Matthew 22:11-14 question about guy without wedding garment

[sambos671]

Last Sunday’s gospel reading caught my attention and the Homily didn’t answer a natural question that occured. The text reading is the Parable of the Wedding feast. Most of the aspects of this passage seemed to fit well save for the last part.

1. The original invited guest were the Jews who rejected the prophets (and Jesus) and went as far as to kill the messengers of the Lord. Ok Got it.
2. The King got angry and sent soldiers to burn down their city. Ok God allowed the Romans to sack Jerusalem in 70 AD after the establishement of the kingdom of God through Jesus or the ecclesia or church.
3. The Kings sends messengers everywhere to call in everybody to the wedding feast. Both Bad and Good people are there. Ok, the bringing in of people from all over world into the covenant of God under the Church and not just open to the Jews.
   But here is where I get a little lost.
4. The king see’s a man not in wedding garb and cast him out (into hell based on the discription).
   So who is this man? What is the Garb?. This is what little I know. In eastern weddings both kings and families when inviting guest to a wedding will supply the wedding garb. I know that in the early church catachumins wore baptismal clothes for baptism. I know there are verses relating to putting on Faith like clothes. So what was it this man was without though found in the ecclesia? Baptism? It doesn’t seem to fit. Most Catholics are baptized at birth. Faith? Possibly. Don’t know. If Faith then what aspect of it?
   Can someone help out? Thanks.

 

[FrDavid96]

The man’s problem was that he took the invitation for granted. Christ was telling us that first of all, Israel took its favored position for granted (that much you’ve already described). But it’s also possible for the gentiles to take their own (newfound) relationship for granted.

It’s a warning to the gentiles and to us Christians today that we should not think that, just because we are now the new Israel, that means we may fall into the same complacency. Yes, we are now invited to the wedding feast, but that invitation comes with responsibility.

 

[sambos671]

So the garb is how seriously we take our faith? That we don’t treat the sacred non-challantly and be ever mindful of the great grace given to us in His Church? I can see how that relates to the begining of the parable. Then natural question is then this. If so then to what extent? Or is that beyond the scope of the passage?

 

[beehumble]

We are to put on Christ, the wedding garb.

We must live out our lives as witnesses to Christ, to the wedding garment we profess to wear. It is not sufficient to follow the rituals - to go to Mass on Sunday for example - but live the rest of the time without love, charity and kindness towards our fellow man. We are to love our neighbor. It is the heart of the Law. The man at the feast not wearing the garment was a hypocrite - he professed a love of Jesus but did not back it up with Christian deeds. The pharisees carefully followed the rituals of the Law but did not follow the heart of the Law, which is love of God and love of neighbor.

I am afraid that some of us who ritualistically go to Sunday mass every week will hear Our Lord say, “I do not know you.” and we will say, “How can you say that, I had supper with You (was at Mass) every week.” And Jesus will respond, “Truly I tell you I do not know you.” And we will be cast out amidst wailing and gnashing of teeth.

And what was said above about taking it for granted is basically the same as this- a certain presumption of being saved from rituals alone.

God bless you.

 

[JamestheOlder]

The basic explanation we used to get was:
The guests are given grace to “wear” as wedding garments.
Most all guests show up clothed in grace.
One shows up without grace.
He is tossed into Hell.

But, these days, we don’t hear much about grace, unless it is the sung variety.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I know the wedding garment is symbolic for our faith, but I can’t help thinking about people who come to mass dressed in tee-shirts and flip flops!

I wonder if there were sermons in the past that addressed the issue of proper garments to be worn in the house of God?

 

[dconklin]

I wonder if there were sermons in the past that addressed the issue of proper garments to be worn in the house of God?

Nothing attributed to Jesus. Of course, he would have been focused less on what people wore than how they worshiped.

 

[puzzleannie]

1. The king see’s a man not in wedding garb and cast him out (into hell based on the discription).
   So who is this man? What is the Garb?. This is what little I know. In eastern weddings both kings and families when inviting guest to a wedding will supply the wedding garb. I know that in the early church catachumins wore baptismal clothes for baptism. I know there are verses relating to putting on Faith like clothes. So what was it this man was without though found in the ecclesia? Baptism? It doesn’t seem to fit. Most Catholics are baptized at birth. Faith? Possibly. Don’t know. If Faith then what aspect of it?
   Can someone help out? Thanks.

I think it is obvious, the king cast out people who were wearing jeans, cut-offs, halter tops, message T-shirts with vulgar pictures, and flip-flops.

Not having the wedding garment in this parable is close to what you are speaking of in lacking the Baptismal garment, that is, not being in the state of sanctifying grace, when sadly we cannot approach the table of the Lord’s supper. So it is more than baptismal faith, which we do need as the gateway to Eucharist and all other sacraments, but also retaining or regaining that state of grace we won in Baptism. As another poster has noted in putting on the white garment, we put on Christ, that is assume not only his grace, but his cross as well.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Yeah, I had a similar reaction to the reading this week. My thought was, “Ok, King, beggars can’t be choosers. So your original guests rejected your invitation and even killed your messenger. Fine. So because you want to celebrate with people and you don’t want the feast to go to waste, you invite ANYBODY you can find. Ok, you’re desperate. But you don’t tell them they have to have a specific garment. And somehow, although you didn’t communicate your expectations for attire to your emergency guests, it’s acceptable to kick them out when one doesn’t show up to your liking, at your invitation?”

 

[sambos671]

Yeah, I had a similar reaction to the reading this week. My thought was, “Ok, King, beggars can’t be choosers. So your original guests rejected your invitation and even killed your messenger. Fine. So because you want to celebrate with people and you don’t want the feast to go to waste, you invite ANYBODY you can find. Ok, you’re desperate. But you don’t tell them they have to have a specific garment. And somehow, although you didn’t communicate your expectations for attire to your emergency guests, it’s acceptable to kick them out when one doesn’t show up to your liking, at your invitation?”

I think it is assumed that the garments are given to those invited.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yeah, I had a similar reaction to the reading this week. My thought was, “Ok, King, beggars can’t be choosers. So your original guests rejected your invitation and even killed your messenger. Fine. So because you want to celebrate with people and you don’t want the feast to go to waste, you invite ANYBODY you can find. Ok, you’re desperate. But you don’t tell them they have to have a specific garment. And somehow, although you didn’t communicate your expectations for attire to your emergency guests, it’s acceptable to kick them out when one doesn’t show up to your liking, at your invitation?”

Good point.

I do think that’s addressed in the parable itself.

First, the king says “my friend, how is it that you came here not dressed in a wedding garment?” (ok, my own memory, but it’s close enough).

The king addresses him as “friend” so at that point, he still does consider him a “friend.” He gives the man an opportunity to explain himself. I see this as an important moment in the parable.

Now, let’s just say for the sake of discussion that the man answered with something like “this is the finest garment I own” or “I am travelling and this is the only garment I have” or some other response. Maybe even “I was so grateful for the invitation that I came here as quickly as I could and didn’t have time to change.” Well, I think the ending would have been different.

What does happen in the parable however is that the man has no answer. His silence speaks volumes. By not offering an explanation for his choice of garment, I think that he is tacitly admitting that he was in the wrong. In other words, he knows he should have worn an appropriate garment, but he either chose not to, or he couldn’t be bothered.

Remember that the king does not have him cast outside until AFTER he gives him an opportunity to explain. Important point.

 

[sambos671]

The basic explanation we used to get was:
The guests are given grace to “wear” as wedding garments.
Most all guests show up clothed in grace.
One shows up without grace.
He is tossed into Hell.

But, these days, we don’t hear much about grace, unless it is the sung variety.

Ok, can you explain further? I mean there are many graces and we receive them through the Sacraments. So when you speak of Grace what specifically do you mean? A Salvation Grace that those of us who have run the race, fought the good fight, and finished in our faith Grace. Or a Grace of belief, or a Grace of Baptism, or a Grace at having purged entirely our faults and have put on Christ after our purgation? - Thanks. Lots of interesting and good answers so far.

 

[FAB]

The garment in the parable refered to a custom the time in which wedding guest were given a garment that could be as simple as a shaw or stole to were at the feast.

They would have understood that a person without the garb either snuck in or was not there for the celebration, there for thier own reasons to have a good time, think wedding crasher.

We look at Catholics who are not properly garbed as those who claim to be Catholic but do follow the teachings of Christ or his church. Think polioticians who claim to be Catholic but are pro choice. At the day of judgment, those individuals cannot expect to part of the kingdom of God.

Dcn FAB

 

[sambos671]

The garment in the parable refered to a custom the time in which wedding guest were given a garment that could be as simple as a shaw or stole to were at the feast.

They would have understood that a person without the garb either snuck in or was not there for the celebration, there for thier own reasons to have a good time, think wedding crasher.

We look at Catholics who are not properly garbed as those who claim to be Catholic but do follow the teachings of Christ or his church. Think polioticians who claim to be Catholic but are pro choice. At the day of judgment, those individuals cannot expect to part of the kingdom of God.

Dcn FAB

I personally was leaning in this direction. However, I didn’t know if there was traditional view of this passage regarding the man or not.

 

[puzzleannie]

. But you don’t tell them they have to have a specific garment. And somehow, although you didn’t communicate your expectations for attire to your emergency guests, it’s acceptable to kick them out when one doesn’t show up to your liking, at your invitation?"

He did not have to tell them, just as today no one should have to tell you what is appropriate garb for a wedding. The expectations were well known. context context context. To whom is this parable addressed, like all the parables of the last few weeks, to the Pharisees, the leaders of the people. to whom Jesus has been preaching non-stop for months, stating in no uncertain terms all these dimensions of the parable: who is the King, who is the Son, what is the wedding banquet, who is invited, how the invited guests are responding (and will repond-Christ is also foretelling his Passion), who will end up being guests at the feast (outsiders, Gentiles, tax collectors etc). and what the wedding garment means. They have been given all this knowledge, repeatedly, in many forms, and yet the fact Christ preaches another parables shows they are still rejecting.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I to was trouble by this and I spoke with my Priest about it. Her is what he said.

In that day everyone had a wedding garment. Normally their best clothing. As from the story those that did come were not given much notice and it still seem that they took the time to go and get their wedding garment for the feast. this guest did not. We do not know why he may have been traveling and did not have it with him. However the key is in the line : [12] And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. He did not ask for forgiveness or even offer an excuss for this over sight. and that is why he was cast out He did not care or trust in the Kings mercy. I mean look at it the King even addressed him as friend and still he said nothing.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Ok, can you explain further? I mean there are many graces and we receive them through the Sacraments. So when you speak of Grace what specifically do you mean? A Salvation Grace that those of us who have run the race, fought the good fight, and finished in our faith Grace. Or a Grace of belief, or a Grace of Baptism, or a Grace at having purged entirely our faults and have put on Christ after our purgation? - Thanks. Lots of interesting and good answers so far.

Sanctifying Grace…it is the grace that we obtain from the Sacraments. The Sacraments are the only way we receive this grace. This Sanctifying Grace is the “grace of salvation”; if we do not have it in our souls when we die, we will be kicked out of the wedding feast (Heaven). If the one without the wedding garment (Sanctifying Grace) is “lucky (some repentance shown at the time of death, e.g.)”, he may repent in Purgatory. If he died in mortal sin, unrepented, he will be thrown into Hell (weeping and gnashing of teeth).

This is my explanation of what I was taught. I am an old man. For up-to-date teaching on grace, please go to scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2000.htm
for detailed, footnoted, good information from the online Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Bless those folks from St. Charles Borremeo!

Peace be with you.

 

[Frank_Hagen]

I hope this helps.

Isaiah 61:8-10
[8] For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
[9] And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed.
[10] I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

The wedding gown is a type and shadow of the righteousness of Christ. As it says in Revelation the white garments are the righteousness of the saints.
There is another which covers the bridal veil, or the veils of the women.

Isaiah 30:1
[1] Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

The church is the bride of Christ.
Her feet should be shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Having on the breastplate of faith. The robe of righteousness and veiled or covered by his Spirit.

The young man having no wedding garment was not in the faith. The Lord wasn’t his righteousness nor was he submitted to or covered by the Spirit of God.

Another one is the young man in the garden where the Lord was arrested. He had a white sheet about him but when they grabbed it he fled naked.
How many have been covered with the righteousness (white sheet) of the Lord just to have someone grab it and snatch it away. Sort of like hearing vain sermons and such ruining their faith. (prosperity or contemporary and such)