i Catholic
Compiled by and comments supplied by Pat Miron
The [TRUE] Story of Christmas”
Introduction: Quoted from “The Life of Christ” by Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
“Bethlehem became a link
between heaven and earth: God and man met here and looked each other in the
face. In taking on human flesh, the Father prepared for it, the Spirit formed
it, and the Son assumed it.
He Who had His birth in
Bethlehem came to be born into the hearts of men. For, what would it profit if
He was born a thousand times in Bethlehem unless He was born again in man?
No man can love anything
unless he can get his arms around it, and the cosmos is too big and bulky. But
once God became a babe and was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a
manger, men could say, “This is Emmanuel,
God with us.”
Only two classes of people
found the babe; the Sheppard’s and the Wise men; the simple who knew nothing
and those who knew that they did not know everything. He is never seen
by the man of one book; never by the man who think he knows. Not even God can
tell the proud anything! ….. Only
the humble can find God.
[The name “Jesus” means ’”Savior” ] Once He
received this name, Calvary become completely part of Him. The shadow of the
Cross that fell on His cradle also covered His naming. This was The Fathers
business; everything else would be incidental to it…. It is hard for humanity to understand the
humility that was involved in the Word becoming flesh….. End of introduction.
The Incarnation was not
necessary; God could have chosen another way; one requiring fewer Sacrifices of
Him, of His Son, and Far Less humility. A more Majestic appearance would have
better befitted our Lord’s coming. Perhaps more would have paid attention; have
listened, and obeyed?
Isaiah 55: 8-9 “
For
my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the
LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Anyone who with a
sincere heart seeks the truth., [a logical requirement in order to find it]
MUST understand what common sense dictates; that there can [and is] only ONE truth
per issue.
Stories of the Origins of
the Christmas celebration are many and have recently [again] come under attack,
so it seems prudent to share with you the Christian Origins for the DATE of
December 25th., as well as a bit of our Church history to go with
it.
Our source is the Catholic Encyclopedia. …. WHY this source ?
Because Christmas has
it’s origins in the Faith Practices of the Only Church, Only Faith founded by
Jesus Himself. There is no more qualified Teacher than the CC on it’s own history.
In this months Mormon
“AWAKE Magazine”
there feature is the “Christian [read as Protestant] Truth about
Christmas.” The most outrageous claim is that the Origin is from Pagan Roman
festivals. To them is seems a “big deal” that Christ was NOT factually Born on
December 25th. [A FACT the CC readily admits,] because the date from
2,000 years ago cannot with absolute certainty, be determined. [The Hebrew
Calendar and Roman Calendars were calculated in vastly different manners.]
What our Mormon friends
fail to comprehend is that the date is of NO
significance; it is the practice of the Joyful celebration that is
the important issue. The Celebration of “God is WITH US!“ that merit’s a Christmas focus. Further
as a CC PRACTICE it need not be biblically based, because Christ gave to His
One Church, through Peter and the Apostles complete and unlimited authority to
Govern the Church after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. [See Mt. 16:15-19 and Mt. 18:18]. Affirmed from Strong’s lexicon of Hebrew and Greek; the
terms “to Bind” and “to Loose,” deal specifically and precisely with the
authority of Governance. These terms were so common and often used in the time
of Christ Visitation, that everyone understood them; and they were even
enforceable in Jewish Courts of law.
Similarly,
they make an issue of the number of wise-men. And again the number is not the important issue [Genesis say’s the Universe was Created
in 6 days…. It may well have been six seconds, or 6,000 years…. NOT important. Creation itself is the main issue!] No-one
was there to witness it but God himself. God WILLED it into being from
nothing. That is the message.
They claim the
star that led the “wise men” to first Jerusalem, then to Bethlehem, was Satanic
in Origin. How silly. WHY would Satan led anyone to Christ? Inconceivable logic. As we have often
shared; numbers in the bible OFTEN and regularly have more than a single
meaning. They are far more GUIDES, than historical FACTS.
They then go
on to expound on this Roman [drunken] festival.
Pointing out that is NOT what Christ wants. AMEN BROTHER! It’s not what the Church wants or teaches
either. There are
simply more distortions and partial truths to address than merit the effort. So
I’ll stop here and get back to this weeks instruction of our Catholic Faith.
It seems a
very prudent practice that if one intends to criticize another religion that at
the very least they would go to a responsible source for there information. Not
doing so seems somewhat disingenuous.
Origin of the word
The word for
Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038, and Cristes-messe, in 1131. In Dutch it is Kerstmis, in Latin Dies
Natalis, whence comes the French Noël, and Italian Il natale; in German Weihnachtsfest,
from the preceeding sacred vigil. The term Yule is of disputed origin.
It is unconnected with any word meaning "wheel". The name in
Anglo-Saxon was geol, feast: geola, the name of a month (cf. Icelandic iol a feast in December).
Early celebration
Christmas was not
among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable
imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still
ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods.
Alexandria
The first
evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata
I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not
the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May)
in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought
they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was
born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April).
With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De
paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day
the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc.
del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which
respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on
15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January). At any rate this double commemoration became
popular, partly because the apparition to the shepherds was considered as one
manifestation of Christ's glory, and was added to the greater
manifestations celebrated on 6 January; partly because at the baptism-manifestation many codices (e.g. Codex Bezæ) wrongly give the Divine words as sou
ei ho houios mou ho agapetos, ego semeron gegenneka se (Thou art my beloved
Son, this day have I begotten thee) in lieu of en soi eudokesa (in thee
I am well pleased), read in Luke
3:22. Abraham Ecchelensis (Labbe, II, 402) quotes the Constitutions
of the Alexandrian Church for a dies Nativitatis et Epiphaniæ in Nicæan
times; Epiphanius (Hær., li, ed. Dindorf, 1860, II, 483) quotes an
extraordinary semi-Gnostic ceremony at Alexandria in which, on the night of 5-6 January, a
cross-stamped Korê was carried in procession round a crypt, to the chant, "Today at this hour
Korê gave birth to the Eternal"; John
Cassian records in his
"Collations" (X, 2 in P.L., XLIX, 820), written 418-427, that the Egyptian monasteries still observe the "ancient
custom"; but on 29 Choiak (25 December) and 1 January, 433, Paul of Emesa preached before Cyril of Alexandria, and his sermons (see Mansi, IV, 293; appendix to Act. Conc. Eph.) show that the December celebration was
then firmly established there, and calendars prove its permanence. The December feast
therefore.
Cyprus,
Mesopotamia, Armenia, Asia Minor
In Cyprus, at the end of the fourth century,
Epiphanius asserts against the Alogi (Hær., li, 16, 24 in P.G., XLI, 919, 931)
that Christ was born on 6 January and baptized on 8 November. Ephraem Syrus (whose hymns belong to Epiphany, not to Christmas) proves that
Mesopotamia still put the birth feast thirteen days after the winter solstice;
i.e. 6 January; Armenia likewise ignored, and still ignores, the
December festival. (Cf. Euthymius, "Pan. Dogm.", 23 in P.G., CXXX,
1175; Niceph., "Hist. Eccl,", XVIII, 53 in P.G., CXLVII, 440; Isaac, Catholicos of Armenia in eleventh or twelfth century,
"Adv. Armenos", I, xii, 5 in P.G., CXXII, 1193; Neale, "Holy
Eastern Church", Introd., p. 796). In Cappadocia, Gregory of Nyssa's sermons on St. Basil (who died before 1 January, 379) and the
two following, preached on St. Stephen's feast (P.G., XLVI, 788; cf, 701, 721),
prove that in 380 the 25th December was already celebrated there, unless,
following Usener's too ingenious arguments (Religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen, Bonn, 1889, 247-250), one were to place those sermons in 383.
Also, Asterius of Amaseia (fifth century) and Amphilochius of Iconium (contemporary of Basil and Gregory) show that in their dioceses both the feasts of Epiphany and Nativity were separate (P.G., XL, 337
XXXIX, 36).
Jerusalem
In 385, Silvia of
Bordeaux (or Etheria, as it seems clear she should be called) was profoundly
impressed by the splendid Childhood feasts at Jerusalem. They had a definitely
"Nativity" colouring; the bishop proceeded nightly to Bethlehem, returning to Jerusalem for the day
celebrations. The Presentation was celebrated forty days after. But this
calculation starts from 6 January, and the feast lasted during the octave of
that date. (Peregr. Sylv., ed. Geyer, pp. 75 sq.)
Again (p. 101) she mentions as high festivals Easter and Epiphany alone. In 385, therefore, 25 December was
not observed at Jerusalem. This checks the so-called correspondence
between Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) and Pope Julius I (337-352), quoted by John of Nikiû (c. 900) to convert Armenia to 25 December (see P.L., VIII, 964
sqq.). Cyril declares that his clergy cannot, on the single feast of Birth and
Baptism, make a double procession to Bethlehem and Jordan. (This later practice
is here an anachronism.) He asks Julius to assign the true date of the nativity "from census
documents brought by Titus to Rome"; Julius assigns 25 December.
Antioch
In Antioch, on
the feast of St. Philogonius, Chrysostom preached an important sermon. The year
was almost certainly 386, though Clinton gives 387, and Usener, by a long
rearrangement of the saint's sermons, 388 (Religionsgeschichtl.
Untersuch., pp. 227-240). But between February, 386, when Flavian ordained Chrysostom priest, and December is ample time for the preaching
of all the sermons under discussion. (See Kellner, Heortologie, Freiburg, 1906,
p. 97, n. 3). In view of a reaction to certain Jewish rites and feasts,
Chrysostom tries to unite Antioch in celebrating Christ's birth on 25 December, part of the
community having already kept it on that day for at least ten years. In the
West, he says, the feast was thus kept, anothen; its introduction into
Antioch he had always sought, conservatives always resisted. This time he was
successful; in a crowded church he defended the new custom. It was no novelty;
from Thrace to Cadiz this feast was observed — rightly, since its miraculously rapid diffusion proved its genuineness
Rome
At Rome the earliest evidence is in the
Philocalian Calendar (P.L., XIII, 675; it can be seen as a whole in J.
Strzygowski, Kalenderbilder des Chron. von Jahre 354, Berlin, 1888), compiled
in 354, which contains three important entries. In the civil calendar 25 December is marked
"Natalis Invicti". In the "Depositio Martyrum" a list of
Roman or early and universally venerated martyrs, under 25 December is found "VIII kal. ian. natus Christus in
Betleem Iudeæ". On "VIII kal. mart." (22 February) is also
mentioned St. Peter's Chair. In the list of consuls are four
anomalous ecclesiastical entries: the birth and death days of Christ, the entry into Rome, and martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul. The significant
entry is "Chr. Cæsare et Paulo sat. XIII. hoc. cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus
est VIII Kal. ian. d. ven. luna XV," i.e. during the consulship of (Augustus) Cæsar and Paulus Our Lord Jesus Christ was born on the eighth before the calends
of January (25 December), a Friday, the fourteenth day of the moon. The details
clash with tradition and possibility. The epact, here XIII, is normally XI; the year is
A.U.C. 754, a date first suggested two centuries later; in no year between 751
and 754 could 25 December fall on a Friday; tradition is constant in placing Christ's birth on Wednesday. Moreover the date
given for Christ's death (duobus Geminis coss., i.e.
A.D. 29) leaves Him only twenty eight, and one-quarter years of life. Apart
from this, these entries in a consul list are manifest interpolations. But are
not the two entries in the "Depositio Martyrum" also such? Were the
day of Christ's birth in the flesh alone there found, it
might stand as heading the year of martyrs' spiritual natales; but 22 February
is there wholly out of place. Here, as in the consular fasti, popular
feasts were later inserted for convenience' sake. The civil calendar alone was not added to,
as it was useless after the abandonment of pagan festivals.
Origin of date: The gospels
Concerning
the date of Christ's birth the Gospels give no help; upon their data contradictory
arguments are based.
The census would have been impossible in winter: a whole population could not
then be put in motion. Again, in winter it must have been; then only field
labour was suspended. But Rome was not thus considerate. Authorities
moreover differ as to whether shepherds could or would keep flocks exposed
during the nights of the rainy season.
Other theories of pagan origin
The origin of
Christmas should not be sought in the Saturnalia (1-23 December) nor even in
the midnight holy birth at Eleusis (see J.E. Harrison, Prolegom., p. 549) with
its probable connection through Phrygia with the Naasene heretics, or even with the Alexandrian ceremony quoted above; nor yet in rites analogous to
the midwinter cult at Delphi of the cradled Dionysus, with his revocation from
the sea to a new birth (Harrison, op. cit., 402 sqq.).
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.
Liturgy and custom: The calendar
The fixing of
this date fixed those too of Circumcision and Presentation; of Expectation and, perhaps, Annunciation B.V.M.; and of Nativity and Conception of the Baptist (cf. Thurston in Amer. Eccl. Rev.,
December, 1898). Till the tenth century Christmas counted, in papal reckoning, as the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, as it still does in Bulls; Boniface
VIII (1294-1303) restored
temporarily this usage, to which Germany held longest.
Popular merry-making
Codex
Theod., II, 8, 27 (cf. XV, 5,5) forbids, in 425, circus games on 25 December;
though not till Codex Just., III, 12, 6 (529) is cessation of work imposed. The Second Council of Tours (can. xi, xvii) proclaims, in 566 or 567,
the sanctity of the "twelve days" from
Christmas to Epiphany, and the duty of Advent fast; that of Agde (506), in canons 63-64, orders a universal
communion, and that of Braga (563) forbids fasting on Christmas Day. Popular merry-making,
however, so increased that the "Laws of King Cnut", fabricated c.
1110, order a fast from Christmas to Epiphany.
Summation: by Pat
Miron
The date of
Christ Birth while historically significant, is of far less importance than the
Celebration of the Incarnation itself. Of far greater significance than a date,
is the Fact that Almighty God willingly, even gladly, assumed human mortality;
associating with His Created on “an equal footing,” and doing so in-order to
soon die for our Redemption. Gaining for us once again Possible assess
to heaven.
One can
easily get so carried away with the search for historical evidence of date, that the sublime Majesty and immensity
of the occasion,
is foreshadowed by the hunt for the date; making it; Not Christ Birth, the
Center of interest; the focal point. Such efforts are foolish in the extreme.
This debate
ought to prepare us for the extremes competing “religious philosophies” will
employ in there [necessary] efforts to discredit Jesus Christ, and His One and ONLY TRUE Church.
Eph. 2:19-20 ; & Eph. 4: 4
-8 … ONLY ONE New Faith; Only one New Church and Only One New
Covenant was God’s continuing GIFT to humanity from the Incatrnation. Some
accept it; many don’t even bother to “unwrap” this most precious sign of God’s
LOVE for us. …… Know, Live and Love what God
has given to us. Faith is a direct Gift from God…Use it or LOSE it!
Truth can
be ignored, denied, altered; but NEVER changed. What is True remains True.
Joy to the World! The
Lord; Our Lord is
come! Give Thanks and remember!
God’s continued Blessings
dear friends.
Pat
No comments:
Post a Comment