Episode 110: Year C – Feast of the Holy Family, Year C
In this episode, we focus on a four details in the readings for this upcoming Feast of the Holy Family, Year C that are relevant for apologetical and theological discussions. The first detail comes from the first reading, taken from Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14, and the related apologetical topic is whether we Christians can still incur a debt of temporal punishment after justification. The second and third details come from the second reading, taken from Colossians 3:12-21, and the related topics are the headship of the husband within the family and his wife’s relation to that headship, and the scope of a child’s obedience to his parents commands. The last detail comes from the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 2:41-52, and the related question is whether Christ can increase in grace.
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 this episode, we’re going to focus on a ?? details in the readings for this upcoming Feast of the Holy Family, Year C that are relevant for apologetical and theological discussions. The first detail comes from the first reading, taken from Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14, and the related apologetical topic is whether we Christians can still incur a debt of temporal punishment after justification. The second and third details come from the second reading, taken from Colossians 3:12-21, and the related topics are the headship of the husband within the family and his wife’s relation to that headship, and the scope of a child’s obedience to his parents commands. The last detail comes from the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 2:41-52, and the related question is whether Christ can increase in grace.
Let’s start with the first reading, again, taken from Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14. I’m not going to read the whole passage. Rather, I just want to focus on verse 3: “Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and preserves himself from them.”
Now, I realize that some Christians don’t recognize Sirach to be inspired. However, for us as Catholics we do recognize this to be inspired and it serves as a source for our doctrinal formation. Hence, it’s good that we look to it for such formation.
Now, the topic that the highlighted detail relates to the nature of justification. As many of you know already, some Christians believe that the sole ground for our justification is God’s declaration that we are just on account of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This is known as the forensic view of justification.
Part and parcel of this view is that once we’re justified, or reckoned to be in a right relationship with God, there is no longer any punishment due to us on account of sins. Consequently, there is no room for the atonement of sin post justification within this theological framework.
Our highlighted text in our first reading—namely, “honoring your father atones for sins,” runs directly contrary to this belief. According to Sirach, there is still the possibility for someone who is justified, or in covenantal relationship with God, to still incur some debt of punishment for sin, since “atonement” necessarily implies such debt.
This being the case, the forensic view of justification must be false, at least according to the Book of Sirach. And given that we Catholics believe Sirach to be inspired, this is biblical confirmation that such a view is false.
Okay, let’s turn to the second reading, taken from Colossians 3:12-21. Again, I’m not going to read the whole passage. Rather, I simply want to highlight the two relevant details.
I deal with this in in episode 58 of the Sunday Catholic Word for the Feast of the Holy Family, Year B. But it bears repeating here.
The first detail is Paul’s teaching, “Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.”
The question that arises here is, “Does the husband actually have headship over his wife?” The answer is yes. But not with regard to nature, since both are equally human. Rather, the headship concerns the role the husband plays as head of the family. Every society must have a principle of unity, or head, lest it fall apart.
Now, the role the husband plays within the family is governor, which means he must direct or order members of the family toward their ultimate end, or goal (that’s what a governor does). That end or goal is their perfection as human beings, which is ultimately found in union with God.
This is why Paul says immediately afterward, “husbands, love your wives” (v.19). What is love but to will the good of the other.
So, by “submission,” Paul means the wife must put herself under that ordering by the husband, allowing herself to be directed by the husband to her ultimate good, which is union with God. In other words, she must allow herself to be loved by her husband.
Of course, this raises a few pertinent questions: Does this mean the wife has no role to play in ordering the members of the family to their ultimate good? Does mean that the wife must obey the husband in everything he says?
The answer to both questions is no. Concerning the first, the wife does have a role to play—namely, to help the husband in his governing activity. This is rooted in Genesis where we read that God created Eve to be Adam’s “helpmate”: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18).
The head of the family is not infallible. He is subject to error in his reasoning as how to best order the family life. Therefore, he needs help, he needs counsel. This is where the wife comes into play. She is meant to help the husband discern what’s best for the family, which involves her sharing her own insights and wisdom.
Ultimately, the husband does have legitimate authority to make final decisions for family life. But he would do well to take his wife’s insights and wisdom into consideration when making such decisions. For to neglect her contribution would be to go against the very reason why God created woman in the first place. And, surely, we don’t want to go against God’s design.
The second detail from the second reading option taken from Colossians 3:12-21 is Paul’s teaching, “children, obey your parents in everything.”
The question here is, “Does this mean that children must obey their parents in everything, even sin?” Of course, the answer is no. The assumption behind Paul’s command here is commands that are ordinances of reason, which means obedience is not due for commands contrary to reason. In other words, children don’t have to obey commands that involve sinful behavior.
We now come to the Gospel reading, which is taken from Luke 2:41-52, and it’s the story of the finding of the child Jesus in the temple. There are two questions that arise in this story that are relevant to apologetical/theological discussions.
One question is, “Did Jesus fail in virtue to not let his parents know that he stayed behind in the Temple?” The answer is no because the will of the Father takes precedent over the laws of natural parent-child relations, since earthly parenthood receives its very authority from God the Father. As Paul teaches, “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family [Greek, patria—parenthood] in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:15).
Another question is, “Is Mary rebuking Jesus when she says, ‘Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.’” Again, the answer is no. She is simply expressing a feeling of sorrow and anxiety for having lost him and simply asking the question of why he did this? Seeking an explanation for a behavior doesn’t entail a reprimand.
We could also ask, “Is Jesus rebuking Mary and Joseph when he says, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” The answer is no. He’s not chiding them for their natural feelings of anxiety and worry for having lost him for a time. Rather, his question is meant to draw Mary to reflect deeper on the mystery of his relation to the Father and the mission that he has here on earth, calling her to realize that his relation to the Father precedes and is above his relation to her as her son.
The last detail in this Gospel reading worth highlighting is Luke’s statement that Jesus “grew in favor before God.” Other translations rendered this phrase “grew in grace before God.”
On this translation, Luke seems to be saying that Christ “grew in grace.” “But,” it might be argued, “Christ can’t grow in grace. John tells us that Christ was ‘full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14). To be full of grace is to be completed in grace without any more room for growth.”
Aquinas deals with this very objection in the third part of his Summa Theologiae, question seven, article 12, objection 3. This suggests the translation found in the New American Bible was floating around at the time of Aquinas.
Aquinas takes for granted this translation and responds accordingly. Here’s what he writes,
Anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two ways. First inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are increased; and in this way Christ did not increase. Secondly, as regards the effects, i.e. inasmuch as they do wiser and greater works; and in this way Christ increased in wisdom and grace even as in age, since in the course of time He did more perfect works, to prove Himself true man, both in the things of God, and in the things of man.
So, for Aquinas, Christ didn’t increase in sanctifying grace itself. Rather, the effects of sanctifying grace outwardly manifested through his behavior grew or increased as he did greater things that pertain to God, like expressing his love for God, showing devotion for God’s Word, piously obeying Mosaic precepts, etc.
At least this is how Aquinas deals with the question, and I think plausibly so.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Feast of the Holy Family, Year C are not shy of details when it comes to apologetical topics and interesting theological questions. We have opportunity to reflect on:
- The nature of justification, which is not the forensic view,
- The relationship between a wife and her husband as head of the family,
- The scope of obedience from children that is due to parents,
- The priority of Jesus’ relation with God the Father even over and above his relation with Mary, and
- Sanctifying grace as it dwells in the human soul of Christ.
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 at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast, and Tim Staples “1 on 1 with Tim,” all of which can be found at catholic.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 Feast of the Holy Family, Year C. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, pray for us.