Pope allegedly said Christmas calendar is wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redeye
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
patrick457 said:
You’re calling Dionysus Exiguus, author of a treatise on elementary mathematics and translator and compiler of the canons of different Church councils, the “most learned abbot of the city of Rome” ‘delusional’? :eek:
Click to expand...
Well, The pope just corrected this 6th century Monk. Maybe math was not his forte
 
Redeye said:
has anyone claimed “forbidden”?

the point is that errors were made based on a blunder by a 6th century Monk. What else is errant for the past 1400 years?

It’s like the new missal that basically corrected the old missal.
Click to expand...
I honestly think you are making a bigger deal out of something relatively small. The fact that Christ was born 1 AD or 3 BC does not matter to our salvation - that fact that he was born at all is what is relevant!

We know he was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar (27 BC - 14 AD), and during the reign of King Herod (c. 37 - 4 BC). Some have suggested, however, that Herod died in 1 BC.
 
Within our faith there are Traditions with a large T that cannot be changed, like the belief in the immaculate conception, and there are traditions with a little t that are not necessary for the foundation of faith.

Christmas Caroles and many of the nativity scenes that are in circulation are simply traditions with a little t. They do not hinder our faith by causing us to believe differently that the church tells us, but they enrich our celebrations and are thus considered important.

History is very difficult to record. Even today with our mass media we have difficulty finding out exactly what happened and when because each viewer has a different interpretation of the events. I would not be overly concerned with WHEN it happened or if animals were involved, or if singing of the angels occurred. What is important is that Jesus was born, and the lessons and blessings he brought to the world.
 
Redeye said:
Well, The pope just corrected this 6th century Monk. Maybe math was not his forte
Click to expand...
No, the Pope here just repeated what virtually everyone (well, almost everyone) had known for some time now: namely, that Dionysus’ calculation was slightly off. You gotta cut Dionysus some slack: he lived in an age when there were no encyclopedias or websites to check his facts and dates from. For an ancient scholar working with not too many resources, his calculation is actually pretty good.

So yeah I might as well mention that Jesus probably wasn’t a Northern European man, and we don’t know whether He had long hair or not, or whether His ministry lasted three and a half years or not. Just keep bustin’ 'em. 😛
 
The_Scott said:
I honestly think you are making a bigger deal out of something relatively small. The fact that Christ was born 1 AD or 3 BC does not matter to our salvation - that fact that he was born at all is what is relevant!

We know he was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar (27 BC - 14 AD), and during the reign of King Herod (c. 37 - 4 BC). Some have suggested, however, that Herod died in 1 BC.
Click to expand...
Agree in that Christ was born and died for our sins is the big picture!

But to believe that there is not additional errors within Catholicism is as well foolish.,
 
Redeye said:
But to believe that there is not additional errors within Catholicism is as well foolish.,
Click to expand...
Such as what? What can be proven, such as historical dates, that will disprove Catholicism?
 
Dara said:
Within our faith there are Traditions with a large T that cannot be changed, like the belief in the immaculate conception, and there are traditions with a little t that are not necessary for the foundation of faith.

Christmas Caroles and many of the nativity scenes that are in circulation are simply traditions with a little t. They do not hinder our faith by causing us to believe differently that the church tells us, but they enrich our celebrations and are thus considered important.

History is very difficult to record. Even today with our mass media we have difficulty finding out exactly what happened and when because each viewer has a different interpretation of the events. I would not be overly concerned with WHEN it happened or if animals were involved, or if singing of the angels occurred. What is important is that Jesus was born, and the lessons and blessings he brought to the world.
Click to expand...
in all due respect., in all my years of teaching and learning about the Catholic faith I do not remember anyone saying that Tradition is two parts large T and Small t.

lets not make up new rules to cover up old errors
 
The_Scott said:
Such as what? What can be proven, such as historical dates, that will disprove Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Catholicism is not disproved- you are missing the point.

It just means odds of further errors is very likely.
 
Redeye said:
in all due respect., in all my years of teaching and learning about the Catholic faith I do not remember anyone saying that Tradition is two parts large T and Small t.

lets not make up new rules to cover up old errors
Click to expand...
They’re not ‘new’. The six-seven years I’ve been here in CAF I already keep hearing about them. I guess it really depends on how you define what is ‘new’.
 
Redeye said:
in all due respect., in all my years of teaching and learning about the Catholic faith I do not remember anyone saying that Tradition is two parts large T and Small t.

lets not make up new rules to cover up old errors
Click to expand...
Just because you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And these aren’t “new rules” in the least bit. :rolleyes:

Tradition with a capital T are, for example, what has been always taught by the Church Fathers on faith and morals not explicitly taught in the Bible. This includes the Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, etc. These Traditions are not man-made.

Then there are small t-traditions, such as wearing purple on Lent, or prayers before meals, or such things like that. These are obviously man-made to increase the piety of the people. Donkeys and animals in the Nativity scenes, or singing in the street in choir, are small-t traditions.
 
Redeye said:
It just means odds of further errors is very likely.
Click to expand...
And how would these errors affect Catholicism? Specific historical dates don’t matter to the teaching of the Catholic Church!
 
Redeye said:
in all due respect., in all my years of teaching and learning about the Catholic faith I do not remember anyone saying that Tradition is two parts large T and Small t.

lets not make up new rules to cover up old errors
Click to expand...
Really they should have done.

Let me correct that for you.😛

Tradition consists of two parts. Large T tradition, and small t tradition.

Large T - the Creed and the magisterium.👍
Small t - animals at the manager, three kings, Christmas day on Dec 25th.👍
 
triumphguy said:
REally they should have done.

Let mew correct that for you.

Tradition consists of two parts. Large T tradition, and small t tradition.

Large T - the Creed and the magisterium.
Small t - animals at the manager, three kings, Christmas day on Dec 25th.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don’t know any credible Catholic that celebrates Christmas in June., of course its Dec 25th
 
The_Scott said:
And how would these errors affect Catholicism? Specific historical dates don’t matter to the teaching of the Catholic Church!
Click to expand...
When we rely on the Mag and they are wrong for the past 1400 years that has potential to be troublesome if indeed other errors are uncovered.
 
Redeye said:
Sorry I don’t know any credible Catholic that celebrates Christmas in June., of course its Dec 25th
Click to expand...
You completely just missed the point (something you accused me of, incidentally).

We could celebrate Christmas on December 25, July 24 (my birthday! :D), April 12, or October 29, and it would not matter. What matters is that Christ’s birth is celebrated! The date of celebrating Christmas is not essential to the celebration of Christ’s birth itself.
 
Redeye said:
When we rely on the Mag and they are wrong for the past 1400 years that has potential to be troublesome if indeed other errors are uncovered.
Click to expand...
Problem in this statement, however:

Where did the Church definitively teach that Christ was born December 25, 1 AD? And I don’t mean something like, on Christmas Mass, Pope Benedict says, “Today we celebrate Christ’s birth.” That obviously refers to the celebration. What I mean is any pope or official, infallible document saying something like “This specific calender day, December 25, is the day that Christ was definitively born, in the year 1 AD.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top