Why is the Feast of the Circumcision no more?

[mcliffor]

Why was the feast of the Circumcision changed to the Feast of Mary, Mother of God? Why not just pick a new date? It seems strange to me that you would just replace one feast with another, that commemorates something quite different. And if the circumcision is no longer a feast, how is it that an event that was a major feast day for so long in the Church no longer even merits commemoration?

 

[CatholicNick]

Why was the feast of the Circumcision changed to the Feast of Mary, Mother of God? Why not just pick a new date? It seems strange to me that you would just replace one feast with another, that commemorates something quite different. And if the circumcision is no longer a feast, how is it that an event that was a major feast day for so long in the Church no longer even merits commemoration?

Ah… the mysteries of the Novus Ordo.

 

[LilyM]

Why was the feast of the Circumcision changed to the Feast of Mary, Mother of God? Why not just pick a new date? It seems strange to me that you would just replace one feast with another, that commemorates something quite different. And if the circumcision is no longer a feast, how is it that an event that was a major feast day for so long in the Church no longer even merits commemoration?

I don’t know precisely why this particular one was changed. If it is to be celebrated at all, of course it should be celebrated 8 days after Christmas, since that would be when it occurred. After all, we don’t change Pentecost to 70, 80 or 100 days after Easter, do we? Changing it to another day would be ludicrous.

And it often was celebrated as a feast in honour of Our Lady as well - read the end of this Catholic Encyclopedia article.

I did grow up with it being celebrated as the Feast of the Circumcision, at least when I was very young, but there was never, to my recollection, a big fuss made about it. Can’t even recall whether it was a Holy Day of Obligation or not. Being New Years Day, I suspect not.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why was the feast of the Circumcision changed to the Feast of Mary, Mother of God? Why not just pick a new date? It seems strange to me that you would just replace one feast with another, that commemorates something quite different. And if the circumcision is no longer a feast, how is it that an event that was a major feast day for so long in the Church no longer even merits commemoration?

the two feasts do celebrate the same thing, the Incarnation and birth of Jesus through Mary, his human mother, mother of both God and Man.

The older emphasis on the circumcision was meant to highlight His humanity, and the humility and obedience of Mary (and Joseph) in complying with the law, which is also one focus of the Presentation. It spotlighted the OT prophecies, “a Son is given to us” in the obviously appropriate human act of obedience to the Law of Moses and Christ’s birth as a descendent of Abraham. At the time the feast of the Circumcision was established Christ’s humanity was under attack by heretics.

The Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God is meant to remind us that Christ’s humanity and divinity are united in one Person, and the doctrine of his full divinity, which is also under attack in our own time. The doctrine that Mary is Theotokos, Mother of God, confirmed at the council of Ephesus in the early Church in response to heretics, also needs enunciation today, where it is under attack by neo-Arians in many denominations that call themselves Christian.

 

[Psalm45_9]

The Octave Day still commemorates the circumcision of Our Lord. When you attend Mass this New Year’s Day, pay close attention to the Epistle and Gospel readings, it’s mentioned in them. However, the focus of the Solemnity now has shifted to the Maternity of Mary as being part of the mystery of the incarnation; God had a mother. I guess in the ancient days of the Roman Church there was a feast commemorating Mary’s Maternity and Vatican II re-instituted it. The Byzantine Church commemorates the synaxis of the Mother of God on December 26th.

Prior to Vatican II, Epiphany was still observed on January 6th in this country and it was followed by an octave, which went to January 13th. The Sunday within this octave was in honor of the Holy Family. This feast has since been moved to the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas. The Baptism of the Lord was commemorated on the Octave Day, this has since been recognized as its own feast and has been moved to the Sunday after Epiphany (or, sometimes in this country, the Monday after Epiphany observed.)

 

[AJV]

The Octave Day still commemorates the circumcision of Our Lord. When you attend Mass this New Year’s Day, pay close attention to the Epistle and Gospel readings, it’s mentioned in them. However, the focus of the Solemnity now has shifted to the Maternity of Mary as being part of the mystery of the incarnation; God had a mother. I guess in the ancient days of the Roman Church there was a feast commemorating Mary’s Maternity and Vatican II re-instituted it.

Indeed. The commemoration of the holy Mother of God is actually the only true Marian feast that orginated in Rome itself-a uniquely Roman feast. Highly fitting that one shoudl honour the Mother of God on the Octave of the Nativity of Christ. All the other Marian feasts were borrowed either from the East, or as an effect of various local calendars or observances. But both the Traditional missal and the breviary contain the remnants of this feast that was never completely displaced. For example:
In the missal (don’t know who has done this translation or I would put it):
Collect: O God, who by the fruitful virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary hast bestowed upon mankind the rewards of eternal salvation:grant we beseech Thee, that we may experience her intercession for us, throguh whom we have been made worthy to receive the Author of Life, Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord: Who liveth…

Postcommunon:: May this communion O Lord, cleanse us from guilt: and throguh the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, makeus sharers of the heavenly remedy.

In the breviary: (being a little lazy today, I copy-pasted from breviary.net)
The antiphons for Lauds and Vespers:

1. O wondrous interchange! * the Creator of mankind, taking upon him a living body, vouchsafed to be born of a pure Virgin: and by his Humanity, which was begotten in no earthly wise, hath made us partakers of his Divinity
2. When thou wast born * all ineffably of a Virgin, then were the Scriptures fulfilled; thou camest down like the dew upon the fleece of wool, to bring salvation unto all mankind ; we praise thee, O our God.
3. In the bush which Moses saw * unconsumed, we recognize the preservation of thy glorious virginity: holy Mother of God, intercede for us.
4. The Root of Jesse hath budded, the Star hath come out of Jacob, the Virgin hath borne the Saviour: we praise thee, O our God.
   5.Lo, Mary hath brought forth the Saviour of whom when John saw him, he did proclaim, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, alleluia.

Benedictus Ant. A great and wondrous mystery * is made known to us this day : in a new manner are natures united, for God is become incarnate : what he was, he still abode ; and he was not, he took unto himself, suffering in his Person neither confusion nor divísion

Magnificat Ant. 1:.God, for his great love * wherewith he loved us, hath sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, alleluia.

Magnificat Ant. 2: Heirs are we * of a great mystery : the womb of her that knew not man is become the temple of the Godhead; he, of a Virgin incarnate, suffereth no defilement; all the nations shall gather, saying : Glory be to thee, O Lord.

(Incidently: all these are in the LOTH: the psalm antiphons being split between Lauds and Vespers with another one added)

Similarly, the psalms used at Vespers are from the Common of the BVM whereas for most other breviaries they are usually thoe of Christmas sometimes with a single different psalm.

So as you can see, there is not so much reference to the Circumcision as to the older feast of the Mother of God which was restored to the calendar. The only direct references that come are in the lessons at Matins.

 

[rciadan]

quote=Psalm45:9;1758640]The Octave Day still commemorates the circumcision of Our Lord. When you attend Mass this New Year’s Day, pay close attention to the Epistle and Gospel readings, it’s mentioned in them. However, the focus of the Solemnity now has shifted to the Maternity of Mary as being part of the mystery of the incarnation; God had a mother. I guess in the ancient days of the Roman Church there was a feast commemorating Mary’s Maternity and Vatican II re-instituted it. The Byzantine Church commemorates the synaxis of the Mother of God on December 26th.

Prior to Vatican II, Epiphany was still observed on January 6th in this country and it was followed by an octave, which went to January 13th. The Sunday within this octave was in honor of the Holy Family. This feast has since been moved to the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas. The Baptism of the Lord was commemorated on the Octave Day, this has since been recognized as its own feast and has been moved to the Sunday after Epiphany (or, sometimes in this country, the Monday after Epiphany observed.)

I don’t understand why all this switching and changing of feast days was necessary. In my humble opinion, they should have left it as it was. When I read in my old St. Joseph missal about the liturgical year, I find myself wondering,"Did the Church just cave into the laziness of the faithful? Why else did they just do away with Holy Days or move them to Sunday, etc. To me, there is somthing just not right about this. I don’t see where there was anything wrong with the calender as it was! Much of what is done now doesn’t even make sense!
Sometimes I think it was done with the sole purpose of making it harder for those who celebrate the traditional Mass to keep to the liturgical year and to discourage them.

 

[puzzleannie]

rciadan:
I don’t understand why all this switching and changing of feast days was necessary. In my humble opinion, they should have left it as it was. .
the underlying problem here is the same as it is with all changes ordained by the Church, do you or do you not accept the authority of the Catholic Church? It is not necessary for the lay faithful to have the understanding of the bishops, whose task it is to order our worship. It is our task to obey. As St. Paul says, not all member of the Body have the same gifts, and for the foot or hand to quarrel with the brain or heart is ludicrous and damaging to the health of the body.

“the church” did not move Holy Days to Sunday. Some bishops move the observance of the Holy Days according to their perception of the pastoral needs of the people of their own diocese. The bishop alone has the knowledge, understanding, responsibility and authority to care for those needs.

If you cavil at celebrating only the fact of the Circumcision, but rebel against also honoring Mary as Mother of God at the same time, it may may that your understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation is faulty, and that like all of us, you could benefit from more catechesis, prayer and meditation on that mystery, which is so amply provided in the liturgy of the day. You could show your devotion by attending Mass on that day, even though the obligation to do so is lifted this year, as it falls on a Monday.

 

[mcliffor]

The circumcision was celebrated because this was the first time God shed blood for mankind, which is NOT the same as the incarnation of Theotokos. They are celebrations of different things.

And isn’t this clearly archeologism? “The early Church had a feast, lets replace the later feast with that.”

We might have to obey the change, but I will still criticize it.

 

[AJV]

The circumcision was celebrated because this was the first time God shed blood for mankind, which is NOT the same as the incarnation of Theotokos. They are celebrations of different things.

And isn’t this clearly archeologism? “The early Church had a feast, lets replace the later feast with that.”

We might have to obey the change, but I will still criticize it.

You can, but as I posted, most of the Roman (Traditional) liturgical texts of the day except for Matins lessons (excluding responsories)all actually commemorate the Mother of God and ask for her intercession. Those that do not commemorate the Incarnation (since that is the Octave day)
There is no direct reference to the Circumcision at all (apart from the Gospel and the previously mentioned lessons 1-2-3-7-8-9 at Matins) and certainly the reference to the blood of Christ does not occur anywhere in the Office or the Mass.

In that way, it does make sense to name the day in honour of the Mother of God because that is what the liturgical texts are about.

 

[Psalm45_9]

The circumcision was celebrated because this was the first time God shed blood for mankind, which is NOT the same as the incarnation of Theotokos. They are celebrations of different things.

And isn’t this clearly archeologism? “The early Church had a feast, lets replace the later feast with that.”

The circumcision of Christ is still commemorated on this day, it is just not the focus of the Solemnity. When teaching RCIA, I always point out that we also commemorate Christ’s circumcision, which according to Jewish Law was to take place seven days after a boy was born. New Year’s day marks 7 days after Christmas. Both of these mysteries of the incarnation are expressed on this day, the one you stated above, as well as Mary being the Theotokos. Here are the two crucial readings of the day, they express both mysteries:

“When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law,
to ransom those under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons.
As proof that you are sons,
God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying out, “Abba, Father!”
So you are no longer a slave but a son,
and if a son then also an heir, through God.” (Gal 4:4-7)

"The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,
and the infant lying in the manger.
When they saw this,
they made known the message
that had been told them about this child.
All who heard it were amazed
by what had been told them by the shepherds.
And Mary kept all these things,
reflecting on them in her heart.
Then the shepherds returned,
glorifying and praising God
for all they had heard and seen,
just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,
he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel
before he was conceived in the womb." (Luke 2:16-21)

unfortunatley most people skip over the circumcision of the Lord, because they don’t hear about it from the pulpit. When I was talking about this Solemnity I made sure to pay attention to this other commemoration.

 

[Psalm45_9]

“the church” did not move Holy Days to Sunday. Some bishops move the observance of the Holy Days according to their perception of the pastoral needs of the people of their own diocese. The bishop alone has the knowledge, understanding, responsibility and authority to care for those needs.

Yes Puzzleannie, you express it well. As much as I would love to see Epiphany be restored to January 6th, so I can better tell everyone about why we have a carol called, “The Twelve Days of Christmas.” But it is difficult in this country for many Catholics to attend Mass on all these Holy Days. Unlike in Europe where many countries observe these Holy Days as civil Holidays. Just look at how it is this year, we already required to go to Mass two days in a row for the 4th Sunday in Advent and Christmas Day. If the Bishops did not lift the Obligation for the Octave Day, then this weekend it would be the same thing again, one day for the Feast of Holy Family and another for the St. Mary, Mother of God. On top of it all traditional Epiphany is on that Saturday, making the faithful to return to Mass the following Day for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. Thats three weekends back-to-back of two days in a row.

I am single and I go to daily Mass, so I am not peronally complaining, but it is difficult for families, especially when you have to juggle work and school, not to mention it is difficult on our priests. Again this does not express my personal views, but the broader pastoral needs of the faithful which are bishops have been entrusted to shepherd. I myself will continue to go to daily Mass.

 

[palmas85]

Why was the feast of the Circumcision changed to the Feast of Mary, Mother of God? Why not just pick a new date? It seems strange to me that you would just replace one feast with another, that commemorates something quite different. And if the circumcision is no longer a feast, how is it that an event that was a major feast day for so long in the Church no longer even merits commemoration?

I’ve always thought it was changed simply because circumsicision is a male thing. That would mean that women were not affected and might feel left out… Therefore, removing the offensive situation that pertained only to men, and changing to a more inclusive feast day would make it more acceptable to women, who hopefully would not now feel left out of things.

All very politically correct and inoffensive.

 

[rciadan]

This is a response to Puzzle Annie…

the underlying problem here is the same as it is with all changes ordained by the Church, do you or do you not accept the authority of the Catholic Church? It is not necessary for the lay faithful to have the understanding of the bishops, whose task it is to order our worship. It is our task to obey.

Actually I do accept the authority of the bishops and I do obey. I do have the right to ask questions, however, and I even “have a right to make my opinions known to the othe Christian faithful…” according to Para 907 of the CCC. . In fact I have the resposibility to draw the bishops attention to an item if I think that he is “out of line”. Of course this must be done with due respect for his office.

Some bishops move the observance of the Holy Days according to their perception of the pastoral needs of the people of their own diocese. The bishop alone has the knowledge, understanding, responsibility and authority to care for those needs.

Again, I have the right to voice my opinion, as long as I obey, which I do.

If you cavil at celebrating only the fact of the Circumcision, but rebel against also honoring Mary as Mother of God

I have no problem with either. I would never suggest that the Holy Mother is not worthy of veneration. I am glad to Honor Mary; but, changing the name of the Feast day places more emphasis on her than her Son. I don’t think Mary would ever condone that, as she always points us towards her Son.

You could show your devotion by attending Mass on that day, even though the obligation to do so is lifted this year, as it falls on a Monday

Actually, I go to Mass every day and my family never misses a Holy day of Opportunity.
I merely ask a question. Questioning does not equal rebellion. If you think that the case, then you need more catechesis.
That said, please let me inform you that I often look for your posts because I find you to be informative in the extreme and very able in the feild of apologetics. You have a way of saying things in a gentle manner when I would probably just go for the throat. I have learned much from you and hope to learn much more!
God bless you and grant you a wonderful new year, Puzzle Annie!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is a response to Puzzle Annie…

Actually I do accept the authority of the bishops and I do obey. I do have the right to ask questions, however, and I even “have a right to make my opinions known to the othe Christian faithful…” according to Para 907 of the CCC. . In fact I have the resposibility to draw the bishops attention to an item if I think that he is “out of line”. Of course this must be done with due respect for his office.

I don’t presume to speak for PuzzleAnnie or anyone else, but if I made a stab in the dark, I would say that there is a certain weariness on the part of some at the constant carping on the part of others at the “post-conciliar” Church and every decision that she has made.

 

[Psalm45_9]

You can, but as I posted, most of the Roman (Traditional) liturgical texts of the day except for Matins lessons (excluding responsories)all actually commemorate the Mother of God and ask for her intercession. Those that do not commemorate the Incarnation (since that is the Octave day)
There is no direct reference to the Circumcision at all (apart from the Gospel and the previously mentioned lessons 1-2-3-7-8-9 at Matins) and certainly the reference to the blood of Christ does not occur anywhere in the Office or the Mass.

In that way, it does make sense to name the day in honour of the Mother of God because that is what the liturgical texts are about.

I did a little research and you are right: mysite.verizon.net/missale/jan01.html

the majority of the prayers that day commemorate the Mother of God. It seems the proper title for this day is simply the Octave Day of the Nativity. The title “The circumcision of the Lord” seems more have been a nickname given to this day by the faithful because the Gospel that day commemorates Jesus’ circumcision, as it still does today. This is just like how the faithful have given the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord the nickname “Christmas” meaning “Christ’s Mass”. Has anything really changed with this octave day? I don’t think so, just the focus has returned to the ancient Roman Solemnity in Honor of the Mother of God. Most people today simply look over the fact that this day also commemorates the circumcison of the Lord which is a week to the day after the memorial of our Lord’s birth, in accordance to the Jewish law. This is because, again, the faithful aren’t hearing from the puplit that two mysteries of the incarnation are being expressed this day.

Just like how on Candlemas Day (February 2nd) it commemorates the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple as well as the Purification of Mary.

 

[palmas85]

I don’t presume to speak for PuzzleAnnie or anyone else, but if I made a stab in the dark, I would say that there is a certain weariness on the part of some at the constant carping on the part of others at the “post-conciliar” Church and every decision that she has made.

Merry Christmas Kirk!!! Perhaps had the Church not made some of the decisions that it has made recently some of the faithful would not feel obliged to bring such things up

Some of their decisions do seem just a tad on the strange side, some might even say pretty bad. But then again everyone is entitled to their opinion eh, Kuya Kirk?

Oh Kuya means brother in a close familial way, please don’t take offense.

 

[palmas85]

I have to step in on this one.

January 1 was celebrated as the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord and Octave of the Nativity. It contained thre parts though. The Octave of the Nativity meant simply it was within the 8 day period following the Nativity itself, so most of the Mass came from the Christmas Mass.

A second part paid homage to the Blessed Virgin Mary with parts of the Collect, Secret and Post Communion from the Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin.Mary. The reason for that had been that a second Mass honoring Mary on that day used to be celebrated and was subsequently combined with the Feast of the Circumcision.

The third part had been kept at least since the 6th century and pertained to the Circumcision of our Lord. The old Gospel reading, Luke 2: 21 was the account of said circumcision which was the first blood shed for us by Christ. It was always the primary feast of the day and the reson for the day being called Feast of the Circumcision.

The feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary used to be celebrated on October 11. I know that because October 11 is my birthday.

I’m not an expert but it appears to me that they decided to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. One get rid of that whole nasty circumcision thing, you know ceremonial and ritual bloodletting is simply incompatible with the Post Conciliar faithful by and large, make the Mass on that day only about the Blessed Virgin and scuttle the October 11 observance completely. That way no one would feel offended, left out or otherwise disadvantaged and hopefully no one would notice or care that the circumcision, once considered of theological as well as ritual significance was no longer mentioned or even thought about…

Of course those of us born on the Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary got cut out completely, but hey, I guess the people born on July 25, St Christopher and October 21, St Ursula, a New Orleans favorite, Ursuline Nuns and all that, felt pretty much the same way when their feasts got unceremoniously dumped.

 

[AJV]

palmas85:

I have to step in on this one.

January 1 was celebrated as the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord and Octave of the Nativity. It contained three parts though. The Octave of the Nativity meant simply it was within the 8 day period following the Nativity itself, so most of the Mass came from the Christmas Mass.

A second part paid homage to the Blessed Virgin Mary with parts of the Collect, Secret and Post Communion from the Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin.Mary. The reason for that had been that a second Mass honoring Mary on that day used to be celebrated and was subsequently combined with the Feast of the Circumcision.

No. It was rather that the Circumcision displaced the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There were indeed two Masses celebrated in some places but these were: * In Octabas Domini* and prohibendum ab idolis (because of the paganism marking the New Year) [cf GV]

In the Gregorian Sacramentary (Cambrai) dating from either the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century (the copy dates, the original was sent earlier), in the copy of the manuscript sent by the Pope Hadrian to the Emperor Charlemagne to bring his liturgical practices in line with those of Rome, the Mass given is In Octabas Domini ad Sanctam Maria et martyres (which corresponds perfectly since the station church for the day was the Pantheon) . The prayers given in that Sacramentary are those found in the Traditional missal (and the “NO” missal) for the day word for word except in the case of the postcommunion which has a slight variation.

The third part had been kept at least since the 6th century and pertained to the Circumcision of our Lord. The old Gospel reading, Luke 2: 21 was the account of said circumcision which was the first blood shed for us by Christ. It was always the primary feast of the day and the reason for the day being called Feast of the Circumcision.

The 6th century is the first recorded instance of it. It did not make its way into Rome until after the 12th century.

The evidence for that (not kept in Rome) is the one quoted above. Secondly, it was under the reign of Boniface IV, that the responsory “Gaude Maria Virgo” for the Virgin Mary was composed for this station. Also, the 12th century Antiphonary of St. Peter’s also does not give the Circumcision. In fact, the Ada Codex has, in its calendar, St. Martina for the day.

The feast …or even thought about

Permit me to be a pedant : the feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was only extended to universal observance this century by Pius XI (Lux Veritatis-1931). Prior to St. Pius X, in the places where it was observed it was done so on the 2nd Sunday of October.

(Edited by poster’s request)

What did you read that makes you ascribe politically correct reasons for the change in the feast title?

The way I see it, the general rule in the Traditional Missal is that “The collect refers to the feast”. That is so for everything: on the Epiphany it refers to the Epiphany, even on the Most Holy Rosary it refers to the rosary, and even for those “prop alquibus locus” feasts such as the Humility, Espousal, Interior Life of the BVM it refers to the aspect being celebrated.
Yet for the Circumcision there is nothing whatsoever. Not even a reference to the mystical circumcision of the heart. Instead we have a collect asking for the intercession of the Mother of God. And all we have commemorating the circumcision is the Gospel account. The word “blood” is not even mentioned in the Office or the Mass texts proper to the day. It is not even expounded in the Matins lessons where such significances are usually mentioned
Furthermore, we have Vespers entirely referring to the blessed Virgin Mary-even using psalms of her Common which is a specialty of the Roman breviary. Why indeed is a parallel drawn between Moses and the burning bush which does not have a relation to the circumcision? Even though it does it many times in a Christocentric manner, if you look at the antiphons there is the imagery repeated in so many texts as emblematic of the Mother of God: Gideon and the fleece, the root and the star, etc. Why do all the antiphons make some reference to the Mother of God and not one to some aspect of the circumcision?

If as mcliffor said, there is no relation between the two, does it not make more sense to name the feast according to what is commemorated in the collect and postcommunion, in the antiphons and psalms of Vespers, in short the majority of the texts, rather than according to the account of the Gospel that only has the Matins lessons referring to it (and that because the 3rd nocturn Matins lessons must always refer to the Gospel of the day)?

 

[jbuck919]

Permit me to be a pedant.

As far as I am concerned, you may be a pedant here whenever you want to be. Many people do not understand the scholarly underpinning to liturgical reforms. I certainly did not understand this one until you explained it.

None of which excuses–and you of course did not raise this–unworthy observance of whatever form is, for whatever reason, chosen and mandated, which is the real problem with modern worship.