"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
-
Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
- Anonymous
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" -
HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
- Comment
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
- Comment
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on
Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-
Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at
1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in
comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."-
Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. -
- Mark Shea
Dear Father,
I have heard people say that the church began to celebrate Christmas in December as a policy to replace Saturnalia. I have heard other people say that Saturnalia was developed by the Roman pagans as a response to Christmas. Of course I don’t know whom to believe. Can you shed any light on the subject?
Dear Simon Platt,
I don’t know about the development of Christmas, but I am quite certain that Saturnalia was not a pagan response to it. Saturnalia was, as I recall, already a very old pagan festival by the time Christmas began to be celebrated. We have references to it in Latin literature at least as far back as the first century AD and the first century BC. I don’t have the citations right at my fingertips right now, but I’m sure some judicious googling will yield the right stuff.
I think it was Sol Invictus festival that was introduced by emperor Aurelian, possibly as a response to the Nativity. But I really don’t remember details. Wasn\’t it also Card. Ratzinger who wrote something about computation of Nativity, presumambly in The Spirit of Liturgy
Also take a look at the chapter from The Origins of the Liturgical Year:
http://jbburnett.com/resources/talley_origins-2-xmas.pdf
Thanks both. I did a little bit of digging around and, yes, I had my saturnalia and my sol invictus mixed up.
What concerns me is that the neo pagans seem to imply that Christmas is “really” a pagan festival, somehow appropriated by the church, and I think they thereby seek to diminish the relevance of the feast or the credibility of the church. For example see this page:
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa121305a.htm
which seems to be the responsibility of the New York Times. I notice that it claims (without any citation) St. John Chrysostom as stating that Christmas was fixed in relation to sol invictus as a matter of convenience. Funnily enough, I think it was correspondence in another newspaper called the “Times” where I first read several years ago of St. John’s preaching that 25 December was the actual date of Our Lord’s birth – as also reported by the Catholic Encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm) and which seems consistent with Marcin’s reference.
I don’t like this sort of sneering, least of all when aimed at the church, so I’d like to know more about the results of reliable scholarship. If any other readers can point me to useful sources I should be very grateful.
Simon.
Simon, it is dangerous to generalise that much about the followers of the entire range of religious factions classified as ‘neo-paganry’ since neo-pagans almost never have real dogma or a convenient equivalent of the Nicene Creed that codifies a group’s beliefs. It would be like saying all shoes are brown. There are an awful lot of brown shoes on Earth, just as there are an awful lot of willfully dumb neo-pagans, but…
Neo-pagans, without the benefit of anything resembling the Magisterium of the Church, are not able to be generalised very well at all, and certainly much less so than in generalising about Christians, who usually have a central authority for what is definitively Christian: Sacred Tradition, the word of Yahweh provided in the Scriptures, and so on.
Mostly the ill-educated teeny-bopper type of neo-pagan will make claims like you described. Most of them are getting their information from books published by Llewellyn Worldwide, the great distributor of fluffy ‘New Age’ nonsense. If we were to have an old-fashioned book burning, Llewellyn Worldwide’s books would be at the top of *my* list. As an avid researcher of (real) ancient pagan religious beliefs and practices, Llewellyn ‘s publications truly irritate me.
But I digress.
What we can say about Roman Catholics does not necessarily apply to Anabaptists, yes? Or to Lutherans? Yet they are all (in theory…) ‘Christians’ to greater or lesser degrees. There are a few good points to dogma, and the Roman Catholic Church knows it.
As for your actual request, the following texts are useful toward answering the more basic questions that you might have about the expression of religious ideas in the Roman Republic and early Empire before the state conversion to Christianity. They are almost exclusively oriented toward those who read in English, as I do not know if you have any other languages.
James Rives’ text is becoming one of my favourites in this subject. John Scheid’s and Georges Dumézil’s texts listed here contain some conclusions that seem a bit tenuous, and the Dumézil book starts off in a very tedious style, but both texts are useful like the rest provided in the list. The “Religions of Rome” 2-volume set is a *very* valuable reference tool in small doses for those who prefer their source texts in English, but they are not really set up for cover-to-cover reading.
“Religion in Republican Italy” (Yale Classical Studies)
edited by Paul Harvey and Celia Schultz.
978-0521863667
Cambridge University Press, 2007
“Religion in the Roman Empire” (Blackwell Ancient Religions)
by James Rives
978-1405106566
Wiley-Blackwell, 2006
“An Introduction to Roman Religion”
by John Scheid, translated by Janet Lloyd
978-0253216601
Indiana University Press, 2003
“Religions of Rome: Volume 1: A History”
by Simon Price, Mary Beard, and John North
978-0521316828
Cambridge University Press, 1998
“Religions of Rome: Volume 2: A Sourcebook’
by Simon Price, Mary Beard, and John North
978-0521456463
Cambridge University Press, 1998
To top off the list, these two texts by Ramsay MacMullen are an excellent primer on the Conversion period. Short, sweet, and full of interesting insights:
“Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100-400)”
by Ramsay MacMullen
978-0300036428
Yale University Press, 1986
“Paganism and Christianity: 100-425 A.D.”
by Ramsay MacMullen
978-0800626471
Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1992
I nearly forgot to mention H. H. Scullard’s “Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic”, Cornell University Press, 978-0801414022, 1981. Since the topic introduced by Fr. Z here is the Saturnalia, Scullard’s work is definitely worth mentioning. It is a well regarded text.
Simon said: I notice that it claims (without any citation) St. John Chrysostom as stating that Christmas was fixed in relation to sol invictus as a matter of convenience.
I’ve seen that same alleged Chrysostom quote that you mention:
I don’t know if this quote was really from Chrysostom, or if it was correctly translated. A couple years ago there was a discussion of this alleged quote in a discussion thread here:
http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/LT-ANTIQ/2005/11/0043.php
The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Christmas” also seems to have part of this same quote attributed to Chrysostom:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
If anybody could track down the original of this quote and verify the translation, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks everyone for the references. There’s plenty to read, and I shall read at least some of it.
I notice, thanks to Fr Blake, that this was a topic of discussion online last year, too.