Posts

Christmas in January?

epiphany

Ever wonder why some Eastern Christians celebrate Christmas on January 6, the date the Western Church chose for the Epiphany? And how did the West settle on December 25 as the date for Christmas?

Andrew McGowan, Dean of Yale Divinity School, sheds much light on these questions:

“Around 200 CE, Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar. March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation – the commemoration of Jesus’ conception. Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.

“This idea appears in an anonymous Christian treatise titled ‘On Solstices and Equinoxes’, which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa. The treatise states: ‘Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March (March 25), which is the day of the Passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day he was conceived, and on the same he suffered.’ Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice.

“Augustine, too, was familiar with this association. In ‘On the Trinity’ (c. 399 – 419) he writes: ‘For he (Jesus) is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.’

“In the East, too, the dates of Jesus’ conception and death were linked. But instead of working from the 14th of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar, the Easterners used the 14th of the first spring month (Artemisios) in their local Greek calendar – April 6 to us. April 6 is, of course, exactly nine months before January 6 – the Eastern date for Christmas. In the East, too, we have evidence that April was associated with Jesus’ conception and crucifixion. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis writes that on April 6, ‘The Lamb was shut up in the spotless womb of the Holy Virgin, he who took away and takes away in perpetual sacrifice the sins of the world.’ Even today, the Armenian Church celebrates the Annunciation in early April (on the 7th, not the 6th) and Christmas on January 6.

“Thus, we have Christians in two parts of the world calculating Jesus’ birth on the basis that his death and conception took place on the same day (March 25 or April 6) and coming up with two close but different results (December 25 and January 6).”

/by

The Reality of the Christ: Part 2

savior

Matthew and Luke are the only two Gospel writers who include an infancy narrative in their biographies of Jesus. According to the most widely accepted theory about how the Gospels were composed, Matthew and Luke wrote independently of one another. That is, Matthew did not have a copy of Luke’s Gospel on his desk when writing his Gospel, as it were, and vice versa.

Having said that, it is amazing that these two birth narratives almost never cover the same events! But in the few instances that they do, they are in agreement. The famous biblical scholar Father Raymond Brown pointed out eleven points (reproduced in Monette, The Wrong Jesus, pp. 108-109) at which Matthew and Luke’s accounts are in accord with one another:

1. Mary and Joseph are legally engaged but haven’t lived together (see Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:27,34).
2. Joseph is from King David’s lineage (see Matthew 1:16,20; Luke 1:27,32; 2:4).
3. Angels announce the forthcoming birth of the baby (see Matthew 1:20-23; Luke 1:30-35).
4. Mary becomes pregnant as a virgin (see Matthew 1:20,23,25; Luke 1:34).
5. The child is conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:35).
6. An angel proclaims that the child’s name will be Jesus (see Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:31).
7. An angel states that Jesus is to be the Saviour (see Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11).
8. The birth of Jesus happens after Mary and Joseph began living together as spouses (see Matthew 1:24-25; Luke 2:5-6).
9. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (see Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-6).
10. Herod the Great is in power during the time of the birth of Jesus (see Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:5).
11. Jesus is raised in Nazareth (see Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39).

The fact that these two independent sources on Jesus’ infancy are in agreement on all these major details gives us greater confidence that we can trust these accounts.

/by

The Reality of the Christ: Part 1

nativityDuring the Christmas and Easter seasons in particular, many skeptics appear in the media who insist that these celebrations are meaningless, because Jesus never actually existed. How can we respond?

It’s important to understand that people who doubt the birth and existence of Jesus of Nazareth are extremely few. Their claims are, quite frankly, not credible. They are not accepted by any legitimate historian. In fact, no credible professor of history who holds a university teaching chair denies Jesus’ existence as a historical figure.

One such professor has truly thrown down the gauntlet in this regard. Scholar Greg Monette notes that “John Dickson, who holds a PhD in ancient history and is senior research fellow of the department of ancient history at Macquarie University, is so sure of the evidence for the historical Jesus that he’s recently put forward a challenge on Facebook: If anyone can provide the name of a single university professor holding a PhD in ancient history who denied the existence of Jesus, he’d eat a page from the Bible! So far, Dickson’s Bible is safe, and I believe it will stay that way” (Monette, The Wrong Jesus, p. 28).

In actuality, there are many historical references to Jesus from pagan, Jewish, and Christian sources. Let’s focus for now on the pagan Roman sources. These are valuable in part because they are essentially “hostile witnesses”, who have no interest in promoting Christianity – often quite the contrary. Yet, they affirm the existence of Jesus. Here are a few of the most important Roman citations (cited by Monette, pp. 28-29):

1. PLINY THE YOUNGER (AD 62–113), Epistles 10.96:

“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light [Sunday], when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

2. TACITUS (AD 60–120), Annals 15.44:

“Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.”

3. SUETONIUS (AD 75–160), Life of Claudius 25.4:

“Because the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”

4. MARA BAR SERAPION (2nd or 3rd century), in a letter:

“The Jews in executing their wise king were ‘ruined and driven from their land [and now] live in complete dispersion. . . Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.’”

Even the skeptical scholar and ex-Catholic priest, John Dominic Crossan, has written: “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” If Jesus was a historical figure who was crucified, he was of course born into our world as well. And this is what we commemorate during the season of Christmas.

/by

Living Advent and Christmas Well in the Family

advent

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

“(W)hen the Church celebrates the liturgy of Advent each year, she makes present this ancient expectancy of the Messiah, for by sharing in the long preparation for the Saviour’s first coming, the faithful renew their ardent desire for his second coming. By celebrating (John the Baptist’s) birth and martyrdom, the Church unites herself to his desire: He must increase, but I must decrease” (CCC 524).

“He (Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease”. He must become greater, and I must become less. This statement of John the Baptist’s can easily be appropriated by us as we seek to stamp out our own selfishness and self-centredness this Advent.

Let’s really make an effort to make Advent and Christmas truly about our Lord this year – and what he wants for us, as opposed to what we might “get” this Christmas. And what he wants for us is holiness, which will in turn make us much happier (not to mention the people who have to live with us)! However, we need to battle the culture around us to do that – a culture that seeks to pull us farther and farther from Jesus and the true meaning of these sacred seasons.

Michaelann Martin says, “Either we live the liturgical year with its varying seasons of joy and sorrow, work and rest, or we follow the pattern of the world, writes Helen McLoughlin in ‘Advent and Christmas in a Catholic Home’, commenting on the challenge Catholics have of being in the world, but not of the world, throughout the year. She wrote these profound words in the 1950s, but they are even more important today because of the general decline in Catholic family life during the last 40 years. With two parents working in many households, there is less time to devote to the spiritual life of the family. As Catholic parents, we must readjust our priorities and teach our children by living our faith, both inside and outside the home.”

In other words, we have to be intentional about creating a Catholic culture in our own homes and families, or else we will be swept along by secularism, almost by default. We don’t want to become “Catholics in name only” (CINOs), so here are some ideas for creating family Advent traditions:

Children love to anticipate. In our family creche (manger) scene, we can make sure that we don’t place the Christ child in the manger until Christmas arrives. We can also have our own Advent wreaths and candles that are lit at mealtime, or during the family rosary.

Another highlight of Advent is the opportunity to teach children about the real St. Nicholas, whose feast we celebrated on Dec. 6. Santa Claus is, of course, based on St. Nicholas, but commercialism has obscured the historical figure of the saint, whose story is fascinating and can be taught to one’s children.

These are just some ideas – you can also create your own unique Catholic traditions within your family. The seasons of Advent and Christmas, lived well, make a deep impression on children that can last a lifetime.

What are your most cherished Advent and Christmas family traditions? Share this post on social media and let others know how your faith impacts your own family celebrations.

/by

Sunday Scriptures: Second Sunday of Advent 2016

12stoneslarge

On this Second Sunday of Advent, we encounter the figure of John the Baptist in the Gospel reading (Matthew 3:1-12):

John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea
and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”
It was of him that the prophet Isaiah had spoken when he said:
A voice of one crying out in the desert,
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight his paths.
John wore clothing made of camel’s hair
and had a leather belt around his waist.
His food was locusts and wild honey.
At that time Jerusalem, all Judea,
and the whole region around the Jordan
were going out to him
and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River
as they acknowledged their sins.

When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.
And do not presume to say to yourselves,
‘We have Abraham as our father.’
For I tell you,
God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees.
Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit
will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
I am baptizing you with water, for repentance,
but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I.
I am not worthy to carry his sandals.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in his hand.
He will clear his threshing floor
and gather his wheat into his barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

John is dripping with not only honey, but with Old Testament motifs. He’s really the last prophet of the Old Covenant, bridging it with the New Covenant (Testament) of Jesus Christ. He is Elijah redux, to be sure, but I want to focus here on a somewhat overlooked section of John’s speech: “And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones” (Matt 3:9). What stones? And what do they mean?

Near the location where John was speaking, Joshua had set up twelve stones by the Jordan River as a memorial of God’s deliverance of the twelve tribes (Joshua 4). The twelve stones reappear in the time of Elijah, who built an altar with them (1 Kings 18:31-32). When one recalls Jesus’ identification of John with Elijah (Mark 9:13), and John’s own adaptation of Elijah’s very dress, this is instructive. As Elijah once did, John is calling Israel’s twelve tribes to repent, and prepare for the coming of Israel’s Messiah.

There is also a wordplay in effect: the Hebrew word for “stone” (eben) sounds like the Hebrew term for “son” (ben). John is essentially saying that God can obtain new children of his own from elsewhere; Israelites who remain unrepentant and faithless can’t rely on their pedigree alone for salvation; they must repent and become obedient to the teaching of the coming Anointed One.

Today’s Catholics also can’t rely on their baptism alone, their membership in the Church (the new Israel), as a “golden ticket” for salvation. One must ratify one’s baptism by remaining in friendship with God, obedient to Jesus Messiah. Advent offers us a wonderful chance to repent if we haven’t always done so. We must prepare for not only Christmas, the feast of Jesus’ first arrival, but the coming Parousia, Christ’s Second Advent, inexorably approaching.

/by

Advent and the Miraculous

Advent

We are now in Advent, preparing to celebrate the birth of Jesus at Christmas. Many modern secularists find it very difficult to believe in the possibility of miracles, such as the virginal conception of Jesus. They say that the ancients were quite gullible to believe this, and that modern humanity is far too “educated and enlightened” to fall for such “nonsense”. How can we respond to this?

At one level, this is nothing more than chronological snobbery. In a recent article, RZIM apologist Jill Carattini responds to this fallacious line of reasoning:

In his 1945 essay “Religion and Science,” C.S. Lewis exposed one of the most common false assumptions at the heart of the science/faith divide, particularly as it pertains to the nativity of Jesus. The assumption is that this “primitive” nativity was likewise filled with primitive thinkers devoid of any sort of knowledge of biology or natural reasoning. Here and elsewhere, Lewis saw that we hold our scientific advancements as something like demerits for prior generations, perpetuating the mentality that the only accurate thought is current thought, the only mind worth trusting is an enlightened one—of which I am conveniently a member.

The disciples…knew enough about the laws of physics to be completely terrified by the man walking on the water toward their boat. The crowd of mourners knew enough about death to laugh at Jesus when he insisted that the dead girl was only sleeping, and to walk away astonished when she came back to life. There were also the magi, astrologers who followed their scientific calculations to the child, Philip and Andrew who knew that the mathematics of two fish and a starving crowd were not going to divide well, Mary and Martha who knew that their brother’s death was the last word, and Thomas who knew the same after he watched Jesus crucified.

In each of these objections, I thankfully hear my own. So much so, that it would appear faith is not a turning of one’s back on the fixed laws of nature or physics or mathematics, but rather, a recognition in the very face of these laws we know and trust that something from outside the law must have reached into the picture. I find each of these scenes both remarkable and reasonable precisely because of the reactions of men and women with a grasp of natural law and the same objections that any of us would have offered had we been present. It would be blind faith indeed if we were receiving a story that wanted us at the onset to fully reject the laws of natural reasoning in replacement of something else. What we receive instead is a story filled with undeniable indications which suggest that something—or Someone—has startlingly stepped into the picture.

/by

My TV interview about Pope Francis’ message to the Curia

Cale Clarke on CTVCTV News interviewed me about Pope Francis’ Christmas message to the Roman Curia (essentially those Church officials responsible for the internal functioning of key Vatican departments). Since my entire live interview on CTV News Channel with Jennifer Ward was not posted online (a brief, out of context clip appeared on the nightly National News broadcast with Lisa LaFlamme), I’m going to summarize my key points below. There has been a great deal of interest surrounding what the Pontiff said, which many have interpreted as a “stinging rebuke” by the Holy Father, that was “received coldly” by his audience. Is that really the case?

I’m not so sure about that. For one thing, how many North American commentators who claim there was some sort of a bad reaction to the Pope’s words actually attended the speech in Rome? Just about none of ’em, that’s who. How would they know how people internally or externally reacted to the speech?

The truth is that many of those in that room, including many Cardinals who participated in the conclave that elected Francis, were likely in full agreement with him on many of these matters. Don’t forget, Curial reform was one of the things Pope Benedict began carrying out himself before his resignation – but he realized that his health situation wouldn’t be conducive to his finishing this particular job, and that much of this task would fall to his successor (who turned out to be Francis). In other words, many of these same Cardinal-electors elected Francis hoping he would do exactly this.

Here are a couple of other things I said about this speech:

1. Pope Francis is an “outsider” to the Curia. Pope Francis was formerly the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina. He wasn’t really a well-connected “insider” in the Curia, which enables him to, I think, critique it more effectively and more objectively in order to help it improve. Cardinal Dolan of New York City said that, during the conclave, the Cardinal-electors constantly asked themselves the question, “Who among is is the most like Jesus Christ?” The answer that they came up with, of course, was Francis. Jesus was also an “outsider” to the religious authorities of Jerusalem, who critiqued them along many of the same lines as Francis’ speech to the curia did: many first-century Jerusalem clerics had become materialistic careerists with little concern for the spiritual welfare of those in their care, or for the poor.

2. What Francis said can be applied to virtually any workplace or family. This Pope is made for the age of Twitter. Among his 15 recommendations for curial reform were some memorable one-liners: Don’t be “existential schizophrenics” (don’t lead a double-life); watch out for “the terrorism of gossip” (where people’s reputations can be assassinated behind closed doors); the warning about the “disease of accumulation” (materialism); the disease of “spiritual Alzheimer’s” (forgetting one’s personal encounter with, and calling from the Lord; being a careerist). There is indeed much here for all of us to reflect on this Christmas.

 

/by