God and Mammon

[Note: this is the third and last article dealing with the current papacy's preference for the worldly over the supernatural, as illustrated from events in the life of Christ.]

"Those who set out to serve God and mammon soon discover there is no God."
-- Logan Pearsall Smith

In the Gospel of Matthew, the oil that so exercised the Apostles is not given a specific worth. In the Gospel of Mark, however, the amount is fixed at "300 day's wages," as the NABRE puts it, or, literally, 300 denarii. That is indeed a large amount. We know this because in John's account of the feeding of the multitude, lunch for five thousand men plus their women and children was greater than 200 day's wages could purchase.

So, it seems reasonable to imagine that 300 day's wages would have covered it, according to Philip's cautious estimate. Which just happens to be the value of the costly oil poured on Jesus' head. The oil that caused such indignation on behalf of the poor.

The oil for Jesus' head was worth 300 denarii. Coincidentally, the price of feeding 5000 poor plus their women and children was also 300 denarii. The Bear suspects this is not a coincidence.

Perhaps your parish priest told you in his homily that Jesus did not perform a miracle at all. Perhaps he slyly suggested the boy's example led everyone in the crowd to bring out their secret lunches and share with those around them. Why do priests wish to join the Roman soldiers in mocking Christ's divinity? When did Our Lord's miracles become a scandal to them? If they cannot accept the feeding of the 5000, how do they accept the Resurrection? The Bear thinks he knows the answer and he trembles.

In these three little essays on the costly oil, the hungry poor, and, now, the 300 denarii, we have have been pondering a Church that cannot abide a divine Jesus. That has forgotten her supernatural mission. This has been most pronounced in the current papacy.

Pope Francis' Goal: "To solve the problem of poverty."

Had the apostles prevailed and the costly oil been sold for the poor, 5000 men, plus their women and children, might somewhere have been given a meal. Where would the next meal have come from? "The poor you will always have with you." But there are those in the Church who would rather withhold the costly oil from Christ's head and make him a liar by turning the Church into an engine to  "solve the problem of poverty" (Laudato, Si, 27).

More importantly, had Jesus attempted to "solve the problem of poverty" by material means, and had fed those people out of the purse, there would have been no opportunity for the miracle. It is the miracle that ultimately leads to the sublime Bread of Life discourse in John 6. The two are connected. Here Jesus is emphatic. He did not come to deliver earthly bread, even to the hungry. He came to bring down heavenly bread, even to the dying.

“No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24. One does not have to amass great personal wealth to serve mammon. Mammon is satisfied so long as your eyes are fixed on it, even if on behalf of others.

Which master are our churchmen great and small serving? What kind of Church are they making for us?

Comments

  1. Good Bear. I thought it was Judas who made the fuss about wasting the costly oil on Jesus instead of selling it 300 days wages and using the money for the poor. In response Jesus said the poor you always have with you. Somewhere along the line we have placed caring for man over caring for God and the outcome is tragic. Look what happened to Judas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While not unlikely, he is not singled out in any of the accounts. However, it is immediately afterwards that Judas betrays Jesus to the Jews.

      Delete
  2. What would you say to the objector who, pondering this, concludes that one must have earthly bread in order to receive heavenly bread? What good is it, their thinking goes, to attempt to make one the recipient of the Great Commission if one is dying physically? Isn't one logically prior to the other?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John 6 has the answer to that, I believe. Start at verse 22 and continue through verse 58 (at least).

      Delete
    2. If one is dying physically, he had best be prepared to meet his neighbor. The Church was never commissioned to "end poverty." Christians are supposed to feed the hungry, which is entirely different from sending poverty. So, no. The Bear does not accept your (he imagines) rhetorical premise. Of course, now, we are in the group's of an anti-supernatural age, and the Church has finally caught the distemper.

      Delete
    3. I have about concluded that hunt and peck is better than Swype.

      Delete
    4. I don't see how, reading my other comments, you'd get the idea that I share this premise.

      Delete
    5. The Bear entertained no such idea. Which is why he assumed it was a rhetorical question for the purpose of promoting discussion.

      Delete
    6. Please forgive my misunderstanding. I thought in stating "your premise" you believe it was indeed mine.

      Delete
    7. No problem, the Bear can see where it could have been confusing.

      Delete
  3. Related: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4051/apocalyptic_and_utopian_on_pope_francis_bolivian_manifesto.aspx

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Your comment will likely be posted after the Bear snuffles it. Please, no anonymous posts.

Popular posts from this blog

In Cauda Venenum: the Pope's Homily

Pope Grinch

Bear Says What He Thinks About Pope Francis