The Circumcision and Naming of Christ
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
Today (1st January) some Churches commemorate the Circumcision of Christ - or Circumcision and Naming of Christ.
In the Orthodox Church it is combined with the commemoration of St Basil The Great. In parishes of the Russian tradition the Liturgy is followed by a 'moleben' or intercessions for the beginning of the civic year. The Orthodox liturgical year starts in September of course.
Wikipedia tells me that all Lutheran churches mark this event and it's included in the Anglican calendar of course, which doesn't necessarily mean it is 'observed' as such. Anglicans I know have never heard of it.
Much could be said about the significance of the theology the commemoration conveys - an emphasis on the humanity of Christ, his condescension, obedience to the Law, the prefiguration of Christian baptism, the naming of Christ with the name given at the Annunciation - and much more besides.
One facet is that it's the first time Christ's blood was shed. I intend to start a new thread on that one and will develop that theme elsewhere in order to prevent this Ecclesiantics thread from becoming Purgatorial.
My question here is how or to what extent this event is commemorated in your church - if indeed it is marked at all.
The RCC appear to have put it to one side to accommodate other dates on their calendar rather than through any theological difference of opinion with those Churches which commemorate the Circumcision in their calendars.
I had intended to attend the Liturgy today and to mark the date that way but slept in I'm afraid after seeing the New Year in next door.
Expect theological pontification from Gamaliel and not perfect piety. 😉
In the Orthodox Church it is combined with the commemoration of St Basil The Great. In parishes of the Russian tradition the Liturgy is followed by a 'moleben' or intercessions for the beginning of the civic year. The Orthodox liturgical year starts in September of course.
Wikipedia tells me that all Lutheran churches mark this event and it's included in the Anglican calendar of course, which doesn't necessarily mean it is 'observed' as such. Anglicans I know have never heard of it.
Much could be said about the significance of the theology the commemoration conveys - an emphasis on the humanity of Christ, his condescension, obedience to the Law, the prefiguration of Christian baptism, the naming of Christ with the name given at the Annunciation - and much more besides.
One facet is that it's the first time Christ's blood was shed. I intend to start a new thread on that one and will develop that theme elsewhere in order to prevent this Ecclesiantics thread from becoming Purgatorial.
My question here is how or to what extent this event is commemorated in your church - if indeed it is marked at all.
The RCC appear to have put it to one side to accommodate other dates on their calendar rather than through any theological difference of opinion with those Churches which commemorate the Circumcision in their calendars.
I had intended to attend the Liturgy today and to mark the date that way but slept in I'm afraid after seeing the New Year in next door.
Expect theological pontification from Gamaliel and not perfect piety. 😉
Comments
PS who was it on board who used to refer to it as "Brismas"?
I get the impression that it was a full time-table as it were that led the RCC to shunt the Circumcision and Naming of Christ to one side rather than theological objections.
I think we'd all largely agree on the theological significance albeit with shades of emphasis rather than outright difference.
An evangelical friend told me earlier that it'd never occurred to them to consider the significance of the circumcision of Christ. I can only remember it being preached on once during my evangelical days and I was out in the Sunday school and missed it. I only heard about it as the sermon was apparently quite graphic. It covered circumcision more generally but did allude to the circumcision of Christ.
The issue of crowded lectionaries is an interesting one. It strikes me that the only places where calendars and lectionaries can be observed completely are monasteries and convents and even there they need night vigils to fit everything in.
Both the new and old commemorations leave me cold.
Having another Maryfest does seem a bit over the top, though, with the Presentation of Christ in the Temple (Candlemas) not all that far off.
YMMV.
A correction - from Wiki and abbreviated. It has been in and out of the Roman Rite calendar through the centuries. In the earliest centuries Jan 1 was a feast of Mary. From 7th to 13th centuries it was simply the Octave of Christmas. Then it was the Circumcision, but the 1960 calendar calls it the Octave of the Nativity. In the current calendar it is "1 January, the Octave Day of the Nativity of the Lord, is the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God, and also the commemoration of the conferral of the Most Holy Name of Jesus."
However in the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites it is the Circumcision.
I’ve never encountered the day actually being marked in church (unless maybe when it has fallen on a Sunday). And frankly I’d be a bit surprised if there’s any mention of it at all in the calendars of other Presbyterian/Reformed churches.
Thanks @Alan29 . Observing 1st January as a Marian festival obviously has a much longer pedigree than I realised!
In the C of E 1662 BCP, it's simply The Circumcision of the Lord, but in the Common Worship calendar it's The Naming and Circumcision of Jesus. No overt mention of Mary...
It's in the CofE calendar, but it tends not to get noticed unless it coincides with a Sunday.
There are some quite interesting contrasts between circumcision and baptism. The most obvious one is that circumcision is visibly marked whereas there's no way you can tell by conducting a medical examination whether someone has been baptised or not. Another more significant difference, though, is that only boy babies get circumcised. Whether a church baptises babies or adults, boy and girl babies and male and female adults all get baptised in exactly the same way to each other.
A possibly more subtle difference is that it turns out that nobody really seems to know what is the profound symbolic history that underlies circumcision, why? Baptism, though has both obvious and more sophisticated significances which are clear and easily got at.
Whether in or out of the Roman Rite both commemorations left me cold.
In addition to what you note, it’s also seen as warrant for infant baptism.
@mousethief ?
I think it's the consecration to God via blood sacrifice, at least somewhat.
She’s His Mother.
Whether there are too many, too few, not enough or just the right amount of Marian celebrations or references and whether they intrigue or excite us or leave us cold, the common theme it seems to me in all of these is obedience.
A faithful adherence to God's will.
One could certainly make a case for that in any commemoration of the Circumcision. Mary and Joseph were obedient to the Mosaic Law.
Ok, these things have become elaborated over the years to the extent that overlapping commemorations of this, that or the other jostle on church calendars.
Posting collects online as @Anna_Baptist has done is one practical solution.
As you'd expect, I take a 'both/and' view of these things ... 😉
Ok. But you still have to facilitate it.
You could keep the door shut or go out for the day.
In Madagascar they circumcise boys when they are between 3 and 5 years old generally and the father carries them on his shoulders to the hut where it takes place with family and neighbours dancing behind with horns and whistles.
I wasn't sure what the Jewish tradition involves, other than it happens on the eighth day.
I'm sure there might be pious stories about it within Christian folklore, with explanations as to how Christ's foreskin ended up I'm various places.
His involvement is implicit ... 😉
Righteous Joseph does get a mention in some liturgical texts and he is given his own commemoration in various calendars.
As far as I can tell all Big C Catholic and sacramental traditions all stress input / involvement from the whole people of God - both here on earth or in heaven. 'Together with all the Saints ...' etc
St Seraphim of Sarov, for instance, might not get a name check at every single service but he's still 'there'.
We have an icon of St Joseph close to the icon-screen and I sometimes make a particular point of thanking him for his specific role in salvation history.
I'm sure he's acknowledged in some way, perhaps through exegetical sermons, in your Reformed tradition, @Nick Tamen.
To whatever extent he - or anyone else for that matter - is name-checked or acknowledged liturgical they are still 'there'.
The Great Cloud of Witnesses spreads and grows.
I can't speak for the RCs but in Orthodoxy St Basil also gets a name-check on 1st January.
I'm sure we all do our best to ensure as many contributors as possible get an acknowledgement.
Perhaps we should have closing credits at the end of every service like they do in the films - runners, gaffers, make-up artists etc etc.
'No animals were harmed in the celebration of this eucharist ...'
Of course not. It would have been part and parcel of their observance as devout Jews - or even if they hadn't been particularly devout of course.
My point was that irrespective of how many references or commemorations of Mary there might be in the RCC, Orthodox or any other Christian Church, the unifying emphasis is generally her obedience to God's will in every aspect of her life, most notably of course her role in the Incarnation.
I think we'd all agree on that one if we take a 'traditional' view of these things and interpret the scriptures in line with the historic Creeds and teachings passed down from the early centuries of the Christian Church.
Of course the Theotokos (-and all the Saints') is celebrated in every single Orthodox Liturgy every single time it's served, whichever biblical event or whichever Saints are also referenced that particular day.
What are we supposed to do? Leave her out because she's already been name-checked the previous Sunday?
Now, I understand the point you are making and the reasoning behind @Nick Tamen's comment about Joseph and Mary - rather than Mary exclusively. Heck, I know I'm not the only 'both/and' advocate round here. Plenty of posters are more 'both/and' than I'll ever be ...
It's a fair question. It does seem though that some form of celebration of Mary on 1st January was part of Christian practice within the Western Roman Empire from very early on. It is, of course up to Rome when she chooses to commemorate these things. When in Rome and all that.
FWIW, Joseph The Betrothed's big day comes the Sunday after the Nativity in Orthodox calendars when he's commemorated alongside King David and St James The Brother of The Lord -emphasising his role and place in Christ's family.
He's mentioned a few times before and after the Nativity season but always in connection with it, of course.
Coming back to the Circumcision and Naming of Christ, I find it interesting how it features in most, if not all liturgical calendars across those churches which have such things, irrespective of whether it's 'observed' or referred to in some way. Putting it in a congregation's FB page strikes me as a lovely thing to do, particularly in a church setting that may not formally mark these things in a liturgical sense.
'The Sabbath for man (people), not man for the Sabbath'.
I accept that @Nick Tamen was questioning the RC practice of commenting Mary, rather than Mary and Joseph - or any other 'actors' come to that - on 1st January. Which is a fair question and one for the RCC and not interfering old me.
I also recognise that @Lamb Chopped was mildly challenging or seeking clarity on my comment about Marian obedience rather than seeking to subvert the whole Orthodox kit and caboodle.
I take those questions in the eirenic spirit in which they were intended and hope my responses can do the same. It's all work in progress.
Meanwhile, I understand the covenantal connections between circumcision/baptism which Nick brought out in his response to ChastMastr earlier and have a lot of respect for that emphasis.
Apparently, it ascended to heaven and became the rings of Saturn
In addition by decree of pope Gregory XIII in the 1580s the day also became the beginning of the New Year.
(The Roman rite remembers Saint Basil and Saint Gregory on 2nd January and the Holy Name of Jesus on 3rd January)
Joseph has been largely ignored in hagiography. It was in my lifetime (1962) that his name was included among the saints in the original Roman Eucharistic prayer, and very recently (2013) added to the new post Vat 2 versions. He wasn't Theotokos ..... and maybe there were enough males around in popular devotion, so to have a significant female was important - I believe Jung had something to say about the importance of Mary in the European psyche.
Does Joseph appear in Eastern iconography?
I'll get me coat. I see that the door is already open.
The point I was clumsily trying to make is that whenever Mary is honoured or referenced liturgically it's on account of her obedience to God. In the Orthodox Liturgy she isn't referenced any more on 1st January than at any time of year as far as I'm aware. So I may have confused the issue.
All I meant was that Mary and Joseph were as obedient in the circumcision of Christ as they were in everything else. The significance of the Circumcision and Naming of Christ is multifaceted and has resonance across a number of Christian traditions - for reasons that have been explored on this thread.
@Forthview has outlined the antiquity of commemorating Mary on 1st January within Western Christianity and how the RCC has shuffled its calendar to accommodate that without ditching any reference or commemoration of the Circumcision or Naming of Christ.
@Alan29 yes, Joseph is represented in Orthodox iconography. Upthread I mentioned how I sometimes venerate his icon which in our church is located close to the icon screen. He is particularly remembered on the Sunday after Nativity and on several dates during Advent (the Nativity Fast) and after.
That doesn't mean that he disappears from view for the rest of the year. I'll be 65 years old in May. That doesn't mean I won't be 65 in June, July or August.
Yes, Mary is remembered, invoked and venerated in every Orthodox Liturgy and with good reason.
Coming back to the Circumcision of Christ, the Orthodox liturgical texts for that don't contain anything that isn't compatible with various Protestant understandings of these things as far as I can see.
I admit I do not know the Orthodox liturgical calendar, but I bet the following stories are included
The presentation of the holy child at the Temple with Simeon and Anna:
The time Mary and Joseph lost track of the holy child when he was 12.
The Wedding at Cana
The time when Mary and his brothers tried to stop Jesus' ministry
The crucifixion
At least they are mentioned in the Western Lectionary.
Somehow, I doubt if that relief was offered to Baby Jesus...
What 'Western Lectionary' is that?
There are several.
The crucifixion? Now why would that be in there 🤔? 😉
You've heard of Good Friday (Great and Holy Friday) haven't you?
Oh, and seen Orthodox Christians making the sign of the cross?
What about the Resurrection?
That's celebrated every Sunday and oh, there's this thing called Easter you may have heard of ...
More seriously, seeing as those Protestant churches which have lectionaries and calendars which derived from the RC versions which in turn are related to Orthodox ones if we go back far enough, it's hardly surprising that many scriptural events and themes vire across the various Churches of East and West.
FWIW there are 12 major 'feasts' or commemorations in the Orthodox calendar.
Most of them would be familiar to you.
From your list, which seems quite random, the Presentation of Christ in the Temple is marked of course, and the readings will cover most major themes/incidents in the Gospels just as Anglican, RC and presumably Lutheran lectionaries will.
I'm not aware that particular liturgical significance is given to what you call 'the time when Mary and his brothers tried to stop Jesus's ministry.'
There are things like 'The Sunday of Orthodoxy' or St Mary of Egypt' which would be absent from your calendar of course.
And Theophany and the Western Epiphany differ too.
Otherwise you'll find pretty much what you'd expect, I'd imagine.
To review: you stated you did not know of any other time in the Orthodox lectionary when Mary is mentioned other than the circumcision and Naming of Jesus. The stories I listed all were stories that include the Holy Mother Mary in them.
I said they are all included in the Western Lectionaries and I thought they are likely in the Orthodox one, though I do not know.
There are actually two main Western Lectionaries. The one most mainline denominations follow is called the Revised Common Lectionary. Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian on other Reformed Churches use this lectionary. American Baptists also follow it. The other main Western Lectionary is called the Narrative Lectionary which only a few churches use, but both lectionaries will have the stories of Mary included in their yearly cycles, thought maybe not all in any one year. y
There may be some minor Western Lectionaries individual denominations may have, but I venture to guess they all have many stories of Mary too.
Oops, them too.