Why did Jesus call Andrew and John at the tenth hour?

2^nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, John 1:35-42

It was about four in the afternoon.

As St. John tells us of his own calling (for he is surely that unnamed disciple called together with St. Andrew) and of that first conversation he had with our Savior, he specifies the time of day: It was the tenth hour (which is to say, about four in the afternoon).

Why does the Beloved Disciple add this detail? What is the significance of the time? What are we to learn from the hour of the day?

Mark: The shortest but most detailed Gospel

The Gospel according to St. Mark will be read in the Church throughout Ordinary Time this year, hence we will benefit from a brief consideration of certain points relative to this book.

Having already discussed the petrine authority of this Gospel (since St. Mark wrote what he learned from St. Peter [see our earlier article here]), we now turn to the amazing degree of detail contained in this book.

While the Gospel of St. Mark can easily be read within two hours (it is by far the shortest Gospel), surprisingly it contains far more details than do the other synoptic Gospels.

The Gospel of St. Mark, the Gospel of St. Peter

St. Peter preaches, while St. Mark writes his Gospel

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)

The second Gospel, that written by St. Mark, will be the primary Gospel used in the Church’s Liturgy (in the Novus Ordo) during the coming year. In the daily Mass readings, St. Mark’s Gospel is used consistently up till Lent; while, for the Sunday Gospel, Mark will be used throughout Ordinary Time (excepting this Sunday, January 15^th).

In preparation for the Church’s use of this Gospel in the Sacred Liturgy, we will consider first the Petrine authority of the Gospel, and then (in a later article) the structure and style of the book.

Myrrh is for dead bodies, so why give it to a baby?

Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord

And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11)

The wise men offer the Christ Child the three gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. When considering what it was that the magi must have believed about the Savior, St. Fulgentius tells us “Consider what gifts they offered and you will know what they believed.”

It is more than a little shocking, and quite disappointing, that the Catholic Encyclopedia says of the gifts: “The purpose of the gold is clear; the Child was poor. We do not know the purpose of the other gifts. The magi probably meant no symbolism.”

We, guided by the light of the Church Fathers, are not left in such darkness. Thus, let us consider specifically the gift of myrrh – what it is, and what it signifies.

It is a mistake to try to discover which was the Star of Bethlehem

January 6^th, Feast of the Epiphany

[The wise men] having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. (Matthew 2:9-10)

It is generally considered a more conservative and traditional position to believe that the star of Bethlehem was a real and historical star. Indeed, even many Catholics are excited about recent so-called “scientific” data which seeks to determine which star or astronomical event was the historical star of Bethlehem.

Thus, we might be surprised to realize that the overwhelming consensus of the Catholic tradition – from the Church Fathers, through the Scholastic Doctors (including St. Thomas Aquinas), and up to the great theologians of the counter-reformation period – maintains that the star of Bethlehem was not a real star. It was not an event in the heavens at all; that is, it was not in outer-space, but was another sort of reality. Indeed, the star of Bethlehem was a light brightly shining but low to the earth and within our atmosphere. It was no star, nor even a comet or any such thing – rather, it was much more like the pillar of fire which led the Israelites out of Egypt.

What does IHS stand for? The meaning of the Holy Name of Jesus

January 3^rd, Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus

In the Extraordinary Form, the feast of the Holy Name is of the “second class” (making it equal to Sundays throughout the year, complete with the recitation of the Gloria and the Credo), but in the Ordinary Form the memorial of the Holy Name was not even included in the calendar after 1970. Happily, the feast was re-instituted as an optional memorial by Bl. John Paul II – we should think that the Name deserves at least this much honor!

In fact, the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus is of comparatively recent origin, not having become popular until the Franciscan St. Bernadine of Siena preached this devotion in the 15^th century. It has been celebrated in numerous ways in the Latin rite – at first the feast was kept on the Second Sunday after Epiphany, then it was moved to the Sunday after the Octave of Christmas (the Sunday between January 2^nd and 5^th). It is desirable that this feast be celebrated closer to the day in which Christ historically received his name, the day of his circumcision (eight days after his birth, January 1^st), and thus the feast is kept on January 3^rd in the Novus Ordo.

The insignia “IHS" is associated with this feast, but what does IHS mean? Why is IHS a sign for the Name of Jesus?

Do a virgin birth and perfect knowledge make Jesus less human? Or Mary less a mother?

Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (CCC 499; Lumen Gentium [Vatican II], 57)

The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 75)

The Church teaches that Christ was miraculously born of a Virgin without causing his Mother any of the pains associated with labor. Further, the Catholic Church believes that our Savior knew all created things from the first moment of his Incarnation such that he even knew (for example) how to speak every language that had or ever would exist.

When some people hear of these doctrines, they have a tendency to respond: “But then Jesus wouldn’t be truly human! And Mary wouldn’t be a real mother!” Let us consider the foolishness of such a reaction.