Loading ...
So, we’ve returned to the season of Advent, and once again I find myself puzzling over the same old questions. Advent is surely the most problematic season of the liturgical year. Good Catholics know, of course, that it is a penitential season. It is a time for discipline, for special penances, and for reflection on one’s own emptiness and on how desperately we are in need of the coming Lord. “O come, o come, Emmanuel!” should be the cry of the Advent season, and cultivating this feeling requires the kind of asceticism and penitential spirit that more famously characterizes Lent. True, it is appropriate that Advent should be milder. In Lent we trace Our Lord’s footsteps to the cross and humanity’s darkest hour, but in Advent we anticipate no such horror. Nevertheless, the Church in her wisdom knows that we humans, frail creatures that we are, will not properly appreciate the beauty of the dawn unless we have also sat through the darkest, coldest hour that comes right before. This must be the time when we, like the maidens of the Gospel story, sit in waiting for the Bridegroom.
But now we encounter a problem. In the world at large, we are in that period more familiarly known as “The Christmas Season.” In this time more than any other, people everywhere resolve to change their decor a little, and to try to be cheerful and generous, at least for a few weeks. Houses and office buildings are decked with lights and red bows; malls and town squares feature gigantic trees and live musicians entertaining the world with carols; stores are stocked to the gills with ornaments, toys, gingerbread kits, bells, candy canes and every kind of Christmas merchandise you can possibly imagine. Schools and offices have special parties. Charitable organizations redouble their efforts to do something nice for the poor. The whole world seems to have agreed to designate this season as special, and the dial is set full-blast on Happy and Decadent. Not exactly the right mood for the Catholic trying to be penitential.
One one level, The Christmas Season certainly is a mistake. The mistake is not, obviously, in thinking that the birth of Jesus is a joyous event. It is indeed — as joyous as any in human history, except perhaps for the Resurrection. But there is still a widespread error, even among dedicated Christians, and it lies in thinking that one should prepare for a blessed and holy event by feasting and being cheerful. In fact, the spirit is better prepared through somberness and fasting, but the value of these kinds of spiritual exercises has been largely forgotten in the present era, and so, in any season we recognize to be “special”, there is feasting. We Catholics, however, know better. The Church still knows the power of penance. Should we not therefore teach the world, by booing the jolly decor and boycotting the special parties and concerts? Should we not teach our children by refusing to put up the tree or the lights until Christmas Eve, or by turning off the Christmas specials and slamming the door on the carolers?
Well… maybe. There is an argument for it, I admit. On the other hand, it does seem rather, well… Scroogish, doesn’t it, to walk about with a determined glower in the one season when everyone else has agreed to be jolly? However seriously it has been compromised by commercialism, materialism, sentimentalism and a host of other ‘isms’, Christmas is still one holiday that has a considerable amount of cultural potency. Thanks to Christmas, there are very few Western children who haven’t at least heard the story of Jesus’ birth. Christmas reinforces in the minds of many that generosity and love are core Christian values. And, the cultural significance of Christmas has another upside: very few of us have to bend over backwards to get a few days off for this holiday, even when it falls in the middle of the week. If we take too many measures to put the penitence back into Advent, we may find ourselves involuntarily working shoulder to shoulder with ardent secularists who want to stamp out Christmas cheer entirely on account of it’s being 1) happy, and 2) associated with Jesus Christ. That would be a shame.
If I had my druthers, Advent would be a solemn season in which we would fast, pray, and await the coming Lord… after which time, we would all engage in wild rejoicing for the next twelve days. The reality is, though, that anyone who resolves to do this in the United States today will more or less miss the season altogether. Most of us, I guess, carve out some kind of compromise — we don’t boycott the office Christmas party, but we may save the chocolates and egg nog until after Christmas Day. But I still always end up feeling that, on a spiritual level, Christmas is pretty confused and dissatisfying, at least compared to the somber reflections of Lent and the solemn joy of Easter. Any other thoughts on how people handle this problem?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Clara, this is a difficult one. It wasn’t all that long ago when Advent was Advent and not Christmas, but, as happens with everything tainted by the prospect of financial gain, the money-maker wins out and Advent is no money-maker. Were Easter a day on which we gave gifts Lent would also disappear except for in our churches. It is a sad commentary that American society is driven by money and not faith. Put another way, Americans, despite their religious claims, put more value on financial gain than they do on their eternal salvation. And Advent is all about eternal salvation.
Having a foot in both worlds as it were, makes observing Advent difficult but only if we reduce it to externals. While outward symbols are important they are not what Advent is about: the preparation of the heart and soul for the coming of the Lord. We can do this despite the fact the world around is is celebrating Christmas, and we can even participate in the world’s celebration. Why? Because we are not celebrating the birthday of Jesus. We are celebrating the Nativity of the Word Made Flesh which is part of the Paschal Mystery and is not limited to a day or season. This does not mean that liturgical seasons and days are not important. It puts them in their proper context. Indeed, we celebrate great feasts during Lent for exactly this reason.
As Christians we must be most vigilant to keep Advent well first as far as our souls are concerned. We must renew our efforts at preparing to receive the Lord when he comes… renew because we should constantly be about this. Advent is a good time to make a very thorough examination of conscience, perhaps one commandment a day, and keep a journal of our failures and our virtues. It’s a good time to make a confession especially of those venial sins and faults that plague us and resolve to practice the virtue which opposes them. Advent is the time to consider the Four Last Things: Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell, especially in the first part of the season. In the second part of Advent it is a time to consider the great mystery of the Incarnation and what preceeded it as found in the prophets and gospels. All the while we keep in mind that we are always, not just in Advent, waiting for the Lord and we know not the day nor the hour. So, Advent isn’t just about preparing for Christmas. That’s actually a small part of it. Advent is a more intense preparation for meeting the Lord at the celebration of his Incarnation, in Holy Communion, at his return in glory, or at death. Thus Advent, though penetential, has always been about a different sort of penance than Lent.
Our spiritual preparation is not in any way hindered by the celebrations going on around us. We can even participate in them and still keep Advent. The real issue is that we equate Christmas with the celebrations and this is what causes our Advent angst. The celebrating that used to be limited to December 25 and the following days and weeks has come to “mean” Christmas for us. If we didn’t have any of it, it wouldn’t be Christmas. How many times have we heard someone say that “it just isn’t Christmas without…” Thus when the celebrations begin early we feel like something is wrong. And something is wrong. What is wrong is that we equate Christmas with the celebrations. Christmas is not the celebrations. Christmas would still be Christmas without that special tradition or custom or celebration. Christmas is God giving us himself.
I think, Clara, that if we can keep things in their proper perspective, as difficult as it is, the Advent angst will diminish. If we can see Advent and Christmas for what they truly are rather that what they have become and keep them well we will be filled with a peace and joy that can only come from knowing we are right with our God who comes to us.
I agree with you completely, Clara. I can see an office party a few days before Christmas but what really bugs me is a party before Midnight Mass. What a terrible way to prepare for Christ’s birth, in revelry. Where’s the silent night?
But remember, by the time of the Missa in Nocte Advent has been over for several hours. Christmas begins with First Vespers around sunset on December 24. It is perfectly legitimate to celebrate after the hour of Vespers. Traditionally many cultures celebrate Christmas Eve with a special meal: Italians, Poles, and Ukranians for example.
Another important point is we must guard against historicizing sacred events. Liturgy takes place not in “chronos” (historical time) but in “kairos” (eternity). If liturgy was celebrated in chronos then we would be celebrating Jesus’ birthday and singing “Happy Birthday.” But we do not celebrate Jesus birthday. We celebrate the coming into the world of the Incarnate Word.
There is no evidence that Christ was born at midnight. The reason the First Mass of Chrismas came to be celebrated at midnight is because that was the earliest it could be celebrated according to lirutgical law. Liturgically it is not even called Midnight Mass, but Mass during the Night. Beginning in monasteries, it was celebrated after Matins, around 3:00 a.m. Lauds followed and then the Mass at Dawn. The Mass during the Day was celebrated after Terce. The Mass during the Day was the only parish Mass at first. Gradually, as the influence of monasticism increased, the other two Masses began to be celebrated in parishes as well. Over time the common hour for the First Mass became midnight, but not everywhere. In some places it is still celebrated in the very early morning hours. Here in the USA there were ethnic parishes that kept this custom until the 1960s.
It’s also important to understand that in the USA the Church has a heavy Irish influence. While the Irish are to be commended for keeping the faith under persecution, their history also demanded a bare bones religion that was not given to the celebrations of Catholics from the continent and is often perceived as the “traditional Catholic” way…. which it isn’t. The custom of celebrating on Christmas Eve is much more “traditionally” Catholic.
Please note that I am not endorsing going to Midnight Mass after eating or drinking to excess or receiving Communion without sufficient preparation. To do so is a sacrilege. Neither am I saying that one must celebrate before Midnight Mass. What I am saying is that we who are “traditional Catholics” must be sure to know and live the mind of the Church.
Thank you again for another enlightening comment, Father. I get that question (why do we celebrate Christmas in December when Jesus wasn’t born then?) fairly often, so it’s good to have more to say about it. I think I should open another thread sometime about Irish Catholicism and its impact on the United States. That’s a very interesting subject which I have been thinking about lately.
But I enjoyed even more your first comment, which is exactly right, and well worth remembering during Advent. It’s just difficult for me… I understand that the Paschal Mysteries remain true and present to us in all seasons, so that there’s nothing sacrilegious or false about, say, letting the carolers sing “Silent Night” during Advent. And yet, the liturgical calendar, even if in some respects a crutch, is something I need. Do you know, one of the first “Catholic” things I voluntarily did was observe Lent? This was years before I was received into the Church, before I even went to Mass regularly or knew more than a few fragments of Catholic philosophy. But from my very first contact with Catholics (as a freshman at Notre Dame) the idea of a liturgical calendar just made all kinds of sense to me. So I started fasting during Lent then, and Lent and Easter have ever since been my favorite seasons of the year, against which Christmas still seems a confused blur.
Anyway, I’ll think more about this. Thank you again.
The why of December is actually pretty interesting. It has to do with the line in the Gospel where John the Baptist says, “He must increase and I must decrease.” We know from Luke’s Gospel that the Baptist is six months older than Jesus (”In the sixth month [of Elisabeth's pregnency] the angel Gabriel was sent from God…”). The Nativity of John is celebrated at the summer solstice when the length of daylight begins to decrease (”I must decrease”). Six months later at the winter solstice we celebrate the Nativity of Jesus when the length of daylight begins to increase (”He must increase”). Over time the solstices have moved by four days.
The early Christians were very aware of cosmological events and used them frequently when developing the liturgical calendar. Certain numbers had special significance. Celebrating great feasts until the 8th day, the octave, for example. The period of 40 days: Not only the days of Lent but also the number of days from the Transfiguration to the Exultation of the Holy Cross and from Christmas to Candlemas. Other feasts had to do with agricultural practices; the greater and lesser litanies and the various harvest celebrations such as Lammmas or Loafmas (August 1), the wheat harvest. All Saints and All Souls in November as nature goes dormant and enters a period of death and darkness. Of course most of this is only true in the northern hemisphere.
I’ve often wondered how strange it must be to sing “In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan” at Christmas in Australia.
Yes, Father, technically Christmas starts at First Vespers according to the Church. This has been capitalized on by many parishes where Midnight Mass is now as early as 5:00 pm. Regardless of the time, my point was that the more mundane things related to Christmas such as eating, drinking, and merry making should be celebrated after Mass and not before. Devotionally speaking, Christmas begins for me when Christ is born on the altar, and I can’t see how anyone reveling before Mass can be properly disposed to receive Him into their heart at a time when He renews His birth in a special way. Maybe the Italians, the Polish, and the Ukrainians can and I should just worry about myself. The Irish have that Puritanical bent to them too, don’t they?
Yes, Discipulus, I think the Irish and we Americans do have a Puritanical bent. And that is not necessarily wrong. Sometimes southern Europeans could use a little puritanism. That being said, each of us must work out for him or her self how to best celebrate festivals such as Christmas so as to gain the most spiritually– so long as the manner we choose is not sinful. The truly traditional customs of Eastern Europeans and Italians are strongly tied to the mystery of the Nativity and most aspects of their celebrations on Christmas Eve are very spiritual in nature. So too is the custom of spending Christmas Eve in prayer and contemplation. But, as St. Alphonsus constantly tells us in both his ascetic and moral theology, we must do what works as long as it isn’t sinful, and if it works, there is no obligation to change. If your temperment draws you to spending Christmas Eve in recollection and prayer then that is what you should do.
Crowds of people going to Midnight Mass is a reletively modern phenomena that came into being well after these traditions were firmly entrenched. Also, as Midnight Mass was almost always a Solemn Mass, Communion was not distributed. People who went to Midnight Mass would often go again on Christmas day if they wished to receive Communion…something that seems incomprehensable in these days when everybody receives at every Mass regardless of the state of their souls.
Midnight Mass that begins before it is properly night is an aberration that should be eliminated as well as the freedom to choose any of the readings from any of the three Christmas Masses for any of the three Masses. There is a proper Vigil Mass to be used on Christmas Eve in those places where opening gifts is more important than receiving the Gift of gifts. I abhor anticipated Masses. While one does, technically at least, fulfill one’s Mass obligation by attending an anticipated Mass, they were only allowed for those people whose work or other serious responsibilities made it impossible for them to assist at Mass on the day of obligation. 99% of people at anticipated Masses do not belong there, but that’s a rant for another time.
Something I forgot to mention in the previous post. It is only recently that the midnight in Midnight Mass came to mean 12:00am. When the term originally came into use it referred to solar midnight, the point in time half way between sunset and sunrise…about the hour of Matins.
It had never occurred to me that anyone might have a problem with Midnight Mass! Because my parents are divorced (less-than-ideal, naturally), we always went to Mass at midnight and then again in the morning. It’s a Polish custom to keep vigil on the 24th–Wigilia–and we eat a special meal with a set number of dishes, all white, all fish, with oplatek and prayers. We eat BEFORE Mass and we toast just about everything and by the time we get to church you can smell the alcohol in the air. It’s quite solemn, but we sing in the Nativity of Our Lord LUSTILY and that’s A-OK. Please don’t assume the Puritanical quasi-traditions of the American Church are morally superior.
“There is no evidence that Christ was born at midnight.” I had strong doubts about this statement, Father, and did a little research. Abbot Gueranger—who certainly knew and encouraged all to live the mind of the Church—in the second volume of The Liturgical Year, after establishing that Christ was born on December 25, does not hesitate to say, “She (the Church) begins her Mass at Midnight for it is at that silent hour that the Virgin Mother gave us the Blessed Fruit of her womb.” He also establishes that at that time the Winter Solstice was December 24, the day in which the daylight starts to increase, quoting Saint Augustine commenting on the words of Saint John the Baptist, “He must increase and I must decrease.”
“Jesus, the Light of the World was born when the night of idolatry and crime was at its darkest.” That nature coincided in symbolic unison with the mysteries of redemption is no accident but all in the providence of God since nature serves the designs of God and his Church.
Moreover, the traditions of Christmas liturgy did not originate in monasteries and filter down to the people. “In the early ages of the Church every great Feast was prepared for by long Vigils; during which the people deprived themselves of their usual rest, and spent the hours in the Church, fervently joining in the Psalms and Lessons which made up the Office which we now call Matins.” On Christmas Eve Matins was said at 11:00 “preceding the Hour when the Holy Mother gave birth to her Jesus.” In later times when the fervor of the people grew lax these vigils were preserved by the monks and a few individuals.
“What in our days, are found only in individuals, were then in the mass of the people—faith and a keen sense of the supernatural.
“Thanks be to God! This strong practical faith is not dead among us, and is each year spreading in the land.” He goes on to describe the old Catholic customs kept in some families where the whole house “after a frugal evening collation,” waited for the hour to come when they would all go to Midnight Mass.
“It is only recently that the midnight in Midnight Mass came to mean 12:00 am.” If I am not mistaken on the Winter Solstice, 12:00 am is equally spaced between sunset and sunrise. It seems that almost two thousand years of tradition provides ample evidence that Christ was born at midnight. I think we have to be careful not to allow our Christmas traditions to be relegated to the category of, “There is not Santa Claus.”
“by the time we get to church you can smell the alcohol in the air.”
See what I mean.
Oh, believe me, I do. There are some wags among the clergy who quip that “we best not light too many candles or the whole place will go up!” Anyone who would dare show up at Holy Mass inebriated commits mortal sin. And to receive Communion while inebriated is a grave sacrilege. But celebrating with a festive meal need not involve drinking an excess of alcohol or any alcohol at all.
While I admire Dom Guerenger as a great scholar and in no way denegrate his work, “The Liturgical Year” is not an history of liturgy. It was written as a pious popular commentary to help the faithful enter into what Sacrosanctum Concilium called “full and active participation” in its true sense. It was also written for the people of France at a time of upheaval. The point is that before we look to a source we need to know its context. For example one cannot read Liguori or de Montfort in a vacuum. That was a problem with Newman’s critique of Alphonsus’ Mariology and the major failing of Hilda Graef’s scholarship concerning Marian devotion.
While Dom Guerenger may have written that Christ was born on December 25, I do not believe that to be true given the biblical evidence. As for the hour being midnight, neither is there evidence for that in the Gospels. Both are pious traditions that have little to do with what Christmas is about– the Nativity of the Word Incarnate. And the date and time aren’t all that important since we aren’t celebrating Jesus’ birthday. In the early Church it was celebrated on January 6 as part of the Epiphany. What he writes about Matins is simply wrong. “The Liturgical Year” is not an historical source. Unfortunately I do not have access to a theological library so I cannot point you to the proper sources, however a good reference is found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm in the Catholic Encyclopedia. See also the article there on Guerenger: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07058a.htm
As for midnight being at 12:00 am on the winter solstice it isn’t. Solar midnight (the mid-point) and “clock” midnight are at variance because of the tilt of the earth, the refraction of the atmosphere, and because the sun is not a point but rather has the apparent size of about 30 minutes of arc. The coincidence of solar midnight and clock midnight takes place before or after the solstice depending on the hemisphere and the distance north or south of the tropics.
2000 years of tradition (small “t”) is not to be taken lightly. But, it is small “t” tradition and where science and scholarship prove otherwise for me they win out. The traditions of the French to have a frugal collation and then all go to Midnight Mass is laudable. But so are the customs of the Italians, the Poles, the Ukranians, the Danes, the Germans, etc.
If I am coming across as pig-headed (and, believe me, I can) that is not my intent. I think that we who are labeled “traditionalists” must be careful to provide solid evidence for our arguements and Guerenger does not give solid evidence in “The Liturgical Year.” That is not bad, it just isn’t his intent. As a liturgical prayer commentary there is none better.
None of us can say objectively that our particular tradition is better than another’s. That is not the mind of the Church who includes within herself a plurality of liturgical traditions alone. We can only say that subjectively this is what helps me live a holy life at this time in my life. What we can say objectively is that going to Mass and receiving Communion while inebriated or otherwise not prepared is sacreligious and thus a mortal sin. Let us be careful not to judge what others do, but to encourage one another to prepare well to receive the Lord.
Father, I find the criticism that article in the Catholic Encyclopedia by H Leclercq typical of the kind that Dom Guerenger was up against in his own day. He had many opponents of the Gallican bent for his efforts to restore the Roman Liturgy as well as liberals who questioned everything that was not etched in stone or found explicitly in the Gospels. His was a time when many of the traditions and devotions to the saints were being questioned by the higher critics. Sound familiar? He debated openly with cynical intellectuals and held his ground. His book on Saint Cecilia was written to defend her very existence and to put the doubters in their place—which he did.
Regarding Christmas again I cite volume 2 of The Liturgical Year: “And firstly, with regard to our Savior’s birth on December 25, we have Saint John Chrysostom telling us, in his homily for the Feast, that the Western Churches had, from the very commencement of Christianity, kept it on this day. He is not satisfied with merely mentioning the tradition; he undertakes to show that it is well founded, inasmuch as the Church of Rome had every means of knowing the true day of our Saviors Birth, since the acts of the Enrolment, taken in Judea by command of Augustus, were kept in the public archives of Rome.
“The holy Doctor adduces a second argument, which he founds upon the Gospel of Saint Luke, and he reasons thus: we know from the sacred Scriptures that it must have been “in the fast of the seventh month (cf Lev. XXIII 24. The seventh month corresponded to the end of our September and beginning of our October) that the Priest Zachary had the vision in the Temple; after which Elizabeth, his wife, conceived Saint John the Baptist: hence it follows that the Blessed Virgin Mary having, as the Evangelist Saint Luke relates, received the Angel Gabriel’s visit, and conceived the Saviour of the world in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, that is to say, in March, the Birth of Jesus must have taken place in the month of December.”
He develops this further to give the exact date by pointing to the unanimous opinion of the Roman Church that Our Blessed Mother’s purification occurred February 2, the fortieth day after the birth of Our Lord.
Sorry, Father, you have not proven your case by belittling the scholarship of Guerenger and citing an article that gives unsubstantiated criticism and another where after all the “evidence” is put forth the author says in effect, “I don’t know.” Guerenger was no pious simpleton. He cites Chrysostom and gives Biblical evidence to establish when Christ was born. Dates and times have always been “all that important” in the Church Calendar until after the Council when the “corrections” and revisions were made. I think we have to avoid adding to the doubt and confusion, which has in effect weakened the faith of many. Let’s not add to it with the skepticism of “We know Christ came at some point in history but we’re not sure when exactly. And besides it doesn’t matter anyway.”
Discipilus, the point of Clara’s post is not to discuss Dom Guerenger’s scholarship. Let’s be clear on that. That being said, I stand by my arguement and my opinions on the matter. Your arguements use Guerenger to defenend Guerenger. That would never stand up as valid in any academic setting. You say I have belittled the scholarship of Guerenger. If you say that you have not read what I have written. By dismissing the articles it shows you did not carefully read the articles written in the Catholic Encyclopedia which cite their sources at the bottom of each article. Have you checked out those sources? You have provided no other sources to back up your arguements.
I am quite willing to debate, but only in an academic and scholarly manner and only on the issue. My sense is that for some reason you feel the need to debate me and not the subject. Since this is neither my blog nor your blog I will not usurp it and continue this discussion unless it is done in a solidly scholarly and academic acceptable manner on the issue.
Yes, Father, I read the articles you cited and it wasn’t the first time for the one on Christmas. Like you, I too, lack an adequate library to check the sources cited but I take them on face value; it’s the assumptions the author makes and the conclusions he draws that are not convincing. For instance, he says that Cyril asked Pope Julius to set the true date and Julius set it at December 25. But since Cyril did not act on it, Julius never did it. Who knows why Cyril did not put it in place? There was certainly debate and opposition at the time as mentioned. I’m sure the facts that the author puts forward are not revelations never before known or considered by those who hold to December 25, among them Guerenger, Thomas Aquinal, Bede, and A Lapide.
Here is the authors Conclusion: “The present writer in inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date, the same instinct which set Natalis Invicti at the winter solstice will have sufficed, apart from deliberate adaptation or curious calculation, to set the Christian feast there too.” Why wouldn’t God use His material creation to point out the spiritual? Man sees it but God didn’t foresee it?
You desire other sources. Cornelius A Lapide in his commentary on Saint Luke 1: 24—After those days his wife conceived. “Elizabeth conceived about the 24th of September, on which day many Christian Churches celebrate the conception of John…Hence it seems that John was conceived about the time of the autumnal equinox, and born about the time of the summer solstice, after which the days decrease in length; while on the other hand, Christ was conceived at the vernal equinox, and born at the winter solstice, after which the days increase; because as John said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”
On verse 26—In the sixth month. “That is the sixth month from the conception of John…for from the 24th of September, when John was conceived, to the 25th of March, when Christ was conceived, there are six months. On verse 57—And she brought forth a son. “John the Baptist on June 24th; for then the Church keeps the yearly celebration of his birth…
In the Catena Aurea, Saint Thomas sees fit to cite Saint Bede: “…after the days of Zacharias’s ministration were completed. But these things were done in the month of September, the twenty second day of the month of September, upon which the Jews were bound to observe the feast of the Tabernacles, just before the equinox, at which the night began to be longer than the day, because Christ must increase, but John must decrease.” Again he cites Bede, “We must understand the sixth month to be March, on the twenty-fifth day of which our Lord is reported to have been conceived, and to have suffered, as also to have been born on the twenty-fifth day of December. But if either the one day we believe to be the vernal equinox, or the other the winter solstice, it happens that with increase of light He was conceived or born Who enlightens every man that cometh into the world.”
The Roman Martyrology for the 25th day of December is very precise in giving the year of the Nativity: five thousand one hundred and ninety nine from creation, from the flood, two thousand nine hundred and fifty seven; from the birth of Abraham, two thousand and fifteen, … in the one hundred and ninety fourth Olympiad, etc And after all that are we to say they got the day wrong?
Lex orandi est lex credendi: In the collect of Midnight Mass the priest prays O God, who has enlightened this most sacred Night by the brightness of him who is the true Light:” In the Secret for the second Mass: “May the offerings which we make, be agreeable to the mystery of this day’s Birth…” I know, Father, that you believe this to be referring to the event of Christ’s birth and not his birthday yet the Church has found fit to choose December 25th as the actual day or at least the one most likely to be the actual day. Do most people today and did most of the people in centuries past believe that the priest was referring to the actual day of Our Lord’s birth as these prayers were being said? I believe so.
Given that neither St. Bede, St. Thomas, Dom Guerenger, nor Cornelius a Lapide had access to the knowledge to which we now have access their scholarship cannot be used to prove Christ was born on December 25th or anything else in this discussion. If you are unable to prove your point using current knowledge and scholarship continuing this is pointless.
From “current knowledge and scholarship,” what do you know, Father? You are left in ignorance regarding when the Word was made flesh, ignorance regarding His birth, circumcision, the coming of the Magi, the Birth of John the Baptist and the Presentation of our Blessed Mother.
The article you provided wasn’t a total loss on me for I “learned” something new: “The presence of ox and ass (in the Nativity scene begun by Saint Francis) is due to a misinterpretation of Isaias i:3” This is current Modernist scholarship at its best.
Interesting that you can make such statements about me without knowing me. You are ignorant of what I do or do not know. One thing I do know which you have consistantly reinforced: I do not wish to be associated with traditionalists of your ilk who, in their closeed-minded self-righteousness, judge and condemn others contrary to the direct command of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is attitudes such as yours that drive people away from Christ and His Church. All you can do is parrot back the words of those whom you think are acceptable. That is the highest form of ignorance. “Even the Pharaisees do as much.” If you are unable, as you have shown you are, of solidly critiquing any theological dogma, doctrine or opinion it only shows you do not know the faith you claim to profess. Ignorance of the Faith is ignorance of Christ. Ignorance of Christ is death.
Friends, I’m sorry, but this discussion doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. I hope you don’t mind if I shut this thread down now.