Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Post 3

This is the third and final post in a series on the Vatican II document, Dei Verbum.  You can find Post #1 here.   

Post #2 here.  

You can also find the online document here.  

† † †

Chapter 5: “The New Testament,” Paragraphs 17 thru 20:

The fifth chapter delineates the importance of the New Testament.  It begins with the manifestation of the incarnation “when the fullness of time arrived (see Gal. 4:4), the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us in His fullness of graces and truth (see John 1:14).”  This was a significant and climatic moment in salvation history.

 

This mystery had not been manifested to other generations as it was now revealed to His holy Apostles and prophets in the Holy Spirit (see Eph. 3:4-6, Greek text), so that they might preach the Gospel, stir up faith in Jesus, Christ and Lord, and gather together the Church. Now the writings of the New Testament stand as a perpetual and divine witness to these realities. (17)

Through the writing of the Gospels we arrive at the full knowledge of Jesus Christ, so the Word made flesh is revealed in the words of the scriptures.

 

It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior. (18)

 

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4). (19)

 

For the Lord Jesus was with His apostles as He had promised (see Matt. 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).  (20)

So we obtain the “fullness of truth” through the written word and through the spoken word of tradition guided by the Holy Spirit.

† † †

Christine BoMass Commented:

Manny wrote: " The other takeaway from that passage you quote that should be noted is "we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." That is important. Revelation has stopped with the apostles. Stuff like the Book of Mormon or the Koran can never be seen as revelation because revelation has ended. Any revelation by saints or mystics is private revelation and while it may be useful for devotional purposes cannot add to inspired revelation."

What about the experiences of the Saints? I am thinking of St Faustina in particular here, though there are more.

Manny Replied:

Christine, are you referring to private revelation? St. Faustina's diary is considered private revelation. Revelation given to saints and people alike is not considered official revelation. Official revelation ended with the New Testament. Whatever private revelations have come to people is not considered full or clear or complete. It may not be suspect, but the person who received the revelation, even if he/she be a saint, may be filtering it through the prism of their understanding or consciousness. Ultimately these private revelations come from fallible sources. Not only that, if you really started looking at the private revelations of many saints, you will probably find distinctions and contradictions. We Catholics may find useful material in private revelations but we are free to choose to believe or not private revelations.

For instance from what I understand St. Faustina has a vision of an angel of the Lord ready to strike the earth and destroy it. I personally find that hard to believe. It doesn't even seem like Divine Mercy. Perhaps I'm picking a bad example because I haven't read the details. I'll eventually get to reading her diary, but for me that sort of private revelation is something I am free to not believe.

Anyway, here are two articles that explain public versus private revelation by Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers.
First

Second

If there is something in either article that contradicts what I just explained, let me know. I wish to learn further myself.

Manny Replied:

No! You have not been wasting your time. The saints provide great example and learning but their private visions are for instructive purposes, not doctrine. That angel ready to strike the world from St. Faustina's diary can be seen as showing God's displeasure toward the sin in the world. It has instructive value. But whether it actually happened is for us to choose.

 

For instance, St. Catherine of Siena had a vision that Christ had exchanged her heart with His. On this I believe. It did change her. But I can understand someone saying, "come on, how could that happen?" He would be free not to believe that.

 

Here I found the excerpt from St. Faustina that describes this:

 

As written in the Diary of St. Faustina:

 

"[The angel] was clothed in a dazzling robe, his face gloriously bright, a cloud beneath his feet. From the cloud, bolts of thunder and flashes of lightning were springing into his hands; and from his hand they were going forth, and only then were they striking the earth.

 

When I saw this sign of divine wrath which was about to strike the earth, and in particular a certain place, which for good reasons I cannot name, I began to implore the angel to hold off for a few moments, and the world would do penance. But my plea was a mere nothing in the face of the divine anger.

 

Just then I saw the Most Holy Trinity. The greatness of Its majesty pierced me deeply, and I did not dare to repeat my entreaties. At that very moment I felt in my soul the power of Jesus' grace, which dwells in my soul. When I became conscious of this grace, I was instantly snatched up before the Throne of God. Oh, how great is our Lord and God and how incomprehensible His holiness! I will make no attempt to describe this greatness, because before long we shall all see Him as He is.

 

I found myself pleading with God for the world with words heard interiorly. As I was praying in this manner, I saw the Angel’s helplessness: he could not carry out the just punishment which was rightly due for sins. Never before had I prayed with such inner power as I did then. The words with which I entreated God are these:

 

Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world; for the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us.

 

The next morning, when I entered chapel, I heard these words interiorly:

 

Every time you enter the chapel, immediately recite the prayer which I taught you yesterday.' When I had said the prayer, in my soul I heard these words: 'This prayer will serve to appease My wrath . . ."..

 

It's part of a large article

For God to have that kind of "wrath" strikes me as attributing to God an extremely anthropomorphic personality. It just doesn't feel correct to me. But those who have a very Old Testament view of God's personality may find that natural.

Christine BoMass Replied:

Thank you Manny. I will look into this. I do read a lot on the Saints as they are great examples. I was taken aback a bit there, concerned that I have been wasting my time.

 

I read St Faustina's diary. Stream of consciousness...very difficult to read. I don't recall the striking bit, however I could have easily missed it.

 

Yes we are all still learning. It is a blessed thing. :)

† † †

Chapter 6: “Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church.” Paragraphs 21 thru 26:

The sixth chapter brings all this context into a culminating point.  We see here why the Word of God is so important.

 

The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body….Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. (21)

 

… Since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them. (22)

And so we come to what I think is the completion of thought of Dei Verbum.

 

The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, to enlighten their minds, strengthen their wills, and set men's hearts on fire with the love of God. The sacred synod encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor.  (23)

The Word of God is God, and one of the key ways to know God and to love God.  The religious and the laity need to understand it, through the teaching of the Church, for it builds our foundation as Christians.

 

For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. By the same word of Scripture the ministry of the word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and flourishes in a holy way.  (24)

The document lays down the gauntlet: we Catholics are Bible Christians.  We use the Bible as much as Protestants, and we should all do so with frequency.

 

The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying."  (25)

And why must we do so, that is, read scripture more frequently?  To evangelize! 

In this way, therefore, through the reading and study of the sacred books "the word of God may spread rapidly and be glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1) and the treasure of revelation, entrusted to the Church, may more and more fill the hearts of men. (26)

I know we Catholics have a lot of devotionals and non-scriptural means of building a relationship with all three persons of the Trinity and with the Body of Christ, and that is a good thing.  But one should not exclude the frequent reading of scripture.  Indeed, one needs to integrate scripture to fully nurture those devotionals.  I found Dei Verbum a wonderful and clearly argued document. 

† † †

Here is a fine exegesis of Dei Verbum by Bishop Robert Barron. 

 

† † †

My Goodreads Review:

What an important Church document.  And for a Papal document, how easy to read.  This document from Vatican II is on the nature of divine revelation, that is, how God made Himself known in the world, how that manifestation was written in inspired texts we call scripture, how that those scriptures are understood by the Church through the eyes of tradition, how the Church preserves that understanding, and how she promulgates it to the world.  All in about nine or ten pages.  Two quotes which sum up the document, from paragraphs 21 and 24:

 

The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body….Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. (21)

 

For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. By the same word of Scripture the ministry of the word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and flourishes in a holy way.  (24)

If you are only going to read one papal document, read this one.  All thoughtful Catholics should read Dei Verbum because the Bible is a Catholic book, and you should understand why it exists and how the Catholic Church preserves the Apostolic teaching from sacred scripture.

The Mystery of the Magi By Dwight Longenecker, Post #4

This is the fourth and final post of a series on Dwight Longenecker’s The Mystery of the Magi: The Quest to Identify the Three Wise Men.  You can read Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here. 

Post #3 here.  

 

Summary

Chapter 10, “The Star of Bethlehem”

Next Fr. Longenecker takes on the legend of the Magi following the star to Jesus.  Fr. Longenecker evaluates various theories: a supernatural phenomenon, a natural astronomical event, or an astrological reading of the night sky.  Each of these generic theories have specific possibilities.  First Longenecker attempts to understand how Matthew understood the star?

 

Matthew, of course, never says that a supernatural star guided the wise men across the desert. He mentions the star twice. First the wise men say to Herod, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him” (Matthew 2:2). A few verses later Matthew continues, “After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was” (Matthew 2:9).  [p. 113]

I’m not going to summarize each of the theories but some of them considered are a comet, a meteor, a supernova, an alignment of planets, celestial divination, the helical rising and falling of Jupiter, and astrological reading of the stars.

Chapter 11, “Wise Men from the East”

Here Longenecker explores the understanding of Matthew’s use of the term “wise men” for the Magi and what Matthew meant by “from the East.”  In so doing Longenecker recapitulates the theory that the Magi were Nabateans star gazers, that the “East” referred to the land of the Nabateans, and how the legends of the Magi developed into what it has become.  Longenecker then goes into some of the very earliest of Christian writings—when the legends had not developed yet—and located passages from the Church fathers substantiating his theory.  Longenecker then proposes how the real knowledge of the Magi was lost as the Church center of gravity moved from the Middle East to the European continent.

###

One theory on the star of Bethlehem that Fr. Longenecker did not consider, though it would fall under the supernatural category, is that of St. John Chrysostom back in the fourth to fifth century was that the star was an angel.  I came across this theory from Aleteia, the Catholic online magazine, the other day.  Chrysostom proposed in his Homily on the Gospel of Matthew.  (Link is provided in the article.)  First he rejects the scientific phenomena theory because he does not believe there are stars that move from east to west.  

 

[W]hether it was a star by nature or a star in appearance only, we shall easily know the other things also. Whence then will these points be manifest? From the very things that are written. Thus, that this star was not of the common sort, or rather not a star at all, as it seems at least to me, but some invisible power transformed into this appearance, is in the first place evident from its very course. For there is not, there is not any star that moves by this way, but whether it be the sun you mention, or the moon, or all the other stars, we see them going from east to west; but this was wafted from north to south, for so is Palestine situated with respect to Persia.

Second he points out that no star could have been visible in the daytime.

 

In the second place, one may see this from the time also. For it appears not in the night, but in mid-day, while the sun is shining; and this is not within the power of a star, nay not of the moon; for the moon that so much surpasses all, when the beams of the sun appear, straightway hides herself, and vanishes away. But this by the excess of its own splendor overcame even the beams of the sun, appearing brighter than they, and in so much light shining out more illustriously.

Third he points out that it would be impossible for a star to come to rest above a single child, and concludes it had to be an angel.

For it did not, remaining on high, point out the place; it not being possible for them so to ascertain it, but it came down and performed this office. For you know that a spot of so small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star…How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child? And at this the evangelist was hinting when he said, Lo, the star went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was ... Therefore after He has brought them, leading them by the hand, and has set them by the manger; it is no longer by a star, but by an angel that He now discourses unto them.

I do lean to Fr, Longenecker’s theory of an astrological prediction, but if I had to go with a supernatural theory, I do like Chrysostom’s angel theory.  If angels individually visited Joseph and Mary then why not the Wise Men?  For me none of the natural astronomical event theories make sense.

My Comment:

I subscribe to The St. Paul Center for weekly emails on the Sunday Mass readings. This is Scott Hahn's organization and he usually provides a short explanation of the readings akin to a homily. This coming Sunday (Jan 2) is the Epiphany of the Lord, where we get the readings on the Magi, and you can listen to Scott give his thoughts on these readings here.  

It's apparent Scott has not read Fr. Longenecker's book. He says the Magi "probably came from Persia." Well we now know otherwise! They came from the Nabatean Kingdom. Is n't it something that we know something about Catholicism that the great Scott Hahn doesn't? ;) At least Scott says "probably."

My Comment:

An article today by Fr. Longenecker essentially summarizing his book: "TWELVE REASONS WHY THE MAGIWERE ARABIANS NOT PERSIANS"

I guess it's from his personal blog.

###

Summary

Chapter 12, “What Happened to the Wise Men?”

This chapter divides into two parts.  The first part, Longenecker goes line by line of the Magi passage in Matthew and provides his final response to all he has walked us through in the book.  The second half of the chapter Longenecker speculates what happened to the Magi after the Nativity event and how they may have shaped Christianity afterward.  Could the Magi have settled with the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scroll community?  Could the Magi or their next generation have shaped St. Paul’s theology when St. Paul after his conversion spent three years in the desert meditating on the significance of Christ?  Longenecker provides some evidence that support those claims. 

Conclusion, “Why Does it Matter?”

Here Longenecker justifies why knowing the true history of the Magi should be known.  Because it supports the facts of the life of Jesus Christ, and knowing that the Magi were not mythical weakens the skeptic’s arguments against Christianity.

Epilogue, “What Happens to the Epiphany?”

Longenecker spends a few concluding pages on contemplating what de-mystifying the Magi implies to our understanding of the Feast of the Epiphany.  He feels it doesn’t alter it much.

###

Gerri Commented:

I didn't realize Fr. Longenecker was a priest. I knew he was a convert and thought he was a deacon.

 

In his closing pages, he, too, wants what we discussed earlier - for other scholars to take up the topic and continue the research he started.

 

And I agree with him: de-mystifying the Magi doesn't alter my understanding or appreciation of the Feast of the Epiphany.

My Reply to Gerri:

It didn't alter mine. If anything it enhanced it. What seemed like a made up story made it real for me, and in that reality it deepened my faith. Truth be told, I'm not keen on hagiographic stories, including saints' lives.

###

Before we leave this book, I wanted to discuss the second half of chapter 12, the speculative section on the Magi going to Damascus, joining with the Essenes, and then years later St. Paul spending three years learning from the Essenes and the next generation Magi.  This theory resonated quite strongly with me.  I don’t know if you have known about the three years St. Paul spent in Arabia after his conversion.  It’s in Arabia that Paul seems to discern what Christianity is all about.  Remember before his conversion experience he was a strict Pharisee.  He has his conversation on the road to Damascus where he goes blind, is taken to Christians in Damascus, has his sight returned, gives himself up to Christ, and is baptized.  Fr. Longenecker then quotes Paul.

 

“But when God . . . was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.” (Galatians 1:11–18) [p. 148]

I’ve always been intrigued by those three years.  I always took it as he spent three years “in the desert” contemplating how Jesus fits into Judaism and what Jesus as a crucified, “failed” messiah means.  The messiah to the Pharisees was supposed to be a conquering hero who was going to overthrow the earthly shackles on the Jewish people.  But Jesus didn’t do that.  But Paul clearly had a supernatural experience encountering Christ, and so he could not deny Christ wasn’t who He said He was.  So how did this all fit together?  We see from Paul’s letters he more than any of the apostles derives the theology from the Old Testament and from Christ’s life and teachings.  Was this theology all from Paul’s contemplative three years in Arabia? 

Fr. Longenecker lays out some important questions.

 

[Jean] Daniélou mentions [in Primitive Christian Symbols] an ancient tradition that Paul was converted at Castle Kokhba, the name of which means “Star Tower.” If there is truth to the ancient tradition, then Paul was blinded by a radiant light at Kokhba, which means “star.” Was his sudden illumination seen as a sign of direct divine revelation similar to the star that had led the Magi to Christ?

 

Immediately after his conversion Paul went into Arabia for three years. What prompted him to do that? His sojourn in Arabia has mystified scholars. Some suggest he went there to begin his missionary work, but this seems unlikely so soon after his sudden conversion. Others suggest that he went into Arabia for a meditative retreat, like Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness.

 

The New Testament scholar Margaret Barker observes, “After his conversion, Paul went to Arabia, and his visit may help to identify the magi. He came back better informed about his new faith and able to explain that Christianity was rooted in something older than the law of Moses. Who instructed him?” (p. 149)

I don’t know about that blinding light being connected with the Magi star, but what exactly did Paul do in the Arabia and how did he become so insightful to Christianity?  I think it’s generally acknowledged that Christian thought more directly derives from Essenes’ Judaism and not the Pharisee’s understanding of Judaism. 

One could quote almost all of Longenecker writing from page 148 to 154, but that would be too extensive.  Let me just quote these paragraphs which kind of pulls together his theory:

 

We find in Paul’s theology a synthesis of the same three cultural and religious strains that we find in the Nabateans. The first strain is Abrahamic Judaism. This is the Judaism from before the destruction of Solomon’s temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. The Arabian tribes claimed descent from Abraham, and Nabatean religion had its roots in the earlier Abrahamic religion. This earlier form of Judaism was also the religion of the Jewish refugees who fled into Arabia in the sixth century BC.

 

The second strain in Paul’s theology is the mystery religions that had grown out of Mesopotamian culture and were the second source of Nabatean culture and religion. Paul warns his followers of the dangers of mystery religions, but he also uses the language and imagery of the mystery religions, correcting them and using them to point to the mystery of redemption in Jesus Christ.

 

Paul also understands Greek philosophy, which he integrates successfully into his theology. The Nabateans had also absorbed and integrated elements of Greek culture, religion, and philosophy.

 

Somewhere and somehow, Paul learned how these three elements could be fused to explain the gospel of Jesus Christ to a non-Jewish audience. Did he develop his theology during his three years in Arabia and Damascus? Who were his teachers? Did Paul learn from a school of Nabatean wise men? Was he taught by the Magi themselves?  (p. 150-1)

Longenecker goes on to expand on each of these strains teasing out the theology Paul formulates from them.  I don’t know if Longencker is perfectly correct on what Paul formulates from these strains but I do think he is on to something as to Paul’s sources.  What cannot be argued against is that Christianity is not Pharisaic Judaism, and Paul’s Christian theology is much more than what comes from the Pharisees.  I’m a supporter of Longenecker’s theory here. 

###

Kerstin Commented:

Fr. Longenecker is definitely on to something. He is connecting the story of the Magi with the larger cosmology. On the last page, p. 164, he writes:

The Magi's whole world view and cosmology were predicated upon a belief that the "heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork."

We in the West have gotten lost in the weeds over the past centuries in materialism, functionalism, legalism, etc., etc. We have looked less and less to the heavens and wondered at the Cosmological Order as a whole. In contrast, Eastern Orthodoxy has retained this sense of wonder and mystery of the Cosmological Order.

 

On page 154 Fr. Longenecker writes:

The foundation of the Jewish religion is the covenant of faith that was established with Abraham and his descendants. Margaret Barker suggests that this Abrahamic religion was considered the original by the refugees from the destruction of Jerusalem and that they considered the legalistic religion that emerged after the exile to be an illicit development

Immediately I thought of the division between the more legalistic Roman Rite and the more mystical Eastern Rite. What a parallel!

 

Here is a 16 minute video from the Christian artist Jonathan Pageau who has a You Tube channel called "The Symbolic World". Jonathan is a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. In this recent video he goes into detail of How Christmas Reorganizes the Gods by the example of an Orthodox hymn called the Nativity Troparion. You will find it has everything to do with what we've read here. It will give a deeper understanding of what Fr. Longenecker is getting at. He didn't pluck any of this out of thin air.

 

Also, Jonathan had an hour-long conversation with Bishop Robert Barron on A Return to Cosmic Christianity. It dovetails nicely here.

 

My Reply to Kerstin:

Do you mean "legalistic" or more based on "reason" for the Roman Rite? There's faith and reason and one needs both. I do see the Eastern Rite as less based on reason and more on mysticism than the Latin Rite. But frankly too far to the mystical turns me off. It feels superstitious or disconnected from basic science. There needs to be a balance of faith and reason. I'm not sure the Latin Rite has it about right but whenever I listen to Eastern Rite speakers it feels like they are disconnected from reason. For me, Pope Benedict XVI has it perfectly.

 

By the way, by reason I don't mean to support Enlightenment rationalism as Fr. Barron denounces in the second video. There is a balance between faith and reason and an imbalance in either direction is disturbing.

Frances Replied to My Comment:

Manny, I am not trying to speak for Kerstin -- she can do that quite beautifully on her own! -- but as I read her post I thought of the word "transcendence." The Roman Rite has lost somewhat a sense of the transcendent; Bishop Robert Barron has referred to this condition at times as a "flattening out." I think the yearning for that sense lies behind the hunger for the Latin Mass. We want "The Other," a sense of the transcendent.

Kerstin Replied:

By "legalistic" I was thinking in the direction of splitting hairs too much, of overcomplicating things, being too rationalistic. Jesus fought the Pharisees on this all the time.

 

We are all products of our own culture, and hence the Roman Rite is what fits me, and I would imagine many of us here. At the same time I find the Eastern Rites fascinating, how they have preserved liturgical rituals and hymnody over the centuries. There is a very pronounced sense of reverence and the holy. I delight in their artistry. What I think is important for us to remember is that the Christian faith emerged in a cultural space that is far more eastern than we are. We may not be used to or comfortable with to move in the mystical space they do, but we have to know about it for better understanding. That's my take.

 

Going back to our book and the mystery of the star, Jonathan Pageau says that for the ancients and the cosmic order they lived in, a star and an angel is the same thing! The stars were the gods, or angels, or beings of the higher order. With this mystical element in mind, that a star/angel showed the Magi where to find Jesus makes perfect sense.

My Reply to Kerstin:

Well said Kerstin. I think we're saying the same thing. I lean toward Thomas Aquinas and Pope Benedict XVI who are just as mystical and transcendence but can support the mystery through reason. I'm not saying the Eastern Orthodox can't support it but I haven't seen it and in a number of places (like in writings of Dostoyevsky) I've seen ridicules of Latin reason. But Dostoyevsky is not a theologian, so I probably shouldn't link Orthodox theologians to him.

Joseph Replied:

Manny, if you haven't read St. Maximus the Confessor, he's a good example of how eastern theologians meld mysticism and reason. Weighing in on Kerstin, Frances, and Madeleine's point, as a priest who celebrates both the Mass of the Ages and the Mass of Paul VI there is a tangible difference in how the two relate to the Divine. My first time attending the Ancient Mass I was just as lost as could be, but as I was exposed to it more I learned how to enter into the prayer and see what goes on. This is not to discount the New Rite, I have also had mystical experiences there, but the Ancient Mass is more in tune with our mystical senses than is the New.

Kerstin Replied:

Manny wrote: " I'm not saying the Eastern Orthodox can't support it but I haven't seen it and in a number of places (like in writings of Dostoyevsky) I've seen ridicules of Latin reason. But Dostoyevsky is not a theologian, so I probably shouldn't link Orthodox theologians to him."

I had to think on this a bit. The divergence goes all the way back to the "filoque" dispute in the Nicean Creed. What exactly is Dostoevsky reacting to? He especially dislikes the Jesuits. I wonder if it had to do with modernism and even secularism seeping into the Latin Rite, and this posed a danger of Orthodoxy being susceptible to the same erosion of Tradition.

My Reply to Kerstin:

I don' think it has anything to do with the filioque. He was xenophobic, like a good number of Russians. Don't get me wrong, he's a great novelist, among the handful of greatest, but he was anti western, and that involved the Catholic Church. I remember a good number of gibes directed toward Poles and Germans. There is a section of his greatest novel, The Brothers Karamzov called The Grand Inquisitor. Read about that here: 

 

He has a Catholic Bishop put Jesus through an inquisition and ultimately condemns Jesus to death. Now there is a lot of psychological and theological stuff going on. It's a great scene. But he didn't have to have a Catholic Bishop be the inquisitor. It didn't have anything to do with Catholicism.

###

When driving home yesterday afternoon from shopping, I had Relevant Radio, a Catholic radio channel around the country, on my radio and on the Drew Moriani show he had Fr. Dwight Longenecker on to discuss his Magi book. It was a twenty-ish minute conversation, and while he didn’t say anything that was not in the book, it was still a blessing to listen to it. Now that all radio shows get turned into podcasts, you can access the show and listen for yourself. So the Relevant Radio podcasts get broken into hour long units. Fr. Longenecker’s portion was the first half of the hour. The second half was a discussion about the guiding star with Fr. Chris Corbally, a priest astronomer. That was interesting and is worth listening to. Here is the link to the “Hour 3 of The Drew Mariani Show 12-22-21.”  

###

Well, tomorrow Jan 6^th is the Feast of the Epiphany of the Lord, the day we readers of this book have been waiting for. I'm almost sure you will have this hymn played at Mass tomorrow. It was my hymn for my Vespers prayer this evening, which would make it the vigil of the feast.

 

We Three Kings

Composer: Rev. John Henry Hopkin (‎1857)

 

We three kings of Orient are

Bearing gifts we traverse afar

Field and fountain, moor and mountain

Following yonder star.

 

O Star of wonder, star of night

Star with royal beauty bright

Westward leading, still proceeding

Guide us to thy Perfect Light.

 

Born a King on Bethlehem's plain

Gold I bring to crown Him again

King forever, ceasing never

Over us all to reign.

 

O Star of wonder, star of night

Star with royal beauty bright

Westward leading, still proceeding

Guide us to thy Perfect Light.

 

Frankincense to offer have I

Incense owns a Deity nigh

Prayer and praising, all men raising

Worship Him, God most high.

 

O Star of wonder, star of night

Star with royal beauty bright

Westward leading, still proceeding

Guide us to thy Perfect Light.

 

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume

Breathes of life of gathering gloom

Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying

Sealed in the stone-cold tomb.

 

O Star of wonder, star of night

Star with royal beauty bright

Westward leading, still proceeding

Guide us to thy Perfect Light.

 

Glorious now behold Him arise

King and God and Sacrifice

Alleluia, Alleluia

Earth to heav'n replies.

 

O Star of wonder, star of night

Star with royal beauty bright

Westward leading, still proceeding

Guide us to thy Perfect Light.

Here is a beautiful version by the opera singer, Mario Lanza. 

###

My Goodreads Review:

More precisely, four and a half stars.  This is a book that locates the historical roots of the story that has become the legend of the three “wise men/kings” who come to the nativity of Christ offering Him gifts.  Mind you, what is in the Bible, more precisely, the Gospel of Matthew, is not the legend.  The legend has been built up from elaborations and folklore, built up so much that hardly anyone believes the legend.  But the Biblical story is there in Matthew, and so what are we to make of it? 

Fr. Dwight Longenecker—the author is a Roman Catholic priest—breaks down the parts of what is actually in the Bible and finds their historical basis, and in so doing saves the story for we believers.  What seemed like a made up story made it real for me, and in that reality it deepened my faith. Truth be told, I'm not keen on hagiographic stories, including saints' lives.  The legend of the Magi went beyond hagiography. 

So Fr. Longenecker goes on to show the Magi were not from Persia or some disparate region of the world.  They were not kings.  And they probably didn’t even ride camels.  So who were these mysterious men who have been linked to the exotic?  Were they exotic?  Yes, but not in ways you expect.  Read the book.  It was methodically argued and quite compelling.

###

This may be the final post on Fr. Longenecker’s book, but there will be two related posts on the Magi, two famous poems, T.S. Eliot’s “The Journey of the Magi” and G.K. Chesterton’s “The Wise Men.”  I will link them after I post them.