Posted on 12/24/2015 10:12:48 AM PST by Steelfish
In his book, Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI explains:
"The claim used to be made that December 25 developed in opposition to the Mithras myth, or as a Christian response to the cult of the unconquered sun promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. However, these old theories can no longer be sustained. The decisive factor was the connection of creation and Cross, of creation and Christ’s conception." (p. 105-107).
Bravo, Pope Benedict XVI!
Wish Pope Benedict was still at the helm of the Catholic Church, not the self-promoting cynical secularist we currently have.
Is there a link? Thanks, and Merry Christmas! !
Will someone explain to me why Pope Benedict XVI quit and we got this socialist/Marxist from Argentina in his place?
Extract is from his book.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1378150850?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1
Christmas has nothing to do with pagan rituals! I’m so sick of this. Now, cut down a tree and put it in the living room, just like in Bethlehem. And don’t get me started on easter bunnies laying eggs. There’s nothing pagan to see here.
The rumor revolves around homosexuality and thievery.
Christmas trees were a German custom, not a universal Christian custom.
Steelfish:
I cited that text in another thread. The section on Christmas and how it came to get set on the Catholic Liturgical calendar is well worth the read. Easter, was the first thing fixed, and it was definitely celebrated in Rome early on, we have clear documented evidence it was celebrated during the time of Pope Victor (180AD) and when Saint Irenaus was Bishop in Lyon (modern France). March 25 was the Spring equinox in ROme till like 342. This Date, was seen as the date of Christ Death. Easter thus could not fall before it and no later than April 21, and it had to be on a Sunday. Some in the Eastern Church wanted it to be on the date it fell, regardless if it were a Sunday. THis led to a major dispute, but the Church of ROme’s view won the day at the Council of Nicea in 325. As early as Julius Africanus, his historical chronology written around 223 but the advent of the Lord on what would be March 25, this according to Him was His Incarnation, 9 months later, you get December 25.
Saint Clement of Alexandria in Stromates Book 1 Chapter 21 lists at least 4 or 5 different dates for Christmas, one being January 6, that a group in the East called Basillides celebrated the Birth of Christ as well (11th day of Month Tubi equals our January 6). You will also see in Saint Clement of Alexandria a reference to his Death being March 25. There is that date again. Pope Benedict in Spirit of the Liturgy speaks of how early Church Theologians used the theology of the “integral age” which posited that a prophets end of life (death) and beginning of life (birth/conception) was on the same date. Ultimately, 25 March, which was seen as the time of his death was also seen as his Conception (advent of the Lord). Adding 9 months gets us to December 25.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm
As we know now, Christmas is a Liturgical season starting December 25 through January 6.
Thanks. Agree.
Chrstmas gradually evolved as a part of the celebration of the "sanctification of the waters" on 1/6 before eventually being moved to 12/25. Up until recently I have never read any serious Catholic apologists insisting that J*sus was actually, literally born on 12/25. But now antipathy to Fundamentalist Protestants (most of whom celebrate the holiday) is leading to this ridiculous position.
Meanwhile these same people insist that Genesis 1-11 is mythology, Mordecai and Esther are references to false Babylonian "gxds," Daniel is a pseudepigraph, and the holidays celebrated by Jews--which the Bible says were given directly to Israel from the Mouth of G-d--are themselves gradual developments from earlier pagan festivals. Yet they insist that J*sus was really, literally born on 12/25.
Of course, tonight in almost every Catholic Church the celebrant will sing out "four thousand years after the creation of the world . . . " and not mean a word of it. These are after all the people who ask G-d to look down on their sacrifice as He did that of Abel even though they don't believe there ever was an Abel who made such a sacrifice.
So they pulled it out of their hat, using a theory based on their own imaginings, as much as anything...
An arbitrary methodology which had nothing much to do with actual truth of the issue (a precise date, or even season which the Messiah was born having not been known, or else lost from common knowledge fairly early on in the history of the wider Christian Church) and that resulted in a date which just so happened to coincide with pagan winter solstice festivals which otherwise were sought to be set aside, or else supplanted.
Jesus could just have just as easily been born at other some other time of year.
Thanks.
Many Freepers are not aware which statements a Pope makes are binding on the faithful and which are not. Jesus’ birthdate proclamations are not binding.
No need to start with me. I have no desire to discuss anything with you.
But they did not pull it out of the air. Julius Africanus and Saint Clement of Alexandria use the various calendars of their day and go back to the Greek Olympiad, dates of Roman Ceasars and Hebrew calendars and construct the time when CHrist was Crucified and incarnate. March 25th was seen as the date of his Incarnation. Nowhere in the early Church did Rome or anywhere else celebrate March 25th as Christmas. However, you add 9 months and you get December 25.
The theory that December 25 was co-opted by the Rome to set a Christian feast over a pagan one is a theory posited by a German Higher Critic protestant. The early Romans till the 3rd century had their sun holidays in August, not December, it wasn’t till the time of Aurelian around 274 that December 25 was used. Thus, it is more the case that the pagan emperor was trying to get the pagan Romans a day to battle the growing Christian feasts.
No Church Father argued setting Christmas on 25 December to co-opt the pagan holiday to Christmas. The Church set their important Feast using a theology from the Churches faith.
Nobody is claiming he was literally born there, although there is a plausible theory he was. Christmas is a Liturgical Season that runs 25 December to 6 January. Given the differences in calendars in that era, very difficult to get it exactly, but 25 December has a strong case based on much of the historical chronologies of the early Church Fathers going back to the 2nd century. Saint CLement of Alexandria in Stromates Book 1 Chapter 21 lays out some 4 or 5 days that Christmas was celebrated, one being January 6. He also states that 25 March was believed to be the date of his death, which is supported by Tertullian as well. Julius Africanus, using the notion that the 25 March was the crucifixion which coincided with the creation of the word, etc, did a historical chronology which put Christ advent (Incarnation at 25 March), which if you add 9 months gets you to December 25. He was writing around 220 AD, well before Aurelian in 274 started a 25 December holiday.
And that is where We are totally different dates on a calendar are morally neutral. THey are just dates. What someone does on a date is not important to me. What is important is why the early Church using its own theological tradition came up with setting important liturgical celebrations on certain dates. They did it using their own theology, not the beliefs of pagans.
In other words, you are making a claim on the basis of a Biblical literalism you reject and condemn and "un-Catholic."
The Torah plainly states that G-d gave Israel its holy days directly. Do you accept this, or do you believe they "evolved" over time, even as you in part deny that chrstian holidays did the same?
And something I would really like to know: how can a Catholic priest actually pray invoking a sacrifice he actually believes was mythological? How can the celebrant sing the chronology of world history leading up to the birth of Chr*st while believing it is all simple-minded hogwash which we "now know" was never true?
Praying vain prayers and vain blessings in this manner is a very severe transgression--a form of using G-d's Name in vain, since He is being called as a witness of events the person offering the prayer denies ever happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.