St. Catherine of Siena is a saint, mystic, and doctor of the Church. Here are 8 things about her to know and share.
April 29th is the memorial of St. Catherine of Siena.
She is a saint, a mystic, and a doctor of the Church, as well as a patroness of Italy and of Europe.
Who was she, and why is her life so significant?
Here are 8 things to know and share . . .
1. Who is St. Catherine of Siena?
In 2010, Pope Benedict gave an audience in which he discussed the basic facts of her life:
Born in Siena [Italy] in 1347, into a very large family, she died in Rome in 1380.
When Catherine was 16 years old, motivated by a vision of St Dominic, she entered the Third Order of the Dominicans, the female branch known as the Mantellate.
While living at home, she confirmed her vow of virginity made privately when she was still an adolescent and dedicated herself to prayer, penance and works of charity, especially for the benefit of the sick.
Note from her birth and death dates that she only lived to be 33 years old. Nevertheless, a lot happened during her life!
2. What happened after St. Catherine entered religious life?
Quite a number of things. St. Catherine was sought out as a spiritual director, and she played a role in ending the Avignon papacy (when the pope, though still the bishop of Rome, actually lived in Avignon, France).
Pope Benedict explains:
When the fame of her holiness spread, she became the protagonist of an intense activity of spiritual guidance for people from every walk of life: nobles and politicians, artists and ordinary people, consecrated men and women and religious, including Pope Gregory XI who was living at Avignon in that period and whom she energetically and effectively urged to return to Rome.
She travelled widely to press for the internal reform of the Church and to foster peace among the States.
It was also for this reason that Venerable Pope John Paul II chose to declare her Co-Patroness of Europe: may the Old Continent never forget the Christian roots that are at the origin of its progress and continue to draw from the Gospel the fundamental values that assure justice and harmony.
St.s Perpetua and Felicity are commemorated in Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) itself. But who were they, and what is their dramatic story?
Thursday is the feast of St.s Perpetua and Felicity.
Many have heard their names. They’re early saints mentioned in Eucharistic Prayer #1 (the Roman Canon).
But often we don’t know much more than that, which is a pity.
They have a dramatic story, which St. Perpetua recorded herself in the days before her martyrdom. It also records the visions she received during this time.
Here are 10 things you need to know.
1. Who was St. Perpetua?
She was a young Christian woman and martyr, who died just after the year 200 in North Africa. When she was still a catechumen, she and several acquaintances were taken into custody.
And among them also was Vivia Perpetua, respectably born, liberally educated, a married matron, having a father and mother and two brothers, one of whom, like herself, was a catechumen, and a son an infant at the breast. She herself was about twenty-two years of age.
No mention is made of her husband, who may have already been dead.
After being baptized, Perpetua received several visions and was eventually martyred. We also learn about her companions and other members of her family, including her father and her younger brother, who had died previously of cancer.
2. What is the “Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity”?
It is a document describing what happened to Perpetua and her companions. It is also called “The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity.”
The document is composed of a preface followed by six chapters.
What is particularly special is that about half of the document was written by the martyr herself:
Chapters 1-3 were penned by St. Perpetua while she was awaiting execution.
Chapter 4 was written by one of her companions and fellow-martyrs, Saturus.
Chapter 5-6 (and the preface) were written by the anonymous editor, who was apparently an eyewitness of the martyrdoms.
3. What does Perpetua’s writing reveal about her father?
St. Malachy allegedly predicted the popes until the end of time. What are we to make of this prophecy?
Pope Benedict’s resignation has stirred up a good bit of discussion of the so-called “Prophecy of the Popes,” attributed to St. Malachy of Ireland (1094-1148).
The prophecy is a list of 112 mottoes that allegedly describe the popes stretching from St. Malachy’s time to the end of time.
Supposedly, Pope Benedict is identified with #111, which means that there’s only one more pope to go, according to one interpretation of the list.
According to supporters of the prophecy, it’s an authentic revelation from God that we can trust.
According to critics of the prophecy, it’s a forgery that was most likely written around 1590 and that cannot be relied upon for knowledge of the future.
Who’s right?
What Has the Church Said?
Although the prophecy has been influential in Catholic circles for several centuries, I can find no evidence that the Magisterium of the Church ever endorsing it.
This places the prophecy in the category of a reported but unapproved private revelation.
My own policy when dealing with reported but unapproved private revelations is to keep them at arm’s length. I don’t dismiss them out of hand, but I don’t embrace them, either.
The fact that we’re claimed to be up to #112 on the list, though, is creating a sense of urgency for some to figure out whether the prophecy is trustworthy, though, so I decided to dig a bit deeper.
Here’s what I found . . .
Missing History
Although the prophecy is attributed to a 12th century figure, it wasn’t published until the end of the 16th century. We have no references to it in the interim, including from sources who would be expected to mention it (e.g., biographers of St. Malachy).
That’s a mark against its authenticity.
The suggested explanation for why there is no mention of it in the first 450 years after it was allegedly written is that it was hidden in an archive in Rome and not rediscovered until around 1590.
That would explain matters, but it’s still a mark against its credibility.
Further, I don’t know if we even still have the original document or whether it’s been authenticated by any of the various means available to us today. I’m not aware of any supporters of the prophecy claiming this, though if any do claim it, I’d love to see the evidence.
Until such time, though, it’s a mark against the document.
Sensational documents allegedly found in Vatican archives and dealing with the end of the world are, in principle, not to be trusted. It’s too easy and too tempting for people to fake those.
Alternative Explanation Credible
The alternative explanation for the origin of the prophecy–that it was forged around 1590–appears credible.
Critics of the prophecy claim that there is a difference in the mottoes attributed to the popes between St. Malachy’s time and 1590 and those who come after 1590.
Specifically, they claim it is much easier to see how the mottoes fit the popes in the first period than how the mottoes fit those in the second.
I had been aware of this claim but had never looked into the matter. With the current discussion, I decided to do so.
What I did was compose a table of the mottoes along with the popes they allegedly describe and the proposed explanations of how they fit together.
I then went through the list and classified the mottoes as being a “hit,” “miss,” or “vague.”
“Hit” means that the motto can reasonably be connected with a specific pope in a way that does not appear random.
“Miss” means that the motto can’t be so connected. That’s not to say that it can’t be connected with a particular pope, just that the fit is much less clear and requires more “stretching” to connect the two.
“Vague” means that it isn’t a clear hit or a clear miss. I also placed into this category items that, because of their general nature, could fit many different popes.
Examples
Here are a few examples of how I classified particular ones:
HITS
Ex castro Tiberis (“From a castle on the Tiber”). This is connected with Celestine II (1143-1144), who was born in Citta di Castello (City of the Castle), which is on the banks of the Tiber river.
Frigidus abbas (“Cold Abbot”). This is connected with Benedict XII (1334-1342), who had been the abbot of a monastery at Fontfroide (“Cold Spring”).
De parvo homine (“From a small man”). This is connected to Pius III (1503), whose family name was Piccolomini, which is derived from piccolo (small) and uomo (man).
MISSES
Pia civitas in bello (“Pious city in war”). This is connected with Innocent IV (1591), but there is no good way to link him with this motto. Some have pointed to the fact that he was patriarch of Jerusalem before his election to the papacy, and Jerusalem could be thought of as a “pious city,” but so could Rome and many others. Almost any Christian city would count, and Jerusalem was not a Christian city at this time. Furthermore, Jerusalem was not at war when he was patriarch.
Aquila rapax (“Rapacious eagle”). This is connected with Pius VII (1800-1823), but there is no good way to link him with this motto. Some have proposed that his reign overlapped with that of Napoleon and that Napoleon could be described as a rapacious eagle (that is, a hungry commander of armies), but this is very tenuous and makes the motto not a description of the pope but of someone else who was on the world stage during his reign.
Religio depopulata (“Religion destroyed”). This is connected with Benedict XV (1914-1922), but there is no good way to link him in particular with this motto. There is no obvious connection to his name, family, place of origin, or coat of arms. He did not destroy religion or religious life. Neither were either destroyed during his reign. He did reign during World War I, but that did not destroy either. He also reigned when Communism came to power in Russia. That didn’t destroy religion in his day or in Italy. And again, we’d be connecting the motto with something other than the pope. If that were allowed then it would be possible to connect every motto with something that happened somewhere in the world during a pope’s day, and the prophecies would have no particular value as they would all be applicable to any pope.
VAGUE
Iucunditas crucis(“Delight of the cross”).This is connected with Innocent X (1644-1655). The proposed explanation is that he was raised to the pontificate around the time of the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross after a long and difficult conclave. This is a very weak connection (“around the time of”?). More fundamentally, almost any pope at all could be described as “delight of the cross,” either because of the sufferings he endured in his papacy or because of his general love of Jesus. It is too vague.
Vir religiosus (“Religious man”). This is connected with Pius VIII (1829-1830). According to one explanation, it is a play on words on his papal name (a pious man is a religious man). But this is not a strong indicator. It could also apply to other papal names–like Innocent. In fact, another motto involving religion (De bona religione, “From good religion”) is allegedly connected with Innocent XIII (1721-1724), with the word “religion” pointing to his papal name. Furthermore, any pope who had been a member of a religious order could fit the description “Religious man,” as could any pope, period. This is too vague and could fit too many circumstances to say that it fits Pius VIII in a non-random way.
Pastor angelicus (“Angelic shepherd”). This is connected to Pius XII (1939-1958). The proposed explanation is that Reigning during World War II, he is reported to have covertly helped many Jews escape extermination in the Holocaust. This is a weak indicator. Every pope is, by his office, someone who can be described as a shepherd. Every pope that does anything good can be described as angelic. This can fit too many popes. It is vague and cannot be connected with Pius XII in a way that is clearly non-random.
Results
When I went through the papal mottoes in the prophecy, I found that there were, indeed, many more hits in the period before 1590 and many more misses and vagues in the period after 1590.
I do not claim that my rankings are objective. They are impressionistic, and at times it was difficult to decide which category to put something in (“Is this a hit or a vague?” “Is it a vague or a miss?”).
If I spent more time looking at the mottoes, I am sure I would change many of the rankings and slide them from one category to another.
My goal, however, was to get an overall impression of the basic question: Do the pre-1590 mottoes fit the popes of that period better than the post-1590 period fit theirs?
The answer to that question was a clear yes, and further scrutiny and category switching is unlikely to change that basic impression.
The pre-1590 mottoes really do fit their popes better, and that provides evidence for the idea the list was forged around 1590.
There are also other reasons to view the list skeptically . . .
Unmarked Antipopes?
The list contains 10 entries that refer to antipopes, all of them before 1590 (but that’s not surprising since we haven’t had a notable antipope since then).
It identifies two of these as antipopes (Nicholas V = Corvus schismaticus, “Schismatic crow” and Clement VIII = Schisma Barchinoniu, “Schism of the Barcelonas”).
Why doesn’t it identify the other eight as antipopes?
It even identifies some of the antipopes in ways that would make one look favorably on them (e.g., Felix V = Amator Crusis, “Lover of the Cross”; Clement VII, De cruce Apostolica, “From the apostolic cross”).
One explanation might be that the anonymous author, writing around 1590, did not have as precise a knowledge of who the antipopes were as we do today.
This seems a more likely explanation than a divine revelation mentioning antipopes without marking them as such and even speaking of them in positive ways.
No Practical Value
There is also another factor weighing against the St. Malachy prophecy: What is it supposed to do? How is it supposed to help us?
God does not give revelations to satisfy our curiosity, but that seems precisely what the prophecy of the popes is designed to do.
There is almost nothing in the prophecy that could provide a plan of action or guidance in how to live the Christian faith in particular periods (the two figures marked as antipopes being an exception; one could reasonably infer “don’t trust these two guys”).
When God gives revelation, it is to help us in some way. At various points in the Bible, God may use symbolism to communicate his message, but there is always an underlying practical message waiting for us when we have wrestled with the puzzle of the symbolism.
The symbolic prophecies in Daniel or Revelation always have this element. They don’t just give us a long list of symbolic names that provide next to no guidance about how to live our faith.
The problem applies to private revelations–such as this purports to be–for their function is to help us live the faith in our own day. The Catechism states:
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
A big list of symbolic papal mottoes provides endless hours of intellectual puzzle material to occupy human curiosity, but this is not the purpose of authentic prophecies. They don’t just leave us with a big puzzle. There is some underlying practical help for living the faith, and that is what we don’t have here.
Taken at face value, the prophecy of the popes looks like a big, intellectual puzzle designed to engage our curiosity but do little else.
The End of the World
Finally, there is the fact that the last pope–the one alleged to come after Benedict XVI–is predicted to reign at the end of the world:
Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.
This is, itself, another mark against the prophecy, because Jesus himself warned us that we would not be able to calculate when the end of the world will come, yet the St. Malachy prophecy has encouraged people to do exactly that. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
Cornelius a Lapide refers to this prophecy in his commentary “On the Gospel of St. John” (C. xvi) and “On the Apocalypse” (cc. xvii-xx), and he endeavours to calculate according to it the remaining years of time.
This is precisely the kind of calculation that is most dangerous, that has the worst track record (end of the world predictions having a notorious failure rate), that Jesus warned us against, and that the prophecy of the popes seems to invite us to perform.
Again, this is consistent with the idea it’s designed to appeal to curiosity rather than being an authentic revelation.
Another Possibility?
Some have tried to blunt the idea that we could estimate the end of the world based on the prophecy by proposing there may be a gap in the prophecy–a group of unlisted popes that come between Benedict XVI (Gloria olivae, “Glory of the olive”) and the final pope. Thus the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
It has been noticed concerning Petrus Romanus, who according to St. Malachy’s list is to be the last pope, that the prophecy does not say that no popes willintervene between him and his predecessor designated Gloria olivæ. It merely says that he is to be the last, so that we may suppose as many popes as we please before “Peter the Roman”.
Personally, I don’t see any basis for this. The texts of the prophecy that I have seen do not provide any reason to suspect a gap at this point.
The prophecy goes from Gloria olivae to the last pope without any hint of a gap with additional popes in it.
Furthermore, if we admit a gap here, we have to raise the question of whether there could be gaps elsewhere.
But if we can insert gaps with no evidence into the list (after 1590, take note, there being no need to insert them before since the fits are all too good) then identification becomes impossible and the prophecy’s predictive value is in danger of disintegrating.
My Own Prediction
My guess is that we are not at the end of the world and the new pope will not be the last one.
I therefore predict that, when his reign ends, when another pope is elected, and when people see that the end of the world has not come, the St. Malachy prophecy will fade in the popular Catholic imagination.
As it should.
But I also predict that there will be people who still support it, either positing the alleged gap between Pope Benedict XVI and the final pope or even claiming that the new pontiffs are all antipopes.
I just hope that there aren’t too many of the latter.
Summary
I try to take seriously St. Paul’s exhortation: “do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:20-21).
I am not unfriendly to prophecies, and I have as much curiosity about the future as anyone.
But in the case of the St. Malachy prophecy of the popes, I am afraid that it does not appear credible, from either a historical or a theological perspective:
It is an unapproved, alleged private revelation.
It cannot be shown to have existed before 1590.
The predictions it makes for the period before 1590 are markedly better than those it makes after 1590.
Contrary to the nature of revelation (both public and private), it has virtually no practical value.
It speaks of antipopes as if they are popes and even speaks positively of some.
It encourages calculations regarding the end of the world.
Pope Benedict's resignation is patterned after that of St. Celestine V. Here Pope Benedict visits the relics of St. Celestine V.
There haven’t been that many popes who have resigned, and none of them offer an exact parallel to the case of Pope Benedict.
However, there is one pope–St. Celestine V–who is by far the closest parallel.
Who was he? Why did he resign? And what does his strange case tell us about Pope Benedict’s decision to resign?
In this episode, Dr. Andrew Jones and I discuss the most recent papal resignations, including that of St. Celestine V.
We comment on how Pope Benedict is modeling his resignation after that of Celestine V and what light this sheds on Pope Benedict’s thinking.
We also discuss what this means for the future and why Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation may be as momentous an event in the history of the Church as the development of the conclave.
Pope Benedict has announced his resignation from the papacy. What popes have done this before, and how has it changed the Church?
In the wake of Pope Benedict’s announcement that he is resigning from the papacy, I thought I would speak with the historian Dr. Andrew Jones about the history of papal resignations.
While it hasn’t happened often in history, there have been popes who have resigned before, and their resignations (technically, their renunciations of the papacy) have left a lasting impact on Church history.
There are also some fascinating cases where we aren’t quite sure what happened.
In this episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast, Dr. Jones and I begin to go through the cases, explaining what happened, what we know, and what impact the papal resignations have had.
First of two parts.
Here are links to the web sites mentioned in the show:
Paul was converted when Christ appeared to him. What should you know about St. Paul and his conversion?
This Friday, the Church celebrates the conversion of St. Paul.
Here are eight things you need to know about him–and his conversion.
1. Where was St. Paul from?
In Acts 21:39, St. Paul states:
“I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city.”
Tarsus was the capital city of the Roman province of Cilicia. This is on the southeast coast of modern Turkey, so St. Paul was not from the holy land. He was actually a Jew born in what is now Turkey.
It was a port city and a noted commercial center. For these reasons, and because it was the capital, he can describe it as “no mean city” (that is, no common, ordinary city). It was famous.
One of the things it was famous for was being the place where Mark Anthony first met Cleopatra, after which they embarked on their doomed alliance.
Tarsus survives today as the city of Mersin, Turkey.
In Jerusalem. In Acts 22:3, Paul gives a bit more information about his background:
“I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day.”
Gamaliel was a famous Jewish teacher. So famous, in fact, that we know about him today from Jewish sources.
Gamaliel is also mentioned in Acts, where he takes an open-minded view of Christianity, urging that it not be persecuted (Acts 5:34-42). Paul did not agree with him at this time, because this was before Paul’s great persecution of the Church, as well as before his conversion.
Mary and Joseph knew the agony of having a missing child. What are we to make of this mysterious incident, and what does it tell us about Jesus' future?
This Sunday we celebrate the mystery of the Holy Family.
What was it like for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph to live together?
Each is a very remarkable person! Put all three together and . . . wow.
Today we have reality shows about interesting and extraordinary families, but they didn’t have reality shows back then.
Fortunately, we are given a glimpse into the domestic life of the Holy Family.
And it’s a glimpse provided by the Virgin Mary herself . . .
Missing Child!
This episode in the life of the Holy Family begins on a holiday: specifically, the feast of Passover.
Luke records that the Holy Family went up to Jerusalem each year for the feast of Passover, apparently in a company of “their kinsfolk and acquaintances,” and when Jesus was twelve, he stayed behind in Jerusalem.
Joseph and Mary did not realize this until they had already gone “a day’s journey” back to Nazareth, at which point they realized he was not with the company.
They thus began to experience the agony and anxiety of parents who discover their child is missing.
And note the foreshadowing: Was there ever another time in Jesus life, at Passover, in Jerusalem, when Mary would be deprived of Jesus?
“On the Third Day”
Joseph and Mary thus return to Jerusalem and “after three days” find him.
The three days, in this case, are apparently:
the first day spent journeying from Jerusalem,
a second day spend journeying back to Jerusalem,
and the third day (or part of a third day) searching for him in Jerusalem.
Again, note the foreshadowing: The three days echo the three days (or, more precisely, parts of three days) that Jesus spent in the tomb, during which Mary and the disciples were deprived of Jesus’ presence but then found him again “on the third day” (cf. Lk. 9:22).
Matthew records that Herod the Great slaughtered the holy innocents in his efforts to kill Jesus. Did this even actually happen?
On December 28, the Church commemorates the slaughter of the holy innocents.
These are the baby boys in Bethlehem that Herod the Great had slaughtered in an attempt to kill the Baby Jesus.
But many people today challenge the idea that this ever took place.
“We have no record of it!” they say.
Actually, we do . . .
Who Was Herod the Great?
Herod the Great was the king of Judea at the time Jesus was born.
He had the title “king,” but he was not an independent ruler. Instead, he was a client king of the Roman empire who had been named “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate.
This meant that he was a local ruler who ultimately answered to Rome and who owed his throne to the Roman Senate.
Religiously, Herod was a Jew, but ethnically, he was descended from a neighboring people, the Idumeans. They had been forcibly converted to Judaism in the time of the Maccabees (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13:9:1).
As a ruler, he built a lot of things–fortresses, aqueducts, theaters, etc. Undertaking major public works projects was one of the ways that rulers in the ancient world built a legacy for themselves.
His most famous building projects was the Temple in Jerusalem, which he began dramatically expanding.
Many parishes will have the "Christmas Proclamation" before Midnight Mass. What is this proclamation and how can we understand what it says about when Jesus was born?
If you attended Mass on Christmas Eve, you may have heard the “Christmas proclamation.”
This is a beautiful, poetic announcement of the birth of Christ.
It says when Jesus was born, dating it from nine different events.
But the ways that they dated events in the ancient world are different than the ones we use today.
Here’s how you can understand the Christmas proclamation when you hear it read . . .
About the Christmas Proclamation
Scott Richert notes:
This Proclamation of the Birth of Christ comes from the Roman Martyrology, the official listing of the saints celebrated by the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Traditionally, it has been read on Christmas Eve, before the celebration of Midnight Mass. It situates the Nativity of Christ within the context of salvation history, making reference not only to biblical events but also to the Greek and Roman worlds. The coming of Christ at Christmas, then, is seen as the summit of both sacred and secular history.
In the 1980’s, Pope John Paul II restored the Proclamation of the Birth of Christ to the papal celebration of Midnight Mass. (It had been removed during the reform of the liturgy.) Many parishes have followed the Holy Father’s lead [SOURCE].
The rubrics for the Christmas proclamation state:
The announcement of the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord from the Roman Martyrology draws upon Sacred Scripture to declare in a formal way the birth of Christ. It begins with creation and relates the birth of the Lord to the major events and personages of sacred and secular history. The particular events contained in the announcement help pastorally to situate the birth of Jesus in the context of salvation history.
This text, The Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be chanted or recited, most appropriately on December 24, during the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. It may also be chanted or recited before the beginning of Christmas Mass during the Night. It may not replace any part of the Mass.
The Proclamation Begins
The proclamation begins by solemnly announcing the day on which the birth of Christ is traditionally celebrated:
The Twenty-fifth Day of December
It then tells us in which year this occurred, dating it in nine different ways. . . .
1. From the Creation of the World
The proclamation first dates the birth of Christ relative to the creation of the world:
when ages beyond number had run their course
from the creation of the world,
when God in the beginning created heaven and earth,
and formed man in his own likeness;
This offers a non-specific date. It is merely after “ages beyond number.”
The traditional version of the proclamation is much more specific: It says “In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world.”
This follows an ancient system of reckoning that differs from the Ussher chronology (developed by the Anglican archbishop, James Ussher, 1581-1656), which held that the world began in 4004 B.C.
The currently approved English translation, however, avoids mentioning any specific number of years.
This is the actual Grotto of the Nativity under the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Why is there so much confusion today about Christmas and what it means?
There’s a lot of confusion about Christmas.
Is it a day? Is it a season? Is it based on a pagan holiday? What is its real meaning?
Here are 9 things you should know about Christmas . . .
1. What is “the real meaning of Christmas”?
Although many voices in pop culture suggest that the true meaning of Christmas is being kind to each other, or being with our families, or something like that, the real meaning of the day–and the season it begins–is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
525 Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family. Simple shepherds were the first witnesses to this event. In this poverty heaven’s glory was made manifest. The Church never tires of singing the glory of this night:
The Virgin today brings into the world the Eternal
and the earth offers a cave to the Inaccessible.
The angels and shepherds praise him
and the magi advance with the star,
For you are born for us,
Little Child, God eternal!
2. Christmas is not based on a pagan holiday.
No matter how many times you hear Sheldon Cooper (or anyone else) say Christmas is based on a pagan holiday (whether Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, or anything else), we simply have no evidence of this.
If you read the writings of the Church Fathers, you do not find those who assign Christmas to December 25th saying things like, “Let’s put Jesus’ birthday here so we can subvert a pagan holiday.” (Not that subverting pagan holidays is a bad thing.)
They simply don’t do that. The ones who say Jesus was born on December 25th do so because that is when they think he was born.
In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict comments:
