How accurate is the liturgical calendar?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phinsbama
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

phinsbama

Guest
How accurate is the liturgical calendar to the actual events?
 
phinsbama said:
How accurate is the liturgical calendar to the actual events?
Click to expand...
Depends upon the actual events.

The dates of Easter, etc, are easy to determine because they are keyed to the Jewish Passover, which is tied to the lunar phase and the equinox, which anybody with a pair of eyes can verify. In practice, the Vatican Observatory determines these dates.

Christmas is more uncertain. The Scriptures do not tell us when in the year HE was born. So 12/25 may be accurate, or may be off.

ICXC NIKA
 
phinsbama said:
How accurate is the liturgical calendar to the actual events?
Click to expand...
For the most part, special feast days’ dates are not chosen for reasons of historical accuracy.

Easter Sunday, for instance, is a moveable feast, as is every feast that is calculated based on its date each year. Obviously there’s not even an attempt here to celebrate such feasts on the literal anniversary of the actual events they commeorate (Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, etc.), since their dates change every year.

Likewise with other major feasts. I don’t think we have any reason to believe that our Lord was born on December 25, our Lady was born on September 8, Saint John the Baptist on June 24, etc. I don’t think we have any reason to believe that the Transfiguration happened on an August 6, or that the Presentation of the Lord happened on February 2, etc.
 
1ke said:
Can you explain what you mean by this question? It doesn’t really make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I think he meant if events we commemorate on the calendar actually happened on the same date, i.e. was Christ really born on Dec. 25th; did St. Benedict really die on March 21st, etc.?
 
Digitonomy said:
Cardinal Ratzinger adhered to the view that Christ was born on December 25, although I think that view is not generally accepted by historians.
Click to expand...
I mean, I’m not saying He wasn’t born on December 25. He could very well have been. The logic in the link you provided is interesting, and is really cool if true.

Of course, it’s also mighty convenient that the date chosen for our celebration of the Nativity of the Lord is so close to the winter solstice… I suspect (though I’m no historian) that the choice of December 25 is strictly strategic.
 
Many of the most ancient feast dates were chosen because of the dedication of ancient churches on those days. But St. Benedict did die on 21 March, and most saints of his vintage and later we know their dates of death (“heavenly birthday”).
 
Digitonomy said:
Cardinal Ratzinger adhered to the view that Christ was born on December 25, although I think that view is not generally accepted by historians.

Luke set the date of Christmas?
Click to expand...
For the record, Pope Benedict did not say that 25th December was the specific date of birth. Rather, he said that because the Annunciation is celebrated on the 25th of March, we celebrate the Nativity on the 25th of December as it is clearly nine months after the Annunciation. Evidently, the particular variations of any pregnancy will change the specific number of days a child remains in the womb, but this is not about getting a specific date (indeed, such knowledge is probably lost to us), but about maintaining conceptual propriety. What’s wrong with a birth that occurs nine months after conception? 😃

In any case, what is the standard for historical accuracy? Is it more accurate to celebrate Easter on a specific date of a specific month in the calendar, which could potentially be a weekday, or to tie it to a Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox, as it was on the day our Lord was resurrected?
 
Dates of early martyrs’ deaths (their “dies natalis” or birthday) often came from court records of the Roman Empire. Local churches also kept tabs on when their martyrs and saints had died. They were proud of them and wanted their prayers; so they wanted to remember and gather for Masses at the tombs of the saints, or their death sites, on those days. Local compilations of dates called “martyrologies” started pretty early.

Of course, since Christian records were often destroyed or seized during persecutions, and since there were often a lot of key people killed, sometimes we don’t know much about people except names and dates. (And of course, sometimes people made up stories to fill the holes, with all the drama and lack of accuracy of a typical Hollywood historical flick.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top