Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [liturgy-l] The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

Expand Messages
  • Scott Knitter
    Brisket, of course. ... -- Scott R. Knitter Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA mailto:scottknitter@gmail.com - http://scottknitter.blog-city.com
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 2, 2006
      Brisket, of course.

      On 1/2/06, cfortunato@... <cfortunato@...> wrote:

      > BTW, an evangelical friends of mine said, "There's a feast of the
      > circumcision? Ummm....what do they eat?"

      --
      Scott R. Knitter
      Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA
      mailto:scottknitter@... - http://scottknitter.blog-city.com
    • Cody C. Unterseher
      ... of ... (which ... strange to me to ... motherhood. ... The observance of the Marian feast is much older than the observance of the circumcision -- in fact,
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 2, 2006
        Carl asked:

        > But does anybody know why the RCs have turned it into the Solemnity
        of
        > Mary, the Mother of God - they both have the same Gospel reading
        (which
        > mentions Mary pondering all these things in her heart). It seems
        strange to me to
        > turn the circumcision into a purely Marian feast about her
        motherhood.
        > Anybody know the reasoning behind the change?

        The observance of the Marian feast is much older than the observance
        of the circumcision -- in fact, it's the oldest Marian feast on the
        calendar. It seems to predate the December 25 feast of Christmas in
        the West, and may have been the only Marian feast prior to the
        Council of Ephesus in 431. When Christmas was established, the
        circumcision connection was made as January 1 is the octave of
        December 25.

        I just finished a course in "Eschatology, Mariology and the Communion
        of the Saints" with R. Kevin Seasoltz, OSB. When I get back to
        school, and if I remember, I'll post more on this when I have my
        notes available.

        Peace,
        Cody Unterseher
      • Jerry Kliner
        As part of my Christmas gift from my parish, I just purchased Kevin Seasoltz s A Sense of the Sacred ... Haven t had a chance to read it yet (I just got it
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
          As part of my Christmas gift from my parish, I just
          purchased Kevin Seasoltz's "A Sense of the Sacred"...
          Haven't had a chance to read it yet (I just got it
          late last week...) but it looks good...

          On the topic of Mary, from a protestant viewpoint, I
          heartily reccomend "Mary, the Mother of God" (edited
          by Carl Braaten), a collection of essays that raise
          (to borrow a biblical pharse, in many and various
          ways) the issue of Mary's presence and role in the
          liturgy. One of the suggestions raised by David Yeago
          is for protestants (yes, yes, I know this is a
          problematic title... please note the lower-case
          "p"...)to resume observing the Marian feasts
          throughout the year. So I am following this thread
          with real interest!

          Pax Christi;
          Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


          --- "Cody C. Unterseher" <oblate21@...> wrote:
          > Carl asked:
          >
          > > But does anybody know why the RCs have turned it
          > into the Solemnity
          > of
          > > Mary, the Mother of God - they both have the same
          > Gospel reading
          > (which
          > > mentions Mary pondering all these things in her
          > heart). It seems
          > strange to me to
          > > turn the circumcision into a purely Marian feast
          > about her
          > motherhood.
          > > Anybody know the reasoning behind the change?
          >
          > The observance of the Marian feast is much older
          > than the observance
          > of the circumcision -- in fact, it's the oldest
          > Marian feast on the
          > calendar. It seems to predate the December 25 feast
          > of Christmas in
          > the West, and may have been the only Marian feast
          > prior to the
          > Council of Ephesus in 431. When Christmas was
          > established, the
          > circumcision connection was made as January 1 is the
          > octave of
          > December 25.
          >
          > I just finished a course in "Eschatology, Mariology
          > and the Communion
          > of the Saints" with R. Kevin Seasoltz, OSB. When I
          > get back to
          > school, and if I remember, I'll post more on this
          > when I have my
          > notes available.





          __________________________________
          Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
          http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
        • thomas@laudasion.org
          ... The explanation is correct. In fact the nature of the earlier Marian Feast was never lost in the Roman liturgy, even when its name changed. One can see
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
            >> > But does anybody know why the RCs have turned it
            >> into the Solemnity
            >> of
            >> > Mary, the Mother of God - they both have the same
            >> Gospel reading
            >> (which
            >> > mentions Mary pondering all these things in her
            >> heart). It seems
            >> strange to me to
            >> > turn the circumcision into a purely Marian feast
            >> about her
            >> motherhood.
            >> > Anybody know the reasoning behind the change?
            >>
            >> The observance of the Marian feast is much older
            >> than the observance
            >> of the circumcision -- in fact, it's the oldest
            >> Marian feast on the
            >> calendar. It seems to predate the December 25 feast
            >> of Christmas in
            >> the West, and may have been the only Marian feast
            >> prior to the
            >> Council of Ephesus in 431. When Christmas was
            >> established, the
            >> circumcision connection was made as January 1 is the
            >> octave of
            >> December 25.

            The explanation is correct. In fact the nature of the earlier Marian Feast
            was never lost in the Roman liturgy, even when its name changed. One can
            see this in the abtiphons such as _O admirabile commercium_ ,
            _Quando natus es_ , _Rubum quem viderat_ , or the Great Responsories for the
            Feast. Outside the Gospel reading, which has a Marian interpretation as
            well, I am not sure that anything in the pre-reform rite really pointed to
            the Circumcision (don't have my books handy to check my memory on the Mass
            propers for the day, so feel free to correct me. I am guessing (just
            guessing here, so corrections again welcome and solicited) that when the
            Roman Rite went international, back in Charlemagne's day, that the feast was
            a adjusted to keep from grating to much on locval sensibilities in places
            where the Circumcision was usually celebrated. The reform simply changed
            the name back and kept most of the pre-reform texts. Despite this, the
            change seems to have been commonly interpreted as Romans just wanting to
            throw in another Marian Feast, or being too squeamish about putting a knife
            to newborn baby boys.

            thomas
          • cfortunato@aol.com
            [[ Subject: Re: The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. ... The explanation is correct. In fact the nature of the earlier Marian Feast was never lost in the
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
              [[ Subject: Re: The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.


              >> > But does anybody know why the RCs have turned it
              >> into the Solemnity
              >> of
              >> > Mary, the Mother of God - they both have the same
              >> Gospel reading
              >> (which
              >> > mentions Mary pondering all these things in her
              >> heart). It seems
              >> strange to me to
              >> > turn the circumcision into a purely Marian feast
              >> about her
              >> motherhood.
              >> > Anybody know the reasoning behind the change?
              >>
              >> The observance of the Marian feast is much older
              >> than the observance
              >> of the circumcision -- in fact, it's the oldest
              >> Marian feast on the
              >> calendar. It seems to predate the December 25 feast
              >> of Christmas in
              >> the West, and may have been the only Marian feast
              >> prior to the
              >> Council of Ephesus in 431. When Christmas was
              >> established, the
              >> circumcision connection was made as January 1 is the
              >> octave of
              >> December 25.

              The explanation is correct. In fact the nature of the earlier Marian Feast
              was never lost in the Roman liturgy, even when its name changed. One can
              see this in the abtiphons such as _O admirabile commercium_ ,
              _Quando natus es_ , _Rubum quem viderat_ , or the Great Responsories for the
              Feast. Outside the Gospel reading, which has a Marian interpretation as
              well, I am not sure that anything in the pre-reform rite really pointed to
              the Circumcision (don't have my books handy to check my memory on the Mass
              propers for the day, so feel free to correct me. I am guessing (just
              guessing here, so corrections again welcome and solicited) that when the
              Roman Rite went international, back in Charlemagne's day, that the feast was
              a adjusted to keep from grating to much on locval sensibilities in places
              where the Circumcision was usually celebrated. The reform simply changed
              the name back and kept most of the pre-reform texts. Despite this, the
              change seems to have been commonly interpreted as Romans just wanting to
              throw in another Marian Feast, or being too squeamish about putting a knife
              to newborn baby boys. ]]

              I had no idea that the Marian aspect predated the Feast of the Circumcision, and I'll except the statement. But it seems extremely odd: it IS exactly 8 days after Christmas. The idea that the readings were the same - including mention of the circumcision - BEFORE the Nativity was celebrated on the 25th would seem to be too much for coincidence to bear. Or am I missing something?

              I notice that Marian devotion is drastically increasing in Protestant circle, which is very welcome. Although I think the Roman Catholics frequently go too far with Marianism, the near total neglect in most Protestant circles is at least as large of an error, in my opinion.

              Thanks for the info.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jerry Kliner
              ... I suspect the reason why (in protestant circles) the festival of the circumcision of our Lord/the Holy Name of Jesus superceded the Marian festival was a
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
                Carl wrote:
                > I had no idea that the Marian aspect predated the
                > Feast of the Circumcision, and I'll except the
                > statement. But it seems extremely odd: it IS
                > exactly 8 days after Christmas. The idea that the
                > readings were the same - including mention of the
                > circumcision - BEFORE the Nativity was celebrated on
                > the 25th would seem to be too much for coincidence
                > to bear. Or am I missing something?

                I suspect the reason why (in protestant circles) the
                festival of the circumcision of our Lord/the Holy Name
                of Jesus superceded the Marian festival was a desire
                to be Biblically literal, driven by "Sola Scriptura,"
                along with a rush to differentiate from Roman
                Catholicism. This compulsion to be "different" from
                our Mother Church has led many Lutherans to (sadly)
                have little or nothing to do with Mary as the Mother
                of God. She barely gets mention in many congregations
                (even when the lessons center upon her), much less
                celebrating a feast our our Lady.

                > I notice that Marian devotion is drastically
                > increasing in Protestant circle, which is very
                > welcome. Although I think the Roman Catholics
                > frequently go too far with Marianism, the near total
                > neglect in most Protestant circles is at least as
                > large of an error, in my opinion.

                I can't speak to the second point, but if not
                devotion, then certainly awareness seems to be
                "increasing" (I put the word in quotes only because
                Marian devotion couldn't get too much lower among ELCA
                Lutherans at least). Yet, far too few protestants
                seem concerned at the regard with which we hold Mary.
                And far many more would actually like to depose Mary
                further (if that's possible).

                Anyway, this digresses a little from the liturgical
                issues at hand...

                Pax Christi;
                Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS




                __________________________________________
                Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
                Just $16.99/mo. or less.
                dsl.yahoo.com
              • cantor03@aol.com
                Question: Was there an intermediate change in the designation for January 1st? My recollection may be faulty, but wasn t there a period after Vatican-2 when
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
                  Question:

                  Was there an intermediate change in the designation for
                  January 1st?

                  My recollection may be faulty, but wasn't
                  there a period after Vatican-2 when Holy Name [which has
                  now been placed as an optional observance in the Roman
                  Catholic Church] was observed in place of the Circumcision
                  on January 1st, and then that date later changed to the
                  designation, "Mary, Mother of God?"


                  David Strang.




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Frank Senn
                  The Feast of the Circumcision and Name of Jesus was on the liturgical books before the Reformation. The Reformation Churches seldom invented new festivals.
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
                    The Feast of the Circumcision and Name of Jesus was on the liturgical books before the Reformation. The Reformation Churches seldom invented new festivals. They either kept what was being observed or abolished them. So the Feast of the Circumcision eclipsed the Feast of Mary long before the Reformation.

                    Frank C. Senn

                    Jerry Kliner <jerry_kliner@...> wrote:
                    Carl wrote:
                    > I had no idea that the Marian aspect predated the
                    > Feast of the Circumcision, and I'll except the
                    > statement. But it seems extremely odd: it IS
                    > exactly 8 days after Christmas. The idea that the
                    > readings were the same - including mention of the
                    > circumcision - BEFORE the Nativity was celebrated on
                    > the 25th would seem to be too much for coincidence
                    > to bear. Or am I missing something?

                    I suspect the reason why (in protestant circles) the
                    festival of the circumcision of our Lord/the Holy Name
                    of Jesus superceded the Marian festival was a desire
                    to be Biblically literal, driven by "Sola Scriptura,"
                    along with a rush to differentiate from Roman
                    Catholicism. This compulsion to be "different" from
                    our Mother Church has led many Lutherans to (sadly)
                    have little or nothing to do with Mary as the Mother
                    of God. She barely gets mention in many congregations
                    (even when the lessons center upon her), much less
                    celebrating a feast our our Lady.

                    > I notice that Marian devotion is drastically
                    > increasing in Protestant circle, which is very
                    > welcome. Although I think the Roman Catholics
                    > frequently go too far with Marianism, the near total
                    > neglect in most Protestant circles is at least as
                    > large of an error, in my opinion.

                    I can't speak to the second point, but if not
                    devotion, then certainly awareness seems to be
                    "increasing" (I put the word in quotes only because
                    Marian devotion couldn't get too much lower among ELCA
                    Lutherans at least). Yet, far too few protestants
                    seem concerned at the regard with which we hold Mary.
                    And far many more would actually like to depose Mary
                    further (if that's possible).

                    Anyway, this digresses a little from the liturgical
                    issues at hand...

                    Pax Christi;
                    Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS




                    __________________________________________
                    Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
                    Just $16.99/mo. or less.
                    dsl.yahoo.com



                    Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                    liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    Yahoo! Groups Links











                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • MMonty
                    ... From: Cody C. Unterseher To: Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:34 PM Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: The
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 4, 2006
                      ---- Original Message -----
                      From: "Cody C. Unterseher" <oblate21@...>
                      To: <liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:34 PM
                      Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.
                      >
                      > The observance of the Marian feast is much older than the observance
                      > of the circumcision -- in fact, it's the oldest Marian feast on the
                      > calendar. It seems to predate the December 25 feast of Christmas in
                      > the West, and may have been the only Marian feast prior to the
                      > Council of Ephesus in 431. When Christmas was established, the
                      > circumcision connection was made as January 1 is the octave of
                      > December 25.

                      Oddly enough this feast is actually about the identity of Jesus the Christ.
                      It leap frogs us back to that very Council of Ephesus you mention.
                      When we get down to the nitty gritty of Marian Feast days they are all
                      fundamentally about the person of Jesus the Christ. They are not a
                      distraction from that great truth of the faith but a pointer to it.
                      Which is why we have those feast days in the first place.
                      Peace...
                      MaryM (the lay Aussie RC)
                    • Jerry Kliner
                      I did not necessarily mean to imply that the either the Circumcision of our Lord or the Holy Name of Jesus were protestant/Reformation inventions. My
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 4, 2006
                        I did not necessarily mean to imply that the either
                        the Circumcision of our Lord or the Holy Name of Jesus
                        were protestant/Reformation "inventions." My
                        suspicion was that protestants have gravitated towards
                        them over the Marian feast due to (albeit a
                        mis-understood) protestant "sensibility" around "sola
                        scriptura" and "non-Catholicism."

                        That being said, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Thanks
                        for the correction.

                        Pax Christi;
                        Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

                        --- Frank Senn <fcsenn@...> wrote:
                        > The Feast of the Circumcision and Name of Jesus was
                        > on the liturgical books before the Reformation. The
                        > Reformation Churches seldom invented new festivals.
                        > They either kept what was being observed or
                        > abolished them. So the Feast of the Circumcision
                        > eclipsed the Feast of Mary long before the
                        > Reformation.




                        __________________________________________
                        Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
                        Just $16.99/mo. or less.
                        dsl.yahoo.com
                      • Thomas R. Jackson
                        ... I wouldn t go so far as to say the readings were the same in the Roman Feast prior to Charlemagne. I don t know what the readings were then, much less
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 4, 2006
                          carl_fortunato wrote:

                          >I had no idea that the Marian aspect predated the Feast of the
                          >Circumcision, and I'll except the statement. But it seems extremely
                          >odd: it IS exactly 8 days after Christmas. The idea that the
                          >readings were the same - including mention of the circumcision -
                          >BEFORE the Nativity was celebrated on the 25th would seem to be too
                          >much for coincidence to bear. Or am I missing something?

                          I wouldn't go so far as to say the readings were the same in the
                          Roman Feast prior to Charlemagne. I don't know what the readings
                          were then, much less prior to the beginning of Christmas in
                          Rome. It's an interesting question though, does anyone? I do know
                          that a lot of the propers survived, and they don't generally
                          reference the Circumcision, but they do have a lot of Marian
                          references, particularly about the birth of Jesus, which makes them
                          fit in quite nicely with the whole Octave of Christmas idea.

                          thomas
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.