All called, but with what outfit? Without artifice

Mt 22:1-14 (1-21)

The "wedding garment" (vv.11-12) is a figure of the essential - the indispensable even the precarious, without frills of refinement.

"Each one of you, therefore, who in the Church has faith in God has already taken part in the wedding feast, but cannot say that he has the wedding garment if he does not keep the grace of Charity" (Homilia 38:9: PL 76:1287). And this robe is symbolically woven of two woods, one at the top and the other at the bottom: love of God and love of neighbour (cf. ibid.,10: PL 76,1288)" (Gregory the Great; Pope Benedict, 9 October 2011).

The Kingdom of God announced by Jesus is different from the one imagined by the rabbis, whose doctrine could admit personal and civic disregard [e.g.: sellers in the temple, barren fig tree, objection to authority, murderous vine-dressers, etc.: Mt 21].

The Banquet preached by the Master is not a Garden of Eden set up for a future in the hereafter, which in the meantime - albeit in flashes - can endure inauthenticity. Rather, it is a direct thread.

His set table is the new condition into which the person who trusts his proposal to share is introduced.

There are those who feel satiated, because they believe they already possess enough for a life without too many problems - and so they adapt to any occasion, even a petty one.

This was the situation of the authorities, satisfied with the overabundant religious structure, which seemed to offer just social security, and certainty even before God.

Instead (as if to say): it is not enough to have one's name transcribed in the parish registers, and then present oneself in the rags of ancient life.

Today, the rebirth from the global crisis calls for fundamental options, for radical changes in mentality and reality.

One really needs to renew one's 'clothing', that is, to set one's choices on new values. 

It is appropriate to become plastic again, to remodel ourselves on the Person of Christ, not to reject the changes that stimulate - to the point of building a common life project, and rebuild the world around.

All are called (v.14), but some have not kept the white garment of Baptism. He has totally changed his outfit, unfortunately - despite in some cases presiding over and defending the institution.

Jesus resumes speaking to the leaders and offends them without half-measures, because he does not compare the Father's kingdom to a liturgical assembly of theirs, those well set up, of great authority, full of artifice... but to a wedding feast, without sacred banners!

In that festive simplicity, in the immediate and joyful frankness of a wedding, there is a human reality characterising the divine condition: the spontaneous Joy of frank relationships, face to face - now lost in the formalisms of habituated religion.

The proposal of festive novelty is, however, rejected. The self-sufficient and experienced (who know better) worship another master: self-interest.

Opportunism cannot be an ingredient of the Sacred: self-interest turns people inward, closes their gaze, makes them one-sided and gloomy.

It consigns the Church to entanglements.

Jesus realises: all that the cunning and messy people were doing was a function of their own profit. For they thought of the Kingdom in an elective, already selected [and commercial, usual] way.

As for the labourers of the last hour [Matthew 20:1-16] the only currency for all is Christ himself. But the veterans, who consider themselves first in their class by right, do not care about people's happiness.

So the fate of the prophets was nothing more than the careless outcome of despicable calculations [in Luke 14:18-20 "ordinary" daily duties] that were, however, leading the people to destruction (v.7).

The background of the parable is the friction between converted Jews and converted Gentiles.

Considering themselves chosen - "elect" (v.14) - the former refused to break the Bread, share and put themselves on an equal footing with the latter.

Interestingly, however, it was precisely the faithful servants, push come to shove, who stood out in reverse: they were already recognisable because under any circumstances they were prepared to enter the Banquet 'last'.

In short, the space opened by the self-exclusion of the people called first would not be able to put an 'end' to the efforts of those who have always fought for life and authenticity.

Fruitful trees - Jesus argued, and we see this everywhere today - do not like to prevaricate: they prefer to produce, without opportunist claims or envy.

They take risks, and occupy only the last place; to be close to the uncertain, and encourage them. 

So in v.9 Mt does not speak of going to the crossroads [CEI translation] but to the outlets of the streets [Greek text].

Pope Francis would say: to the existential peripheries, where life is not taken for granted, but always pulsates new. There where one cannot be indifferent.

The Greek term indicates the end of the (reassuring) urban roads and the beginning of the careless and risky paths.In the Semitic mentality, they were the border of pure territory and the threshold of precarious, contaminated places.

Not only: God's offer of love first brings together the 'wicked' ['wicked': v.10 Greek text] to emphasise that Heaven is not 'at points'.

It is available to the needy, to those who recognise themselves as such.

But everyone can be wicked on the outside, not on the inside: that is, watchful to our brother and diligent.

We are called to abandon neglect and carelessness.

In order not to confuse the Face of God and ruin the lives of the most motivated, a change of mentality is needed within the Church.

A decisive substitution of principles and conveniences, overthrowing every pyramid ideology, of self-interest and power.

By Faith that incorporates us unconditionally to the Bridegroom, the clean and sumptuous dress is always provided by the Master of the House.

But wearing it is the result of a conscious choice, made by us: wanting to "give birth to a new world, where we are all brothers, where there is room for every discarded person" [Fratelli Tutti, no. 278].

That is to say, we will continue to undergo the journey into the parallel world - sometimes even communal - where everything is disconnected and double: the result of bad indoctrination, corrupt options and diabolical motives.

As if the only God worshipped was 'marketing and convenience'.

To internalise and live the message:

What do you consider diabolical and imagine could lead you away from the spiritual path?Do you think of God in a serious way or do you associate Him with the joy of a wedding party?

Give God back the image of true humanity. What acronym?

(Mt 22:15-21)

After the expulsion of the sellers from the Temple, the objection on authority, and the parables of the two sons, the murderous vinedressers, and the rejected banquet (all referring to the elite), here is another clash between Jesus and the political and religious leaders - the latter placed behind the scenes.

Jesus (in his) systematically dismantles the traps set by the leaders and experts.

With tried and tested duplicity, they approach Him trying to stroke their self-love (v.16: situations that often occur even to critical witnesses).

The interest of the cunning, however, clashes with the attention of Christ, who is all for the real good of people and respect for the intelligence of things - not for the eagerness of approval or opportunism.

Right in the Temple (Mt 21:23) - the eminent Abode of the one Lord God - these gendarmes provoke the new Rabbi about paying taxes to the Romans (22:17).

We know what was at stake: the accusation of not being a prophet according to divine Right, or (vice versa) that of collaborationism with the occupiers.

The Master does not allow himself to be fooled by the ostentation of closeness to the God of Israel - false because sought outside - and he easily plays them.

In the Temple of Jerusalem, it was forbidden to carry Roman coins, which depicted imperial profiles and insignia (contrary to the Commandment 'Thou shalt not make thyself any image').

He asked for them, however, because indeed he had none. But the very paladins hand him one.... The scene borders on the ridiculous.

Drawing the forbidden coin from the pouch concealed under the cloak, the very leaders reveal their true God: self-interest (well hidden under devout and ostentatious manners, which only act as a screen).

Christ invites us not to allow ourselves to be flattered by the ostentatious duplicity of insignia: what is important is not to deceive people by using pious forms as theatrical masks (v.18 Greek text).

Purity fanatics only live the epidermic angle; and they rely on it: they not infrequently hide well the very material passions they disdain. It does not work with Christ.

Each one is called upon to return to his true lord the indelible image and likeness engraved on him. So let the coin be given back to its master.

Woman and man - creatures in whom the image and likeness of God is imprinted - are to return themselves in authenticity, to the Creator (v.21) who dwells in their essence as persons.

Humanity is sealed by much more intimate and natural belonging than those of convenience.

Eucharist, gratuitousness and strangers: unheard of or marketing

(Lk 14:15-24)

Jesus does not compare the Father's Kingdom to a solemn assembly, but to a great Supper!

However, the proposal of festive novelty is rejected. The self-sufficient and experienced have other commitments and interests...

After the destruction of the Temple, the government of the synagogues was taken over by the Pharisees, who were saved from disaster because their traditionalism had no explicit political-nationalist overtones.

In fact, they believed that the expectation of the Messiah had nothing to do with the struggle against Rome; in this they seemed in tune with the Christians.

But they constantly demanded from their followers the strict fulfilment of the rules that identified the traditional Jewish religion.

After the year 70, this demand led them to an increasingly obsessive condemnation of Jewish converts to the Lord Jesus - and at the end of the century to their expulsion from the synagogues.The fundamentalist religious leaders thus ended up marginalising even socially the followers of the younger Messiah, guilty of neglecting the distinctions between the customs of Israel and those of other peoples.

In the communities of Lk the situation was less lacerating, but equally alive.

The converts to faith in Christ came for the most part from paganism, who despite differences in cultural background and class, lived here and there [without those purist ideological tares] the ideal of sharing and communion even of goods.

The invitation to take part in the Feast was initially addressed to the children of Israel, who still compared the Messianic times to a great Banquet, characterised by gratitude and (internal) fraternity.

But the difficulties in broadening the criteria of communion came precisely from converts from Judaism, who by long practice retained the custom of not sharing food with those far away; thus the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread.

Within the framework of their customs and the sacred norms attested in the Torah (Deut 20:5-7), the behaviour of those who refuse the invitation in the parable of the Banquet (vv.18-20) was legitimate from the point of view of recognised right - not friendship.

It is to accentuate the meaning of the gesture that the master of the feast orders the servants to gather precisely those who were socially excluded from the ancient religion because they were considered unclean: the pagans. Open to expectation.

Christ continues to draw a dividing line between those who advocate an untouchable order and ideals above human reality, and those who, being on the periphery, are always willing to participate in the Feast.

They are not the 'all concerned with ritual', manners, appearance; but with the life they spread.

They do not let themselves be conditioned by privileges, their things, and laws: they give without double-entry accounts, they accept with natural readiness; they rejoice in reality and not in the distinction between sacred and profane. They do not think they already have the answer, and do not end up being slaves to it.

Jesus' teaching invites us not to limit our affections and not to let our hearts be cluttered by customs, by particular or current mentalities, by legalistic blocks - or by 'many things'.

In the assembly of the children, it is not the well provided for [serious, busy people with no time to lose, with too many possessions and invitations to manage] but the petty people... who come to the fore... despite their meagre aptitudes.

All this, because characteristic of the Little and Pitocchios is the readiness to cross fences: that which makes them fit to grasp God's summons.

The distant - albeit in straits - fill the Father's house.

In society the poor man is one of many, but the invitation to Mensa conveys to him a sense of values that do not suffocate life with pettiness, and ties; indeed, the destitute often have a better understanding of divine-human things.

This ever more conscious resemblance to the Son of God is accentuated in the scarcity of 'adequate' means: scarcity that makes true, that induces others to reflect - remaining unremarkable, incapable of making lightning.

This intimate, luminous, transfiguring awareness pales and fades in the vortex of legalisms, of cultural conventions.

It seems to fade in the dizzying multiplication of activities - they do not reform: they make us external and conditioned by the advantages of worldly-sacred, unfortunately monopolistic security.

An obligatory banquet would not be a Banquet... certainly not a Feast, a Gift to be cherished - confused with advantages or perfections [bad interpretation of stubborn observant circles].

This is why many prefer their particular purgatory to the Heaven on Earth that the Father offers.

Our solidarity is not a matter of sympathy, common interests and esprit de corps, but the result of an extended Calling, of one powerful Life circulating in all, respecting their freedom and reality - as well as their phases of change.

Paraphrasing the encyclical Fratelli Tutti (nn.13-15, passim) according to the passage from Lk we must remain careful not to impoverish the life of Faith, turning it into a detached commitment to 'cultural colonisation'.

If this were the case, even the universal-Catholic horizon of a conviviality of differences would dissolve into an overly normalised, absolutely predictable, ultimately deserted invitation.

The engrossed or interested rejection of the Banquet would bring with it - as before our eyes - the "further disintegration" of "critical thinking", of action "for justice", of its "paths of integration".

Even ecclesial society can in fact run the risk of "distorting the great words", "risking impoverishment"; thus "reducing itself to the arrogance of the strongest" and to "merely ephemeral marketing recipes, which find in the destruction of the other the most effective resource".But God's people cannot live in a parallel, disconnected, double world - as if the only Eternal worshipped was a patchwork of wiles, marketing and convenience.

To internalise and live the message:

What does the Eucharist convey in your church or group reality? What particular and special invitation does it communicate?