This
is Alice’s September newsletter. I explained Alice’s monthly newsletter here.This month focuses on the Our Lady of the
Rosary.
Before
the newsletter, let us pray: For Pope Leo XIV
Hail
Mary, full of grace…
Hail
Mary, full of grace…
Hail
Mary, full of grace…
St.
Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the
wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do
thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell
Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of
souls.
Handmaids of Mary
St. Michael’s Warriors
October 2026 Newsletter
OUR LADY OF THE
ROSARY
OCTOBER 7TH
Deus omnes amat et
malum non pranalebit
God Loves Everyone,
Evil Will Not Prevail
THE BATTLE OF LEPANTO
In the year 1571 the Turks had reached the zenith of their
power. Christendom seemed to be at their
mercy.Their armies were flush with
victory; they were powerful, well-equipped and directed by the ablest of
generals .Their objective was to
capture France, Italy, Rome and transform St. Peter’s into Turkish mosque. Pope St. Pius V ruledthe church.This great Pontiff
and Saint was appalled at the overwhelming danger that threatened the ruin of
Christian civilization. Christendom was
not only weak but sadly divided among themselves.
The Holy Pontiff put ALL his confidence in the Rosary, while
laboring indefatigably to unite the Christian forces. Such as they were.He sent orders to them to put out to sea and
though inferior in number, in equipment, in artillery, and in ships, they were
to fight without fear in the name of God and Our lady.On October 7th of that year the two fleets
approached each other.Obeying the orders
of the Sovereign Pontiff and placing themselves under the protection of
Mary,the Christian fleet dashed on the
enemy with undaunted bravery.Suddenly
the wind shifted and blew violently in the face of the Turks and in favor of
the Christians. The battle raged with
unabated fury for several hours ending in the complete overthrow of the Turkish
Fleet.
The victory was so crushing and complete that the power of
the Moslem forces was broken, and Christendomwas saved until now the year 2026.We are once again at this very moment in time in a battle with the Moslem
country. Iran.
When the pontiff heard the news of this victory he fell on
his knees and thanked God and Our Blessed Mother.
It was Pope Leo the XIII who insisted that the seventh of
October be especially consecrated to the Rosary.
Is Mary’s plea’s to us a voice in the wilderness? She came
many times to promote the Rosary. And especially at Fatima.
Is it possible for today’s Christian Catholic to once again
unite and put All their faith in the Rosary and to believe Mary can once again
defeat all the enemies of our day.
She has asked us many times,and if the church itself doesn’t, with great fervor,as in the past popes did,plead with us to say the rosary, we the laity
are being called to be brave and courageous and to believe with all our hearts
in the power of the Rosary.As in the
battle of Lepanto “with undaunted bravery,”Our MotherMary has given us the
tool for our day and times.
An old Irish woman’s reply to someone who asked her why she
was saying that silly prayer the Rosary.
She said. “Silly prayer, you call, it but for me my joy and
consolation.When i am sad and sorrowful
it consoles me,
And when I am well and happy, it givesme more joy and pleasure.How could it. Be silly, to speak to the Holy
Mother of God, and for sure that is what i am doing when I say the rosary.”
As promised, the last two of the seven Sacramentals
The Brown Scapular:
The Brown Scapular owes it origin to the direct intervention
of the Blessed Mother, who chose St. Simon Stock to reveal it as proof of her
love for her earthly children.St Simon
Stock a devout servant of Mary, was a native of England and joined the Order of
Our Lady of Mount Carmel soon after its introduction into that country.
On July 16, 1251, while he was at Cambridge, the Mother of
God favored him with a vision. Appearing to him with a Scapular in Her hand she
said to him, “Receive my beloved son this scapular of Thy Order.It is a special sign of my favor.He who dies clothed with this habit shall be
preserved from eternal fire.It is the
badge of salvation, a shieldin time of
danger, and a pledge of special grace and protection”
Those who wear the Scapular have the promise of the Blessed
Mother to be adopted as her favorite and privileged children and enjoy the
special protection both body andsoul.When death approaches those
who wear the scapular they may hope for her powerful intercession to preserve
to the end; or sinners, if they will make use of the graces offered, may obtain
the grace of conversion.
A very special privilege known as the Sabbatine indulgence
which is based on a revelation to Pope John XII is also connected to the Brown
Scapular.This assures the prompt
deliverance from Purgatory on the Saturday following their death.“One day through the Scapular and the rosary I
will save the world” (Blessed Mother to St. Dominic).
Blessed Medals:
The origin of medals as devotional objects date back from
the early days of Christianity when the pagans wore various medals and charms
around their necks.The church strove to
counteract these pagan symbols by the wearing medals depicting Christian
symbols and mysteries.In our day there
are many medals approved and blessed by the church.
Among the best known are the Miraculous Medal, the Scapular
medal, and the medal of St. Benedict.
The Miraculous Medal:
The Miraculous Medal owes its origin to the Blessed Mother
herself, who in the year 1830 appeared on three different occasions to St. Catherine
Laboure, a member of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul.Mary revealed to her the model of the medal
which she ordered to be struck.She promised
great graces to those who would wear it blessed.
Countless instances have been recorded of remarkable favors
received through the devout use of this medal.
The church shows her love and solicitude for us through the
Sacramentals.She blesses us, and even
in our last place of rest pronounces a blessing.The Sacramentals unite us to the Mystical
Body of Christ, the church animated by the Holy Spirit.
“Oh how wonderful it will be to hear.Mary is Queen of the universe…It will be a
time of peace, joy, and good fortune.That
will last long: She will be carried as a banner and She will make a tour of the
whole world”
-Blessed Mother to St. Catherine
Labore
Hail Mary, White
Lilly, of the Glorious and always- serene Trinity.
Hail brilliant Rose
of the Garden of Heavenly delights.
Nourish our souls
with effusions of divine grace.
Amen!
Alice, Handmaid of the Handmaids of the Handmaids of Mary
For the Twenty-Nineth Sunday in Ordinary Time
of Year A, we are still in what Dr. Nina Heereman calls the “Temple Discourse,”as I explained last
week.At the Temple during Christ’s
last week leading to His passion, He comes in direct confrontation with the
Jewish leaders.In today’s passage the Jewish
groups of the Pharisees and the Herodians try to lay a trap for Jesus.
This passage is well-known for Christ’s saying
of giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and onto God what is God’s, but what I
find fascinating, and perhaps less mentioned is how the Pharisees deviously egg
Jesus into being as frank as possible.They tell Him He is a “truthful man.”The irony is Jesus is the Truth, the Truth
with a capital “T.”Buttering Him up is
a means of getting Him to answer their question.
And He will answer their question, and He
will answer it with Truth but it is not as the Pharisee’s expected.Jesus will have none of it.He calls them hypocrites to their face.
The key to this passage is not so much the
implied division of church and state from Jesus’s answer, but the play on the
word “image”: the image of Caesar versus the image of God in which humanity was
made in.
Today’s Gospel:
The Pharisees went off
and plotted how they might entrap Jesus in speech.
They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying,
"Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man
and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.
And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion,
for you do not regard a person's status.
Tell us, then, what is your opinion:
Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?"
Knowing their malice, Jesus said,
"Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?
Show me the coin that pays the census tax."
Then they handed him the Roman coin.
He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?"
They replied, "Caesar's."
At that he said to them,
"Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar
and to God what belongs to God."
~Mt: 22:15-21
I’m returning to Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger from the diocese of
Detroit for the exegetical homily.
Archbishop Weisenburger:
Now, recall that
there were three taxes for the Jews of Jesus' day. First, an income tax, about
1% of your annual income. Second, a 10% tax on grain and grapes used for wine, but
then a third tax that was the same for every adult Jewish citizen, roughly the
equivalent of a day's wage. That third tax historically began as a way to
rebuild the Great Temple in Jerusalem, but when the Roman armies overtook and
occupied Palestine during Jesus' era, the Romans shifted this sacred temple tax
to pay for the upkeep of their own temple to the pagan gods in Rome. And thus,
you can see the crisis. Many faithful Jews saw the payment of that tax as an
evil cooperation in reusing a tax meant for the holiest of purposes instead for
something blasphemous. Notably, the Herodians quietly had no problem with it.
They were actually the ones cooperating with King Herod and the Roman
occupiers, and their cooperation with them brought them wonderful
privilege.The Pharisees, for their
part, were less open about it, but they also pretty much had free movement in
the culture, and so they may quietly have grumbled about paying that
blasphemous tax, but few took a public stance, knowing it easily could lead to
their being disappeared.And so now in
the temple precincts, these two groups try to force Jesus to either one, be a
sellout with the Romans, with overtones of blasphemy, or two, the other option,
publicly place a target on his back with the Romans.
Okay, it's at this
point that Jesus, standing on sacred temple ground, asks them to show him a
Roman coin, which of course was imprinted with the emperor's face.It also bore an inscription we know for a
fact indicating Caesar was God's "high priest."A blasphemous statement. And two, most biblical
scholars note that for a faithful Jew to simply have that coin on his person
while on holy temple ground was itself blasphemous.Which perhaps explains the reason why Jesus had
to ask someone to "show me the coin,"not having one on him himself. And revealing
the Pharisees' own hypocrisy.Okay, with
that background in mind, Jesus takes the dilemma of them trying to trap him, and
as we so often see, flips it right back on their heads. The coin itself is a
blasphemous thing. Money in Jesus' day, much like our own day, technically
belonged to the government, with citizens being able to use it for
commerce.Technically, in the law, it
did belong to Caesar.So, it seems Jesus
says: give that horrible thing back to a horrible person. But if that's really
more context or background, then I think there's still a deeper meaning of the
encounter. A deeper meaning for those with the ears to hear and the eyes to
see. And that real or deeper meaning of
the encounter was the remainder of what Jesus said to them."Give to God what belongs to God."
And to the extent that we focus too much on what the coin meant might be the
extent to which we too missed the point. Rather, Jesus' intent was the
teaching. Give to God what belongs to God.
Brothers and sisters,
just as a coin in Jesus' day was stamped with an image, you and I have been
created, stamped if you will, in God's image. And you and I are no investment
of which he wants simply a part. He really, really wants all of us. And he
wants all of you. Moreover, God calls us to recognize and reverence that image
of him imprinted on every human being. And
to be sure, the image has little or nothing to do with physical
appearance.Being in the image of God
is to reflect God's love in creative and redemptive ways….Brothers and sisters, I pray that you will
have what Jesus would call"the
ears to hear, and the eyes to see."Be not like the Pharisees or Herodians, twisting religion into something
self-serving with a hefty benefit of status and stature. Rather, in recognizing
first and foremost in whose image you have been created, and from there recognizing
that same divine imprint on every human being, your task is to find ways in
life to give to God what belongs to God. Trust me, the Caesars of today can
take care of themselves.
And what belongs to God?Your
worship and your service.
For the pastoral sermon (not a homily) I’m going to turn to someone new,
Susan Breton of U. S. Catholic Magazine.
Ms. Breton:
Have you ever lost
something? How did you get it back?Maybe
it was your purse, your wallet, your phone, your keys, something of sentimental
value.When someone found it, they knew
it belonged to you because there was something on it that identified it as
being yours. Your name, your picture, something that said, "This belongs
to someone." And maybe that's what we are being asked today.What Jesus is asking us, who do we belong to?
So Jesus asks for a
coin. He asks whose image is this and whose inscription? And they answer
Caesar. And Jesus says, then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God
what belongs to God. The word Jesus uses for image is the Greek word eikōn
which means icon, image and likeness. The coin bears the icon, the image and
likeness of Caesar. So Jesus is acknowledging that the coin belongs to Caesar.
But Jesus's answer goes much deeper than taxes. In another place in scripture,
we hear this word image. In Genesis, we hear God created human beings in his
image and likeness. And in the Greek translation of Genesis, that same word
icon is used, icon.The coin bear
Caesar's image or icon. We bear God's image, his icon. Maybe that's the deeper question that Jesus is
putting before us today.If the coin
bears Caesar's image and therefore belongs to Caesar, then if we bear God's
image, to whom do we belong?We belong
to God.
There’s an interesting perspective.Your image stamped by God identifies you as
God’s possession!
Sunday Meditation: “Teacher,
we know that you are a truthful man."
One of my son Matthew’s favorite hymns as a child, “We Are the Light of the
World.”Here is Chris Brunelle performing.
Chorus: We Are the
light of the world, may our light shine before all, that they may see the good
that we do, and give glory to God
Vs.1
Blessed are they who
are poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of God. Bless us, O Lord, make us
poor in spirit
Vs. 2
Blessed are they who
are meek and humble, they will inherit the earth. Bless us, O Lord, make us
meek and humble; bless us, O Lord, our God
Vs. 3
Blessed are they who
will mourn in sorrow, they will be comforted. Bless us, O Lord, when we share
their sorrow; bless us, O Lord, our God
Vs. 4
Bless those who
hunger and thirst for justice, they will be satisfied. Bless us, O Lord, hear
our cry for justice; bless us, O Lord, our God
We, whose image is of God, are the light of the world!
In the Twenty-Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time
of Year A, Jesus continues what Dr. Nina Heereman
calls the “Temple Discourse.”I have
never heard anyone call this the “Temple Discourse.”It would amount to when Jesus first enters
the Temple in Mt 21:23 through chapter 23.Jesus leaves the Temple to start chapter 24 which begins the End of
Times Discourse.This makes sense to
call this the “Temple Discourse,” but the Gospel of Matthew has been known to
be structured around five discourses (Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5 thru 7; Missionary,
Mt 10; The Parabolic Discourse, Mt 13; Church Discourse, Mt 18; End of Times,
Mt 24 & 25). Despite the logic, no search seems to come up with a Temple
Discourse.
Today’s reading is Matthew’s version of the
Parable of the Wedding Banquet.Frankly
I have to admit I have never cared for Matthew’s version.The guest who does not have a wedding garment
at the end of the parable is treated unjustly.He was invited to the banquet and is thrown out because he didn’t wear a
wedding garment.So the casual biblical reader
of which I once was one reacts emotionally.But many parables have a paradoxical moment, a disorienting twist, to
make a particular point, and the “unjust” treatment of the guest without a wedding
garment is the paradoxical moment.Don’t
think of the guest’s treatment as unjust but that the garment symbolizes
something in which the guest needed to have.What it symbolizes Dr. Heereman points out.The answer is found in the Book of
Revelations, chapter 19.
Then I heard something like the sound of a great multitude or the sound
of rushing water or mighty peals of thunder, as they said: “Alleluia!The Lord has established his reign, [our]
God, the almighty.Let us rejoice and be
glad and give him glory.For the wedding
day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready.She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen
garment.”(The linen represents the
righteous deeds of the holy ones.) (Rev 19:6-8)
I’m not going to embed Dr. Nina’s exegesis
but that is most helpful.Though you may
be invited to the Wedding Banquet, but you have to be spotless and worthy.Dr.
Brant Pitre explains it well from my post on this Gospel passage three
years ago, and though he comes to the same conclusion as Dr. Nina, he finds a
different allusion to the garment, this from Isaiah.
I will rejoice heartily in the LORD, my being exults in my God; for he
has clothed me with garments of salvation, and wrapped me in a robe of justice,
like a bridegroom adorned with a diadem, as a bride adorns herself with her
jewels.(Is 61:10)
In both allusions what we find is the garment
of salvation are your righteous deeds and purity of soul.
Today’s Gospel:
Jesus again in reply spoke to the chief priests and elders of the people
in parables, saying,
"The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king
who gave a wedding feast for his son.
He dispatched his servants
to summon the invited guests to the feast,
but they refused to come.
A second time he sent other servants, saying,
'Tell those invited: "Behold, I have prepared my banquet,
my calves and fattened cattle are killed,
and everything is ready; come to the feast."'
Some ignored the invitation and went away,
one to his farm, another to his business.
The rest laid hold of his servants,
mistreated them, and killed them.
The king was enraged and sent his troops,
destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
Then he said to his servants, 'The feast is ready,
but those who were invited were not worthy to come.
Go out, therefore, into the main roads
and invite to the feast whomever you find.'
The servants went out into the streets
and gathered all they found, bad and good alike,
and the hall was filled with guests.
But when the king came in to meet the guests,
he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
The king said to him, 'My friend, how is it
that you came in here without a wedding garment?'
But he was reduced to silence.
Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet,
and cast him into the darkness outside,
where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
Many are invited, but few are chosen."
~Mt: 22:1-14
For today’s exegetical homily, I want to return to Fr. Geoffrey
Plant.His homilies run long and they
disappear off YouTube after a few years.But he really does a great job, and I will quote the passages that are
especially insightful.I especially found
the comparison with Luke’s version very instructive.
Fr. Geoffrey:
Today's parable of
the wedding banquet has a close parallel in Luke's Gospel.
Comparing the two
versions helps us to appreciate the distinctive emphasis of each
evangelist.So let us now place these two versions of the
parable side by side and notice how they differ.
The first difference
is the setting. In Matthew, Jesus tells this parable in the
presence of the chief
priests and elders in the Temple on the Tuesday of Holy Week.In Luke, it is told much earlier, while Jesus
is still making his way towards
Jerusalem.
The banquet itself is
also different. In Matthew, it is a wedding banquet given by a
king in honour of his
son.In Luke, it is simply a great
banquet hosted by a wealthy man. He is not a king, and the meal is not
connected with a wedding.
In both versions
servants are sent out to summon those who have already been
invited. In both
cases, however, those invited refuse to come.
The excuses are
different. In Matthew, one man goes off to his farm and another to
his business.In Luke, one man has bought five yoke of oxen
and is on his way to try them out.Another
has just been married and says that he is unable to come.
At this point the
stories begin to diverge more sharply. In Matthew the king sends
out a second group of
servants. Perhaps Matthew intends us to see the first group
as the prophets whom
God sent to Israel, and the second group as the apostles
whom Jesus sends out.
Luke has no second dispatch of servants.
Matthew also
introduces a much darker note. Some of those invited seize the
king's servants,
mistreat them and kill them.The king
responds by sending his troops, destroying the murderers and burning their
city. Nothing comparable appears in Luke's account. There the householder becomes angry, but he
does not retaliate.
Both stories now move
in the same direction. Since those originally invited have
refused to come, the
invitation is extended to others. In Matthew, the king orders
his servants to go to
the crossroads and invite to the wedding everyone they can
find. In Luke, the
servant is sent through the streets and alleys of the town to bring
in the poor, the
crippled, the blind and the lame.
In Matthew the
wedding hall is filled with guests. In Luke, however, there is still
more room. The
servant is therefore sent out a second time, this time to the roads
and hedgerows. He is
to urge everyone he meets to come in because the
householder wants to
make sure that his house is full. That is where Luke's version
ends.
Matthew, however,
continues the story. As the king walks among his guests, he
discovers a man who
is not wearing a wedding garment.
To a modern reader, a
wedding banquet may seem simply an attractive
backdrop for a
parable. To a first-century Jew, however, it evoked one of the
Old Testament's great
images of God's final salvation. Israel looked forward to
the day when God
would establish his kingdom, gather his scattered people,
defeat every enemy
and restore creation itself. One of the favourite ways of
describing that
future hope was as a great banquet prepared by God himself.
The classic passage
is today's first reading from the prophet Isaiah, chapter 25:
"On this
mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food,
a feast of well-aged wines..."
This is no ordinary
meal. It is the celebration of God's final victory. Isaiah continues:
"He will destroy
on this mountain
the shroud that is
cast over all peoples...
He will swallow up
death forever.”
That is an
extraordinary statement. The banquet is not simply about
abundance. It is
about the defeat of death itself. It is a picture of the new age
when God will wipe
away every tear, remove the disgrace of his people and
conquer death
forever.
Nor is the banquet
reserved for Israel alone. Isaiah speaks of "all peoples".Centuries before Christ, the prophet already
looks forward to a day when the
nations themselves
will share in God's salvation.
By the time of Jesus,
this vision of the great messianic banquet had become deeply embedded in Jewish
hope. The faithful looked forward to the day when they would recline at table
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in God's kingdom.
The kingdom was
imagined, not as an abstract idea, but as a joyful banquet celebrating God's
definitive triumph over evil and death.
Matthew's story now
presents us with a difficulty—one that has puzzled readers for
centuries. The first
part of the story ends quite naturally. The invited guests refuse
to come. The king
therefore sends his servants into the streets to gather everyone
they can find.
Matthew even emphasises that they brought in "both bad and good,"
and so the wedding
hall was filled with guests.
At that point the
story appears complete. In fact, that is exactly where Luke's
version ends.
Interestingly, the Church's Lectionary provides the option of ending
the Gospel at this
point. The shorter form concludes with the banquet hall filled
with guests and omits
the episode of the wedding garment altogether.
Matthew, however,
continues. As the king walks through the banquet hall, he
notices one guest who
is not wearing a wedding garment. He asks him, "Friend,
how did you get in
here without a wedding garment?" The man is speechless.
The king orders him
to be bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness.
This is the only
biblical passage I can remember my late father discussing with me.
He was struck by what
seemed an obvious injustice. The guests had only just been
gathered in from the
streets. How could one of them be condemned for not wearing
a wedding garment? It
is a question that has stayed with me ever since.
After all, these
guests had not planned to attend a royal wedding. They had been
going about their
ordinary business when, quite unexpectedly, the king's servants
summoned them to the
banquet. Some would have been labourers, others
beggars, others
travellers. Was the king really expecting every citizen to carry
around a set of
wedding garments on the off chance that they might one day
receive an invitation
to a royal wedding?
Many scholars have
suggested that Matthew has stitched together two originally
independent stories,
and I find that suggestion persuasive. The first ends quite
naturally with the
banquet hall being filled by those gathered from the highways and
byways. Matthew,
however, also seems to have known another story about a guest
who attended a
wedding banquet without the proper attire. Because both centred
on a banquet, he may
have combined them into a single narrative.
Matthew would
probably say to us, however, "Don't become so preoccupied with
the join that you
miss the point of the second story." So what does he want to
teach us? The first
thing to notice is that he says remarkably little about the
wedding garment
itself. Instead, he draws our attention to the man's response—
or rather, to his
lack of response.
"The man was
silent." He does not protest that he has been treated unfairly. He
does not explain that
he had been summoned from the streets without warning.
He offers no excuse,
no defence, no justification.
William Bausch draws
attention to this striking detail: "He was silent, notice. He
had not one word to
say in his own defence, as surely he would have if he were
unjustly accused...
He had nothing to say: no excuse, no explanation, no
protest... His
silence branded him as guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.” That
silence is the key to
the story.
Donald Senior
suggests that the soiled garment symbolises "a life that has
undergone no basic
change, a life that has not produced fruits worthy of
repentance." In
other words, the problem is not the clothing itself. The clothing
symbolises a life
that has accepted the invitation but has refused to be
transformed by it.
Tom Wright brings the
lesson into our own day: "We would prefer to hear a nice
story about God
throwing the party open to everyone. We want—as people now
fashionably say—to be
'inclusive', to let everyone in. We don't want to know
about judgment on the
wicked, or about demanding standards of holiness, or
about weeping and
gnashing of teeth."
That observation
strikes at the heart of the parable. We rightly rejoice that God's
invitation is
extended to everyone. Matthew himself tells us that the king's
servants gathered
"both bad and good." No one earns an invitation to the
banquet. But
accepting the invitation is not the end of the story. It is the
beginning of a new
way of life. What happens when someone finally stands
before God, looking
back over a lifetime?
Now listen to how Fr. Geoffrey ties this with the ending of Graham
Greene’s novel, The Power and the Glory.You can find my
posts on Greene’s novel here.
For the pastoral homily I’m going to turn Fr. Peter Marselek of SOLT.
Fr. Peter:
There is a great
wedding feast, but one individual arrives without a wedding garment. He is
dressed incompatibly with the banquet and is therefore removed.The wedding banquet represents heaven,
communion with the most holy trinity, with God who is love itself.St. Gregory the Great therefore identifies
the wedding garment as charity. To be in God's presence means being able to participate
in his love. Both receiving that love and sharing in it. This is why the
wedding garment is so important.Heaven
is not simply a place to which we are admitted. [music] It is a life in which
we participate. The very life and love of God. God therefore desires to prepare
and transform our hearts now for the fullness of his presence in eternity.
Today's gospel tells us that God invites everyone to salvation. The servants
are sent out to gather everyone they can find, bad and good alike. God's
invitation is extraordinarily generous.But
accepting the invitation is only the beginning. We must also allow his grace to
transform us. The wedding garment then isn't an arbitrary condition for
entering heaven. It represents our capacity to participate in heaven. Faith opens
us to God's saving grace, but that grace must bear fruit in charity. Pope
Benedict the 16th beautifully describes this garment as being woven on two
looms, love of God and love of neighbor.
I like both popes identification of the symbolism: Pope
St. Gregory’s the garment being charity and Pope Benedict XVI’s woven on the
threads of love of God and love of neighbor.It’s a reminder we should always be wearing this garment.
Sunday Meditation: “Many
are invited, but few are chosen."
“Lead Me, Lord is a beautiful hymn for this Sunday.
Blessed are the poor
in spirit, longing for their Lord,
for God’s coming
kingdom shall be theirs.
Blessed are the
sorrowing, for they shall be consoled,
and the meek shall
come to rule the world.
Refrain:
Lead me, Lord, lead
me, Lord,
by the light of truth
to seek and to find
the narrow way.
Be my way; be my
truth;
be my life, my Lord,
and lead me, Lord, today.
Blessed are the
merciful, for mercy shall be theirs,
and the pure in heart
shall see their God.
Blest are they whose
hunger only holiness can fill,