tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post4043795549891576949..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: It is a mistake to try to discover which was the Star of BethlehemFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77467080733649937132012-01-22T01:58:27.352-08:002012-01-22T01:58:27.352-08:00In response to I am not Spartacus commenting along...In response to I am not Spartacus commenting along the lines that Catholics should not seek materialistic explanations for miracles and mysteries, I would urge that on the contrary it's a very Catholic thing to do!<br /><br />Take the canonization process for instance, every effort must be made to scientifically explain the claimed miracle before it can be accepted as such. Plus, many miracles yield even deeper marvels upon close scientific investigation. For example, the blood type of Lanciano matching the blood type on the Shroud of Turin, or the paint of the Guadalupe image inexplicably hovering above the fibers it’s “on”, or the figures in Our Lady’s eyes in the same image, or the various blood clots of Lanciano weighing the same whether in groups or individually – how would any of these deeper marvels be known unless close scientific investigation had been applied to the initial wonder? It’s a very Catholic thing to do, and gives a deep sense of awe at what God has wrought!<br />-TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89655523790403478272012-01-22T01:44:02.970-08:002012-01-22T01:44:02.970-08:00Please excuse my comment, Fr.! In my excitement a...Please excuse my comment, Fr.! In my excitement at seeing Jim Jordan's reference to that fascinating website, I overlooked your reply to his comment!<br /><br />I may follow up with some more questions, later though! :)<br /><br />- TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-75551452752161122772012-01-22T01:41:34.670-08:002012-01-22T01:41:34.670-08:00Fr. Ryan,
I find this to be an absolutely fascina...Fr. Ryan,<br /><br />I find this to be an absolutely fascinating topic, I love reading scientific explanations for phenomena described in the Bible – or for other phenomena such as the Shroud all the amazing and inspiring things science has found there - Or the incredible scientific investigations into Lanciano – I could go on! - it increases one's appreciation for God's power, rather than diminishing it!<br /><br />As I read the article and comments I was immediately wondering whether anyone would bring up one of my favorite websites - http://bethlehemstar.net/ and eagerly looking to see whether anyone would mention it.<br /><br />To my delight, Jim Jordan did!<br /><br />I wonder if you've taken the time to read the full and complete text there?<br /><br />It's pretty detailed as to Scriptural, historical and astronomical points, very logically argued.<br /><br />Furthermore, it calls attention to several other beautiful astronomical events that took place in Jesus' life.<br /><br />That the astronomical events took place can be observed by consulting any historical sky map such as this one http://www.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/(just look up the coordinates for a city near persia, then Bethlehem and enter them along with the dates mentioned at Bethlehemstar.net). That the events were intended by God to fulfill Scriptural prophecies is another matter, but dealt with pretty thoroughly in the articles.<br /><br />I am wondering if you have read it and have specific answers to arguments presented at bethlehemstar.net? If it happens that it’s way off the mark historically or – somehow – Scripturally or something, I’d love to know, because to all appearances (to someone with my level of knowledge - less than yours :)), it’s a pretty solid case and very inspiring!<br /><br />- TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62194453669952749192012-01-14T13:36:22.059-08:002012-01-14T13:36:22.059-08:00I sort of have tended to figure that Mary is the S...I sort of have tended to figure that Mary is the Star that was still where the Child was.James Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03601404337397444540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-82607884348703103212012-01-12T12:00:08.875-08:002012-01-12T12:00:08.875-08:00The image is by Edward Burne-Jones (I believe), fr...The image is by Edward Burne-Jones (I believe), from 1890.<br />Apharently it was the largest watercolor of the 19th century (at 101 1/8 x 152 inches).<br />"The Star of Bethlehem"<br /><br />Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-18306336411168192672012-01-12T11:56:18.395-08:002012-01-12T11:56:18.395-08:00Awesome picture, where's it from?Awesome picture, where's it from?Juventutem Londonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00256922371357529056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-71168580435647206882012-01-10T08:27:02.488-08:002012-01-10T08:27:02.488-08:00Dear FR. Amen!!
As Pascendi... taught
To hear th...Dear FR. Amen!!<br /><br />As Pascendi... taught<br /><br /><i>To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves .</i>Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-36605436397975916112012-01-09T08:32:03.140-08:002012-01-09T08:32:03.140-08:00@layman Paul and Jim Jordan,
What I think you are ...@layman Paul and Jim Jordan,<br />What I think you are missing is that the Fathers (and the whole tradition) has believed that the star indicated not simply the city of Bethlehem, but the very stable/inn/house where the Child was.<br />[and this is founded on the Scriptures -- since the wise men already knew that they had to go to Bethlehem, but what they didn't know is where in Bethlehem]<br /><br />Now, there is no way in which Jupiter could indicate the very place, the very stable/house where the Child lay.<br />And this is why the Fathers and Doctors and counter-reformation theologians are united in rejecting any notion of the star of Bethlehem being one of the heavenly bodies.<br /><br />Further, if it is Jupiter, then it is not a miracle (i.e. it is not something beyond the ordinary laws of nature) -- but the Church has always considered the star to be a miracle.<br /><br /><br />It's not that the Fathers didn't know astronomy ... they understood plenty well enough.<br /><br />Rick Larson and the Bethlehem Star people read the Bible as though they were the first Christians, the first people ever to have read it. They ignore the Fathers and the tradition ... it is not right, and it is most certainly not "conservative" or "traditional" (though, unfortunately, many Catholics think it is).<br /><br /><br />So, I'm glad that they don't say the star is a simple myth or folk-lore ... but saying it is "Jupiter" is still terribly misguided.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-66955659875049863842012-01-09T07:00:14.913-08:002012-01-09T07:00:14.913-08:00Having led a bible discussion group for several ye...Having led a bible discussion group for several years in our parish, I am quite familiar with the fundamental differences between historical critical and traditional exegeses. Even though I generally subscribe to reliance upon the Church Fathers for guidance, and have long held that the "star" cannot be explained by science, and scoffed at those who hold that flocks of sheep would not be out in the winter, I do find some benefit to the modern so-called "proofs" that are out there.<br /><br />For those lucky enough to have found and viewed Rick Larson's "The Star of Bethlehem" [BethlehemStar.com], and taken the time to consider its merits, there is a positive conclusion that can be drawn from it. Since it convincingly shows how the stars and planets could have guided astrologers to Jerusalem, and from there to Bethlehem, and that Jupiter "came to rest" over Bethlehem on Dec 25, 2 B.C. as seen from Jerusalem, we can conclude that these signs may have been ordered by God in order to present scientific evidence to an increasingly apostasizing society that perhaps there is some validity to the Biblical narrative. We can (and I do) take exception with some of Rick Larson's conclusions, such as Dec 25, not being the date of birth, but rather, the date of epiphany, etc. But, the data should not be ignored.<br /><br />When I show these things to our Bible study group, I include my own "revisions" to the conclusions, state that these "evidences" are not Authoritative, and need not be believed, but also include some other usually "overlooked" data. Shortly after the star came to rest, shortly before the required Presentation to the Temple (40 days after the birth of a male child), Herod the Great, who was declared King of "the Jews" (Judea) by Rome, died. Rome declared no new King in Judea during the lifetime of Jesus, except as written by Pontius Pilate upon the Cross of Christ. The next King proclaimed in the Judean region followed Christ's death by several years. The close proximity of the birth of Jesus, followed by Herod's death, resembles (symbolically) Jacob's birth, wherein Jacob, the second twin to be born, was clutching the heel of Esau as he was born, and eventually usurped Esau's "throne" (birthright). Which should be no surprise, as Jesus was descended from Jacob, as Herod was descended from Esau.Jim Jordannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-39730895987993636612012-01-09T06:53:01.694-08:002012-01-09T06:53:01.694-08:00In the same way, the Fathers were not anti-critica...<i>In the same way, the Fathers were not anti-critical, but pre-critical - they did not have the material available to them that is now available even to students being introduced to scientific Biblical exegesis. But moderns do. Biblical scholarship today has been shaped by certain methods, issues, presuppositions, emphases, questions, difficulties - so it has had to respond to them them in a specific historically & culturally contingent manner. So, in a rather different setting, had the Fathers to, in their times & places.The Fathers were not well up on the history on the Ancient Near East - modern scholars are much better off in that way; therefore, they deserve to be consulted</i><br /><br />Dear Rat-Biter. What you have done in a few sentences is summarise that which was condemned in the Encyclical on Modernism.<br /><br /><b>The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.</b> <br /><br />You might give it a read; <br /><br />http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htmMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-48862385694465639782012-01-09T01:10:35.670-08:002012-01-09T01:10:35.670-08:00Gentlemen,
I don't think this has to be a tra...Gentlemen,<br /><br />I don't think this has to be a traditionalist versus modernist issue. I hold the Church Fathers in the utmost esteem, but they were not astronomers. A website was cited earlier...it is bethlehemstar.net. The support for the star being an actual astronomical event and also miraculous is astounding. It did not cause me to doubt my faith. In fact, it strengthened my belief. The "star" that is proposed to be the star of Bethlehem is Jupiter, according to the website. Jupiter, in 2 BC (if I remember correctly) behaved exactly as described by scripture. It also appeared to be inside the constellation Virgo (virgin). During the day, the constellation Virgo appeared near the sun (clothed in the sun). The moon appeared below the constellation Virgo (the moon at her feet). Jupiter (which is the name of the king of the roman gods) was so bright because it was near a star called Regulus (which is also translated "king"). Jupiter exhibited odd movements that are normal for planets observed from Earth, which parallel the movements described in Scripture. This is just a small amount of data that is observed scientifically and does not contradict scripture. Check out the site. It will grow your faith, not harm your faith.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Layman PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-36416203083675422962012-01-08T20:36:00.821-08:002012-01-08T20:36:00.821-08:00@Rat-biter,
This is a comment box, not a dissertat...@Rat-biter,<br />This is a comment box, not a dissertation box ... please keep the comments concise and to the point.<br /><br />I do not have time to read your last comment thoroughly, but (from skimming it), I do notice at least one very good point (which I think you are affirming) -- we have to recognize the difference between what the Fathers explicitly reject, and what they neither affirm nor deny but simply are unaware of.<br />That which they are unaware of is a fount for the legitimate development of doctrine.<br /><br />Now, in terms of the star, the Church Fathers (and every saint I have read up to the modern age) who dealt with the issue have explicitly said that it was not a star in outer-space, but was closer to the earth.<br />And this touches upon the Scriptural text itself -- since the star rests over the place where Jesus lay.<br /><br />Hence, there is a big difference between speculation about Jupiter as the "star" and speculation about Australia.<br /><br />I am by no means opposed to new thoughts and insights ... but I am troubled by the way that so many completely ignore the Scriptural commentaries of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church -- it isn't right.<br /><br />Peace to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-36582567369576888842012-01-08T18:59:15.589-08:002012-01-08T18:59:15.589-08:00Last things first: about the Fathers
Having said ...Last things first: about the Fathers<br /><br />Having said so much, I don't whether to reply or not LOL. The points you (& the poster before you) raise, deserve responses - all the more as people's reasons & premises for believing as they do are so often misunderstood - the notion that one cannot value St. Augustine in some ways, while seeing that he is not a well-informed guide in others, is an example. I think I prefer St. Thomas - that doesn't mean one can't learn from Calvin & the Puritans. But to read about the the present state of scholarship on a Biblical book, one has to read modern authors. This is as insulting to the Fathers as reading Garrigou-Lagrange, or John of St. Thomas, is: there were no Thomist Fathers, & no Thomism in their times. Neither were they anti-Thomist; they were pre-Thomist, and did not have to cope with the same issues as St. Albert & St. Thomas faced. <br /><br />In the same way, the Fathers were not anti-critical, but pre-critical - they did not have the material available to them that is now available even to students being introduced to scientific Biblical exegesis. But moderns do. Biblical scholarship today has been shaped by certain methods, issues, presuppositions, emphases, questions, difficulties - so it has had to respond to them them in a specific historically & culturally contingent manner. So, in a rather different setting, had the Fathers to, in their times & places.The Fathers were not well up on the history on the Ancient Near East - modern scholars are much better off in that way; therefore, they deserve to be consulted. The Fathers are as silent on Sumer as on Australia - must modern scholars, if Catholic, also be silent on Sumer ? But if they are not - & they are not, and never have been - why must the fellow-Catholic exegetes follow the Fathers, even when they have so much more to take account of and learn from than the Fathers could or had ? Biblical exegesis deserves the best methods available - & those of the Patristic era are not now adequate. The Fathers are still worth reading - but they were dealing with the issues of their times, not of ours, in the form they took in their times, which is not always the form these take in ours. And that exactly what one might expect. And what they did in those times & ways, we - including exegetes need to do & try to do in the present time in the ways available to us. <br /><br />If even something as abstract as logic has a history, it should shock no-one to find that Biblical interpretation has one. Yet people are upset to find that scholars in 1990 or 1950 or 1910 or 1890 or 1850 don't agree with the Fathers. The Fathers say nothing of Australia - does that make Australia a nasty Protestant invention raised up to tease & scandalise Catholics, to be shunned like a plague by the faithful ? Is there a heresy of Australianism, condemned as a blasphemy for implying that St.Paul did not preach to all the world ? No, to all points. But if the novelty of Australia is not disrespectful to the Fathers & Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium - why is the use of Biblical subsidia available to later generations (including ours but not including theirs) thought to be ?Rat-biternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-67594071981027245252012-01-08T13:27:11.797-08:002012-01-08T13:27:11.797-08:00@I Am Not Spartacus,
Even though you have decide...@I Am Not Spartacus, <br /><br />Even though you have decided not continue the discussion, I will still offer two points. <br /><br />First, it is inescapable that there is room for opinion on this point. In particular, that room allows for diverse opinion on the nature of the star. <br /><br />Second, "enlightenment science" is a key component of Biblical exegesis. It is one component among many, but it is still very important. Historical understanding is aided by tools developed by science. Understanding historical context is important for Exegesis. This does not mean that modern science is essential for exegesis, as if the Scripture cannot be understood without microscopes, but it is to say that modern tools are helpful tools. <br /><br />Kind Regards, <br />Father S.Father S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-69516085792684380862012-01-08T12:25:26.486-08:002012-01-08T12:25:26.486-08:00Rat-biter:
two points,
1) I do not dismiss the his...Rat-biter:<br />two points,<br />1) I do not dismiss the historicity of the star ... rather, I affirm that there was a "star" according to what the word itself was meant to indicate -- that is, a bright light in the sky.<br /><br />2) I am amazed that so many people today are comforatable reading the Bible as though nobody else before them has ever read it -- how can we possibly read the Scriptures without taking consultation with the great saints and theologians who have come before us?<br />They say that it was not a star out in the universe, and (upon reading the text carefully) I see their reasoning ... therefore, I follow them.<br /><br />Many moderns, however, ignore the 2000 years of tradition, dismiss the saints and theologians, and try to make up their own theories -- and this, without even making any reference to the tradition (they don't even take the time to dismiss it ... it simply isn't mentioned ... as though there were no Christian interpretations until today).Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-16882237571285873212012-01-08T09:25:14.114-08:002012-01-08T09:25:14.114-08:00I don't know why nobody ever proposed a third ...I don't know why nobody ever proposed a third alternative view. The Star of Bethlehem may be a literal conjunction or star in the heavens and still miraculously appear to lead the Wise Men and stand still over the house Jesus was living. I know that might sound rather strange, or even foolish - but we have at least one precedent of a Star appearing removed from its position in the heavens and moving through the sky - the Dancing Sun at Fatima!<br /><br />Would anyone say that the Sun was actually removed from its 8-light-minutes-from-Earth location entering the atmosphere? Not at all. There was a miracle down there so that the Sun stood in its place but appeared to actually move in the sky. God can bind light in miraculous ways, and our eyes position all luminous objects at the apparent source of light. So, there might well be a real conjunction or star phenomenon (I don't buy the 7-6 BC conjunctions, I subscribe the December 25, 2 BC one), but the Magi may have been led by the miraculously altered apparent position of the Star.<br /><br />I know many people won't like it, but that's a third chance to adjust the account - after all, the Bible reads "A star" and not "an angel" or anything else.Alessandronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-19452923781742886082012-01-08T08:05:59.304-08:002012-01-08T08:05:59.304-08:00Dear Fr. S. I will post this and then disengage.
...Dear Fr. S. I will post this and then disengage.<br /><br />Here is what Trent taught re Biblical Exegesis:<br /><br /><i>“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.</i><br /><br />Of course in this instance of the putative conundrum of whether or not it was a star or not , this teaching from Trent suggests, to me at least, that one who avers that a normal star accounts for what Tradition everywhere teaches is a miraculous event not involving what the protestant Kepler considers a star, then one ought happily accept the burden of producing Catholic Church Fathers/Saints whose exegesis is consistent with the protestant speculation of Kepler so as not to leave the impression that enlightenment science is somehow a key component of Biblical exegesis.<br /><br />As it currently stands, if all of the weight of traditional Catholic exegesis about this being a miraculous event were to be suddenly dropped onto a set of scales the individual occupying the scale of the rational/materialistic/enlightenment scientific/protestant side would be suddenly launched over an actual star.<br /><br />Pax tecum, Father S.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-79326392988724656652012-01-07T22:49:14.271-08:002012-01-07T22:49:14.271-08:00"Indeed, looking at the text itself, there is..."Indeed, looking at the text itself, there is no indication that Matthew means it as a parable or as lore ... rather, it is presented as a real historical event which fulfilled the prophecies."<br /><br />## It's not a parable, so that possibility doesn't arise. What do you mean by "lore" BTW ? The text of Matt. 2 has the form of a narrative of a real historical event - but so does the Temptation-narrative. So do many others that are not historical: some texts have verisimilitude, but are not historical. There is the difficulty that the concept of the "historical" has at least six different shades of meaning (as an essay by C. S. Lewis shows in detail); & then ther are are complications arising from the history of history-writing. In one sense Genesis 5 is history - but it's not what a reader today would think of as history. It may be the case that some of the events in Matt. 2 happened, like the Massacre of the Innocents - but the business ogf the styar, no;not as related. You yourself seem to put the star on one side , even though you want me to accept the rest of the details :) Why though ? The star is as much part of the narrative as the Magoi - the narrative becomes pointless without the combination of star with Magoi, & of both with their journey and with the Christ-Child & the gifts. AFAICS, the explanation I incline to does a better job of accounting for the detail of the text than yours does, because the former allows all the details to be significant, without having to leave any on one side for reasons extraneous to the text. The explanation is weak where yours is strong - for you hold to the historicity of the narrative, which does not clash with the "obvious" meaning of the narrative. The price you pay, is that the star is left out, as though it had no function for the Evangelist. A second weakness is that the reasons for leaving out the star do not come from within the passage - whereas the idea that St. Matthew was writing theology in the form of a story can be argued for by comparing his treatment of passages in the gospel with one another, & with passages in other gospels. <br /><br />"So, no, there was no "star" as an astronomic reality ... but there were wise men and they did see something that looked to them like a star, and they did make their journey and adore the Christ Child.<br />To deny this is to lose the Faith."<br /><br />## The text says there was a star - on what principle does one accept as really historical some of the ingredients in the text, & not others ? The suggestion I believe to be valid has a principle: it accepts as historical the Mother & Child, while seeing the rest of the ingredients in the narrative (& their inter-relation) as the product of theological reflection on the significance of Jesus. A second argument for this position is that this gospel is arranged in a chiastic pattern. If that is so, & as it is so, one might expect a narrative near the end of the gospel to mirror this near the beginning. I think there is one, in Matt.27.51-53. ISTM that both narratives are Jewish-Christian theology in the form of legends - legends that are true in their witness to the Identity of Jesus, albeit not true as relations of historical fact. They have rather similar messages - both witness to the Kingship of the unrecognised Jesus, & both rely on OT passages - for Matt.27.51-53 is based on the famous passage in Ezekiel 37 about the dry bones. That passage is fulfilled - not as an event in history, but in its Christian theological meaning - in the Death of Jesus; & may be behind Revelation 7. IOW,the second argument is one from the structure of this gospel.Rat-biternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57874492717793269632012-01-07T22:44:46.172-08:002012-01-07T22:44:46.172-08:00"Father Ryan Erlenbush said...
@Rat-bite..."Father Ryan Erlenbush said...<br /><br /> @Rat-biter,<br /> There is no reason why God could not have arranged for the historical event to be prefigured by the Old Testament."<br /><br />## It depends what you mean - are you talking about texts, such as Numbers 24.17, or about events; or about both, or about something else ? And it's not easy to talk about the "historical event" being "prefigured", if the historicity of the Matthean account as narrated is the point at issue. <br /><br />"Simply pointing out that the account in Matthew 2 points to Jesus' Messianic kingship does not prove that the story of the wise men is not an accurate account of a real historical event." <br /><br />## Agreed - but since the text presumably has an intelligible meaning, and since there are serious objections to understanding the text to be referring to a star, & since there are many reasons, not least in this gospel itself, to think that the point of the narrative is to witness to the significance of Jesus including His Identity, ISTM that the narrative is a theological construction using a number of OT passages, fused together by Matthew's theological POV, that witness to the significance of Jesus by telling a story about Him. AFAICS, the truth of the passages lies not in answering questions about astronomy or where the Magoi came from, but in the theological message of the Evangelist; rather as the truth of the Ascension lies not in answering questions about the escape velocity of the glorified body of the Risen & Ascended Christ, but in understanding the significance of the "machinery" used to tell of the Ascension. (That does not imply that the Ascension "did not happen" BTW - the similarity between the Matthean narrative, & the narratives of the Ascension, is in how the narratives are related; not in their relation to historical reality. <br /><br />"Indeed, looking at the text itself, there is no indication that Matthew means it as a parable or as lore ... rather, it is presented as a real historical event which fulfilled the prophecies."<br /><br />....Rat-biternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30879862869187414052012-01-07T20:51:03.741-08:002012-01-07T20:51:03.741-08:00I would add, as a minor point, that it is a teachi...I would add, as a minor point, that it is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church that Mary did die and was then resurrected and raised ... hence, a Catholic at least ought not to publicly say that she did not die.<br /><br />-- http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html --<br /><br />Thus, to get to the heart of Fr. S's point ... there is probably more room for diversity of opinion about the "star" than about the death of Mary.<br /><br />Still, I am convinced that searching for an astronomical reality is a terrible mistake (on the weight of both Scripture and tradition).Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-82082235957124696722012-01-07T20:07:23.838-08:002012-01-07T20:07:23.838-08:00@I Am Not Spartacus,
I think that I have already...@I Am Not Spartacus, <br /><br />I think that I have already made this point above in a post to Fr. Erlenbush, but I am happy to make it again here. Perhaps I have not yet been sufficiently clear. <br /><br />Insofar as the nature of the star described in St. Matthew's Gospel has not been magisterially defined, this matter is, per se, speculative and open to a variety of interpretation. Even if the weight of Patristic and Medieval exegesis holds that the star is purely miraculous and not astronomical, the lack of magisterial definition leaves the matter open to interpretation. <br /><br />Speaking for myself, considering only the text of the pericope in question and no secondary sources, it seems to me that the argument can be logically made that this was as astronomical event. I have already cited above the relevant passages in the transliterated Greek text. <br /><br />I suppose that I can put this another way. Weight of interpretation does not, in itself, provide definition. This is a fundamental tenet of theology. For example, rather famously, in the case of the Immaculate Conception, there is substantial weight on both sides of the question of whether or not Our Lady died before being assumed into Heaven. The Church has only solemnly defined that "having completed the course of her earthly life..." Our Lady was assumed. A Catholic is free to believe that she died or that she did not die; it is a speculative matter. <br /><br />In the case of the Star of Bethlehem, even less has been said definitively about it than about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As such, there is even more freedom of belief. Short of denying that the star existed--which would dismiss the witness of Scripture--or saying that the star was something totally different, like a spaceship--which would add too much to the text in question--there is a great deal of latitude in what a Catholic may believe. <br /><br />I do hope that this makes my position clearer. <br /><br />Kind Regards, <br />Father S.Father S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80846464614782046042012-01-07T18:48:43.007-08:002012-01-07T18:48:43.007-08:00It has always been a personally troubling question...It has always been a personally troubling question of mine why St. Gabriel was tasked with the Annunciation and not St. Michael. St. Michael's apparent absence at this point in salvation history has always bugged me. <br /><br />It also had never occurred to me until now that the Star of Bethlehem could be anything other than some kind of miraculous astronomical occurrence.<br /><br />St. Michael, is that you? This thought and it's implications, God willing, will keep me busy until next Christmas. Holy possible Epiphany! Thanks for this.Dismasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-63277523975529879272012-01-07T13:06:15.901-08:002012-01-07T13:06:15.901-08:00Dear Fr. S. I intended no personal insult and if t...Dear Fr. S. I intended no personal insult and if the imprecision of my writing left that impression I apologise.<br /><br />To me it appears you are saying that a star could have led the Magi whereas it is quite clear from Traditional Catholic Biblical Exegesis that it could not have been a star such as the putative one the protestant Kepler speculated about.<br /><br />Over the years, I have lost track (tangential pun) of the number of stars identified as the one that led The Magi. It is almost as though the Bible is not to be trusted unless it can be found to be in agreement with an enlightenment science that long ago successfully sued for divorce from Sacred Theology and has since that time produced endless bastard-theories before whom we are expected to bow.<br /><br />Science is supposed to be subservient to Scripture is what I was learnt long ago in the hills of Vermont and, yet, this Southern Vermont Crank would not end this response by writing, once again, that I intended no insult to an Alter Christus; my Uncle Fr. Francis, an LaSalette Priest, would be in his grave spinning like an anemometer atop Mt Washington if he knew I was doing such a thing.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-38632881830336185202012-01-07T10:34:23.610-08:002012-01-07T10:34:23.610-08:00Msgr,
I suppose you are right that I come on a bit...Msgr,<br />I suppose you are right that I come on a bit strong ... I do tend to do that from time to time! :-)<br /><br />However, I just cannot see any way that the theories about Jupiter or Saturn can possibly line up with the clear biblical words that the star "went before them [the wise men]" and that it "came and stood over where the child was".<br /><br />In any case, it is good to recognize that these recent theories (going back, as far as I can tell, not much further than Kepler in the 17th century) are very very different from the interpretation of the saints of the Church.<br /><br />At least this much is clear -- it is not "traditional" or "conservative" to think the Bethlehem Star was a real star ... that doesn't mean it is wrong, of course.<br /><br />Peace always! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-21153408690743064462012-01-07T09:59:53.205-08:002012-01-07T09:59:53.205-08:00A fascinating post especially in terms of it's...A fascinating post especially in terms of it's strong appeal to antiquity. <br /><br />I do think though that Fr. S above well states some concerns that I have with the use of words like "error" "terribly misguided" inauthentic, over correction, misguided etc are and unnecessarily sharp rebuke. <br /><br />The exact reality of the star is, to my mind, ultimately mysterious and is best left in that realm. Fr. Cornelius has things a little too well figured out to my mind, in actually trying to speak of it as "a condensed mass of dust and air which was illuminated and moved about by angels." Why be that specific? <br /><br />Even if some roots of this thinking can be found in the Fathers and doctors, I would still have the personal preference to allow the mystery to remain largely unspecified as Scripture does. It is after all the source document, and specifications beyond its data are speculative. <br /><br />I see no real harm in some speculating about it being this star or that, or a comet, or the coming together of planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, or of compressed dust and air, as long as we are all clear that these are speculations of what is ultimately mysterious and unspecified. <br /><br />Thank you again for supplying this context and hosting this conversation.Msgr. Popehttp://blog.adw.orgnoreply@blogger.com