Again with the church closings

Just some wrap-up thoughts on the megachurch closings, until the next round of stories.

As someone pointed out in the comments, this is an excellent conversation for all of us of whatever Christian stripe, to be having. It prompts us to look at the purpose of worship and liturgy, the relationship between church and the world, and what it means, in a Christian context, to celebrate a feast.

In one of the comments thread at one of the Protestant blogs, I read a statement that went something like this: "Who cares what they did in the Early Church? Why should that be normative?" Which, of course, lays the whole question bare. The point being that while liturgical observances do indeed shift, develop and evolve over time, what has remained constant is the fact that Christians historically celebrate holy days liturgically. Period. The core of Christian remembrance is not individual prayer at home, is not a family meal, but joining oneself to the prayer of the Church.

As I stated before, there is nothing shocking about these churches closing on Christmas day (except for the fact that it is a Sunday) - it seems to me to be the logical consequence of the Reformation Project.

But the more pertinent part of the conversation for most of us here at this blog is what it's brought out about our own Catholic practices and expectations. The move to Christmas Eve, and away from Christmas Day is fairly widespread (except, it seems, when a parish decides to bite the bullet, buck the trends, embrace a few more cliches, and really make a big deal out of a Christmas Day liturgy. Then people will come).

But what has been forgotten, in this move, is that while traditional liturgy of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican traditions does include the Vigil of this and any other holy day as an important and legitimate aspect of this celebration, the nature of the vigil is always different from the liturgy of the holy day itself. It is not an exact equivalent of the holy day's liturgy. Yes, it "counts," but the readings and prayers are different - for reason. The liturgies speak to different moments in time, different aspects of the event. In early Christianity, a vigil liturgy might begin in the evening, but it would also continue, in some form or another, through the night. This way of doing vigil is something I experienced (sleepily) the year we went ot St. Meinrad Archabbey on Easter. The Vigil began in the evening - up through the Liturgy of the Word. Then there was a break - I am not sure if the monks go to bed or not, or if they stay up, keeping vigil. But the liturgy begins again at about 5am, when one of the monks comes in an chants, (I'm paraphrasing) "Archabbot, I have great news! The women have gone to the tomb and found it to be empty! Jesus is risen!"

The Chrismtas liturgies are not as elaborate, of course, but the Christmas Vigil and Midnight Mass liturgies are, indeed, distinct from the Christmas Day liturgies, and no matter if you go to one or more, it behooves us to keep that distinction in mind, both as individuals, and as a Church. The reason I love Midnight Mass and miss attending, is that I am simply overwhelmed by the fact of the Incarnation, and the mystery of God becoming flesh, born of a woman, in the chill and dark of night, is a reality that the Midnight Mass embodies, in turn, in ways that are unique. In the morning, the Child is washed and clean, and we can join in the joy of those looking on, refreshed by sleep and the promise of a new day, but there is something about gathering in the middle of the night, and contemplating our LIght aborning in the midst of darkness, knowing that darkness will soon lose its grip, that is irreplacable by anything that comes before or after.

So no, this is not just about celebrating "Christmas" at times that may or may not be convenient. What the conversation reveals is the poverty of the non-liturgical Christian traditions in this regard, and our own poverty, when we who are the heirs and guardians of 2000 years of reflection and tradition, turn our backs on the rich theological and spiritual feast that's ours, and start thinking, like the rest of the world, about what we have to squeeze in, so that the religious part of Christmas is taken care of, and the real celebrations can begin.

Comments

[Fr. Rob Johansen]

..[T]he nature of the vigil is always different from the liturgy of the holy day itself. It is not an exact equivalent of the holy day's liturgy. Yes, it "counts," but the readings and prayers are different - for reason.

Unless, as I have seen in some parishes, the pastor decides to use the same readings (usually the readings for Midnight) for all the Christmas Masses.

The rationale given by one such pastor was "people all want to hear about the angels and the baby Jesus", regardless of which Mass they attended. I suspect the real reason was that he didn't want to prepare two (or three) different homilies for the different Masses. When I told him that I was in fact using the different readings for the different Masses, he asked me, incredulously, "so are you going to preach three different homiles?" When I answered, "of course, it's Christmas", he reacted like I was nuts.

Of course, what this pastor (and others like him) did is illicit. A pastor does not have the authority to simply replace the readings for different Masses by his own diktat. But pastors do a lot of things they don't have the authority to do, especially in the liturgy. Sigh...

[Tan2Day]

My my, what a tempest in a teapot this one has been for the liturgical sort.

Now, doing what we SHOULD be doing { and so many never do...} shall we open our bibles and actually explore for the distinct possiblity that this question was ANSWERED already in the early days of the church? Heavens forbid that one might FIRST LOOK in the bible for the answer,that takes all the speculative fun out of things, doesn't it?

Shall we see if "St." Paul gave sufficient instruction on this matter, after all, the RCC did make him a saint, and in "her bible that she wrote" they included an awful lot written by Paul, did they not?

**** Galatians 4:9 (KJV) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. ****

There you have it. Direct from the horses mouth, OBSERVATION of SET DAYS AND TIMES { Christmas day of OBLIGATION, hint hint } are specifically condemned by Paul, he calls them ,u>"weak and beggarly elements" doesn't he? It doesn't really get much clearer than that in Pauls FORGOTTEN instructions to the newly formed church, does it?

So, we ask again....

Why the hue and cry and general uproar from the Catholic element over certain protestant churches actually LISTENING TO PAUL, and deciding for practical reasons, not to be open for business on Christmas this year?

Just wondering....

[adrian walker]

Dear Tan2Day,

Does Gal 4:10 apply to church-going on Sunday, then, too? Or how about to birthdays, anniversaries, Thanksgiving, and the 4th of July?

On what do you base your anti-Catholic exegesis of the text . . . if not on your own Protestant tradition, with its 400 years of taking passages like Gal 4:10 out of context and using them to bash Rome?

Just wondering.

Adrian

[Fr Septimus]

I salute Fr. Rob; preparing one Christmas homily is challenging enough, especially when Christmas does not fall on Sunday; but to prepare two or three, and then a Sunday homily? I don't know how he finds the time, but I'm glad he does.

About the "difficulty" of attending worship on Christmas, may I point out that the first Christians attended the Eucharistic Sacrifice on a workday, not to mention at risk of their lives, and the lives of others dear to them.

[Dave]

I don't think we can underestimate the effects that some of these mega-churches closing on Christmas will have in the Christian world. Many mainline Protestants, as well as Catholics have been angry at their rise. I would categorize my reaction to their growth as bewilderment. I tackle this subject as well as others in an article called "The Tide Is Turning Towards Catholcism," in my Catholicreport.org site today.

These mega churches are like the Wal Marts and Best Buys of the shopping world. You can find something to comfort your beliefs without really offending anyone. There are few Christian symbols in these churches and the message is probably not that different from the talk you might hear at a Tony Robbins motivational seminar. The mega churches are the conservative, Protestant variation of the warm and fuzzy liberal approach many complained about in the Catholic Church of the 1970's. Eventually, people want meat and potatos, not jello. What theological substance and tradition do many of these mega churches offer that would interest people for generations as the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches have? I don't doubt that there are real sincere members of the congregation as well as the pastors that serve them. Many in the these mega churhces left mainline Protestant churches because some were becoming far more liberal than they felt was theologically viable. The Catholic folks in those mega churches probably left the Church because they felt bored and uneducated since no one was very inspiring in explaining what we believe in the particular Catholic church they had attended. However, this Cedar Point or Six Flags Amusement Park approach to faith that many, but not all of these mega churches offer, cannot last forever. I believe the tide is turning against them as well.

[reluctant penitent]

tan2day

The letter to the Galatians has to do with whether Christians should observe the Mosaic law. In this context, the most plausible reading of 'days, months, etc.' is that it refers to Yom Kippur, new moon, Passover, etc.

If you read St. Paul as forbidding the observance of any holy days, then I have one question for you: Do you work on Sundays? If you don't, then you are just as much in violation of what you take to be St. Paul's prohibition as someone who celebrates Christmas.

[John Henry]

So, "LISTENING TO PAUL" means deciding, "for practical reasons", not to open the church "for business" on a Sunday. To open "for business" to celebrate the birth of the Savior would not only be not "practical", but "weak and beggarly", according to "St." Paul. Interesting exegesis.

"Do not neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some."

[Rich Leonardi]

The neighboring evangelical community which canceled Christmas Day services last year due to Cincinnati's blizzard -- "There's more to life than church" -- has announced that it will continue the practice this year in favor of four services on the eve. No word on whether egg nog will replace their usual coffee.

[Rich Leonardi]

From the Dec. 10 Cincinnati Post:

One of the tri-state's biggest and fastest-growing churches, the Crossroads Community Church in Oakley, has also canceled its Sunday morning services.

"Count us in on the groups of churches who believe time with families is better spent on Christmas Day," said Vickie Neff, the church's director of communications.

Crossroads also needs a cast of thousands to make worship services happen, she said.

The church, which just dedicated a 3,500-seat sanctuary, plans to have four services on Christmas Eve instead - at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.

"Our philosophy now is not to hold them on Christmas Day, but to allow families to be together," Neff said.

Some of the country's largest churches - the "megachurches," with more than 2,000 members - also plan to close Christmas Day, including Willow Creek Community Church, the Chicago area's largest congregation.

"It's more than being family-friendly. It's being lifestyle-friendly for people who are just very, very busy," said Willow Creek spokeswoman Cally Parkinson.

[Fr Septimus]

Rich:

This is completely off-thread, but perhaps Amy won't mind...

Have you ever had real Egg Nog? I mean, the kind you make yourself, rather than the UDF or Kroger kind that has the consistency of a half-used can of paint from 20 years ago?

(It's not all that hard to make; when I've done it, people are amazed to find out what Egg Nog actually tastes like.)

Because, if you have, you'll understand why I say it's pretty much not worth it without some bourbon or rum (without the liquor, it's a very light froth of eggs, cream and sugar).

In which case, if that's what they serve at Cornerstone . . . well, it might be an interesting Christmas Eve...

[vox climantis]

"...and start thinking, like the rest of the world, about what we have to squeeze in, so that the religious part of Christmas is taken care of, and the real celebrations can begin."

In this vein would be the modern Catholic-American wedding. The sacrament, its beauty and its mystery is usually an afterthought, appearing somewhere after "choose DJ's song list" on the bride and groom's agenda.

[Fr Septimus]

Rich:

Ahh--thanks for posting that. The "11:30 AM" service time caught my eye. That is the first time I've seen a Christmas eve service moved to the morning; but perhaps I haven't been paying attention.

I seem to recall, reading somewhere in the blogosphere, about some Protestant congregation having a service on Friday evening...

[Rich Leonardi]

Fr. Septimus,

My uncle used to concoct homemade egg nog every Christmas Eve (which is what brought it to mind). I recall gulping two cups of it during a college Christmas break fifteen years ago and spending the next ninety minutes snoozing on his couch.

[reluctant penitent]

Since people are veering off in all sorts of directions, let me contribute to the chaos with a brilliant idea. There's been a lot of fuss lately about the Pope's Prada shoes--it's not Christian to dress in expensive clothes yadda yadda. I have a solution: The Pope should dress in clothing made from old newspapers glued together and finger painted by blind children. He should live in a cardboard box. And, in order to make sure that less educated and sane people don't feel bad he should mutter incoherently and yell at children passing by--perhaps the very blind children who finger painted his clothing.

[MJ]

Amy,

I probably speak for a lot of other people here when I say that I don't know what I'd do without your blog! Maybe it's a sad comment on my spiritual life, but I think I get more wisdom from your blog than anywhere else. It's not just your writing (though that's what prompted this comment), but also your gleaning the best of other's writings, especially those of the Holy Father. I regularly spend my break time during the day checking in here. Thanks so much for all you do.

MJ

[MJ]

I'll add one more thing relevant to the topic at hand. I appreciate Amy bringing out the difference between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day liturgies. As a church musician, trying to teach a choir the Psalms and responses for Christmas, my desire to do things correctly runs smack dab into reality -- a choir of good singers who don't read music and can't always make it to every rehearsal. So we will probably piece together things from the vigil and holyday liturgies (like doing the same Gospel acclamation at both). There's just no way we can learn it all to sing right now. I am trying to be attentive to keeping all the "day" and "morn" references out of the vigil Mass, but even that doesn't always work when we have our children's choir singing carols before Mass. Maybe I have a sense that the early vigil Mass is different (less expectant?) than the Midnight Mass, although I'm not sure why.

[Liam]

Fr Rob

Don't the rubrics allow for the substitution of the Midnight readings at the other times? I recall the rubrics were amended so that that practice was not illicit anymore (leaving aside the wisdom of it).

[Maureen]

What's so hard about a different Gospel acclamation? I realize I'm like the most pitiful and nervous cantor of all time, but singing a different Gospel acclamation verse to the same old verse tune is easy. Even I can do it.

I can even do it from the Missalette, if you give me a little time before Mass to figure out how to make the verse scan to the tune we're using without sounding stupid.

If you change the tunes too often, though, I can guarantee nothing about what melody will emerge from my mouth. This is why all the different psalm verse settings are such a pain to figure out on short notice.

[Maureen]

I forgot to say that if you don't change the Gospel acclamations or the psalms according to the lectionary, you're pretty much saying that:

A) they aren't important
B) nobody needs to listen to them
C) you don't need a lector or cantor.

IMHO, anyway.

[RP Burke]

Fr. Martin, my mother concocted this made-from-scratch eggnog that had the same effect as chloroform. I can remember bringing a girlfriend home for Thanksgiving and spending most of it snoring (I'd officiated a football game that morning) and then trying to explain what happened to the girlfriend on the trip home. She married me anyway.

[iowakatie1981]

Fr. Septimus:

That was me. It's a Lutheran church, growing rapidly, and in many fashions approaching mega-church, but in some ways still maintains a decidedly traditional tone.

Our church is having two "Christmas Eve" services on Friday (5 and 7, I think), mostly for people who would like to attend Christmas Eve service at this particular church but who will be traveling over the weekend (I think that's the explanation I recall, anyway...).

But then we're also having actual Christmas Eve services at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 pm on Saturday, and two on Christmas Day (11:30 and 5:30, I think, but I will be with my parents so haven't paid too much attention to this detail.)

As far as sermons go, the Friday and Saturday services will all be the same but the Christmas Day services will be different.

I think it's kind of strange, too; I've never heard of "Christmas Eve" services on the 23rd, but I suppose that if we are going to be somewhat unorthodox in our scheduling of Christmas worship, I am in favor of having more services available, rather than less.

[Fr Septimus]

iowakatie:

May I inquire: ELCA, Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, or some other category of which I'm unaware?

I latched onto the "Christmas Eve" service on the 23rd because I believe the regression from Christmas Day will continue, and what you're describing will occur more often. And I think Catholics are as guilty of pushing this as Evangelicals. I am on the lookout for the first instance of a Catholic parish having a morning "Vigil" Mass on the 24th. Or, of someone proposing it.

After all, if you watch TBN -- and yes, I realize that's hardly normative, but let's not kid ourselves, it is reflective of some, and formative of other, Christians, even congregations -- you will see, I think, that they've been anticipating Christmas throughout Advent (huh? what's that? Paul Crouch asks).

When I was an ex-Catholic Pentecostal, the Sunday prior to Christmas was a kind of anticipated Christmas; my father was scandalized by my not going to services on Christmas Day.

[patrick]

regarding the masses of Christmas, the tradtion was to celebrate it with three masses (in the night, at dawn and during the day). each mass focused on a different part of Christ's birth. the mass in the night celbrated his being eternally begotten by the Father, the mass at dawn celbrated his nativity in the flesh at bethlehem, and the one at dawn, his birth in the members of the church as Saviour and Lord.

these celebrations on Christmas day, would start the 12 days of celebrating his incarnaiton and manifestation among us and would culminated in the great feast of the Epiphany (which is like a mini pentecost, the universal salvation of all invited to behold the Savior and be reborn) and now in the revised liturgy, there is the final feast of the Baptism of Jesus.
In most Eastern churches, the Epiphany is still the major event and climax of what is started at the Christmas celebration.

there is a rich theology, and a very dyanmic unfolding of the catholic esperience of the incarnation during these days (his eternal birth, his hidden birth in time, to his full manifestation, "epiphany", to all the world as Lord), which increases our longing for the final coming when all is restored in Him.....that seems to have been lost.

[Julia]

Patrick:

Since you mention the Christmastide beginning with Christ's Birth and ending with Epizhany:

The younger members of my choir were shocked when I told them that Jan 1st used to be called the Feast of the Circumcision. I was away from the church for about 10 years during the headiest of the spirit of VII days so I don't remember when it was changed or why. In fact, I've seen the day now called various things, including the feast of the Holy Family and whatever it's called now.

Can you tell me the ins and outs of what happened with Jan 1st and why?

Thanks

[Julia]

Whoops, that should be "Epiphany".

[Peggy]

Julia,

I think this brief explanation is right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the
_Holy_Family
[upshot: first Sunday after Christmas]

Interestingly, Jan 1, is a Feast Day of Mary Mother of God/Holy Name, and the first Sunday after Christmas this year. Hmmm....

[Julia]

"Feast of Mary Mother of God/Holy Name" is what January 1st now celebrates.

So that's a separate feast from the Holy Family which just happens to fall on January 1st this year.

hmmmm What is the connection between Circumcision and Mary Mother of God or the Holy Name, if any? I don't get why the change. Perhaps a Jewish child is given his name at his bris? That makes some sense.

But why add Mary Mother of God - was this one of JPII's Marian things?

[Julia]

Turns out the Holy Name is the next day.
January 1st is the Octave of Christmas - so it is always on the same day of the week as Christmas.

Here's the old calendar.

http://www.traditio.com/calendar/cal0601.htm

In the new calendar Jan 1st is just the Solemnity of Mary Mother of God according to Wikipedia. The Circumcision, it seems, has disappeared.

If I find an explanation I'll post it. Haven't found one yet.

[Old Zhou]

Dear Julia,

The liturgical celebration on January 1 was changed on February 14, 1969, by Pope Paul VI. Pope John Paul II had nothing to do with this.
See General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar. For the Christmas Season:

IV. Christmas Season

32. Next to the yearly celebration of the paschal mystery, the Church holds most sacred the memorial of Christ's birth and early manifestations. This is the purpose of the Christmas season.

33. The Christmas season runs from Evening Prayer I of Christmas until the Sunday after Epiphany or after 6 January, inclusive.

34. The Mass of the vigil of Christmas is used in the evening of 24 December, either before or after Evening Prayer I. On Christmas itself, following an ancient tradition of Rome, three Masses may be celebrated: namely, the Mass at Midnight, the Mass at Dawn, and the Mass during the Day.[R6]

35. Christmas has its own octave, arranged as follows:

a. Sunday within the octave is the feast of the Holy Family;

b. 26 December is the feast of Saint Stephen, First Martyr;

c. 27 December is the feast of Saint John, Apostle and Evangelist;

d. 28 December is the feast of the Holy Innocents;

e. 29, 30, and 31 December are days within the octave;

f. 1 January, the octave day of Christmas, is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. It also recalls the conferral of the holy Name of Jesus.

36. The Sunday falling between 2 January and 5 January is the Second Sunday after Christmas.[R7]

37. Epiphany is celebrated on 6 January, unless (where it is not observed as a holyday of obligation) it has been assigned to the Sunday occurring between 2 January and 8 January (see no. 7).

38. The Sunday falling after 6 January is the feast of the Baptism of the Lord.

It is on the eight day(Jan 1) after birth (Dec 25) that a Jewish boy would be circumcised and receive a name.

The Father's understood the circumcision of Christ in different ways:

We have record that the Church Feast of the Circumcision and Naming of Christ was fixed for the first day of January from the mid-6th century at the latest. By this time, most of the major themes in the theological interpretation of the event have crystallized. Firstly, St. Paul's typological parallel remains axiomatic; circumcision and baptism differ in outward form, but they agree in effect. The sacrament of the New Testament, as of the Old, is a sign - the sphragis, or seal, of a covenant between God and his chosen. In St. Cyril's wording, the Christian faithful "like Abraham, receive the spiritual sphragis, being circumcised in baptism by the Holy Spirit."

The second main theme is due to St. Augustine. Where the Greek Fathers continued to interpret Old Testament circumcision essentially as a token of initiation into Abraham's covenant with the Lord, St. Augustine declared it to have been an instrument of grace for the remission of Original Sin. "Instituted amongst the people of God . . . [circumcision] availed to signify the cleansing, even in infants of the original sin . . . just as baptism . . . from the time of its institution began to be of avail for the renewal of man." It was this ruling which thenceforth prevailed in the West.

A third constant in Patristic writings is the Circumcision of Christ conceived as continuous with his work of redemption. Since the debt incurred by the sin of Adam cannot be met by Adam's insolvent progeny and since Christ's blood pays the ransom his Circumcision becomes, as it were, a first installment, a down payment on behalf of mankind. It is because Christ was circumcised that the Christian no longer needs circumcision. In the words of St. Ambrose: "Since the price has been paid for all after Christ . . . suffered, there is no longer need for the blood of each individual to be shed by circumcision." In Mantegna's great picture of the Circumcision, the earliest monumental treatment of the subject and the most profound in conception, the solicitous gesture of the mother at right, averting her little boy's face to spare him a painful sight, may also have this theological import -- as if to say, "Not for you."

(Source)

My own personal opinion is that many of the "reforms" of Vatican II involved removing and replacing anything unpleasant, bloody or "icky," so we get censored Psalms, a big push to replace crucifixes with simple (or jeweled) crosses and "Jesus Resurrected," and no more circumcision. We want a happy, positive, bloodless Church.

Here is a whole collection of religous paintings of the Circumcision.

There is also a certain resulting loss of understanding and awareness of the fact that Jesus was actually male, and had a male anatomy. I recall that during my catechist certification most of the other catechsits (all women) were not sure if Jesus had a "sexuality." I asked, "How else could he be circumcised?" Perhaps this is also part of the grand feminizing of the Church. We would not want a Church Feast related to a penis, would we?

[Peggy]

Julia,

A bit more from New Advent:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03779a.htm

Apparently, according to this write up, we also thought about Mary on the day of celebrating the Feast of the Circumcision on Jan 1. Maybe it's just a re-naming? So, Jan 1 is now the Solemnity, Mary Mother of God. Maybe they just don't want to talk about circumcision? I dunno?

The Church is moving the Holy Family feast to Fri Dec 30 this year. I understand that to be the occur sometimes when holy days fall on Sundays? I'm consulting an Advent-Christmas season meditation booklet I bought this year.

We're celebrating Epiphany on Sun Jan 8 and Christ's Baptism on Mon Jan 9, according to this meditation booklet.

I hope this helps. Sorry if earlier info was misleading at all...

Yikes: This post says Holy Name is 2nd Sunday after Epiphany: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07420a.htm (but Episc Ch celebrates Holy Name on Jan 1)

[iowakatie1981]

Fr. Septimus,

It's an ELCA congregation, although I'd like to qualify that by saying that my pastor said this summer, just prior to the Churchwide Assembly, "A lot of people are threatening to leave the ELCA. I'm threatening to stay."

Politically, it's reasonably conservative. Theologically, it's pretty conservative (at least, as I understand theology...)

But, it has kind of adopted the style of many of the mega-churches, with coffee actually accepted in the sanctuary during the service (the new sanctuary is being built with cupholders...), a bookstore, more groups and programs than you can shake a stick at, parking lot attendants, and 11 weekly services.

Most of the services are contemporary, 1 is this weird counter-cultural "thing," I can hardly even call it a service, that is directed at (I think) kind of the college age group. Personally, I hate it, but that's just me. Then one of the services is the traditional liturgy. Well, most of the liturgy. They leave out the confession (which really bothers me), and the Psalm, and usually the OT reading. But the music is great. They have an orchestra, and a brass group, and strings group, and an extensive handbell choir, and several different vocal choirs. And boy, to hear the orchestra play the liturgy, or the hymns along with the organ, man is that fabulous.

Anyway...where I was going with this was that I think the "Christmas Eve on Friday" thing is more related to mega-church characteristics of this congregation, than to it being ELCA.

As a congregation, we haven't been doing "Christmas-lite" during Advent. Aside from the Sunday School pageant, and the adopt-a-family, and reminders every week about the Christmas weekend worship schedule, we've stayed pretty much within the bounds of Advent.

My pastor has been preaching almost exclusively on the texts from Revelation, and has been doing a marvelous job of it -- I've never been so...excited about...at peace with...something, about the idea of the 2nd coming as I have been this Advent.

Anyway...that was a lot more info than you or anybody else asked for, but there you go. Happy Advent!

[Peggy]

I defer to Zhou!
Thanks for the detailed sources for all our benefit!

[Julia]

Hey guys,

Thanks so much for the info.
I'll be checking out your links.
Is this a great site or what?

Being Catholic is never boring.

Also, being the sister of 4 boys, the mother of 3 and the grandma of 1 born and a 2nd to be born on December 21st (God willing), the disappearance of reference to the circumcision really grabbed my attention when I reverted.

[Liam]

Re the Eastern Churches

What we celebrate at Epiphany (the manifestation of the Messiah to the Gentiles in the form of the Magi) is something they celebrate as included within the celebration of the Nativity on Christmas Day.

What they celebrate at Theophany is the first revelation of the Most Holy Trinity in the baptism of Christ at the Jordan. It's a much, much bigger feast that our feast of the Baptism of the Lord, which was only recovered in recent generations in the Roman rite. (And a much fuller understanding of the event.)

[Caroline]

It is hard to understand why in this age of ecumenism we dropped the one Feast that really celebrated the Jewishness of Christ. The Divine Maternity as such and as distinct from the many other Marian feasts could find another suitable date without bumping a feast with powerful meaning about Christ which can certainly also be construed to emphasize the Jewishness of Mary the true daughter of Zion as well for those who want a Marian dimension to the octave feast. Is there any way to trace the actual thinking behind this change, I don't mean the ex post facto explanations given for the change, but the real thought in the mind or minds of the persons responsible for the change?

[Caroline]

It is hard to understand why in this age of ecumenism we dropped the one Feast that really celebrated the Jewishness of Christ. The Divine Maternity as such and as distinct from the many other Marian feasts could find another suitable date without bumping a feast with powerful meaning about Christ which can certainly also be construed to emphasize the Jewishness of Mary the true daughter of Zion as well for those who want a Marian dimension to the octave feast. Is there any way to trace the actual thinking behind this change, I don't mean the ex post facto explanations given for the change, but the real thought in the mind or minds of the persons responsible for the change?

[Julia]

Caroline: I'm with you.

Interesting find on one of Old Zhou's links.
Through the early years of the church (and reiterated by Aquinas among others) was the notion that the Circumcision demonstrated that Jesus was truly incarnated as a human and was not a spiritual being who didn't suffer as was claimed by the Gnostics and many others.

The article also discusses artwork featuring the circumcision.

It also seems that in the ancient world circumcision was rather abhorant and Jesus' supposedly voluntary submission to the Law of Moses meant he fully intended to be a human in actual history - as a Jewish man in that world.

So - I'm with you, why get rid of the one real Jewish link that had a prominent place in our Liturgical year.

Old Zhou may be right about wanting to clean up all the messy, Catholic bodily functions stuff that turns off Protestants. Maybe it should be re-instated to fight off the new attack of the Gnostics ala Dan Brown and the Starbird lady. Anybody got B16"s e-mail address?

You need to scroll down quite a way to see a survey of the Fathers' and others' writings on use of the circumcision to confound early heretics who denied Jesus' humanity in full.

http://www.circumstitions.com/leo.html

[Bob Smietana]

Amy

Thanks for the thoughtful take on the Christmas closings. I am suprised that no one has explored the Christmas Eve versus Christmas day angle further. Behind the megachurch push to Christmas Eve is the reality that many people raised in the Christian church in the US--mostly in Mainline and Catholic churches--have cut off all ties with the church. They still, out of longing or nostalgia or seeking or some other emotion--will come on Christmas Eve.

They cannot enjoy the feast because there's no room in their lives for God, and to taste of the spiritual riches of the banquet would overwhelm them. So the megachurches offers them a taste of the feast that awaits them in the kingdom.

[Tom Kelty]

In answer to the rants about St. Paul above: Though he traveled and preached prodigiously, there is no record of him celebrating Mass.
After Jesus, Paul was the theologian of the early church.
If you are interested in learning the very byzantine process of liturgical reform, read this months Commonweal. Our ordained leaders keep the Holy Spirit very busy even until now.

[Charles A.]

Thanks, Old Zhou and Caroline. The post-1969 calendar and arrangement is a major impoverishment.

So is the whole idea of a vigil MASS. It has become the 'convenience Mass' and so we don't (even priests) speak of SUNDAY Mass anymore - it's "weekend Mass." Same thing has happened to Christmas. It is the creeping ascendancy of suburbanized weekend leisure culture - Mass is now just one more thing you do along with kids' sports, visits to the Mall, yardwork. It's all casual, too.

A far richer form was in the older calendar when the Vigil was the ENTIRE DAY before the feast. A Vigil's Mass was in the morning, and did NOT satisfy the obligation to go to Mass on the Feast. The Feast proper begain in the evening with First Vespers.

[Donald R. McClarey]

New slogan for the Church: "We never close!"

[Rich Leonardi]

In answer to the rants about St. Paul above: Though he traveled and preached prodigiously, there is no record of him celebrating Mass.
After Jesus, Paul was the theologian of the early church.

'Lemme guess, Tom; this means we should be able to ordain just about anyone: married men, women -- even horses (at least the ones in Narnia).

[Mary Kay]

The eggnog posts have been interesting as I will be making it from scratch for the first time this year.

This is the 2nd thread in which questioning January 1 as celebrating Mary, Mother of God has come up. I checked what Catholic Answers says about Mary, Mother of God

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

but it's too late at night to think out what the rationale for Jan. 1 might have been.

[Liam]

Caroline

I was reading commentaries by Vatican II-era German scholars on the reform of the calendar last night. It seems that the main impulse of the changes regarding Jan. 1 were to address what was viewed as a medieval accretion to the calendar. The emphasis on the Circumcision as such only arose in the High Middle Ages, it seems, and was actually being deemphasized just before the council as the Ordo was revised to restore the older emphasis on the Octave of Christmas. January 1 was originally the Roman rite's major feast of Mary, but it had gotten lost to other feasts (like the Assumption) that came from the East. So, the reformers wanted to do a bit of calendrical restoration. I personally think it was a flop in that regard.

[patrick]

For sure, on one level, the feast of the Mother of God on Jan 1 was a restoration of the earlier feast. As noted above it was a major feast of the roman rite until the middle ages.

But I think there was much more to it than that, it has to do with the importance of the Mother of God in the incarnation, and more especially with the new awareness of the great importance of the Marian dimension in the ecclesial life and in the life of faith. This Marian teaching of the council was very important to Paul6, a major theme of JP2, of theologians like VonBalthasar, Hugo Rahner, DeLubac etc, and PB16 has written that it is one of the most important fruits of the council. To celebrate the great and unique importance of Mary in the incarnation, not only amplifies the importance of this Marian dimension of the church but also reveals the deepest mystery of the church. the marian doctrines in the early church protected and brought out the true nature of Christ in the doctrinal battles of the time, especially against arianism. and now when the church has fallen into a certain "ecclesial arianism" it will find its true identity in contemplating Mary in the mystery of Christ.

i do not think this restoration of the feast was done for the sake of change, but is a real "word of the spirit speaking to the churches". this marian dimension as taught by the council and the magisterium for the past 40 years, has not yet been "received by the church". A beautiful and insightful reflection on this is in the Pope's homily for the feast of the Immaculate Conception that he gave last week.