My husband and I were trying to figure out what happened to the gifts the Magi gave to Jesus. Was the gold kept as well as the other gifts. Also why did the wise men just leave and not stay to continue to worship Jesus. The Shepherds also knew Jesus was the Messiah. Why didn’t they stay and honor him and become his first apostles.
Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are unknown due to our disturbing lack of time machines, but we can speculate. So here goes:
1) Presumably the gold was initially kept by the Holy Family but then was later spent (perhaps during their sojourn in Egypt). The frankincense and myrrh could have also been sold, or they may have been burned, since they were used for incense.
2) It’s not clear that the Magi understood fully what Jesus was (i.e., that he was God). The worship they paid him might not be the worship of the divine but the "worship" (reverence) due to a king or other figures in authority (which is why the British sometimes refer to high officials as "Your Worship"–not implying that the officials are God but that they are to be reverenced because of their office; the word "worship" has become exclusively used to refer to divine worship only recently). The Magi thus may have understood there visit simply as a visit to an important king, who wouldn’t even take his throne for years. Hence, they went home.
3) Same thing with the shepherds. Even understanding that Jesus is the Messiah, they wouldn’t have known that he was God or that he would have disciples. They would likely have thought of him as the future king who would kick the Romans out of Israel–but that wouldn’t happen for years, and so they, too, went home.
Those are my thoughts, any way. Shy of getting a time machine, I don’t know how to check them out. If you happen to run across a Delorean with a flux capacitor accessory installed, though, let me know.
Mike in Michigan has posted another video (above), updating us on his investigations into the Catholic faith.
He also asks a question about the Immaculate Conception. This was something that I had to research and think about when I was becoming Catholic as well, and I certainly understand the concern for someone from a Protestant background.
He also adds a little bit in the combox down yonder in which he indicates that he understands that Romans 3:23 (the "all have sinned" passage) doesn’t mean absolutely all or it would include Jesus, which it obviously doesn’t. This is quite correct, and I’ve often pointed out that later on in Romans Paul refers to a time when Esau (not our Esau) and Jacob were still int he womb and had not yet done anything good or bad, indicating that unborn children are also an exception to the "all have sinned" principle.
The question then is not whether there are exceptions but whether Mary counts as an exception and why.
For Catholics there are two sources by which the faith is passed down to us from the apostles: Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority), while it is not itself a source of the faith, is able to make rulings on what the content of Scripture and Tradition are. That’s how we got the canon of Scripture for example: The Magisterium identified certain works as genuine Scripture. It is also capable of determining which Traditions are authentic and which are not.
When it comes to the Immaculate Conception, this doctrine is not taught explicitly in Scripture. It is thus like the Trinity, which is not taught explicitly , either. You have to go around to a variety of different verses in order to build up the evidence that shows that God is a Trinity. It’s not stated directly. The Immaculate Conception is also like the Trinity in that it took a while for the concepts and vocabulary needed to express the doctrine to develop. You can’t talk about the Trinity if the word "Trinity" hasn’t been coined yet, and you can’t talk about the Immaculate Conception–Mary’s freedom from all stain of original sin–if the term "original sin" has not yet been coined.
It thus took a while for Christian theology to develop the concepts and vocabulary needed to articulate the idea of Mary’s unique holiness.
That holiness is something that Christians have always had an insight of–as the writings of the Church Fathers show–but it took a while to figure out the precise nature and extent of this unique gift.
There are indications of it in Scripture itself, the clearest echo of the doctrine being in the Annunciation in Luke 1, where the Angel Gabriel refers to Mary with the Greek word "kecharitomene," which is commonly translated "full of grace," but more literally would be "one who has been graced." This word draws on aspects of Greek grammar that indicate that Mary has, in the past, received God’s grace and that this has continuing effects at the present time.
The question is: How far back in the past was she graced and what are the specific effects? As Christians reflected on this and on the writings of the Church Fathers, it was discerned that–because of her unique role in the history of salvation–Mary was graced at the first moment of her existence (her conception) with the effect that she was prevented from contracting any stain of original sin.
Part of the conceptual background for this was the realization of Mary’s role as the New or Second Eve, something that the Church Fathers are explicit about very early. It was discerned that, just as God started humanity with a first Adam and Eve, he started redeemed humanity with a New Adam and a New Eve. Thus St. Paul refers to Jesus’ role as the New Adam, and the Church Fathers identify Mary as the New Eve. Thus, just as Eve cooperated with Adam in bringing sin to the world (by giving him the forbidden fruit), Mary cooperated with Jesus in bringing salvation to the world (by serving as his mother).
Similarly, just as both the first Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions, the new Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions. The difference is that while the first pair fell from grace, the second remained faithful.
A basis for the Immaculate Conception can thus be discerned in Mary’s role as the New Eve.
It seems to me that another basis for the Immaculate Conception can be seen in the fact that Mary is the Prototypical Christian. She is the first to say yes to Jesus, which she agrees to become his mother, and this makes her a model of all Christians. In keeping with this, God chose to make her an image of Christian destiny by giving her the gifts that one day all faithful Christians will receive. Specifically, he grave her the gift of being immaculate and he assumed her to be with hi Son. This mirrors the fact that faithful Christians will one day be rendered just as immaculate–just as free of sin and its stain–as Mary, and they will also be caught up to be with Christ (only at the end of the world, not at an earlier point as in Rapture teaching). By giving Mary–the Prototypical Christian–these gifts early, God made her an icon of the destiny of the Christian.
Thus the Catechism refers to Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508) because the gifts of Christ’s redemption were given to her in an extraordinary way.
There is also a basis in the fact that she is simply Christ’s mother. It seems to me that God would be likely to pick one of two kinds of women to be his mother: an extraordinarily holy one or an extraordinarily unholy one. For example, if Christ had chosen to be born of a prostitute, it could make the point that God can reach fallen humanity even in the worst of its condition. However, we know that he didn’t choose to do that, which points us to the other option: an extraordinarily holy woman.
There are no limits to God’s ability to grant holiness to someone, and thus if he chooses to make someone extraordinarily holy, he has the power to make the person totally holy. That would be the kind of mother that would be fitting for the Son of God, and thus that’s the kind of mother that God chose to make Mary.
These themes rumble through the Tradition that is found in the writings of the early Church Fathers and later theologians, and eventually the matter was brought to the point that the Magisterium of the Church infallibly defined that this–like the Trinity–is, indeed, an authentic Tradition from the apostles, even if the apostles wouldn’t have used the vocabulary we use today to express the insight.
I know that today’s posts were brief and didn’t have the analysis or commentary that I usually provide, and I thought I’d offer an explanation.
There are some days when, for a variety of reasons, I’m not able to do a usual day’s blogging. Last night it was because I had to preside over a 3-hour board meeting of my square dance club (you’d be amazed how much business a club’s board needs to discuss!), and it took up my usual blog time.
I thought about putting up a Blog Day Off post, but I don’t like leaving regular visitors with nothing new to read or discuss if I can avoid it, so I decided to do an "Instapundit Day." I figured, Instapundit can get away with running one of the biggest blogs there is (FAR bigger than mine) by providing brief entries, so–even though it’s not what JA.O readers are used to–perhaps I can avoid some Blog Days Off (at least some of them) by doing brief entries like those I used today.
I hope the experiment was successful (or at least preferable to the alternative) and provided some interesting food for thought and discussion.
I swung by the post office the other day with a few of the kids in the car, including one age 12. While we were pulling in, she bought up an urban legend she’d read, about people getting roach eggs embedded in their tongues from licking postage stamps.
“But, Mom,” she said, “Why on earth would anyone ever lick a stamp???”
Do you feel old?
I first recognized the disconnect between me and "the younger folks" when I was in my mid 20s and was teaching a Bible study for teenagers, and I needed an example of a really, truly, obviously crazy person and cited Charles Manson.
This is just a liturgical pet peeve of mine, but you know how, during certain times of the year, some parishes decide to get "creative" with the response that is used in the prayers of the faithful?
You know, instead of having the faithful say "Lord, hear our prayer" at the end of every petition, they’ll want you to say something else, typically based on the liturgical day or season, like "Come, Lord Jesus" at Christmas or "Come, Holy Spirit" at Pentecost?
I really hate that.
The reasons I hate it are five:
1) It just feels unnatural. I’m used to saying "Lord, hear our prayer," which is a perfectly good response that everyone is comfortable with and that makes sense when it comes at the end of any petition that may be offered.
2) It’s too distracting. Since I’m not used to saying the alternate petitions, they’re distracting, and I find myself thinking more about the response than about the petition, which is what my mind is supposed to be focusing on. Worshipping with unfamiliar responses is like dancing with unfamiliar footwork. You’re thinking too much about the mechanics of what you’re doing and not enough about the flow of the dance.
3) The alternate response is invariably inappropriate for some petitions–or at least it sounds awful odd ("That the Holy Spirit may give us a greater awareness of God’s love for us . . . " —> " . . . Come, Lord Jesus"? That sounds like the Third Person of the Trinity is being identified with the Second). Or even if it doesn’t, I have to devote mental processing time to the question of whether it is appropriate for the petitions.
4) The alternate response may be inappropriate to the day or season in which it is being used. "Come, Lord Jesus" just doesn’t fit for the Christmas season. Once it’s Christmas, Jesus has already come! That response would be more appropriate for Advent.
5) Some people find the force of habit too strong and end up saying "Lord, hear our prayer" anyway, then feeling clumsy about it.
When this kind of response substitution occurs, I personally tend to just give silent assent to the petitions rather than using an oral response.
I thought of all this because this weekend I noticed that my parish was (refreshingly) back to "Lord, hear our prayer" after having dabbled with others during the recent holidays.
Would that it had never been otherwise.
Those are my thoughts. What do you think? Have you heard particularly "creative" responses? Any particularly odd juxtapositions with the petitions?
Universal law provides that the days of penance in the Latin rite are every Friday of the year and the whole season of Lent (canon 1250). But universal law isn’t the only kind of law. There is also particular law, or law that applies to particular territories or groups of people within the Latin rite.
Such as the diocese of the United States.
It may come as a surprise to some, but today–Monday, January 22–is a day of penance according to the particular law of the Latin rite in the United States.
According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
In all the dioceses of the United States of America, January 22 (or January 23, when January 22 falls on a Sunday) shall be observed as a particular day of penance for violations to the dignity of the human person committed through acts of abortion, and of prayer for the full restoration of the legal guarantee of the right to life. The Mass "For Peace and Justice" (no. 21 of the "Masses for Various Needs") should be celebrated with violet vestments as an appropriate liturgical observance for this day (GIRM 373).
The law does not require fasting or abstinence today, though a person may do these if he chooses. Strictly speaking, the law does not require that individual Catholics perform penance as a matter of obligation on this day, but it’s certainly in keeping with the spirit of the day to do it voluntarily.
For those from other nations–or those who are simply wondering why January 22 was picked–the answer is that it’s the anniversary of THE EVIL DECISION.
I was recently asked to be a notary at my good friends wedding in a couple
of months.
Immediately I thought I may not be able to do so because I am a practicing
catholic and this will be a non catholic wedding. Neither the bride or
groom are practicing catholics nor do they plan on getting married in any
type of church.
If neither of your friends has ever been Catholic then they are not bound by canon law to observe the Catholic form of marriage. They are therefore free to marry in any kind of service they want, religious or not.
Assuming that they have the capacity to marry (e.g., they are not presumably still married to someone else, despite a civil divorce), their marriage will be presumed valid.
Assuming that their marriage is presumably valid, there is no apparent canonical or moral reason why you could not serve as a notary, a deputy commissioner of marriages, or any similar role at their wedding. Canon law does not prevent Catholics, even lay Catholics, from officiating at such weddings, and as long as the marriage will be presumed valid, nothing in moral theology would do so either (assuming that there isn’t some other factor affecting the situation, like the vows expressly rejecting an essential property of marriage).
I’ve thought through this issue with some care, because I myself was asked to preside at the wedding of my sister (a never-before-married non-Catholic) to her fiance (another never-before-married non-Catholic), and after parsing the relevant factors and consulting with others, I ended up being deputized as a one-day deputy commissioner of marriages and peformed the ceremony.
I’m having trouble finding your several day posting on Creation/evolution that you did awhile back. Is there any way you could send me the link?
If it’s the one I think you mean (it having taken several posts to play out), it wasn’t on creation and evolution per se, but on the interpretation of Genesis 1.
That was a post I was particularly pleased with, and yours is not the only request I’ve had for a link to it. Newer readers also may not have seen it, so I’ll just go ahead and link it here.