It’s the Christ Mass
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting and please leave a comment after you read the blog!
Perhaps the Grinch had the right idea
Happy Holidays is becoming a sore point for many Christians. They cite this as another attempt to undermine Christianity by the secular world. Christmas for many Christians is a sacred time of remembering the birth of Christ. The sentimentality of the manger scene and Christmas songs are held as sacred to many believers. These ancient songs are a testament to faith in their minds.
I love Christmas songs, so I am not taking the position of the Grinch who Stole Christmas. But, as a late comer to Christianity (Christ came into my heart when I was 32 and I was raised as an atheist with no church background), I have had to become a student of church history to catch up.
From my studies I have found that Christmas songs, for the most part, only date to the 19th century. To be sure there are several songs that go back in history, but the majority of the songs we sing are from the 19th and 20th centuries.
More significantly, Protestants did not celebrate Christ-mass until the 19th century for several reasons. The many pagan roots and the winter solstice are supporting reasons, but not the main reason. The main reason for not celebrating the Catholic Christ-mass is because the Mass itself is an abomination to the Reformation Protestant mind. We have forgotten its significance.
Every mass is a superstitious belief that the wafer and wine are magically transformed into the body and blood of Christ through the doctrine of transubstantiation. Wikipedia defines it thus:
In Roman Catholic theology, “transubstantiation” Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek metousiosis means the change of the of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before.
This means Christ is crucified again and again, in a works mentality, which is abominable to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 4:8).
There is very little documentation available that shows that the Early Church regarded the birth of Christ as a sacred holiday. Instead the church records shows this began to develop by the 3rd and 4th centuries. The Early Church put their emphasis on the resurrection, but that was not annually in Easter, but daily since the new birth made the resurrection a 24/7 experience.
I am not arguing against celebrating Christmas in this post. I am only putting Christmas in perspective. When I was first married, I became excited about Christmas because it is a wonderful experience for children. As atheists, my family ironically celebrated Christmas (because both my parents had Christian upbringing that they rejected as adults), which is one of my happiest memories of a childhood broken by divorce and perversions. So I wanted to create those same good memories for my children. Regrettably, we were not able to have children, but my wife still loves celebrating Christmas, which we still do.
If the secular world succeeds in erasing Christmas from being celebrated, I will have no regrets. Because they have no interest in erasing the winter holiday. It is the biggest retail sales event of the year. But if Christmas is no longer the reason, and it boils down to simply “happy holidays,” then perhaps Christians will finally drop out of the pagan season of excessive spending and debauchery. For the season has absolutely no impact on the new birth and the life of Christ in our hearts. The only real loss that I see if the secular world succeeded in removing all mention of Christ in the season is the evangelical opportunity of sharing Christ. But let’s get real. Most Christians in America today do not witness, anyway. We do not need a holiday season for witnessing. That is also a 24/7 opportunity that we always have since Christ is always in our hearts.
Amonite,
You apparently misunderstand the Catholic Mass. Their doctrine of transubstantiation claims that the wafer and wine are supernaturally transformed into the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ, thus crucifying Him afresh with every Mass performed. This was the central protest of the Protestant Reformers. The Mass is a a pagan ritual carried over from the Babylon Mystery Religion so there is no real celebration of what Christ actually accomplished.
I have never kept Christmas or Easter (While I can take them or leave them as secular holidays, I cannot bring myself to think that God would want us to -deliberately- lie in His name and throw him a pagan party in his ‘honor’, reminds me too much of the Israelites thinking that offering sacrifices to God at the pagan high places was a-ok..)
But it has occured to me in more recent years that the mass is a much larger issue than the holidays pagan roots or innacurate timelines, as it ties into the core difference between Jesus and every other pagan sun-god religion.
Jesus died once for our sins with a complete sacrifice. Tammuz, Adonis, and other pagan gods all had to undergo a yearly death and ressurection.
(The spring passion plays allowing the participants to be crucified or elsewise murdered/ressurected with their chosen god, and different winter solstice celebrations would sometimes have a reflection of this as well, such as the yule log or branch of a shorn tree being burnt in the fire one night to be ‘reborn’ as a full evergreen the next, etc)
Oh dear . . .
Melville,
You are right that the term “fascist” carries much emotional overtones. But that does not mean such terms should never be used. Even Jesus used terms that had much emotional overtones: snakes, vipors, liars, children of the devil, etc against the pharisees. Of course, my discussion with you and other readers is not hostile, nor meant to cause any such defensiveness.
But I stand by what I said. Webster’s definition that you gave is based upon those openly fascist regimes such as Mussolini’s. What we have in America is a fascist government hiding behind the shell of the constitution people assume we are governed by. Their intention is to impoverish the country (with the multi trillion dollar debt and empty fiat dollar system) so completely that they can openly change the constitution with economics as an excuse or conquer an armed rebellion, then change it by right of victory.
But this is straying way off the topic of the Christ Mass, and merits a separate blog post.
I think one thing that makes an issue a can of worms, Alex, is not defining words in the same way and the fact that words carry emotional content for people. What we call hot button words typically set off a stream of thoughts, associations, and feelings, which is what we call opening a can of worms, do you think?
The definition of “fascist” you use is a very limited one and I can go with that in understanding your word usage. This is not how it is understood and felt in the general vernacular though. I looked it up in my trusty Webster’s Collegiate (1951)and the common usage isn’t that much different from what I hear now: “fascism . . .2. Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition”. This is how most people use “fascist”, with the idea of an exremely intolerable rigidity of dogma and mandatory support of whatever the regime decides. In fact calling a person or entity “fascist” is about the worst thing one can call it, worse than being a communist, it seems sure.
Civility in mutual discourse does involve, I believe, understanding how the other uses words, which takes patience. Thank you for yours.
Melville,
As I said it is a can of worms. I appreciate your points of clarification, too. I use the term “fascist” in the sense of government and private corporations working together for their mutual benefit. That is what we have in this country today as the taxed bailouts for private banks attest.
I agree with your assessment that the constitution did not provide for a Church of the United States. And “secular” is a valid term in that view. I do not believe it was a “Christian” document, although I believe there were certainly “Christian” influences upon it.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Alex,
Thank you for pointing out more accurately the type of government the USA ostensibly has, a representative democracy. I used that word in the generic sense that distinguishes governments that are not (absolute) monarchies or dicictatorships. “Fascist” is a very strong word and I am not prepared to go that far here (lest my silence might be taken as consent). I don’t know if there’s a broader or more technical definition but that’s a word I reserve for states like Germany and Italy under Hitler and Mussolini.
As for the US Constitution, the reason I call it a secular document is because of what it says and the type of state it set up. I know there are arguments about the intent of the founding fathers, who they were, what they believed. I am only saying that the document itself sets forward a secular state. There is no church of the United States as there is a Church of England.
I take it in a way like I take the Bible, for what it says and doesn’t say. That helps be avoid lots of irresolvable speculations.
Melville,
You bring up several good points. First, regarding older Christmas songs, “Away in the Manger” was written by Martin Luther in the 16th century, and I believe “O Come Emanuel” is older.
As for the US Constitution, you are opening up a can of worms! The constitution is a mixture of both secular and religious motivations. To say it was a “Christian” document is just as erroneous as to say it was a “secular” document. It is a compromise document. But in any case the important thing to remember about the constitution is that it is directed at controlling the Federal government, which it no longer does. We stopped living in a constitutional republic with the Civil War. Since the 20th century we have lived in a fascist government that pretends to be the constitutional government of our fore fathers. We are not and never have been a democracy. At best we could say that we lived in a representational democratic republic. But as I said, this is a can of worms to discuss.
I agree with you regarding the drab and dreary winter season needs enlivening. Which is why pagans have celebrated the winter solstice for thousands of years. So, from my point of view, designating this as a celebration of the birth of Christ is as good a reason as any – just don’t make it some kind of sacred time. We are told in the Bible that every day is holy unto the Lord. Personally, I believe that Jesus was born during the feast of tabernacles, which is symbolic of dwelling in our temporary bodies. That would put His birth around September/October. A time that is great for harvest festival celebration, but has no impact on the dreary winter times.
Thanks for your input!
It is good to put this in historical perspective, Alex. I agree with that, and there’s too little of it. Thanks!
Some thoughts are coming. One is that maybe the atheists or whoever are actually wasting their time and that of many others making a big deal over this. They are also laying bait, as it were, for Christian people to waste their time with, and a lot of money, fighting in the legal system the keep the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, along with trying to keep the Ten Commandments and In God We Trust in federal buildings and on the money.
The United States of America is a secular state, with it written into the Bill of Rights certain wording designed to keep it from being a religious one. Come to think of it, maybe the atheists are doing us a service, insofar as this is a democracy, because the same provisions in the Constitution that prevent it from being a specifically Christian one prevent it from being a Hindu on Islamic one, no matter what the populace is persuaded to go for.
Regarding Christmas songs and music, most of the popular ones, many of them “secular”, do date from the 19th-20th centuries, but there is an older body of Christmas music. Real caroling, people going about the town singing, maybe in hope someone would open the door and give them a “figgy pudding” when it was so cold, is older, I believe, but need more information.
The practice of turning pagan festivals into Christian holidays (holy days) goes as far back as ancient Rome, sure. Lots of such transferences. But I got to thinking, what’s wrong with having a midwinter festival or party? Something’s got to be done to break up the bleakness of cold winter. It gets COLD and tiresome even in Italy. Making that into a time to celebrate the Incarnation, per se, may not be a bad thing, like how the Jews developed Purim. Maybe solstice observance was a regular thing in the ancient world all over, where superstition abounded, but that’s different from needing some sort of tangible cheer when it’s freezing outside and the trees and plants appear dead in cold climes.
I like that, Brian! X the Mass indeed!
Like I’ve begun saying of late, Merry ChristX! X the Mass, not the Christ.