Today I saw someone tweet that "Christmas does NOT commemorate the INCARNATION of our Lord, but His NATIVITY." Seems relatively harmless, right? Here's another example of the same sentiment, rightly corrected by Fr. McNamara.
What's the problem? Simply put, the Feast of the Nativity of Christ (Christmas) is about the Incarnation. Fr. McNamara offers a pretty good, concise clarification. I'd like to elaborate a bit. First off, in the Orthodox tradition (see this and this, for example), the Nativity is inextricably related to the Incarnation. In the first reference, Archbishop Dmitri says "…the Nativity of Christ (December 25). Eight days later (January 1) we remembered the Circumcision of Christ and then His Baptism (January 6). The commemoration of these events in our Lord's earth [sic] life basically form one feast, the feast of the Incarnation of God the Word." In the second, His Grace Bishop Youssef uses "Feast of the Nativity" and "Feast of the Incarnation" interchangeably. I mention these because sometimes the Orthodox can give us a bit more insight into the ancient Christian faith than we get from only Roman Catholic sources.
Now back to Fr. McNamara, he notes that "the prayers used during Advent are taken from the ancient manuscripts known as the Scroll of Ravenna (fifth-sixth centuries) and the Gelasian sacramentary (seventh century). Their constant theme is the coming of Christ, both in the incarnation (first coming) and at the end of time (second coming)." He goes on to note that the Nativity was celebrated earlier than the Annunciation, and that these prayers that relate the Incarnation to Christmas are correspondingly more ancient.
It seems pretty clear to me that the chief meaning of the celebration of the Nativity is the Incarnation—the Word become flesh. It'd probably be helpful to distinguish between the basic, biological event of the incarnation and the Incarnation as a theological reality. Those who make the point in the tweet above are thinking (presumably) only of the former; the problem is that this is not the way that the Church traditionally thinks about it.
The feast of the Annunciation has its own particular emphasis on Mary's awesome and unique role in salvation history—her immaculateness and her fiat. That it follows this event would also be, biologically speaking, the beginning of Christ's life on earth seems to me to be of secondary concern for the Annunciation, and I think it is only recently that focusing on that aspect in relation to the Annunciation has become en vogue in Catholic circles due to pro-life concerns.
From a biological point of view (a pro-life-concern point of view), yes, it is the point in time when the Word took on human nature. But that's just not the point. You see, we know that the Word is eternal—from the beginning, and it is this Divine nature that makes the Incarnation so special. The Incarnation is first and foremost a theological event, not a biological one. This theological event of the Incarnation, you might say, is ultimately what the Annunciation all about. So if we're going to give the Annunciation celebration a secondary meaning, it should be the wonder at the Incarnation, not so much the fact that it was biologically the beginning of Jesus' human life.
Looking at it like this—with the Incarnation (as a theological event) as the central focus (and not the human conception of Jesus)—it's not hard to see that we can just as rightfully celebrate the Incarnation at Christmas. You see, the biological events (conception and birth) are not the important things here. There's nothing particularly special, unique, or wonderful about them in themselves—it is the Incarnation, the Word become flesh, that gives them both significance. And indeed, as Archbishop Dmitri points out, the other events in Jesus' earthly life are also occasions to celebrate the Incarnation. As events that situate Jesus as a real human being in time/history, they are important, but those are more like the background to the theological story. The Incarnation is not (just) about Jesus' human conception; it's about God becoming man so that man might become God (St. Athanasius). It's just that awesome.
So what bugs me about the tweet (apart from it being something of a novelty and historically ill-advised) is that it inadvertently obscures and diminishes the deeper, more important meaning and value of these two feasts. In a way, it subjugates the Incarnation to the pro-life cause, which is just wrong.
When speaking of the Incarnation, perhaps it'd more better to speak of the feasts of the Incarnation (instead of just one), or to speak of it, as Archbishop Dmitri did, as one mystical feast that spans many particular holy days (mirroring the same reality of Christ's Incarnation lived out across many days on earth). But in any case, it certainly is valid, good, and part of our ancient Tradition to celebrate the Incarnation during Advent and Christmas. Enjoy!
In my defense, I did say "commemorate" rather than "celebrate". (Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I see those as two distinct things, at least liturgically.)
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against seeing Christmas as a celebration of the Incarnation of our Lord. In a presentation on Eucharistic Adoration I gave at my parish last Advent, I said of the Incarnation: "we remind ourselves of [it] at every Mass, prepare ourselves for [it] during Advent, and celebrate [it] joyously at Christmas."
The Incarnation is, as you pointed out, both a theological reality and a biological/historical reality. Regarding its biological/historical aspect, our English translation of the Creed is currently ambiguous: "by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." No, that's not what the Latin says (the Nicene Creed uses incarnatus est, not natus est): Jesus did not "become man" at His birth, but at His incarnation. This part of the Creed is speaking specifically of the conception of our Lord in His Blessed Mother's womb, and the new English translation will say: "he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man." And yes, I do think it matters, because the our prayer and our belief are intertwined.
I agree that it is proper to think of feasts of the Incarnation. Insofar as we are likened to the Magi, the Epiphany is when the Incarnation was manifested to us. Insofar as we are likened to Simeon and Anna, the Presentation is when the Incarnation was manifested to us. Insofar as we are likened to the shepherds, the Nativity is when the Incarnation was manifest to us. Insofar as we are likened to St. Elizabeth, the Visitation is when the Incarnation was manifested to us. And insofar as we are likened to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Annunciation is when the Incarnation was manifested to us.
I agree with your research and your conclusions (although not with your assessment of my tweet, or the motivation behind it at least). I'm not subjugating the Incarnation to the pro-life cause, although I am using the occasion to remind a pro-choice culture that the Incarnation is not simply about His birth, but begins with His conception. It's very possible a person would misinterpret "born ... and became man" and "Christmas commemorates the Incarnation" as Church-sanctioned language denying personhood of the just-conceived. The theological aspects of the Incarnation need to have a way prepared for them, if such a secular audience is to receive the whole magnitude of so great a mystery fruitfully.
So, I apologize if my tweet (hardly the medium to make a profound theological statement) rubbed you the wrong way or seemed insensitive. I did not mean to elicit displeasure.
Come, Lord Jesus!
Hi Jeffrey,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding.
About commemoration, I think I know what you mean (maybe not), but if you think about, say, St. Albert the Great's day, you would say we are commemorating St. Albert, right? And yet, it's not so much the fact that he was a human named Albert who was born, lived, and died in a particular time (though obviously these are important and necessary facts that have value in themselves) so much as we are commemorating the theological story of a man and his special relationship to God and others. I mean, what sets him apart from the many millions of other Christians who've lived and died is that we know now that he is beholding the beatific vision; what's important—why we commemorate saints—is the theological story in their lives, not so much the physical details of their lives. That, more than the human events in themselves, is what we commemorate. So it seems to me that it would be splitting hairs to make the distinction between commemorate and celebrate in relation to the Nativity and Incarnation. Yes, the human event we are commemorating is his birth, but again, that only has real significance because of the theological event of the Incarnation. So I would say we are de facto commemorating the Incarnation—the theological story—along with our commemoration of the Nativity, the human event.
And I might even go further to say that birth itself has attached its own deeper meanings: something coming to fruition—the arrival of something awaited, the beginning of life physically independent of the mother, (visible) entry into the world, the welcoming of new life, an important transition—the beginning of something new. So considering these, it seems even more apropos to commemorate the Incarnation at the Nativity, maybe even more so than at the Annunciation. In fact, I would say that it is these considerations that gave rise to the celebration of the Nativity—it is in its own sense the coming of Christ into the world, the Word become flesh. It's not a negation that human life begins at conception but a celebration of that life really coming into its own.
You don't need to convince me about lex orandi, lex credendi. About the Creed, it seems to me that "incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, ex Maria virgine, et homo factus est" is more concerned with establishing that the Word, through the Holy Spirit, took his full humanity from Mary, who was a virgin, i.e., it is affirming the Incarnation, the Theotokos, and the virgin birth—the important theological truths here—not so much the biological event of his conception in Mary's womb—that's not in the text directly (it says nothing of the Annunciation) and doesn't quite fit considering the historical backdrop against which the Creed was written.
You say you're not subjugating the Incarnation to the pro-life cause, but then you indicate you are doing exactly what I was suggesting is subjugating it—rhetorically drawing a distinction for the benefit of the pro-choice culture between the Nativity and Annunciation that appears to constrain the Incarnation to the Annunciation and focusing on the less-important biological event at the cost of the greater theological meaning.
To be continued...
...continued...
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying your concern is not valid. Obviously the writer in the ZENIT article I cited specifically had someone trying to abuse the liturgy to support the pro-choice position. But I think it is equally improper to abuse the liturgy (or Creed) to support the pro-life cause. We should not change, diminish, or obscure what the Creed says and means or what the feasts commemorate in service of our current cultural concerns. I would respond to C.A. from Carlise, England (the writer in the ZENIT article) and say that no, the person you know does not in fact have a point. The Church's celebration of the Incarnation in Advent and Christmastide does not at all suggest that Jesus did not become human until the Nativity—only a very superficial and prejudiced reading can give you that. And in any case, the Church has made her position on the question of the beginning of human life clearer than almost any other concern facing us today, and we must, as Catholics, read Scripture and the liturgy with and in the Church.
From my perspective, what's happening these days with the Annunciation and Nativity is not essentially different from the exegete (or copyist or translator) who has trouble understanding a difficult passage in Scripture and therefore thinks that the text must be incorrect and is in need of correction instead of humbly, with St. Augustine, acknowledging his human limitations and submitting his concerns and doubts to God: "God wished difficulties to be scattered through the Sacred Books inspired by Him, in order that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intently, and, experiencing in a salutary manner our own limitations, we might be exercised in due submission of mind." (See Divino Afflante Spiritu, 45) The solution to difficulties with sacred texts and our liturgy should not be to change them to suit our times, even if it seems expedient to do so in favor of a good cause.
You pointed out the problematic translation of the Creed, but I would say that translation (and others that are being corrected) was made by well-meaning people who were trying to accommodate the liturgy to what they saw as the needs of our current times, to make it more readily accessible and to stress elements of the faith they thought were important to stress, much like folks are wanting to adapt our celebrations of the Annunciation and Nativity to address our current cultural crisis. Surely those translators also recognized lex orandi, lex credendi. Acknowledging the impact of our prayer on our belief does not give us the whole key to how to translate nor a license to change the text to more clearly communicate the truths we deem important. We need to let the original shine through, with all its apparent difficulties, and celebrate the ancient faith as it has been handed down to us.
I'd further suggest that it is the thorny bits that can end up having unexpected good fruit. They become occasions for discussion and deeper investigation. This is what St. Augustine meant by "that we might be urged to read and scrutinize them more intently." The same could be said for our commemoration of the Incarnation during Advent and Christmas. Yes, even in our pro-choice culture the difficulty is good because it can provide a catalyst to dig deeper into the meaning of this liturgical time, which might include reflecting that, given everything the Church has clearly said about the beginning of human life, the human moment of the Incarnation was not our current feast of the Nativity but at Jesus' human conception, which goes back to the Annunciation. It's a valuable reflection, but it must not come at the cost of changing, diminishing, or obscuring the more important theological meaning(s) of both feasts.
I realized last night, as I described this dialogue to my wife, that I was treating "Incarnation" strictly in terms of the biological event of Christ's conception, and that was an undue restriction on my part. I should have been contrasting "Conception" and "Nativity", rather than "Incarnation" and "Nativity".
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Creed, putting the Apostles' and Nicene-Const. creeds together, we see that the Church is affirming Jesus' conception by the Spirit (whereby...) in the virginal womb of the Virgin Mary (... and from whom He received His humanity) and His subsequent nativity: that is, this is how the mystery of the Incarnation was brought about in time. The conception was the necessary beginning of the manifested reality of His Incarnation.
As for subjugation, I can see your point. My language gave an overly-restrictive interpretation of "Incarnation", so I was thereby subjugating the whole mystery of the Incarnation to the single moment of Christ's conception to make a pro-life point. I say again that such was not my intent, but I apologize for making the ambiguous statement.
I think this has been resolved now. :)