Episode 139: 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
In today’s episode, we focus on details from each of the readings for this upcoming 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. The first two details come from the first reading, which is taken from Genesis 18:1-10a. One detail pertains to discussions about the Incarnation of God and the other pertains to discussions about the use of phenomenological language, which helps us in discussions about things like the Eucharist and the nature of the afterlife for a departed soul. The detail from the second reading, which comes from Colossians 1:24-28 relates to the topic of indulgences, and even more specifically the application of satisfactory works to others. Finally, the detail from the Gospel reading, which is taken from Luke 10:38-42, isn’t necessarily a detail that’s related to an apologetical topic but it does provide us some spiritual counsel for doing apologetics.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, we’re going to focus on details from each of the readings for this upcoming 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. The first two details come from the first reading, which is taken from Genesis 18:1-10a. One detail pertains to discussions about the Incarnation of God and the other pertains to discussions about the use of phenomenological language, which helps us in discussions about things like the Eucharist and the nature of the afterlife for a departed soul. The detail from the second reading, which comes from Colossians 1:24-28 relates to the topic of indulgences, and even more specifically the application of satisfactory works to others. Finally, the detail from the Gospel reading, which is taken from Luke 10:38-42, isn’t necessarily a detail that’s related to an apologetical topic but it does provide us some spiritual counsel for doing apologetics.
So, let’s get started with the first reading, taken from Genesis 18:1-10a. Here’s what we read:
The LORD appeared to Abraham by the terebinth of Mamre,
as he sat in the entrance of his tent,
while the day was growing hot.
Looking up, Abraham saw three men standing nearby.
When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them;
and bowing to the ground, he said:
“Sir, if I may ask you this favor,
please do not go on past your servant.
Let some water be brought, that you may bathe your feet,
and then rest yourselves under the tree.
Now that you have come this close to your servant,
let me bring you a little food, that you may refresh yourselves;
and afterward you may go on your way.”
The men replied, “Very well, do as you have said.”
Abraham hastened into the tent and told Sarah,
“Quick, three measures of fine flour! Knead it and make rolls.”
He ran to the herd, picked out a tender, choice steer,
and gave it to a servant, who quickly prepared it.
Then Abraham got some curds and milk,
as well as the steer that had been prepared,
and set these before the three men;
and he waited on them under the tree while they ate.
They asked Abraham, “Where is your wife Sarah?”
He replied, “There in the tent.”
One of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year,
and Sarah will then have a son.”
The first detail to highlight is that the narrative seems to indicate that one of the “three men” who visited with Abraham was Almighty God, Yahweh. The author tells us in verse 1 that the “The Lord appeared to [Abraham]” and then in verse 10 the author reports, “The Lord said [to Abraham], ‘I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” So, this raises the question, “Is this the Lord incarnate before the incarnation of Jesus?”
First of all, as E.F. Sutcliffe points out in his commentary on Genesis in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (p. 195), “It is difficult to know whether Yahweh appeared in person or through the intermediary of an Angel.” It’s possible that this is not Yahweh himself but rather an angel who speaks on behalf of Yahweh. We see an example of this two chapters earlier in Genesis 16:10, where the author tells us that “The angel of the Lord said to [Hagar], ‘I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” Notice the message is presented as if God is speaking in the first person, yet it is the angel who says it to Hagar. So, it’s at least possible that in Genesis 18 one of the men is not Yahweh himself but an angel representing Yahweh.
Now, even if this is Yahweh himself, it wouldn’t necessarily be an incarnation—that’s to say, God assuming to himself a human nature like in the case with Jesus. Rather, it could simply be a visible manifestation of Yahweh. And it seems this is the more likely interpretation, given that an Incarnation of Yahweh at this moment in salvation history would take away from the Incarnation of the Word that we celebrate as Christians.
The next detail that I want to call your attention to is the description of these angels as “men.” We know that at least two of these men were “angels” according to Genesis 19:1, where it calls them specifically “angels.” Yet, they are described by the author as “men.” What gives?
The author is simply using phenomenological language, which is simply descriptive language according to the phenomenon, or what is sensed. These beings were seen as men and so that is how the author describes them. As to what they are in reality, 19:1 identifies at least two of them as “angels.”
Now, you might be wondering, “What’s the apologetical significance?” Well, such use of phenomenological language comes in handy when having discussions about the Eucharist.
Consider, for example, how Mark (14:25) and Matthew (26:29) record Jesus referring to the contents of the chalice at the Last Supper as “fruit of the vine” after he says the words of consecration, “this is my blood.” For some Protestants, this is evidence that Jesus couldn’t have meant for the substance in the chalice to be his real blood. Why would he call it “fruit of the vine” if it were in reality his blood?
I deal with this objection in great detail in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments. But suffice to say here that one response to this objection is that it’s possible Jesus is using phenomenological language, describing the contents of the chalice according to how they appear. And our first reading provides us an example of the use of phenomenological language. Just as the author of Genesis describes angels according to how they appeared to Abraham—as men, so too Jesus describes the contents of the chalice as they appear—as wine.
Okay, let’s now turn to the second reading, which again, is taken from Colossians 1:24-28. Paul writes,
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,
and in my flesh I am filling up
what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ
on behalf of his body, which is the church,
of which I am a minister
in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me
to bring to completion for you the word of God,
the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past.
But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,
to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory
of this mystery among the Gentiles;
it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.
It is he whom we proclaim,
admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom,
that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.
The detail that I want to highlight is Paul’s teaching, “In my flesh [sufferings] I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.” Not only does this detail support the idea of redemptive suffering—where our suffering can contribute to the holiness of others, but it also grounds the theology of indulgences.
What we see here is the principle that satisfactory works can be applied to the whole mystical body of Christ, the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas explains this in his Commentary on the Sentences, distinction 20, question 1, article 3. Let me explain.
Notice how Paul views his sufferings as making up for what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. He writes, “[I]n my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” What could possibly be lacking in Christ’s afflictions?
Let’s start with this question: “What did Christ’s afflictions accomplish?” The answer is the expiation of sin (1 John 2:2). So, now the question is, “What could possibly be ‘lacking in Christ’s afflictions’ relative to expiation for our sin?
It can’t mean Christ’s death was lacking in expiating the sin of the whole world and accomplishing the redemption of the whole human race, since the Bible makes it clear this was Jesus accomplished such redemption on the cross. John 1:29 reads, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
We know there is no lack in Christ’s afflictions when it comes to the full remission of the temporal and eternal debt due for sin at our initial justification in baptism. As Paul teaches in Romans 6:3-4, we die with Christ and rise with Christ in baptism. The Church teaches that this full participation in the Paschal mystery brings about the full remission of the guilt of sin and all punishment due to sin, both temporal and eternal (see CCC 978).
Therefore, it must refer to sins committed subsequent to initial justification.
Now, it can’t refer to any eternal debt incurred by mortal sin after baptism, since that requires infinite power to be discharged. And Paul, a finite creature, can’t suffer with infinite value. Therefore, whatever lack in Christ’s afflictions that he’s completing can’t have anything to do with the eternal debt of sin.
Given that the Bible reveals Christians after initial justification still incur temporal debt of sin (Heb. 12:5-6), it’s likely that which Paul sees as lacking in Christ’s afflictions refers to the lack of application of the merits of Christ’s death on the cross to discharge the temporal debt due to post-baptismal sins. Because the temporal debt is something that arises from turning a finite good in an inordinate way, it’s a debt that a human can discharge with the help of God’s grace.
With that said, it’s likely Paul sees his suffering as contributing to the remission of such temporal debt.
But as Aquinas teaches, the merits of his suffering are for the whole of the church, not for any particular individual, although he could have done that if he wished. And since the spiritual fruits of his suffering is a common possession of the whole Church, it can be distributed to members of the Church by the one in care of such members, namely, the Pope and the bishops united to him. Aquinas bases his conclusion on the principle that “those things that are shared by any multitude are distributed to the multitude individually according to the decision of whoever is in charge of the multitude.”
Now, such distribution of spiritual goods is at the heart of the doctrine of indulgences. The charity of one member of Christ’s body can remit some of the temporal punishment due to another member of the body.
So, this passage from Colossians provides biblical roots for at least an element that’s essential to our understanding of indulgences.
We now come the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 10:38-42—the story of Mary and Martha. Luke records,
Jesus entered a village
where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him.
She had a sister named Mary
who sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak.
Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said,
“Lord, do you not care
that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving?
Tell her to help me.”
The Lord said to her in reply,
“Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things.
There is need of only one thing.
Mary has chosen the better part
and it will not be taken from her.”
As I mentioned in the introduction, there’s no detail here that’s relevant to apologetical topics. However, I do think there is some spiritual wisdom for the practice of apologetics. Throughout the theological tradition, Mary has always been seen as representative of the contemplative life whereas Martha is seen to represent the apostolic or active life.
But notice Jesus clearly identifies Mary’s act of contemplation as the superior one. This is not to say that the active life doesn’t have a place in the Christian life. Rather, it’s to highlight what’s most important.
Thus, in our work of apologetics, we must always remember to first sit at the feet of the Master in contemplation before we engage in active apostolic work. Without the former, the latter is worthless.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C provide us some material for doing apologetic and doing it well.
• The first reading gives us an example of the use of phenomenological language, which can be useful when responding to an objection about the Eucharist,
• Paul teaches us in the second reading the principle of applying out satisfactory works for the remission of the temporal punishment of others in the body of Christ, and
• Jesus teaches us what is most important and comes first in apostolic work, contemplating his Word.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.