Chapter
XXXII: FOURTH PART OF THE
PUBLIC LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS
CHRIST:
FROM THE
THIRD PASSOVER TO THE FOURTH AND LAST PASSOVER.
1.
After leaving Capharnaum, Jesus and His followers arrived at Bethany on
the 2nd of April and as usual stayed at the home of Lazarus. The following
day He celebrated the Sabbath in the synagogue of the town. The Jewish
Passover of the year 33 of the Christian era commenced on the 3rd of April
after sunset, the first day of the Passover or 14th of Nisan, and
therefore ended at sunset on the 11th of April, that is, at the end of the
21 st of Nisan. Jesus celebrated the ritual supper at Lazarus' home in
Bethany after sunset on the 4th of April, that is, at the beginning of the
15th of Nisan. His Divine Mother, the Apostles and disciples, some of the
pious women, and Lazarus, Martha and Mary were present at the rite.
Grasping the true spirit of the Law of Moses, this Holy Council amplifies
the definition in Chapter XXIX of this Treatise, where we said that the
14th of Nisan was the first day of the Passover, now adding that it was so
because on that day everything was prepared for the seven days of
Unleavened Breads, which began to be eaten at sunset on the 14th of Nisan,
that is, at the start of the 15th of Nisan, the day on which the Paschal
Supper was celebrated.
2.
During the days of the Passover, which as we know were one of preparation
and seven of Unleavened Breads, the Divine Master visited the Temple and
taught the multitudes. On the 5th of April He explained the parable of the
barren fig tree in one of His sermons in the Temple as Saint Luke
narrates: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard: and
he came seeking fruit on it and found none, And he said to the dresser of
the vineyard: Behold, for these three years I come seeking fruit on this
fig tree and I find none. Cut it down therefore. Why cumbereth it the
ground? But he answering, said to him. Lord, let it alone this year also,
until I dig about it and dung it. And if happily it bear fruit: but if
not, then after that thou shalt cut it down" (Luke XIII, 6-9). With
this parable, Jesus once more reproached the obstinate and impenitent
attitude of the Levitical religious authorities, especially the High
Priests and the majority of the Sanhedrin, these great dignitaries being
represented by the sterile fig tree planted in the vineyard, which is the
Jewish People; since, although in that vineyard there were at that time
some stocks bearing fruit - representing the minority who accepted Christ,
as well as many without fruit - those who did not accept Him, nonetheless
the fig tree, that is to say the Jewish ecclesiastical hierarchy, for its
great sterility was conspicuous amongst those not bearing fruit. The man
owning the vineyard to whom reference is made in the parable represents
God the Father, Who, tired of seeing the fruitlessness of the fig tree,
orders it to be cut down by the dresser of the vineyard, His Divine Son,
Who for three years now went up to Jerusalem to teach in the Temple,
especially during the celebration of the three Passovers, in order also to
give those ungrateful authorities further opportunity to be converted; but
instead of changing they went ever further astray. However, Jesus
beseeches His Heavenly Father to delay His just punishment and give them,
for one year more, the final and decisive opportunity to reform; since in
the next feast of the Passover He would cultivate this fig tree in a most
special way with His Death on the Cross, and would fertilize it with the
outpouring of His Blood. If after this the fig tree remained fruitless it
could then be cut down - that is, abandoned in its iniquity, as indeed
occurred.
3.
The Evangelist Saint Luke says: "And He was teaching in their
synagogue on their Sabbath" (Luke XIII, I0); with which he shows that
on that journey Jesus preached in some of the synagogues of Jerusalem and
its environs. The Evangelist (Luke XIII, 11- 17) then relates the curing
of the stooped woman on the Sabbath in one of them, which we affirm was
that of Bethany, on the 10th of April. As is clear from the Gospel text
itself the woman suffered from this ailment because she was possessed, and
the unclean spirit manifested his presence in her body in the deformity
she suffered. The ruler of the synagogue was vexed with Jesus because He
had healed on the Sabbath. Jesus rejected his criticism and made him see
that the Law did not oppose the practice of charity on that sacred day,
but rather favoured it, and for that reason He had freed the poor woman
from the slavery of the Devil.
4.
Saint Luke, according to our interpretation, also recounts the intense
apostolate accomplished by Jesus, preaching in some of the houses of
Jerusalem and its surroundings, as is seen from the event told in his
Gospel: "And it came to pass, when Jesus went into the house of one
of the chief of the pharisees, on the Sabbath day, to eat bread, that they
watched Him" (Luke XIV, 1). He then relates the healing, in that same
house, of the man with dropsy (Luke XIV, 2-6), and the teaching which
Jesus gave the pharisees and doctors of the Law present at the miracle. In
the light of the mentioned Gospel texts we teach the following doctrine:
Now the Acts of the Apostles (V, 34) refer to one of the principal
pharisees and doctor of the Law called Gamaliel, a prudent man of upright
conduct, respected by the people for his virtue, and who we affirm was a
member of the Sanhedrin. From other sources we know that he was a teacher
of great prestige, a relative, of Nicodemus and a close friend of Joseph
of Arimathea. We affirm that Gamaliel, when in the Temple on the principal
day of the Passover, heard the parable of the fig tree from the divine
lips of Jesus. The illustrious doctor of the Law was deeply moved and
henceforth wished to enter into direct contact with Him. In order to do
so, he, through the two aforementioned members of the Sanhedrin, on the
10th of April invited the Divine Master to dine at his home. Jesus gladly
assented, and pharisees, doctors of the Law and also some other members of
the Sanhedrin gathered there. The twelve Apostles, Lazarus of Bethany, and
some of the more intimate disciples accompanied Jesus to the banquet, at
which Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were of course present. The curing
of the man with dropsy related by the Gospel (Luke XIV, 2-6) took place
before the invited were seated, the man having been brought to Jesus by
one of the pharisees in order to tempt Him, its' being the Sabbath. The
Lord, however, taking pity, healed and sent him on his way.
5.
When the invited sat down, Jesus observed the desire of some for the first
places at table, and availing Himself of this opportunity narrated the
parable of the lowest place among the guests, which Saint Luke (XIV, 7-11)
relates, thereby teaching them the meritorious nature in the eyes of God
of the exercise of humility, estimable even before men. Moreover, as the
majority of the guests of Gamaliel at the feast were illustrious persons,
well to do but not very charitable, Jesus said to them: "When thou
makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren nor thy
kinsmen nor thy neighbors who are rich; lest perhaps they also invite thee
again, and a recompense be made to thee. But when thou makest a feast,
call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind. And thou shalt be
blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for
recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just" (Luke
XIV, 12-14). With this doctrine Jesus also placed on record that although
He had attended the banquet, it was not for social or material show but to
win salvation for them, in their majority poor and sick of soul. For His
delight was to be with the humble and simple, as were His Apostles and
disciples who, because of correspondence to their vocation, already in
this world partook of the nuptials of the Kingdom of God.
6.
The Evangelist Saint Luke says that when one of those eating at table,
whom we affirm to have been Gamaliel's son Abib, heard Jesus' words, he
exclaimed: "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the Kingdom of
God" (Luke XIV, 15); and that He answered him with the parable of
those invited to the supper, which the same Evangelist (Luke XIV, 16-24)
narrates. We stress the odd impression made on many of the illustrious
Jews present at Gamaliel's banquet when they saw with whom Jesus had come,
for they considered the Apostles and disciples simple and uncultured men.
For this reason Jesus saw that it was the opportune moment to explain the
parable of those invited to the supper, so that the pharisees, doctors of
the Law and members of the Sanhedrin might once more understand why Christ
had chosen those simple men, and had dispensed with the majority of the
aforementioned dignitaries; since before electing the Apostles and
disciples, He had called the leaders of the Jewish Church to the banquet
of the Kingdom of God, but they had rejected His invitation. Moreover, He
had been on His evangelical mission for nigh on three years, and they had
kept going astray with increasing obstinacy, However, they still had time
to come to the Messianic banquet, but if they did not do so they would
never taste of that divine supper. The following words of the parable are
of profound doctrinal meaning: "And the Lord said to the servant: Go
out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that My
house may be filled" (Luke XIV, 23), since they make evident the
Heavenly Father's desire that His Divine Son concede to those men of
humble social and human condition, as were His Apostles and disciples,
most special graces, for them to correspond more easily to His divine
invitation, and thereby form the new council of His Church. During Jesus'
stay at the home of Gamaliel, the pharisees, doctors and other enemies of
the Evangelical Law did not dare to raise discord among those present as
was their custom, even though the Lord had laid bare their hypocrisy,
because, apart from not knowing how to reply, Gamaliel's authority and the
respect which Jesus inspired in him kept them astutely discreet, as is
proved by the silence they maintained in the face of His divine words at
the healing of the man with dropsy (Luke XIV, 4, 6).
7.
We conclude this evangelical passage of Christ's meal at the home of
Gamaliel by teaching that that illustrious doctor of the Law profited by
Christ's invitation to the heavenly nuptials, and was baptized privately,
along with his son Abib, by the Apostle Peter that same day, the 10th of
April. We teach that the Levitical High Priests, as well as the other
members of the Sanhedrin, had full knowledge of Jesus' sermon at the home
of Gamaliel, having been informed of it by the members present at the
banquet. By divine permission Gamaliel, just like Nicodemus and Joseph of
Arimathea, remained a secret disciple of Jesus in order thus to fulfil
delicate missions in favour of the Messias. We give some further details
concerning Gamaliel by citing the passage of the Acts in which he rose up
in the Sanhedrin - assembled in order to judge and do away with the
Apostles - to request the council to send them out. When that had been
done he said in defence of the Twelve, among other things, the following:
"And now, therefore, I say to you: Refrain from these men and let
them alone. For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to
nought: But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be
found even to fight against God. And they consented to him" (Acts V,
38-39). We teach that Gamaliel said this in the introduction to his
speech, during which he made very clear his attitude in favour of the
doctrine taught by the Apostles, doctrine which he shared, its' being an
indestructible work of God. We affirm that after this defence Gamaliel
ended his relations with the Sanhedrin, from which he had resigned before
the previous Passover. Because of the prestige he enjoyed, however, it had
been possible for him to appear at that assembled council in favour of the
Apostles. After this event Gamaliel went to live at a country property not
far from Jerusalem, whence he collaborated in the propagation of
Christianity; and died in holiness some years later. In the Acts of the
Apostles (XXII, 3) Saint Luke relates that Saint Paul also mentions this
holy man, saying he had been his teacher. We affirm, however, that
Gamaliel had finished teaching the Apostle of the Gentiles before the
beginning of the Public Life of Christ. Finally, we make clear that the
expression "hidden disciple" has the meaning that those
followers of Jesus did not belong to the official group of disciples that
always accompanied Him, thus to be able to accomplish missions they would
have been unable to carry out in other circumstances. Therefore the
evangelical expression, to which we will later refer, that Joseph of
Arimathea was a hidden disciple for fear of the Jews, must be understood
in the sense that he acted prudently, a precaution which does not exclude
his having been afraid on certain occasions.
8.
Saint Luke goes on to relate that many people followed Jesus and that He,
turning, spoke to them of the conditions necessary for following Him, as
appears in the text of the same Evangelist (Luke XIV, 25-35). Christ came
to save men and to call them to holiness, some by way of the ordinary
Christian life, which fundamentally consists in fulfilling the
Commandments of the Law of God and of the Church, as well as the duties
proper to the state of each; and others by the extraordinary way, that of
the religious vocation, which in addition demands observance of the
evangelical counsels. We teach that the discourse took place during this
journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, and sums up the apostolate He made in the
city and neighboring villages, for the attractiveness of His Person and
doctrine were such that many simple souls wished always to be with Him.
However, on many other occasions and in other places, He spoke in like
manner.
9.
Without now considering the evangelical teachings on the Christian life in
general, we shall examine their application to the religious life,
beginning with verses 26 and 27 of the aforesaid chapter XIV of Saint
Luke: "If any man come to Me, and hate not his father and mother and
wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he
cannot be My disciple. And who soever doth not carry his cross and come
after Me cannot be My disciple." As we gather from the above,
correspondence to a religious vocation - which is the most perfect state -
carries with it the abandonment of all things in order to serve Christ
more directly. For this reason, the religious must renounce even what is
licit in ordinary life, since his only aspiration is to devote himself
fully to God, in suchwise that all his actions are to be directed solely
and exclusively to that end, which entails continual acceptance of the
cross proper to his state of perfection, cross that weighs more than that
of the ordinary life of a Christian. This obligation binds the religious
even at the cost of his own life. The doctrinal interpretation of the
Latin expression "non odit" of verse 26, which literally means
"hate not" or "loathe not", must be understood as
<
10.
Furthermore, Jesus warns that not all are called to the religious life,
wherefore it is rash lightly to decide in this matter; and he who
interiorly feels the desire to serve God in this most perfect state,
before committing himself, ought to reflect and make sure that he has the
necessary qualifications, for, given the contrary, it would not be a true
vocation. If by the grace of God it were to be true, he must correspond to
it and strengthen it each day more, intensifying his spiritual life by way
of prayer, penance and observance of the Rule; for, if it is dangerous not
to respond to a true call of God, far more so will it be if one does not
correspond after vows have been taken, with the consequent loss of
vocation, difficult to recover. Upon the latter falls most especially this
sentence of Christ: "No man putting his hand to the plough and
looking back is fit for the Kingdom of God " (Luke IX, 62). In this
way must be understood the doctrinal content of verses 28 to 35 of chapter
XIV of Saint Luke in their application to the religious life.
11.
The above doctrine gives us the opportunity to consider the priestly
vocation. We teach that Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders with
the desire that Priests, of whatever degree, exercise their ministry as
religious, that is, subject to the evangelical counsels. We have as proof
that Christ, before instituting the Sacrament, required the Apostles and
disciples to be observant members of the Carmelite Order, renewed by Him
in harmony with the evangelical spirit; as does the fact that the Apostle
Peter, when confirmed in the Papacy, was also confirmed in the charge of
Superior General of the Order. All this confirms our teaching that it is
Jesus' desire the the priest be bound always to the religious life,
although due to special circumstances the Church for many centuries
consented that many priests, in their different grades, live almost after
the manner of laymen, so that there existed both regular and secular
clergy. However, we repeat that this was not the perfection desired by
Christ, since the Priest, by reason of his sublime ministry, should be
more especially detached from all family and material ties, which is very
difficult outside the religious life. That is why His Holiness Pope
Gregory XVII, in his Apostolic Constitution of 27-Xll-1984, has abolished
the secular clergy, using the following words: <
12.
We go on now to clarify the doctrine of the holy celibacy of the priest.
As has already been defined in this Treatise, celibacy was compulsory in
the Essenian religious communities, for which reason their priests were
required, necessarily, to be celibate. We have already taught that when
Christ formed the first two Christian religious communities of Carmelites
and perfected thus the rules of Mount Carmel in accordance with the
Evangelical Law, He naturally required celibacy of its members. The
Apostles, disciples and holy women who were married, were obliged to
renounce their respective spouses before becoming religious. For this
reason, when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Orders and conferred it on
the Apostles, some of the latter were celibate and others lived then as
such, because of their condition as religious. This proves that celibacy
also must necessarily be united to the priestly life. This Holy Council
teaches that in the Last Supper Christ instituted holy celibacy insofar as
it pertains to the ministerial priesthood. It is, therefore, of divine
right. In the Gospel of Saint Matthew we see how Jesus, speaking to the
Apostles, who, according to our interpretation, were of the opinion that
it was more expedient not to marry, that is, to be a religious, than to
bind oneself indissolubly in marriage, replied: "All men take not
this word, but they to whom it is given" (Matthew XIX, 11), from
which we infer that the vocation to the religious life is due to a special
grace. Among other things, He then added: "And there are eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, He that can take,
let him take it" (Matthew XIX, 12). In other words, only those
capable of living celibate, that is, of spiritually castrating themselves,
would be able to embrace the religious life. That discipline also affected
the secular clergy, recently abolished by His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII.
13.
The doctrine once established, we shall now clarify some questions related
to celibacy. From earliest apostolic times there were bishops, priests and
deacons who lived with their wives and children, as some of the Letters of
Saint Paul reveal. Let us examine the first Letter to Timothy: "If a
man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth
therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober,
prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not
given to wine, no striker but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous: but
one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with
all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall
he take care of the Church of God?" (I Tim. III, 1-5). And he uses
similar terms for deacons (I Tim. III, 8-13). In the Letter to Titus he
also says: "I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order
the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as
I also appointed thee: If any be without crime, the husband of one wife,
having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must
be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger,
not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre: But given to
hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, continent" (Tit. I, 5-8). We
teach that Saint Paul considered it expedient to confer Holy Orders on
married men distinguished by the virtues and qualities required in his
Letters. These candidates, whom we affirm to have been in their majority
middle-aged, were required to renounce marital relations when ordained,
that is to say, they were of necessity obliged to live as celibates, as we
interpret from his Letter to Titus (1, 8), in which he requires them to be
continent. This practice of Saint Paul, suitable in the first ages of
Christianity, given persecutions, laws of the Empire and the Gentile
condition of the new clergy, continued to be used by the Church with the
same requirements. Towards the end of the last Roman persecutions,
however, the morals of not a few married priests who lived in continence
with their wives became relaxed, to the point that again they began to
live together as man and wife. To confront the situation the Council of
Elvira met in the first years of the fourth century, near today's Granada
(Spain). Among other disciplinary measures, it reminded bishops, priests
and deacons of their obligation to live celibate, in these words:
<
14.
We clarify this doctrine further and teach that celibacy is not part of
the essence of the Ministerial Priesthood, and consequently does not
affect its validity, However the Church, to safeguard this divine law, has
the power to declare celibacy an absolutely essential requirement for the
validity of the Sacrament, thus invalidating the ordination in sacris
conferred contrary to this ecclesiastical disposition. His Holiness Pope
Gregory XVII has settled this matter as well, since, through the Apostolic
Constitution of the 30th of July, 1982, he has declared completely invalid
the priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations henceforth conferred
by bishops outside the true Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and
Palmarian, thus making it impossible to ordain in sacris whoever does not
meet the requirements he demands. Consequently, if a bishop of the Holy
Palmarian Church should dare, God forbid, to confer Holy Orders without
the express permission of the Pope, he would by the very act ipso facto
fall outside the Church, and the Sacrament conferred would be invalid.
15.
His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII, with most vehement apostolic zeal, in
conformity with the wish of Christ, today, Sunday the 2nd of February,
1986, feast of the sixteenth anniversary of the Enthronement of the Holy
Face of Our Lord Jesus Christ in El Palmar de Troya, solemnly declares:
<
16.
Following the doctrine presented above, we continue our Gospel narrative
with this text from Saint Luke: "Now the publicans and sinners drew
near unto Him to hear Him. And the pharisees and the scribes murmured,
saying: This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them" (Luke XV,
1-2). We teach that this accusation arose principally because Jesus,
during His stay in Jerusalem, was invited at midday on Saturday the 17th
of April to eat at the home of a man considered a public sinner by the
pharisees, and who in fact led quite an irregular life. The complaint
occurred in one of the synagogues of Jerusalem, in which Christ had
entered to preach after the meal. He answered His accusers with the three
parables known as those of the Divine Mercy: That of the <
17.
The Evangelist Saint John says: "After these things, Jesus walked in
Galilee: for He would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill
Him" (John VII, 1). In the light of this text we teach as follows:
Due to the intense apostolate carried out by Jesus, above all in Jerusalem
on his journey there for the Passover, the aversion to Him of the
pharisees, scribes and doctors of the Law had become more flagrant,
especially among the members of the Sanhedrin who, as we know, learned of
Jesus' severe criticism of them in His sermon at Gamaliel's home; and from
then on, those dignitaries with greater determination sought an expedient
manner of doing away with the Divine Master. That's is why Jesus, Who had
wished to remain longer in Jerusalem, left Bethany very early in the
morning of the 18th of April with His Mother and the others; and after
passing through Samaria, entered Galilee and reached Capharnaum in the
evening of Tuesday the 20th of April. However, He was not thereby freed
from the traps of the Sanhedrin, which through a special commission of
pharisees, scribes and doctors of the Law, monitored Jesus' steps and
endeavoured to sow confusion among those who heard His doctrine, and even
to provoke them against Him, as we have already seen in other episodes of
His life. For this reason, after remaining for some time in Capharnaum and
preaching on the banks of the Lake and in other nearby towns, Jesus would
be forced to leave Galilee, as we shall se later on.
18.
Saint Matthew (XV, 1-9) and Saint Mark (VII, 1-13) relate Jesus' dispute
with the pharisees and some scribes come from Jerusalem, when they had
seen some of the Master's disciples eat without having washed their hands.
We affirm that this occurred on Saturday the 24th of April on the banks of
the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus preached to the crowds some days after His
return from the Passover. Jesus' enemies, who always sought to create
disorder and confusion among the people, when they saw that some of the
Master's disciples ate without observing the pharisees' ritual of the
washing of hands, came to Him and accused them of the omission, Jesus, Who
so many times had reproached the arbitrary ritualism of the pharisees,
including that of superfluous ablutions, as Saint Mark (VII, 3-4) relates,
rebuked them again for their refined hypocrisy, now reminding them how
many of them broke the fourth Commandment of the Law which commands one to
honour one's parents, by the observance of a pharisaic tradition, that of
Corban, a term derived from Aramaic meaning, <
19.
Let us consider of what that perverse custom consisted. Saint Mark says:
"If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (which is a gift)
whatsoever is from me shall profit thee. And further you suffer him not to
do anything for his father or mother" (Mark VII, 11-12). Saint
Matthew refers to it in the same sense: "But you say: Whosoever shall
say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall
profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother"
(Matthew XV, 5-6). In the light of these Gospel texts and of the opinion
of certain commentators, we teach the following: ln years gone by, many of
the priests who belonged to the sect of the pharisees, moved by greed, had
introduced the teaching that those sons who offered to God whatever they
were obliged either to do, or to give of their goods, to help their
parents, which is the meaning of pronouncing the word Corban over that
help, were freed from that obligation; and the parents preferred to die of
hunger than live at the cost of their sons, which they considered
sacrilegious. This perverse doctrine, converted into a pharisaical
tradition, was chiefly taught in the Jewish schools, under the appearance
of piety, so that the pupils, when adult - some through ill-understood
piety, others through fanaticism, and others because of their tendency to
reject parental authority - should put it into practice. By means of
Corban the materialistic priests took what belonged to these parents,
leaving them utterly destitute. Therefore Jesus reproached the pharisees
for their falseness, telling them that with Corban they made null and void
the Commandment of God: "Honour thy father and thy mother"
(Exod. XX, 12), and citing the condemnation of Moses: "He that
curseth his father, or mother, shall die the death" (Exod. XXI, 17),
because by means of this cursed vow the sons freed themselves from
observing the Commandment, insofar as it obliged them to help and maintain
their parents; and consequently freed themselves from the penalty incurred
for not fulfilling it.
20.
Shortly after the dispute with the pharisees, scribes and doctors of the
Law on the banks of the Lake, since the 24th of April was a Sabbath and
Jesus wished to preach in the synagogue of Capharnaum, Saint Matthew (XV,
10). and Saint Mark (VII, 14), according to our interpretation, recount
how He once again summoned the people to go there and hear Him. In the
course of His sermon He spoke the words which both Evangelist (Matthew XV,
11; Mark VII, 15-16) use with the same meaning, of which we transcribe
only those of Saint Mark, which we consider more complete: "There is
nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him. But the
things which come from man, those are they that defile a man. If any man
have ears to hear, let him hear" (Mark VII, 15-16). Thereby Jesus, in
defence of His Apostles and disciples, declared that to eat without
washing hands does not defile the soul; however, the evil that comes out
of man indeed does. He explained this doctrine later on, as we shall see.
21.
Saint Matthew says: "Then came His disciples, and said to Him: Dost
Thou know that the pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?
But He answering, said: Every plant which My Heavenly Father hath not
planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind and leaders of
the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit"
(Matthew XV, 12-14). Jesus thus gave them to understand that the
pharisaical traditions were of human invention; and that, consequently,
they were to disappear thanks to the Evangelical Law; and that, besides,
the pharisees, through their attachment to such arbitrary customs,
frequently spoiled the fulfillment of the Divine Law in its purity and
integrity, because of which they ought to avoid contact with them under
pain of damnation. We teach that this incident occurred on that same
Saturday, the 24th of April of the year 33, as Jesus left the synagogue
and set out for home.
22.
Saint Mark says: "And when He was come into the house from the
multitude, His disciples asked Him the parable" (Mark VII, 17). Saint
Matthew (XV, 15) says that it was Saint Peter who asked Jesus to explain
it, and that He replied: "Are you also yet without
understanding?" (Matthew XV, 16), thus pointing out to them that they
ought to make more effort to understand the true spirit of His teaching,
since they already had light to do so. Both Evangelists concur in the
content of the teaching given by Jesus to His disciples in the conventual
house concerning the above texts (Matthew XV, 11; Mark VII, 15- 16), which
are those making up the aforementioned parable. We transscribe the
following words from Saint Matthew, in which Jesus' explanation is
sufficiently clear: "Do you not understand that whatever entereth
into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the privy? But
the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart: and
those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.
These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hand,
doth not defile a man" (Matthew XV, 17-20). Saint Mark (VII, 18- 23)
gives it with the same meaning.
23.
We continue our Gospel narrative with the following text from Saint Mark:
"And rising from thence He went into the coasts of Tyre and
Sidon" (Mark VII, 24). Saint Matthew also relates this journey, in
the following words: "And Jesus went from thence and retired into the
coasts of Tyre and Sidon" (Matthew XV, 21). Interpreting these texts,
we teach that at dawn on Sunday the 9th of May, Jesus, together with His
Divine Mother, His Apostles and disciples and some pious women, left
Capharnaum for the north of Israel, following the Jordan; and, when near
the frontier with Phoenicia, now Lebanon, in which Tyre (Sour) and Sidon
(Said) are located, He visited Dan, as well as other towns. Saint Mark
says: "And entering into a house, He would that no man should know
it. And He could not be hid" (Mark VII, 24) We affirm that Enue,
known as the woman with the issue of blood, lived there in that house and
that she, though a native of Paneas (afterwards Caesarea Philippi and
today Banyas), had a house in Dan, as we have already mentioned in Chapter
XXXI when we spoke of her cure. Both Evangelists narrate, on the occasion
of this journey of Jesus (Matthew XV, 22-28; Mark VII, 25-30), the healing
of the daughter of a Canaanite woman, called so in the Bible because she
was a descendant of Canaan, son of Cam and grandson of Noe. She was called
Justa, and her daughter Berenice.
24.
Let us consider some further details of this journey. We teach that before
Jesus went to Dan, on the 11th of May He visited the town of Paneas, and
during the two days He was there accomplished a great apostolate among the
Jews, since the news of His arrival soon spread and crowds came from other
parts. When He left this town for Dan, the Canaanite, who, as we have
already said, was called Justa, intercepted Him. Knowing that Jesus was in
those parts she had come from Phoenicia in search of Him, and implored Him
to heal her daughter Berenice who was possessed by an unclean spirit and
grievously tormented (Matthew XV, 22). As the woman, Syrophoenician born,
was a Gentile (Mark VII, 26), Jesus continued on His way without
answering, so that the Apostles begged Him to answer her petition, for she
was following them and shouting out. However, He replied: "I was not
sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel" (Matthew
XV, 24). When Jesus reached the town of Dan, on the 14th of May, He
entered the house of Enue. It was His wish that no one know, but He could
not be concealed because the Canaanite, who passed through the town crying
out, entered the house and, throwing herself at the Master's feet, adored
Him and besought Him to cast out the devil from her daughter. But Jesus
said to her: "Suffer first the children to be filled: for it is not
good to take the bread of the children and cast it to the dogs" (Mark
VII, 27; Matthew XV, 26). The Jews had the custom of calling the pagans by
this term. Saint Matthew says that she replied: "Yea, Lord; for the
whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their
masters" (Matthew XV, 27), and Saint Mark (VII, 28) records it with
the same meaning. Astonished at the reply of that Gentile woman, Jesus
said to her: "O woman, great is thy faith. Be it done to thee as thou
wilt" (Matthew XV, 28). "For this saying, go thy way. The devil
is gone out of thy daughter" (Mark VII, 29), and her daughter was
cured from that hour (Matthew XV, 28). When the Canaanite was come into
her house, she found her daughter lying on the bed, and that the devil had
gone out of her (Mark VII, 30). This miracle took place on Friday the 14th
of May. We teach that Jesus delayed the healing of the Canaanite's
daughter, not assenting to her first entreaties, in order to manifest His
predilection for the children of Israel, to whom the preaching of the
Gospel first belonged, that thus also their ingratitude more clearly
appear. Besides, it was to test the woman's faith, and to serve as
example, particularly for the Jews. The Canaanite, a widow and of
distinguished social rank, when taking leave of Jesus invited Him to her
home in Ornithopolis, today Adlun, her native town, situated in Phoenicia,
between Tyre and Sidon, to the south of Sareptha and to the north of the
mouth of the river Leontes. As Jesus wished to go to Ornithopolis and from
there embark for Cyprus, He first took leave of His Divine Mother and the
holy women, whom Enue - the woman healed of the issue of blood joined as a
religious, and charged some of the disciples to accompany them to
Capharnaum. The day after celebrating the Sabbath on the 15th of May of
the year 33 in the synagogue of Dan, together with the twelve Apostles and
some of the disciples, Jesus set out for the port of Ornithopolis. In that
town He carried out an intense apostolic mission, since many, moved by the
healing of the daughter of the Canaanite and by the latter's good
testimony of the Divine Master, waited anxiously to see and hear Him. Thus
He was very well received, not only by the Jews but even by the pagans.
Jesus remained in the town for some days, during which He cured the sick
and baptized many, among them the Canaanite woman and her daughter. He
celebrated the Sabbath, the 22nd of May, in the synagogue of the town.
25.
At dawn on Sunday the 23rd of May of the present year 33, Jesus and those
accompanying Him embarked at the port of Ornithopolis for Cyprus. For some
Cypriots, acquaintances of the Apostle Banabas - who came from Cyprus -
during the Passover in Jerusalem had requested Jesus to visit the island,
where there lived some groups of Essenes who always had remained faithful
to John the Baptist and who desired to receive the Baptism of the New Law.
Now the 24th of May, they all reached Cyprus and disembarked at the port
of Salamina, where there awaited Him many people who had learned of His
visit from other Cypriots. These latter had gone on ahead in order to
bring the news of His journey.
26.
We present the following teaching regarding the intense apostolate carried
out by Jesus on that privileged island, taking as our base the revelations
of Saint Anne Catherine Emmerich. Among those awaiting Him at Salamina was
Cyrinus, whom Jesus had baptized in Capharnaum on the 30th of April the
previous year 32, the day there had taken place the event to which
reference is made in Chapter XIX of this Treatise, which records how Jesus
taught a pagan of Cyprus the inefficacy of circumcision of the flesh, the
Sacrament of Baptism then having been instituted. We now affirm that the
pagan was Cyrinus. He had two sons: one, Aristarchus, who, as we have
already said in Chapter XXX, was a disciple of Christ; and the other,
Trophimus, who had already been baptized. Both were later to be ordained
priests and consecrated bishops by Saint Paul, and both are mentioned in
the Martyrology. On this occasion Jesus made contact also with a venerable
Essenian elder and chief of the synagogue, the father of Jonas, one of the
disciples who had accompanied Him to Cyprus.
27.
On the 25th of May, Jesus celebrated the feast of Pentecost in the
synagogue of Salamina, where He taught many and cured a sick man carried
in on a litter. During His apostolate in the town He stressed principally
the value of the Our Father and of the Beatitudes, urging to penance and
Baptism. The Roman Governor asked Jesus for an interview for he wished to
meet Him, having heard that He was a wise Man, a faithful defender of the
purity of the Judaic Law and a worker of many miracles. The Governor
wished to know if He was the Messias and King awaited by the Jews, and
Jesus explained His Messiahship to him, who was deeply impressed by His
doctrine. After profound reflection this Holy Council identifies that
Governor of Salamina as the proconsul Sergius Paulus, converted during the
mission of Paul and Barnabas, and of whom mention is made in the Acts of
the Apostles (XIII, 7-12).
28.
Another of the notable events during Jesus' stay at Salamina was the
conversion of Mercuria, a priestess of the goddess Derketo, who when
looking at Jesus through a window during His interview with the Roman
Governor saw resplendent light around His Head. Witnessing the wonder she
felt interiorly changed. Mercuria, who knew how Jesus had converted the
Magdalen and healed Enue from an issue of blood, besought the Master to
cure her also of her spiritual infirmity. He made her see the need of
faith and spoke to her of Almighty God, of the perversity of the
idolatrous worship to which she had been dedicated, and of how she must
keep the Commandments of the Law. He also reproved her fornication. He
spoke to her of things so serious, but at the same time with so much
kindness that the woman, now repentant, received the waters of Baptism on
the 27th of May and changed her name to Mary. Many others were baptized
with her and Jesus instructed them in the divine mysteries. He also spoke
to them of His Divine Mother, for some had asked Him about the Virgin Whom
Elias had seen upon a cloud, a tradition inherited by the Essenes who
dwelt there. The new convert Mercuria, now Mary, later joined the holy
women, then giving all her possessions to the Christian religious
community. She gave her life for Christ in the persecution instigated by
Saul.
29.
Among the frequent visits Jesus made to the homes of the sick in Salamina,
He encountered a woman suffering from dropsy. When He asked her if she
wished to to healed, she said that she did, if it were the Master's will.
He said to her: <
