Jaun de Maldonado on Matthew 7:15-21 for Latin Mass (July 11)

The Latin Mass reading for this Sunday is Matt 7:15-21, but I’ve included verses 22-23 in this post.

Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves

It has been thought that these words should be referred to 6:1, as if Christ called those hypocrites who do their justice before men ” false prophets,” to teach men to avoid them.  S. Augustin (ii., De Serin. Dojn.) more correctly
connects these words with the former verse: ” Christ had said that the way which leads to eternal life is strait.  When our road is narrow and dark, we take a guide or follow some index to show it to us.  Christ warns us not to trust to every guide or index; for many false prophets are to be found who offer themselves as guides, and wear sheep’s clothing like travellers.”

Of false prophets.  Christ does not mean that all hypocrites are to be considered false prophets, as some think, but only the false teachers; that is, all heretics whom Christ so terms.  For it was the duty of prophets among the Jews, not only to foretell future events, but also to teach the people the Law,
and to point out to them the way of salvation.  The question is of showing the strait way.  We can understand that true prophets are included —true, that is, because they foretell truly, as Balaam is said to have done.  False prophets are so called, as not being sent by God, and because, when foretelling true things, they persuade to false ones.  Verse 22 treats of these.  They come of their own will, and are not sent by God, as we read in Jeremiah 23:21.

In the clothing of sheep. The meaning is obvious. ” Clothing here means everything outward—words, works, alms, all acts of charity” (The Author, Hovi. xix.).  It is not certain why Christ uses the words ” of sheep “; whether He wishes to say that they come in the clothing of sheep, feigning themselves
to be true sheep that they may be the less feared, like the wolf in the fable, or that they have the dress of shepherds.  This seems the more probable of the two; for Christ is speaking of the teaching of the people, which is the duty of the shepherd of the Church, and He calls those who do it “shepherds” {S.John 10:14; 21:17).  He says, therefore, that they come in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the skins of sheep.

Mat 7:16  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

By their fruits.  As Christ had uttered a warning against false prophets, it was necessary to give some mark by which they might be known. He could not give any single certain one, as their disguises were many, and God alone is the examiner of the human heart, but He gave a probable one adapted to ordinary intelligence and most commonly true, ” By their fruits ” (Luke 6:43).

S. Luke (6:43) seems to imply that these words were spoken in another sense and in another place; for he unites them to the injunction recorded by S. Matthew (5:5)—” Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye “—as if the meaning were: Thou hypocrite, why wilt thou pretend to be a good tree when thou bearest evil fruit ? for, however thou mayest wish to dissemble thy evil deeds, from thy fruits shalt thou be known; for there is no good tree which brings forth evil fruit, and every tree shall be known by its fruits. In this sense S. Matthew says (12:33) that Christ used the same simile of the tree and its fruits, as if He had said: ” If you would seem to be good, do not feign goodness, but practise it “.  The leaves are pretence, the works are the fruit, and the tree is known not by its leaves, but by its fruit.  Hence
it is clear that Christ used the same comparison more than once; either, therefore, S. Luke is not reciting the same as S. Matthew, or he is not keeping the order and connection of the words of Christ; for in S. Matthew it harmonises so well with the preceding sentence that it cannot be separated
from it without one or both being destroyed.

We must see, therefore, what Christ calls the tree, and what the fruits. Tertullian (i., Cont. Marc.) thinks faith the tree.  This agrees well with the text, which treats of the distinguishing between true and false faith. But S. Augustin
(xv., Enchirid. and i. 3, Cont. Julian and Bede, on this passage, think that the man’s will is the tree and the man himself the ground; for as a good and evil tree can spring from the same ground, but good and bad fruit cannot come
from the same tree, but good from good and evil from evil: so from the same man may proceed at one time a good will, at another a bad will, but from the same will both good and bad works cannot proceed. S. Augustin {De grat. Chirst., 1. 18, 19), The Author {Hom. 29.), S. Chrysostom
(Hom. 24.), Theophylact, and De Lyra call the man who has a good will a good tree, and the man who has an evil will an evil tree.  This view would agree well
per se with the context, if the latter were not concerned with the discerning of true faith, but of a good will; but it is concerned with true faith: ” Beware of false prophets “.

Christ calls the man, then, who has faith, whether good r bad, ” a tree “—a good tree if his faith be good, an evil tree if it be bad.  It may be answered that a man who has a good faith frequently brings forth evil fruit.  This cannot be denied; but Christ does not speak of what is so occasionally, but of what is so for the most part—not of what is used to happen from human perversity, but from the nature of faith; for faith, by its own nature, if good, does not bring forth evil fruit, nor if evil, good fruit.

Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

These words seem to be opposed to daily experience; for we see many from evil become good, and from good become evil.  Many explanations of them have, therefore, been offered.

1. Many have taken them to mean that a good tree, while it is good, and an evil tree, while it is evil, cannot bring forth the one good and the other evil fruit (S.Augustin, The Author, S. Chrysostom, Bede).

2. Others have seen that in this manner truth and experience are not satisfied.  For, although a good tree, that is, a just man, continuing to be such, cannot bring forth evil fruit, yet an evil tree, remaining evil, can bring forth some good fruit.  Nor is the opinion (lately condemned, with justice, by the Council of Trent) to be held, that all the works of sinners, or even of infidels, are sin, although S. Augustin himself (4. 3, Cont. Julian., and 3, 5, Cont. Epist. duas Pelag.) and Prosper {Sentent. 106.) seem to have held it, and some Catholic divines have defended it.  They have, therefore, asserted that a good tree, in that it is good, cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree, as it is
evil, bring forth good fruit.  But we cannot by this means distinguish a good from a bad tree, which is the question at issue.

It is not asserted, therefore, that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit; for this cannot possibly be, for assuredly an evil tree can bring forth some good, and a good tree some evil fruit; but that of their own nature they cannot; and a good tree does not habitually bring forth evil fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit.  For, each of its own nature, ” out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”; and “a good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things ” . And when Christ had previously said, ” Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree evil and its fruit
evil” (5. Matt. 12:33-35), He added, “How can ye, being evil, speak good things? ” but not as meaning that it could not be.  For the Scribes and Pharisees of whom He spoke (23:2, 3) were certainly evil, because their lives were evil; and yet they uttered good words, because what they said was to be done.  This only shows, however, that in this they acted  against their nature, and were not accustomed to do so.

It will be objected: ” If a good tree can bring forth evil fruit, and an evil tree good fruit, how are we taught to know them by their fruit? ” It may be objected, again: ” If the Pharisees, when they brought forth evil fruit, were yet the good tree, that is, were not false prophets, but true Doctors of the Law, how could they be known by their fruits? For if the hearers had followed this rule of Christ, and judged of their doctrine by their lives, they would have rejected the former as false.”  Christ did not will to give a certain text, but only a probable sign; and to teach that false prophets, who proved their doctrine to be false by their pretence of holiness, would not be able to conceal themselves long under the sheep’s clothing, but that the wolf which underlay it would, some time or other, appear.  For pretence cannot long pass for truth.

It is wonderful how many errors have sprung from this good and evil tree, (1) First of all there came the Manicheans, who said that some men were good by nature and never evil; and (2) that there were others evil by nature, who never could be good. S. Jerome (in loc), and S. Augustin (1. 3, Cont. Juliam. Disput.; 2., Cont. Fortunat.) have refuted them out of Scripture.  (3) The Pelagians denied original sin, because marriage, they said, was a good tree,
and could not bring forth evil fruit, that is, generate original sin.  S. Augustin (2. 26,De Nupt. et Concupis) has answered this.  Again, they said that free-will was inherent iu us, like a kind of root, and could, of itself and by itself (ipsa
per se), produce either a good tree, that is, a good will, or an evil tree, that is, an evil will (S. Augustin, 1. 18, De Grat. Christ).

Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Not any one that saith to me. All the Ancients explain these words of the life of beatification.  For, although the Church is sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, the words ” Enter into the kingdom of heaven ” never signify the Church, but always the life of everlasting beatification.  It is clear that Christ, in this passage, is speaking of the reward which is given, not in the Church, but in the kingdom of heaven.  As if He had said, ” The way to heaven is not by words but by actions,” and, from the following verse, it is clear that the allusion is to the last judgment, when some will be admitted into heaven, and others will be shut out.

But he who doeth the will of My Father.   It seems as if Christ should have said, ” He that doeth My will,” for the people called Him ” Lord,” and not the
Father, and they ought to do the will of Him whom they confess as their Lord. ” Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I say? ” S. Chrysostom and Thcophylact reply, on the passage, that we may see that the will of the Father and of the Son are the same, as the Son, when He ought to have named His own will, named His Father’s instead.

But if the will of each be the same, why did He speak of His Father’s rather than His own? They answer that He did so, as it would be more acceptable to His hearers, and would cause less invidiousness to Himself Another reason may be suggested.  Christ everywhere ascribes to the Father the ” person ” of a lawgiver, and He comports Himself as His legate—numbering Himself among those who do the will of the Father, as in 26:42 ; .S. John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; and He always speaks of ” the will of My Father,” not of ” My will,” as in 12:50.

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

In that day.  In that terrible and most notable day.  For the word
” that ” has here this force. As if Christ spoke of a day not like others, but sure, and peculiar, and to be filled with the fear and the fame of the future judge (24:36 ; S.  Mark 13:32; S. Luke 21:34; 1 Thess. 5:4; 2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8; 1 Cor. 3:13; 4:5).

Many miracles.  Miracles are of many kinds, at least frequently.  For what Christ had before said per partes and distributively, He now concludes in genere.  As if He then said, “Have we not prophesied and cast out devils, and done many other miracles in Thy name?”  This passage has given rise to the question whether miracles can be wrought, even by the wicked.  This, at
least, is certain.  As there are two kinds of miracles, the true and the false, the false can be wrought even by the wicked. For S. Paul declares (2 Thess. 2:9) that Antichrist will work false miracles; and although it may be doubted whether the magicians of Pharaoh worked true miracles or not, yet, at least, it is certain that they did work false ones.  The question is, therefore, of true
miracles: Whether they can be wrought by the wicked?

Here a distinction is to be made. For true miracles can be wrought by the wicked, either while they are wicked or before they began, or after they had ceased to be such.  It is not doubtful as regards the two last classes. For Saul,
before he became wicked, when he was a “child of one year” (1 Kings 13:1), prophesied, as we read in 1 Kings 10:10-12 ; and S. Matthew the publican, after he had ceased to be a publican, that is, a public sinner, wrought many miracles like the other Apostles.  It is more doubtful as to those who are wicked as long as they remain so.

There is yet another distinction to be observed.  For a question may be raised as to the wicked who have faith, or of the same who have none. Of the former. Scripture has taught us that they can work true miracles; for Caiaphas was wicked, but he prophesied because he was high priest that year; Judas wrought miracles while he believed in Christ, for he received power with the other Apostles (S. Matt 10:1) ; and he gloried with the others, because the
devils were subject to him (St. Luke 10:17) ; and yet he was a thief, and bore the purse (S. John 12:6).  Saul, after the Lord had departed from him, stood in the midst of a company of prophets and prophesied like the rest (1 Kings 19:20-24).  As miracles are done most chiefly by faith, we may doubt of those who have not faith; not whether they do work miracles, for Scripture declares that they do: but whether they work true miracles.

S. Chrysostom {Horn, xxv.), S. Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact prove by many examples that, even by men who do not believe, true miracles have been wrought.  For Balaam, a false and unbelieving prophet, prophesied truly
(Numb 24:17). From this passage we may easily conclude that the false prophets of whom Christ spoke as hereafter to do true miracles, prophesied truly—truly cast out devils ; and Christ did not say that they were liars, but
that, though they had done these things.  He did not know them.  The sense of the passage requires it that Christ signified their miracles to be true.  For it would have been no matter of wonder if, to those who had done false miracles, He should have answered that He did not know them.  But it would have been strange indeed if He had made this reply to those who had done true miracles.  It would not have been a great matter if He had warned us
against believing those who did false miracles.  But it is wonderful that He puts us on our guard against believing false prophets, even if they do true miracles.  We are not to discern between true and false prophets by their miracles alone, but also by their fruits, that is, by their lives.

It will be said: ” No conclusion in proof of the truth of the doctrine can be drawn from true miracles.  It does not follow that no proof at all can be drawn, but none wholly conclusive.  We know that Christ gave the Apostles power to work miracles, for the confirmation of the faith.  We know that the whole world was drawn to the faith by the power of miracles.  They who deny this, as S. Augustin says, against the Gentiles, work, themselves, a greater
miracle by taking away miracles.  For it is a more incredible miracle that the whole orb of the world—that is, that so many philosophers and wise men—should have believed the Apostles, who were so few in number and without learning, when teaching things so incredible to human reason, without any miracles, than were the miracles themselves which are declared to have been done by them. It is, therefore, a probable argument for the faith that is drawn from miracles, for they are often done by faith, very seldom indeed without it.  When they are done they are done, not to prove the faith of those who do them, but to confirm the truth of the faith of those who have faith.  For Balaam did not confirm his own faith by his prophecies, but rather the faith of the people of God against whom he had been brought to bear testimony; and almost all the miracles which were done by heretics (and they were, indeed, few) appear to be of this kind, and such as we read of in Scripture.

For the argument derived from miracles is necessary, if not from every point of view, yet at least from one or even two.  For although it does not follow of necessity that whoever works miracles should have true faith, it does follow that that in which frequent and, as it were, ordinary miracles are wrought, must be the true Church; because, although God sometimes permits miracles to be wrought by particular individual creatures, out of His Church, as He did by Balaam’s ass, which was certainly not in the Church, yet to no society of men in general has He given the ordinary power of miracles but to His
Church.

The negative argument on the other side has, in fact, more force—that that in which no miracle is wrought cannot be the true Church of God, because we know that He has given to this the power of working miracles.  Sts. Jerome and Augustin object, on this passage, “that no one can say Jesus but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor 12:3).  How, then, can they who have not the Spirit of God, not only say Lord, Lord, but even work miracles in the name of Christ?”  They answer: ” To say Jesus does not there mean to utter the name in words, but in deeds “.  That is, not only to confess Christ by faith, but to show Him in our lives, which no one, it is plain, can do without the Holy Ghost.

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

And  then.  In that day (of which Christ has spoken in the preceding
verse), before all men, when the hidden things of darkness will be revealed: “As if He had said, I will bear with you, and dissemble with you, even to that day, and leave you like chaff mixed with the grain on the threshing floor; but
then I will search you, then I will sift you ” (S. Jerome, The Author, and Bede).

I will profess.  The Author read the Greek as “I will swear,” for “I
will confess,” which agrees well with the text.  For by “swear” he understands Christ to say, ” Amen, amen, I say unto you I know you not” (xxv. 12).  St Jerome and others explain the words, ” I will profess,” to mean, ” I will
publicly profess that I know them not.”  Christ appears to oppose His own true to their false confession, as if He had said: They have confessed Me falsely before men; I will confess them truly before My Father, but that I know them not.  As He says on the contrary of those who have truly and sincerely confessed Him: ” Everyone that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess Him before My Father who is in heaven ” (10:32).

I never knew you.  Theophylact says: “Not even then when you did miracles”.
All ancient authors, and Origen first (On Romans 8), have observed that the word “know,” in this and other like passages, does not mean knowledge, but feeling, approbation, as S. John 10:14; 2 Tim 2:19; S. Matt 25:12; S. Luke 13:25.  For God knows all men, but He does not approve all men for His own. The true meaning of’ the passage is manifold. It may mean (1) either “I never
knew you, that is, I never held you as my own, I never placed you in the number of the predestinated;” or (2) “I never held you for true prophets, such as you feigned to be.”  This agrees apparently with the text, of which the subject is the discerning of false prophets.

Cornelius a Lpaide on Matthew 7:15-21 for Latin Mass (July 11)

Mat 7:15  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Beware of false prophets, &c. Christ passes on to a most salutary admonition concerning the taking heed of false teachers, who teach that the way to heaven is not strait, but easy, and who thus send those who follow them not to heaven but to hell. They teach that we need not fast, nor go to confession, nor preserve virginity, nor religious vows; they allow all sorts of liberty to the flesh, and take away all merit from good works.

Observe, a prophet in Scripture means not only one who foretells future events, but many other persons, such as holy and religious men, singers, workers of miracles, and here as in many other places, a doctor or teacher. For the prophets were teachers, who made known the way of life, and of understanding things which were not plain to others, whether he foretold future events or not. For in Hebrew a prophet is called a seer, because he sees secret and hidden things, especially such things as future events. False prophets therefore are false teachers, whether they be heretics, or Gentiles and Pagans.

Now the sheep’s clothing which these wolves put on are to veil their errors and heresies, first under the plea of liberty of conscience; 2. By quoting texts of Scripture that serve to favour their heresies; 3. The pretext of reforming the morals of the Church, especially those of the clergy and ecclesiastics; 4. By the simulation of meekness, simplicity, and piety; 5. By soft speeches, and a garrulous eloquence by which they cover their wolfish ferocity.

Who come, in truth, from themselves, neither called nor sent, nor approved by the bishops and prelates of the Church. Concerning these it is said (Jer_23:21), “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran.”

Mat 7:16  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

By their fruits, &c. Do men gather? As grapes are not wont to be produced by or gathered off thorns, nor figs off thistles, so in like manner, no good or sweet fruit can be collected from heresy,or heretics, but only harsh and thorny fruit. This fruit is of two kinds—1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age. For Luther teaches that vows are not binding upon the religious: that man does not possess free will, that he is the slave of necessity, that he must sin: that faith alone justifies: that good works have no merit before God. Calvin teaches that God is the author of evils: that Christ despaired on the Cross, that He felt the pains of hell, &c.; which things are downright blasphemy, and contrary to the natural law and to reason. Calvin also maintained that the Faith, by which he meant his own perversion of it, should be defended and propagated by force of arms, even by the slaughter of lawful princes and kings, of bishops, priests, and Catholics who opposed it. Whence we have heard of, and almost seen with our eyes in England, France, and Germany, so many murders, robberies, banishments of priests and Catholics, and a vast deluge of iniquity, and as it were a universal conflagration of goodness. We have seen the Blessed Sacraments profaned, the Holy Sacrifice abolished, vows broken, the saints contemned, churches burnt, the sacred canons set at nought, virgins violated, and all such like. For, as John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who, with Thomas More, was a glorious martyr in England under Henry VIII., truly says, “Lust is at once the mother and the child of heresy.”

Mat 7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Even so every good tree, &c. “For a good tree is not distinguished from an evil one by its leaves or flowers,” says S. Bernard (Epist. 107), but by its fruit.

Observe, 1. By good tree in this place, we are not to understand a good will, or charity, and by a corrupt tree an evil will, as S. Augustine, Chrysostom, and others think, but a good or bad teacher, for about these the words immediately preceding are spoken.

Note, 2. By the fruit of the tree, i.e., of a doctor, must be understood his doctrine, which comes forth true from a true teacher, false from a false one.

Mat 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, &c. “A thorn tree cannot produce grapes, nor thistles figs, but a thorn must produce thorns, and a thistle thistles, as I have said; and vice versa, a vine cannot produce thorns, but grapes; and although the grapes and the figs should not ripen, but remain sour, that does not arise from the fault of the vine, or the fig-tree, but from unseasonable weather, and deficiency of the sun’s heat. In like manner a prophet, that is, a true teacher, cannot teach false doctrine, nor can a false teacher teach the truth, or act altogether rightly and holily. You must take this in a composite and formal sense, so far, that is, as the teacher is good or bad; because in a concrete and material sense, the good doctor may fall away from his goodness, and teach or do wicked things. The Scribes taught right, but their deeds were evil. The converse also of this is sometimes true.

Many heretics have wrested this sentence of Christ, applying it falsely for establishing their own heresies. For first, the Manichæans endeavoured to prove from it that some men are by nature good and others evil; or that there are two natural Principles, one good, which makes some men good; the other evil, which makes some men bad. 2. Jovinian maintained from these words that a man who is born of God is not able to commit sin. (See S. Jerome, contra Jovinian.) 3. The Pelagians inferred from it that there is no original sin, because from a good marriage as from a good tree, such an evil fruit as sin cannot be produced. Teste S. Augustine (lib. de Nupt. et Concup. c. 26). 4. The Donatists gathered from it that wicked priests, as bad trees, cannot properly baptize. 5. The Calvinists argue from it that there is no free will in man to bring forth good works, or bad. The same infer from it that we are not justified by good works, but only declared righteous, since a tree is not made good by its good fruits, but is manifested by them to be good. But all these things are falsely inferred. They have none of them anything to do with the passage. For Christ properly applies this maxim only to prophets, that is to true or false teachers, as I have said.

Mat 7:21  Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Not every one that saith to me, &c. Behold here Christ clearly describes the fruit of a good tree, i.e., of a good doctor and Christian that verily it is to do the will of our Heavenly Father, that in truth thou shouldst not only believe in Him and in His law as set forth by Christ, but that thou shouldst in deed, and in all things, fulfil the same. So says S. Augustine (lib. 2 de Serm. in Mont.). Therefore Christ says, Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord: that is, not every one who believeth in Me as Lord and God, or invokes Me as such, or who often has My name on his lips, in attestation of his words and his doctrine, as though he were preaching the pure Gospel, as the heretics boast—such a one, I say, shall not enter into the Palace and Kingdom of Heaven’s Father, but he who shall do that Father’s will, that is, who shall fulfil His Commandments. And these are two. 1. To believe in Christ, with an orthodox faith, and 2, to perform in act and deed the commands of Christ. For “duties in words obtain not the kingdom of Heaven.” “We must do some thing and offer some thing that is our own to obtain a blissful eternity,” says S. Hilary. And “the road to the kingdom of heaven is obedience, not the speaking of a name,” says the Gloss.

Mat 7:22  Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

Many will say to me in that day—the Day of Judgment. For that shall be the last and greatest Day of the world. That Day shall be the gate of eternity, and shall send those who have done good works to a blessed, and those who have done evil works to a miserable eternity. “Then,” as S. Chrysostom says, “the works of each shall speak, while their tongues keep silence, nor shall one intercede for another.”

Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied, &c. Have we not foretold future events by Thy light and grace? So Maldonatus. Or otherwise, Have we not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by Thy commission and authority taught and preached the true faith? So Jansen.

And done many miracles. He calls wonderful works, or miracles, virtue, as it is in the Greek and Vulgate. And those real miracles. For it is plain from this verse that God does sometimes work miracles even by false prophets, as He did by Judas the traitor (Luk_10:17, &c.) and Caiaphas (Joh_11:49.) And Balaam the soothsayer (Numb 24:3). S. Jerorne says, “To work miracles is sometimes not because of his goodness who works them: but it is the invocation of the name of Christ which performs them for the good of others.” Whence S. Gregory collects (lib. 20, Moral. 8): “The proof of sanctity is not the performance of miracles, but to love one’s neighbour as oneself, and to think of God what is true, and to think better of one’s neighbour than of oneself.”

Observe, although impious and false teachers may, by the gift of God, prophesy and work miracles, yet they cannot do this for the confirmation of false doctrine. For a miracle, even a solitary one, so long as it is real and plain, is not only a probable, but a morally certain proof of true doctrine, whence Christ and the Apostles use it as an inviolable argument for proving the Christian faith. Nor do we ever read of a miracle being wrought in confirmation of heresy or error. And à priori reasoning shows this. For a miracle is a singular and supernatural operation of God alone, by which, as by His own seal, God attests the right faith and truth, wherefore if God should hearken to a false teacher calling upon Him to confirm his error by a miracle, He would seem to co-operate with him, and attest his error, and by consequence, lie and deceive, which is impossible. For God is the Prime Verity, and the Truth itself, and He has reserved the power of working miracles to Himself alone, that by them, as a testimony peculiar to Himself, He may seal His own Word and His own Truth, and testify that they emanate from Him. A miracle therefore is as it were the Voice of God working and attesting that He does speak; and He confirms His words by it as by a seal. For other things are common to God, with angels, and devils. Wherefore in them it is doubtful whether God, or an angel, or the devil speaks and works. So D. Thomas (2a. 2æ,. quæst. 178, art. 2) and theologians passim. And S. Augustine (lib. Contra Epist. Fundamenti, c. 4) declares that he was held in the Church by the chains of miracles. And Richard de S. Victor says, (lib. 1 de Trinit. c. 2), “0 Lord, if it be error which we believe, we have been deceived by Thee. For our faith has been confirmed among us by such signs and wonders as could not have been wrought unless they were done by Thee.” (See also Bellarmine, lib. 4, On the notes of the Church, c. 14.)

Let us observe, however, here, that if the gift of miracles has been given to any one by God for any reason, as an abiding habit, or condition, such a one may afterwards abuse the gift, and work the miracle for an evil end, such, for example, as vain glory, gain, or the confirmation of what is false. For in such a case God concurs indeed with the miracle itself but not with the abuse of it, or with the evil object of him who works it. For this He only permits. Thus God concurs with an impious priest in the consecration of the Eucharist, even though the priest intends to abuse it for the purposes of sorcery, or blasphemy, yea even to sell it to a Jew to mock at and pierce it. And understand this, that I have said as to a wicked man abusing the gift of miracles, upon the principle, that any grace given by God for one end may be abused by evil men for another end. For it is plain that the power of consecration is given by God to a priest for one end, although he may abuse his power for another end. Still it appertains to the providence of God not to allow an impious man to abuse the grace of miracles to deceive others so as to lead them into heresy, if this misuse should be entirely hidden from them. For then men without any fault of their own, and on the authority, as it would appear, of God’s attestation would be led into error, which is impossible. Neither could God correct or amend their error by another miracle. For men would say that if the first miracle were wrought for the confirmation of what is false, by parity of reasoning, the second also might be wrought for the confirmation of what is false: so that God would, as it were, disarm Himself, and deprive Himself of the power of declaring and attesting the truth, and confuting error. For this consists in the working of miracles. In the case of those whom the common people call Saviours, even when they are of evil life, it is plain, says Navarrus in his Manuale, that the gift of curing diseases has been given them by God for the common good of the Church, and that they can abuse this gift for evil purposes. So also in Flanders, they say that those who are born on Good Friday, and also a seventh son, sprung in continual descent from a seventh son, are able to cure the King’s Evil by touching it. But the gift is given by God to the former in honour of Good Friday, and the mystery of Christ’s Death and Passion, and to the latter in honour of wedlock, to show that it has been honoured and instituted by God, and raised by Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament. Wherefore if any should use this power for evil, we can see that it is the man who is abusing his gift, not God who is co-operating with him for evil. Thus it is said that the same power of curing the King’s Evil has been given to the kings of England and France, on account of the merits of King Edward the Confessor. Indeed, one Tucker, a Protestant, wrote a Book about the persons cured of the King’s Evil, by Elizabeth, late Queen of England. But he is completely confuted by Delrio, in Magicis (lib. 1, c. 3, 9. 4)

At any rate up to the present time there is no case on record in which it can be shown that any one who had even the habitual gift, has wrought a miracle for the confirmation of heresy, or false doctrine, unless we choose to allow that Calvin, pretending in confirmation of his heresy to raise a supposed dead man to life, who was really alive, God, to punish the deceit, caused the man to die. But all such miracles, as it were indications of perfidy, condemn heresy and confirm the true faith.

Mat 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

And then will I profess unto them, &c. “I Christ, will say unto the false prophets, who have taught and done miracles in My Name, in the Judgment Day, I knew you indeed as My prophets, who did miracles in My Name: but as My friends and sons whom I predestinated to the inheritance of My glory, I know you not. That is, I do not love and delight in you, because the will and law of My Heavenly Father, which ye taught unto others with your mouths, ye have not fulfilled in your deeds. Go ye therefore into everlasting fire, because ye have wrought iniquity.” So says S. Augustine; and S. Gregory says, “Christ deserts them as unknown whom He did not know for the merit of their lives.” (Hom. 12 in Evangel.) This knowledge therefore of God is not speculative, but practical, loving, and affectionate: as we are said to know those whom we love, and not to know those whom we dislike.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 7:15-23 for Latin Mass (July 11)

Ver 15. “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: The Lord had before commanded His Apostles, that they should not do their alms, prayers, and fastings before men, as the hypocrites; and that they might know that all these things may be done in hypocrisy, He speaks saying, “Take heed of false prophets.”

Aug., Serm. in Mont., ii, 23: When the Lord had said that there were few that find the strait gate and narrow way, that heretics, who often commend themselves because of the smallness of their numbers, might not here intrude themselves, He straightway subjoins, “Take heed of false prophets.”

Chrys.: Having taught that the gate is strait, because there are many that pervert the way that leads to it, He proceeds, “Take heed of false prophets.” In the which that they might be the more careful, He reminds them of the things that were done among their fathers, calling them “false prophets;” for even in that day the like things fell out.

Pseudo-Chrys.: What is written below that “the Law and the Prophets were until John,” [Mat_11:13] is said, because there should be no prophecy concerning Christ after He was come. Prophets indeed there have been and are, but not prophesying of Christ, rather interpreting the things which had been prophesied of Christ by the ancients, that is by the doctors of the Churches. For no man can unfold prophetic meaning, but the Spirit of prophecy. The Lord then knowing that there should be false teachers, warns them of divers heresies, saying, “Take heed of false prophets.”

And forasmuch as they would not be manifest Gentiles, but lurk under the Christian name, He said not ‘See ye,’ but, “Take heed.” For a thing that is certain is simply seen, or looked upon; but when it is uncertain it is watched or narrowly considered. Also He says “Take heed,” because it is a sure precaution of security to know him whom you avoid. But his form of warning, “Take heed,” does not imply that the Devil will introduce heresies against God’s will, but by His permission only; but because He would not choose servants without trial, therefore He sends them temptation; and because He would not have them perish through ignorance, He therefore warns them before hand.

Also that no heretical teacher might maintain that He spoke here of Gentile and Jewish teachers and not of them, He adds, “who come to you in sheep’s clothing.” Christians are called sheep, and the sheep’s clothing is a form of Christianity and of feigned religion. And nothing so casts out all good as hypocrisy; for evil that puts on the semblance of good, cannot be provided against, because it is unknown. Again, that the heretic might not allege that He here speaks of the true teachers which were yet sinners, He adds, “But inwardly they are ravening wolves.” But Catholic teachers should they indeed have been sinners, are spoken of as servants of the flesh, yet not as ravening wolves, because it is not their purpose to destroy Christians.

Clearly then it is of heretical teachers that He speaks; for they put on the guise of Christians, to the end they may tear in pieces the Christian with the wicked fangs of seduction. Concerning such the Apostle speaks, “I know that after my departure there will enter among you grievous wolves, not sparing the flock.” [Act_20:29]

Chrys.: Yet He may seem here to have aimed under the title of “false prophets,” not so much at the heretic, as at those who, while their life is corrupt, yet wear an outward face of virtuousness; whence it is said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” For among heretics it is possible many times to find a good life, but among those I have named never.

Aug., Serm. in Mont., ii, 24: Wherefore it is justly asked, what fruits then He would have us look to? For many esteem among fruits some things which pertain to the sheep’s clothing, and in this manner are deceived concerning wolves. For they practise fasting, almsgiving, or praying, which they display before men, seeking to please those to whom these things seem difficult.

These then are not the fruits by which He teaches us to discern them. Those deeds which are done with good intention, are the proper fleece of the sheep itself, such as are done with bad intention, or in error, are nothing else than a clothing of wolves; but the sheep ought not to hate their own clothing because it is often used to hide wolves.

What then are the fruits by which we may know an evil tree? The Apostle says, “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornication, uncleanness, &c.” [Gal_5:19] And which are they by which we may know a good tree? The same Apostle teaches, saying, “The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: The fruits of a man are the confession of his faith and the works of his life; for he who utter according to God the words of humility and a true confession, is the sheep; but he who against the truth howls forth blasphemies against God is the wolf.

Jerome: What is here spoken of false prophets we may apply to all whose dress and speech promise one thing, and their actions exhibit another. But it is specially to be understood of heretics, who by observing temperance, chastity, and fasting, surround themselves as it were with a garment of sanctity, but inasmuch as their hearts within them are poisoned, they deceive the souls of the more simple brethren.

Aug., non occ.: But from their actions we may conjecture whether this their outward appearance is put on for display. For when by any temptations those things are withdrawn or denied them which they had either attained or sought to attain by this evil, then needs must that it appear whether they be the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or the sheep in his own.

Greg., Mor., xxxi, 14: Also the hypocrite is restrained by peaceful times of Holy Church, and therefore appears clothed with godliness; but let any trial of faith ensue, straight the wolf ravenous at heart strips himself of his sheep’s skin, and shews by persecuting how great his rage against the good.Chrys.: And the hypocrite is easily discerned; for the way they are commanded to walk is a hard way, and the hypocrite is loth to toil. And that you may not say that you are unable to find out them that are such, He again enforces what He had said by example from men, saying, “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”

Pseudo-Chrys.: The grape had in it a mystery of Christ. As the bunch sustains many grapes held together by the woody stem, so likewise Christ holds many believers joined to Him by the wood of the Cross. The fig again is the Church which binds many faithful by a sweet embrace of charity, as the fig contains many seeds inclosed in one skin. The fig then has these significations, namely, love in its sweetness, unity in the close adhesion of its seeds. In the grape is shewn patience, in that it is cast into the wine-press – joy, because wine maketh glad the heart of man – purity, because it is not mixed with water – and sweetness, in that it delighteth. The thorns and thistles are the heretics. And as a thorn or a thistle has sharp pricks on every part, so the Devil’s servants, on whatsoever side you look at them, are full of wickedness. Thorns and thistles then of this sort cannot bear the fruits of the Church. And having instanced in particular tress, as the fig, the vine, the thorn, and the thistle, He proceeds to shew that this is universally true, saying, “Thus every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but an evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.”

Aug., Serm. in Mont., ii, 25: In this place we must guard against the error of such [margin note: Manichees] as imagine that the two trees refer to two different natures; the one of God, the other not. But we affirm that they derive no countenance from these two tree; as it will be evident to any who will read the context that He is speaking here of men.

Aug., City of God, book 12, ch. 4: These men of whom we have spoken are offended with these two natures, not considering them according to their true usefulness; whereas it is not by our advantage or disadvantage, but in itself considered, that nature gives glory to her Framer. All natures then that are, because they are, have their own manner, their own appearance, and as it were their own harmony [margin note: pacem], and are altogether good.

Chrys.: But that none should say, An evil tree brings forth indeed evil fruit, but it brings forth also good, and so it becomes hard to discern, as it has a two-fold produce; on this account He adds, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.”

Aug., Serm. in Mont., ii, 25: From this speech the Manichees suppose that neither can a soul that is evil be possibly changed for better, nor one that is good into worse. As though it had been, A good tree cannot become bad, nor a bad tree become good; whereas it is thus said, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,” nor the reverse. The tree is the soul, that is, the man himself; the fruit is the man’s works. An evil man therefore cannot work good works, nor a good man evil works. Therefore if an evil man would work good things, let him first become good. But as long as he continues evil, he cannot bring forth good fruits. Like as it is indeed possible that what was once snow, should cease to be so; but it cannot be that snow should be warm; so it is possible that he who has been evil should be so no longer; but it is impossible that an evil man should do good. For though he may sometimes be useful, it is not he that does it, but it comes of Divine Providence super-intending.

Rabanus: And man is denominated a good tree, or a bad, after his will, as it is good or bad. His fruit is his works, which can neither be good when the will is evil, nor evil when it is good.

Aug., see Op. Imp. in Jul. v. 40: But as it is manifest that all evil works proceed from an evil will, as its fruits from an evil tree; so of this evil will itself whence will you say that it has sprung, except that the evil will of an angel sprung from an angel, of man from man? And what were these two before those evils arose in them, but the good work of God, a good and praiseworthy nature.

See then out of good arises evil; nor was there any thing at all out of which it might arise but what was good. I mean the evil will itself, since there was no evil before it, no evil works, which could not come but from evil will as fruit from an evil tree. Nor can it be said that it sprung out of good in this way, because it was made good by a good God; for it was made of nothing, and not of God.

Jerome: We would ask those heretics who affirm that there are two natures directly opposed to each other, if they admit that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, how it was possible for Moses, a good tree, to sin as he did at the water of contradiction? Or for Peter to deny his Lord in the Passion, saying, “I know not the man?” Or how, on the other hand, could Moses’ father-in-law, an evil tree, inasmuch as he believed not in the God of Israel, give good counsel?

Chrys.: He had not enjoined them to punish the false prophets, and therefore shews them the terrors of that punishment that is of God, saying, “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down, and cast into the fire.”

In these words He seems to aim also at the Jews, and thus calls to mind the word of John the Baptist, denouncing punishment against them in the very same words. For he had thus spoken to the Jews, warning them of the axe impending, the tree that should be cut down, and the fire that could not be extinguished.

But if one will examine somewhat closely, here are two punishments, to be cut down, and to be burned; and he that is burned is also altogether cut out of the kingdom; which is the harder punishment. Many indeed fear no more than hell; but I say that the fall of that glory is a far more bitter punishment, than the pains of hell itself. For what evil great or small would not a father undergo, that he might see and enjoy a most dear son? Let us then think the same of that glory; for there is no son so dear to his father as is the rest of the good, to be deceased and to be with Christ. The pain of hell is indeed intolerable, yet are ten thousand hells nothing to falling from that blessed glory, and being held in hate by Christ.

Gloss., non occ.: From the foregoing similitude He draws the conclusion to what He had said before, as being now manifest, saying, “Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Ver 21. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Jerome: As He had said above that those who have the robe of a good life are yet not to be received because of the impiety of their doctrines; so now on the other hand, He forbids us to participate the faith with those who while they are strong in sound doctrine, destroy it with evil works. For it behoves the servants of God that both their work should be approved by their teaching and their teaching by their works.

And therefore He says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, enters into the kingdom of heaven.”

Chrys., Hom., xxiv. Rom. 2, 17: Wherein He seems to touch the Jews chiefly who placed every thing in dogmas; as Paul accuses them, “If thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: Otherwise; Having taught that the false prophets and the true are to be discerned by their fruits, He now goes on to teach more plainly what are the fruits by which we are to discern the godly from the ungodly teachers.

Aug., Serm. in Mont., ii, 24: For even in the very name of Christ we must be on our guard against heretics, and all that understand amiss and love this world, that we may not be deceived, and therefore He says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord.”

But it may fairly create a difficulty how this is to be reconciled with that of the Apostle, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” [1Co_12:3] For we cannot say that those who are not to enter into the kingdom of heaven have the Holy Spirit. But the Apostle uses the word ‘say,’ to express the will and understanding of him that says it. He only properly says a thing, who by the sound of his voice expresses his will and purpose. But the Lord uses the word in its ordinary sense, for he seems to say who neither wishes nor understands what he says.

Jerome: For Scripture uses to take words for deeds; according to which the Apostle declares, “They make confession that they know God, but in works deny him.” [Tit_1:16]

Ambrosiaster Comm. in 1 Cor 12, 3: For all truth by whomsoever uttered is from the Holy Spirit.

Aug., non occ.: Let us not therefore think that this belongs to those fruits of which He had spoken above, when one says to our Lord, “Lord, Lord;” and thence seems to us to be a good tree; the true fruit spoken of is to do the will of God; whence it follows, “But who doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Hilary: For obeying God’s will and not calling on His name, shall find the way to the heavenly kingdom.

Pseudo-Chrys.: And what the will of God is the Lord Himself teaches, “This is,” He says, “the will of him that sent me, that every man that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal life.” [Joh_6:40] The word believe has reference both to confession and conduct. He then who does not confess Christ, or does not walk according to His word, shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Chrys.: He said not “he that doth” My “will,” but “the will of my Father,” for it was fit so to adapt it in the mean while to their weakness. But the one secretly implied the other, seeing the will of the Son is no other than the will of the Father.

Aug., Serm. in Mont., ii, 25: Here it also pertains that we be not deceived by the name of Christ not only in such as bear the name and do not the deeds, but yet more by certain works and miracles, such as the Lord wrought because of the unbelieving, but yet warned us that we should not be deceived by such to suppose that there was invisible wisdom where was a visible miracle; wherefore He adds, saying, “Many shall say to me in that day.”

Chrys.: See how He thus secretly bring in Himself. Here in the end of His Sermon He shews Himself as the Judge. The punishment that awaits sinners He had shewn before, but now only reveals who He is that shall punish, saying, “Many shall say to me in that day.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: When, namely, He shall come in the majesty of His Father; when none shall any more dare with strife of many words either to defend a lie, or to speak against the truth, when each man’s work shall speak, and his mouth be silent, when none shall come forward for another, but each shall fear for himself. For in that judgment the witnesses shall not be flattering men, but Angles speaking the truth, and the Judge is the righteous Lord; whence He closely images the cry of men fearful, and in straits, saying, “Lord, Lord.” For to call once is not enough for him who is under the necessity of terror.

Hilary: They even assure themselves of glory for their prophesying in teaching, for their casting our daemons, for their mighty works; and hence promise themselves the kingdom of heaven, saying, “Have we not prophesied in thy name?”

Chrys.: But there are that say that they spoke this falsely, and therefore were not saved. But they would not have dared to say this to the Judge in His presence. But the very answer and question prove that it was in His presence that they spoke thus. For having been here wondered at by all for the miracles which they wrought, and there seeing themselves punished, they say in wonderment, “Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” Others again say, that they did sinful deeds not while they thus were working miracles, but at a time later. But if this be so, that very thing which the Lord desired to prove would not be established, namely, that neither faith nor miracles avail ought where there is not a good life; as Paul also declares, “If I have faith that I may remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing.” [1Co_13:2]

Pseudo-Chrys.: But not that He says, “in my name,” not in My Spirit; for they prophesy in the name of Christ, but with the spirit of the Devil; such are the diviners. But they may be known by this, that the Devil sometimes speaks falsely, the Holy Spirit never. Howbeit it is permitted to the Devil sometimes to speak the truth, that he may commend his lying by this his rare truth. Yet they cast out daemons in the name of Christ, though they have the spirit of his enemy; or rather, they do not cast them out, but seem only to cast them out, the daemons acting in concert with them. Also they do mighty works, that is, miracles, not such as are useful and necessary, but useless and fruitless.

Aug.: Read also what things the Magi did in Egypt in withstanding Moses.

Jerome: Otherwise; To prophesy, to work wonders, to cast out daemons by divine power, is often not of his deserts who performs the works, but either the invocation of Christ’s name has this force; or it is suffered for the condemnation of those that invoke, or for the benefit of those that see and hear, that however they despise the men who work the wonders, they may give honour to God. So Saul and Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied; the sons of Scaeva in the Acts of the Apostles were seen to cast out daemons; and Judas with the soul of a traitor is related to have wrought many signs among the other Apostles.

Chrys.: For all are not alike fit for all things; these are of pure life, but have not so great faith; those again have the reverse. Therefore God converted these by the means of those to the shewing forth much faith; and those that had faith He called by this unspeakable gift of miracles to a better life; and to that end gave them this grace in great richness. And they say, “We have done many mighty works.” But because they were ungrateful towards those who thus honoured them, it follows rightly, “Then will I confess unto you, I never knew you.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: For great wrath ought to be preceded by great forbearance, that the sentence of God may be made more just, and the death of the sinners more merited. God does not know sinners because they are not worthy that they should be known of God; not that He altogether is ignorant concerning them, but because He knows them not for His own. For God knows all men according to nature, but He seems not to know them for that He loves them not, as they seem not to know God who do not serve Him worthily.

Chrys.: He says to them, “I never knew you,” as it were, not at the day of judgment only, but not even then when ye were working miracles. For there are many whom He has now  in abhorrence, and yet turns away His wrath before their punishment.

Jerome: Note that He says, “I never knew you,” as being against some that say that all men have always been among rational creatures.” [ed. note: Origen was accused of saying that all men were from their birth inwardly partakers of the Divine Word or Reason. vid. Jerome, Ep. ad Avit.]

Greg., Mor., xx, 7: By this sentence it is given to us to learn, that among men charity and humility, and not mighty works, are to be esteemed. Whence also now the Holy Church, if there be any miracles of heretics, despises them, because she knows that they have not the mark of holiness. And the proof of holiness is not to work miracles, but to love our neighbour as ourselves, to think truly of God, and of our neighbour better than of ourselves.

Aug., Cont. Adv. Leg. ii. 4: But never let it be said as the Manichees say, that the Lord spoke these things concerning the holy Prophets; He spoke of those who after the preaching of His Gospel seem to themselves to speak in His name not knowing what they speak.

Hilary: But thus the hypocrites boasted, as though they spoke somewhat of themselves, and as though the power of God did not work all these things, being invoked; but reading has brought them the knowledge of His doctrine, and the name of Christ casts out the daemons. Out of our own selves then is that blessed eternity to be earned, and out of ourselves must be put forth something that we may will that which is good, that we may avoid all evil, and may rather do what He would have us do, than boast of that to which He enables us. These then He disowns and banishes for their evil works, saying, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Jerome: He says not, Who have worked, but “who work iniquity,” that He should not seem to take away repentance. “Ye,” that is, who up to the present hour when the judgment is come, though ye have not the opportunity, yet retain the desire of sinning.

Pseudo-Chrys.: For death separates the soul from the body, but changes not the purpose of the heart.

Haydock Commentary on Romans 6:19-23

Rom 6:19  I speak an human thing, because of the infirmity of your flesh. For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity: so now yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification.

Rom 6:19
I speak a human thing,[2] or I am proposing to you what is according to human strength and ability assisted by the grace of God, with a due regard to the weakness and infirmity of your flesh.  The sense, according to St. John Chrysostom is this, that the apostle having told them they must be dead to sin, lead a new life, &c. he now encourages them to it, by telling them, that what is required of them is not above their human strength, as it is assisted by those graces which God offers them, and which they have received.  Where we may observe that these words, I speak of a human thing, are not the same, nor to be taken in the same sense, as chap. iii. 6. when he said, I speak after a human way, or I speak like men. (Witham) — What I ask of you Christian Romans, is, that you so earnestly labour for your sanctification as to improve daily in virtue, as formerly you plunged every day deeper and deeper into vice. (Menochius)

Rom 6:20  For when you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice.
Rom 6:21  What fruit therefore had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of them is death.
Rom 6:22  But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.

Rom 6:20-22  You were free from justice; that is, says St. John Chrysostom, you lived as no ways subject to justice, nor obedient to the law and precepts of God: an unhappy freedom, a miserable liberty, worse than the greatest slavery, the end of which is death, eternal death: of which sins with great reason you are now ashamed, when you are become the servants of God, and obedient to him, for which you will receive the fruit and reward of everlasting life in heaven. (Witham)

Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 6:23  For the wages, which the tyrant sin gives to his soldiers and slaves, is eternal death; but the wages, the pay, the reward, which God gives to those that fight under him, is everlasting life; which, though a reward of our past labours, as it is often called in the Scriptures, is still a grace,[3] or free gift; because if our works are good, or deserve a reward in heaven, it is God’s grace that makes them deserve it.  For, as St. Augustine says, when God crowns our works, he crowns his own gifts. (Witham)

Resources for Sunday Mass, July 11 (Both Forms of the Rite)

Resources for the Ordinary Rite:

Readings from the NAB:

• Dt 30:10-14.
• Responsorial Psalm.  Note: Two psalms are offered this Sunday.
• Col 1:15-20.
• Luke 10:25-37.

Aquinas on Psalm 19 (18).

Bernardin de Piconio on Colossians 1:15-20 for Sunday Mass (July 11).

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Luke 10:25-37 for Sunday Mass (July 11).

Cornelius a Lapide on Luke 10:25-37 for Sunday Mass (July 11).

Navarre Bible Commentary: Links are only temporary.

• First Reading/Commentary.
• Second Reading/Commentary.
• Gospel Reading/Commentary.

Haydock Commentary.  Douay-Rheims translation of readings followed by commentary notes.

What We Must Do.  A short podcast by Dr. Scott Hahn. Text available also. Temporary link.

Lector Notes.  These notes try to serve the Church by helping lectors prepare to proclaim the Scriptures in our Sunday assemblies. For each day’s first and second readings (and occasionally for the gospel), the Notes give the historical and theological background, plus suggestions on oral interpretation.

Thoughts From The Early Church.  Brief  excerpt from a commentary by Origen.

Scripture In Depth.

Resources For The Extraordinary Rite:

Haydock Commentary on Romans 6:19-23 for Latin Mass (July 11).

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Matthew 7:15-21 for Latin Mass (July 11).

Cornelius a Lpaide on Matthew 7:15-21 for Latin Mass (July 11).

Juan de Maldonado on Matthew 7:15-21 for Latin Mass (July 11).  I’ve included commentary on verses 22-23 in this post.

Cornelius a Lapide on Luke 10:25-37 for Sunday Mass (July 11)

Sorry, I didn’t have time to edit this.

Ver. 25.—And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up. “What ought I to do to obtain eternal life?” This lawyer is not the same as the one mentioned by S. Mat_22:35, as is clear from the circumstances there recorded.
And tempted Him. He asked the question, not for any good motive, but with the design of tempting Christ to give some answer concerning Himself or His doctrine, which might lay Him open to the charge of being a breaker or a despiser of the law. Toletus.

Ver. 29.—But he, willing to justify himself. To justify himself, i.e. to show himself to be more just than others. “Show me any one who comes nigh me in righteousness, who is as just and upright as I am. Such an one you will scarcely find.” So Titus, Euthymius, and Isidore of Pelusium, who think that the lawyer spoke with the pride and arrogance of a Pharisee.

“He thought,” says Isidore, “that the neighbour of a righteous man must be righteous, and the neighbour of an exalted man one of high degree. Show me some one so great as to be worthy to be compared with me.”

But the answer of Christ proved the contrary, as is clear from a consideration of the passage. For when this lawyer heard Christ commend the answer he had given, his purpose changed, and his aversion turned into love and reverence for the Lord. Hence he earnestly asked, Who is my neighbour? that by loving him he might fulfil the law.

Hence, “willing to justify himself,” means that he wished to show his love for that which was right, that he was anxious out of an awakened conscience to understand and learn the law of God, in order that he might fulfil its precepts. Toletus, Jansenius, and others.

And who is my neighbour? There was much questioning amongst the scribes concerning this, and much error. For because it is written, Lev_19:18, “Thou shalt love thy friend” (רע rea), they inferred the contrary, “thou shalt hate thy enemy,” i.e., the Gentile, every one not a Jew: an error which Christ corrected, S. Mat_5:43.

Hence the scribes thought that the Jew alone, as a worshipper of the one true God, and, of the same religion and race, could be a friend, or a neighbour, and even of their countrymen only those who were faithful in their observance of the law, were to be loved or to be held in honour.

Well, therefore, might this lawyer ask, Who is my neighbour? I love all my countrymen who walk uprightly, and regard them as my neighbours, but are there others whom I ought to love? Christ answers that all men are our neighbours, because they partake of the same life, the same grace, the same salvation through Christ, the same sacraments, the same vocation and calling and are journeying with us to the same eternity of happiness.

Every man, therefore, is our “rea,” our friend and our fellow; or in the Greek נכחףןע, near to us, from נוכבזש or נכש, I draw nigh, which is more forcibly rendered in Latin by “proximus,” because we are “proximi” next or nearest to each other in a direct sense by virtue of the life we live in common with them, and the blessings which we enjoy.

But by proximus Cicero and the Latins understood vicinissimus, i.e. neighbour in the strictest sense. Hence Isidore (lib. x. etymol.). We call him the nearest to us, who is next of kin; and Cicero (lib. II De legibus), “Whatever is best, that we must look upon as next or nigh unto God.” But now all men are our neighbours by creation, and by their redemption and calling in Christ.

Figuratively. The word “neighbour” is suggestive of the tenderest affection and love, such as that of brother for brother, or of a son for his father, for no one comes between them, inasmuch as there is no higher relationship; yet there are degrees of this love, for we must love our father more than our brother, and our brother more than any more distant relation, for amongst our nearest of kin one is nearer to us than another, and therefore more to be loved.

Ver. 30.—And Jesus answering said. Taking up or continuing His discourse. Euthymius. I.e. answering the lawyer and explaining fully and clearly to whom “neighbour” applied.

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves. A Jew, S. Augustine says; and an inhabitant of the holy city. Bede.  The parable is founded on incidents of at that time frequent occurrence, and is therefore a true history. For, as S. Jerome observes, between Jerusalem and Jericho was a place infested with robbers, called in the Hebrew tongue Adommim, or rather Addammim, i.e. red or bloody, because of the blood which was shed there. So Adrichomius describes Adommim as a place infamous even in later times for robberies and murders, terrible to behold, and so dangerous that no one dared to pass through it without an escort.
There the Samaritan met with this man who, like many another traveller, had been grievously wounded by robbers. The place itself lay four leagues to the west of Jericho, and was situated on the confines of Judah and Benjamin. A fort had been built there, and garrisoned with soldiers, for the protection of travellers. Close by was a large cavern, and the country round was hilly, so that robbers could see from afar the approaching wayfarer, and lie in ambush to attack him. Hence in Joshua xv. 7 the place is called the going up to Adommim.

Which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed leaving him half dead. Stripped him of his raiment, money, and all that he had, and left him half dead by the wayside, where he would have died of his wounds had no one come to succour him. For it is the custom of robbers, in order to avoid detection, to murder their victims. The Syriac version makes the meaning clear. “They wounded him, and left him when there was scarce any life remaining in him.”

Ver. 31.—And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. By chance, humanly speaking, but really by the providence of God, for all things are foreordained by Him. Passed by on the other side, “ב̉םפינבזח̃כטום.” The priest, terrified at his appearance, turned away from him, and went by on the other side. Christ here draws attention to the perversity of the priests of that day, who were zealous in carrying out all the outward observances of the law, but were utterly wanting in true religion and in showing mercy and pity. For this priest left his fellow-countryman and neighbour in his direst distress without even a word of consolation or comfort.

Ver. 32.—And likewise a Levite when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. The Levite amongst the Jews, like the deacons in the Church, assisted the priest in his ministrations. He was therefore of one mind with the priest, for as the priest so is the Levite, as the prelate so the deacon, as the master so the servant, as the teacher so the disciple. And so he also passed by on the other side.

Ver. 33.—But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. A Samaritan one of an entirely different race and religion, and therefore, as a heretic and schismatic, more hateful to the Jews than any other of the Gentiles. Yet this despised Samaritan had pity on the poor traveller who had, been abandoned by both priest and Levite. Hence we learn that not only our friends but also our enemies are our neighbours, and Christ holds up this Samaritan as an example of brotherly kindness and love, because he had compassion on one who was hateful to himself and his people.

Ver. 34.—And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine. Went to him, got off the horse or the ass on which he was riding, and poured into the wounds the oil and wine which he carried with him as refreshment for the way.

The order is inverted. He first, in accordance with the practice of the physicians of that day, washed the wounds with wine; for wine (1.) removes the coagulated blood; (2.) arrests corruption; (3.) closes the wound and strengthens the nerves against the effects of the bruises.
Then he anointed the wounds with oil—(1) To sooth their smart; (2.) to allay the pain; and (3.) to help forward the cure.

Hence S. Gregory says (lib. xx. chap. 8, Moral), By wine we may understand the gnawings of conscience; by oil the healing influences of religion—and so mildness must be mingled with severity if we would heal the wounds of the soul, and rescue sinners from the power of sin. But S. Chrysostom considers the wine to be the blood of the Passion, the oil the unction wherewith we are anointed, i.e. the unction of the Holy Spirit. Interlinear Gloss.
And set him on his own beast. On his ass. Syriac.

Allegorically. S. Augustine explains the beast to mean the flesh of Christ, and to be set thereon, to believe in the incarnation.  S. Ambrose says, He places us on His beast whilst He bears our sins; and Theophylact, He made us to be His members and partakers of His body.

And brought him to an inn. וי̉ע נבםהןקוי̀ןם, in stabulum. Vulgate. The resting-place built for the accommodation of all—the stabulum, where travellers stopped or stood to rest,

And took care of him. Providing everything which his case required.

Ver. 35.—And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence—i.e. not two pence in the ordinary signification of the words, but sufficient to supply the wants of the wounded man until his return.  S. Augustine says, “The two pence are the two precepts of love, which the apostles received for the evangelising of the world, or the promise of this life, and of that which is to come.”

And gave them to the host, &c. Learn hence how great was the love of the Samaritan, for he provided everything that was needful for the poor traveller’s cure.

Allegorically. The traveller is Adam wounded, and all but dead in trespasses and sins. For Adam went from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell from grace into the power of Satan. For the thieves are the evil spirits who tempted Adam and Eve to sin, and corrupted the souls of all with the lust of concupiscence. The priest and Levite represent the ancient law, which was unable to remedy the consequences of Adam’s fall.

The Samaritan is Christ, by whom men are rescued from sin and promised salvation. The beast is his human nature, to which the divine is united, and on which it is carried and borne. The inn is the Church, which receives all believers. The wine is the blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed from sin. The oil represents his mercy and pity. The host, who is the head of the inn, i.e. of the Church, is S. Peter. So S. Ambrose, Origen, and the Fathers.
Hear also Origen more particularly: “A certain preacher thus interprets the parable. The man who went down from Jerusalem is Adam. Jerusalem is Paradise, Jericho the world. The thieves are the powers which are against us. The priest is the law, the Levite, the prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The beast whereon he sat, the body of the Lord, i.e. His humanity. The inn the Church. By the two pieces of money we may understand the Father and the Son, and by the host, the head of the Church, him to whom its governance is committed. The return of the Samaritan is the second coming of the Lord;” and this interpretation seems reasonable and true.

Again the Fathers and Theologians teach from this parable that Adam was stripped of those gifts and good things which were of grace, but wounded in those things which were of nature, not indeed in his nature pure and incorrupt, for nature is the same after sin as before, but in his nature established by grace, cleansed and renewed by justification imputed by God. For in a nature of this kind all the appetites and passions as well as the lust of concupiscence are subjected to the understanding, so that a man does not wish or desire anything but that which is right. For deprived through sin of original justification we experience in ourselves, unwittingly and contrary to our will, evil desires. This is the wound which nature has received.

Ver. 36.—Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? The true meaning of the passage is this, Which of these three seems to thee to have acted as neighbour to the wounded man? and in this sense it was understood by the lawyer who answered, “He that showed mercy upon him.” Christ asked the lawyer which of the three by his actions showed that he looked upon the wounded man as a neighbour. For neighbour is a correlative term, and a man can only be a neighbour to a neighbour, just as a man can only be compassionate to one who needs pity.
Hence Christ indicates the one by the other, and thus answers the lawyer’s inquiry. Christ inverted His answer, in order to give an example of the perfection of brotherly love, so that the lawyer and all men might learn to imitate the Samaritan. Hence Jesus said, “Go and do thou likewise,” v. 37.
So also in the parable of the two debtors, Christ asks, “Which of them will love him most?” See chap. vii. 42.  S. Augustine, Bede, and all the Fathers.

Ver. 37.—And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. Hereby we understand, says S. Augustine, “that he is our neighbour to whomsoever we must show compassion, if he need it, and would have shown it if he had needed it.” Hence it follows that even he who must in turn show us this duty is our neighbour. For the name of neighbour relates to something else, nor can any one be a neighbour except to a neighbour.

Hence it is clear that to no one, not even to our enemy, is mercy to be denied. And S. Augustine very appositely adds, “What more remote than God from men? For God possesses two perfections, righteousness and immortality. But man two evils, sin and death. God was made man, and so like unto us, yet not like us, for He was without sin, and by bearing the punishment, but not the guilt of sin, He abolished both the guilt and the punishment.”

Isidore of Pelusium assigns the cause. Relationship is reckoned according to nature, not virtue; in essence, not by worth; by compassion, not by place; by the manner of treatment, not by neighbourhood. For we must account him as a neighbour who is most in need of our aid, and be willing at once to render him help.