Reflections
on the Passion
by Father
Doyle
October 12, 1956
NIHIL OBSTAT:
JOANNES A. SCHULIEN, S.T.D.
Censor liborium
IMPRIMATOR:
+ ALBERTUS G.MEYER
Archiepiscopus Milwauchiensis
Monday
of the Fourth
Week in Lent:
WHILE
Peter was making his
first denial of Christ, the sacred Redeemer
was standing before Annas. My, how delighted Annas was that the
Jews had brought Jesus first to him rather than to his son-in-law
Caiphas, who was high priest because the Romans had unlawfully given
him that post. De facto for all intents and purposes, although
deposed, Annas was by Mosaic Law the real high priest. Indeed
this whole affair may have been Annas’ idea; he may have thought that
if he condemned Christ as a threat to Roman power and rule, his own
position might be made stronger in the minds of the Roman
authorities. But conjecture is time wasting. The point was,
Christ was standing before Annas. He hated the Galilean and was
happy that he would be given the high privilege of humiliating Him.
“The high priest
therefore
questioned Jesus concerning his disciples,
and concerning his teaching. Jesus answered him: “I have
spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogue and
in the temple, where all the Jews gather, and in secret I have said
nothing. Why dost thou question me? Question those
who have heard what I spoke to them; behold, these know what I have
said.
“Now when he had
said these
things, one of the attendants who was
standing by struck Jesus a blow, saying, ‘Is that the way thou dost
answer the high priest?’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I have spoken ill,
bear witness to the evil; but if well, why dost thou strike me?’ ” (Jn.
18: 19-23).
Note the great
clarity with
which Christ answered the high
priest. First he made it clear that he had no secret doctrines
and no plots to contrive. Second, Christ’s answer made an old
truth evident in that it was irregular and illegal to compel a man to
witness against himself. “Question those who heard what I spoke
to them” – in other words, “produce witnesses against Me.”
Annas was trapped,
and his
pride was injured. It was to relieve
him of his embarrassment that the attendant struck our Lord with his
fist in the face. Behold your Lord and your God staggering
beneath the pain of that cruel blow and see His precious blood flow
from His mouth and nose. The blow was senseless because it was
struck by one who wanted to gain the favor of the high priest and
because it drew ridicule on Christ from the bystanders. “Alas,” cries
St. Chrysostom, “is our God to be received with buffets! Grow
dark ye heavens, with horror. O earth, tremble at such a
deed. Let each of us bewail our sins, for they caused that cruel
blow to be struck.”
St. Chrysostom
writes that it
was the same Malcus whom Peter had struck
in the garden of Gethsemani, who struck Christ so cruelly in the
presence of the High Priest. Oh, the power of Christ’s gentle
answer to the one who struck Him! The calm, sweet answer, the patience,
the absolute control did what the miracle of the healing of his ear
could not do. St. John Chrysostom further affirms expressly that
the grace of God entered Malcus’ soul with the words: “Why dost
thou strike Me?” and his eyes were opened to the light of divine truth.
The next time you
are tempted
to sin bring those words of Christ to
mind. “Why dost thou strike Me?” Each time we sin gravely,
we not only strike Him, we crucify anew our loving Savior. Say
with St. Dominic Savio –
“Death
rather than mortal sin.”
Tuesday
of the Fourth Week in
Lent:
YOU will
recall that Annas
was the lawful but deposed high priest, and
that the Jews made a great point of the fact by bringing Christ before
him rather than before the unlawful hand-picked Roman choice, Caiphas.
Our lord, by His
direct and
clear answers, disarmed Annas completely,
and so, to save face, Annas directed that Christ be arraigned before
Caiphas. Hence the Savior was bound and sent off to the home of
the quisling Caiphas, where the scribes and elders had gathered.
Here the ordeal was much worse for Christ. One only has to
picture the rage and deceitfulness etched on the faces of Caiphas and
his council to know how biased such a court session would be. He
would certainly never be able to find justice or mercy here.
Under the guise of
making it
legal, the Elders and Scribes had hastily
called the whole Sanhedrin, whose full complement was seventy-two
members, representing equally the three groups of priests, Scribes, and
Elders. The function of this council was to take cognizance of
grave matters of a doctrinal, judicial, or administrative character
affecting the Jewish religion and nation. They had neglected
nothing, for they had even secured the services of witnesses.
When any good lawyer examines the records of the trial of Christ before
the Sanhedrin it is obvious that the witnesses contradicted each other,
and time and again, contradicted themselves (cf. Mk. 14:56). For
instance, two witnesses stepped up before the court and said: “He
said, and we heard Him say: ‘I can destroy the temple and in three days
I can rebuild it.”
One witness said
that
Christ’s words were: “I can destroy,” the
other said His words were: “I will destroy.” The important
thing is that St. John gave us the exact words of Christ, which were
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”
(3:19). We know, and they did too, that Christ did not mean the
material temple in Jerusalem, but His own body.
Oh, how wicked men can be to
falsify Christ’s own words and use them
against Him! For any one to presume to think that he could
destroy the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was the very handle of blasphemy
Christ’s enemies wanted to hang on Him. Consider this base deceit
in our Lord’s enemies who concealed their hatred and envy under the
cloak of zeal for God’s glory. Ask yourself this question, if you
have not sometimes under the mask of anxiety for God’s glory, vented on
your neighbor sentiments of anger and aversion. Ask yourself if
you have not put words in the mouth of a person you disliked to make
him out to be evil in the eyes of others.
Remember, too, that
all this
took place in the house of the high
priest. Ask yourself, whether you have always reserved for God’s
house the respect and reverence it deserves. Christ’s enemies
found no hardship in gathering there at midnight to abuse and mock the
Son of God. How often have you resented the few moments you are
required to give to the worship and love of your Prisoner God in the
tabernacle?
Wednesday
of the Fourth Week
in Lent:
WHILE
our Lord was appearing
before Caiphas, Peter had followed the
Master from the home of Annas. With his usual abandon, Peter went
right into the courtyard. You see, Caiphas’ home followed the
usual style of such houses. It was arranged about two courtyards,
surrounded by porticoes, onto which the windows and doors opened.
The first courtyard was reserved for the servants and workmen, the
second, raised above the first by a few steps and entered through a
massive door reserved for the use of the high priest, before which was
situated the great meeting hall of the Sanhedrin. The gate at the
entrance to the house was usually guarded by a female slave.
For the second time
that
fateful night, Peter was recognized as a
follower of the Messias, and another maidservant said to those who had
gathered around: “This man was also with Jesus of Nazareth,” and
Peter, Scripture says, “denied with an oath, ’I do not know the man!’”
(Mt. 26:72.) Shortly thereafter someone else saw Peter, and said:
“Thou, too, art one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not” (Lk. 22:58).
What a pitiful
spectacle was
Peter! He loved his Master, but
strange to relate, despite all his love he could not rise to the
occasion and confess Him. Him impetuosity constantly placed him
in danger. Peter lied when he denied knowing Christ the first
time he was accused of it. He lied again, as we have just seen,
when he was questioned the second time, but he somehow knew his lie was
not very convincing so he had to emphasize it with an oath.
He who tells a lie
is not
sensible to how great a task he undertakes,
for he is usually forced to tell many more lies to maintain the first
one. Indeed, the ways of falsehood are perplexed and
tangled. Oh, if Peter had had the courage of St. Anthimus!
It is related that the holy Bishop of Nicomedia would not allow
soldiers who were sent to arrest him and who were enjoying his
hospitality, to save him by a lie. He preferred to suffer
martyrdom rather then be the cause of a lie in his behalf.
Learn from this
second denial
by Peter of his God, not to rely on your
own strength to keep you from falling into sin. Had Peter taken a
good estimate of his own weakness, he would never have exposed himself
to temptation for the second time. Learn not to rely on past
conduct as a safeguard against future falls. Peter was under no
stress when he openly confessed earlier in his ministry his belief in
the divinity of Christ, saying “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God” (Mt. 16:16). Under the taunting gaze of a
maidservant, and in the face of the possible arrest as an associate of
the Messias, he found himself void of his former courage. Peter
counted too much upon himself; and so he fell, as everyone falls who
trusts solely in his own strength and exposes himself rashly to danger.
Learn, finally, that
Peter’s
repeated protestations of fidelity made
the evil of denial more grievous. It is a greater sin for one who
has publicly declared his love for Christ to prove disloyal to Him,
than for one who never made such a profession.
Thursday
of the Fourth Week
in Lent:
THE poor
dupes who had hoped
to curry the favor of the Elders by
offering to act as witnesses against Christ, no doubt received naught
for their pains but the contempt of their leaders. They had
botched the job in relating that they personally had heard Christ say
“He would destroy the temple and in three days rebuild it.”
Scripture records the court session as follows: “For while many
bore false witness against Him, their evidence did not agree”( Mk.
14:56).
The charge that was so
nebulous, and the witnesses so damaging to the
cause for which the Sanhedrin had been assembled that Caiphas decided
to retrieve what he could from the farce. He stood up, and said
to our Lord: “Dost thou make no answer to the things these men prefer
against thee? But he kept silence and made no answer” (Mt. 14:
60, 61).
There is a silence
which is
often more eloquent than words, and means
more than any words, and speaks volumes to the heart. Such, for
example, is the silence when the heart is too full for utterance and
the organs of speech are choked by the overwhelming surge of
emotions. Such also is the silence of the wise man challenged to
speak by those he feels unworthy of his words. The man who can
stand and listen to ignorance, venomous bigotry, or personal hurt or
insult addressed to him in angry, insolent, offensive spirit, and
offers no reply, exerts a far greater power over the mind of his
assailant than he could by words, however forceful. Such was the
silence Christ now maintained in the house of the High Priest, Caiphas.
When one’s life and
works are
above reproach, these are the best
defense against those who would do us harm. The accusations
against Christ were false and frivolous and His silence was a
sufficient and powerful reply. It is reported of Titus Vespasian
that when anyone spoke ill of him he was wont to say he was above false
reports: and if they were true, he had more the reason to be
angry with himself than with the person who started the story.
When we bear wrongs
patiently, we benefit not ourselves only but also
our fellow man; we prevent him from going to greater lengths, and make
it easier to bring him to a sense of his wrongdoing. Christ’s
silence was magnificent. He showed us a marvelous example of
restraint under the most trying circumstances. How solemnly His
silence rebukes the chatter of the false witnesses before the Elders of
the Sanhedrin. The anvil breaks a host of hammers by quietly
bearing the blows. Christ’s silence broke the spirit of his
accusers.
Christ during his
life on
earth gave a number of examples of
silence. For instance he was silent in the presence of the
Canaanite woman. Scripture says “He answered her not a word” (Mt.
15: 23). He was silent when the accusers threw at his feet the
woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8: 4), but his most glorious silence was
when He Himself was accused falsely.
How do you act when others
accuse you wrongly? Are you
oversensitive about your honor? St. Francis de Sales tells us
that only when grave and disgraceful crimes are imputed to us, such as
we cannot allow ourselves to be charged with, should we take steps to
clear ourselves. Ask our dear Lord to give you the courage to be
silent like He was, when accused unjustly.
Friday
of the Fourth Week in
Lent:
THE
patient Christ broke His
silence to answer the High Priest’s direct
question couched in these words: I adjure thee by the living God
that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (Mt. 26:
63). To that question Christ replied: “I am. And you
shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and
coming with the clouds of heaven.’ But the high priest tore his
garments and said, ‘What further need have we of witnesses? You
have heard the blasphemy. What do you think? And they all
condemned him as liable to death” (Mk. 14: 61-64).
How audacious of
Caiphas to
dare ask the Son of God to answer him under
oath! Yet Christ accepted the challenge even in the face of
certain death and answered in the affirmative. And how was
Christ’s testimony received? You must notice, if you study this
scene casually, that it mattered little to Caiphas how Christ answered
that question. When Caiphas asked the question “Art thou the
Christ?” was he prepared to accept the evidence? Let us
see. Naturally, our Lord could not lie, but suppose He had said
“No!” In that case He would have been called an imposter and
condemned to death as a blasphemer. But now, when He answered “I
am” to Caiphas question, was there the least tendency on the part of
the high priest to accept the testimony? No. Instead,
Caiphas rent his garments and cried out that all had heard the
blasphemy he heard and then proceeded to lead the Sanhedrin into
calling for Christ’s death.
No matter how the
gentle
Christ had answered Caiphas’ loaded question,
He would have heard the same outcry – “death to the blasphemer.”
Unfortunately, the
closed
mind did not die with Caiphas. Many
people today are more like Caiphas than they are like Christ.
They have assumed a spirit of opposition to evident truth, and thereby,
preclude any evidence from producing a lasting effect.
Our Holy Mother the
Church
teaches us through the Holy Scripture and
the living word of her priests that when we begin to love the world we
begin to dislike religion. When we begin to worship money we
cease to worship God as we should with our whole soul and all our
strength. When we begin to love houses of pleasure we begin to
dislike the house of prayer. When we seek godless, irreligious
friends and companions, we soon find good people dull and boring.
The testimony is evident and copious but we often close our minds to
its force and, like Caiphas, we preclude the evidence in favor of
prayerful, upright moral lives and gradually banish Christ from our
lives, homes, and actions.
Christ spoke the
truth in the
answer to Caiphas’ question: “Art
thou the Christ, the Son of the living God?” when He replied “I
am”. Why do we doubt the truth of Christ’s words then when He
says: “Unless you do penance you shall likewise perish” (Lk.
13:3); or when He says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of
man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you” (Jn. 6:54); or
when He says: “Everyone that hath left house, or wife, or
children, or lands, for my names sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and
shall possess life everlasting” (Mt. 19: 29)? Caiphas had closed
his heart so Christ’s words meant nothing to him. Have you closed
your heart so Christ’s words? Do you listen to your
conscience? Do you take lightly the inspirations aroused by
sermons and pious reading? Mark well these words of God:
“My Son, forget not my law, and let thy heart keep my
commandments. For they shall add to thee length of days and years
of life and peace” (Prov. 3: 1-2).
Saturday
of the Fourth Week
in Lent:
PETER
moves in and out of the
scenes of Christ’s trials with
regularity. Recovering from his first panic at the arrest of
Christ from which he fled, he managed to recover enough of his bravado
to follow Christ at a safe distance when the Saviour was taken to the
home of Annas. Here he was content to remain outside until John
used his influence to get a maid at the gate to permit Peter to enter
the outer court. It was here that Peter first denied he was a
follower of the Messias.
When Christ was lead
bound to
the house of the high priest Caiphas,
Peter followed, and managed to get a place near the glowing fire in the
outer court where he was spotted as a stranger and again accused of
being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. Again Peter denied this
and did so with a very unconvincing reply couched in forceful
language: “I do not know the man” (Mt. 26:72).
It was about an hour
later
now and Peter had returned from the gate,
where he had gone after the second denial. He may have heard the
shouts of the assembled Sanhedrin crying out in mock indignity that
Christ was guilty of blasphemy and was worthy of death, for the sacred
writer says that Simon Peter was standing warming himself (Jn. 18:25)
when “one of the bystanders came up and said to Peter: ‘Surely thou art
one of them, for even thy speech betrays thee.’ Then he began to
curse and swear that he did not know the man” (Mt. 26: 73, 74).
You will note that
peter made
his three denials flatly and
peremptorily. He made a triple denial and this indicates
revolution. He mad the denials not before one witness but before
many, and so gave scandal, for no doubt there were some of the common
people who maintained some reverence for the great wonder-worker
Christ, and Peter’s denial of his Lord and Master may have hardened
them and the scandal may have prevented some of them from going forward
to testify in Christ’s favor.
It is of worthy
note, too,
that Peter remained in the outer courts of
both Annas’ and Caiphas’ homes. He mingled with the servants and
accepted their hospitality, shared the same fire, and sat with
them. True, he did quit their company once and go to the gate but
he quickly returned. Many persons step out of the midst of sin
but hang about its courts. They themselves would not be
outrageous sinners but they retain a taste for sin. They may not
openly commit sins against the Sixth commandment but they harbor bad
thoughts and desires and use impure language. They are not
drunkards themselves, but they keep company with loose-livers and wild
scatter-brained individuals and groups. Keep ever before you the
picture of Peter denying his God. Peter was a great and forward
disciple of Christ, and who drew his sword in Christ’s defense, but now
behold him denying that same Christ before a few servants and
soldiers. Great is the force of evil company to pervert even a
godly mind. As the body is infected by pestilent air, so is the
soul infected by the contagion of bad company.
Ask yourself today
if your
friends are all of a high type and beyond
reproach. Do you always give your friends good example? Do
you profess Christ to your friends or are you sometimes afraid to make
the Sign of the Cross and say Grace before and after meals in their
presence? Are you afraid to visit a church when you are with
friends/ Ask St. Peter today to pray for you that you may never
deny God by word or deed.
|
Contact Us