Sacrosanctum Concilium stated, in 1963:
92. As regards the readings, the following shall be observed:
- a) Readings from sacred scripture shall be arranged so that the riches of God's word may be easily accessible in more abundant measure.
- b) Readings excerpted from the works of the fathers, doctors, and ecclesiastical writers shall be better selected.
- c) The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to accord with the facts of history.
The obvious question is : didn't they?
For non-Catholics : Sacrosanctum Concilium is named, like so many other official documents both of the real Catholic Church and of the Conciliar Church, after its first words.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, cum sibi proponat vitam christianam inter fideles in dies augere; eas institutiones quae mutationibus obnoxiae sunt, ad nostrae aetatis necessitates melius accommodare; quidquid ad unionem omnium in Christum credentium conferre potest, fovere; et quidquid ad omnes in sinum Ecclesiae vocandos conducit, roborare; suum esse arbitratur peculiari ratione etiam instaurandam atque fovendam Liturgiam curare.
Translated officially:
This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
CONSTITUTIO DE SACRA LITURGIA SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_lt.html
CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
Note, this document is one of the reasons why several thousands of Catholics reject the Vatican II Council and sometimes also the papacy of its promulating Popes and their successors, these being - citing their quasi papal names - John XXIII, Paul VI (responsible for Sacrosanctum Concilium and for a later Liturgic Reform supposed to implement it), John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and infeliciter quasi regnante Francis. We may be a drop in the sea compared to the billion that accepts them, but if we are true to the faith once given, that trumps sociology, as much now as when Swedes and English had to oppose Lutheran and Anglican Establishments.
Changes in the martyrology have been motivated by stating that the "accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints" now better "accord with the facts of history". Well, according to whom?
According to the Church is a bit circular. If the Church had stuck with the old accounts, it would have pointed back to the times in the Church when the accounts in the ideal case are from : fairly contemporary to events. But if the "Church" changes accounts, the new accounts do not so point back.
According to historians worthy of confidence? Why was the Church not keeping due record of its history for two thousand years, then?
Now, for many saints, we are concerned with mainly Catholics and Orthodox decrying the throwing away of St. Barbara or St. Christopher. Protestants (except a few High Church ones) weren't all that much into them anyway.
For Christmas day, we are concerned with lots more, since we are concerned with Christ Himself and with the Bible. Here is the earliest printed version of it in translation:
Year from Creation of the World, when in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, five thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine, which number of years was completed in the following year of March, in the 20th day of same month, for in that day the world was created.
But from the Deluge, the two thousand nine hundred fifty seventh year, which number was completed seventeenth day of following April.
From birth of Abraham, the two thousand fifteenth year.
From Moses & the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt, the thousand five hundred tenth year.
From the ruin of Troy, the thousand hundred seventy-ninth year.
From the anointing of David unto king, the thousand thirty-second year.
In the hundred ninenty third Olimpiad, and in the eight hundredth year from the first Olimpiad. From the founding of the city of Rome, the seven hundredth fifty second year. The sixty-third week, accorting to the prophecy of Daniel, that is the four hundred fortieth year or thereabout.
Year of the rule of Octavian, the forty-second. Sixth age of the world, gates closed, all world composed in peace,
Christ Jesus eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, wanting by his most tender advent consecrate the world, conceived by the Holy Ghost and nine months gone through after conception (here it is said in high voice) is born in Bethlehem of Judah from the Virgin Mary, made man; (here higher voice and in passion tone:) Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Background to Christmas Martyrology
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/02/background-to-christmas-martyrology.html
Troy has been eliminated during the old martyrology, and 63:rd week has become 65:th.
I'll trust the Novus Ordo Catholic (but still a believer) Mark Shea to cite the new version correctly:
Proclamation of the Birth of Christ
DECEMBER 24, 2009 BY MARK SHEA
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2009/12/proclamation-of-the-birth-of-christ.html
What he heard in Mass (or what is supposed to be one) was:
Today, the twenty-fifth day of December, unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image.
Several thousand years after the flood, when God made the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant.
Twenty-one centuries from the time of Abraham and Sarah; thirteen centuries after Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt.
Eleven hundred years from the time of Ruth and the Judges; one thousand years from the anointing of David as king; in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel.
In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad; the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome.
The forty-second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus; the whole world being at peace,
Jesus Christ, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father, desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and nine months having passed since his conception, was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary.
Today is the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
I have no quarrel with the end of this proclamation, but I am not into "unknown ages" or "several thousand years" (after creation or Flood) and for that matter not into "thirteen centuries after Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt" - I consider this as "Newspeak" and wrote an article on it :
Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four.
The problem here is, the Church (or what passes for it for those accepting Vatican II) presumes that the earlier version was not according "with the facts of history", that a non-Church and not Church-dependent or Bible dependent entity could correct the understanding the Church had from the Bible. This being, for "unknown ages" and for "several thousand years". Italian translation
on Santi e Beati has "e molti secoli da quando, dopo il diluvio, l’Altissimo aveva fatto risplendere tra le nubi l’arcobaleno, segno di alleanza e di pace;" - that is better.
But I think whether we deal with the chronology of the older Roman Martyrology, or that of Syncellus (cited by Orthodox on their ecclesiastical New Year, September 1:st), 2957 or 3266, or even shorter with Masoretic chronology, like 2348 with Ussher, while we could call it "many centuries", we can't call it "several thousand years". It seems US Conference of Bishops was using the one I complained about, from 1994. New Translation (USCCB, 1994) third column in comparison on
The Christmas Proclamation, Comparative analysis by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D..
And here we get to a defense of the new translation:
- The main reason it is better might seem paradoxical; namely, it is less "precise" than most older translations in referring to specific years for certain events in early biblical history. For example, while the birth of Jesus is situated "in the year two-thousand nine-hundred and fifty-seven after the flood" (of Noah) in the older translations, it is "several thousand years after the flood," according to the new translation.
- In this and similar cases, less precision is actually better, since it more closely reflects contemporary church teaching and biblical scholarship. Proclaiming exact numbers of years inevitably gives most people the impression that we know exactly when these biblical events took place, thereby unwittingly reinforcing a type of biblical fundamentalism or pseudo-historical literalism that does not conform to the principles of Catholic biblical interpretation. Considering how long ago these events are said to have taken place and how few historically reliable sources we have for events of the distant past (especially anything before the time of King David), it is better not to give the impression that dates are or can be known with great precision.
- Another aspect in which the new translation is significantly better than the older versions is in terms of gender-inclusivity. The new translation explicitly mentions the creation of "man and woman," lists Sarah along with Abraham, and includes "Ruth and the Judges"; in contrast, the older versions have no mention of any women whatsoever!
Well, what Felix Just is calling
"a type of biblical fundamentalism or pseudo-historical literalism that does not conform to the principles of Catholic biblical interpretation", I call precisely the traditional Catholic Interpretation. I call out Felix Just (as he doesn't represent God, as he isn't Catholic, I am not calling him "father") as pleading the cause of apostasy, and on top of that, pleading it by name-calling.
Do I have any problem with the older martyrology? I have submitted a dubium about whether "1032 years after anointing of King David" could not be a mistake for "1082 years after anointing of King David, 1032 years after the Temple of Solomon", which numbers are actually found in the chronology of Syncellus. It also concurs better with Exodus date in 1510 BC, due to
"And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon over Israel, in the month Zio (the same is the second month), he began to build a house to the Lord.", III Kings 6:1. But obviously, I have not submitted it to "Pope Francis" - co-"Jesuit" and co-Modernist of Felix Just. I have submitted it to
Pope Michael. Or tried to, the post office in Topeka didn't want to deliver it to "Vatican in Exile, 66616 Topeka KA" since I had omitted "829 NE Chester". This is probably not top honesty on post officials, giving some credence to these being not at their old standards of reliability. I have also wondered whether changing 63:rd to 65:th week of Daniel was correct.
But this is not very much compared to what problems I have with Felix Just. He is not giving any single argument for any of the precise values being unhistorical. He is not concerned with III Kings 6:1. With King David anointed 300 years only after Exodus, it is impossible that the Temple was started 480 years after it. But the Bible says, the Temple was so started, with some variety of readings. Only Vossius would agree with Just:
Ver. 1. Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. C. xii. Some, however, find a difficulty in reconciling it with Acts xiii. 20, which seems to attribute 450 years to the government of the judges. C.
Sept. have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clem.Alex. 566; Vossius 380; Cano 590; Serarius 680.
Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 200 here, &c. H.
Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syr. Chaldee styles it "of the splendour of flowers." M.
The Hurons, and other nations of America, call this "the moon of plants;" the Flemings, "the month for mowing," Grasmaand. Our Saxon ancestors gave descriptive names to the months. See Verstegan. H.
At first, the Hebrews only described the months by their order; "first, second," &c. In Solomon's time we begin to find other names, taken from the Phenicians, (Scalig.) Chaldees, (Grot.) or Egyptians. Hardouin, A. 2993.
After the captivity, at least, the Chaldee names were adopted; (H.) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (C.) 13. Veadar, the intercalary month, when requisite, according to the lunar system, which was not perhaps yet adopted. Each of these months generally corresponded with two of ours; Nisan with the end of March and the beginning of April, &c. Sept. here take no notice of Zio, though they do, v. 37. H.
The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, A. 2992. Usher.
It was finished A. 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. Button.
Note, the reference to Ussher (spelled Usher, here) is in a Roman Catholic Bible comment. So is the direct citation a bit lower.
But dating with Ussher seems very popular with what Felix Just called
"a type of biblical fundamentalism or pseudo-historical literalism".
So, is he saying that Father George Leo Haydock's way of reading the Bible "does not conform to the principles of Catholic biblical interpretation"? Father George Leo Haydock was Catholic before he was. But perhaps the Catholic Church could radically change its way of reading the Bible?
No. Not while remaining Catholic. St. John could not change to accomodate to either Cerinthus or Marcion or anyone like that ditching the Old Testament alltogether. St. Pius V could not accomodate to Luther throwing out seven books. A Catholic today should not accomodate to Felix Just or US Conference of Bishops throwing out literal truth of Old Testament either.
Including Sarah might seem a good idea, but it's only possible with excluding exactitude, since "2015 years after Abraham and 2005 years after Sarah were born" is fairly cumbrous. I prefer the exactitude. And I am content with the one Woman who
is mentioned in the Martyrology, as She is also mentioned in Genesis 3:15.
Now, Genesis 11 in a standard version of LXX gives 1070 years between Flood and Birth of Abraham. In Samaritan, some manuscript of LXX, by omitting the second Cainan, as does at least one manuscript of St. Luke, you get 942, which is the distance in Roman Martyrology, the original version. Felix Just is, unlike Father George Leo Haydock, not respecting Genesis 11, since, 2100 BC + 1070 = 3270 BC, and not "several thousands years" as Felix Just likes to defend.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John of the Cross
24.XI.2020
Sancti Joannis a Cruce Presbyteri, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, sanctae Teresiae in Carmelitarum reformatione socii, cujus dies natalis decimo nono Kalendas Januarii recensetur.
Obviously, I am citing the
Roman Martyrology in Gregory XIII's and Benedict XIV's version, not that of US Conference of Bishops. What did you think?/HGL
