Christmastide
Posted on 30 December 2011
Some say that ever ‘gainst that season comes Wherein our Saviour’s birth is celebrated, The bird of dawning singeth all night long: And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad; The nights are wholesome; then no planets strike, No fairy takes, no witch has power to charm, So hallow’d and gracious is the time. –HamletI thought today, Dec 30, the Feast of the Holy Family, halfway through Christmastide, would be an apt time to reflect on it, and to urge my fellow traditionalists to continue the Christly and Christian work of Keeping the Feast and Partyin’ On! Let us pause for unsolemn reflection on these solemnities.
We all know the Twelve Days of Christmas from a famous nonsense song about a lady whose true love gives her 184 birds of various types, not to mention 12 fruit trees, 40 golden rings, 106 persons of the various professions either musical or milkmaidenly, and 32 members of the aristocracy variously cavorting.
If you have ever wondered how the lady in the song feeds all the leaping lords and dancing ladies, pipers, drummers, and milkmaids now living in her parlor, the answer is that she feeds them the 22 turtledoves, 30 French hens, 36 colly birds, and 42 swans, not to mention the nice supply of eggs from the geese, milk from the cows and pairs from the pair trees.
You may have heard that the lyrics contain a secret meaning, referring to Catholic doctrines or rites forbidden by Oliver Cromwell. This is true. The secret meaning is that the Walrus is St. Paul, and if you listen to a record of the carol backward, it says “Cromwell under his wig is bald.” All this is well known.
What is not as well known is that traditionally, these are twelve days of feasts which start on Christmas Day and run through to Epiphany on January 6th, which is the festival variously of the Adoration of the Magi and the Presentation in the Temple. (Really hard core Christmasteers extend Christmastide 40 days, ending on Candlemas February 2).
Before Christmas, during the season of Advent, while everyone else is shopping and partying, we who keep the traditions fast, pray, do penance, and make ourselves miserable. It makes the holiday much brighter by contrast.
After Christmas, the radio stations shut off their Xmas music and shops fold up their Santa Claus decorations at the stroke of Midnight on Dec 25th, just as Santa passes overhead in his sleigh, so as to make room for the Season of Returned Gifts for Store Credit which comes next in the Secular Calendar, followed by New Year’s Day and Saint Valentine’s Day. (The ACLU has not yet discovered that word ‘Saint’ in Saint Valentine’s Day nor Saint Patrick’s Day, nor hidden in Spanish in the names for San Francisco or Sacramento or San Diego or Santa Monica to have them removed and sterilized. The Bureau of Unmemory, commanded by Big Brother to remove all traces of Christ from Christendom, alas, has work that is never done.)
So the secular world never actually celebrates the real Christmas, which is two days shy of a fortnight of feast and festivity. And since the seculars never forswear self-indulgence (except during sports training) they don’t have the peculiar joy of following a fast with as feast. (For a similar reason, seculars don’t get to celebrate a Honeymoon. When you marry your artificially sterile live-in paramour of the last two years, nor does she change her last name, what differs except your income tax returns?)
So what are the Twelve Days? And why are there Thirteen of them?
I have not been able to find easy to hand a list of the Twelve Days of Christmas for 2011-2012. Here is my own list I have gathered from various sources:
Christmas: December 25th–The Nativity of Our Lord
December 26th—Feast of St. Stephen, first martyr
December 27th—Feast of St. John, apostle and evangelist
December 28th—Feast of the Holy Innocents, martyrs
December 29th—Memorial of St. Thomas Becket of Canterbury, bishop and martyr
December 30th—Feast of the Holy Family
December 31st—Memorial of St. Sylvester I, pope (in Eastern Church, this is the Apodosis, or final day of the Afterfeast)
January 1st —Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
January 2nd —Memorials of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen, bishops and doctors
January 3rd —Memorial of the Most Holy Name of Jesus
January 4th —St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
January 5th —Memorial of St. John Neumann, bishop & St. Telesphorus, pope and martyr
January 6th —Epiphany (traditional)
And, for the sake of completeness, for those of you who want another few Christmas days tacked onto the twelve:
January 7th —Memorial of St. Raymond of Penafort, priest
January 8th —The Epiphany of the Lord Old Calendar(new) Feast of the Holy Family (traditional)
January 9th —Baptism of the Lord
First, why are there a Baker’s Dozen of days in the Twelve Days? That answer is easy enough. Christianity was invented before people learned how to count. That is why there is no Year Zero, and why the Millennium began on 2001 rather than on 2000 like everyone expected, and why the Twentieth Century is in the 1900′s. This is also why Christ was said to be “three days and three nights in the grave” even though tradition puts the Crucifixion on a Friday and Resurrection on a Sunday (which is only two nights). The inability of Christians to count also explains why Martin Luther, who taught that scripture and scripture alone was the sacrosanct and sole and sufficient and complete embodiment of Christian teaching, did not get all the books in scripture that are supposed to be there: he miscounted by seven. This is all because the Arabs did not invent the zero until the year 1000 (which, at that time, was written 1???) and so Bakers in Dark Ages, as well as everyone else, added an extra one to everything.
Second, what are the Twelve Days?
The Feast of Stephen we all remember from the words of that Carol no one remembers all the words to, Good King Wenceslaus.
Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even
Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight
Gath’ring winter fuel
“Hither, page, and stand by me
If thou know’st it, telling
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?”
“Sire, he lives a good league hence
Underneath the mountain
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes’ fountain.”
“Bring me flesh and bring me wine
Bring me pine logs hither
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear him thither.”
(Some stanzas about the page boy whining about the snow omitted. Wimp.)
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing!
Saint Stephen’s is the day when, traditionally, the scraps and leftovers from the Christmas feasting of the day before would be given to the wretched, poor and needy so that they could make merry, and also catch infectious disease from the goose leg you took one bite out of, before passing out from wassail fumes.
Particularly nice Christians (also known as “saints”) like Wenceslas, would actually get clean food from the larder (also know as “not-previously-owned-food”) and carry it to the poor — including wine and flesh and, if the poor people were REALLY hungry, pine logs.
The traditional celebration for the Feast of St Stephen is to share your bounty with the poor, such as by given them the Christmas presents you don’t really want. Also, the day is set aside for horse parades and races, and as a feast for Deacons of the Church. It is a day for the blessing of oats and hay.
The Feast of Saint John the Evangelist is Dec 27th. Tradition holds that the saint was forced to drink of cup in which poison lurked, but took no hurt from it. In sacred art, this is often represented by showing John with a cup from which snakes rise. Traditionally, it is the day to bless the wine. It is also the festival for Priests.
The feast day of the Holy Innocents, also called Childermas, is Dec 28th and commemorates the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by Herod the Great. These children are considered martyrs by the Church.
The traditional celebration is to get into a theological argument with a Protestant about infant baptism and limbo. It is a contest where, whose ever theology makes God sound more arbitrary and cruel, wins. As of last round, the Calvinists are ahead of the Albigensians.
Just kidding. It is feast for choir boys and the youngsters. The tradition holds it as a time to bless the crib, or to place the youngest novice in charge of the Abbey for a day. You eat pudding or some other food fit for babies on the day.
The Feast of St. Thomas of Canterbury is an optional memorial. The traditional celebration I think is to drink cider and stab a bishop to death in an English cathedral.
The Feast of the Holy Family is the 3oth of December this year. (The Feast of the Holy Family is celebrated on the Sunday following Christmas, unless that Sunday is January 1st.) I am not sure what the tradition is on this day, either uprooting your family because of a bad dream and fleeing to Egypt or else getting your twelve-year-old lost in Jerusalem and not noticing he’s missing for the whole day.
Saint Sylvester’s Day is Dec 31st. His papacy is commemorated for the end of the persecutions under the Roman Emperors, and so his day becomes a symbol for peace on Earth. The tradition is to have the father bless all members of his family on that day, and for children to give thanks to their parents for their love and care.
The Solemnity of Mary is the same day as the Circumcision of the Lord. Unlike every other feast in the season, this is somewhat subdued memorial, since, technically speaking, the precious blood of Our Lord was shed this day. We also like to be solemn when the rest of the world is drunk and happy, just to be contrary.
The tradition in Patagonia, I believe, is for men to reflect on this day by clutching the groin and wincing, and giving thanks to Saint Paul that the Laws of Moses do not apply to Christians in their literal full force; and for wives slyly to point out that, of the two out of the three members of the Holy Family who were conceived immaculate and without sin, and ascended to heaven or were assumed to heaven for their coronation, neither one was the man of the household. Traditionally the men then grumble in mutters about uppity women and listen with agog disbelief to feminist complaining that the Roman Catholic Church is misogynistic.
Just kidding. There are no feminists in Patagonia. In reality January 1st is the feast for subdeacons.
New Year’s Eve is also the Feast of Fools, which, come to think of it, a lot of people still keep, in their own way, usually by trying to operate a motor vehicle while beer-blurred.
The Memorial of the Holy Name is on January 3rd and the Epiphany is on the 6th. Epiphany is actually three celebrations in one, since it commemorates the adoration of the Magi, the Baptism of Our Lord in the Jordan, and the Wedding Feast at Cana, each one of which, in its own way, can claim to be the first revelation of the Christ to the world.
Mormons and Christian Scientists celebrate Christ turning water into wine by refusing to drink wine. Or something like that.
The traditions of his day include the blessing of the waters, the eating of King’s Cake. A particularly cute tradition is to move the figurines of the Three Kings of the Nativity scene closer to the manger every day, and let them touch it on Epiphany.
It is also Twelfth Night, for which the Shakespeare play is named, is traditionally a fancy dress masquerade. It represents the topsy turvy nature of the Incarnation, the the King disguised as poor child, and shepherds hearing the tidings kings and high priests are not told. The various antics in the Shakespeare play, disguises and mistaken identities, capture this spirit of foolery.
The Sunday after Epiphany was the older date for the Feast of the Holy Family. As Pope Leo XIII explains, there is a lesson in this family for everyone: for fathers, for mothers, for children; for nobility (the Holy Family was from the royal house of David), for the poor (they gave up their possessions in fleeing to Egypt), and so on. On this day was held the “Shepherds’ Procession” as the children marched through the church dressed as shepherds and shepherdesses.
So, dear readers, there are a lot of old traditions around, like toys in a grandfather’s attic, our mothers’ dolls or fathers’ tin soldiers, still worth taking down and playing with.
Again, these traditions are like faded photographs showing scenes of joy it is better we not forget, lest, in our forgetfulness, we become too much like the world.
Delightful and funny. One small correction: the total number of whole books Luther excised is seven: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch (with the letter of Jeremiah), and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Also excluded were the Greek additions to Daniel and Esther. You might also include 1 and 2 Esdras, which if memory serves were usually packaged with Bibles of the time, but were not included in the OT canon established by the Council of Trent.
Luther was just following the ancient and respected tradition of excising scripture, as practiced previously be the Jews and the Church Fathers. It would be nicer and less confusing for everyone involved if the references to the excised scripture from accepted scripture were also excised. Then everyone that claimed that the Bible contained everything that God has ever revealed and will ever reveal wouldn’t have to deal with things like missing letters from Paul or the Book of Jasher.
What scripture are you suggesting the Church Fathers and Jews excised?
Since, in the case of the Old Testament, the Jews were the ones writing what we’re callings scripture in the first place, and had to decide what books they were going to preserve and reverence, I’m not sure how they could be excising it, exactly. Similarly, the Church had to make up her mind about what she considered canon, which meant including some books and excluding others. As for the Book of Jasher, we have no copies of it (the one floating around the Internet is a fraud) and can’t say much of anything about it. And I’m not really sure what you mean by saying the Church Fathers excised scripture; are you bothered that they excluded 1 Enoch?
And really, to be more exact, Luther was not excising scripture so much as continuing a debate, not yet officially closed in his day, over what exactly were the boundaries of the Old Testament. Neither the Protestant claim that Catholics added to the Bible nor the Catholic claim that Protestants subtracted from it really captures what actually happened.
See something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
which lists some of the books that are mentioned but not included in the bible, some of which are referenced as being themselves scriptural.
Doesn’t the current non-existence of a book give evidence of it being excised by someone in the past?
If one goes through the New Testament then one notices that there are more epistles by Paul that we don’t have, as he references such. That means that at some point those epistles were disappeared. Likewise, if one looks at what some of the early church leaders were accepting as canonical then there would be things like Enoch and Barnabas and Polycarp and lots of books that have been lost or disappeared.
It can be certainly claimed that the Catholics did add to at least one book of the New Testament (1 John 5:7-8). Claiming they added to the canon of the Bible is either nonsensical or should be non-controversial depending on what is meant by that. The Catholic Church was the one that decided what was and was not canonical, hence adding to the canon is nonsensical. If one takes Christianity as being the legitimate successor to Judaism then it can be viewed that the Catholics were adding to the accepted canon of Judaism, hence adding to the canon is non-controversial.
Doesn’t the current non-existence of a book give evidence of it being excised by someone in the past?
Not necessarily. It could have been lost. When Joshua was written, the concept of canon was probably vague or more likely nonexistent.
When you use “disappear” as a transitive verb, it implies some sort of conspiracy, as if St. Paul had embarrassing letters powerful people wanted gone, a speculation for which there is no evidence. Yes, it is possible he had other church letters now lost (this is not entirely certain), but this does not indicate their intentional elimination.
Enoch and Barnabas we have with us. They were lost for a long while because they went out of use, not because they were “disappeared.” Polycarp we have in quotations because he was highly regarded. Also not “disappeared.”
But of course you are correct that early Fathers had different opinions about the exact boundaries of the New Testament until the matter was settled, just as the debate over the Old Testament would continue until Trent.
“Enoch and Barnabas ”
I was listing one that we had and put the ones that we don’t have in the disappeared category.
“Yes, it is possible he had other church letters now lost (this is not entirely certain)”
Via Wikipedia:
” The first Epistle to Corinth[5] referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9
The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9
The earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4
The Epistle to the Laodiceans[6]referenced at Colossians 4:16
”
I don’t think that any disappearing that may have happened was done by the Catholic Church. I think the intentional destruction of certain works of scripture makes more sense then that authentic epistles or books of scripture would be lost unintentionally. It is possible that they were just lost though.
Please be more specific about being referenced “as being themselves scriptural.”
For instance there are quite a few things of this nature:
Are they not written in [book/acts/vision/etc.] of [Shemaiah/Iddo/Nathan/Gad/etc.] the [Prophet/Seer]?
Which would seem to imply that Shemaiah, Iddo, Nathan, Gad, and so forth were considered to be true prophets sent from the Lord and that their writings were considered by the prophet (or historian) writing to be scriptural in nature. Then you have things like the Book of Jasher [or the upright] which is quoted by different prophets as scripture, or the Book of the Wars of the Lord which Moses quotes as scripture.
It might be anachronistic to say those books quoted in the Old Testament are quoted “as scripture.” The concept probably hadn’t developed by the time Samuel and Kings or Joshua were written. We really don’t know exactly how they viewed Jasher, or for that matter how exactly they viewed the writings of those prophets, though they no doubt held them in some reverence.
Thanks for the refresher on St. Paul’s references; but a few of those letters we may in fact have. The first epistle to Corinth and the “severe letter” may be parts of 2 Corinthians or 1 Corinthians. That’s one of the going theories, at any rate. The letter from Laodicea may have also been a letter we have, which was being circulated; at least I don’t know any reason why that’s not plausible.
I don’t see a reference to a previous letter in Ephesians 3.3-4, though perhaps the translations I have on hand are different from the ones being used by, erm, Wikipedia. The RSV has “as I have written briefly,” and the NRSV has “as I have written above.” At any rate, even if it does imply another letter, it might imply another letter that we have, but which was circulated to the Ephesians.
Though frankly, even if that’s not the case, I don’t sweat it; lost letters of St. Paul might make for an interesting Dan Brown novel, but I don’t lie awake at night wondering if every book that should be there made it into the canon. Considering the trouble of preserving books before the printing press, I’m astounded that we have what we do.
(What does keep me awake at night is wondering who in the world decided to preserve and copy Philemon.)
“The concept probably hadn’t developed by the time Samuel and Kings or Joshua were written. We really don’t know exactly how they viewed Jasher, or for that matter how exactly they viewed the writings of those prophets, though they no doubt held them in some reverence.”
Perhaps our two concepts of scripture are slightly different. Exodus and Deuteronomy seem to me to establish that the Jews at the time of Moses had a clear understanding that scripture is any writing that contains the word of the Lord as given by a true prophet. As they had covenanted to obey the writings that contained the word of the Lord and had been taught that they were not to live off of bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord and were given to know when what a prophet spoke or wrote were spoken by the Lord and that they were required to hearken to the words of true prophets then the only possible conclusion is that they had some concept of what scriptures were.
“(What does keep me awake at night is wondering who in the world decided to preserve and copy Philemon.)”
With the loss of the Apostles then the legitimate writings of the Apostles were the only thing that the early saints had to go on. Philemon is pretty much accepted by everyone as being by Paul so it was included in the legitimate writings that the church that met in Philemon’s house transcribed and sent to everyone else. There isn’t anything in Philemon that any heretic would desperately want to suppress, and being unquestionably from Paul it would lend legitimacy to any set of writings any heretics were sending around.
Try to imagine a world in which having any legitimate writings from the Apostles was punishable by death and having the writings burned, where there were lots of spurious writings being sent around, and where any writings from the Apostles that taught of Jesus Christ was more valuable then gold or life itself. Philemon teaches that we are to pray to God, that mentioning people and current concerns in our prayers to God is the correct way to pray, that we are to love the Lord Jesus Christ and others, that we are to communicate our faith with others, that every good thing is in Christ Jesus, that the gospel makes us new men in Christ, that regardless of our station in life we are all brothers in Christ, that the leaders of the Church should through love seek to change peoples behavior rather then through sharpness, that we should forgive others, and that we are to obey the gospel willingly rather then through force or necessity. That is quite a list of priceless gospel teachings in a very short, and therefore easy to transcribe and pass around, message.
If Philemon had been the only thing to survive or the only trustworthy scripture that a person or piece of the church had (besides the accepted Jewish cannon) then that person or piece of the church would still have priceless truths that would be invaluable in leading themselves and others to Christ. As Philemon is a portion of the small amount that has survived through the ages it still teaches priceless truths that if followed would lead more people to true belief in Christ then otherwise. If everyone that claims to be Christian were to treat others as their brother, regardless of the difference in station in life, and were to pray then the world would be a much better place and many more people would have the desire to follow Christ and become beloved brothers in the Lord.
Mr. Hutchins
The Bible (Old or New Testament) is not a collection of everything that the Apostles, prophets, or saints wrote/said–and I’m somewhat surprised that the LDS church thinks that it is. The collection of books that makes up the OT was not without controversy even before Jesus was born and the matter was not settled among the Jews until long after his crucifixion. The books that the Jews settled on were not identical to the books that the early Christians used–which was the LXX–and there are various reasons for this. One of those reasons being that Christianity was using this translation and set of books and the Jews wanted a differentiator. Remembering that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism considered themselves heirs (or the fulfillment) of Temple Judaism.
While the Church existed on the Monday after Pentecost there was no NT yet written. It was only over the next hundred years that the NT was written which is to say that much that came to be the NT was originally oral tradition. The Epistles were simply open letters circulated among the Church–and even then perhaps not universally. It wasn’t until the mid-300s that a canonical list of the books of the OT and NT that matches the one used today (less Revelations) can be found.
The Bible is a partial record of Gods dealing with, primarily, the house of Judah, his companions, and those grafted in through the election of grace. Scripture is anything that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. Not everything that is done by a prophet, seer, Apostle, so forth is scripture, only that portion that is done according to the direction of God, see the story of Balaam for example. Canon is scripture that has been accepted by either the church or someone claiming authority. Things that disagree with the authority or the common belief of the people tend to be left out regardless of whether or not it is an actual record of Gods dealings with the people or actually something that proceeded from the mouth of God.
Anyways, you are making precisely my point, the excising of things that some sets of Christians or Jews held to be scripture is a well respected and ancient tradition which Luther was following.
I’ll note that you’ve redefined how you initially appeared to be defining Scripture but that aside you don’t seem to be grasping that Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition) and was gathered together by the Church. What Martin Luther did is not the same thing as what the Church did and certainly is not an ancient and well respected tradition.
I don’t see how I redefined it at all.
“Against Heresies” by Tertullian seems to suggest that what Martin Luther did was exactly what the heretics did and exactly (from the heretics perspective) what the Church did, hence it is an ancient and well respected tradition, just that it is only well respected if the cutting is done by someone that is agreed with.
The scripture existed previous to it being gathered together and determined to be canonical by some scholar or respected individual or emperor appointee or council. It was already the word of the Lord and anything that is the word of the Lord but that was not approved by said authority remains the word of the Lord regardless and still enforce, regardless of our hearkening to it or not. “The sovereign LORD has spoken–who can but prophesy?” and if the prophecy is true then the Lord has spoken it and He does not repent even if we do not listen.
““Against Heresies” by Tertullian seems to suggest that what Martin Luther did was exactly what the heretics did and exactly (from the heretics perspective) what the Church did, hence it is an ancient and well respected tradition”
Exactly how does ONE statement by one man known to be heretical make something “an ancient and well respected tradition”?
Are you prepared to defend anything any Mormon — even by one who was actively thrown out — ever said about Mormorism as Mormorism?
That one statement proves that what Martin Luther was accused of is the same as what the heretics claimed the church was doing and the church claimed the heretics were doing in the very early years of the church.
“With the loss of the Apostles then the legitimate writings of the Apostles were the only thing that the early saints had to go on. ”
Bosh.
“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”
It had the Tradition, too.
It’s okay, he’s a hardcore traditionalist who refuses to use this uppity Mohammedan ’0′ thing, so we can forgive him for miscounting
Correction made
For some reason, the Feast of the Holy Innocents almost seems… relevant today. I dunno, something about innocent children being killed wholesale for the sake of personal security just sounds familiar.
This gives, with the readings, the feast of the day.
Hello everybody, Happy New Year. I come bearing a gift. The gift of time.
It is 105 minutes of your life. 105 minutes of 2012 I have already wasted watching Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Don’t let my sacrifice be in vain!
Don’t look, Marion! Whatever you do, don’t open your eyes!
My face is melting!
Oh, the preceeding comment is glaringly off-topic, but you probably know that by now…
Not to worry. Your comment was glaringly off topic and amusing and short. Other commenters are not so polite.
I am sorry, I didn’t think that my comment was going to be so controversial. I would not have made it had I known.
Apology accepted. As public service, I have written a post that directly addresses the issue of Apostolic Succession and Apostasy, not a humor piece and not about traditional Christmastide, where such comments would not be more comfortable.
I’d read that this movie was actually sort of good. I haven’t watched it however as I am trying to keep intact my treasured memories of the original movies and TV series that I watched as a kid–which I am certain were universally horrible but remember as being fantastic.
You appear to be under several misapprehensions regarding the Church, Holy Tradition, and Scripture which I assume are integral to the LDS faith. For example, you quite regularly make a statement such as LDS President X wrote… and as he is a prophet it is ipso facto the word of God. However just because some “council” makes a statement what of it, they are after all just a gathering of men.
The gathering of men that you reference however are the bishops whose authority descends from the Apostles through Apostolic succession. The veracity of the dogmatic decisions of these councils is guaranteed by God as He guides the Church — just as I suppose you believe He guides your prophets. The OT and NT are those ‘books’ that have been accepted and formally approved by the Church (a divinely guided body) — which is not to say that there are not other inspired books out there just that. Most Christians (those who are not Mormon at any rate) when using the term Scripture without any other caveat are referring to the OT and NT and not any inspired writings or utterances throughout all of time. You seem to be using Scriptures both as a synonym for the Bible and as meaning all divinely inspired writing which is why I am confused by your seemingly shifting definitions–if the Church teaches that there are inspired writings outside of the Bible then a book being included in the Bible is simply a guarantee of its inspired nature.
I am in no sense an expert on Tertullian other than having read one of his books and recognizing him as (at least in his later years) a Montanist. I don’t however believe that he wrote a book with he title that you are referencing. Is it a chapter in a book or perhaps a mashup of a title? I think he wrote two books with heresy in the title.
Should be “Prescription Against Heresy”, sorry.
Accepted LDS canon includes The Bible (being the King James Version and its equivalent in other languages), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. What is termed as the Apocrypha is recognized as mostly inspired writings but with the interpolations of men. The Song of Solomon is not accepted as being scripture (or inspired) although it is in the Bible.
The utterances of the prophets in the semiannual conference of the Church are inspired but are not, generally, entered into the accepted canon. As members we are not supposed to just accept the inspired nature of the teachings of the prophets but to study them and ask God in prayer about both the prophets being prophets and about the nature of their particular teaching as it relates to us.
The councils state quite firmly that they are not acting under revelation from God as all revelation from God ceased at the time of the Apostles. Therefore, they admit themselves that they are not communicating the word of God nor are they receiving Divine instruction to resolve the doctrinal disputes. As they are not seeking God nor consulting Him nor asking Him then I do not see how God could possibly have guaranteed anything about the council, and even if He were to try and guarantee something in relation to the councils the councils would not have accepted the guarantee as revelation from God has ceased (per the councils) and any guarantee would be new revelation and must be judged as false revelation.
Mr. Hutchins
What the Protestants call the Apocryphal books of the Bible (and what I believe Roman Catholics call Deuterocanonical) are simply part of the canon of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity.
I’m not certain if you are referring to the seven Ecumenical Councils or something else, so I’ll avoid comment until I understand what you are referencing.
As to Prophets, Orthodox Christianity teaches that the last Prophet was John the Forerunner as Jesus delivered the fullness or fulfillment of the law. Therefore there is no continuing Revelation–something about which the Church is adamant about. That said, I don’t know how you have come away with the impression that the Church does not teach that it is guided by the Holy Spirit. That is one of the major points of the Church.
How are you defining ‘revelation’? I suspect that you might be doing do differently than a Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian would.
Revelation is communication from God to us. Prophets are those that are authorized to receive revelation for the whole church and for the whole world. Everyone can receive revelation for themselves. Revelation can come in such forms as visions, dreams, visitation by angels, the whispering of the Holy Ghost, and the personal appearance of the Lord.
Without revelation the people perish and the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus and the Lord will do nothing but He revealeth his secrets to his servant the prophets so saying there is no continuing revelation and no prophets seems to me to be the same as saying that no one has a testimony of Jesus and we are all dead to things of righteousness. Obviously, that can not be what you mean or you wouldn’t consider yourself a Christian so clearly there has to be some massive differences in what is meant both by a lack of revelation and those scriptures.
Your understanding of Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology is very odd so I will need to back up a little to make my point. Doing so I hope that what I write is not found to be condescending as that is not my intent and I apologize if my unartful choice of words betrays my intent.
First, the LDS use a different (newer) Old Testament than what Orthodox Christians use. Orthodox Christians use the LXX which is the Scriptures that the Apostles use. Whenever an Apostle quotes scripture, they are quoting from the LXX. Those Jews who went on to create the Masoretic OT did so in part in reaction to the Early Christians (what I would call the Orthodox Christians) adoption of the LXX and so purposefully abandoned the use of the LXX. This is why (in part) the Hebrew Bible is different than the LXX. When Martin Luther (in his arrogance) edited his own version of the OT he (among other things) discarded any books that he could not trace back to having a Masoretic version. What he did not realize was that the LXX is the older version of the OT. The KJV is based off of Luther’s faulty version.
I bring this up because, if I have correctly identified your Scriptural references, you have utterly misunderstood the Scriptures on which you base your beliefs.
Proverbs 29:18 reads, “There shall be no interpreter of the law for a lawless nation. But he who guards the law is very blessed.” This reads very differently than the quote about ‘vision’ from the KJV on which you undoubtedly base your thoughts about revelation.
Revelation 19:10 reads, “And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’” I’m not certain what about continual revelation you are reading into this so I am unable to comment other than to say Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics don’t see what you see here.
Amos 3:7 reads, “For the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals instructions to His servants the prophets.” Just as Temple Judaism was the preparation for Christianity so the prophets were for Jesus. Jesus completed the message and no further revelation is needed.
For Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics the Truth is not the Bible. In high school I was told that there are “Three people of the Book” — Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Christians aren’t people of the Book though. They are followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ IS the Truth. The Bible is a teaching aid to be used within the Church founded by Jesus Christ and this is what both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have always taught.
Unlike Mohamed and Joseph Smith, Jesus did not write a book or books. This should be something of a telling point. Instead, Jesus founded a Church. Members of the Church then wrote books, some of which came to be regarded as Holy Scriptures–which are really nothing other than written Holy Tradition.
Revelation is new doctrine. For instance, examples of Revelation would be if a supposed prophet were to say, “I have received a revelation from God that He is four persons” or “God has revealed to me that to be saved one must first be married.”
Dogma, at least for Orthodox Christians, is black and yellow tape warning you to go no further. For instance, it is dogma that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man. For an Orthodox Christian to teach that Jesus was only a man or was God creating the illusion that He was a man is heretical. The Church acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has in the past crafted dogma to explicate revelation. For Orthodox Christians this has occurred during seven Ecumenical Councils. Any theological speculation that is not curtailed by the relatively few dogmatic declarations that the Church has made is considered Theologoumenon–theological opinion.
Orthodox Christians (and I would imagine this is the same for Roman Catholics) do not declare that prophecy has ended. What is declared is that there are no more Prophets–spokesmen for God providing additional/continual revelation. Revelation was the preparation for Jesus Christ and the Church is His continued proclamation. Prophets->Jesus->Church. What the believers in the Great Apostacy teach is Prophets->Jesus->Apostles->Apostasy->Prophet->Prophet’s Church. Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics teach that the Prophets prepared the world for the arrival of Jesus and then Jesus created an undying Church through his Apostles. That was the point of the Apostles–they were the first priests of the Church. Protestantism, Islam, and the LDS effectively claim that the most important part of this sequence is the arrival of either the Final Prophet or the return of Prophecy (with a focus on the first new Prophet) often coinciding with a book that is dictated to them which means that Jesus was actually preparing the way for the Final Prophet or new line of Prophets. For whatever reason these faith traditions also place a VERY heavy significance on the Bible, their new translation of the Bible, and/or or the New Scriptures while ignoring or minimizing the parts of the Holy Tradition that crafted the Bible.
As our host has so very tactfully pointed out we have strayed very far from the topic of his post. As your response is actually very interesting I would love to discuss it more, perhaps moving it to your blog would be better.
With my extended trip to Colombia and the holidays I’d quite forgotten I’d started a blog. I’ll put together a variation of what I posted here and let you know when I post it.
Which also reminds me that I that I told my priest I’d build the church a new website.
The councils state quite firmly that they are not acting under revelation from God as all revelation from God ceased at the time of the Apostles. Therefore, they admit themselves that they are not communicating the word of God nor are they receiving Divine instruction to resolve the doctrinal disputes.
Nonsense. They are protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. That is a different kettle of fish from revelation.
As they are not seeking God nor consulting Him nor asking Him
This is simply hate-mongering.
then I do not see how God could possibly have guaranteed anything about the council,
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” — but you keep on citing your own inability to conceive of something as evidence against. You should cut it out. It is silly in any department to say “I can’t see that” as if it were an argument, but when discussing God it is doubly — triply — silly.
Are you claiming that the councils did seek revelation from God?
Mr. Hutchins
You are not using revelation in the same sense that Roman Catholic’s and Orthodox Christians use it. Revelation is new doctrine. What the Ecumenical Councils were doing was setting limits on theological opinions about doctrines.
Have you never heard of or seen a Christian pray to God for guidance? Assuming you have, what exactly did you think that they were doing if they believed that man could no longer communicate with God?
I see there is a big difference in understanding of the topic. Although, in the case of the councils I still think that Revelation as you have presented should still have been sought.
I apologize that I am being unclear.
It is not that God said, “Enough is enough I am providing no more revelation.” Or that the Church decided, “We’ve bothered God quite enough, no more asking for revelation.”
Jesus was the finalization of the message. The message has been sent and received.
Let me use an analogy, crude as it might be. Let us say that the revelation from God was simply, “Drive 55. Speed kills.” That was the totality of the message.
However imagine that you and I as bishops (I don’t know what the LDS version of a bishop is, but I know it isn’t what you call a bishop) and we get into an argument about the definition of speed. After all, the message said “Speed kills” but what exactly is ‘speed’?
I say and teach that ‘speed’ is driving faster than 55 MPH. You say and teach that ‘speed’ is a reference to partaking of narcotics and not to how fast one is moving. We both agree that ‘kills’ means the loss of salvation so it is an important topic. Eventually we have a big meeting of all of the bishops and try to suss this out–we do this through prayer, study, and argument. One of our doctrines is that God (in the person of the Holy Spirit) will not allow for us to successfully graft a false doctrinal teaching onto the Church. We meet and resolve that ‘speed’ does not mean ‘narcotics’ and that to teach that ‘speed’ is narcotics is heretical as it endangers man’s salvation.
The Church teaches that God is working through the Church. By this definition (dogma) of ‘speed’ being arrived at by the Ecumenical Council and accepted by the Church this shows that this defintion is ammenable to God.
Praying for ‘additional’ revelation by this understanding of revelation whold have resulted in “Drive 55. Speed kills.” For Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, new revelation in this scenario would have been something like, “Yield to merging traffic.”
Yes! The truth that was given once and for all!
Given that the Mormorism has twice decanonized scripture, I would advise less rashness about talking about other people’s lack of guidance, given that Mormorism was twice wrong, whether putting in or taking out.
Lectures on Faith was not given as revelation, neither was the old section 101, and there is still a section in the D&C that has the same status that 101 does (it is on governments).
The de-canonized section 101 was put in the D&C without the prophets approval and it contradicts both the Book of Mormon and the Bible on the subject of polygamy. It was presented when Joseph Smith was not present (as he had already received a revelation saying that polygamy would be practiced) and was in response to such things as the Miranda Johnson affair or marriage.
Considering as how the Lectures on Faith were not given as revelation but were discussions on the subjects as was understood at that point in time then there is no problem with Lecture 5 not being accurate as additional revelation is and was still possible. They are still useful and well read within the church, similar to such things as Jesus the Christ by Talmage, the Miracle of Forgiveness by Kimball.
Sounds like they bungled D&C but good by your own account.
Mr. Hutchins
Tertullian wrote “Prescription Against Heretics” which I have read, “Against All Heresies” (this may not have actually been written by Terullian but simply attributed to him) which I have not read, and then there is the quite famous “Against Heresies” by Saint Irenaeus. You can see why I might be confused as to what you are reading/have read.
Is it “Prescription Against Heretics” by Tertullian that you are referencing?
yes.
Happy New Year (and Epiphany in advance) ^^