St. Thomas Aquinas (compiler)
Catena Aurea
Matthew › 26:30–35 · Part 2 of 2
Compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas from attributed patristic excerpts. Speaker labels identify the quoted authors; not every statement is Aquinas’s own wording. English edition edited by John Henry Newman (1841–1845). Matthew 26:30–35
ORIGEN. But you will ask, whether it were possible that Peter should not have been offended, when once the Saviour had said, All ye shall be offended in me. To which one will answer, what is foretold by Jesus must of necessity come to pass; and another will say, that He who at the prayer of Ninevites turned away the wrath He had denounced by Jonas, might also have averted Peter’s offence at his entreaty. But his presumptuous confidence, prompted by zeal indeed but not a cautious zeal, became the cause not only of offence but of a thrice repeated denial. And since He confirmed it with the sanction of an oath, some one will say that it was not possible that he should not have denied Him. For Christ would have spoken falsely when he said, Verily I say unto thee, if Peter’s assertion, I will not deny thee, had been true. It seems to me that the other disciples having in view not that which was first said, All ye shall be offended, but that which was said to Peter, Verily I say unto thee, &c. made a like promise with Peter because they were not comprehended in the prophecy of denial. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples. Here again Peter knows not what he says; he could not die with Him who was to die for all mankind, who were all in sin, and had need of some one to die for them, not that they should die for others.
RABANUS. Peter understood the Lord to have foretold that he should deny Him under terror of death, and therefore he declares that though death were imminent, nothing could shake him from his faith; and the other Apostles in like manner in the warmth of their zeal, valued not the infliction of death, but human presumption is vain without Divine aid.
CHRYSOSTOM. [I suppose also that Peter fell into these words through ambition and boastfulness. And they had disputed at supper which of them should be greatest, whence we see that the love of empty glory disturbed them much. And so to deliver him from such passions, Christ withdrew His aid from him. Moreover observe how after the resurrection, taught by his fall he speaks to Christ more humbly, and does not any more resist His words. All this his fall wrought for him; for before he had attributed all to himself, when he ought rather to have said, I will not deny Thee if Thou succour me with Thy aid. But afterwards he shews that every thing is to be ascribed to God; Why look ye so earnestly upon us, as though by our own power and holiness we had made this man to walk?]q (Act 3:12.) Hence then we learn the great doctrine, that man’s wish is not enough, unless he enjoys Divine support.
Source: Catena Aurea (eCatholic2000)