An easter meditation, compliments of Rorate Caeli's blog and St. Vincent.

[I]t is clear that [Our Lord] appeared to the Virgin Mother first, although the holy Evangelists are expressly silent about it.

Practically speaking, how it now happened could be as follows. The devout soul can piously contemplate, as God grants them to perceive the sweetness of this vision in their hearts.

The Virgin Mary was most certain that her Son would rise on the third day, as he had predicted, but perhaps she did not know the hour of his resurrection, because it is not written that Christ had revealed the hour of his resurrection, whether at prime or terce etc. So the Virgin Mary on this very night, which was so long for her, awaited the resurrection of her Son and she began to think at which hour he would rise, but she did not know. And knowing that among other prophets, David spoke most about the passion and resurrection of Christ, she set about by reading the Psalter, to discover if David had said anything about the hour, and she read the first psalm, the second, the third…and found nothing about the time.

Then reading Psalm lvi, 9 where it says and David speaks in the person of a father to son saying, "Arise, O my glory, arise psaltery and harp"; response of the son to the father: "I will arise at dawn." ... Imagine, when the virgin Mary knew the time of resurrection, how she arose from prayer, to see if it was dawn, and saw that it was not.

Again Mary returned to her reading to see if she could find another witness to the time of the resurrection, and in continuing her reading she came to Psalm cvii, 2-3 namely: “My heart is ready, O God." Where she found the same verse again: "Arise my glory," and again she looked out her window to see if it was dawn yet.Then she wanted to see if any of the other prophets had said something of the hour of the resurrection and she found in Osee speaking in the person of the apostles: "He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. We shall know, and we shall follow on, that we may know the Lord. His going forth is prepared as the morning light," (Osee vi, 3). Note, "He will revive us," because the apostles were mortified because of unbelief.

Then Mary got up saying, it is enough for me to have three witnesses of the hour of the resurrection. And she prepared the room, and found a chair for her Son, saying "Here my son shall sit and here I will speak with him." And she looked out of the window, and she saw the dawn breaking, and she rejoiced saying, "Now my Son is rising." And on her knees she prayed, saying: "Rise up, Lord, to meet me, and behold: even you, O Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel," (Psalm lviii, 6).

And Christ immediately sent the messenger Gabriel to the Virgin, saying: "Just as you announced to my Mother the Incarnation, now announce to her my Resurrection." With unbridled great joy he came to the Virgin saying: [Regina Cæli...] "Queen of Heaven, rejoice, Alleluia. Because He whom you did merit to bear, Alleluia. Has risen as he said, Alleluia," as was revealed to Blessed Gregory, who added, "Pray for us to God, Alleluia.".

Immediately following that, her blessed Son came to her with all the Holy Patriarchs. ... Christ greeted his mother, saying: "Peace be with you." The Virgin fell to her knees and weeping abundantly for joy adored him kissing his hands and feet saying: "O blessed wounds, which have given me such pain on Good Friday!" Christ kissing his mother said: "My mother, rejoice, because from now on, you will have nothing but joy and celebration." Drying her tears, he sat down on the chair and they spoke with each other very sweetly. Oh, if only someone could have been present to this exchange! The Virgin said to her son, "Son, I am used to celebrating a feast on the Sabbath, signifying [God's] rest from the creation of the world, but from now on I celebrate a feast on the first day, in memory of your resurrection, and rest and glory." It pleased Christ.

Christ told his mother the things which he did in hell, how he had bound the devil, and he introduced her to the holy Patriarchs, whom he had delivered from there. They then showed their great reverence to the Virgin Mary. Imagine how Adam and Eve spoke to the Virgin Mary: "Blessed are you. our daughter and Lady, about whom the Lord said to the serpent devil, 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman,'" (Genesis iii, 15). Eve said, "I by sin closed the gates of paradise, but you by grace have opened them."

Also each of the prophets spoke to the Virgin Mary, "I have prophesied of you in this place saying...," and humbly saluting her they all together said to the Virgin Mary: "You are the glory of Jerusalem, you are the joy of Israel, you are the honor of our people," (Judith xv, 10). Saluting them, the Virgin Mary said. "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (I Peter ii,9).

[Translation: Fr Albert Judy, O.P. - adapted]

The Church has long celebrated the Holy Innocents as martrys slain for the sake of Christ. The Collect of the Missa "Ex Ore Infantium" on their Feast Day is sufficient to show the Church's position in this regard:

O God, whose praise the martyred Innocents on this day confessed, not by speaking, but by dying: destroy in us all the evils of sin, that our life also may proclaim in deeds Thy faith which our tongues profess. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost . . .

Discovering why St. Luke spends so much time describing the Nativity, when according to St. Thomas his main purpose is extolling the priesthood of Christ, involves looking at the details of the Evangelist's account:

1. St. Luke begins by noting the occasion of Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem: a world-wide census. Why record this detail? The Tradition tells us that the enrollment is a figure of Christ enrolling the whole company of the elect in the Book of Life at the Last Judgment.

   GREGORY: But the registering of the whole world when our Lord was about to be born was mystical; for He appeared in the flesh Who should write down the names of His own elect in eternity.

   AMBROSE: There is described a secular registration, implied a spiritual, to be laid before the King not of earth but of Heaven; a registering of faith: a census of souls. For the old census of the Synagogue was abolished, a new census of the Church was preparing. And to decide that the census was not of Augustus, but of Christ, the whole world is ordered to be registered. For who could demand the registration of the whole world but He who had dominion over it, for the earth is not of Augustus, but the earth is the Lord's?

   ORIGEN: To those who attentively consider it, there seems to be expressed a kind of sacrament, in its being necessary that Christ should be put down in the registration of the whole world; in order that His name being written with all, He might sanctify all, and being placed in the census with the whole world, He might impart to the world the communion of Himself.

   AMBROSE: This was then the first public enrollment of souls to the Lord, to Whom all enroll themselves not at the voice of the crier, but of the Prophet, who says, O clap your hands, all you people.

   ...to cite a few authorities. It is fitting that St. Luke should include this detail , as it is pre-eminently the role of Christ the High Priest to offer redemption to the world and salvation to the elect.


2. Our Lord is conceived in Nazareth, but St. Luke notes that he is born in Bethlehem. This name, which means "House of Bread," has a mystical significance:

   THEOPHYLUS: He condescended to become incarnate at that time, that after His birth He might be enrolled in Caesar's taxing, and in order to bring liberty to us might Himself become subject to slavery. It was well also that our Lord was born at Bethlehem, not only as a mark of the royal crown, but on account of the sacrament of the name.

   GREGORY: Bethlehem is by interpretation the house of bread. For it is the Lord Himself who says, I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. The place therefore where the Lord was born was before called the house of bread, because it was there that He was to appear in His fleshly nature who should refresh the souls of the elect with spiritual fullness.

   Christ's birth in the House of Bread can be taken as a foreshadowing of the Blessed Sacrament, or as a figure of the redemptive nourishment Christ provides to his elect. Either way, this detail is intimately connected with his priesthood.


3. St. Luke goes on to describe Christ's birth, noting his rest in a manger. The detail also has a priestly significance:

   THEOPHYLUS: He is confined in the narrow space of a rude manger, whose seat is the heavens, that He may give us ample room in the joys of His heavenly kingdom. He Who is the bread of Angels is laid down in a manger, that He might feast us, as it were the sacred animals, with the bread of His flesh.

   CYRIL: He finds man in his corrupt affections become like the beasts that perish, and therefore He is laid in the manger, in the place of food, that we changing the life of beasts, might be brought to the knowledge that befits man, partaking not of hay, but of the heavenly bread, the life-giving body.

   Once again, Luke's description of our Lord's birth is ordered toward demonstrating his role as High Priest and Redeemer.


4. Next, we have the angel's message to the shepherds: "Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy that shall be to all the people: For, this day is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David." Compare this announcement of Christ's birth, in which he is referred to as "Saviour" with that of the Magi, who declare him "King."


5. Finally, the heavenly army's Gloria testifies to the saving power of Christ's Priesthood. For they not only praise God, singing, "Glory to God in the highest," but also add, "and on earth peace to men of good will." Why should the angels include the peace of men in their song of joy at Christ's birth? Once again, the Fathers interpret:

   GREGORY: At the same time they also give praises because their voices of gladness accord well with our redemption, and while they behold our acceptance, they rejoice also that their number is completed.

   THEOPHYLUS: They wish also peace to men, as they add, On earth peace to men, because those whom they had before despised as weak and abject, now that our Lord has come in the flesh they esteem as friends.

   CYRIL: This peace has been made through Christ, for He has reconciled us by Himself to God and our Father, having taken away our guilt, which was the ground of offense also. He has united two nations in one man, and has joined the heavenly and the earthly in one flock.

   THEOPHYLUS: For whom they ask peace is explained in the words, Of good will. For them, namely, who receive the new born Christ. For there is no peace to the ungodly, but much peace to them that love the name of God.

   ORIGEN: But the attentive reader will ask, How then does the Savior say, I came not to send peace on the earth, whereas now the Angels' song of His birth is, On earth peace to men? It is answered, that peace is said to be to men of goodwill. For the peace which the Lord does not give on the earth is not the peace of good will.

   AUGUSTINE: For righteousness belongs to good will.

   CHRYSOSTOM: Behold the wonderful fill working of God. He first brings Angels down to men, and then brings men up to heaven. The heaven became earth, when it was about to receive earthly things.

   ORIGEN: But in a mystery, the Angels saw that they could not accomplish the work committed to them without Him Who was truly able to save, and that their healing fell short of what the care of men required. And so it was as if there should come one who had great knowledge in medicine, and those who before were unable to heal, acknowledging now the hand of a master, grudge not to see the corruptions of wounds ceasing, but break forth into the praises of the Physician, and of that God who sent to them and to the sick a man of such knowledge; the multitudes of the Angels praised God for the coming of Christ.

The account of the Magi in the Gospel according to Matthew is given as a manifestation of the Incarnation, not only as a figure of the universal redemption of Christ the High Priest.¹

In fact, of the senses of Scripture, the interpretation of the Magi as manifestation of the Incarnation seems to be the more literal one. Therefore, since the literal sense is the foundation of all other senses and is the primary intention of the human author, it makes sense for St. Matthew, focusing on the Incarnation, to discuss the Magi at length.

But why does St. Luke, primarily interested in Christ as Priest, detail the Nativity? To be continued...
____________________
1. At least, according to St. Thomas' interpretation.

Another comparison of the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke makes one question St. Thomas' distinction between the two. For, as has been said, St. Thomas claims that, "Matthew takes up describing the carnal generation of Christ...Luke, however, chiefly intends to commend in Christ the priestly character."¹ Why, then, does St. Luke present a more detailed exposition of the Nativity of Christ, while St. Matthew emphasizes more the Adoration of the Magi? It would seem that the Evangelist wanting to describe the Incarnation would spend more time talking about the Nativity, and the one focusing on Christ the High Priest - who reconciled the world to God² - would highlight the gentile kings coming from afar to worship the Infant King.

To be continued...
(meaning: I don't have an answer yet)
____________________
1. Super Evangelium Matthaei, Ch. 1, lect.2
2. ST, III, Q.22, a.1, c.

If St. Matthew is principally concerned with describing Christ's generation according to the flesh (as has been said), why does he record our Lord's genealogy through Joseph and not through Mary?

First, it is important to realize that Christ's carnal descent (at least insofar as he is of David's line, thus fulfilling the prophecies¹) can be inferred even from Joseph's ancestry. This is because it was a custom among the Jews to marry into the same tribe and family.² That Mary, as well as Joseph, was of the house of David, can be seen from the fact that they both return to the city of David when ordered to return to their own cities for enrollment.³ Therefore, giving Joseph's genealogy is sufficient to show that Jesus was biologically of the House of David.

But why not just give Mary's genealogy? Here, St. Matthew demonstrates in a more subtle way how God "humbled himself to share in our humanity."⁴ For it was a custom among the Jews, in fact, a custom among most cultures, to trace genealogies through the father. The Holy Spirit inspired St. Matthew to follow this custom in order to show Christ's assumption of the whole human condition. Given that our Lord's carnal generation through Mary and her Davidic line could also be shown at the same time, by respecting the human custom of patriarchal genealogy the condescension of the Incarnation is all the more emphasized.
____________________

1. See, for example, II Kings 7:12, 1 Chr. 17:11, Ps. 131:11, Jer. 23:5
2. c.f. Num 36:6-10
3. Luke 2:1-5
4. Roman Mass, Offertory Prayer

There is no shortage of non-believers who blaspheme Holy Scripture by citing its numerous "errors and contradictions". A common complaint concerns the supposed contradictions in the genealogies of Christ presented in the Gospels according the Matthew and Luke.¹
Worse than the incredibly bad logic of atheists, however, is the attempt of some nominally Catholic scholars to impute error to Holy Writ.² This is, of course, against the Church's teachings, who holds the inerrancy of Scripture³ and the historicity of the Gospels⁴.

St. Thomas, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, points out differences in the genealogies much more clearly than the heretics. Such discrepancies are not only not troubling to the Catholic scholar, they are helpful in understanding the texts. He groups the differences into five categories:

1. 1) Difference in Position: St. Matthew starts out his Gospel with our Lord's genealogy, but St. Luke waits until Ch. 3, after the baptism in the Jordon. As St. Augustine says, this difference is due to the different intentions of the Evangelists. The whole of the Gospel according to Matthew is principally concerned with describing the generation of Christ according to the flesh. Hence it is entitled "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ". Therefore it is fitting that it begins with the genealogy. The Gospel according to Luke, however, is principally concerned with the priestly character of Christ, that is, with Christ's expiation of sins. Therefore, it begins with Zachary performing his priestly functions in the temple. It is fitting, then, that St. Luke place the genealogy after our Lord's baptism, which is the means by which sins are removed.


2. 2) Difference in Order: St. Matthew begins with Abraham and descends down through the generations to Christ. St. Luke, on the other hand, begins with Christ and ascends through Adam to God. This is due to the different purposes of the aforementioned offices of Christ, Son of Man and High Priest. "He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God."⁵ St. Matthew emphasizes the former part of that process, St. Luke the latter. Therefore, it is fitting that St. Matthew proceeds by descent, St. Luke by ascent.


3. 3) Difference in Manner: St. Matthew connects adjoining generations with the verb "begot", while St. Luke uses the phrase "was of". Because the descending generations recorded by Matthew are begotten, Matthew has recorded the physical, carnal ancestors of Christ. The ascending ancestors of Christ recorded by St. Luke, on the other hand, simply belong to subsequent generations. This formulation allows Luke to record legal parents, according to either of two Jewish customs: the brother of a widow without children must marry the widow⁶, so that the legal father (the deceased) may not be the biological father; the parents of a woman without male siblings would sometimes adopt her husband⁷, so that his legal ancestors (the wife's biological ancestors) may not be his biological ancestors.


4. 4) Difference in End: Matthew begins with Abraham and descends down to Christ. Luke starts with Christ and ascends, not only to Abraham, but all the way to Adam and to God. This has to do with their respective audiences: St. Matthew is writing to Hebrews, to whom Abraham is more known than Christ; but St. Luke writes to Greeks, who only know of Abraham by hearing of Christ. And so Matthew introduces Christ to the Hebrews through Abraham, while Luke introduces Abraham and Abraham's God to the Greeks through the man Christ.


5. 5) Difference in Persons Enumerated: St. Thomas has already explained the simple difference in names by distinguishing between legal and biological parents. Here, he points out that Matthew includes women in the genealogy, but Luke does not. Particularly, the women St. Matthew includes are all known sinners: Thamar was a fornicator⁸, Ruth was a idolater (because she was a Gentile)⁹, and Bathseeba was an adulteress¹⁰. This could be to show that Christ descended through sinful man, in the form of a sinner (although without sin), to redeem sinners.

I've started working on St. Thomas' Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. You can check out the outline based on his commentary here, even while it is a work in progress. (The outline will be in Latin until I complete it, then I will translate it.)
____________________