The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. John
And had the bag, &c. From this Jansen and others rightly gather that it is lawful for the Church to have coffers and wealth, and that it does not derogate from perfection to have a common purse, for reasonable and moderate expenses. For Jesus did nothing which implied imperfection, being the teacher of all perfection.
In order to understand this thoroughly, observe that though Christ, by reason of His Hypostatic Union with the Word, had a pre-eminent and (as it were) Divine dominion over all creatures, yet professed poverty, that is, an abandonment of ownership, special ownership, in order to be the teacher and example of a more perfect life. See Matt. viii. 20, xix. 21, 27.
Observe, secondly, that Christ had absolute control of the offerings made to Him by the faithful, for the common good, and not for His special use. They belonged to the whole College of the Apostles. He held them not as though He were their sole owner. See
It follows therefore that it does not in any way detract from their perfection for Religious orders to have goods in common. (See John xxii. Extravag. Ad Conditorem.) In some cases this is the most perfect way, in others not. But Christ at one time seemed to have lost all claim even to a share of the common property. (See Luke viii. 3.) This seems to be all that Nicholas IV. means. (Can. Exiit qui seminat. De Verb. Signif. in vi, though he apparently contradicts John xxii.)
S. Thomas (see Secund. Quaest., clxxxviii. Art. 7) proves à priori that the possession of goods in common does not hinder perfection. Poverty, he says, is only an instrument of perfection, as taking away anxiety in acquiring and preserving riches, the love of them, and our priding ourselves in them. But to have goods in common does not give rise to any of these evils ; and so far from hindering charity, it even promotes it. “ For it is manifest,” says S. Thomas,
“ that to store up things which are necessary to man, and purchased at a fitting time, causes the least possible anxiety.”
All founders of Religious Orders have sanctioned this. And hence resulted the Constitution of Justinian, that the goods of those who became monks should belong as a matter of course to their monasteries. For the whole meaning of poverty turns on not having anything belonging especially to one's own self, though there may be some common fund, from which, according to the Apostolic Rule, distribution should be made to each, as need may require. (See Acts ii. 44-45, 35, and notes thereon.) This is just what S. Jerome says to the “ Religious ” of his own day (Epist. xxii.): “ No one has any right to say, I have not a tunic, or a coat, or a bed of plaited bulrushes. For the head of the Community so divides the common stock, that every one has what he asks for. And if any begins to fall ill, he is transferred to a larger cell, and is so carefully attended by the older monks, that he longs not for the delights of cities, or the tenderness of a mother.”
The fathers and schoolmen teach everywhere the same thing. (See Suarez par. iii. Quaest. xl. disp. xxviii. § 2, Bellarm, de Summo Pont. iv. 14, Soto de Just. iv. Quaest. i. art. 1.)
Nicolas IV. ( ut supr.) says that to have common purses is to detract from perfection, for Christ in this matter adapted Himself to the weaker brethren, that He might be an example to all. Suarez replies, that Nicolas only asserted that in the matter of poverty that was the least rigid rule which allowed them to have common purses, but that it must not be concluded from this that the other rule was absolutely the most perfect. For though less perfect, as common poverty, it may be more perfect in charity, or some other virtue. For Nicolas is speaking of the Franciscans (of whom he was one), whose Order had for its scope and end the extremest poverty, in order to be conformed to S. Francis. But other orders have other pious and holy ends, for which it is more convenient to have goods in common. And therefore this is more fitting and perfect in their case. Carthusians observe silence and solitude. Others practise great austerity. But those who are employed in preaching and missions to unbelievers, need great strength to endure the great labours of their order, and make up for austerity of living by charity towards their neighbours. Both act in a manner suited to their order, and the end they propose to themselves. Different ends require different means. The Council of Trent allows all “ Religious,” except the Franciscans, to own Real Property (dona immobilia ).
Ver. 7. — Then said Jesus , Suffer her to keep this for the day of my burial. In the Greek it is “ for the day of my burial hath she kept this,” and also in the Syriac (see notes on Matt. xxvi. 12, &c.) Hear S. Augustine, “ He saith not to him, It is on account of thy thefts that thou speakest thus. He knew he was a thief, but was unwilling to expose him. He chose rather to bear with him, and to set us an example of patience in tolerating evil men in the Church.”
Ver. 9. — Much people of the Jews , &c. “ Curiosity led them,” says S. Augustine, “ not charity,” to see and hear Lazarus, and to ask him where he had been after death, what he had seen, what he had done? So Cyril, Theophylact, Leontius.
Ver. 10. — But the chief priests thought (ἐβουλεύσαντο consulted) that they might put Lazarus also to death . See here their virulent envy and malice : envying Jesus His glory. They grudge also Lazarus his life, lest it should add to the glory of Jesus. For the feast of the Passover was at hand, at which all the Jews who flocked together would see Lazarus, and wondering at the power of Jesus who had raised him from the dead, would consequently believe on Him. And in order to prevent this, they determine to put him out of the way. But S. Augustine (in loc .) rightly exclaims against them, “ O foolish thought, and blind cruelty! For could not the Lord, who had power to raise him from the dead, have power to raise him up also if he had been put to death ? In putting him to death, could ye take away Christ's power ? If a dead man seems to you one thing, and one who is put to death another, behold the Lord did both, for He both raised Lazarus who was dead, and Himself also who had been put to death.”
Lastly, the raising of Lazarus was especially the work of God, and they therefore who were so eager to put him to death, were fighting against God, and challenging Him, as it were, to the contest.
Ver. 11. — Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus — ὑπῆγον, withdrew themselves, deserted their party. This may mean either, “many of the Jews went their way,” or else “many went away from the unbelieving Jews, and followed Christ.”
Ver. 12. — But on the next day , i.e. on Palm Sunday, five days before the Passover ; the tenth day of the month Nizan, on which day the Lamb (the type of Christ) was to be killed, and on the fourteenth to be brought to Jerusalem. (Exod. xii. 3.) See notes to Matt. xxi. 7.
Ver. 17. — The people therefore . . . bare witness , &c., to the raising of Lazarus.
Ver. 18. — For this cause the people also met Him , for that they had heard that He had done this miracle. The people who were present at the raising of Lazarus spread abroad the miracle, affirming that they had seen it. And the strangeness of it so excited the people that they ran in crowds to meet Jesus, and to hail Him as the Messiah.
Ver. 19. — The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how that ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after Him . This is an hyperbole. But a large body, of every age, sex, and rank had gone after Him, old and young, Jews and Gentiles. S. Cyril observes that the Pharisees tacitly prophesied that all the world would be converted to Christ, though they themselves did not understand this.
S. Chrysostom and Theophylact consider that they who spoke thus were believers in Christ, or anyhow disposed to believe in Him, and that they addressed in these words those who disbelieved in Him.
But S. Cyril, Euthymius, and others, think that they were unbelievers , and enemies of Christ, explaining it thus : — We have all of us decided to put Jesus to death. Why do we delay ? We have gained nothing by it. It would have been far better, if we had put Him to death at once, before His party had increased, and become so well known. What now is our course of duty ? To carry out our intention as quickly as possible. Why do we delay? If we delay much longer all will go after Him. We shall be beaten by numbers, unless we prevail by craft.
Ver. 20. — And there were certain Greeks , &c. Some strangely suppose these to have been Jews who lived among the Gentiles, when S. John expressly says that they were Gentiles. These were partly proselytes, who had already embraced Judaism, or at least were thinking about it (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius), and partly Gentiles, who believed that there was One God, and who on seeing Him worshipped so reverently in the Temple, and by such multitudes at the Passover, resolved to do the same, being specially attracted by the fame of Christ's holiness and miracles, and being desirous of seeing Him. So S. Cyril, Leontius, and Theophylact. Just as the Eunuch of Queen Candace went up to Jerusalem to worship (Acts viii. 27); and Gentile kings also reverenced the Temple of Jerusalem and sent offerings to it, as Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes (Ezra i. and vi), Seleucus, and other kings of