Ship of Fools: Naming & Circumcision v Mary Mother of our Lord

Thread: Naming & Circumcision v Mary Mother of our Lord Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025005

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Which are you keeping today and why? I'm for the feast of our Lord and don 't know why the RCC had invented a Marian feast for today. CIrcumcision was 8 days after birth so it's the obvious feast for the day.

Carys

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

St. Basil's Day.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The RCC "invented" a Marian Feast for 1st January way back in the seventh century. It commemorates the definition of the Council of Ephesus against the Nestorians and is in fact the oldest of all the Marian feasts.

It is the Octave Day of Christmas. Its original Marian emphasis was later obscured as greater emphasis was given to a commemoration of the Circumcision of Jesus, in the 13th and 14th centuries. In 1570 Pope Pius V designated it as the Circumcision of Jesus for the Universal Church. Thus the Maternity of Mary was lost. It found its way back gradually, beginning in Portugal, and was eventually given its own day in October in 1931.

Pope Paul VI decided to restore the ancient connection between Christmas and the important doctrine of Mary as Mother of God, or Theotokos, by restoring 1st January to its ancient designation. The Holy Name of Jesus is now (since 2002) kept on 3rd January.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I know Carys asks a question often asked by Anglo Catholics at this time of the year.

However, I would also want to say a word for New Years Day. Churches may want to celebrate the Circumcison of Christ, but if that is the only focus on January 1st then I fear churches have missed out on praying and blessing the 'new year'

I guess this raises deeper questions. Do we engage with secular feasts and help them have a broader perspective, through faith, or do we ignore them.

The fact that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Rowan Williams both give New Years messages suggests the former.

So I say its good some churches also observe today in a special way as New Years Day.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

The secular bit of New Year's is just moaning about the night before, and resolving to be better in the New Year.

Thank you, Triple Tiara for the potted history of January 1st. I often get confused as to when the things were turned around.

It also explains why Anglicans think that the Circumcision is the norm since that denomination was formed in the early modern period.

The Gospel reading for today in Church deals with the Circumcision, even if it is The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

In Calvinist Scotland New year's Day was for a long,long time the only festival of the year.
Churches would hold WatchNight services before the bells and a New Year's Day service also.
It was only in the 1580s that pope Gregory XIII decreed that the 1st January should be observed as the beginning of the New Year instead of 25th March as before.
Although England did not change the date of the New Year's beginning until the mid 1700s,Scotland made the change in the early 1600s.
This made it easier to transfer customs like present giving from the Catholic christmas to a more secular New Year.
Until about 60 years ago most Presbyterian churches would have held special WatchNight and Day services at New Year instead of Christmas.
Nowadays,at least in the central belt of Scotland it's only the Wee Frees and Free Presbyterians who do this.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We celebrated it as The Naming of Jesus, as per Common Worship, but Father also mentioned the Circumcision and Our Lady in his neat little homily.

Best white chasuble, a lovely sunny day, and 11 adults + 3 children at a midday Mass in the Lady Chapel. A good start to the New Year - which was also mentioned in the homily!

A happy, holy and peaceful 2013 to you all.

Ian J.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Even if one looks at the pre-1960 Mass in the Roman Missal for the feast of the Circumcision, one sees that the collect and post-communion collects both are Marian in theme. In other words, the Octave Day of Christmas being a celebration of her Motherhood and role in the Incarnation of Our Lord, were never lost in the propers of the Mass. Ditto in the office. The English Missal and Anglican Breviary both demonstrate these, as well.)

Those such as myself who follow the Extraordinary Form and use the 1962 missal and kalendar find themselves in the "in between period" (1961-1969), after the name Circumcision had been dropped from the feast, and before the Solemnity of the BVM, Mother of God was restored. The name is simply "Octave Day of the Nativity," another important aspect of the feast.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Pope Paul VI decided to restore the ancient connection between Christmas and the important doctrine of Mary as Mother of God, or Theotokos, by restoring 1st January to its ancient designation. The Holy Name of Jesus is now (since 2002) kept on 3rd January.

Doesn't this make it ten days between birth and circumcision? What's the link between the Theotokos and January 1st that leads to postponing Christ's brit?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Thanks for the history lesson Triple Tiara, that makes more sense of it, but I still have the same question as Bostonman -- why move the Naming rather than Mary, Theotokos as it's the naming which has a bibilical time frame to it?

As to St Basil, the CofE keep him (with Gregory) tomorrow, whilst the Church in Wales keeps Gregory in May and Basil in June, while the Epiescopal Church of Scotland keep both Gregory and Basil in June! At least according to Exciting Holiness.

Carys

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Circumcision - because it is important to remember that (a) Jesus was Jewish and (b)as incarnate, he was a male with sexual organs.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Well, the "Naming of Jesus" seems to be an Anglican thing, commemorating the event. The Catholic Church keeps the "Holy Name of Jesus", perhaps a more theological/devotional approach, rather than commemorating an event, so it does not have to be tied to a calendrical scheme.

As PeteC and Ceremoniar point out, the Gospel of 1 January is that of the Circumcision, as it always has been.

If one is going for a linear, event-based approach to the Calendar, then I suppose you want to keep the events in some sort of order. There was some discussion elsewhere about St Stephen, St John and the Holy Innocents immediately after Christmas. The event approach would remove those days - and if I recall correctly, CW gives that as an option, assigning them different days in the year.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Even if one looks at the pre-1960 Mass in the Roman Missal for the feast of the Circumcision, one sees that the collect and post-communion collects both are Marian in theme. In other words, the Octave Day of Christmas being a celebration of her Motherhood and role in the Incarnation of Our Lord, were never lost in the propers of the Mass. Ditto in the office. The English Missal and Anglican Breviary both demonstrate these, as well.)

Those such as myself who follow the Extraordinary Form and use the 1962 missal and kalendar find themselves in the "in between period" (1961-1969), after the name Circumcision had been dropped from the feast, and before the Solemnity of the BVM, Mother of God was restored. The name is simply "Octave Day of the Nativity," another important aspect of the feast.

Each of the EF psalm antiphons and the office hymn - A solis ortus cardine - are deeply Marian too.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

The dropping of the the name Circumcision was a result of the ecumenicsl discussions that Blessed John XXIII had with Jewish leaders. Apparently they were not comfortable with the the idea of using the name of an important Jewish ritual being used in a Christian liturgical context. (These were the same discussions that resulted in the dropping of the word perfidious from the Good Friday prayers.) As a reult, Blessed John dropped the name Circumcision from the feast in 1960, leaving it as just the Octave Day of the Nativity--a subtitle that had always been, and continues to be, a significant part of what the day represents.

When the revised kalendar and missal were unveiled for the liturgical year 1970, the name had been changed to the more ancient Solemnity of Mary, Holy Mother of God. It is an old tradition in the life of the Church to end an octave with a related feast. The new kalendar reinstated what had originally been the feast on the Octave Day of the Nativity--the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God (rather than "inventing" a new one, as some here have wrongly averred).

When the revised English translations took effect last year, additional emphasis was placed once again on the feast as Octave Day of the Nativity--in fact, that name now appears even before the Solemnity of Mary, Holy Mother of God, as indicated in the U.S. liturgical kalendar on the web page. The word Holy was added to more accurately reflect the Latin original.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Circumcision - because it is important to remember that (a) Jesus was Jewish and (b)as incarnate, he was a male with sexual organs.

I'm enjoying wishing everyone a Merry Brismas. [Big Grin]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I realise leo's important theological point, but surely the reason why we really don't want to call the day "The Circumcision" is that it sounds so embarrassing.

Incidentally, I believe the Society of Jesus used to keep 1 January as the feast of title of their society. Do they now keep 3 January?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I realise leo's important theological point, but surely the reason why we really don't want to call the day "The Circumcision" is that it sounds so embarrassing.

Incidentally, I believe the Society of Jesus used to keep 1 January as the feast of title of their society. Do they now keep 3 January?

1) No, it was following the lead of the Pope in honoring the requests of Jewish leaders.

Nope, still the first: http://predmore.blogspot.com/2009/01/titular-feast-of-society-of-jesu.html

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I realise leo's important theological point, but surely the reason why we really don't want to call the day "The Circumcision" is that it sounds so embarrassing

I've rather enjoyed wishing people an Happy Circumcision but Grace here has been rather ecumenical:

By the prayers of the Mother of God, bless us, O Lord, and this food we receive from thy love. Through Christ our Circumcised Lord.

Thurible

[ 01. January 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Thurible ]

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Watch night services seem to be less common than they were. I don't know of any to tell the truth, this year. Anyone report any sitings?

Whatever we may think about the secular v. The religious - friend to be embraced and sanctified, or enemy to be shunned... Watch night services at the beginning of a new year have been a feature of worship provision in many churches - including at one time the great St Alban's, Holborn.

[Smile]

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Which are you keeping today and why? I'm for the feast of our Lord and don 't know why the RCC had invented a Marian feast for today. CIrcumcision was 8 days after birth so it's the obvious feast for the day.

I consider Holy Name and Circumcision ("Brissmas") to be interchangeable designations. The two go together. I celebrate Brissmas by singing the hymn "Jesus, name of wondrous love."

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
However, I would also want to say a word for New Years Day. Churches may want to celebrate the Circumcison of Christ, but if that is the only focus on January 1st then I fear churches have missed out on praying and blessing the 'new year'

I guess this raises deeper questions. Do we engage with secular feasts and help them have a broader perspective, through faith, or do we ignore them.

The fact that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Rowan Williams both give New Years messages suggests the former.

So I say its good some churches also observe today in a special way as New Years Day.

Sed contra*, St. Augustine, from his New Year's sermon:

quote:
Now, if this feast of the pagans which is celebrated today with such joy of the world and of the flesh, with the singing of meaningless and base songs, with banquets and shameful dances, if these things which the pagans do in the celebration of this false festival do not please you, then you shall be gathered from among the nations.
Are you going to take part in a celebration of the New Year? Are you, just like a pagan, going to play dice and become intoxicated when you believe, hope, and love otherwise? How can you then sing with an open countenance: Save us, O Lord our God: and gather us from among the nations'?

*Scholastic for "quite to the contrary, I've found someone very important indeed to disagree with you."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I realise leo's important theological point, but surely the reason why we really don't want to call the day "The Circumcision" is that it sounds so embarrassing.?

Our Lord took flesh. Why is talk of the flesh embarassing?

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

Because it's about his. . . you know. . . thing.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Which are you keeping today and why? I'm for the feast of our Lord and don 't know why the RCC had invented a Marian feast for today. CIrcumcision was 8 days after birth so it's the obvious feast for the day.
I consider Holy Name and Circumcision ("Brissmas") to be interchangeable designations. The two go together. I celebrate Brissmas by singing the hymn "Jesus, name of wondrous love."

A talented organist friend in days gone by used always to work the melody of the Passion Chorale somewhere into the High Mass on Circumcision (back when we did that). I thought it a bit strange the first time I heard it, until I realized the first line in English was 'O Sacred Head, sore wounded.' [Eek!]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

Until about 60 years ago most Presbyterian churches would have held special WatchNight and Day services at New Year ...

Our CofE parish has a watchnight service! Apparently its one of the best attended of the year. I can't speak from experience as I have never been to one.

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I realise leo's important theological point, but surely the reason why we really don't want to call the day "The Circumcision" is that it sounds so embarrassing.

Why do you think its embarrassing?

Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Because it's about his. . . you know. . . thing.

Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :

Last year at Mass on 1st January we used the "Covenant Service" which Common Worship nicked/borrowed from the Methodist Service Book and which can be found on page 108 here and renamed "Renewal of the Covenant".

This worked well with the theme of Christ's Circumcision - all in the context of the Eucharistic Celebration of the new covenant - and is full of remembering where we come from and looking forward and being conscious of our committment to our covenanted lives into the new year.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I realise leo's important theological point, but surely the reason why we really don't want to call the day "The Circumcision" is that it sounds so embarrassing.
Why do you think its embarrassing?

Because I would not like to be seen naked in public. Sorry to be old fashioned, but there we are.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

St Mary, Tottenham certainly have a Watchnight and it's one of the best attended services of the year. The congregation is largely black and I think it's the West Indian component that come in the largest numbers but it may be the West African communities. Or it might be both and all.

Thurible

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I know Carys asks a question often asked by Anglo Catholics at this time of the year.

However, I would also want to say a word for New Years Day. Churches may want to celebrate the Circumcison of Christ, but if that is the only focus on January 1st then I fear churches have missed out on praying and blessing the 'new year'

I guess this raises deeper questions. Do we engage with secular feasts and help them have a broader perspective, through faith, or do we ignore them.

The fact that Pope Benedict and Archbishop Rowan Williams both give New Years messages suggests the former.

So I say its good some churches also observe today in a special way as New Years Day.

The church already has its own New Year's Day; it's called the First Sunday in Advent.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The church already has its own New Year's Day; it's called the First Sunday in Advent.

You misspelled "The First of September."

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
So I say its good some churches also observe today in a special way as New Years Day.
The church already has its own New Year's Day; it's called the First Sunday in Advent.

My understanding is that the First Sunday of Advent is the beginning of the liturgical year in the Latin rites and their descendants but that the ecclesiastical new year falls on the
1st of September, which is also the beginning of the liturgical new year in the Byzantine Rite.

It is entirely possible that I have misunderstood.

[Cross-posted with Mousethief]

[ 03. January 2013, 20:37: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I must say even a liturgical anorak like me has never heard of any Western Ecclesiastical year starting in September. (The academic year starts in September of course - but surely for purely practical reasons.)

His All Holiness Patriarch Demetrios made 1 September a day of prayer for the environment.

His Holiness John Paul II I believe declared 1 January a day of prayer for world peace.

It is a pity that those two eminiently progressive concerns aren't taken up more.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I must say even a liturgical anorak like me has never heard of any Western Ecclesiastical year starting in September.

From memory, the Little Gidding year starts (started?) in September?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

In full obedience to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, the Methodist New Year begins on 1 September. [Angel]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I didn't know that, but Little Gidding's Cambridge, isn't it?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Huntingdonshire, apparently.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
[QUOTE]
As for naming churches for the Circumcision of Our Lord being an ecumenical gesture toward the Jewish people, this is an ironic statement. The whole reason that the RCC dropped that name of the feast--followed within a few years by other denominations--was because Jewish leaders expressed their objections about the name of the feast to Blessed John XXIII. They did not believe that it is appropriate for Christians to use the name of an important Jewish ritual--signifying submission to the Mosaic law of the old convenant--as the basis of a feast to be observed by people who, in their view, do not adhere to Mosaic law, the old convenant, or Jewish tradition.

Cermoniar made this point on the Random Questions thread, which is highly relevant.

I was puzzled how the post-medieval stress on the circumscion for the Octave Day of Christmas was Jewish friendly. Apparently Jews don’t think it is.

Calling it the Circumscion merely leads to smutty giggles and double entendre.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

There are plenty of images of the Circumcision (often in mediaeval art, roof bosses and the like). There is nothing more anti-Semitic in this fact that in referring to Christ reading Isaiah, quoting Jonah, attending the Passover or being Presented in the Temple.

It seems to me that the sensitivity of the subject is both due to its 'intimate' nature - above and beyond the sad and shameful history of the Christian treatment of Jews which will have influenced how all commentary upon Christ's Jewishness will be perceived. Given what a sensitive subject this is I am glad that Bl. John XXIII had the sense to listen to Jewish opinion on this matter.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
There are plenty of images of the Circumcision (often in mediaeval art, roof bosses and the like). There is nothing more anti-Semitic in this fact that in referring to Christ reading Isaiah, quoting Jonah, attending the Passover or being Presented in the Temple.

It seems to me that the sensitivity of the subject is both due to its 'intimate' nature - above and beyond the sad and shameful history of the Christian treatment of Jews which will have influenced how all commentary upon Christ's Jewishness will be perceived. Given what a sensitive subject this is I am glad that Bl. John XXIII had the sense to listen to Jewish opinion on this matter.

I would agree that there was no anti-semitic mindset intended in the feast of the Circumcision, but the Jewish leaders in 1960 never claimed that there was (unlike the use of the word perfidious on Good Friday, which they did feel was a slight, and it was dropped on that basis). The belief was that Christians essentially should not use the name of the Jewish ritual that signified adherence to Mosaic law, when they obviously did not adhere to it--they certainly did not consider the act of circumcision to be a religious need, even if their boys were circumcised.

I disagree that there is or was squeamishness over the intimate details of what circumcision is. That name survived centuries that were arguably far more squeamish (e.g., puritan and Victorian eras) without being changed, and was dropped right at the time when discussions of things intimate were just beginning to become more public.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0