Christmas Kalenda Proclamation

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

forgot that the Mass

The Liturgy of the Church shouldn’t proclaim things which are flatly contradicted by science. The world being 6k years old is flatly contradicted by science.

And I know what your response is going to be - “but Jesus rising from the dead and being present in the Eucharist contradicts science!” Actually, no, it doesn’t. Miracles are by there very nature outside the purview of the natural sciences. Natural science cannot say one way or another whether Jesus was born of a Virgin, etc.

Please put don’t words in my mouth that I didn’t say. Thanks.

However, in matters where natural science DOES have authority to speak - matters of astronomy and geology, for instance - the Church takes great pains to learn from them and not be at odds with them. Especially when you consider modern science, including the Big Bang Theory formulated by a Catholic priest, took form within the bosom of the Church.

It does seem to me that there is an amount of poetry in the readings and prayers
at Mass. I guess to me it doesn’t all have to have the feel of a textbook.

 

[ChristMyLife]

does seem to me that there is an amount of poetry in the readings and prayers
at Mass. I guess to me it doesn’t all have to have the feel of a textbook.

Absolutely, the whole Liturgical action of the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass is a Sacred Mystery.

But I was glad when the Church in her wisdom revised this text as She clearly saw the contradiction it had with the relative certainties ascertained by modern scientific endeavor.

 

[angel12]

Isn’t it kind of difficult to apply that principle when the text in question is literally spelling out exact numbers of years, and the genre of the text is a historical chronology?

I mean, how do you interpret “the creation of the world 5,199 years ago” any other way than the world was created 5,199 years ago?

You interpret it as poetic license, as speaking figuratively, as the way our long-ago ancestors thought before we had more scientific evidence . . .
Really, I don’t see the problem.

 

[ChristMyLife]

interpret it as poetic license, as speaking figuratively, as the way our long-

But applying a historical-critical hermeneutic renders that view untenable.

In the 16th century, they literally believed the earth was literally 6 or 7000 years old.

It’s not poetry, it’s a historical chronology, and interpreting it as poetry goes against the sound principles of historical critical understanding.

 

[OldCAFMember]

I would urge the OP to let this matter go. There are obviously strong feelings about it, and I won’t comment further except to say that the unusually strong tone of the OP and subsequent posts leaves little openness to the spirit of the matter. Most, both inside and outside the Church, will not feel nearly as strongly.

 

[ChristMyLife]

unusually strong tone of the OP and subsequent posts leaves little openness to the spirit of the matte

Let me take a gander…

You’re a young earther who feels I’m being intolerant?

I do feel strongly about this - young earthism is a pseudo scientific cancer in the Church which needs to be eradicated.

Nothing will drive large masses of people away from the Church faster than anti-intellectual pseudo science.

 

[ChristMyLife]

That’s A LOT to read.

I’ll try to unpack and reply to it later.

@(name removed by moderator) I know it will be good though… I like interacting with you. You’re neither easily offended or uncharitable… Somewhat rare for people on CAF Did I have an “unusually strong tone” in my OP?? I thought I wrote the OP with an irenic, balanced tone.

 

[ChristMyLife]

I can respect people who have doubts about the mechanisms of evolution, or even people who take an old earth creation or intelligent design stance on creation.

But young earth creation - the belief that the earth and universe are less than 10,000 years old - is literally contradicted by like 15 different independent scientific fields. Holding to the belief in a young earth is equally as asinine as holding to a flat earth or geocentrism. It’s literally absurd and you have to wholesale reject modern science to believe it.

 

[ChristMyLife]

My problem with that is it makes God a deceiver and makes nature unintelligible.

If God created the earth with every appearance and evidence of it being very old, yet it’s very young, it’s gonna take some mental gymnastics to say God isn’t duplicitous…

Next, if we can’t know nature by scientific study, then nature remains essentially unknowable, and all our science - including the fruits of it like internet and phones and computers, if we don’t want to be hypocritical - needs to be thrown out.

Someone who goes out to the wilderness and lives as a hermit while rejecting science has my respect, whereas I don’t respect the person who sits there and trashes science while enjoying all the benefits of science simultaneously.

I’m not good at philosophy, I’m more into theology. A good philosopher could give these arguments in a much more erudite fashion.

 

[twf]

I’ve encountered the belief, in certain fundamentalist Protestant circles, that it was Satan, not God, who deceived us by placing fabricated fossils etc around the world… at least that theory is more consistent with a God of truth lol…

 

[angel12]

In the 16th century, they literally believed the earth was literally 6 or 7000 years old.

And there is no reason for the fact that they believed that to bother me.

 

[ChristMyLife]

Protestant circles, that it was Satan, not God, who deceived us by placing fabricated fossils etc

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ChristMyLife]

And there is no reason for the fact that they believed that to bother me.

It doesn’t bother me that they believed that…

I wouldn’t expect otherwise, they had no real reason to believe otherwise. It wasn’t until the mid to late 19th century that an old earth was undeniable.

My whole point of the OP was that I was thankful for the wisdom of the Church.

 

[ChristMyLife]

I would love to have been a fly on the wall to see that…
“If the KJB was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, it’s good enough for me!”

Lord I’m sorry about that right there… That’s just wrong to laugh at rank ignorance.

 

[OraLabora]

Which version do you guys chant?

I asked the librarian (monk) I work with today. He says they use the modern one (French translation).

He said he preferred the modern; the old one can be misinterpreted as religious fundamentalism, in his opinion.

 

[ChristMyLife]

said he preferred the modern; the old one can be misinterpreted as religious fundamentalism, in his opinion.

Thanks friend, tell him thanks!

Those are my exact sentiments.

 

[TomH1]

Is that standard Benedictine monastic practice? I thought (and know I could very well be wrong) that it was proclaimed at the end of Matins of the Nativity, which, of course, is anticipated on the night of 24th immediately prior to Midnight Mass.

If your abbey is chanting it after Lauds on 24th December that is still Advent. I though the Kalenda was done at the start of the Nativity Octave. I also know it is from the Martyrology (which used to be read at Chapter immediately after Prime) and that is anticipated, i.e. saints and beati for, say, 2nd June are read out on 1st June.

I am not saying your abbey is wrong. I am certain it is not (they are the experts after all, not me). I am simply asking out of curiosity because I am trying to learn as much as I can about Benedictine monasticism. Sometimes, the more I learn the more complex it all becomes.

 

[OraLabora]

It’s actually according to the Rubrics of the Roman Martyrology, of which the proclamation of the Nativity is part of. The Martyrology (of which I have a copy, in Latin, the most recent editions which BTW I noted for chant), has rubrics for the recitation of the Martyrology as part of the Liturgy of the Hours either after Lauds, or one of the Minor Hours, or for recitation outside the Liturgy of the Hours. However the abbey does the Martyrology reading normally outside the LOTH, as one of the refectory readings before lunch, but they do the Nativity proclamation immediately after Lauds.

Yes, the Martyrology for any given saint or feast is always proclaimed by anticipation the day before.

This is one of those things that would not be specifically Benedictine, but would be in the Customarium of each individual abbey, since the rubrics of the Martyrology themselves allow latitude on when to proclaim the Martyrology (including the Nativity proclamation).

What is specifically Benedictine is the use of the Monastic martyrology, which emphasizes monastic saints and leaves out some minor non-monastic saints. It was published by Solesmes in 1977. Our abbey has recently updated it and re-issued it in its own private edition to include Canadian saints and newly-added saints. I have a copy and it’s what I use. I normally read my commented chapter of the Rule, and the next day’s Martyrology, just prior to Compline.

 

[TomH1]

Again I have learnt something new. It was my understanding the Benedictines did not have their own Martyrology and so instead used the Roman one. I have been looking at a lot of websites recently so cannot recall which one I read that on. As it was an easy fact to remember I did not bother noting the site as I believed it to be also true.

 

[OraLabora]

It’s long out of print alas. It’s listed on Amazon though:

https://www.amazon.com/Martyrologe-romain-Adaptation-française-monastique/dp/2852740524

It’s basically the Roman Martyrology translated to French, with monastic adaptations. I’d been scouring the 'net for years for a copy. Then when the abbey produced their own internal update, I was graciously given a copy of the PDF files and used my limited desktop publishing capabilities to publish it in booklet form, one booklet for each half of the year.

I also have the latest edition of the Roman Martyrology, it’s a beautiful bound large book with ribbons, in Latin.

You might guess from all this that I’m a bit of a liturgy geek…