Datasets:

mteb
/

sts22-crosslingual-sts

+ {"source_url": "https://www.freerepublic.com", "url": "https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3804763/posts", "title": "The Many Meanings of January 1st", "top_image": "https://www.freerepublic.com/l/favicon.ico", "meta_img": "https://www.freerepublic.com/l/favicon.ico", "images": ["http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/123114-212x300.jpg", "http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/12-27blog-2.jpg", "https://www.freerepublic.com/l/favicon.ico"], "movies": [], "text": "Skip to comments.\n\nThe Many Meanings of January 1st - A Homily\n\nArchdiocese of Washington ^ | 12-31-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope\n\nPosted on by Salvation\n\nThe Many Meanings of January 1st \u2013 A Homily\n\nThis feast day of January 1st is a very complex tapestry, both culturally and liturgically. Perhaps we can use the second reading by St. Paul to the Galatians as a way to weave through some of the many details. We can look at it in three parts.\n\nI. The chronology of our celebration \u2013 The text from St. Paul\u2019s letter to the Galatians says, When the fullness of time had come \u2026\n\nMost people in the wider culture and in the Church are going about today saying, \u201cHappy New Year!\u201d And rightfully so, for it is the beginning of the new year. But most people think of New Year\u2019s Day in almost wholly secular terms. Sadly, it is best known for excessive drinking and rather loud parties.\n\nYet it is a mistake to see New Year\u2019s Day simply as a secular holiday. St. Paul reminds us, in speaking of \u201cthe fullness of time,\u201d that all time and all ages belong to God.\n\nIt is not simply 2020; it is 2020 Anno Domini (A.D.). Even the most secular and unbelieving of people in the Western world locate their place in time in relation to Jesus Christ. It is 2020 years since the birth of Christ. Every time we write the date on a check or at the top of the letter, every time we see the date at the top of the newspaper or on our computer screen, that number, 2020, points back to Christ. He is the Lord of history. Jesus sets the date; He is the clock we go by. All time belongs to Him.\n\nJesus says in the book of Revelation, \u201cI am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, The beginning and the end. He who is, and who was, and who is to come\u201d (Revelation 22:13).\n\nIf it is true that 2020 references the birth of Christ, the question arises as to why Christmas Day is not also New Year\u2019s Day. But this actually fits in well to liturgical and spiritual sensibilities.\n\nIn the Church, and stretching back into Jewish times, it was customary to celebrate the high feasts of faith over the period of a week. In Christian tradition this came to be known as the \u201coctave.\u201d Though we think of a week as seven days, it does not take long to consider that we celebrated Christmas last week on Thursday. Now this week we celebrate New Year\u2019s Day on Thursday, and Thursday to Thursday inclusive is eight days.\n\nThursday, January 1, 2020 is the eighth day of Christmas. In the Christian tradition the octave is considered really as one long day that lasts eight days. Therefore, Wednesday, January 1, 2020 completes Christmas day; Christmas day is fulfilled. Or as St. Paul says, the \u201cfullness of time\u201d in terms of Christmas day has come. And thus the calendars flip from one year to the next. Now, at the end of Christmas day, our calendars go from 2019 to 2020 A.D.\n\nThe rest of the secular world has largely moved on already, barely thinking of Christmas anymore. As I walk in my neighborhood, I see the strange spectacle of Christmas trees already set out at the curb waiting to be picked up by the recycling trucks. Yes, for many in our hurried world, Christmas is over. But we in the Church continue to celebrate the great Christmas feast and cycle. Having completed the octave, we move on to Epiphany week.\n\nThus, this New Year, we contemplate the \u201cfullness of time.\u201d The passage of another year reminds us of the magnificent truth that to God all time, past, present, and future, is equally present. He holds all things together in Himself. He is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever. And whenever He acts, He always acts in our time, out of the fullness of time. This is a very deep mystery and we should ponder in silence the mystery that for God, all things ARE. He is not waiting for things to happen. For Him, everything is accomplished. I will write more on this in tomorrow\u2019s blog.\n\nII. The content of our celebration \u2013 St. Paul goes on to say, God sent forth his son born of a woman. And with this statement we are again reminded that we are still in the Christmas cycle.\n\nWe\u2019ve already discussed the concept of the eighth day, of the octave. And while it is New Year\u2019s Day, there is also a complex tapestry of religious meanings to this day as well.\n\nAs we\u2019ve already seen, it is still Christmas day, the eighth day of the one long day that we call Christmas Day.\n\nHistorically, this is also the day of Christ\u2019s circumcision. And for a long period in Church history that was the name given to this feast day, \u201cThe Circumcision of the Lord.\u201d As I have written previously, I personally regret the loss of this feast, at least in terms of its title.\n\nThis is the day when Joseph and Mary brought Christ to be circumcised. In this, Jesus as man and also as God reverences the covenant He has made with His people. It is a beautiful truth that God seeks relationship with His people. And in this covenantal act of the circumcision is the moving truth that, as the Letter to the Hebrews puts it, Jesus is not ashamed to call us His brothers (Heb 2:11).\n\nThere is here the first shedding of blood by Jesus. It is also a sign of His love for us.\n\nAnother truth about the content of this feast is the Holy Name of Jesus. For not only was a Jewish boy circumcised on the eighth day, but he was also given his name, and all hear that name for the first time.\n\nThe name, Jesus, means \u201cGod saves.\u201d And indeed this most Holy Name of Jesus, when used in reverence, has saving power. We are baptized in His Holy Name along with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. And all of our prayers conclude with His Holy Name. Scripture says of His great and holy name,\n\nTherefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2: 9-11).\n\nAnd yet another identity and content of this feast day is shown in its current, formal title, \u201cThe Solemnity of Mary Mother of God.\u201d This title replaced the title of the Feast of the Circumcision back in 1970. However, it is the most ancient title for this feast day. Again, you can read more on this issue in a previous blog post.\n\nWe note in the reading that Paul says that God sent forth his Son, born of a woman. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father; He is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Jesus is God, and since Mary gives birth to Jesus, Mary is the Mother of God, because Jesus is not two different persons.\n\nMary did not just give birth to part of Jesus, she gives birth to Jesus. And thus the title \u201cMother of God\u201d speaks to us as much about Jesus as it does about Mary. It is a title that she has because of the Church\u2019s insistence that Jesus cannot be divided up into two different people. We cannot say that Mary gives birth to one Jesus but not \u201cthe other one.\u201d There is only one Jesus, though He has two natures, human and divine.\n\nAnd thus, on this feast of Christmas, on this eighth day of Christmas, we are reminded and solemnly taught that Jesus is human and also divine. In taking a human nature to Himself from his mother Mary, He remains one person. God has sent forth his son born of woman.\n\nIII. The consolation of our celebration \u2013 St. Paul goes on to say, Born under the law to ransom those under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons. As proof that you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son in our hearts crying out Abba, Father! So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and, if a son, also an heir through God.\n\nNote three things about this text:\n\nA. Our Adoption \u2013 We have already noted that on the eighth day Jesus is circumcised and enters into the Covenant, into the Law. In the Incarnation He joins the human family; in the Covenant He joins our family of faith. He will fulfill the old Covenant and inaugurate the new one. And by this New Covenant, by baptism into Him, we become members of His Body and thereby become adopted as sons.\n\nWe become sons in the Son. When God the Father looks to His Son, loving His Son, he is also looking at us and loving us, for we are in Christ Jesus, members of His Body through baptism. God is now our Father, not in some allegorical sense, but in a very real sense. We are in Jesus and therefore God really is our Father.\n\nB. Our Acclamation \u2013 St. Paul says that the proof of our sonship is the movement of the Holy Spirit in us that cries out Abba! In Aramaic and Hebrew, Abba is the family term for father. It is not baby talk, like \u201cDada.\u201d But just as most adults called their father \u201cDad\u201d or some other endearment rather than \u201cfather,\u201d so it is that Abba is the family term for father. It would be a daring thing for us to call God \u201cDad\u201d unless we were permitted to do so, and instructed to do so by Christ.\n\nSt. Paul speaks of this word as proof that we are sons. In so doing, he emphasizes that it is not merely the saying of the word that he refers to. Even a parrot can be taught to say the word. Rather, St. Paul is referring to what the word represents: an inner movement of the Holy Spirit wherein we experience a deep affection for God the Father. By our adoption, our baptism into Christ, by our reception of the Holy Spirit, we love the Father! We develop a deep affection for Him and dread offending Him. By this gift of the Spirit, God is my Father whom I deeply love!\n\nC. Our advancement \u2013 Notice that St. Paul then speaks of how we have moved from being a slave to being a son, an heir. In Jesus, we are not just any son, we are the only Son of the Father. And as Jesus has a kingdom from His Father, we too inherit it with Him! As sons in the Son, we are heirs with Jesus to the Kingdom! Jesus speaks of His disciples as one day reigning with Him: And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me (Lk 22:29). In Jesus, all Heaven will be ours and we will reign with Christ forever. This is not our doing, not our glory; it is Christ\u2019s doing and His glory in which we share.\n\nAnd thus we have a very rich tapestry on this New Year\u2019s Day, this feast of the Octave of Christmas, this Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, this Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, this Feast of Mary the Mother of God. And also we are given this feast wherein the glory of Christ is held before us and we who are members of His body are told of the gifts that we receive by His Holy Incarnation and His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not a bad way to start the new year: reminded of God\u2019s incredible love for us, of His rich blessings and promises.\n\n\n\nTOPICS:\n\nApologetics\n\nCatholic\n\nHistory\n\nTheology\n\nKEYWORDS:\n\nblessedvirginmary\n\ncatholic\n\nprayer\n\nTo: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...\n\nMonsignor Pope Ping!\n\n\n\nby 2 posted onby Salvation (\"With God all things are possible.\" Matthew 19:26)\n\nTo: Salvation\n\nWe note in the reading that Paul says that God sent forth his Son, born of a woman. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father; He is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Jesus is God, and since Mary gives birth to Jesus, Mary is the Mother of God, because Jesus is not two different persons. So much error has occurred due to the Council of Ephesus' ruling on this as Rome has completely abused this decision. Scripture never refers to Mary as the \"Mother of God\". Rome has again departed from Scripture in favor of \"tradition\".\n\n\n\nTo: ealgeone\n\nSo what?\n\n\n\nby 4 posted onby Marchmain (safe, legal and wrong)\n\nTo: Marchmain\n\nIt has led to a whole bunch of Mariolatry in Roman Catholicism.\n\n\n\nTo: ealgeone\n\nMariolatry... what a laugh!\n\n\n\nby 6 posted onby Marchmain (safe, legal and wrong)\n\nTo: Marchmain\n\nIf it weren\u2019t so false it might be funny.\n\n\n\nTo: ealgeone\n\nRome has again departed from Scripture in favor of \"tradition\". 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.\n\n2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold thewhich ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.\n\nTo: BenghaziMemoriam; ealgeone\n\nSo, we know what the traditions taught by the epistles are. But are there additional traditions that the apostles taught by word, and, if so, how do you prove the traditions not written down were actually taught by the apostles?\n\n\n\nTo: BenghaziMemoriam\n\n2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Rome has taken great liberty with this and the other two passages that mention tradition. However, Rome completely ignores the context of these passages. Why? Because if they don't their \"traditions\" will be found very un-Scriptural. However, the very early church considered tradition with what was found in the Scriptures. It's not the wide open tradition that Rome has developed over the centuries.\n\n\n\nTo: kosciusko51\n\nRoman Catholicism cannot give this list. It has been asked for numerous times. And IF Roman Catholics are honest they will have to admit the ECFs equated tradition with what was in the Scriptures. Not this mysterious definition of \"tradition\" Roman Catholics try to foster on everyone.\n\n\n\nTo: kosciusko51\n\nSo, we know what the traditions taught by the epistles are. But are there additional traditions that the apostles taught by word, and, if so, how do you prove the traditions not written down were actually taught by the apostles? \"As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.\"\n\n- Ireneus, Against Heresies 1:10:2\n\nhttps://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_i/anf01.ix.ii.xi.html\n\n\"As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.\"- Ireneus, Against Heresies 1:10:2\n\nTo: BenghaziMemoriam\n\nNice quote, doesn\u2019t answer the question.\n\n\n\nTo: kosciusko51\n\n\"...if we turn our attention to the beginnings of Apostolical teaching after His ascension, we shall find ourselves unable to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased, and the rule of faith was once for all settled. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to baptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and C\u00e6sarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries after, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined . Not in the Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord's Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary. No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy.\"\n\n- John Henry Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine\n\n\n\n\"Now, as you know, it has been held from the first, and defined from an early age , that Mary is the Mother of God. She is not merely the Mother of our Lord's manhood, or of our Lord's body, but she is to be considered the Mother of the Word Himself, the Word incarnate. God, in the person of the Word, the Second Person of the All-glorious Trinity, humbled Himself to become her Son.\"\n\n- John Henry Newman, Discourses to Mixed Congregations\n\n\n\nTo: BenghaziMemoriam\n\nIf your point is true that not all Christian teachings were not completed with the apostles, how could the first century believer know what was necessary for salvation? Or did they have sufficient information at that time? And why should any current Christian be held accountable for beliefs the early Christians were not taught by the apostles?\n\n\n\nTo: kosciusko51\n\nIf your point is true that not all Christian teachings were not completed with the apostles, how could the first century believer know what was necessary for salvation? Or did they have sufficient information at that time?\n\nAnd why should any current Christian be held accountable for beliefs the early Christians were not taught by the apostles? In any age, it would seem that there are certain bare basics that are required to be taught to (and accepted by) the believer. The Apostles' Creed seems to fit that (by definition). However, there's more than just knowing and believing:\n\n\n\n\"What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.\"\n\n- Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, The Imitation of Christ\n\nhttps://ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation/imitation.ONE.1.html\n\n\n\n\"To whom much is given, much will be required\" (Luke 12:48).\n\nIn any age, it would seem that there are certain bare basics that are required to be taught to (and accepted by) the believer. The Apostles' Creed seems to fit that (by definition). However, there's more than just knowing and believing:\"What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.\"- Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, The Imitation of Christ\"To whom much is given, much will be required\" (Luke 12:48).\n\nTo: BenghaziMemoriam\n\nSo, what teachings necessary for our salvation and spiritual life are not taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture? And how do you prove that?\n\n\n\nTo: kosciusko51\n\nSo, what teachings necessary for our salvation and spiritual life are not taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture? And how do you prove that? How do you prove that the collection of writings that make up Scripture (particularly the New Testament) are exactly the ones that belong there (no more and no less)? When was that decided and by whom?\n\nHow do you prove that the collection of writings that make up Scripture (particularly the New Testament) are exactly the ones that belong there (no more and no less)? When was that decided and by whom?\n\nTo: BenghaziMemoriam\n\nYou answer my question first, and I\u2019ll answer yours.\n\n\n\nTo: kosciusko51\n\nYou answer my question first, and I\u0092ll answer yours. Ok. I\u0092ll make an honest attempt to answer to your last questions and would appreciate that you do likewise.\n\nSo, what teachings necessary for our salvation and spiritual life are not taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture? And how do you prove that? I don\u0092t have an exhaustive list, but I do have at least one example: the obligation of Sunday Worship and its supplanting of the Jewish Sabbath. It\u0092s definitely not explicit in Scripture and it\u0092s a stretch to say that it\u0092s implicit. Of course, there are a few references to worship occurring on the Lord\u0092s Day. However, that\u0092s different than claiming that Scripture mandates it. If you can provide that definitive info, then you can answer the Seventh-Day Adventists who claim \u0093You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday\u0094. Nevertheless, for centuries (millennia?), many (most?) Christians recognize it's necessary for salvation (myself included). While not explicit in Scripture, it\u0092s arguably consistent with it. Even so, it still needed some time to develop. The very first Christians were Jewish and probably would have continued keeping the Jewish Sabbath until instructed that it was no longer binding (whereas the Sunday obligation is). I cannot provide \u0093proof\u0094 (certainly none that a Seventh-Day Adventist would accept) other than what has been historically observed by several Christian writers over the centuries.\n\n\n\nNow, as a reminder, here are my questions:\n\nHow do you prove that the collection of writings that make up Scripture (particularly the New Testament) are exactly the ones that belong there (no more and no less)? When was that decided and by whom?\n\nOk. I\u0092ll make an honest attempt to answer to your last questions and would appreciate that you do likewise.I don\u0092t have an exhaustive list, but I do have at least one example: the obligation of Sunday Worship and its supplanting of the Jewish Sabbath. It\u0092s definitely not explicit in Scripture and it\u0092s a stretch to say that it\u0092s implicit. Of course, there are a few references to worshipon the Lord\u0092s Day. However, that\u0092s different than claiming that Scriptureit. If you can provide that definitive info, then you can answer the Seventh-Day Adventists who claim. Nevertheless, for centuries (millennia?), many (most?) Christians recognize it's necessary for salvation (myself included). While not explicit in Scripture, it\u0092s arguably consistent with it. Even so, it still needed some time to develop. The very first Christians were Jewish and probably would have continued keeping the Jewish Sabbath until instructed that it was no longer binding (whereas the Sunday obligation is). I cannot provide \u0093proof\u0094 (certainly none that a Seventh-Day Adventist would accept) other than what has been historically observed by several Christian writers over the centuries.Now, as a reminder, here are my questions:\n\nDisclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.\n\nFreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794\n\nFreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson", "keywords": [], "meta_keywords": [""], "tags": ["Browse", "Apologetics", "blessedvirginmary", "Religion", "History", "Catholic", "catholic", "prayer", "Theology"], "authors": [], "publish_date": null, "summary": "", "article_html": "", "meta_description": "", "meta_lang": "", "meta_favicon": "/l/favicon.ico", "meta_data": {}, "canonical_link": ""}