Was Jesus born on December 25th?

In a post earlier this week, we examined a biblical argument from the chronology of Saint Luke's Gospel for identifying the birth of Christ our Lord in late December.

 

  

See: Was Jesus Really Born on December 25? Yes - A Biblical Argument for the Birth of Christ in Late December.

 

Today, let us take a look at the same subject from the perspective of Sacred Tradition.

 

The argument for Christ's historical birth on December 25 has two parts. The first part relates to the Blessed Virgin Mary's role in the Apostolic Tradition. The second part explores the the early Fathers regarding the date of Christ's birth. By the way, I'm preparing another post that will briefly look at Pope Benedict XVI's argument for the Divine Nativity having taken place on December 25. Look for that on Christmas Day.

 

Immaculate Mary: Mothers Never Forget

Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, he length of the baby, and a number of other details. I'm the father of six blessed children and while I sometimes forget these details (mea maxima culpa), my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget these details.

 

Now ask yourself this: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She new from the moment of His divine Incarnation in her womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?*

 

Next, ask yourself this: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course! Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, "And the Word was made flesh" was not interested in the minute details of His birth?

Whenever I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask "How old is he?" or "When was he born?" Don't you think people asked this question of Mary?

 

So the exact birthday (Dec 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Matthew and Luke chronicle for us.

 

We Americans have a federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr on January 16. We also celebrate the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. If Americans so regard the birthday of a man who ended racial segregation, would not the Apostles regard the birthday of Christ our Savior?

 

In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Chistians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.

The Church Fathers Testify to December 25

In the previous post, we showed that Christmas could not have been a Christian attempt to replace a pagan holiday with a newly minted Christian holiday. Further testimony reveals that Catholics claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire.

 

For example, Saint Hippolytus writes in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on a Wednesday on December 25. Saint Hippolytus wrote this sometime between A.D. 200 and 211! Here's the quote:

 

"The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls." - Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel

Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was seen to correspond to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 - the traditional date of crucifixion).**

Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day (March 25). In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C. Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as:

• the Creation date of the World
• the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ
• the date of the Death of Christ our Savior

In the Syrian Church March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it - so important was the day in the Syrian tradition! It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.

Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ's birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).

 

Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:

“For Christ is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.” - Saint Augustine, De trinitate, Book 4, 5.

In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25th as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6 since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311.

Look for the third and final part tomorrow on Christmas (Pope Benedict on December 25 and Christmas).

In the meantime, since it is December 24, let us contemplate Joseph and Mary arriving in Bethlehem walking about looking for shelter for the coming night. Then they are allowed to use the stable cave and around noon Saint Joseph begins to prepare the place for the miraculous event. Joseph and Mary must have been full of quiet expectation. May they pray for us as we also eagerly await the Christ Child.

Godspeed and Merry Christmas,

 Taylor Marshall

 * A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe for bringing the "memory of Mary" argument to my attention.

 

** There is some discrepancy in the Fathers as to whether Nisan 14/March 25 marked the death of Christ or his resurrection. Regarding this problem, here is an external post on Julius Africanus and the dating of Christmas and the meaning of March 25.

An Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy

An Introduction to Scholastic Philosophy

The philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas was the marvel of the Middle Ages and the crown jewel of Catholic scholarship. Yet, Aquinas’ philosophy was in many ways the culmination of 1,600 years of Greek philosophy. Much to the boon of Christian philosophers at the time, the philosophy of Aristotle was rediscovered during the Middle Ages after having been lost during the downfall of the Roman Empire 1,200 years earlier. The philosophy of Aristotle gave St. Thomas Aquinas and his contemporaries the tools they needed to prove the reasonableness and rationality of the Catholic faith. This unique blend of pagan wisdom (the philosophy of Aristotle) and revealed wisdom (the Scriptures and teachings of the Church) was called Scholastic philosophy. The most famous Scholastic philosophical work was St. Thomas Aquinas’ five-volume treatise Summa Theologica. In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas used the doctrines of the Church as a springboard for exploring the deepest questions of philosophy.

Aristotle’s Definition of the Nature of Being and the Material

Since scholastic philosophy relies on many of the principles of Aristotle’s philosophy, it is necessary to explore Aristotelian principles before delving into scholastic works such as Summa Theologica. Perhaps the most important Aristotelian principle is the idea of being and an understanding of what all things are composed of. In modern thinking the answer to such questions as, "what is the nature of things?" seems simple. We are taught at an early age that all things are composed of atoms, and that atoms are the building blocks of all matter. Modern scientific teaching holds that the nature of a human is strictly material; a man is nothing more than matter (composed of atoms) and energy. Since science can show us that atoms truly exist (we can see them in electron microscopes), and that we are composed of carbon based molecules, water and electrolytes it seems reasonable to conclude that we are strictly a collection of atoms and energy. Aristotle, however, did not buy into this line of reasoning. Although some of his contemporaries believed that the ultimate basis of being is atomistic, Aristotle believed that it was false to say that being is defined only by the sum of its parts. The reason the atomistic theory is fallacious is that the substantial form of a material or being can not be located in any part of the substance (such as atoms, sub-atomic particles, quarks, etc.) rather, parts such as atoms are predicated to an already existing substance. In other words, something must be the basis of material things, and simply subdividing the material into smaller and smaller particles does not allow us define the nature of the material thing.

Therefore if we want to understand what a thing is in the philosophic sense, we must define a thing as a whole before predicating parts and quantity to it. Aristotle believed that when we ask the question "what is a thing composed of?" or "what is the nature of a being or thing?" the answer lies in the substance of that thing. Substance is a philosophic term that is defined as the primary mode of being. All things are composed of a substance. Therefore, the basis of reality lies in substances. Atoms and other particles are real, yet they are only parts of the whole. This is why substance is called the primary mode of being. Now, it is important to realize that substance is not an imaginative concept, it is a rational concept. This means that we can’t picture what a substance is in our imagination; rather we must use rationality and logic to understand it.

In addition to the primary mode of being, substance, all things have secondary modes of beings called accidents. Accidents are those things that allow us to imagine a being or thing. Accidents inhere in a substance and give it physicality. Aristotle defined ten categories of being which allow us to answer the question, "what is a being or thing composed of?"

The Ten Categories of Being

1. Substance
2. —Substance is the primary mode of being and defines what a thing is. Substance is the foundation of reality and cannot be pictured in the mind without also picturing the accidents that inhere in the substance.
   The remaining categories of being are accidents: secondary modes of being.
3. Quantity—
4. quantity allows us to define the parts in a substance. For example, a tabby cat has two ears, two eyes and a multitude of atoms and genetic material.
5. Quality—
6. quality is a descriptive term such as, the softness and brown color of a tabby cat.
7. Relation—
8. relation identifies the relative state between two objects. For example, that tabby cat has the same color fur as the Angolan cat.
9. Action—
10. the action of the subject is also an accident. Action does not necessarily imply motion or change. For example, "the tabby cat is sitting still" is a valid action accident of the cat.
11. Passion—
12. In the philosophic sense, passion is defined as change. For example, we can say that the aging process of the tabby cat is a passion.
13. Location—
14. Location is also an accident. For example, we could say that an accident of the tabby cat is that it is sitting on top of the sofa.
15. Posture—
16. Posture identifies the spatial orientation of the subject. For example, we can say the tabby cat is sitting with all four feet on the floor and it’s tail is in motion.
17. Temporality—
18. Temporality is the affectation of time on the subject. For example, the tabby cat is seven years old.
19. State—
20. State seems to imply change in the subject which allows us to identify it from other subjects. For example, the tabby cat currently has both eyes closed and is falling asleep.

We can clearly see that nine of the ten states of being are accidental. Yet, only the primary mode of being, the substance, defines a being or object. For example, we could say that the length of President Bush’s hair is a quantitative accident. If he were to cut his hair there would be a change to his accidental qualities (the length of his hair), but he would still be President Bush because his substance has not changed. We should also note that accidents do not exist separately from a substance. Rather, they inhere in a substance. The length of someone’s hair does not exist separately from a person. Therefore, no substance can be imagined without its inherent accidents and no accident can exist separately from a substance.

Potentiality and Actuality

The concept of potentiality and actuality is critical to scholastic philosophy. Actuality and potentiality are opposites that describe the state of a substance. Actuality describes the exact form, state, position and the rest of the ten categories of being as they apply to some object. If we use the tabby cat example, we can say that the categories of being such as the cat’s posture, location, qualitative properties, quantitative properties, etc. actualize the cat. In other words, the cat is actual simply because it exists. However, the cat not only has actuality, it also has potentiality. The cat is capable of changing any of its accidents by simply moving, shedding fur, aging or even changing its substance (such as when the cat changes from a living cat into a corpse after death). In this sense, we say that the cat has a potential to change. All material things have both actuality and potentiality simply because of their virtue to change.

The reason the concept of potentiality and actuality is important to scholastic philosophy is because it is the central pillar in Saint Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological proof for the existence of God. Consequently, an understanding of the Aristotelian concepts of potentiality and actuality is necessary for scholastic and Christian philosophers.

Prime Matter and Substantial Form

Now that we understand the difference between a substance and an accident as well as the ten categories of being, we can attempt to further understand what exactly a substance really is. Aristotle believed that a substance is composed of prime matter and form. Prime matter is not the same thing as physical matter (the kind we usually think of as composed of atoms). Instead, prime matter should be thought of in terms of potency and actuality. Prime matter is nothing more than pure potency. It is the substantial underlying reality of all things, and as such, has the potential to become anything. Prime matter (since it is substantial) has no physical appearance, quality or quantity. Prime matter cannot even be thought of separate from form. Form is what allows prime matter to become substance. For instance, all of the elements on the Periodic Table (such as iron, gold, silver, mercury, etc.) can be thought of as comprised of prime matter. The thing that differentiates the elements from each other is their form. Silver and gold are composed of the same prime matter but have different form. Form and prime matter constitute the substance of any object, and the substance of that object is inhered with accidents that give the substance a physical character.

Substantial Changes vs. Accidental Changes

We have already learned that the accidents of any object can change. An accidental change of this nature does not affect the substance of the object. If a cat changes its posture, its accident of location changes, yet it is still a cat. A change of accident will not cause the cat to become anything else.

However, there can be changes to the substance of an object. If an object’s form were to change, then the object’s substance would likewise change. This type of change is called a substantial change. For example, if a cat were to walk off a cliff and fall 60 feet to its death, it would undergo both an accidental change (due to the change of the cat’s posture and location) and a substantial change (caused by the death of the cat). We can no longer call the cat a living animal; instead it has substantially changed into a corpse. A similar thing occurs in chemical reactions. If a substance such as iron were to combine with oxygen, the iron would become iron oxide: rust. The change from iron to rust involves a substantial change in the form of the iron. The oxidation process renders a change in the substance of the iron into something new.

Critique

One criticism to Aristotle’s unique view of the world is perhaps the fact that modern science seems to view the world in a substantially different manner. It can be argued that in the example of the cat, the feline DNA comprises the real nature of the cat; not some strange idea such as substance. In other words, the parts determine the whole. However, this view, mechanistic materialism, is fundamentally flawed. If we were to appeal to DNA as the fundamental reality of the cat (as if DNA was a building block for the cat) we would still need to explain the parts of the DNA. Otherwise, how do we explain what these parts are if DNA is the prime building block of the cat? A mechanist materialist would probably then appeal to the atom as the prime building block of DNA and hence the cat. Of course, atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles, which demand explanation. These particles are also made of sub-particles, and so on… Eventually, the materialist must arrive at some particle which is the fundamental reality of the cat; the one thing that makes the cat real. However, even if he were to stop his sub-atomic chain at such a particle (such as pure energy or super-strings) he would still have to explain where the particle derives its "reality". In this event, the materialist would just admit that the energy particle (for arguments sake lets call it a super-string) just is real; it has no explanation for itself and must be a completely simple reality. If he did this he would find himself agreeing with Aristotle. Why? The reason is that the materialist will have agreed that the super-string is a fundamental reality. The super string has mass, quality (such as brightness or texture), quantity and possibly other modes of existence called accidents by Aristotelian thinkers. The materialist must agree that the fundamental particle (the super-string) has accidents, otherwise where does the quantity, quality, position, posture, etc. of the cat come from? If the materialist agrees to the fact that the super-string is a fundamental reality with accidental qualities, then he has just defined an Aristotelian object. His object has substance (a primary mode of being which fundamentally just is) inhered with accidents (secondary modes of being which give the substance discernable characteristics). In the end, the materialist will be forced to admit the reality of substance and accidents over the philosophy of an endless string of mechanistic materialism. We can also simply say that the cat just is a simple substance inhered with accidents that are divisible into parts (DNA, proteins, atoms, quarks, super-strings, etc.) The cat is defined as a whole rather than a sum of parts. The cat is fundamentally composed of primary matter with the form of a cat. The parts (such as cat DNA and its constituent atoms) are also feline since the form of the cat is inherent in every part of the cat. The substance of the cat determines the parts to be what they are. An individual atom separate from the form of the cat is substantially different because the substance of the atom is atomic, but an atom in a cat is only part of the whole: therefore its substance is feline. The bottom line is that a whole must be defined first before parts can be predicated to it.

I will leave the reader with one last example to drive home the difference between the mechanistic materialist view of matter and the Scholastic view of matter. Certainly, most of us have learned from science that an atom is almost entirely composed of empty space; there is very little material in the atom (protons, neutrons and electrons). Rather, the mass of the atom is constituted in the nucleus and the majority of the atom is an empty void with electrical charges (electrons) orbiting the nucleus. A materialist will often point out that a solid object such as a table is nearly entirely composed of empty space due to the spacing of the mass particles in the atoms. The question which remains unresolved is then why does the table seem qualitatively solid (it has color, weight, firmness) if it is composed only of empty space with comparatively tiny subatomic particles? The quality of the table cannot come simply from the quantity of the parts. This suggests that the table is essentially prime matter and form which has the secondary properties of quality and quantity.

Conclusion

Aristotle’s philosophy is latent in the works of the Scholastic philosophers. The idea of substance and accidents form the basis for the Christian metaphysical understanding of the world. St. Thomas Aquinas and his peers use the metaphysics of Aristotle to explore everything from the nature of man to the nature of God. Additionally, Aristotle’s ideas of actuality and potentiality are manifest within the Scholastic understanding of causation and the creation of the Universe. For the Scholastics, it seems that a great debt is owed to Aristotle. It was in Aristotle, that the philosophers first truly learned to seek for wisdom in the intellect rather than the imagination and sought for knowledge in rationality without limiting themselves to the world of sensation.

--S.M. Miranda

Præstantia Scripturæ Sacræ, Pope St. Pius X

100 Years of the motu proprio Præstantia Scripturæ Sacræ

...[W]e find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred authority.

Given at Rome in Saint Peter's, the 18th November, 1907, the fifth year of our Pontificate.
Pope Saint Pius XPræstantia Scripturæ Sacræ

Description of Jesus, given by Tiberius Ceasar's President to Judae

The following was written by Publius Lentulus, Tiberius Caesar’s President to Judea.

"There is a man in Judea who I am amazed to have witnessed, and who will now describe to you. He is a man of singular virtue. Whose name is Jesus Christ whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God. He calls back the dead from their graves and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or a touch. He is a tall man, well shaped, and of an amiable and reverential aspect. His hair is of a color that can hardly be matched. It falls into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeably couched about his shoulders. It is parted on the crown of his head, running as a stream to the front after the fashion of the Nazarites. His forehead is high, large and imposing. His cheeks are without spot or wrinkle. His face is most beautiful with a lovely red. His nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry. His beard is of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in the middle like a fork. His eyes are bright and blue. They are clear and innocent, dignified, manly and mature. Often times however, just before he reveals his divine powers, his eyelids are gently closed in reverential silence. In proportion of body it is most perfect and amazing to view.

His arms and hands are lovely to behold. He rebukes with majesty, and counsels with mildness to who he addresses. Whether in word or deed he is eloquent and sincere. No man has seen him laugh; yet his manners are exceedingly pleasant. But he has wept frequently in the presence of men. He has temperate, modest and wise disposition; a man for his extraordinary beauty and divine perfection. He has a beauty and divine perfection, surpassing the children of men in every sense.

Mistranslation of "pro multis" to be corrected, after only 36 years.

Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.

Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal's letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."

The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):

...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:

...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.

Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican's decision to require

The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

“For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.

In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

Skeletons in the Conciliar Closet

Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

Like Christopher Ferrara, I saw George Sim Johnston’s article, “Why Vatican II Was Necessary” in the March 2004 issue of Crisis magazine, and I must confess I reacted in much the same way as Mr. Ferrara (Remnant, March 15, 2004). Johnston’s attempt to convince us why the Council was so necessary, valuable and important, in spite of its generally chaotic aftermath, struck me as consisting mainly of hollow, shopworn and unsubstantiated generalizations. I give my assent to Vatican II’s doctrinal teachings (interpreted, in the case of obscurities and ambiguities, in the light of Tradition). But I am inclined to agree that a strong case can be made out, with the benefit of nearly forty years of historical hindsight, for its overall lack of opportuneness.

I am afraid that Mr. Ferrara’s less-than-enthusiastic view of the Council tends to be supported by certain other skeletons in the conciliar closet that I have personally discovered in the last few weeks. They are ‘buried’ in the dozens of huge (and largely inaccessible) Latin tomes containing the complete record of everything officially done and said at the Council (the Acta Synodalia), and I doubt whether they have been made known to the general public so far.

One of the many difficulties in interpreting the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, and reconciling it with traditional doctrine, lies in the fact that while the key article 2 of this document, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), begins by affirming that the right to religious liberty has to do with conscientiously held religious beliefs, it ends by affirming that the same right is enjoyed even by those who are not in good conscience (that is, those who “do not fulfill their obligation of seeking and adhering to the truth”). Curious as to whether this confusing, and at first sight contradictory, treatment of conscience in DH #2 was officially explained to the Council Fathers before they voted on it, I started fishing around in the Acta Synodalia (AS) in our university library. And what I dredged up struck me as a choice example of how that famous ‘Rhine’ flowed into the ‘Tiber’ during Vatican II: manipulation of the more conservative, but rather complacent and unsuspecting, majority by the powerful and ‘progressive’ Northern European bishops and their periti.

The above passage recognizing immunity from coercion for those whose religious propaganda is not in good conscience was absent from the first three drafts of DH. It finally appeared in the fourth (second-last) draft, presented on October 25, 1965, only a few weeks before the end of the Council (cf. AS IV, V, p. 79). Bishop Emil De Smedt, the Dutch relator (official spokesman for the drafting Commission), then gave his relatio (speech) to the assembled Fathers officially explaining this fourth draft and its changes to the previous draft. However, in doing so he did not even mention this important addition to the text! On the contrary, in commenting on the new version of article 2, De Smedt repeatedly stressed the importance of conscience, citing the (unchanged) words in the first paragraph of #2 which assert that the human person must not be forced to act against (or be prevented from acting in accordance with) “his conscience” (“suam conscientiam” – see ibid., pp. 101-102). True, the Fathers all had on their desks printed copies of the old and new drafts in parallel columns, but it looks as if De Smedt was hoping that if he didn’t draw their attention to this change, many would either overlook it or not attach much importance to it.

In another lengthy hand-out, which was not read on the floor of the Council, we find in the fine print that this change had been requested “in the name of more than one hundred” Fathers (ibid.,p. 116, #25). But the reader is not told who these hundred-plus Fathers were; and there is still not the slightest explanation from De Smedt as to how the role of conscience in religious liberty was now to be understood in the light of these contrasting statements within the same article of the document.

Did Bishop De Smedt perhaps honestly think this textual addition wasn’t important enough to warrant an official explanation? That excuse looks lame on the face of it, and looks even lamer in the light of what finally transpired. For during the next few weeks, when the fifth and final draft of DH was being worked on, three Fathers submitted a request to the Commission that this confusing addition favoring persons in bad conscience be simply omitted. A number of others asked that it be significantly amended. But in his final relatio, De Smedt acknowledged these requests only to dismiss them summarily, stating that the addition was too important and substantial to be omitted, and, moreover, it had already been approved by a large majority in the vote on the fourth draft taken back in October! But did the Dutch prelate finally give the Fathers at least some explanation of this “substantial” change which he now declared was immutable? No way. Still not a word. The unexplained amendment had been quickly, quietly, and misleadingly, pushed through without any debate and without public attention being drawn to it. But afterwards, when some more conservative Fathers finally expressed their disagreement with the amendment, they were told abruptly that it was now set in stone.

Another discovery I have made in the Acta Synodalia is relevant to the scandal provoked nearly two years ago when Cardinal William Keeler announced that, as far as he and an important committee of American theologians were concerned, the Catholic Church no longer believes it necessary, or even legitimate, to try and convert Jews to Christianity. Cardinal Keeler was soon backed up (with perhaps a minor nuance or two) by the top Vatican official entrusted with ecumenism and dialogue with Jews, the German Cardinal Walter Kasper.

Well, what, if anything, did the Council itself say in this point? In researching the textual history of the Vatican II Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate (NA), I have found that the original draft of article 4 in that document was actually quite up-front and positive about Catholic hopes for Jewish conversions to the true faith. It included this passage: “It is important to recall that the integration of the Jewish people into the Church is part of Christian hope. For, according to the Apostle’s teaching (cf. Rom. 11: 25), the Church awaits with unshakable faith and deep longing the entry of this people into the fullness of the People of God, which has been restored by Christ” (AS III, VIII, p. 640, my translation). In the biblical verse cited here, the Holy Spirit, through Saint Paul, speaks of the “blindness” of the unbelieving Jews as being temporary, and prophesies in the next verse the salvation of Israel as a nation, after the “fullness of the Gentiles” has come into the Church.

Now, readers will probably agree that this original draft of NA #4, together with its biblical citation, doesn’t sound exactly in the ‘spirit’ of Their Eminences Keeler and Kasper. Come to think of it, have you ever heard any post-conciliar Pope or Vatican official declare that he is awaiting with “unshakable faith and deep longing” (fide inconcussa ac desiderio magno) the massive entry of Jews into the Catholic Church? And as for their present “blindness”, why, any official mention of that would now be out of the question! For it would of course be immediately drowned in worldwide howls of indignant media protest at such a recrudescence of top-level Catholic “anti-Semitism”.

In fairness, it should be added here that the new Catechism of the Catholic Church does present us with St. Peter at Pentecost preaching to the Jews their need for conversion, and continues to teach the revealed truth that Israel, after her present “hardening”, will eventually recognize Christ as her Messiah (see #674). Also, the Church in her post-conciliar Liturgy of the Hours, or Divine Office, still prays for the conversion of the Jews several times during the year (at least in the original Latin edition that I use – I can’t vouch for the generally more liberal English version). But, of course, we never hear any modern Church leaders publicly draw attention to these little-known official texts supporting the traditional doctrine. Nor do we hear any Vatican praise and encouragement for those few remaining Catholic individuals and small groups who actually make some concrete effort to evangelize Jews.

Let us return to Nostra Aetate. I have discovered that the near-silence and inactivity of the post-conciliar Church establishment regarding the Jews’ need for conversion can probably be traced to a conscious decision of the Council itself during the preparation of this Declaration. When the revised draft of NA was circulated, with the original draft in parallel columns, the Fathers found that the aforesaid section in article 4 about the conversion of the Jews, with its specific citation of Romans 11: 25, had now been totally omitted. And (unlike Bishop De Smedt) the relator for this document, the German Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea, was quite open about the reason why the original version was now considered unacceptable: “Very many Fathers,” Bea announced in his relatio, “have requested that in talking about this ‘hope’, since it has to do with a mystery, we should avoid every appearance of proselytism. Others have asked that the same Christian hope, applying to all peoples, should also be expressed somehow. In the present version of this paragraph we have sought to satisfy all these requests” (ibid., p. 648, emphasis added). The tactic of His Eminence and all those “very many” (but unnamed) Fathers was thus to tarnish the previous draft with the pejorative label “proselytism”, and to ‘elevate’ the future conversion of the Jews to the ethereal status of a “mystery”, thereby insinuating that it will somehow ‘just happen’ spontaneously one day without the necessity of any human missionary activity on the part of Catholics.

The tactic, combined with the great personal prestige of Cardinal Bea, worked perfectly. The vast majority of the Fathers duly voted in favor of the new draft, thereby relegating to the finest of fine print this particular point of our “unshakable faith” regarding the Jews. It proved to be literally unmentionable in a modern conciliar document, and so has been ‘buried’ in the middle of a much longer passage of the Epistle to the Romans which is indicated (but not cited) among various other biblical references to NA #4. What now appears in that passage is a much blander statement referring to Christian hopes for mankind in general. And in accord with the non-threatening spirit of this ‘pastoral’ Declaration, all explicit mention of anyone actually joining, entering or returning to the Catholic Church has been carefully excised. We read that “the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Soph. 3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65: 4; Rom. 11: 11-32)”.

Doesn’t that sound a whole lot more . . . friendly than the original draft? At any rate, the history of this textual change perhaps helps explain why the top-level talk disparaging any further evangelization of the Jews has still, after nearly two years, not elicited any rebuttal from either the Supreme Pontiff or Cardinal Ratzinger (both of whom, of course, were active at Vatican II). For if he were challenged on this issue, Kasper the Friendly Dialogue-Partner could point straight back to the Friendly Kouncil. After all, how much difference is there between its officially endorsed admonition to “avoid every appearance of proselytizing” Jews and the Keeler/Kasper doctrine that Catholics should not “target the Jews for conversion”? It is not that Vatican II actually taught this falsehood now being propagated with impunity even by Princes of the Church; but we can see now that the Council paved the way for the diffusion of that error by consciously declining to teach – or even to suggest – the opposing, but ‘politically incorrect’, truth.

PROPHECY OF ST. NILUS

Catholic Encyclopedia (1922): St. Nilus was one of the many disciples and fervent defenders of St. John Chrysostom. He was an officer at the Court of Constantinople, married, with two sons. While St. John Chrysostom was patriarch, before his exile (398-403), he directed Nilus in the study of Scripture and in works of piety.

St. Nilus left his wife and one son and took the other, Theodulos, with him to Mt. Sinai to be a monk. The Bishop of Eleusa ordained both St. Nilus and his son to the priesthood. The mother and other son also embraced the religious life in Egypt. From his monastery at Sinai, St. Nilus was a well-known person throughout the Eastern Church; by his writings and correspondence he played an important part in the history of his time. He was known as a theologian, Biblical scholar and ascetic writer, so people of all kinds, from the emperor down wrote to consult him. His numerous works, including a multitude of letters, consist of denunciations of heresy, paganism, abuses of discipline and crimes, of rules and principles of asceticism, especially maxims about the religious life. He warns and threatens people in high places, abbots and bishops, governors and princes, even the emperor himself, without fear. He kept up a correspondence with Gaina, a leader of the Goths, endeavoring to convert him from Arianism. He denounced vigorously the persecution of St. John Chrysostom both to the Emperor Arcadius and to his courtiers.

St. Nilus must be counted as one of the leading ascetic writers of the fifth century. His feast is kept on November 12th in the Byzantine Calendar; he is commemorated also in the Roman Martyrology on the same date. St. Nilus probably died around the year 430 as there is no evidence of his life after that.

The prophecy:

"After the year 1900, toward the middle of the 20th century, the people of that time will become unrecognizable. When the time for the Advent of the Antichrist approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from carnal passions, and dishonor and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will become unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the left. At that time the morals and traditions of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign. Falsehood and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those who pile up treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in society.

At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and licentiousness, people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they received in Holy Baptism and equally of remorse. The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all.

Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist.

And, the impious one! – he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases. Then the All-good God will see the downfall of the human race and will shorten the days for the sake of those few who are being saved, because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen into temptation, if that is possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly appear and kill the perverter and his servants".