Why do Catholics celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question: Why do Catholics celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25?  "The Bible does not give the exact date of Jesus’ birth. Furthermore, it indicates that Jesus was born, not in the cold, rainy month of December or January but in a warmer season"--as argued by the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs).

Short answer:  it is indeed an arbitrary (although rooted in tradition) date chosen by the Catholic Church to celebrate our Savior's birth, as the exact day of Jesus' birth is unknown. 
 
I would just like provide a cautionary statement:  while it is our baptismal duty to share our faith--indeed, our faith is NOT private and we ought to invite others into the fullness of the Truth--JWs are not allowed to read any materials we Catholics might offer to them.  Thus, it is really a one-sided dialogue that often occurs, with the JWs offering their arguments against Catholicism, but being unable to engage us in hearing our apologia.  In addition,  JWs are very adept at proclaiming their false doctrines.  Many a person has succumbed to their astute missionary/biblical expertise and can be left with questions that are seemingly answered only by JW doctrine.)

Now, back to the discussion at hand! 

Thus, the Church does not proclaim that Jesus was actually born on Dec. 25. Only that we celebrate it on this day.  It's a celebration of the Incarnation, not a memorial of a specific day.

It is  also true, as the JWs contend, that Dec. 25 was a pagan holiday, to celebrate the winter solstice.  It is because this pagan origin that JWs do not celebrate Christmas (not to mention JWs do not believe Jesus is God, and thus reject the doctrine of the Incarnation.)

However, while the origins of the date of Christmas may have begun on a pagan holiday, Christianity reformed this pagan date date and made it holy!  Indeed, this is a similar paradigm to the Incarnation.  2000 years ago Christ entered this pagan world and reformed and sanctified it by His Presence!

"Early Christian worship often used the customs and symbols associated with the paganism around it. One instance: The fish was a symbol of fertility in the ancient world and of eroticism in particular for the Romans. This pagan symbol became one of the most important symbols of the Church, the Greek word for "fish," ichthus, becoming a condensed confession of the faith....
Here was an opportunity for the Church to confront paganism, and so it aimed at one of the biggest and most important cults in Rome. The day chosen was December 25, when everyone celebrated the pagan feast of the dies natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the Unconquerable Sun."

December 25 arrives around the time of the winter solstice, when the days get shorter and the sun seems to be "dying." After the winter solstice, the sun appears to regain its strength, is "born again" as it were, as the days become longer. Consequently, December 25 was the "birthday" of the Persian sun-god known as Mithras, originally one of the lesser demigods of the Zoroastrian religion. Mithras had become the principal Persian deity by 400 B.C. and his cult quickly overran Asia Minor. According to Plutarch, it was introduced into the West around 68 B.C., and became quite popular among the Roman legions." source

(Disclaimer:  please note my comments on JW doctrine ought to be taken with the same grain of salt as if you heard JW claiming "This is what Catholics believe."  I have a very limited understanding of JW doctrine...BUT!  I also don't think I'm wrong in what I've been saying so far about JWs.  )

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Article on the History of Jehovah's Witnesses

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 

1 Peter 3:15

Didn't the Church just invent the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question: Regarding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, didn't the Church just invent this dogma in 1854?

Firstly, we ought to define what the Immaculate Conception (IC) is.  It is NOT the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.  We all have heard many women joking that if they're pregnant it must "through the immaculate conception 'cause there's no way I could be pregnant."  
 This is an understandable confusion, especially since the Church always reads the Gospel narrative of the Annunciation, where Mary is told that she will conceive, without marital relations, a son.  Naturally Catholics assume that this is the Immaculate Conception.

However, the IC is the teaching that Mary, from the very first moment of her existence in St. Anne's womb, was free from Original Sin.  That is, she did not lose the supernatural grace that was once part of our humanity but lost through the sin of Adam and Eve.  God created her to be the fitting and perfect vessel for His Divine Son. 

"The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of Israel’s redemption). If this box was created with such honor—to carry a stick, some bread, and stone tablets—how much more should Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption, Jesus’ body."  source
 
So, did the Church invent this teaching in 1854?

It's true that Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the IC in 1854.

However, what was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.

It has been the "constant teaching" in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 3-11 years every once in a while we need to have a "family meeting" to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, "What? We're supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?" or "What? You've never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!" )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

Thus, the solemn declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not newly formed in 1854. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. 

However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to the times of the apostles. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1854 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Doesn't Scripture condemn "traditions of men"? So why does the Catholic Church identify tradition as "sacred"?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Doesn't Scripture condemn "traditions of men"?  So why does the Catholic Church identify tradition as "sacred"?

In the Gospel of Mark Jesus professes: You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition--Mark 7:8.  It is apparent that Jesus is condemning those human traditions which are contrary to the Divine Will of God.

Are there any human traditions that the Catholic Church practices which meet this objection?

Of course not!

Firstly, we must be able to distinguish "tradition" with a small "t", which is, essentially "customs", and Sacred "Tradition" with a capital "T".  (This distinction is really only for the purpose of this email.  Sacred Tradition is often written with a small "t".  It's only an intellectual distinction I'm trying to convey here.) 
 
What are some examples of traditions of the Catholic church?
-not calling the holy men and women of the Old Testament saints.  Thus, it's just a custom that we don't call Moses "St. Moses" or Isaiah "St. Isaiah".
-kneeling while praying
-knowing that Mary's parents were Sts. Joachim and Anne.  iI's just a custom handed down from the first centuries.
-making the sign of the cross before/after we pray

None of the above traditions/customs, while indeed human and man-made, are contrary to the Divine Will of God.  Thus, Jesus does not condemn these Catholic practices.

---

Now, as for Sacred Tradition, this is quite different from customs/traditions.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, in oral form, entrusted to the Apostles and handed on through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  God gave us Scripture, and He also gave us Tradition.  The 2 are to be given equal reverence.  In other words, those Christians who believe in the Bible-Alone (Sola Scriptura) are not receiving the Fullness of Truth, for they are lacking the Word of God which has been revealed through Sacred Tradition.

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. Catechism

What are some examples of Sacred Tradition?

-the canon (or list) of books for the Bible.  We only know, through what the Apostles received from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that the Gospel of Thomas is NOT inspired, but the Gospel of Mark is.  For there is nothing in Scripture which tells us "this book comes from God" and "this book does not."  (And even if a book did declare itself to be inspired, does that mean it is?  The Koran, the Islamic holy book, claims this for itself!)

-the dogma of the Trinity--not found (explicitly) in Scripture.  This was revealed later by the Holy Spirit to the Church.

-the dogma of the Hypostatic Union, that is that Jesus had 2 natures--one divine and one human.  Not found in Scripture, but we know this because of Sacred Tradition.

---

"In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13). source.

Thus, while the Bible does condemn "traditions of men", it upholds and proclaims the Sacred Tradition of the Church--that is, the oral teaching of the Church handed down by the Apostles.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Were the Bereans "Bible-Alone?"

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 
1 Peter 3:15

30-second apologetics: If God is omnipotent (all powerful) can He make a rock so big he can't lift it?

Question: If God is omnipotent (all powerful) can He make a rock so big he can't lift it? 

I respectfully like to call this query the "I gotcha question!" often posed by grade school and high school students starting to understand basic philosophical concepts.  Good for them for posing this question!  It shows they are thinking. 

Clearly, there is a dilemma here:  if we say Yes, God can do this, then God is not omnipotent, for now there is an object God can't lift.  That is, God is therefore not all powerful.

And, naturally, if we say No, God can't do this, then there's something God can't do.  That is, God is therefore not all powerful.

What's our response to these thinking teens?  The answer:  It's a mystery. 

---

Nah, I'm just kidding.  There is an answer.  Our response as Catholics is:  God cannot make sense out of nonsense, and the above question is a nonsensical question.  God can do miracles, but not nonsense.

God's omnipotence lies only in an ability to do things that are intrinsically, logically possible.

That is, God cannot make a triangle with 4 sides.  That's nonsense.  God cannot make a married bachelor.  That's nonsense. 
As CS Lewis said "Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'

Mary's Perpetual Virginity revisited: if Jesus was the "firstborn" of Mary, wouldn't that indicate that there's at least a second born?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Mary's Perpetual Virginity revisited: if Jesus was the "firstborn" of Mary, wouldn't that indicate that there's at least a second born?  And does it really matter that she had other children? 
Scripture proclaims:

He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers;
all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things,
and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
that in all things he himself might be preeminent. Colossians 1

And the Gospel of Matthew, which we hear at Christmas Vigils, proclaims:
 

And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son.

(note:  again, "until" in Biblical language does not indicate subsequent actions.  See 2 Sam 6:23, 1 Cor 15:25 and 1 Tim 4:13 for examples of "until" meaning only "up to a certain point".)

It would seem that the Bible does state that Jesus is the firstborn, thus there were second born children of Mary.  That is, Scripture attests to the fact that Mary was NOT ever-virgin and had other children. 

It does indeed seem reasonable to assume, if I introduce my child as "Here is my firstborn", that I have other children.  Otherwise, wouldn't I just say, "Here is my only child"?

The Catholic response:
"This is another case where our modern understanding of terms interferes with understanding what the Bible meant at the time it was written. In biblical times, the term firstborn had great importance. The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on.

OBJECTOR: I still don’t see why the Church requires Catholics to believe that Mary remained a virgin instead of allowing them to have their own opinions. Does it really matter if Mary had other children?

CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church."  source

That is, the teaching on Mary, Ever-Virgin, tells us about the sovereign divinity and numinous quality of that which she carried in her womb--the Word of God made Flesh.  She did not carry just a holy teacher, a man who would be a great healer and miracle worker, but God Incarnate. 

Again, can you imagine the womb which held God Incarnate later carrying anything else? 

Also, Exodus 13:1-2 provides an example of the understanding the ancient Israelites had regarding the term firstborn: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"

The "firstborn" were not given the designation because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. That is, Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him. The firstborn was "he who opened the womb."

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Mary Ever-Virgin article

Another article on this

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

The Catholic Church proclaims that it has not changed its teachings, yet what about its teachings on eating meat on Fridays, or cremation, or fasting before communion?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  The Catholic Church proclaims that it has not changed its teachings, yet what about its teachings on eating meat on Fridays, or cremation, or fasting before communion?Yes, it is true that the Catholic Church has not (and cannot) change its teachings.  The Deposit of Faith was revealed, whole and entire, 2000 years ago--its source is Jesus Christ, the Divine Word of God, with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the 2 streams flowing from Him, the One Source of Revelation.

And...
Yes, it is also true that a few decades ago Catholics did not eat meat on Fridays, now we can*.  Decades ago cremation was not allowed, now it is**.  We were supposed to fast after midnight before communion, now it's only an hour fast that's required before receiving the Eucharist***. And these are just a few examples of changes many of us may have seen!

How do we reconcile these 2 seemingly divergent facts?

The answer lies in our understanding of what's a Doctrine, what's a Dogma, and what's a Discipline.Essentially, doctrine is any teaching on faith and morals that's professed by the Church.  Dogma is doctrine that has been formally defined and declared to be revealed by God.  And discipline is how we live out our faith. 

Thus, while doctrine and dogma cannot change (although our understanding of this deposit of faith can indeed develop) disciplinary practices--such as not eating meat on Fridays, cremation, fasting before communion, can change.  In other words, disciplines (or customs or traditions****) can change as the Church evaluates these practices in light of the society in which we live.
"The Church’s pastoral practice, its liturgical discipline, and even its understanding of doctrine develop over time. Just as a man looks quite different from the child or the teenager he once was, so the Church today may appear different from what it was decades or centuries before. But just as the man substantially is the same person he was as a child or teenager, so the substance of the Church continues unchanged although different in appearance." source

So the question arises: if it's a discipline, and can change, am I obligated to obey the Church's directives on this? 

The short answer is Yes!  If the Church, in her 2000-year wisdom, has deemed it a necessary practice for the faithful, at this time in history, we would do well to listen to Holy Mother Church.  To not do so is as cheeky as a 7 year old asking his mama, "Do I really have to brush my teeth 2 times a day?  I'm pretty sure the recommendations are going to change in 10 years." 

---

*While fasting from meat during Fridays is no longer obligatory (Lent excepted, of course), I believe that all Fridays are considered penitential days. Observing Fridays with some sort of act of charity/abstinence/fasting is not mandated, but is strongly encouraged.

**"Early Christians opposed cremation because pagans often cremated their dead as a sign of disdain for the Christians’ belief in the physical resurrection of the body. To protect belief in this doctrine of faith, the Church forbade cremation. That prohibition was lifted in 1963. The Church still recommends that the faithful be buried, but Catholics may be cremated so long as cremation does not demonstrate a denial of belief in the resurrection of the body" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2301). source

***Current canon law requires a one-hour fast before receiving Communion (canon 919): "One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion." The Eucharistic fast was mitigated by Pope Pius XII from a complete fast after midnight to a fast of three hours (1957); then Pope Paul VI further reduced the requirement to one hour (1964). These changes were intended to encourage Catholics to receive Communion more frequently. source

****Customs or traditions (small "t") ought not be confused with Sacred Tradition (with a capital "T").  Sacred Tradition is considered the Word of God.  Customs, or traditions, are simply practices. 

---

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Quick Question" article on Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline

Is Friday Penance Required?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Why do we say, "Lead us not into temptation" in the Our Father?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Why do we say, "Lead us not into temptation" in the Our Father?  How could a loving God "lead us into temptation" anyway?

Although Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic (note: this is different than Arabic), the New Testament was written in Greek.  The English translation of "lead us not into temptation" is not an exact translation from the Greek.  We are not proposing that God could tempt us into evil.  Rather, we are asking that we be given the grace to discern what is evil and that we may be able to resist its temptation.

From the Catechism:
It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both "do not allow us to enter into temptation" and "do not let us yield to temptation." "God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one"; on the contrary, he wants to set us free from evil. We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. We are engaged in the battle "between flesh and spirit"; this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.

On a different note, does anyone find it ironic that non-Catholic Christians add this portion, called a doxology (expression of praise) to the Lord's Prayer: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory", as it was not found in the original Greek Scriptural text.  To be sure, it is a beautiful expression of praise, and Catholics pray it along with the words of Jesus found in Matthew, but it is not part of the Bible.  It was found in the Didache** (pronounced Did-eh-kay) and thus it is part of an ancient Christian liturgical tradition. 

(**The Didache, meaning "teaching", is an ancient text, written in the first century by Christians,  that is not considered inspired; that is, it was rejected by the early Church bishops as not being Scripture. However, it is gives us insight as to how the early Christians worshiped and what they believed.  If one reads it, I am told, one cannot doubt that what the first century Christians practiced was Catholic in nature!  It gives details on the Mass, on infant baptism and on other practices the early Christians learned from the Apostles.)

Finally, as an aside (I always associate the Our Father with the Hail Mary ) many non-Catholic Christians object to our prayer, the Hail Mary.  I love Fr. Corapi's response to this opposition; he asks the Protestant objector, "What?  Do you have an objection to the Bible?  The entire first paragraph of the Hail Mary is straight from the Gospel of Luke!"
That is, every time Catholics are praying the Hail Mary, we are quoting straight out of the Bible, (at least for the first paragraph of the prayer) even though we may not know it.

Hail Mary!  Full of Grace! The Lord is with you! And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. -Luke 1:28

Blessed are you among women; and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Luke 1:42

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Where did the Doxology come from?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15