Luke, XXII, 7-13. Preparations for the Lord's Supper

"At your entrance to the city there will be a man carrying a water amphora. "

It is good to examine where the Lord is doing the Passover. In Matthew you read: "Go to the city to such a place" (Matt., XXVI, 18). Notice from the beginning the divine majesty: He speaks with his disciples, and already knows what will happen elsewhere. Then see his condescension: He does not choose a rich or powerful person, but He needs a poor person; He prefers the reduced hospitality of a poor man to the vast dwellings of the nobles. "Go," he said, to someone's house. You knew, Lord, his name, since you knew how helpful he was; you knew how helpful he was, knowing that he would show up. But you designate it without naming it, to judge that it is not remarkable. Nothing here arranged, since we do not mention the person, but the case. According to Mark "he carries a jug of water" (XIV, 13). This is the one that the apostles have orders to follow. Why "father"? To let you know that one describes the dignity of one's life, not one's wealth. Why does he have a bed on the upper floor? To make you notice the greatness of his merit, such as the Lord with his disciples can rest with complacency on his high virtues. May it please God that I be given to carry the amphora of water, given to carry the pitcher of water, that carries this father of family having upstairs a great bed! What is the amphora? Is it not the metered measure, which does not contain a mediocre measure? The Lord said, "They will give you the right measure, packed, overflowing" (Lk VI, 38). Water, what shall I say? On the water, even before the birth of the world, hovered, as you read, the Spirit (Gen., I, 2) 59 Water, who washed the Universe stained with human blood, preceding the current bath of his face! Water to which it was given to be the sacrament of Christ, washing everything without being washed! It is you who first start, it is you who complete and perfect the mysteries. From you comes the beginning, from you the end; or rather, it is you who makes us ignore the end. Through you the smell of putrefied flesh is driven out, and the bowels that corrode are preserved for a long time by the salt spilled. Through you the bodies that dry out the heat receive a sweet and pleasant drink, which saves life, which gives a sweet pleasure. You gave your name to the prophets and apostles, you gave your name to the Savior: the first are the clouds of heaven (Is., LX, 8), the second the salt of the earth (Matt., V, 13) ; He is the source of life (Jn, VII, 38). The mountains cover you without trapping you. You hit the rocks without breaking. You spill on the land without exhausting yourself; but springing from deep channels, sometimes contained, you spread a breath of life, sometimes dispersed you give the fertile sap, sometimes spread you provide a well-watering, so that the earth, exhausted, parched in its marrow, does not refuse harvests annual. Substance of all elements, the sky, the air, the sea, the earth produce you. Struck and struck by the Prophet, the rock has disgorged you to water the hearts of the altered peoples (Ex., XVII, 6). When you sprung from the side of the Savior, the executioners saw you, and they believed (Jn, XIX, 34); so are you one of the three witnesses of our rebirth: for "there are three witnesses, the water, the blood, and the Spirit" (I Jn, V, 8): the water for washing, the blood to redeem, the Spirit to resurrect (see Rom., VIII, 11).

Luke, XXII, 14-38. Speech during the Last Supper.

"And I am preparing you a kingdom, as my Father has prepared for me. "

The Kingdom of God is not of this world (Jn, XVIII, 36). Man must not aim for equality, but resemblance to God. Only in fact is Christ the full image of God, because in Him the Father's glory is expressed in unity; as for the just man, he is in the image of God if, to reproduce the likeness of the divine life, he despises this world in order to know God, and disdains the enjoyments of the earth to receive the Word which is the food of our life: what we eat the body of Christ, to participate in eternal life. For it is not eating and drinking that is promised to us as a reward and an honor, but as a communion of grace and heavenly life. The twelve thrones are not made to receive and seat our bodies; but just as Christ, by virtue of his divine likeness, judges by his knowledge of hearts and not by inquiring into actions to reward virtue and condemn ungodliness, so also do the Apostles learn to judge in the spirit, rewarding faith and hating the false belief, to repeat the error, to continue with their hatred the sacrileges.

Let us be converted, then, and take care that for our loss there is no dispute of precedence between us; because if the Apostles have contested, it is not an excuse offered, it is an invitation to beware. If Peter converted "someday" (Matt, XIII, 15, Mc, IV, 12), who answered the first call of the Master, who can say that his own conversion was fast? Beware of vanity, keep yourself from the age; for he who is in charge of strengthening his brothers is the one who said: "We have left everything to follow you" (Lk 18: 28). One must also consider that the eagerness to honor does not make all the humility: for you can be deferential to someone for a worldly advantage, for fear of power and for an interest. It is to build you that it is not a matter of honoring others; so that we give to all only advice formulated in the same terms, so that we do not boast of being preferred, but that there is a joust of humility. On this point the Lord proposes to imitate us: we needed everything, Him of no one; and yet He affirmed himself humility by serving his disciples; He certainly did not do it in an interested way, but by the exercise of virtue. As for Peter, quick in his mind, no doubt, but weak as to the disposition of his body (Matt. Xxvi. 41), he is warned that he will deny the Lord; for he could not equal the firmness of the divine will: the Passion of the Lord has imitators, no equals. Thus I do not reproach him for having denied, I congratulate him for having cried; one is the fact of our common condition, the other mark of virtue. He is warned, so as to be on his guard; he is not forced to deny.

"He who possesses a sack," said he, "must take it, and also a satchel; and whoever has no sword must sell his tunic to buy one. "

Why order me this purchase, since you forbid me to strike (Matt., XXVI, 52)? Why prescribe me to have what you forbid me to draw? Perhaps to have ready defense, not necessarily revenge; to show that you could avenge yourself, but did not want it. The law, however, does not forbid me to make blows; perhaps then, when Peter presents two swords, if you say, "That's enough," is it as if the thing would have been permitted until the Gospel, the Law giving the rudiment of justice, the Gospel completion of goodness. To many it seems unfair; but the Lord is not iniquitous: being able to avenge himself, He preferred to immolate himself. There is also a spiritual sword, which makes you sell your patrimony to buy the word of which is clothed the intimate of the soul. There is still the sword of the Passion, which makes you strip your body, and buy with the remains60 of your body immolated the holy crown of martyrdom: you can conclude from the beatitudes of the Lord, who predicted the crown supreme among all to who suffers persecution for righteousness (Matt. V, 10). Finally, to show you that he spoke of the Passion, not wishing to disturb the minds of the disciples, He gave his own example, saying, "For what is written must be fulfilled in me. to the rank of the unjust. There remains, however, a doubt about the two swords presented by the disciples: perhaps one for the New Testament, the other for the Old. By them we are armed "against the pitfalls of the devil" (Ephesians 6: 11). So the Lord says, "Suffice it," to make it plain that nothing is wanting to him whom the teaching of the two Testaments strengthens.

Luke XXII, 39-53. The agony in the garden.

"Father, if it is possible, move this chalice away from me. "

Many attach themselves to this wise step to exploit the sadness of the Lord as the proof of an innate infirmity from the beginning, and not taken for a time; they would like to divert words from their natural meaning. For me, not only do I not see that there is reason to excuse it, but nowhere do I admire his tenderness and his majesty more: his benefit would have been less if he had not taken my feelings. It was therefore for me that he grieved himself, having no subject of affliction for him; and, putting aside the enjoyment of his eternal divinity, He lets himself be touched by the lassitude of my infirmity. He took my sorrow, to lavish me his joy; in our footsteps He descended to the anguish of death, wishing on his feet to remind us of life. I do not hesitate to speak of sadness, since I preach the cross. It is because he has not taken from the embodiment the appearance, but the reality; He must also take the pain, in order to overcome the sadness, and not to remove it: one can not be praised for his courage if one has known wounds only dizziness without pain. "Man of sorrows, it is said, and knowing how to bear the sufferings" (Is., LIII, 3), He wanted to teach us. Joseph had taught us not to fear prison; in Christ we would learn to conquer death; even better: how to overcome the anxiety of death to come. How could you imitate us, Lord Jesus, unless you follow us as a man, to believe that you are dead, to have seen your wounds? How could the disciples have believed that he would die if they had not noticed the anguish of a dying person?

 So they still sleep and ignore pain, for whom Christ was in pain. This is what we read: "He bears our sins, and for us He suffers" (Is., LIII, 4). So you suffer, Lord, not from your wounds, but from mine, not from your death, but from our infirmity; and we looked upon you, as a prey to pain, when you suffered not for yourself, but for me. For you have become infirm, but because of our sins (Is., LIII, 5), because this infirmity, you have not received from your Father, but taken for me; because it was good for me that "the teaching of our peace should be in you, and your bruises would heal our wounds" (Ib.).

 But what a wonder if for all He suffered, when for one He cried? What a wonder if at the moment of suffering for all He fails, when at the time of resurrecting Lazarus He shed tears? Then He is moved by the tears of a loving sister, who touched his human soul; here a profound thought causes him to act: just as in his flesh He exterminated our sins, so the anguish of our souls would be dissipated by the anguish of his soul.

 And perhaps his sadness is that since the fall of Adam, our only way out of this world is necessarily death. For God did not make death, and He feels no joy at the loss of the living (Sag., I, 13); He is reluctant to suffer what he has not done.

Then He said, "Take this chalice away from me. Man, He repels death; God, He keeps his sentence. We must indeed die to the world to resurrect to God, so that, according to the divine sentence, the law of curse be satisfied by the return of our nature to the earthly slime. When he says, "It is not my will, but yours, which is fulfilled," He brings his own to his humanity, that of the Father to the deity. The will of man is temporary; the will of God is eternal. There is not a will of the Father other than that of the Son: they have only one will, like a divinity. Learn, however, to be submissive to God, not to choose your own will, but what you know must please God.

Consider finally the proper value of the words: "My soul is sad", and elsewhere: "Now my soul is in an extreme trouble" - the trouble is not for Him who took a soul, but for the one who was taken: for the soul is subject to the passions, the divinity is exempt from it - finally: "The spirit is prompt, the flesh is infirm. Sad, it is not He who is, but his soul. Wisdom is not sad, nor the divine substance, but the soul: for He has taken my soul, He has taken my body. He did not deceive me by being other than he seemed to know: sad He appeared, and sad He was, not of his suffering, but of our dispersion; so it is said, "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered" (Matt. xxvi. 31, according to Zech. xii. 7). It was sad to leave us so small. As for the rest, the Scripture tells us with what courage it offers itself to death, going to meet those who seek it, strengthening the troubled, exciting the trembling, deigning to accept the kiss of the traitor. Besides, it is not contrary to the truth that he was sad for his persecutors, knowing that they were expiating their sacrilege in their tortures. This is why he says: "Take away from me this chalice": not that the Son of God feared death, but because he would not have wanted the loss of the wicked themselves. As he will say, "Lord, do not put this sin on their account" (Lk. XXIII, 34) so ​​that his Passion was salutary to all.

"Judas, by a kiss do you deliver the Son of man? "

Great manifestation of divine power, great lesson of virtue. The plan of treason is unmasked, and yet patience is not denied. You have shown, Lord, who he delivered, by revealing his secret. You have again shown who he delivered, saying: "the Son of man": for it is the flesh, not the divinity, that one stops; However, it is for the ungrateful a reproach more for having delivered Him who, being Son of God, had for us wanted to be Son of man; He seems to say: It was for you, ungrateful, that I took what you are doing. What hypocrisy! It is therefore necessary, in my opinion, to read with an interrogation, as if, in an affectionate feeling, He took back the traitor: "Judas, is it by a kiss that you are giving the Son of man"? In other words: it is by the pledge of love that you inflict on me the wound, by the mark of the affection that you shed my blood, by the sign of peace that you give me death, that you servant you give your Lord, disciple your Master, choose your Creator? It is indeed the case to say: "The wounds of a friend are better than the calculated kisses of an enemy" (Prov., XXVII, 6). This for the traitor; of the pacific, what does He say? "Let him kiss me with kisses from his mouth" (Cant., I, 1)!

And he kisses him: not to teach us dis-simulation, but not to appear to avoid treachery, and to further burden the traitor by not denying him the marks of affection. For it is written, "With the enemies of peace I was peaceful" (Psalm 119: 6).

"And at the agreed signal, it is said, those who came with sticks seize it. "

But the Lord of all things has been a prisoner of mysteries, not weapons. As well He speaks, and they fall backwards. What do I need legions of angels, the army of Heaven? The only voice of the Lord causes more terror. It was she who retained, as an obvious indication of divine majesty, the one who had rested on the heart of Christ. It is because he wants it that the troop seizes him, that he is loaded with chains. O fools! O treacherous! We do not seize wisdom in this way, we do not thus chain Justice.

 And the zeal of the disciples did not fail. So Peter, learned of the Law, with a quick heart, knowing that Phinehas was judged righteous for having sacrilegious (Ps. 105, 30 ff.), Strikes the servant of the prince (of the priests). But the Lord has spread the bloody wounds to replace them with the divine mysteries. Thus the slave of the prince of the world, servant of the powers of the century not by right of birth, but by his fault62 received a wound in the ear for not having listened to the words of wisdom. For finally "whoever commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn, VIII, 34); "For your sins, it is said, you have been sold" (Is., L, 1). Sales are the result of our sins, it is by the goodness of God that sins are redeemed. Or, if Peter deliberately wounded the ear, it was to teach that they should not have a visible ear, not having a sense of mysticism. But the Lord, who is good, has put his ear to show, according to the word of the Prophet (IS, VI, 10), that healing is possible, if they convert, for those who were wounded when of the Passion of the Lord: for all sin is erased by the mysteries of faith. Peter therefore cuts off the ear. Why Pierre? Because it is He who has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. He condemns, as he absolves, because he has received the power to bind as that of loosening. He cut off the ear of those who listen badly; by the spiritual sword he cuts off the inner ear to the one who misunderstands. Let us be careful that no one has an ear cut off. We read the Passion of the Lord: if we report to his divinity his infirmity and bodily suffering, our ear is cut off, and cut off by Peter, who did not suffer Christ to pass for a Prophet, but taught us to proclaim it. Son of God by a testimony of faith (Matt. XVI, 14ff.). So when we read the arrest of Jesus, let us not listen and believe anyone who tells us that he is arrested as God, arrested in spite of himself, arrested because impotent. He is arrested, it is true, and bound, to the testimony of John (XVIII, 12), in the reality of his body; but woe to those who enchain the Word! It is to chain him that to see in Christ only a man; it is the in-chain that does not believe in its prescience, that do not recognize its omnipotence. Poor chains of the Jews! They do not bind Christ, but they attach themselves to it. Now he is chained not in the house of some godly and righteous man, but in the house of Caiaphas, that is, an unholy house, where it is prophesied also that he must die for all (Matt. XXVI, 57, Jn, XVIII, 24). How foolish are those who recognize the benefits and persecute the author of the benefits! So they lose their ears, having lost the usefulness of the ear. Many do not have any who believe in having it: in the Church all have it, outside the Church we do not have it. Perhaps he cut off his ear so that they would not sin more if they heard, because they could not observe what they heard; It is thus that the Lord formerly blurred the tongues of those who built the tower (Gen., XI, 7ff.), to prevent them from advancing their unholy work. Understand, if you can, how in contact with the right hand of the Savior the pain escapes and the wounds heal themselves, without a medicine being poured on them, to that contact which covers them. The clay recognizes its workman, and the flesh lends itself to the hand of the Lord who works it: for the Creator repairs his work as he pleases. It is thus that He renders the sight to the blind by rubbing his eyes with mud (Jn, IX, 6), as if by a return to his nature. He could command, but he preferred to work, to make us recognize Him who, from a clay earth, formed the members of our body fit for various functions, and gave them life by spreading the energy of the 'soul.

 So they came and seized him. The success of their enterprise made their loss more fatal; and the unfortunates did not understand the mystery, nor venerated a dis-position of kindness so clement that he did not allow his enemies even to be wounded. They brought death to the righteous; He healed the wounds of the persecutors.

Luke XXII, 54-62. Denying Peter.

But Peter followed from afar. It is very true that he followed him from afar, being already so near to denying him, for he could not have denied him if he had attached himself closely to Christ. But perhaps we must have for him the greatest admiration and reverence for the very fact that he did not abandon his Lord, while being afraid: fear is natural, pious solicitude; To fear is not his doing, not to flee is good of him. He follows: it is devotion; if he denies, it is surprise. His fall is the common lot; his repentance comes from his faith.

 There was a lit fire at the priests' house: Peter approached to warm himself, because the Lord being a prisoner, the heat of the soul had also cooled in him. What does it mean that the first to denounce it is a servant, while men would certainly have been better able to recognize it? Is it not so that one sees this sex to sin also for the death of the Lord, so that this sex is also redeemed by the Passion of the Lord? It was for the same reason that a woman was the first repository of the mystery of the Re-uplift and observed what was prescribed to her (Jn, XX, 14ff), to erase the old misguidance of prevarication.

 Peter being denounced denie. Yes, let us admit that Peter denied, since the Lord said, "You will deny me three times" (Matt. Xxvi. 34), and that I prefer to believe in Peter's denial rather than an error of the Lord. What did he deny? What he had unwisely promised. He had considered his devotion, he had not taken care of his condition; he was punished for saying that he would give his life, which does not belong to human weakness, but to divine power. If he has had to pay so much for an imprudent word, what will be the punishment of unbelief? But where does Peter deny? Neither on the mountain, nor in the temple, nor in his house, but in the court of the Jews, in the house of the prince of priests. He denies where the truth is not; he denies the place where Christ is imprisoned, where Jesus is chained. How not to go astray, having been introduced by a doorkeeper, and questioned by the door of the Jews? It is a misfortune that Eve persuaded Adam, a misfortune that a woman introduced Peter. But the first falls in paradise, where a fault is unforgivable; this one in the courtroom of the Jews, where innocence is difficult. It was not permissible for one to fall; to the other his error was predicted. The fault of the first wronged him; this one released the first. Consider again in what state he denies: "It was cold. Given the season, it could not be cold; but it was cold in this place where Jesus was not recognized, where there was no one who saw the light, where the consuming fire was denied. It was therefore cold for the soul, not for the body; Pierre stood near the coals because his heart was cold. Bad fire of the Jews! It burns, it does not heat. Bad hearth, which spreads the soot of error even to the souls of the saints! Next to him the inner eyes of Peter himself were blurred: not the eyes of flesh and blood, but the eyes of the soul, which made him see Christ. I will be told: Do you condemn the Jews to the elements? ? I do not condemn the elements, since they do not belong to the Jews; but there is another flame, which I condemn: that of false faith. I condemn this flame of the Jews, following the divine oracles; for the Lord said, "Your money is reprobate" (Jer. VI, 30); if the money of the Jews is reprobated, reprobate is also the home of the Jews. And it was with the fire and gold of the Jews that the head of the calf was molded (Ex. XXXII), that is, the starting point of sacrilege.

But let's see the content of the denial. I see that it varies according to the evangelists. It was so new that Peter was able to sin, that his sin was not even discovered by the evangelists. Thus, when the servant denounces Peter as being among those who were with Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew writes that his first word was to reply: "I do not know what you are talking about"; likewise Marc, Peter's companion, and who was able to learn from him with certainty. This is the first word of Peter's denial; yet he does not seem to deny the Lord, but to disengage himself from this woman's denunciation. Consider, however, what he denied: that he was of those who were with Jesus of Galilee, or, as Marc described, with Jesus of Nazareth. Did he deny having been with the Son of God? It was saying: I do not know how Galilean I am, I do not know as of Nazareth, who I know to be the Son of God. Men to bear names of localities; the Son of God can not be designated by his country, his majesty not being shut up in any place. And to let you know how true it is, there is testimony to support it; for in another place, the Lord having asked his disciples, "What do men say that I am, me Son of man? Some said Elijah, others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets; but Peter says, "You are the Christ, Son of the living God" (Matt., XIII, 16ff.). Did he then deny, when he preferred to recognize Christ as the Son not of man, but of God? How could we find equivocal what Christ Himself approved? Another thing again. To the question: "And you, are you of those who were with Jesus of Galilee? Peter dismisses this expression of eternity: for they were not, having begun to be. This amounts to saying: He alone was "who" was from the beginning (Jn, I, 1). Moreover, he says: "I am not, I": for to be belongs to Him who is always; This is why Moses said, "He who is sent me" (Ex., III, 14). As he insisted he was among them, he still denied it, according to Mark: which shows that the evangelist has given more to the truth than to complacency. Yet he denied that he was of their number, but he did not deny Christ. He could deny his relationships with men, not the grace of God. He could deny being among those who were with the Galilean; with the Son of God, he did not deny it. Finally, according to Matthew, denounced as being with Jesus of Nazareth, he says: "I do not know this man. This is what the two evangelists we are dealing with66 say that he answered the third time, and with an oath: that he did not know the man. And he did well to deny as man He whom he knew to be God. As well, when there is an oath, there is a studied answer: for, even though he has denied, Peter has not parjured, since the Lord had not mentioned either that he would parrot. If the oath is doubtful at Pierre, as it is risky thing! As for John, he wrote: Asked by the handmaid if he were disciples of this man, Peter first replied: "I am not" (Jn, XVIII, 17): for he does not was not an apostle of a man, the being of Christ. Moreover, Paul, too, denied being the apostle of a man: "Paul," he says, "apostle not from men, nor by means of a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." (Gal., I, 1); but, in order not to seem to cast any doubt on the Incarnation, he added: "Who raised him from the dead," so that you too might have faith in his humanity, after having believed him God. This is what he still maintains, in similar terms, when he says: "There is only one God and one mediator between God and men, the Christ Jesus man" (I Tim ., II, 5); he has, of course, called him a mediator of God first, and then men; for it is not enough to believe the two things, if in faith order is not observed. So the answer is from one end to the other. For having said, "I do not know man," it was fitting that on the question whether he were disciples of man he answered, "I am not. So he did not deny being the disciple of Christ, but he denied being a disciple of a man. Thus Peter and Paul denied as a man the One whose divinity they confessed. What Pierre thought, Paul also expressed it: he took advantage of it. The error of Peter is a teaching for the righteous, and the stumbling of Peter is the rock of all. He staggers on the waters, but he extends his hand to Christ (Matt. XIV, 30); he falls on the mountain, but is raised by Christ (Lk IX, 34). It is the same Pierre who staggered on the sea, but walked. Staggering stone is firmer than our firmness: it falls where nobody goes up; he stumbles where no one walks.

And yet, although he staggers on the waters, he is not engulfed; he stumbles without falling, he stumbles without falling.

 If he fell, he fell on the mountain; but to fall was better than for others to remain standing; it was better for him to fall, since Christ raised him up. Questioned again if he was of his disciples, he denied it, writes John. And he rightly denied it, since they said he was a follower of the man whom we spoke of earlier as a man. That if, at the third resumption, he denied that he was seen with Him, it follows from the foregoing; with him whom you call man, no, I was not there; but the Son of God, I have not left him. Luke, in his turn, wrote that Pierre, questioned if he was one of them, answered a first time: "I do not know him. And he said righteousness: it would certainly have been rash to say that he knew Him whom the human mind could not grasp; for "no one knows the Son except the Father" (Matt. XI, 27). Likewise, the second time, Peter said, according to Luke, "I am not one"; indeed, he preferred to deny himself rather than Christ; or else, by seeming to deny his relations with Christ, he has denied himself. It is certain that by his denial concerning man, he sinned against the Son of man, so that he was forgiven (Matt. Xii. 32), but not against the Holy Spirit. Questioned a third time again, he says: "I do not know what you say", in other words: I do not understand your sacrilege.

 But we apologize, he did not apologize. It is not enough for an ambiguous answer to confess Jesus: a frank confession is needed. What is the use of wrapped words, if you want to appear to disown? What indicates that Peter did not answer in this way intentionally is that afterwards he remembered it and yet cried. He preferred to accuse himself of his sin, and to justify himself by an admission, than to aggravate his case by a denial; for "the righteous begins by accusing himself" (Prov., XVIII, 17). And he cried. Why did he cry? Because he sinned by surprise. My custom is to cry, if I fail to sin, that is to say, if I do not avenge myself, if I do not obtain what I covet unjustly; Peter suffered and cried, because he wandered like a man. I do not find what he said: I think he cried. I read that he cried, I do not read that he made excuses; but what can not defend itself can be washed; to tears to wash away the blush that one blushes to confess in person. Crying provides for forgiveness and shame. Tears say the fault without trembling; tears admit crime without embarrassment for modesty; tears do not ask for forgiveness, and get it. I found why Peter kept silence: it was not to add to the offense by asking his forgiveness so quickly; we must cry first, and then pray. Good tears, who wash the blame! As well, they cry that Jesus is looking. Peter denied the first time and did not cry, because the Lord had not looked at him. He denied a second time, he did not cry, because the Lord had not looked at him yet. He denied a third time; Jesus looked at him, and he cried bitterly. Look at us, Lord Jesus, 68 so that we know how to mourn our sin. It still shows that the fall of the saints is useful: the denial of Peter did not do me wrong, I won his repentance; I learned to beware of the treacherous. Peter in the midst of the Jews has denied, Solomon deceived by his pagan companions has gone astray. Peter cried, and very bitterly; he cried to get to wash his fault in tears. You too, if you want to be forgiven, erase your fault with tears: at the very moment, on the hour, Christ looks at you. If any fall comes to you, He, a witness present in your secret life, is looking at you to remind you and make you admit your mistake. Imitate Peter, who says elsewhere, three times: "Lord, you know that I love you" (Jn, XXI, 15); for, having denied three times, he confesses three times. But he has denied in the night, he confesses in broad daylight. Now all this is written to let you know that no one should boast. For if Peter fell for saying, "Even if others are scandalized, I will not be scandalized" (Matt, XXVI, 33), who else would be entitled to rely on you? Besides, David too, after having said: "I said in my sufficiency: I will never be shaken," admits that this vanity has done him wrong: "You have," said he, "turned your face away from me, and I found myself in trouble "(Ps 29, 7ffq).

  Where do you come from, Pierre, to tell me what were your thoughts among your tears? Yes, where do you come from? From heaven, where you have already taken place among the choirs of angels, or the tomb? For it does not repugn you to be in your turn in this place from which the Lord is risen. Teach us what your tears have been used for. But you taught it very quickly: for having fallen before weeping, your tears made you choose to lead the others, who at first did not know how to conduct you.

Matt., XXVII, 3-10. End of Judas.

Peter, therefore, had tears, which made him shed his loving heart. The traitor had no tears to wash his fault, but the torments of his conscience to make him confess his sacrilege. Thus, the guilty being condemned by his own judgment, and the forfeiture expiated by a voluntary torture, we see appear the goodness of the Lord, who did not want to avenge Himself, and his divinity, which put to the question this soul and this consciousness by its invisible power. "I have sinned," he says, "delivering the blood of the righteous. Although the regret of the traitor is useless, because he has sinned against the Holy Spirit, yet there is some modesty on the part of the crime to acknowledge his fault; and, if not absolved, at least the impudence of the Jews condemns them. Accused by the vendor's admission, however, they claim the rights of this criminal contract, and believe they are free of guilt when they say: "What does it matter to us? That's your business. Frankly insane, they think themselves untied, and not engaged, by the vendor's crime. In money business, the price refunded, the right ceases; they take back the price and continue their sacrilege. By the passion of their passion, they take on their account the fatal sale of blood, while the seller repays the price of sacrilege. Thus, when this price of blood is set apart from the sacred treasure of the Jews, when one buys the field of the potter with the money for which Christ was sold, when this ground is devoted to bury the remains of foreigners, the oracle prophetic is clearly accomplished and the mystery of the emerging Church is revealed. For the field, according to the divine words, is everyone present (Matt., XIII, 38); the potter is the one who made clay for us, and you read in the Old Testament that God "made man of clay earth" (Gen., II, 7). He had the power to shape by nature, to reform by grace: for even if we fall by our own vices, his mercy makes us take back soul and breath, according to the oracle of Jeremiah (XVIII, 2 ssq .), and we reform. On the other hand, the price of blood is the price of the Passion of the Lord. It is therefore at the price of blood that the world is bought by Christ; for He came "that the world might be saved by Him" ​​(Jn, III, 17), so that in him his author finds both his work and his right. He therefore came to preserve, for the benefit of eternity, those who by baptism are buried and died with Christ (Romans, VI, 4, 8, Col. II, 12). But the place of burial is not indistinctly for all: for if the world contains all men, it does not preserve them all; they live there all together, but the burial is the right of those who now, by faith, are of the house of God (Ephes., II, 19), instead of being strangers under the Law. Who are they, if not those of whom it is said: "Remember that there was a time when you, Gentility, were according to the flesh foreign to the life of Israel and excluded from the promises of the Covenant" ( Ephesians II, 11-13)? But now they are no longer aliens and passing through, having been granted sanctuary in the sanctuary under the title of faith.