Pope allegedly said Christmas calendar is wrong

[Walcot]

This gets a lot of people confused, but the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of MARY! …in preparation for her to be the Mother of God. This is dogma of the Church.

When and from whom did the immaculate conception belief come?

 

[GangGreen]

I bought this book, always good to read stuff from the Pope .

 

[ffg]

agree no one is forbiden, what is troubling is the Pope blames these errors on a delusional Monk back in 6th century., it begs the question what else is errant?

Doesn’t it really beg the question “What is important?”

Leave it to the MSM to bring up the unimportant.

Details such as this are asides, if animals were in the stable or not, if it was night time and it was a stable where there was hay stored, there were probably animals near.

There are baseball players today who don’t know their real birthday’s, so it’s not crazy to think 2000+ years ago the same could occur.

What is important is that the guy being talked about is the only person to rise from the dead, so he must be trustworthy.

Who cares if a monk or more err’d. Is it interesting, obviously it is to the Pope and those who like history, but history and revelations such as these are interesting at best, not game changers.

 

[JReducation]

agree no one is forbiden, what is troubling is the Pope blames these errors on a delusional Monk back in 6th century., it begs the question what else is errant?

He is not blaming anything. This has been a well known fact among priests, religious brothers and anyone who studied Christology and Bible History in the seminary. This was discovered during the late 1800s.

There are two things that we must keep in mind.

First:

There were many people who worked on the translation of the bible and the organization. St. Jerome was the master scholar, but he did not work alone and it was not a job that was completed over night. There are going to be mistakes in translations, nuances and small details.

Second:

We must avoid the temptation to deal with the bible as Fundamentalist Protestants deal with it. Their idea is that if the bible says that Noah accommodated a pair of every living animal in the world into a boat that was about the size of a large yacht that it is literally so. They don’t stop to think that the writer of the story live in a world that was much smaller than our own. He probably never went more 25 miles away from home. His knowledge of animals was limited by his geography. One has to take the scriptures as a whole, not in pieces. It is a story. The story of salvation. The story is true, but how it’s told includes many genres of literature, many languages, many cultures, and many people. For the early translators, this was on small task. They did not have access to the technology and historical knowledge that we have today.

Since the papacy of the now Venerable Paul VI, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish biblical scholars have been working closely. This was not the case before. They bring many gifts to the table. The Jewish scholars are very helpful in explaining what certain terms meant for the Jewish people or why a Jew would say this and not that. Sometimes we try to read the bible with our Western 21st century mind. That’s when we trip all over ourselves.

When a scholar such as Pope Benedict looks at it, he factors in many things that the average man in the pew does not factor in. He looks at history, language, anthropology, archaeology, theology, tradition, cultures and revelation. When he reads what all of these disciplines have to say about certain things, he can connect dots that we have not seen before. But in reality, he’s researching things that have been known by scholars and students of scripture and christology for a long time. A fundamentalist approach would not look at biblical science or at christology. He only looks at the text. That does not work. Each book is part of a story. Without the rest, one book or one chapter makes little or no sense.

We have to examine where this custom of animals in the manger began. It actually began in the 13th century. It was begun by Francis of Assisi. The scriptures do not say much about the manger. The details were added by St. Francis and the rest of the world followed them. That’s all. It does not add or take anything away from Revelation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

We have to examine where this custom of animals in the manger began. It actually began in the 13th century. It was begun by Francis of Assisi. The scriptures do not say much about the manger. The details were added by St. Francis and the rest of the world followed them. That’s all. It does not add or take anything away from Revelation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

I can not help but wonder if it became so popular because it makes sense and is true.
Father Francis was a genius, after all.

 

[patrick457]

He is not blaming anything. This has been a well known fact among priests, religious brothers and anyone who studied Christology and Bible History in the seminary. This was discovered during the late 1800s.

There are two things that we must keep in mind.

First:

There were many people who worked on the translation of the bible and the organization. St. Jerome was the master scholar, but he did not work alone and it was not a job that was completed over night. There are going to be mistakes in translations, nuances and small details.

Second:

We must avoid the temptation to deal with the bible as Fundamentalist Protestants deal with it. Their idea is that if the bible says that Noah accommodated a pair of every living animal in the world into a boat that was about the size of a large yacht that it is literally so. They don’t stop to think that the writer of the story live in a world that was much smaller than our own. He probably never went more 25 miles away from home. His knowledge of animals was limited by his geography. One has to take the scriptures as a whole, not in pieces. It is a story. The story of salvation. The story is true, but how it’s told includes many genres of literature, many languages, many cultures, and many people. For the early translators, this was on small task. They did not have access to the technology and historical knowledge that we have today.

Since the papacy of the now Venerable Paul VI, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish biblical scholars have been working closely. This was not the case before. They bring many gifts to the table. The Jewish scholars are very helpful in explaining what certain terms meant for the Jewish people or why a Jew would say this and not that. Sometimes we try to read the bible with our Western 21st century mind. That’s when we trip all over ourselves.

When a scholar such as Pope Benedict looks at it, he factors in many things that the average man in the pew does not factor in. He looks at history, language, anthropology, archaeology, theology, tradition, cultures and revelation. When he reads what all of these disciplines have to say about certain things, he can connect dots that we have not seen before. But in reality, he’s researching things that have been known by scholars and students of scripture and christology for a long time. A fundamentalist approach would not look at biblical science or at christology. He only looks at the text. That does not work. Each book is part of a story. Without the rest, one book or one chapter makes little or no sense.

We have to examine where this custom of animals in the manger began. It actually began in the 13th century. It was begun by Francis of Assisi. The scriptures do not say much about the manger. The details were added by St. Francis and the rest of the world followed them. That’s all. It does not add or take anything away from Revelation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

As always, Brother, well said.

Pardon me for butting in again but I believe that we’ve already known about it even before the 1800s. For one, James Ussher (1581-1656) dated the creation to 4004 BC because he believed that Jesus was born in 4 BC, and that exactly 4000 years must have elapsed between the two dates.

 

[Aramis]

When and from whom did the immaculate conception belief come?

In part, the Protoevangelium of James, which while not admitted to the canon of scripture, was not banned from Christian lore. It is generally dated around 150AD.

In part, the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 1. Which dates to between 60 and 100 AD.

In part, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, chapter three. Date unknown. Accordingly thy wife Anna will bring forth a daughter to thee, and thou shalt call her name Mary: she shall be, as you have vowed, consecrated to the Lord from her infancy, and she shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from her mother’s womb. She shall neither eat nor drink any unclean thing, nor shall she spend her life among the crowds of the people without, but in the temple of the Lord, that it may not be possible either to say, or so much as to suspect, any evil concerning her. Therefore, when she has grown up, just as she herself shall be miraculously born of a barren woman, so in an incomparable manner she, a virgin, shall bring forth the Son of the Most High, who shall be called Jesus, and who, according to the etymology of His name, shall be the Saviour of all nations.

In part, holy tradition from the 1st Century.

Note that neither the protevangellium nor the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary are scripture, but neither were proscribed, either. So both bear witness to the early Tradition of Mary’s grace-filled birth.

 

[Walcot]

In part, the Protoevangelium of James, which while not admitted to the canon of scripture, was not banned from Christian lore. It is generally dated around 150AD.

In part, the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 1. Which dates to between 60 and 100 AD.

In part, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, chapter three. Date unknown. Accordingly thy wife Anna will bring forth a daughter to thee, and thou shalt call her name Mary: she shall be, as you have vowed, consecrated to the Lord from her infancy, and she shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from her mother’s womb. She shall neither eat nor drink any unclean thing, nor shall she spend her life among the crowds of the people without, but in the temple of the Lord, that it may not be possible either to say, or so much as to suspect, any evil concerning her. Therefore, when she has grown up, just as she herself shall be miraculously born of a barren woman, so in an incomparable manner she, a virgin, shall bring forth the Son of the Most High, who shall be called Jesus, and who, according to the etymology of His name, shall be the Saviour of all nations.

In part, holy tradition from the 1st Century.

Note that neither the protevangellium nor the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary are scripture, but neither were proscribed, either. So both bear witness to the early Tradition of Mary’s grace-filled birth.

So, if it’s not part of scripture, is this belief a wholly Catholic one, or maybe a high church Anglican one? Is it obligatory for Catholics to believe? I would imagine a lot of people would have trouble with it…
You used the word proscribed - can you explain exactly what you mean by that? I have trouble understanding how so much belief is shaped by ‘Tradition’…there is obviously a different understanding in the Catholic church of that word with it’s capital letter, than the understanding that I have of it with a small t!

 

[Aramis]

So, if it’s not part of scripture, is this belief a wholly Catholic one, or maybe a high church Anglican one? Is it obligatory for Catholics to believe? I would imagine a lot of people would have trouble with it…
You used the word proscribed - can you explain exactly what you mean by that? I have trouble understanding how so much belief is shaped by ‘Tradition’…there is obviously a different understanding in the Catholic church of that word with it’s capital letter, than the understanding that I have of it with a small t!

The Immaculate conception of Mary is dogmatic - required belief - in that she was born full of grace and free of sin. She is affected by original sin, in that she suffered death, but essentially, was baptized by the Holy Spirit directly at her conception. In Roman theology, she is held to be free of the stain of original sin; in the east, such a distinction is unneeded.

Proscribed…

When the canon was established by St. Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria, in the 360’s, the Alexandrian canon was established. It listed specifically the books that were to be accepted in his suffragan dioceses - he prescribed them for liturgical use, instructing that only they were fit.

He also listed a great number of books that were proscribed (forbidden) from the faithful, tho’ that list is seldom discussed… amongst them, the Gnostic Gospels, and a few Gnostic Judaic scriptures. Because of his prohibition of these books, many copies were destroyed - a few were buried (and from these, we get the modern rediscovery of the anathematized Gnostic scriptures).

 

[Digitonomy]

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II will probably go down in history as the two most intellectual popes of the 20th century and the two popes who made the greatest contribution to Catholic theology and pastoral care during this century.

I will certainly be impressed if that turns out to be the case. As to the single most intellectual pope of the 20th Century, between the two of them my money would be on John Paul.

JReducation:

We have never claimed that Jesus Christ was born December 25th. December 25th is the liturgical commemoration of his birth, not his birthday.

I haven’t read the book as you have, and the OP doesn’t link to the original article. Does the book disavow that December 25th is the birth of Christ? If so, is this a change of view from his book “The Blessings of Christmas,” or was his meaning just misunderstood when we discussed the matter five years ago?

Luke set the date of Christmas?

 

[JReducation]

I will certainly be impressed if that turns out to be the case. As to the single most intellectual pope of the 20th Century, between the two of them my money would be on John Paul.I haven’t read the book as you have, and the OP doesn’t link to the original article. Does the book disavow that December 25th is the birth of Christ? If so, is this a change of view from his book “The Blessings of Christmas,” or was his meaning just misunderstood when we discussed the matter five years ago?

Luke set the date of Christmas?

When he was writing five years ago, he was coming at the subject from the perspective of Spiritual Theology. For the purpose of Spiritual Theology, December 25th works in order to explain the correlation between darkness and Christ as light of the world.

This time, he’s approaching the subject from the perspective of Christology. For Christology, December 25 does not work, but it is not historically accurate. Christology depends very heavily on history, anthropology, language, customs, oral tradition, scripture and science.

For the Spiritual Theologian, if the darkest night of the year fell on June 20, then that would work better to explain Christ as light. We would be happy to place the celebration of the Nativity on June 20th. The date serves as a backdrop for the message. It is not the message. It is a tool that enables us to understand the message by using contrast.

That’s the difference in the two pieces of writing put out by the Holy Father. That being said, he has said nothing about cancelling Christmas on Dec 25 as some in the media have implied. That implication is silly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Digitonomy]

When he was writing five years ago, he was coming at the subject from the perspective of Spiritual Theology. For the purpose of Spiritual Theology, December 25th works in order to explain the correlation between darkness and Christ as light of the world.

So in his previous book the Holy Father was not claiming the birth of Christ occurred on or around December 25, merely that it was a nice time of year to celebrate it?

 

[JReducation]

So in his previous book the Holy Father was not claiming the birth of Christ occurred on or around December 25, merely that it was a nice time of year to celebrate it?

He was not claiming that Jesus was born on or around December 25, but he was doing a lot more than saying that it was a “nice time of the year to celebrate it.” He was explaining the correlation that exists between cosmic darkness as we know it and spiritual darkness and how Jesus fills both the soul and the world with divine light. For those of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere, the darkness of the winter solstice reminds of the world’s darkness before the incarnation, cross and resurrection.

Since Christianity bloomed in the Northern Hemisphere, the winter solstice served as a strong reminder of darkness without Christ and being ransomed by the light of Christ which came into the world at the Nativity. As Christianity spread to the Southern Hemisphere, this imagery does not work for them. December is the warmest and lightest month of the year. The darkest and coolest month is June.

However, the early Christians did not know about the Southern Hemisphere or about the earth’s orbit around the sun. When they started to celebrate the Nativity on December 25, they were using their natural environment to help them explain the incarnation and Christ’s luminosity to the soul.

The Holy Father is not reducing it to a nice choice of date. He was explaining how this was an important choice for the spiritual life of the Church at that time.

There is a difference between spirituality and Christology. The latter uses revelation and reason to help the former understand God’s work in the soul. Spiritual Theology and Christology are complimentary disciplines, but not the same. In one work the Holy Father is doing Spiritual Theology and using the tools of that discipline. In this work, he’s doing Christology and using the tools of this discipline. Both disciplines are correct and lead to Truth; but only spirituality leads to holiness. Christology leads to understanding and knowledge.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Walcot]

When he was writing five years ago, he was coming at the subject from the perspective of Spiritual Theology. For the purpose of Spiritual Theology, December 25th works in order to explain the correlation between darkness and Christ as light of the world.

This time, he’s approaching the subject from the perspective of Christology. For Christology, December 25 does not work, but it is not historically accurate. Christology depends very heavily on history, anthropology, language, customs, oral tradition, scripture and science.

For the Spiritual Theologian, if the darkest night of the year fell on June 20, then that would work better to explain Christ as light. We would be happy to place the celebration of the Nativity on June 20th. The date serves as a backdrop for the message. It is not the message. It is a tool that enables us to understand the message by using contrast.

That’s the difference in the two pieces of writing put out by the Holy Father. That being said, he has said nothing about cancelling Christmas on Dec 25 as some in the media have implied. That implication is silly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

In that case, the southern hemisphere had better go for June 20th!

 

[Walcot]

The Immaculate conception of Mary is dogmatic - required belief - in that she was born full of grace and free of sin. She is affected by original sin, in that she suffered death, but essentially, was baptized by the Holy Spirit directly at her conception. In Roman theology, she is held to be free of the stain of original sin; in the east, such a distinction is unneeded.

Proscribed…

When the canon was established by St. Athanasius, Pope of Alexandria, in the 360’s, the Alexandrian canon was established. It listed specifically the books that were to be accepted in his suffragan dioceses - he prescribed them for liturgical use, instructing that only they were fit.

He also listed a great number of books that were proscribed (forbidden) from the faithful, tho’ that list is seldom discussed… amongst them, the Gnostic Gospels, and a few Gnostic Judaic scriptures. Because of his prohibition of these books, many copies were destroyed - a few were buried (and from these, we get the modern rediscovery of the anathematized Gnostic scriptures).

Thank you for that.
Tradition with a T…is that things outside scripture but held to be true by virtue of being believed by the early church and therefore ‘true’ now too?
I’m struggling with the idea of people having to believe all these little facts and details as literally real, which could be accepted by pre-Darwinian societies but not by educated people now…and anyway, am I not right in thinking scripture was not originally meant to be read ‘literally’? That’s why I put the word ‘true’ in inverted commas…Isn’t all this more philosophy and interpretation of scripture rather than belief in the actual reality of unknowable, tiny details? forgive me I’m having trouble putting this into words…but I know some people like to see everything literally and that’s a waste of time for me…the real top dog theologians in the Catholic church don’t all believe in, for example, perpetual physical virginity or a serpent tempting a newly created modern human (complete with fully formed language) do they?

 

[lvcabbie]

I think that Pope Benedict is finally acknowledging what historians have claimed for a very long time. The Romans conducted their censi in the summer months so I would have been probably that Joseph took Mary to his hometown in the summer.

As the church has done worldwide, certain rites were adopted from local religious customs in order to bring converts to the church.

Just conduct a search on the Saint Mary of Guadalupe to see how that was done and the major impact it have on conversion to the church in Mexico.

 

[JReducation]

In that case, the southern hemisphere had better go for June 20th!

Can you imagine Christmas twice in one year?

The Latin American Catholics have enough confusion. Most countries do their gift exchange at the Epiphany and do a nice family dinner at Christmas. Though the gift exchange is being influenced by the increased contact with North America.

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Aramis]

Thank you for that.
Tradition with a T…is that things outside scripture but held to be true by virtue of being believed by the early church and therefore ‘true’ now too?
I’m struggling with the idea of people having to believe all these little facts and details as literally real, which could be accepted by pre-Darwinian societies but not by educated people now…and anyway, am I not right in thinking scripture was not originally meant to be read ‘literally’? That’s why I put the word ‘true’ in inverted commas…Isn’t all this more philosophy and interpretation of scripture rather than belief in the actual reality of unknowable, tiny details? forgive me I’m having trouble putting this into words…but I know some people like to see everything literally and that’s a waste of time for me…the real top dog theologians in the Catholic church don’t all believe in, for example, perpetual physical virginity or a serpent tempting a newly created modern human (complete with fully formed language) do they?

They had better believe Mary remained a Virgin… that’s demanded belief from one of the Ecumenical Councils, and part of the deposit of faith as being a literal truth, and denial carries an anathema. (Even tho’ the Gospel merely notes that St. Joseph kept his hands off until after she’d given birth…)

 

[normbetland]

Here is a pretty convincing piece by Taylor Marshall at Canterbury Tales defending the Dec. 25 Nativity.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/12/dec-25-biblical-argument-of-birth-of.html

 

[JReducation]

Here is a pretty convincing piece by Taylor Marshall at Canterbury Tales defending the Dec. 25 Nativity.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/12/dec-25-biblical-argument-of-birth-of.html

While Taylor is very good at what he does, he is not Joseph Ratzinger. I have read both books, The Crucified Rabbi and the Infancy Narratives: Jesus of Nazareth. There are several details that one must keep in mind when comparing what these men say.

1. Taylor is not a theologian. He is a philosopher.
2. Taylor does not have the same theological background and experience as Benedict XVI.
3. There are doctrinal problems in The Crucified Rabbi. There are no doctrinal problems in Pope Benedict’s work. The doctrinal problems are subtle, but they’re there. It takes a theologian or an apologist to notice them. What they are is neither here nor there.
4. Taylor’s work is very good and I would recommend it to be read by any theologian or any trained apologist. I would recommend the Holy Father’s book with my eyes closed. It’s well written. It’s well documented. His sources are excellent. It’s based on Catholic tradition, including this whole question about Dec 25th. and it’s an easy read compared to some of his other works. By the way, it’s very short too.

At the end of the day, the Holy Father himself concludes that the date of Jesus’ birth is not an article of faith. The event itself is. My feeling is that those who are rattled by the question of the date of Jesus’ birth are shaken because of fear, anxiety or concern that the Church may have been wrong on something, which would beg the question whether the Church was wrong on other things.

To lay this concern to rest, I would mention that the Church celebrates the Nativity, not Jesus’ birthday. The date of Jesus’ birth is not a matter of doctrine. The Church can be wrong. The Church never claimed that he was born on December 25th. There has never been a formal decree that says so. Nor was this date held by Sacred Tradition. It is traditional, but not Tradition. Even if the Church had claimed that he was born on December 25th and it turns out to be wrong, the claim was never a doctrine. But the good part is that there is no such claim. The Holy Father explains why and does so very well.

Rather than find arguments against the idea that Jesus may have been born on a different date, it would be most helpful and quite enjoyable to read the book. It’s not expensive and I assure everyone who reads it that he or she will love it. I read it in two days. You can’t put it down. It reads like a sermon.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV