Author Topic: Happy New Year!  (Read 1825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantarella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7782
  • Reputation: +4572/-575
  • Gender: Female
Happy New Year!
« on: December 31, 2014, 03:23:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Happy New Year 2015!
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline ggreg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3002
    • Reputation: +181/-177
    • Gender: Male
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #1 on: December 31, 2014, 04:48:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm just glad to be here.

    Not dead from Ebola or bleeding to death through my gums from Fukushima.

    Or bankrupt from the dollar collapse.   Or poached from global warming, sorry, I mean climate change.


    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16730
    • Reputation: +1200/-4686
    • Gender: Male
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #2 on: December 31, 2014, 09:04:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Happy New Year
     :cool: :cool: :cool:

    Offline Sigismund

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5385
    • Reputation: +3119/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #3 on: December 31, 2014, 09:34:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Happy New Year!
    Stir up within Thy Church, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Spirit with which blessed Josaphat, Thy Martyr and Bishop, was filled, when he laid down his life for his sheep: so that, through his intercession, we too may be moved and strengthen by the same Spir

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6230
    • Reputation: +3462/-254
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #4 on: December 31, 2014, 09:37:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One of the men at my chapel named John saw some people celebrating the New Year and he told them that we should not celebrate the New Year, but instead we should celebrate the feast of the circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ. They looked at him funny and laughed at him.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5881
    • Reputation: +2778/-499
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #5 on: December 31, 2014, 10:23:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    One of the men at my chapel named John saw some people celebrating the New Year and he told them that we should not celebrate the New Year, but instead we should celebrate the feast of the circumcision of our Lord Jesus Christ. They looked at him funny and laughed at him.


    I noticed that the VII church no longer celebrates this on 1/1.  Instead it is the Solemnity of the Mother of God.  I read that John XXIII changed this in 1960.

    Does anyone know why?  
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline JezusDeKoning

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2940
    • Reputation: +1086/-2220
    • Gender: Male
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #6 on: December 31, 2014, 11:15:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wonder that too, especially because the Novus Ordo would be the most likely to promulgate the whole "Jesus of the Jєωιѕн religion" malarkey.
    Remember O most gracious Virgin Mary...

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5881
    • Reputation: +2778/-499
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #7 on: January 01, 2015, 07:34:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was wondering if celebrating the circumcision of Jesus was offensive to them for some reason.  
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


    Offline PerEvangelicaDicta

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2049
    • Reputation: +1285/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #8 on: January 01, 2015, 01:09:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • NEW YEAR PRAYER
    I thank Thee, O Lord Jesus, because Thou hast shed Thy blood for me in Circumcision, and beg Thee that by Thy precious blood I may receive the grace to circumcise my heart and all my senses, so that I may lead a life of mortification in this world, and attain eternal joys in the next. Amen.

    PRAYER TO OUR MOTHER FOR NEW YEAR BLESSINGS
    O Mary, unto thy patronage we fly; bless us, thy children, especially today at the beginning of the year, that, with unwavering zeal, we may tread the path of virtue pointed out to us by thy example, O queen of heaven!  
    I speak in the most Holy Name of Jesus, for the greater honor and glory of God!    

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4572/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #9 on: January 01, 2015, 01:39:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: JezusDeKoning
    I wonder that too, especially because the Novus Ordo would be the most likely to promulgate the whole "Jesus of the Jєωιѕн religion" malarkey.


    Yes, it does make more sense since the Circumcision was the Jєωιѕн Baptism in the Old Law. However, this is not a "newchurch" change made by John XXIII. That was an error.

    According to the 1962 Missal of Bl. John XXIII the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, today (January 1) is the Solemnity of Circumcision of Our Lord.

    ....

    "Like the Churches of the East, Rome wished to honor the Virgin Mother of God during the days after Christmas. As a result the Natale S. Mariae ("Anniversary of St. Mary") made its appearance on January 1 in the seventh century; it has accurately been called "the first Marian feast of the Roman liturgy."

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2013-01-01

    Quote

    The custom of liturgically commemorating the Divine Maternity of Our Lady in the Christmas season began soon after the Council of Ephesus. It was at this council, in the year 431, that the Catholic Church infallibly declared and defined the Divine Maternity of Our Lady. The Catholic Church tells us that in order to be saved we must believe with our full hearts that the same Person Who is the Son of God the Eternal Father in His Divine nature is also the Child of Mary the Virgin in His human nature. Anyone who refuses or hesitates to call Mary the Mother of God will never be saved. Saint Elizabeth, the cousin of Our Lady, cried out for joy in her doorway when Mary came to visit her after the Annunciation and said, “And whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me!” (Luke 1:43). Saint Paul clearly tells us in the Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 4, verse 4, “God sent His Son born of a woman.” The dignity of the Mother of God transcends anything that can ever be imagined. It is God giving Himself in fullness to a creature in relationship and in love. Now that God has become man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity through all eternity must call God the Father His Father and Mary the Virgin His Mother. What God the Father is to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity by nature, Mary the Virgin is to Him by grace. At the command of Mary, God must now obey.

    http://catholicism.org/solemnity-of-mary-mother-of-god.html
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5881
    • Reputation: +2778/-499
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #10 on: January 01, 2015, 08:49:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: JezusDeKoning
    I wonder that too, especially because the Novus Ordo would be the most likely to promulgate the whole "Jesus of the Jєωιѕн religion" malarkey.


    Yes, it does make more sense since the Circumcision was the Jєωιѕн Baptism in the Old Law. However, this is not a "newchurch" change made by John XXIII. That was an error.

    According to the 1962 Missal of Bl. John XXIII the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, today (January 1) is the Solemnity of Circumcision of Our Lord.

    ....

    "Like the Churches of the East, Rome wished to honor the Virgin Mother of God during the days after Christmas. As a result the Natale S. Mariae ("Anniversary of St. Mary") made its appearance on January 1 in the seventh century; it has accurately been called "the first Marian feast of the Roman liturgy."

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2013-01-01

    Quote

    The custom of liturgically commemorating the Divine Maternity of Our Lady in the Christmas season began soon after the Council of Ephesus. It was at this council, in the year 431, that the Catholic Church infallibly declared and defined the Divine Maternity of Our Lady. The Catholic Church tells us that in order to be saved we must believe with our full hearts that the same Person Who is the Son of God the Eternal Father in His Divine nature is also the Child of Mary the Virgin in His human nature. Anyone who refuses or hesitates to call Mary the Mother of God will never be saved. Saint Elizabeth, the cousin of Our Lady, cried out for joy in her doorway when Mary came to visit her after the Annunciation and said, “And whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me!” (Luke 1:43). Saint Paul clearly tells us in the Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 4, verse 4, “God sent His Son born of a woman.” The dignity of the Mother of God transcends anything that can ever be imagined. It is God giving Himself in fullness to a creature in relationship and in love. Now that God has become man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity through all eternity must call God the Father His Father and Mary the Virgin His Mother. What God the Father is to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity by nature, Mary the Virgin is to Him by grace. At the command of Mary, God must now obey.

    http://catholicism.org/solemnity-of-mary-mother-of-god.html


    Actually it was a NewChurch change....apparently to "restore the ancient feast of Mary Mother of God".  I thought this NO priest did a good job of questioning that change.

    http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/a-feast-that-is-missing-in-action/


    Today (January 1st)  we celebrated  the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.  In the past we celebrated the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, a Feast that is currently missing in action. We can discuss that in a moment.

    But as for the Feast of Mary Mother of God, it is a great opportunity for us to reflect on who Jesus Christ is. Mary is Mother of God because Jesus is God. Some may want to argue that she only gave birth to his human nature and hence is only mother of what is human in him. But Jesus is ONE PERSON with two natures. This is something called in theology the “hypostatic union” and it is an essential teaching of Christ. He unites in one person the human nature and the divine nature. There are not two Jesuses. Neither is it true that his divine nature came upon him at a later time such as his baptism. No, his two natures were united in his one person from the moment of of his human conception. And since Jesus is one, Mary gives birth and is mother to the whole Christ. Mary is Mother of God because Jesus is God. This title was given to Mary at the Council of Ephesus in 431 in defense of Christ’s divinity. The Greek form of this title is Θεοτόκος (Theotokos) translated more literally as “God Bearer.”

    Evidence for the celebration of this feast goes back in the Roman Church all the way to the 7th Century. Prior to that there is evidence of this feast being celebrated in other parts of Europe but usually on the Fourth Sunday of Advent. By the 13th and 14th Centuries However the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord came to replace this feast, and the Feast of Mary Mother of God was eventually moved to October 11th and renamed the feast of the “Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Just after Vatican II The more ancient Feast of Mary Mother of God was restored to January 1st.

    That said, and as much as I love the Blessed Mother and affirm her under this proper title, I regret the loss of the Feast of the Circumcision. I generally prefer to stick as close to the Biblical narrative as possible. In this case Scripture is clear, on the eighth day (i.e. January 1st for us), Jesus was Circumcised and his name given. Three important truths and events are celebrated here. First that Jesus was born under the law and submitted himself to it so that he might fulfill it. Secondly there is the first shedding of blood, and this refers to the passion. Thirdly his name is announced: Jesus, a name which means “God saves.” There is no other name given to men by which we are to be saved, there is no other blood that can atone for our sins than the blood of Jesus and there is no one who can fulfill the Law as Jesus does. It seems a bit of a loss not to explicitly celebrate these events in Jesus life and these truth about him on the very day (the eighth day) they happened.

    You may wish to dispute this regret of mine and I hope you will use the comments section to advance your points. Obviously the Church has decided to return to the more ancient observance of Mary Mother of God and so this is out of my hands. But I thought it might be appropriate at least give a nod to the Feast of the Circumcision.

    I suppose if I had it my what here is what I would do:
    1.Celebrate the Feast of Mary Mother of God on the Sunday Between Christmas and January 1st.
    2.Move the Feast of the Holy Family to the Sunday after Epiphany (where it used to be before 1968). In fact, I would also like to say that the Feast of the Holy Family is rather confusing where it currently is since most the Gospel most years is of the Finding of Jesus in the Temple when he was 12 years old. So, suddenly after Christmas he is 12, and then at Epiphany, days later he is back to being an infant. A little confusing. So this Feast seems better celebrated after Epiphany as a kind of bridge: Jesus at 12 years of age links the infant Christ and the adult Christ as we return to Ordinary time.
    3.Restore the Feast of the Circumcision to January 1st.
    4.But nobody is asking me from Rome what I think!  :-)  So enjoy my “rant” for what it is, just a slight grief for a feast that is missing in action and a wish to tweek the Christmas calendar so it flows a little better.

    For the record, it is still possible to celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision using the Old Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form). However even there, the prayers are a little unusual in that none of them mention the circumcision at all. Rather, they are prayers that focus on the motherhood of Mary. Only the Gospel mentions the Circumcision. Any way don’t fail to thank the Lord Jesus for accepting  humbly the obligations of the Law, shedding his first Blood and for revealing his precious and saving name!

    Enjoy The Ave Maria by Rachmanivov on this Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4572/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #11 on: January 01, 2015, 09:15:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Actually it was a NewChurch change....apparently to "restore the ancient feast of Mary Mother of God".  


    No. It was not a "NewChurch" change but a return to the ancient Marian feast. That is a bitter symptom of dividing "newchurch" from the Catholic Church as if they were two distinct churches or if as every single thing that ever happened after 1960 is intrinsically evil. It is just irrational. From 1568 to 1960 the feast was called "The Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity" in the General Roman Calendar, now it is back to the "Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God"

    "
    On the 7th century, 1 January began to be celebrated simply as the octave day of Christmas, the "eighth day" on which, according to Luke 2:21, the child was circumcised and given the name Jesus. In the 13th or 14th century 1 January began to be celebrated in Rome, as already in Spain and Gaul, as the feast of the Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity, while still oriented towards Mary and Christmas."

    Why the big deal? just because there was a change in the Calendar in 1960? The Church celebrates them both. Both are immensely worthy of celebration. There is no problem in celebrating both the Circumcision of Our Lord as well as the Marian Feast of the Divine Motherhood of Mary.

    Ah, and ALSO, we celebrate today the Feast of St Great Basil in the Eastern Byzantine rites.

    Happy New Year, everyone!!!!
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5881
    • Reputation: +2778/-499
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #12 on: January 01, 2015, 09:36:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote
    Actually it was a NewChurch change....apparently to "restore the ancient feast of Mary Mother of God".  


    No. It was not a "NewChurch" change but a return to the ancient Marian feast. That is a bitter symptom of dividing "newchurch" from the Catholic Church as if they were two distinct churches or if as every single thing that ever happened after 1960 is intrinsically evil. It is just irrational. From 1568 to 1960 the feast was called "The Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity" in the General Roman Calendar, now it is back to the "Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God"

    "
    On the 7th century, 1 January began to be celebrated simply as the octave day of Christmas, the "eighth day" on which, according to Luke 2:21, the child was circumcised and given the name Jesus. In the 13th or 14th century 1 January began to be celebrated in Rome, as already in Spain and Gaul, as the feast of the Circumcision of the Lord and the Octave of the Nativity, while still oriented towards Mary and Christmas."

    Why the big deal? just because there was a change in the Calendar in 1960? The Church celebrates them both. Both are immensely worthy of celebration. There is no problem in celebrating both the Circumcision of Our Lord as well as the Marian Feast of the Divine Motherhood of Mary.

    Happy New Year, everyone!!!!


    Never said it was a big deal (mainly because it is a feast for Our Lady). I was trying to figure out why there was a change.  And I found it.  But it was a change made after Vatican II.  And that's a fact.

    NewChurch made a lot of changes that were supposedly all about "returning to antiquity" (that's one of the main excuses they give for coming up with the Novus Ordo "mass" for example).  Apparently the Church had things wrong for hundreds of years in so many areas that it had to set things right and "return to antiquity".  

    Besides, as posted above, even a NO priest expressed his concerns about the change.  So, it's not just Traditional Catholics who are asking these valid questions.

     
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6230
    • Reputation: +3462/-254
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #13 on: January 01, 2015, 09:40:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I checked my new SSPX Angelus Press calendar to see if they called the day the solemnity of Mary Mother of God or the feast of the circumcision. It says neither. It just says the Octave of the Nativity.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4572/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Happy New Year!
    « Reply #14 on: January 01, 2015, 10:07:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matto
    I checked my new SSPX Angelus Press calendar to see if they called the day the solemnity of Mary Mother of God or the feast of the circumcision. It says neither. It just says the Octave of the Nativity.


    It is perhaps because the SSPX uses the Roman Liturgical Calendar and "Missal of 1962" which was promulgated under the reign of John XXIII. In this calendar they removed the mention of the circumcision of Jesus and called 1 January simply the "Octave of the Nativity".

    It was until the calendar revisions of 1969 that January 1 is said to be "the Octave Day of the Nativity of the Lord, is the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God, and also the commemoration of the conferral of the Most Holy Name of Jesus."
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16