Why is Mary's birth not celebrated as it should?

[Alma]

I wonder why the Church celebrates Mary’s birthday as a ‘feast’ and not as a ‘Solemnity’.(I am not sure these are the correct terms in English, in Spanish they are: fiesta y Solemnidad).

I noticed that the Church celebrates John the Baptist’s birthday:cake: as a Solemnity, with two different Masses (one for the night before, and the other one for the actual day ). I am not saying John the Baptist should not be celebrated in such a way, but it baffles me that the birthday of Mary, Mother of God, on September 8 is not given the special treatment it deserves!! :clapping: :bowdown2:
!:harp:

Any comments on this please?

Alma

 

[benedictgal]

I wonder why the Church celebrates Mary’s birthday as a ‘feast’ and not as a ‘Solemnity’.(I am not sure these are the correct terms in English, in Spanish they are: fiesta y Solemnidad).

I noticed that the Church celebrates John the Baptist’s birthday:cake: as a Solemnity, with two different Masses (one for the night before, and the other one for the actual day ). I am not saying John the Baptist should not be celebrated in such a way, but it baffles me that the birthday of Mary, Mother of God, on September 8 is not given the special treatment it deserves!! :clapping: :bowdown2:
!:harp:

Any comments on this please?

Alma

Perhaps the Church regards the Immaculate Conception of Mary as significantly more important than her actual birth because this special singular grace from God is what set the wheels in motion.

She was conceived free from the stain of original sin due to the foreseen merits of her Son’s passion, death and resurrection. That is not to discount the birth of Mary. It’s just that, perhaps, in this case, the conception is more important than the birth because it is miraculous in how it came about.

 

[Alma]

You may have a point there…still, surely Mary’s birthday is not less important than John the Baptis’s birthday, and if his is celebrated solemnly, why not hers?, after all if she had not been born, the miraculous conception would not have happened.

Alma

 

[bpbasilphx]

I wonder why the Church celebrates Mary’s birthday as a ‘feast’ and not as a ‘Solemnity’.(I am not sure these are the correct terms in English, in Spanish they are: fiesta y Solemnidad).

It may be only of secondary importance in the LATIN Chuch, but in the BYZANTINE Church, 8 September, the Nativity of the Theotokos, is one of the 12 Great Feasts.

 

[benedictgal]

You may have a point there…still, surely Mary’s birthday is not less important than John the Baptis’s birthday, and if his is celebrated solemnly, why not hers?, after all if she had not been born, the miraculous conception would not have happened.

Alma

But remember, conception happens before birth. It is not the other way around. Mary’s birth was foretold by one of the prophets, as indicated in the Old Testament reading used on the feast of her Nativity.

Now, in the case of the birth of St. John the Baptist, the circumstances were very different. His was a miraculous conception, but, he was still conceived with original sin.

Furthermore, John’s birth indicated that he had to precede the Messiah. His role was also foretold by the prophets. John is the forerunner of Jesus. He had an entirely different role than Mary’s.

The Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Conception is Church dogma. Furthermore, Mary referred to herself as such when she appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes (whose feast we mark today).

Now, having said that, there is nothing that would preclude your parish from having a special celebration in her honor on September 8th. If you also recall, seven days later, the Church celebrates the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.

Something else that is interesting to note is that the Church also celebrates the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This, too, is part of the Church’s doctrine and dogma. Why? Just as Mary received a singular privilege at the moment of her conception, when she, through the foreseen merits of her Son, was conceived free of original sin, Jesus gave her the singular privilege of being assumed body and soul into heaven. Jesus ascended to heaven on his own power. He assumed his Mother into heaven using his power. As far as I know, Jesus and Mary are the only ones who aer in heaven body and soul.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It is the HMC’s choice in how this is celebrated - and in light of that how can say it is not celebrated ‘as it should?’

Also - aren’t there others from the OT who were taken body and soul into heaven?

 

[THurifer2]

Also - aren’t there others from the OT who were taken body and soul into heaven?

We are not sure what happened to Elijah or Enoch…but we do know what Christ has said about who has gone to heaven…

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

We are not sure what happened to Elijah or Enoch…but we do know what Christ has said about who has gone to heaven…

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Even if they went body and soul into the Bosom of Abraham that was opened by Jesus - are they, as well as some others from the OT considered saints?

 

[Brother_John]

We are not sure what happened to Elijah or Enoch…but we do know what Christ has said about who has gone to heaven…

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Elijah, Enoch, and Mary must all be in Limbo then…

all joking aside…It seems a bit presumptious to state that “Mary’s birth is not celebrated as it should be”…we venerate Mary to the point that non-Catholics frequently accuse us of “Mary worship”.

How “Should” Mary’s birthday be celebrated? However the HMC deems appropriate.

 

[THurifer2]

Elijah, Enoch, and Mary must all be in Limbo then…

.

The quotation comes from Jesus…he said this before his crucifixion which obviously was before Mary’s assumption…

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The quotation comes from Jesus…he said this before his crucifixion which obviously was before Mary’s assumption…

Hmm - so is it really an appropriate quote?

 

[Brother_John]

Well, it certainly contradicts scriptural belief that Enoch and Elijah were taken up, does it not?

 

[twf]

I think the point is that in the case of Mary her Immaculate Conception is what really matters…it was a singular grace. Her birth is very important, and thus is celebrated by a feast (just one rank below a solemnity), but her Conception is all that much more important. In the case of St. John the Baptist, he was conceived naturally (that is, with original sin), but filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. So when St. John was born he was free of original sin. I think for that reason St. John’s birth is of particular significance.

 

[benedictgal]

I think the point is that in the case of Mary her Immaculate Conception is what really matters…it was a singular grace. Her birth is very important, and thus is celebrated by a feast (just one rank below a solemnity), but her Conception is all that much more important. In the case of St. John the Baptist, he was conceived naturally (that is, with original sin), but filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. So when St. John was born he was free of original sin. I think for that reason St. John’s birth is of particular significance.

Although I can’t say for certain, but I think that John experienced the Holy Spirit (while still in St. Elizabeth’s womb) at the moment Mary (and the child Jesus in her womb) arrived at Zeccariah’s house. That was when St. John leaped in his mother’s womb over the fact that the savior was right there. I think that initial encounter with Jesus (along with the Holy Spirit) is what perhaps purified John.

One thing to remember: the Church rarely celebrates the birth of someone. There are only three births She observes: the nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the nativity of St. John the Baptist, and, of course, the Nativity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Perhaps this quote from Pope Benedict XVI (taken from teh Benedictus book) will help bring things into perspective:

Mary’s birthday is exceptional among the feasts in which honor is paid the saints, in that the Church usually does not celebrate the day of birth. The Church’s practice was quite different here from that of pagan Greece or Rome, where the birthday of a great man, a Caesar or an Augustus, for example, was celebratede with great pomp as a day of redemption. The Church always argued that it was premature to celebrate the birthday because the rest of the life of the person born on that day was subject to such ambiguity. It was, in other words, impossible to predict the answers to certain questions simply on the basis of a person’s birthday… No, the Church has always celebrated the day of death, believing that it is only possible to celebrate a person’s life when he has passed beyond that life into death and judgment. Mary was the gate through which He came into the world adn not simply the external gateway. Her soul was the space from which God was able to gain access into humanity. Unlike the great and mighty ones of this earth, Mary, the believer who bore the light of God in her heart, was able to play her vital part in changing the very foundation of the world.

Although he doesn’t explicitly mention her Immaculate Conception, the Holy Father’s comments can also apply to December 8th.

 

[Alma]

Eilish Maura and Brother John are right. I apologize!

I did not mean to sound presumptious:ehh: , which is exactly how the ‘it should’ sounds. :banghead: As you may have noticed my English is not very good, in fact it took me a little while to decipher what ‘HMC’ means (Holy Mother Church, right?).
My concern is due to my love for Mary and in no way did I meant to disrespect our HMC.
It is only that as I said, I wondered why John the Baptist’s Birthday was a Solemnity and Mary’s Birthday a feast.
But with all the good explanations you kindly offered (specially Benedictgal) I understand the possible motivations for this.

Thanks!:tiphat:



Alma

 

[benedictgal]

Eilish Maura and Brother John are right. I apologize!

I did not mean to sound presumptious:ehh: , which is exactly how the ‘it should’ sounds. :banghead: As you may have noticed my English is not very good, in fact it took me a little while to decipher what ‘HMC’ means (Holy Mother Church, right?).
My concern is due to my love for Mary and in no way did I meant to disrespect our HMC.
It is only that as I said, I wondered why John the Baptist’s Birthday was a Solemnity and Mary’s Birthday a feast.
But with all the good explanations you kindly offered (specially Benedictgal) I understand the possible motivations for this.

Thanks!:tiphat:



Alma

Alma, you’re quite welcome.

Something else that you might want to make note of is the fact that in Mexico, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe is a solemnity and also a larger feast than the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and even the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. Oddly enough, there is the tradition of singing Las Mananitas to Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12th at midnight. For those of you who are not familiar, Las Mananitas is the traditional Mexican Happy Birthday Song. In Mexico City, the faithful sing this to the Blessed Mother at the Basilica during the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe with a full blown Mariachi band. But, there is no tradition for doing this on September 8th.

I say this to offer you a little bit of perspective, since you live in perhaps one of the most Marian countries in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[drafdog]

I’m not sure what the problem is here. Is it that you think something has changed in the celebration of the feast? Looking at my daily missal printed in 1959, I find for 8 Sep the notation that this is “Dbl 2nd Class.” There is also a memorial of another saint for the same day whose feast may be celebrated in place of the Marian feast. So you see, if anything, the feast has gained in stature since the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council.

Matthew

 

[AJV]

I had typed this out and then my PC shut down :banghead: Please excuse the length

I wonder why the Church celebrates Mary’s birthday as a ‘feast’ and not as a ‘Solemnity’.

I noticed that the Church celebrates John the Baptist’s birthday as a Solemnity, with two different Masses (one for the night before, and the other one for the actual day ). I am not saying John the Baptist should not be celebrated in such a way, but it baffles me that the birthday of Mary, Mother of God, on September 8 is not given the special treatment it deserves!!

I can think of two reasons. One is as was mentioned above. St. John the Baptist was born immaculate- free from original sin - which is one of the reasons for such solemnity. The feast of our Lady that is analogous is the Immaculate Conception – she was conceived immaculate.

The second reason is historical. Until roughly the mid-19th century, the Church was reluctant to give the highest rank (then known as a “Double of the first Class”) to any and all feasts, even if they were in honour of the Lord or of the Blessed Virgin.

With regard to the feasts of the Lord, this highest rank was conceded only to the principal mysteries of salvation. The Nativity, Epiphany, Resurrection (+ 2 days), Ascension, Pentecost (+ 2 days) and Corpus Christi *. None of the other feasts of the Lord were given this highest rank- not the Holy Trinity, the Precious Blood, the Holy Name, the Sacred Heart, Holy Cross, and the other feasts of the Lord.

Likewise, for the saints, there were only 3 saints on the general calendar who had a feast of this highest rank (Dbl. I Class) – St. John the Baptist, Ss. Peter and Paul, and the BV Mary. Ss. Peter and Paul got theirs because they were the Patrons of Rome. St. John the Baptist because of his role in the life of the Lord as Precursor and the words of the Lord about him and the belief in his immaculateness. The BV Mary because she was the Mother of God.

Each of them had only ONE such feast. This was expressive of the time when there were far fewer feasts on the calendar and each saint was assigned a particular day and his/her natale – birthday- which was usually the day of death (= heavenly birthday). St. John the Baptist was excepted in this view and his natale was his human birth (again immaculateness and words of Christ in Matthew 11). The BVM originally had one on January 1, but this was later replaced by the Circumcision until 1970. However, her Assumption, as her “heavenly birthday” was also celebrated with great solemnity, even before it was declared dogma.
All other Marian feasts – Purification , Presentation, Nativity , various titles– were all introduced later – and also had lower ranks.

Pius IX started raising the ranks of other feasts to Double of the I Class- this was followed by his successors. Though it mainly affected feasts of the Lord, it also affected a few Marian feasts. The Immaculate Conception, then recently declared dogma, ‘won out’ over the Nativity.

It isn’t that the mysteries of the life of Christ, Mary or the saints aren’t worthy of great esteem and veneration – consider for example, the antiphon for the Nativity BVM- “The birthday of the Virgin Mary whose life has illumined all the churches”. They are definitely worthy of veneration. But I suppose one could say something to the tune of “all feasts are equal but some are more equal than others?” The Church wishes to establish a certain distinction, to propose and highlight certain feasts to the faithful which could not be done if all were given the same rank.
In considering the life of the BVM, the Church wanted to highlight the principal mysteries of her life – the glory of God in preserving her from sin and in taking her to heaven both body and soul. That is the reason the Conception was prioritized over the Nativity.

These distinctions were carried over into the revised calendar after 1970. Thus the Assumption and the Conception were given the rank of “Solemnity”. The revised calendar added another one- the original feast in honour of the Motherhood on January 1. Some of the other Marian celebratiosn were given the rank of “Feast” – others were made “Memoria” but with special texts.

A last, and somewhat minor reason for having few solemnities in the revised calendar is the psalter. A solemnity prevents the recitation of the psalms in the normal cursus at Vespers (Evening Prayer) on two days since it has special psalms appointed. A feast prevents the recitation of the psalms at Vespers on only one day.

• Corpus Christi is a bit of an oddity in this list, since it is an ‘idea’ feast (along with feasts like the Holy Name and the Sacred Heart) rather than an ‘event’ feast. But it was in view of supreme devotion to the Holy Eucharist

 

[AJV]

I’m not sure what the problem is here. Is it that you think something has changed in the celebration of the feast? Looking at my daily missal printed in 1959, I find for 8 Sep the notation that this is “Dbl 2nd Class.” There is also a memorial of another saint for the same day whose feast may be celebrated in place of the Marian feast. So you see, if anything, the feast has gained in stature since the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council.

Matthew

St. Hadrian is only commemorated (and that too, according to the 1962 rubrics in non-sung Masses). The only places where his Mass would be celebrated over that of the BVM is if he was Principal Patron of a place or Titular of a church.

 

[Alma]

Benedictgal: Thank you for your reply. ! I feel so pride of living
in what you rightly call “perhaps one of the most Marian countries in the Western Hemisphere”

¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe! :clapping::extrahappy:

Non fecit taliter omni nationem

Thank you AJV for taking the trouble of providing such gclear and convincing information! Wow, you really helped me understand! :tiphat:

all!

Alma