursday, towards evening, He ate the lamb, He washed the disciples’ feet, He instituted the Eucharist, and held a long discourse on love, and at last proceeded to Gethsemane; all which things would easily take up three hours. Wherefore, about the third hour of his death in Gethsemane, He began to be sorrowful, and to pray that the cup might pass from Him. Hence, if you reckon all the hours up to the third hour in the afternoon of Friday, when Christ died, you will find eighteen hours; so that you may learn, according to the moral meaning, how short is the time of the suffering of Christ and of Christians, and how long the time of resurrection and of glory, for it is eternal. So bountiful is God, so brief is the suffering, so long the reward and the glory.

Secondly, Christ dying at the third hour in the afternoon, immediately as to His soul went down into hell; but His body was taken down from the Cross, and washed and wrapped in linen, so that He was buried before night, for it was the night of the Sabbath, on which the Jews must rest from all work. Wherefore He was in hell about thirty-six hours (but in the sepulchre thirty-three).

Thirdly, Christ, as soon as He appeared in hell, that is, in Limbus, showed to Adam and Abraham and the rest of the fathers and prophets, not only His soul, but also His Deity united to it. Wherefore He gladdened them with the vision of His divinity; then, too, did hell become like heaven. Whence He said to the robber who was about to go to Him in Limbus, To-day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.

Fourthly, About the ninth hour of the night of the Lord’s day, Christ, having passed forth from hell with the fathers, came to the sepulchre, and there He showed them His body, livid, blood-stained, and torn for them; and presently cleansing His body from all lividness, blood, and ointment, and again sending angels (though some are of opinion that all these things were done not by angels, but by the soul of Christ itself, which had this power through the hypostatic union with the Word) to gather up the blood which had been scattered by the scourging; and after it had been gathered up, He again infused it into the veins of His body, which the glorious soul of Christ entered, and uniting to itself, animated and glorified.

Fifthly, To many of the fathers, as Abraham and others, He restored their bodies, that He might make them sharers of His resurrection and glory, and witnesses of it to the Jews, as is clear from Mat_27:53.

Sixthly, Christ, when He rose, passed through the stone that covered the sepulchre. Soon afterwards the angel descended and caused an earthquake, and removed the stone from the sepulchre that He might arouse the watch, and open a way for the women to the sepulchre.

Seventhly, He appeared in glory to the Blessed Virgin, His mother, and showed the Patriarchs to her, who all saluted her, and were filled with great joy. Then He appeared to Mary Magdalene, who had stayed near the sepulchre.

Tropologically: Learn here how religiously we ought to venerate and adorn the tombs and relics of Christ, the Martyrs, and other Saints. “The bodies of the just,” says S. Augustine, “are not to be thought meanly of, which the Holy Spirit used as organs and vessels for all good works.

Mat 28:2  And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and coming rolled back the stone and sat upon it.

And, behold, there was a great earthquake, &c. Firstly, By it was signified the power, magnificence, and glory of Christ in His resurrection as God. For by an earthquake God made known His presence on Sinai and elsewhere.

Secondly, That the women might recognise the angel not only from his glorious appearance, but from this earthquake, and might more easily believe the resurrection of Christ proclaimed by the angel; especially because by means of the earthquake he rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre, that the women might enter, and seeing it empty, might know that Christ was risen.

Symbolically: The earth which trembled with horror at the death of Christ, as it were leaped with joy at the resurrection.

For the angel, &c. Franciscus Lucas and others are of opinion that this angel was Gabriel, who, according to the meaning of his name, is the minister of the power of God. It is not to be doubted that other angels were present with him, and guarded the sepulchre during the three days, and adored the sacred body of Christ lying in it, as being hypostatically united to the Deity.

Further, the angel appeared in the form of a young man, as Mark says, first, because youth is a sign of the never-failing vigour and strength of the angels. Secondly, because the angel represented Christ, who was a young man; for He died and rose again in the thirty-fourth year of His age. Thirdly, his youth showed that he was strong and warlike, ready to fight against the watch. Lastly, youth represents beauty, immortality, activity, and the glory of the glorious body which Christ had assumed in the resurrection.

And rolled back the stone, of the sepulchre of Christ. Not that He might rise out of it, for He had already risen while the sepulchre was closed, but that he might show to the women that Christ their God and Lord had already risen. Opening to them a way to the sepulchre, he showed it to them empty of the body of Christ. For as Christ was born from the closed womb of the Virgin, so also He rose from the closed sepulchre.

S. Augustine (Serm. 138, de Temp.) says, “The unbelieving Jews set a seal on the stone of the sepulchre that Christ might not come forth. But how would it be impossible for Him to come forth from the sepulchre who had come forth from the pure womb of His mother, her virginity being preserved? He escaped the notice of the guards; He leaped forth from the sepulchre; He appeared to the disciples when the doors were shut: from the one place He came forth when He was shut in; into the other He entered when He was shut out.” So Euthymius, Chrysostom, &c. S. Leo, in his 83rd epistle to the monks of Palestine, says that the stone being rolled back, Christ rose again on the third day, and that the rolling back of the stone was not the cause, but the sign and the proof that the resurrection of Christ was not in appearance only, but real.

We may gather, hence, in opposition to Calvin, that by the same power of God, whole Christ can be obtained under a small host. For if Christ in passing through the stone of the sepulchre could occupy the same place as the stone, therefore in the same host there can be at the same time the great and several members of Christ. The Calvinists, in order to evade this argument, answer that the stone being softened like wax melted away, and so opened a way for Christ as He rose. But this is an absurd figment of theirs, and altogether opposed to the consent of the Fathers, the Doctors, and the Church.

Some think that there were two stones to the sepulchre, the first on the outside, which closed the outer entrance of the sepulchre; the second on the inside, which protected the sepulchre itself. But the Evangelists make mention of only one stone. Chrysologus (Serm. 74) says truly, “The rolling to of the stone was a proof of death; the rolling back of it asserted the resurrection.” And Severian in the Catena says, “He says not ‘rolled,’ but ‘rolled back’ the stone; because the stone rolled to was a proof of death, and the rolling of it back asserted the resurrection. The order of things is changed. The tomb devours death, and not the dead. The house of death becomes the mansion of life; it receives a dead, and renders up a living man.”

Samson was a type of this, who having entered Gaza, and being besieged by the Philistines, rose up in the middle of the night and carried away the gates to the top of a mountain; because, as S. Gregory (Hom. 21) explains, “our Redeemer rising before it was light, not only came forth free from hell, but destroyed also the bars of hell. He carried away its gates, and ascended to the top of the mountain; for by rising again He carried away the bars of hell, and by ascending He entered the Kingdom of Heaven.”

And sat upon it. Not as if wearied with the labour of removing the stone, but to show, first, that it was he who had rolled away the stone. Secondly, to protect the women against the watch. Thirdly, that he was the guardian of the sepulchre of the Lord, says S. Jerome, so that no one seeing it empty might bring in another dead body, and say that Christ had not risen. Fourthly, that he might terrify the soldiers.

Symbolically: S. Thomas assigns symbolical reasons for the sitting of the angel. “He sat, though he was not weary, as teacher of the faith, as master of the resurrection. The angel laid upon the stone the foundations of the faith upon which Christ was going to found His Church. Or by the stone may be designated death, by which all men were oppressed: by the angel sitting upon the stone it is therefore signified that Christ subdued death by His own power.” And Bede also says, “The angel sat, to show that now He had overcome him who had the power of death; He had mounted the throne of the everlasting kingdom. He sat upon the stone that had been rolled back, wherewith the mouth of the sepulchre had been closed, to teach that by His power He had burst the bars of hell.”

You will say, How do Matthew and Mark say that the angel sat, when Luke says that he stood? I answer, that by a Hebraism, to stand is a term applicable to any position; for it only signifies that a thing is present, whether standing upright, or sitting, or lying. Then, also, the account given by Matthew and Mark is a different one from that given by Luke, as I shall presently show.

You will say, secondly, How does Matthew say that the angel sat upon the stone rolled back, that is, outside the sepulchre, when Mark says that the women saw the angel not outside, but on entering into the tomb? I answer, that the angel first removed the stone which closed the sepulchre, and then terrified the watch who were outside, and drove them away, so that they might not hinder the women from approaching the sepulchre; then, that he entered the sepulchre itself, and was there seen by the women, that he might show them the empty sepulchre, and that Christ had risen. Whence he says, “He is risen, as He said; come, see the place where the Lord lay.” So Theophylact. Or, rather, the angel of whom Matthew speaks was a different one from that of whom Mark speaks. So Barradius.

But I maintain that the same angel is spoken of by Mark as by Matthew. For Mark is generally the interpreter of Matthew. Wherefore, what Mark says about their entering into the tomb is to be understand thus, when they were preparing or beginning to enter the tomb; for they had not yet entered it, but were still outside, and there they saw and heard the angel, as Matthew has it. For to enter signifies, here and elsewhere, an act begun and not finished.

Mat 28:3  And his countenance was as lightning and his raiment as snow.

And his countenance was as lightning, &c. First, because lightning is akin to, and best represents the nature and properties of angels. For lightning is most brilliant, swift, and powerful. For this reason it is spoken of the cherubim who accompany the chariot of God (Ezekiel1:14), “They ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.” And the Ps 104:4 Psalm, quoted by Paul, Heb 1:7, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.”

Secondly, lightning signifies the glory of the angels, which shines with the lightning of divine knowledge. Again, lightning signifies the glory of Christ rising; for the body of Christ shone with glory like lightning. For angels, when they appear, appear in that manner which is in agreement with the matter on account of which they appear. Since, therefore, this angel appears to represent the glorious resurrection of Christ, His countenance therefore was like lightning. For lightning best represents the four properties of the glorious body of Christ and of the blessed, namely, brightness, impassibility, subtlety, and agility. “For by the resurrection of Christ,” says S. Leo, “weakness has been changed into strength, mortality into immortality, and shame into glory.”

Thirdly, Lightning represents the zeal and the anger of the angel against the impious Jews and soldiers, who wished to hinder the resurrection of Christ. Whence to them only he appeared shooting forth lightning, as if he were going to spring upon them; but for the women he tempered this lightning, and showed to them a countenance glorious indeed, but mild. For the Blessed appear to different persons with such appearance and form as they will; wherefore to the women he appeared only clothed with a white robe, as Mark says (Mark 16:3). Listen to what S. Gregory says (Hom. 21, in Evang.), “In lightning is terror, but in snow is a tempered brightness; and because Almighty God is terrible to sinners and mild to the righteous, so the angel, who is a witness of His resurrection, is rightly shown with a countenance like lightning and with raiment like snow, that by his appearance he might terrify the wicked and comfort the good.”

Tropologically: Holy and angelic preacher’s may be like thunder and lightnings, by which the vices of enemies are destroyed. So John and James are called by Christ Boanerges—that is, sons or thunder, thundering and lightning against impiety and impious men.

Anagogically: Lightning represents the fire of Gehenna, prepared for the impious Jews and the soldiers, because lightnings are sulphurous, and smell of fire and sulphur, and Gehenna burns with fire and sulphur.

And his raiment as snow. Pure and white. This brightness signifies, first, the purity, innocence, and chastity of the angels; secondly, the joy and glory of the resurrection of Christ.

Mat 28:4  And for fear of him, the guards were struck with terror and became as dead men.

That is, they were astonished and stupefied like the dead, as S. Jerome says. For they feared lest they should be blasted, as it were, and killed by lightning. If the angel only by the lightning glance of his countenance so struck and terrified the soldiers, what would he have done if he had laid his hands on them? For one angel slew in one night 185,000 soldiers in the camp of Sennacherib.

Mat 28:5  And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you: for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

And the angel answering, &c. You will say, How is it that Matthew and Mark speak only of one angel as seen by the women, when Luke affirms that two were seen, who comforted the women with different words from those which Matthew and Mark have? I answer that the account of Luke is different from that of Matthew, and that he relates what happened later, as I shall hereafter show.

The women. Namely, the Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the rest (see Luke 24:10). Those are mistaken, therefore, who think that Magdalene, after she had seen the empty sepulchre, immediately ran back to tell the Apostles, without seeing the angels, and that they were only seen by Mary the mother of James and the rest. John, therefore (John 20:1), while he mentions Magdalene only, with her understands all the rest of her companions; for she was the leader and chief of them all. Eve conversing with the devil incurred death; but these conversing with the angel found life. Sorceresses and witches are like Eve, who, conversing with the devil, drink in death; but penitents are like Magdalene, who, invoking angels, obtain life.

Fear not you. “The word you,” says S. Chrysostom, “carries with it much honour, and at the same time declares that those who had dared to commit that great crime would, unless they should repent, suffer extreme punishment. For it is not, he says, for you to fear, but for those who crucified Him.”

For I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. The word “for” gives the reason why they ought not to fear the sight of the angel, but to rejoice and be glad, because they both love and worship Jesus which was crucified, and minister to and serve Him.

He expressly says “crucified,” both to show that he is not ashamed of, but that he openly confesses the Cross and the Crucified, and that he is His servant, because the Cross is the highest honour and glory to Christ and to His followers, and also to signify the fruit of the Cross of Christ; because, says S. Chrysostom, it is the head and sum of blessings, and because by His Cross Christ redeemed not only the women and the rest of mankind, but also made the angels to rejoice, yea, even conferred grace and glory on them. And lastly, because by the Cross He reconciled angels to men, and Heaven to earth, “reconciling through the blood of the Cross both the things which are in earth and in Heaven,” as Paul Says (Col 1:20).

Mat 28:6  He is not here. For he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid.

He is not here. “He is not here in His fleshly presence,” says S. Gregory; “and He is nowhere absent in the presence of His majesty.”

For He is risen. The Greek word is η̉γέρθη, which means, He has awaked from death, as it were from a short and light sleep, to light and life. For the death of Christ was like sleep, for He slept, as it were, in the sepulchre thirty-six hours. So also will it be with us. Wherefore, as sleep is a sort of brief death, so also death is a sort of longer sleep. Hence Paul (1 Cor 15) does not speak of those who have departed from life as dead, but as sleeping, because we shall all be awakened from the sleep of death, and shall arise again to life in the Day of Judgment.

Again, He has awaked as trees, which in winter having been, as it were, stripped and asleep, wake up in spring, when they begin to put forth leaves and flowers and fruit. So S. Jerome (on Mark 16) says, “The bitter root of the Cross has vanished; for the flower of life has burst forth with fruit—that is, He who lay in death has arisen in glory.” And in the same glory He will make His faithful ones to rise.

As He said. Christ, whom ye all esteemed as a holy and divine Prophet, foretold and promised that He would rise on the third day. Therefore believe that He has risen, for so great a Prophet could not lie; especially since ye now see that the body has departed from the sepulchre, and has risen, as I, who am an angel of the living and true God, most certainly affirm. He Himself foretold the same by David in the 15th Psalm, “Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption;” because, as S. Peter says (Acts 2:24), “it was impossible that He should be holden of it.”

Moreover, Christ rose before He was anointed by the women, that He might show that He did not need that anointing, since He rose again by His own power. S. Bernard (Serm. 12, in Cant.) gives another moral reason,—because He would rather the price of this anointing should be given to the poor than to Himself.

Come. “Enter with me into the sepulchre; for your sake, that you may enter, I have removed the great stone.” See the place where the Lord was laid. That by the beholding of it with your eyes, says S. Chrysostom, ye may see that His body is not here, but has risen from it, so that, “if ye believe not my words, ye may believe the empty sepulchre,” says S. Jerome. The angel therefore led the way, and as a guide introduced the women into the sepulchre, and showed it to them empty, that they might not doubt that Christ had risen from it.

Mat 28:7  And going quickly, tell ye his disciples that he is risen. And behold he will go before you into Galilee. There you shall see him. Lo, I have foretold it to you.

And going quickly, tell ye His disciples, &c. Quickly—so that ye may quickly banish the sorrow of the disciples, caused by the death of Christ their Master, and cheer their sorrowful minds, and fill them with joy by the most joyful news of the resurrection of Christ. For the women deserved this favour above others, because above others in their devotion to Christ they had come to the sepulchre. S. Gregory (Hom. 25) gives a symbolical reason, “For because woman in Paradise ministered death to man, woman from the sepulchre announced life to men. As if the Lord were saying to mankind, not in words but by deeds, ‘From that same hand by which the potion of death was administered to you, receive ye the cup of life.’”

Tell ye His disciples. Mark adds, and Peter—that is, chiefly and before all, Peter, both because Peter in Christ’s absence was the first and Prince of the Apostles, and because Peter, as he loved Christ above the rest, so also above the rest he was mourning over His death. S. Gregory adds a third reason (Hom. 21, in Evang.), “If the angel had not expressly named him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come amongst the disciples; he is therefore called by name, lest he should despair on account of his denial. In which thing we have to consider why Almighty God permitted him to fear the words of a maid-servant, and to deny Himself, whom He had appointed to set over the whole Church, which thing we perceive to have been done by a dispensation of great goodness, in order that he who was to be the pastor of the whole Church might learn through his own fault how he ought to have compassion upon others.”

And behold He will go before you into Galilee. First, because Galilee was the native country of the Apostles, to which, after the death of Jesus, they were purposing to return, that they might live more safely among their own relations. Secondly, because in Galilee Christ willed to show Himself openly to all His assembled disciples. For the Jews would not have permitted them to assemble in Judæa. Thirdly, because in Galilee Christ had for the most part preached, and had performed very many miracles.

Symbolically: S. Gregory (Hom. 21) says, “For Galilee means a passing over from death to life; for our Redeemer had already passed from His Passion to His resurrection, from death unto life. And He is seen first by His disciples after His resurrection in Galilee, because we shall have joy in seeing the glory of His resurrection, if only we pass over from vice to the heights of virtue. He, then, who is announced at the tomb is shown in passing over; because He who is first known in mortification of the flesh is seen in this passing over of the soul.” Yet Christ appeared to the Apostles in Judæa also, but secretly; in Galilee publicly.

In the historical order of the events must be brought in here what Luke mentions (chap. xxiv. 3), namely, that Magdalene and her companions, while at the invitation of the angel they had entered the sepulchre and seen that it was empty, yet were affrighted; on account of which the angels cheered them, and at the same time gently reproved their want of faith. For that Luke’s account is not the same as that of Matthew and Mark, as some think, is clear from the words themselves, which are evidently different. Also, from the circumstance that in Luke two angels are said to have appeared, while in Matthew and Mark only one is mentioned.

My Notes on Isaiah 4:2-6

This is used as one of the Old Testament Readings for Holy Saturday in the Extraordinary Form of the Rite. It was previously posted.

4:2 In that day, Yahweh’s branch will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the beauty and glory of the survivors of Israel.

In that day: A reference to the day [time] of redemption after the day [time] of punishment (Isa 2:11). God’s punishment is meant to bring people to repentance (Isa 1:26-27). The Kingdom of Judah and its capitol, Jerusalem, had already suffered greatly (Isa 1:2-31), but a remnant had survived (Isa 1:9). As a consequence of God’s punishment the people were told: Your land is desolate, your cities are burnt with fire: your country strangers devour before your face, and it shall be desolate as when wasted by enemies. And the daughter of Sion shall be left as a covert in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a city that is laid waste (Isa 1:7-8).

They were also told: “For you shall be as an oak tree whose leaves fade, and as a garden that has no water” (Isa 1:30). The people in other words will be like barren trees, and the land desolate, without life or growth. In contrast, the time of redemption is described as Yahweh’s branch will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the beauty and glory of the survivors of Israel (Isa 4:2).

4:3 It will happen, that he who is left in Zion, and he who remains in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even everyone who is written among the living in Jerusalem…

This is an obvious reference to those who survive the judgment through repentance, by the grace of God (see Isa 1:18-20). They have had their names written into the book of life (see Mal 3:13-4:3; 3:13-21 in NAB). Note that Malachi says the wicked mock penance and will become like trees without root or branch (Mal 4:1; or, 3:19 in the NAB)

4:4 when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from its midst, by the spirit of justice, and by the spirit of burning.

In Isa 1:15-16, God, through the prophet, told the people that their hands were full of blood and they needed to wash themselves clean. If they did so, they would eat the good things of the land (Isa 1:19). To motivate them to this repentance God decreed: “And I will turn my hand upon you, thoroughly purge away your dross, and take away all your tin” (Isa 1:25). God’s punishment is meant to be medicinal and cleansing.

4:5 Yahweh will create over the whole habitation of Mount Zion, and over her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy.
4:6 There will be a pavilion for a shade in the daytime from the heat, and for a refuge and for a shelter from storm and from rain.

Verse 5 is an allusion to Ex 13:21-22. God will be present and protective of his people. Verse 6 calls to mind the common practice of ancient Israel. People lived in cities and villages and had to travel to their farmland in order to work it. At harvest time they would build huts in the fields to house themselves. This was done for several reasons, 1) it cut down on travel time and thus allowed more work time for the actual harvest; 2) they could protect what they had harvested from thieves; 3) if the weather turned bad they could quickly find protection. This verse calls to mind the description of Jerusalem in chapter Isa 1:8, where it had been described as a hut in a desolate field which had been “harvested,” as it were, by her enemies. In spite of the dire straits in which the city found itself, it had been protected, even though it had been unable to protect itself or the land surrounding it. Yet its near fall was meant to serve as a warning, moving the people to repent and embrace righteousness. Sinners have no business presuming God’s protection.

Mass Resources for Holy Saturday-Vigil in the Holy Night of Easter (Ordinary Form With Link to Extraordinary Form Resources)

Update: This Week’s Daily Resources (Sunday, April 8–Sunday, April 15) is now available.

This post contains links to commentaries on all seven of the Old Testament readings, the Epistle reading, and the Gospel reading, along with commentary on most of the accompanying Responsorial Psalms and Canticles. Resources for the Extraordinary Form of the Rite can be found here. Resources for the entire Holy Week, including Easter, can be found here.

GENERAL:

• Today’s Mass Readings.
• Today’s Divine Office.
• UPDATE: Podcast: He Descended into Hell…Did Jesus Really Go To Hell? An audio podcast and accompanying blog post by Catholic biblical scholar Dr. Michhael Barber.
• UPDATE: Historical Questions About the Resurrection. Audio podcast with accompanying blog post by Dr Michael Barber.
• UPDATE: An Ester Sermon by St John Chrysostom. Better late than never.
• UPDATE: Pope Benedict’s Homily. Again, better late than never.

Reading 1:

• Navarre Bible Commentary on Genesis 1:1-2:2. The shorter reading is 1:1, 26-31a.

Responsorial 1:

• St Augustine on Psalm 104. The 33rd Psalm is an alternate (see below).
• Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Psalm 33. Alternate 104 above.

Reading 2:

• Longer Reading: Navarre Bible Commentary on Gen 22:1-18. Actually on 1b-19. Posted for another occasion.
• Shorter Reading: Navarre Bible Comm on Gen 22:1-2, 9a, 10-13, 15-18.

Responsorial 2:

• Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Psalm 16.

Reading 3: The Navarre Bib. Comm. offers no post on this specific reading, I have linked to two separate posts encompassing 14:5-15:1, excepting verses19-20.

• Part 1. Navarre Bible Commentary on Exodus 14:5-18. Remember today’s reading begins at 15, not 5.
• Part 2. Navarre Bible Commentary on Exodus 14:21-15:1.

Responsorial 3:

• Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Exodus 15:1-2, 34, 5-6, 17-18. On verses 1-18 as a whole.

Reading 4:

• Haydock Bible Commentary on Isaiah 54:5-14. Notes on entire chapter.
• Pending (maybe). My Notes on Isaiah 54:5-14.

Responsorial 4:

• Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Psalm 30:2, 4, 5-6, 11-12, 13. On entire Psalm.
• St Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on Psalm 30:2, 4, 5-6, 11-12, 13. On entire Psalm.
• My Notes on Psalm 30:2, 4, 5-6, 11-12, 13. On entire Psalm.

Reading 5:

• Navarre Bible Commentary on Isaiah 55:1-11.
• Haydock Commentary on Isaiah 55:1-11.

Responsorial 5:

• Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Isaiah 12:2-3, 4, 5-6.

Reading 6:

• Haydock Commentary on Baruch 3:9-15, 32-4:4.

Responsorial 6:

• St Thomas Aquinas’ Lecture on Psalm 19:8, 9, 10, 11. Post on entire Psalm.

Reading 7:

• Haydock Commentary on Ezekiel 36:16-17a, 18-28.

Responsorial 7:

• When baptism celebrated: Pope John Paul II on Psalm 42.
• When baptism not celebrated: Pope John Paul II on Isaiah 12.
• Alternate when baptism not celebrated. Pope John Paul II on Psalm 51.

Epistle Reading:

• Bernardin de Piconio on Romans 6:3-11. Notes on whole chapter.
• Navarre Bible Commentary on Romans 6:3-11.
• UPDATE: Father Callan’s Commentary on Romans 6:3-11.

Responsorial after Epistle:

• Pope John Paul II’s Commentary/Meditation on Psalm 118:1-2, 16-17, 22-23. On whole Psalm.

Gospel Reading:

• Navarre Bible Commentary on Mark 16:1-7.
• Haydock Commentary on Mark 16:1-7.
• Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 16:1-7.
• UPDATE: Sunday Gospel Scripture Study on Mark 16:1-7.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Mark 16:1-7 for Holy Saturday

.

To see many resources for Holy Week, including many for the numerous readings on Holy Saturday go here.

Ver 1. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him.2. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.3. And they said among themselves, “Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”4. And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.5. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.6. And he saith unto them, “Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen; He is not here; behold the place where they laid Him.”7. “But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him, and He said unto you.”8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Pseudo-Jerome: After the sadness of the sabbath, a happy day dawns upon them, which holds the chief place amongst days, for in it the chief light shines forth, and the Lord rises in triumph.

Wherefore it is said: “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had brought sweet spices.”

Gloss: For these religious women after the burial of the Lord, as long as it was lawful to work, that is, up to sunset, prepared ointment, as Luke says. And because they could not finish their work from the shortness of the time, when the sabbath was over, that is, at sunset, as soon as the time for working came round again, they hastened to buy spices, as Mark says, that they might go in the morning to anoint the body of Jesus. Neither could they come to the sepulchre on the evening of the sabbath, for night prevented them.

Wherefore it goes on: “And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.”

Severianus, ap. Chrysologum, sermon 89: The women in this place run abroad with womanly devotion, for they do not bring Him faith as though He were alive, but ointments as to one dead; and they prepare the service of their grief for Him as buried, not the joys of heavenly triumph for Him as risen.

Theophylact: For they do not understand the greatness and dignity of the wisdom of Christ. But they came according to the custom of the Jews to anoint the body of Christ, that it might remain sweet-smelling, and might not burst forth into moisture, for spices have the property of drying up, and absorb the moisture of the body, so that they keep the body from corruption.

Greg., Hom. in. Evan., 21: But if we believe on Him who is dead, and are filled with the sweet smell of virtue, and seek the Lord with the fame of good works, we come to His sepulchre with spices.

There follows: “And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.”

Augustine, Con. Evang., iii, 24: What Luke expresses by “very early in the morning,” and John by “early when it was yet dark,” Mark must be understood to mean, when he says, “very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun,” that is, when the sky was growing bright in the east, as is usual in places near the rising sun; for this is the light which we call the dawning. Therefore there is no discrepancy with the report which says, “while it was yet dark.”

For when the day is dawning, the remains of darkness lessen in proportion as the light grows brighter; and we must not take the words “very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun,” to mean that the sun himself was seen upon the earth, but as expressing the near approach of the sun into those parts, that is, when his rising begins to light up the sky.

Pseudo-Jerome: By “very early in the morning,” he means what another Evangelist expresses by at the dawning [Luk_24:1, dilueulo]. But the dawn is the time between the darkness of night, and the brightness of day, in which the salvation of man is coming forth with a happy closeness, to be declared in the Church, just as the sun, when he is rising and the light is near, sends before him the rosy dawn, that with prepared eyes she may bear to see the graciousness of his glorious brightness, when the time of our Lord’s Resurrection has dawned; that then the whole Church, after the example of the women, may sing the praises of Christ, since He has quickened the race of man after the pattern of His Resurrection, since He has given life, and has poured upon them the light of belief.

Bede, in Marc., 4, 40: As then the women shew the great fervency of their love, by coming very early in the morning to the sepulchre, as the history relates, according to the mystical sense an example is given to us, that with a shining face, and shaking off the darkness of wickedness, we may be careful to offer the fragrance of good works and the sweetness of prayer to the Lord.

Theophylact: He says, On the first of the sabbaths, that is, on the first of the days of the week. For the days of the week are called sabbaths, and by the word “una” is meant “prima”.

Bede: Or else, by this phrase is meant the first day from the day of sabbaths, or rests, which were kept on the sabbath.

There follows: “And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?”

Severianus, Chrysologus: Your breast was darkened, your eyes shut, and therefore ye did not before see the glory of the opened sepulchre.

It goes on: “And they looked, and saw that the stone was rolled away.”

Bede: Matthew shews clearly enough, that the stone was rolled away by an Angel. This rolling away of the stone means mystically the opening of the Christian Sacraments, which were held under the veil of the letter of the law; for the law was written on stone.  I goes on: “For it was very great.”

Severianus, Chrysologus: Great indeed by its office rather than its size, for it can shut in and throw open the body of the Lord.

Greg.: But the women who came with spices see the Angels; because those minds who come to the Lord with their virtues, through holy desires, see the heavenly citizens.

Wherefore it goes on: “And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.”

Theophylact: Though Matthew says that the Angel was sitting on stone, whilst Mark relates that the women entering into the sepulchre saw a young man sitting, yet we need not wonder, for they afterwards saw sitting within the sepulchre the same Angel as sat without on the stone.

Augustine: Either let us suppose that Matthew was silent about that Angel, whom they saw on entering, whilst Mark said nothing of him, whom they say outside sitting on the stone, so that they saw two and heard separately from two, the things which the Angels said concerning Jesus; or we must understand by “entering into the sepulchre,” their coming within some inclosure, by which is it probable that the place was surrounded a little space before the stone, by the cutting out of which the burial place had been made, so that they saw sitting on the right hand in that space him whom Matthew designates as sitting on the stone.

Theophylact: But some say the women mentioned by Matthew were different from those in Mark. But Mary Magdalene was with all parties, from her burning zeal and ardent love.

Severianus: The women, then, entered the sepulchre, that being buried with Christ, they might rise again from the tomb with Christ. They see the young man, that is, they see the time of the Resurrection, for the Resurrection has no old age, and the period, in which man knows neither birth nor death, admits of no decay, and requires no increase. Wherefore what they saw was a young man, not an old man, nor an infant, but the age of joy.

Bede: Now they saw a young man sitting on the right side, that is, on the south part of the place where the body was laid. For the body, which was lying on its back, and had its head to the west, must have had its right to the south.

Greg.: But what is meant by the left hand, but this present life, and what by the right, but everlasting  life? Because then our Redeemer had already gone through the decay of this present life, fitly did the Angel, who had come to announce His everlasting life, sit on the right hand.

Severianus, Chrysologus: Again, they saw a young man sitting on the right, because the Resurrection has nothing sinister in it. They also see him dressed in a long white robe; that robe is not from mortal fleece, but of living virtue, blazing with heavenly light, not of an earthly dye, as saith the Prophet, “Thou deckest thyself with light as with a garment;” [Psa_104:2] and of the just it is said, “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun.” [Mat_13:43]

Greg.: Or else, he appeared covered with a white robe, because he announced the joys of our festivity, for the whiteness of the robe shews the splendour of our solemnity.

Pseudo-Jerome: The white robe is also true joy, now that the enemy is driven away, the kingdom won, the King of Peace sought for and found and never let go by us. This young man then shews an image of the Resurrection to them who feared death. But their being frightened shews that “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man to conceive the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.” [1Co_2:9]

There follows: “And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted.”

Greg.: As though he had said, Let them fear, who love not the coming of the inhabitants of heaven; let them fear, who, weighed down with carnal desires, despair that they can ever attain to their company; but why should ye fear, ye who see your own fellow citizens.

Pseudo-Jerome: For there is no fear in love. Why should they fear, who had found Him whom they sought?

Greg.: But let us hear what the Angel adds; “Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus means the Saviour, but at that time there may have been many a Jesus, not indeed really, but in name, therefore the place Nazareth is added, that it might be evident of what Jesus it was spoken. And immediately he subjoins the reason, “Which was crucified.”

Theophylact: For he does not blush at the Cross, for in it is the salvation of men, and the beginning of the Blessed.

Pseudo-Jerome: But the bitter root of the Cross has disappeared. The flower of life has burst forth with its fruits, that is, He who lay in death has risen in glory.  Wherefore he adds, “He is risen; He is not here.”

Greg.: “He is not here,” is spoken of His carnal presence, for He was not absent from any place as to the presence of His majesty.

Theophylact: As if he had said, Do ye wish to be certain of His Resurrection, he adds, “Behold the place where they laid Him.”   This too was the reason why he had rolled away the stone, that he might shew them the place.

Pseudo-Jerome: But immortality is shewn to mortals as [debita, ap. Pseudo-Hier.] due to thankfulness, that we may understand what we were, and that we may know what we are to be.

There follows: “But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee.”

The women are ordered to tell the Apostles, that as by a woman death was announced, so also might life rising again. But He says specially unto Peter, because he had shewn himself unworthy of being a disciple, since he had thrice denied his Master; but past sins cease to hurt us when they cease to be pleasing to us.

Greg.: If again the Angel had not expressly name him who had denied his Master, he would not have dared to come amongst the disciples; he is therefore called by name, lest he should despair on account of his denial.

Augustine, de. Con. Evan., iii, 25: By saying, “He will go before you into Galilee, there shall ye see Him, and He said unto you,” he seems to imply, that Jesus would not shew Himself to His disciples after His Resurrection except in Galilee, which shewing of Himself Mark himself has not ['sec', ap. Aug. (?)] mentioned. For that which He has related, “Early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene,” and “after that to two of them as they walked and went into the country,” we know took place in Jerusalem, on the very day of the resurrection; then he comes to His last manifestation, which we know was on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem.

Mark therefore never relates the fulfilment of that which was foretold by the Angel; but Matthew does not mention any place at all, where the disciples saw the Lord after He arose, except Galilee, according to the Angel’s prophecy. But since it is not set down when this happened, whether first, before He was seen any where else, and since the very place where Matthew says that He went into Galilee to the mountain, does not explain the day, or the order of the narration, Matthew does not oppose the account of the others, but assists in explaining and receiving them.

But nevertheless, since the Lord was not first to shew Himself there, but sent  word that He was to be seen in Galilee, where He was seen subsequently, it makes every faithful Christian on the look out, to find out in what mysterious sense it may be understood.

Greg.: For Galilee mean ‘a passing over’ [transmigratio]; for our Redeemer had already passed from His Passion to His Resurrection, from death unto life, and we shall have joy in seeing the glory of His Resurrection, if only we pass over from vice to the heights of virtue. He then who is announced at the tomb, is shewn in ‘passing over,’ because He who is first known in mortification of the flesh, is seen in this passing over of the soul.

Pseudo-Jerome: This sentence is but short in the number of syllables, but the promise is vast in its greatness. Here is the fountain of our joy, and the source of everlasting life is prepared. Here all that are scattered are brought together, and the contrite hearts are healed. There, he says, ye shall see Him, but not as ye have seen Him.

Augustine: It is also signified that the grace of Christ is about to pass over from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, by whom the Apostles would never have been received when they preached, if the Lord had not gone before them and prepared a way in their hearts; and this is what is meant by, “He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see Him,” that is, there shall ye find His members.

There follows: “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed.”

Theophylact: That is, they trembled because of the vision of Angels, and were amazed because of the Resurrection.

Severianus, Chrysologus: The Angel sits on the sepulchre, the women fly from it; he, on account of his heavenly substance, is confident, that are troubled because of their earthly frame. He who cannot die, cannot fear the tomb, but the women both fear from what was then done, and still, as being mortals, fear the sepulchre as mortals are wont.

Pseudo-Jerome: This also is spoken of the life to come, in which grief and groaning will flee away. For the women prefigure before the Resurrection all that is to happen to them after the Resurrection, namely, they flee away from death and fear.  There follows: “Neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid.”

Theophylact: Either on account of the Jews, or else they said nothing because the fear of the vision prevented them.

Augustine, de Con. Evan., iii, 24: We may however enquire how Mark can say this, when Matthew says, “they departed  quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring His disciples word,” [Mat_28:8] unless we understand it to mean, that they did not dare to say a word to any of the Angels themselves, that is, to answer the words which they had spoken to them; or else to the guards whom they saw lying there; for that joy of which Matthew speaks is not inconsistent with the fear which Mark mentions. For we ought to have understood that both feelings were in their minds, even though Matthew had not mentioned the fear. But since he has also said that they came out with fear and great joy, he does not allow room for any question to be raised.

Severianus, Chrysologus: It is said also in a marked manner, that they said nothing to any one, because it is the part of women to hear, and not to speak, to learn, not to teach.

Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on Matthew 26:14-25 for Wednesday of Holy Week

Mat 26:14  Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests.

Then went one of the twelve, &c. The word then refers partly to what has immediately preceded, and partly to the council of the rulers about taking Christ in the 16th verse. It means that on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, when Judas, the instigator of the murmuring, found himself rebuked by Christ, he did not repent as the other Apostles, whom he had misled, did, but then he made his forehead brazen, and clothed himself with the cloak of impudence, and, mad with covetousness and wickedness, he determined to sell and betray Christ to the Jews. Therefore, on the following Wednesday, when the rulers were taking counsel as to the way in which they might lay hold on Christ, he came to them, and suggested a method, and stipulated to deliver Him into their hands for thirty pieces of silver.

One of the twelve. An Apostle, not one even of Christ’s seventy disciples, or He might the better have borne it, but one of the twelve Apostles, and of His own most intimate friends, whom He had elevated to that lofty rank. So this was the dark ingratitude and wickedness of Judas, which pierced the heart of Christ, so that He said, “If mine enemy had spoken evil of Me, I would have borne it,” &c. “But thou, the man united to me, my guide and my familiar friend! We took sweet counsel together, and walked in the house of God by consent” (Ps 55:13, &c). Wherefore S. Augustine (Tract. 61 in Joan.) says, “One by vocation, not by predestination; in number, not in merit; in body, not in spirit; in appearance, not in reality.”

Went away. Satan having entered into him, as Mark has, not that Satan insinuated himself into the soul of Judas, and so inclined his will and intellect to betray Christ. For God alone is able to glide into the soul, as Didymus rightly teaches (Tract. 3, de Spiritu Sancto). Neither was it that Satan took bodily possession of Judas, in the same way that he possesses energumens, but that he presented reasons suited to his imagination, which induced him to betray Christ, as S. John shows, xiii. 2. The same Evangelist says in the 27th verse, that after supper, when Judas had received the morsel from Christ, Satan entered into him, in order that he might accomplish in act the treachery which he had already purposed in his mind. This expression shows also the horrible atrocity of Judas’ wickedness, as though a man were not sufficient for its perpetration, but there were need of the help and instigation of the devil.

Mat 26:15  And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.

And he said to them, What will ye give me, &c. “Unhappy Judas,” says S. Jerome, “wishes to recompense himself for the loss which he deemed he had sustained by the pouring forth of the oil, by selling his Master. Nor does he even demand a certain sum, so that his treachery might at least seem profitable, but as though he were disposing of a worthless slave, he left the price to the option of the buyers.”

So S. Jerome, who thinks that Judas did not stipulate for any fixed sum, but left it to be determined by the rulers, as though he had said, “Give me what you will.” But others, with greater probability, say that Judas bargained with the rulers thus, “I will sell Christ to you, but for so great a person, and for one whom you hate so much, I demand a suitable price. How much will ye give me?”

Thirty pieces of silver. See the vileness of Judas in valuing Christ, the Saviour of the world, his Master and his Lord, for such a miserable sum. This vileness afflicted Christ with great sorrow. Wherefore S. Ambrose says (lib. de Spirit. Sanct. c. 18) “0 Judas, the traitor, thou valuest the ointment of His Passion at 300 denarii, and His Passion itself at thirty,—rich in valuing, cheap in crime!”

You will ask what was the weight and value of these thirty pieces of silver. Baronius (ex Helia in Tisbi, R. David, and other more modern Rabbins) thinks that the silver piece of Zechariah and the prophets, and consequently of this passage of S. Matthew, as is plain from xxvii 9, is a pound of silver. This would amount to about 1000 Flemish florins. But who can believe that the covetous Jews would pay such a sum to Judas, of his own accord making the offer, not to sell, but only to betray and guide them to a man who was daily to be met with, especially since the Fathers and Zechariah marvel at the price as being so small and poor?

With greater probability, Maldonatus and others understand thirty shekels to be here intended, which would be equal in value to thirty Flemish florins. This was the price at which a slave, who had been killed, was estimated, according to the law in Exodus 21:32. Thus the life of Christ was valued by Judas and the Jews at the same price as that of a slave.

But since Jeremiah (Jer 32:9) distinguishes the stater, or the shekel, which is the Hebrew word, from the silver piece, for he says, “Weigh for it the silver, seven staters and ten silver pieces” (Vulg. following the Heb. See also the margin of the English Version), it would seem more probable that these silver pieces of Judas were half shekels or double denarii. I have been the more confirmed in this opinion from seeing in the Church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem at Rome, together with a portion of the true Cross brought thither by S. Helena, one of those silver pieces for which Christ was sold. This is about the size of a Spanish real, but a little thicker. Hence, also, Zacharias calls the price, ironically, due or fitting; Ang. Vers. goodly. The shekel was equal to a Flemish florin, so that the thirty pieces of silver would be equal to fifteen Flemish florins.

You will ask how could “the potter’s field” be bought for such a sum as this? I answer, that the Heb. שדה, sade, and the Syr. חקל, chakel, i.e., a field, is put for any piece of land, however sandy, stony, or barren, such as sand-pits, which this “field” probably was. It seems to have been useless for agricultural purposes, and of very small value, like the Jewish cemeteries outside the cities of Germany. It is also possible that the rulers may have supplemented the thirty pieces of silver by a grant from the corbana, or treasury.

Observe: Joseph being sold by his brethren was a type of this selling of Christ. But Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver, for it was not fitting, says S. Jerome, that the servant should be sold for as much as his Master.

Observe secondly: Judas, according to S. Ambrose, received the tenth part of the price of the ointment with which Christ was anointed, which was valued at 300 denarii. But it is more probable that he received the fifth part, for the silver piece of Judas seems to have been, as has been said, a double denarius.

Thirdly, because Christ was sold at so vile a price, therefore He deserved to become the price of the whole world, and of all sinners.

Fourthly, because of these thirty pieces of silver, with which Judas and the Jews trafficked for Christ, God smites them with thirty curses in the 109th Psalm. The first is, “Set Thou an ungodly man to be ruler over him.” The second, “Let the devil stand at his right hand.” The third, “When he is judged, let him be condemned.” The fourth, “Let his prayer be turned into sin.” The fifth, “Let his days be few.” The sixth, “His bishopric let another take,” and so on. Lastly, as Hegesippus says, thirty Jews, who were taken captive by Titus, were sold for one denarius.

Mat 26:16  And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him.

Sought opportunity—and found it the following day, being Thursday, which was the first day of unleavened bread. Hear Origen: “Such an opportunity as he sought, Luke explains by saying, he sought . . . in the absence of the multitude, that is to say, when the people were not about Him; but He was in private with His disciples. This also he did, betraying Him at night after supper, in the garden of Gethsemane, whither He had retired.

Mat 26:17  And on the first day of the Azymes (unleavened bread), the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch?

On the first day of Azymes (unleavened bread), &c. The Passover was to be eaten with unleavened, that is, pure unfermented bread, according to the Law. This abstinence from leaven lasted seven days, and the first day of unleavened bread was the first day of the Passover. The Pasch or Passover was celebrated on the 14th day of the first month, at even ; that is to say, on the full moon of the month called Nisan, which was that in which fell the full moon of the vernal equinox. Wherefore, Nisan answers partly to our March and partly to April.

The following is the chronology of the last eight days of the life of Christ. On the Friday, which was the 8th day of Nisan, He came from Ephrem to Bethany. The next day, being the Sabbath, He sups in the house of Simon the leper. The day following was the 10th of Nisan, and Palm Sunday. On the 11th of Nisan, He taught in the Temple, and cursed the barren fig-tree. On the 12th, He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and spake the parables recorded in S. Matthew 24 and 25. On the 13th of Nisan, or Wednesday, the rulers held their council, when Judas sold Him to them. On the 14th of Nisan, He instituted the Eucharist. On the 15th, He was crucified. The 16th of Nisan was Saturday, when He lay in the tomb. The 17th of Nisan was Easter Sunday.

On the first day ofAzymes (unleavened bread), that is, the 14th day of Nisan, or the full moon, Christ about mid-day sent two of His disciples from Bethany to Jerusalem to prepare and roast the paschal lamb, that He might eat it with them in the evening. Here observe, that the first day of unleavened bread is sometimes called the 14th of Nisan and sometimes the 15th. For that evening in which the Jews celebrated the Pasch, with which the days and the eating of unleavened bread commenced, according to the natural computation of time, pertained to the fourteenth day, but according to the computation observed with respect to festivals, it pertained to the following day, or the 15th of Nisan.

You will ask, What was the precise day on which Christ ate the Passover and instituted the Eucharist? Was it the same day on which the Jews kept the Pasch, or was it another? I take it for granted that, according to the belief of the whole Church, Christ was crucified on Friday, and therefore that He ate the paschal lamb at supper the day before, or on Thursday evening.

1st Euthymius and the Greeks say that Christ celebrated the Pasch on the 13th of Nisan; that He anticipated the time fixed by the Law for the Passover, on account of His Passion, which was about to be on the next day, on which the Jews celebrated the Passover. And because the use of azyms, or unleavened bread, began with the Passover on the following day, they think that Christ instituted the Eucharist before the azyms, and in leavened bread. Therefore they celebrate in leavened bread; and they say that this is a command. Whence they condemn the Latins for celebrating in unleavened bread, and call them Azymites and heretics. And they wash their altars before they will celebrate upon them, as deeming them polluted with unleavened bread. They cite in favour of their view S. John 13:1-2, who says, before the feast of the Passover (that is, before the fourteenth day of the moon, when they began to eat unleavened bread) Christ made His supper.

2nd Rupertus, Jansen, Maldonatus, and Salmeron, who enters at length into the subject (tract 9, tom. 4), say that Christ celebrated the Pasch according to the Law on the 14th of Nisan, but that the Jews deferred it until the 15th, an opinion thought to be supported by S. John. For there was a tradition, says Burgensis (ex Seder Olam), that if the Passover fell on the Friday, or the preparation for the Sabbath, it was transferred to the following day, which was the Sabbath, or Saturday, lest two solemn festivals, the Passover and the Sabbath, should concur.1 But this tradition is later than the time of Christ, as may be proved from the Talmud and Aben Ezra.

With these I say that both Christ and the Jews celebrated the Passover on the same day prescribed by the Law, namely, on the 14th day of Nisan, in the evening. That this was so, appears from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who say that Christ celebrated the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, on which the Passover must (by the Law) be killed. And on which day they (ie., the Jews) killed the Passover. Had it been otherwise, the Jews would have proved and condemned Christ to be a transgressor of the Law.

You may object, 1st If Christ celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that He celebrated it on the first day of unleavened bread, which fell upon the fifteenth day? The answer is, as I have already said, that the first day of the azyms was partly the 14th and partly the 15th of Nisan. For that evening on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, with which began the days and the use of unleavened bread, pertained, according to the natural reckoning of time, to the day which preceded the evening, that is, to the 14th of Nisan. But the same evening pertained, according to the festal reckoning, to the day following, which was the 15th of Nisan. And in this sense John says that Christ supped upon the paschal lamb before the feast of the Passover, which was the 15th of Nisan, according to the festal reckoning.

You will object, 2nd That it is said, John 18:28, that the Jews did not enter the prætorium lest they should be defiled, but that they being pure, might eat a pure Pasch. I answer, Passover, in that place, does not signify the paschal lamb, for that had been already sacrificed and eaten the evening before, but the other paschal victims, which they were wont to immolate on the seven following days, but especially on the first day of the azyms, that is, on the morning of the 15th day of Nisan, according to the Law.

You will object, 3rd John 19:21 calls the 15th of Nisan, on which Christ celebrated the paschal supper, the preparation of the Passover. I answer yes, of the Passover, that is, of the Paschal Sabbath, or the Sabbath which fell within the octave of the Paschal Feast, which was for that reason more thought of than other Sabbaths. As S. John adds by way of explanation, For that Sabbath-day was a high day. This appears also from Mark 15:32, who calls this preparation day the day before the Sabbath. For on the preparation day, that is, the Friday, they prepared food and other necessaries for the following day, which was the Sabbath. For on this Sabbath, as being most holy, they abstained from every kind of work, even from preparing food, which was allowable on other festivals.

You will object, 4th That the rulers say in Matt 26:5, Let us put Christ to death, but not on the feast day. I reply that, after the treachery of Judas, they changed their counsel; and they did put Him to death on the feast day.

The disciples came,—two, says S. Mark; Peter and John, S. Luke. Where?—this is not to ask the city or town, but the house. They were certain from the Law (Deut 16:5-7) that the Passover could not be offered anywhere save at Jerusalem. The paschal lamb, however, was not immolated in the temple by the priests, but at home, by each master of a household, who for this purpose retained the ancient right of the priesthood, which was originally given to each first-born son of a family. Philo shows this at length (lib. de Decalogo, sub finem): “Every one ordinarily sacrifices the Passover without waiting for the priest; for they in this case, by the permission of the Law, discharge the office of the priest.” For the sacrifice of the paschal lamb consisted rather in the eating thereof, than in the immolation. Whence the disciples say, eat the Passover. Hence, also, it might be slain, immolated, flayed, and roasted, not indeed by common butchers, but either by a priest, or by that member of a family whom its head should appoint. Thus Peter and John, who were here sent by Christ, killed and made ready the lamb, and prepared the unleavened bread, and the wild herbs with which the lamb was to be eaten. The lamb was wont to be slain at the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon, as Josephus says (lib. 7, de.Bell. c. 17).

Mat 26:18  But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man and say to him: The master saith, My time is near at hand. With thee I make the pasch with my disciples.

Go ye into the city: Jerusalem. From this it is plain that Christ said these things in Bethany. To a certain man, and say. Such a one; this is the Hebrew idiom, when any one is intended whose name is not mentioned. However, He indicates him by certain marks, as S. Mark signifies: “And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the good man of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And His disciples went forth, And came into the city, and found as He had said unto them; and they made ready the Passover.”

Where observe, that it is plain from S. Mark’s words that this water-carrier, who guided them to the house, was not the master of the house. This latter appears to have been a wealthy man, who possessed a spacious mansion, and who was probably a friend and disciple of Christ. The tradition is, that this house belonged to John, whose surname was Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas. This was the house in which the Apostles lay concealed after the death of Christ. In it Christ appeared to them in the evening of the day of His resurrection. And in the same house they received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Wherefore also Peter, when he was delivered by the angel out of the prison into which he had been cast by Herod, betook himself to the believers who were gathered together in this same house (see Acts 12:12). Wherefore, this house was converted into a church. For in it was Sion builded up, which is the greatest and the holiest of all churches. Alexander shows all these things in his Life of the Apostle S. Barnabas. He is followed by Baronius and many others. For where My refreshment is, as the Vulgate of S. Matt. (ver. 14) translates, the Greek has κατάλυμα, inn or lodging. The Greek for chamber is α̉νώγεων, an upper floor, or chamber, or flat, such as are inhabited at Rome by wealthy people. Wherefore it is a type of the Church, which is tending from earth to Heaven.

My time is near at hand, i.e., the time of My death, and of finishing the work which My Father sent Me to do.

Mat 26:19  And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them: and they prepared the pasch.

And the disciples, viz., Peter and John, did as Jesus appointed to them: they killed and roasted the paschal lamb. Now the lamb, prepared for roasting, set forth the image of Christ crucified. For as S. Justin (contr. Tryph.) teaches, the body of the lamb was pierced through with the spit. The hind- feet as well as the fore-feet, which stood in the place of hands, were distended, and held apart by little sticks inserted in the hollows of the feet. As if the spit signified the longitudinal portion of the cross, and the little stakes the transverse bars, together with the nails driven into the hands and feet of the Divine Lamb. For the fire of His affliction was no less than the fire by which the paschal lamb was roasted. “Why,” asks Franc. Lucas, “do lambs always bear the marks of wounds in the hollow of their feet, in a manner not unlike to those which our Saviour retained from the piercing of the nails upon the cross?” Christ then, when He came to the house, and beheld the roasted lamb, beheld in it a lively image of His own crucifixion. Wherefore He offered this lamb, as it were a type of Himself, or rather He offered up Himself, a whole burnt-offering, and as it were a Victim for the sins of the whole world, with a great and burning ardour unto God the Father.

Mat 26:20  But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.

When it was evening, &c. For in the evening, according to the Law, the lamb was to be eaten, and by the eaters standing, that the Hebrews might thereby show that they were prepared for the journey, that is to say, out of Egypt to the land of promise But Jesus is said to have lain down (discubuisse) with His disciples, because the ancients were accustomed at supper to recline upon couches; that is to say, with the lower portion of the body they were in a recumbent position, but with their arms they leant upon supports, as though they were sitting at table. Mark (Mark 14:17) has, when it was evening he came with the twelve. Speaking precisely, there were ten, since two had been previously sent to prepare the Passover, and were already on the spot.

You will ask, Was Judas the traitor present at the celebration of the Passover and the Eucharist? And did he partake of it? S. Hilary and Theophylact (in loc.) say, No. So do Clemens Romanus (lib. 5, Constit. c. 16), Innocent III. (lib. de Myster. Euchar. c. 13), and Rupertus (lib. 10, in Matth.). S. Dionysius (de Eccles. Hierar.) is thought by some to favour the same opinion; but other writers, as S. Thomas, take S. Dionysius to incline to the opposite view. Theophylact also may be taken both ways. The reason why the above writers think that Judas did not partake is, because a traitor was unworthy of so great Mysteries, and one who must be forbidden to assist at them.

But that Judas was present at the Passover and the Eucharist, and that he did communicate with the rest of the Apostles, is the common opinion of all other Fathers and Doctors, namely, Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Ambrose, SS. Leo, Cyprian, Austin, Bede, Rabanus, S. Thomas, and others, whom Suarez cites and follows (3 part. quæst. 73, art. 5, disp. 41, sect. 3), where he maintains that S. Dionysius also held the same opinion. For Dionysius says thus, “And the Author Himself (Christ) of the Creeds most justly separates him, who not as He Himself, nor in like manner, with sacred simplicity, had supped with Him.” Which means, Christ separates Judas from the company of Himself and His Apostles, saying to him, “What thou doest, do quickly,” because he had supped and taken the Eucharist unworthily with Him. For presently, after his unworthy communicating, Satan entered into him, and compelled him to accomplish his betrayal of Christ, as SS. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin teach.

This opinion is proved—1st Because Matthew here says that Christ sat down to the Supper of the lamb and the Eucharist with the twelve Apostles—therefore with Judas. Whence in the 21st verse it follows, And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you that one of you is about to betray me. 2d Because Mark (Mar_14:23) says concerning the Eucharistic Chalice, And they all drank of it. 3d Because Luke says that, after the consecration of the Chalice, Christ immediately added, but yet behold: the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 4th Because John (chap. 13), when he relates that Christ, before the Eucharistic Feast, washed the Apostles’ feet, signifies that He washed the feet of Judas, for He says, you are clean, but not all. For he knew who he was that would betray him. If, then, Christ washed the feet of Judas, He also gave him the Eucharist; for this washing was preparatory to the Eucharistic Feast. 5th Because Christ, after the Eucharistic Supper, said that one of them who were reclining with Him at the table, meaning Judas, was His betrayer. And when John asked, Who was this betrayer? Christ answered (13:26), He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

The a priori reason is, that although Christ might properly have made known to the Apostles the hidden treachery of Judas, for the manifestation of His Divinity and His love, both because He was the lord of the character (famæ) of Judas, as well as because the treason of Judas was already known to others, that is, to the princes and elders, and was very shortly to become known to the Apostles themselves by the course of events, yet was He unwilling to do this, that He might give an example of perfect charity, and that He might by this means draw Judas to repentance. Lastly, He would show that secret sinners must not be publicly traduced nor prohibited from coming to the celebration of holy Communion. Wherefore, when Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, made the Apostles priests and bishops when he said, Do this for a commemoration of Me, it follows that He created Judas also, who was present, a priest and a bishop. Wherefore it is said concerning him in the 109th [108th 8] Psalm, “And his bishopric let another take.” For S. Peter interprets this of Judas in the 1st chapter of the Acts. For although the Hebrew of the passage in the Psalm is pecuddato, i.e., prefecture, meaning his Apostleship, yet there is no reason why it should not be properly understood of Bishopric, as Suarez takes it. Lastly, it is plain that none others, except the twelve Apostles, were present at the Supper and the Eucharist. For these twelve only are mentioned. This against Euthymius, who thinks that others were present.

Mat 26:21  And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you that one of you is about to betray me.

And whilst they were eating, &c. Matthew says that Christ spake this before the institution of the Eucharist, but Luke 12:22 says after it. And this seems more probable. For Christ would be unwilling to trouble the minds of His disciples with such dreadful news before the Eucharist. Rather would He have them wholly intent upon, and devoted to the consideration of so great a Sacrament. Wherefore S. Matthew speaks by way of anticipation. Although S. Austin thinks (lib. 3, de Consens. Evang. c. 1) that Christ spake thus twice, both before and after the Eucharist.

One of you is about to betray (Vulg.), i.e., in a few hours to deliver up. Christ spoke thus, as well to show that He was conscious of the treachery, as that, not against His will, but voluntarily, He suffered. Wherefore He did not flee away, but offered Himself to His betrayer. He did it also to prick the conscience of Judas and arouse him to repentance. So S. Jerome says, “He casts the accusation generally, that the conscience of the guilty one might lead him to repentance” Christ did not name Judas for three reasons. 1st For the sake of his good name, and to teach us to act in like manner. 2d Lest Peter and the Apostles should rise up against Judas, and tear him to pieces. 3d That by this gentleness and charity He might provoke Judas to repentance. Wherefore S. Leo says (Serm. 7, de Passione), “He made it plain to the traitor that his inmost heart was known to Him, not confounding the impious one by a rough or open rebuke, but convicting him by a gentle and quiet admonition, that He might the more easily correct, by bringing to repentance, him whom no charge had robbed of his good name.”

Mat 26:22  And they being very much troubled began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?

And they being very much troubled, &c. Syr. They were vehemently troubled.

Began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?, therefore Judas lest if he alone kept silence should betray himself, or render himself suspected to the rest of the Apostles. For, as Origen says, “I think that at first he thought he might lie hid as a man. But when afterwards he saw that his heart was known to Christ, he embraced the opportunity of concealment offered by Christ’s words.” His first action was one of unbelief, his second of impudence. Now the other Apostles all said, Is it I? because, although their conscience did not accuse them of such a crime, yet, as S. Chrysostom says, they believed the words of Christ rather than their own conscience. Because, as S. Austin says in another place, “There is no sin which a man has done, which a man may not do, if the Ruler, by whom man was made, be absent from him.”

Is it I, Lord? Syr. Mori, i.e., My Lord, is it I? For very greatly did they grieve that Christ their Lord, their Parent and their Master, upon whom they wholly depended, was to be torn from them, and to die, and that through treachery, which was to be perpetrated by one of their own college, which would be the greatest injury, and occasion the utmost infamy to the entire college. Wherefore these words of Christ transfixed their hearts as with a sword, and, says S. Chrysostom, “they became half dead.”

Mat 26:23  But he answering said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me.

He that dippeth his hand, &c. Dippeth; Gr. ό ε̉μβαψάς, who dipped, or who is accustomed to dip. It appears that Judas, in order the better to conceal his treachery, and show himself a friend to Christ, the more frequently dipped bread, or flesh, into the vessel of broth, or vinegar, or condiment. But inasmuch as the other Apostles were wont to do the same thing to some extent, they could not know that Judas was certainly designated as the traitor by these words of Christ. Whence they strove to get at the fact by means of other questions addressed to Him.

Here take notice, for the harmony of the Evangelists, who relate diversely the pointing out of Judas the traitor, that the following is the historical order which harmonises all the Gospels with one another. First, Christ before the Eucharist foretold that He should be betrayed by one of the Apostles. But this He did in a general manner, without naming or indicating any individual. This is plain from Matthew and Mark. Afterwards, when the Apostles asked one by one, Lord, is it I? Christ answered, that “he was the traitor, who dipped his hand with Him in the dish.” For the ancients were wont to recline at table on couches by threes and fours, as I have shown on Est_1:6. Each three or four, therefore, had a common dish, in such a way, that those who reclined on opposite couches might have the same dish. Therefore, because several of the Apostles had the same dish, Christ did not by those words indicate precisely who was the traitor. After this Christ instituted the Eucharist. And when this was finished, He again said that the traitor was with Him at the table, as S. Luke relates at length; on which I have said more on S. Joh_13:21. Whereupon Peter made signs to John, who was reclining upon the bosom of Christ, to ask Him definitely, and by name, who was the traitor. John then asked, and to him Christ answered, “that it was he to whom He was about to give a morsel,” which presently He gives to Judas. Judas having received it, and feeling that he was designated both by his own consciousness of his guilt and by the sign which Christ gave, impudently asks, Is it I, Rabbi? Christ answered, Thou hast said it, meaning, “thou art he.” Wherefore he seemed to himself altogether detected, goes forth, as it were, in madness and rage to accomplish the betrayal of Christ, and goes to the house of Caiaphas, to ask for servants and officers to take Christ.

Mat 26:24  The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.

The Son of man indeed goeth, &c. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.  For “far better is it not to exist at all, than to exist in evil. The punishment is foretold, that him whom shame had not conquered, the denunciation of punishment might correct,” says S. Jerome. He threatens him with the woe of damnation. For far better is it not to be, than to exist only to be endlessly miserable, as I have shown on Ecclesiastes 4:2-3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Epist. ad Furiam), “It is not their beginning which is inquired about in Christians, but their ending. Paul began badly but ended well. Judas’ beginning was commended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor.”

Goeth. “By this word,” says Victor of Antioch, “Christ showeth that His death is like rather to a departure or passing away, than to real death. He signifies, likewise, by it that He went voluntarily to death.” Moreover, the betrayal of Judas was an act of infinite sacrilege, perpetrated directly against the very Person of Christ and God. Thus it was true deicide. Wherefore it is exceedingly probable that Judas abides in the deepest pit of Gehenna, near to Lucifer, and is there grievously tormented. And this seems to be indicated by the word woe, which Christ here pronounces upon him above the rest of the reprobates. Blessed Francis Borgia was wont, in meditation, in the depth of his humility, to place himself at the feet of Judas, that is to say, in the lowest pit of hell, exclaiming that there was no other place fit for him, neither in Heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth, as the due reward of his sins.

Mat 26:25  And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it. 

And Judas…answering said: Is it I, Rabbi? Franc. Lucas thinks, with probability, that Judas asked this question after Christ had given him the morsel of bread.

Now Judas asked this question out of impudence, to cover his wickedness; and, as Jerome says, “by boldness to lay a lying claim to a good conscience.” For he thought that Christ, out of gentleness, would not name His betrayer. As though he had said, “Surely it is not I, 0 Christ, who am Thy betrayer? I who have faithfully served Thee all these years? Who have fed Thy family, and executed all Thy business?”

Thou hast said it. This is the modest Hebrew method of answering, by which they confirm what is asked. As though Christ said, “It is not that I say it, and call thee traitor. It is thou thyself who in reality dost call thyself so because thou art, in truth, a traitor.” Whence S. Chrysostom extols the meekness of Christ, who, in just anger, did not say, “Thou wicked and sacrilegious wretch! thou ungrateful traitor! but gently, Thou hast said it. “Thus has He fixed for us the bounds and rules of forbearance and forgetfulness of injuries.”

Fathers Nolan’s and Brown’s Commentary on John 13:21-33, 36-38 for Tuesday of Holy Week

Text in red are my additions.

Joh 13:21  When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.

He was troubled in spirit. As we said above on John 11:23, this perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times during the night. St. Matthew 26:21-25, and St. Mark 14:18-21 record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records it immediately after the same event: “This is the chalice, the New Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Luke 22:20-21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at first insinuated during the washing of tne feet (verse 10) , again alluded to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterrng, Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he  left the room, as in St John.

No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out, could have retained his place at the supper table, among the Apostles. But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark and the same may be said of that recorded by St. Luke as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.

We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation to Judas himself, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those expressions, or at least some of them, were altogether indefinite, so as to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve who was about to betray Him; just as the words, Unus vestrum me traditurus est, (“one of you is about to betray me”); of St. Matthew 26:21, or the Unus ex vobis tradet me, qui manducat mecum (“one of you shall betray me, the one that eateth with me”) of St. Mark 14:18, or the prophetic words of the Psalmist (Ps 41:9) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John 13:18, qui manducat mecum panem levavit contra me calcaneum suum (“He that eateth bread with me shall lift up his heel against me”).

But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify the traitor, at least in the eyes of his fellow-Apostles. Thus, then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.

The incident recorded by St. John (13:21, 30) is of an essentially different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms, Unus ex vobis tradet me, is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be (see verses 24-26). The request of the beloved disciple is promptly met by the response, Ille est ego intinctum panem porrexero (“He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped”); and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal thus selected by our Lord: et cum intinxisset panem dedit Iudae Simonis Scariotis (“and when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon”).

Joh 13:22  The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.

The disciples therefore looked (rather, were looking, as in the original and Vulgate) one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. The words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say of whom He spoke, for though the original might mean, of what He spoke, Peter’s question immediately afterwards: “Who is it of whom he speaketh?” (verse 24) shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the betrayal, they may perhaps, have doubted even what He meant; but that stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of their number was to play the part of traitor.

Joh 13:23  Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Now there was leaning on Jesus bosom. Rather: “Now there was reclining at the table in Jesus bosom.”  Instead of sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord’s time, and for some time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm, stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same couch, the centre was the place of honour.

One of his disciples whom Jesus loved. This, according to all antiquity, was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again, John 19:26; John 21:7, 20. Comp. also John 20:2.

Joh 13:24  Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?

The best – supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the Vulgate: “Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell who it is of whom he speaketh.” According to this reading, St. John was not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less probable reading, St. John is asked to inquire (πυθεσθαι) who the traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter s character, that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is possible that Christ’s threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less confident than usual.

Joh 13:25  He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it?

If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was, he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.

He therefore leaning on. The best-supported Greek reading would be rendered thus: He leaning back, as he was, on &c ( αναπεσων ουν εκεινος ουτως επ).

From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master’s breast. Thus “as he was,” i.e., without changing his position at table, by merely leaning back, he was not only close to the bosom of Jesus, but was on His breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted to such familiarity with his Divine Master.

Joh 13:26  Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped in the Charoseth, a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper, following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.

Joh 13:27  And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.

After the morsel had been given to Judas, “Satan entered into him;” that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John, became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference to the crime contemplated. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly, again intimating that He knew the traitor’s thoughts, and at the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our Lord do notcontain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime: but, taking for granted the traitor s fixed determination “That which thou dost, i.e., hast determined to do, they show Christ’s readiness and eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.

Joh 13:28  Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.

The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord, still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly upon the disclosure of the traitor.

Joh 13:29  For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.

For some thought . . . . . for the festival day. This conjecture of the Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of Nisan. They argue (a) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (b) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan the Feast would already have begun, and the Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy necessaries in preparation for the Feast.

But to (a) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was not forbidden during the Pasch (Exodus 12:16), and certainly was not for bidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath. To (b) we answer that though the festival time had begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the festal period had already elapsed
would not prevent the Apostles from conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that was still to come. To the poor. From this conjecture, and from John 12:5, we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving alms to the poor.

Joh 13:30  He therefore, having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night.

When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left the supperroom. The Evangelist adds: And it was night, no doubt in order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into which he went forth. Erat autem nox (“and it was night”), says St. Aug., Et ipse qui exivit erat nox (“And he that went out was himself the night”).

Let us pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessd Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any indication of a change in the company, with out the slightest hint that any one had departed, they proceed: “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat; this is My body” (Matt 26:26). Compare St. Mark and St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed. Nay, St. Luke’s version of our Lord s words clearly implies that Judas was present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed Eucharist with the treachery of one who was present. “This is the chalice, the New Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table” (Luke 22:20-21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the chalice: “And they all drank of it” (Mark 14:23).

It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B. Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this “Cum plerisque modernis” (Corn., Hi., p. 298, note). Their principal arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper, records the disclosure of the traitor before the institution of the Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the trea chery of Judas, and only on the last occasion definitely disclosed who the traitor was.

(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this, He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests free now.

We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church, that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained priest.

Joh 13:31  When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the Son of man glorified; and God is glorified in him.

With this verse our Lord’s last discourses begin. They are divided into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter 14, the first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (13:31-14:31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (chapters 15-16). In the first portion the leading ideas are that He and the Apostles are to be separated because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that not withstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they shall be united.

When he therefore was gone out Jesus said. The departure of Judas marked the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His acceptance of the issue of the traitor’s work.

Now is the son of man glorified. Judas had finally decided to betray Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past: “is . . glorified.” For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.

And God is glorified in him. God’s rigorous justice and boundless love for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom 3:25-26; Rom 5:8-9.

Joh 13:32  If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately will he glorify him.

Many authorities omit the words: “If God be glorified in him.”  In himself. The meaning seems to be: with Himself, as in John 17:5, which reads: “And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.” Immediately, we refer to the time of the crucifixion.

Joh 13:33  Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me. And as I said to the Jews: Whither I go you cannot come; so I say to you now.

The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles, and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He had before declared to His enemies (John 7:33-34), He now declares to His dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both cases the same, Christ’s purpose in making it was very different. To the Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while in the present case the motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles by fore warning them and putting before them various motives of consolation.

Little children. The term (τεκνια) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or seven) times in St. John’s First Epistle. The diminutive form is expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were still immature.

Little children you shall seek me, &c. See above on John 7:34. The declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The words: “and shall not find me” (John 7:34) are omitted, and instead of: “where I am” the present text has: “whither I go.”  As we have said, the leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (John 14:18, 23), hence He now omits the words: “and shall not find me;” though in the sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words were true even in reference to the Apostles.

Joh 13:36  Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now: but thou shalt follow hereafter.

St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ s words (verse 33), which signified that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks: Lord, whither goest thou? Christ’s reply means that He was going to Mis Father, whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then. Thou shalt follow hereafter. These words implied Peter’s final perseverance and salvation.

Joh 13:37  Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.

St. Peter, not under standing Christ’s reply, and thinking that He meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.

Joh 13:38  Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice.

Christ replies, rebuking Peter’s boastful confidence, and declaring that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.

We believe that our Lord twice on this night predicted the denials by Peter: once in the supper-room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St. Luke 22:34, and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St. Matthew 26:30-34, and St. Mark 14:26-30. By the latter Evangelists the prophecy of Peter s denial is distinctly placed on the way to Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of the Apostle. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter’s denials.

While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St. Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more minutely, and represents our Lord as saying: “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark 14:30). There is, however, no contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the same prediction; for the second crowing of the cock, before which, according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as “the cock-crowing.” That the cock-crowing in our Lord’s time was regarded as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels. Thus, in St. Mark 13:35, our Lord says: “Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh; at evening, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning).” Thus, then, although the cock crew after Peter’s first denial, as St. Mark records (Mark 14:68), still the time generally known as cockcrow about 3 a.m. was that meant when the word was used, as it is in our Lord’s prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock was the one intended. Hence, the second crowing of the cock referred to by St. Mark was the cock-crowing mentioned by the other three Evangelists.

Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at the Last Supper.

(1) There was the Paschal Supper.

(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet, accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John 13:10).

(3) The ordinary supper, during which

(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt 26:21-25; and Mark 14:18-21).

(5) The Eucharistic Supper.

(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke 22:21).

(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest, occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the charge of treachery.

(8) The question of St. John (John 13:25), and the final disclosure of the