The War on Christmas No Red or Green Decor

[rjs330]

How precisely does one prove something incorrect when the problem is the lack of proof in favor of it? That's the issue. The point is the lack of evidence for something, to which all I can do is say "the evidence isn't there".



You haven't given any evidence that there was any such gift giving during Christmas at a time concurrent or even short after Saturnalia occurred. As far as I can tell, it only came way, way later.

Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is some source that demonstrates it closer to time with Saturnalia. But since no one I've ever seen who advances this whole "Christmas gifts come from Saturnalia!" thing has ever offered any evidence of it, the reasonable conclusion is simply that it's because there is no such evidence. I'm open to correction, but until then I see no reason to think there was Christmas gift giving prior to the time when people say it was first recorded.



So what the article claims is:

"In particular, during the first two centuries of Christianity there was strong opposition to recognizing birthdays of martyrs or, for that matter, of Jesus. Numerous Church Fathers offered sarcastic comments about the pagan custom of celebrating birthdays when, in fact, saints and martyrs should be honoured on the days of their martyrdom—their true “birthdays,” from the church’s perspective."

While Britannica is normally a reliable source, here it seems to falter. It doesn't specify who the church fathers in question are that had such an opposition. I've seen people make this sort of claim elsewhere and the person they always point to is Origen, specifically his 8th homily on Leviticus, where he criticizes the celebration of birthdays. The thing is, Origen isn't talking about Christmas. He makes no mention of Jesus's birth or any celebration of it here. He's criticizing people who celebrate their own birth, and the main argument he offers (that humans are sinful so birth is nothing to celebrate) would obviously not apply to Jesus, who is seen in Christianity as sinless. Furthermore, as his focus is on people celebrating their own birthday, which Christmas is not, his criticisms would apply even less.

Also, one has to contrive things to say that Origen is criticizing people from celebrating the birth of saints (as in holy people who have died and were venerated subsequently); he does say "not one from all the saints is found to have celebrated a festive day or a great feast on the day of his birth" but from context it's not clear if he's using saint to refer to people from the Bible, including the Old Testament, or saints that were venerated. I think it's the former given he gives a bunch of biblical examples of what he's talking about, though.

Now, maybe Britannica has someone else in mind I don't know about. But I do know that when I read things by the "Christmas is proof of how Catholicism compromised with paganism and set the church on the wrong path!" crowd, the only person I ever remember seeing them cite as criticizing Christmas is Origen. If there were more they could point to as criticizing Christmas (let alone "numerous" ones), I'd think they'd be citing them... but instead it's always just Origen, who as noted above really didn't say that at all. So this claim from Britannica seems rather dubious.



It would have to be close in time because--and I need to stress this again and again--the practice of giving Christmas presents, again as far as I can tell, only appears long after Saturnalia. If the practice was being "passed down", then why doesn't it show up? Why isn't it mentioned by anyone? Basically, Saturnalia eventually disappears, and we have no mentions at all on Christmas gifts being exchanged during that time or afterwards, a state that continues for centuries. Then after centuries have gone by, the practice occurs on St. Nicholas Day, and then only even later than that on Christmas. In other words, there's apparently no evidence that there was any tradition of giving gifts on Christmas (or even St. Nicholas Day) for centuries after Saturnalia was no longer celebrated. The idea of some kind of transfer after the practice had ceased entirely for centuries just doesn't make sense.

Maybe I'm just not expressing myself well and that's leading to the argument, so I'll try again. As far as I understand it based on multiple sources, the chronology goes like this:
-Saturnalia is celebrated, with gift giving being a part of it (though in different manners than modern Christmas)
-Christmas comes along and is celebrated while Saturnalia celebrations continue. No record of gift giving in Christmas.
-Saturnalia dies off and is no longer celebrated around the sixth century AD. Christmas continues. No record of gift giving in Christmas.
-Centuries go by with no record of gift giving in Christmas.
-Eventually, we do see gift giving occur on St. Nicholas Day, though this is December 6 rather than Christmas. This appears to have started in the 11th/12th century with the practice of giving gifts to the poor, which eventually turned into actually giving gifts to loved ones. No record of gift giving in Christmas.
-Protestant Reformation happens. Protestants like the idea of giving gifts but due to their aversion of veneration of saints want to get rid of the whole "Saint Nicholas Day" part. So they move the date of giving gifts to Christmas (Catholicism in a lot of countries eventually followed suit) and in some cases came up with an entirely new gift giver, like Cristkind.

Now, if this timeline is correct, it means Saturnalia (and its gift giving, if the gift giving was even part of the holiday still at that point) stopped in the sixth century. Then gift giving started in the 11th/12th century for St. Nicholas Day. That's a gap of about 500 years of no gift giving on St. Nicholas Day/Christmas, meaning there was no gift giving tradition on account of the fact that people, well, weren't doing it. So one can't say it's a case of people giving gifts while forgetting why they were doing it, because they WEREN'T doing it. One can't say it was being passed down through generations, because subsequent generations WEREN'T doing it. The tradition died off completely with Saturnalia and people weren't doing it, so any subsequent instances of gift giving wouldn't be traceable to Saturnalia. It's like saying that Thanksgiving (the US holiday) can be traced back to the Epulum Jovis feast on November 13. The Epulum Jovis feast was dead for long enough that having a feast at around the same time so many centuries later is just a coincidence.

Now, I'm open to correction on the above points. Maybe the St. Nicholas day gift giving (which later transitioned to Christmas gift giving) started centuries earlier than what has been stated and therefore a plausible connection to Saturnalia can be found. Or perhaps Saturnalia kept going later and came close enough to the time of gift giving for St. Nicholas Day that it could be a plausible connection. Or maybe both. It's certainly possible, and I'm not some kind of big expert on the topic. But until that fact can be proven by pointing to a historical document demonstrating it as such, the 500 years of separation is too much for any tradition of Saturnalia to manage to make it to St. Nicholas Day (and then subsequently to Christmas).

And that's the problem we run into a lot of these supposed traditions from paganism. There's centuries of time separating their demise in paganism to them showing up (often in a different form entirely) in Christmas celebrations. So a link doesn't seem plausible.



I have never claimed that there is "no possible way previous cultures influenced the modern practice of christmas." I am pretty sure I have stated I never claimed that before. What I have stated is that your claim that "Most of the traditions associated with what we now call "christmas" are rooted in pagan or solstice celebrations" is false (note your original claim does not say anything about "previous cultures" but the more specific claim of "pagan or solstice celebrations" plus you claimed not merely some, but most date back to that). And then when you listed a bunch of supposed examples, I pointed out how they arise too late in Christmas celebrations to have any plausible connection to their pagan counterpart, or they don't seem to have been ever done by the pagans to begin with (or at least, no one has been able to offer evidence they were).

You're, as they say, moving the goalposts. You made a specific claim ("Most of the traditions associated with what we now call "christmas" are rooted in pagan or solstice celebrations"), and now you're making a different claim and demanding I completely disprove a different claim than the one you made, and in doing so trying to shift the burden of proof off yourself and onto me.



The apparent complete lack of there being any documentation of them being done, and the apparent inability of anyone to provide evidence of them being done, during that time period.

I want to thank you my friend for your well thought out, researched and articulate posts. Your arguments and statements are clear and filled with well reasoned statements.

The problem is you are arguing with someone who will slip and slide and dodge and weave any logical argument. At some point you will just have to drop the conversation.

 

[rjs330]

“THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, LIED TO CONGRESS, CHEATED ON FISA, RIGGED A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ALLOWED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, MANY FROM PRISONS & MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, TO INVADE OUR COUNTRY, SCREWED UP IN AFGHANISTAN, & JOE BIDEN’S MISFITS & THUGS, LIKE DERANGED JACK SMITH, ARE COMING AFTER ME, AT LEVELS OF PERSECUTION NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN OUR COUNTRY??? IT’S CALLED ELECTION INTERFERENCE. MERRY CHRISTMAS!” Trump posted on Christmas Eve.

Pure Trump! One thing we can't deny is the man is consistent. He rants every chance he gets!

 

[The Liturgist]

Wisconsin city says gov't employees can put up Christmas decorations after backlash

A city in Wisconsin that garnered pushback for asking public employees not to decorate their workspaces with Christmas imagery has clarified that staff members are allowed to do so

www.christianpost.com

The city has since backed off of their "suggestion"

Good, because that would obviously be unconstitutional.

 

[RoBo1988]

Good, because that would obviously be unconstitutional.

What part of the constitution is violated?

 

[The Liturgist]

No idea. As Christmas liturgical colors are either white or gold.

-CryptoLutheran

Actually, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, red is fairly frequently used as a liturgical color during Advent and I have seen it used on Christmas, although white is also used on Christmas, depending on the parish and the jurisdiction (this lack of consistency I shall explain below). Gold is the default color, similar to green in Western churches. That being said white is used on most other feasts of our Lord, for example, the Resurrection, Ascension, and Transfiguration, and usually on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, except in some Russian churches where red has become preferred at the Paschal Matins and Divine Liturgy that begins at midnight on Easter Sunday, but white is still used at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy (which is very similiar to the Paschal Vigil in Roman Catholicism according to its pre-1955 rubrics) on Holy Saturday to replace the black vestments and paraments that are removed. White vestments are also used at all baptisms, chrismations, weddings and funerals.

Blue vestments (which are more colorful than the Sarum Blue used by many Lutherans and Anglicans during Advent) are used to represent the blessed virgin Mary and the Bodiless Powers, green vestments are used on Palm Sunday, Pentecost, and sometimes All Saints (which is the Sunday following Pentecost, as Pentecost Sunday is also the feast of the Holy Trinity, with Pentecost Monday also being celebrated with a pure focus on the Holy Trinity). Green is also used on some Patristic feasts (confessors and monastics, if I recall). But Red is preferred on feasts of the Holy Cross and of the Apostles and Martyrs. Purple vestments are used during Lent (these tend to be a rich royal purple, rather than the violet used in the Roman Rite or the Morello vestments used in the Ambrosian Rite: Liturgical Colours of Lent in the Ambrosian Rite

This inconsistency is explained in light of other Eastern churches, and also some Greek Orthodox monasteries, it is worth noting that the both the Sabaite and the revised and somewhat troublesome Violakis Typikon of the Eastern Orthodox church and the Byzantine Catholic Churches, and the equivalents for the Oriental Orthodox and the other Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Maronites and Chaldeans, only tend to specify light or dark colored vestments.

In the Armenian Orthodox church, there are a few conflicting schemes of liturgical color. In the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox churches, the only officially prescribed colors are dark vestments during Holy Week (except on Maundy Thursday) and in the Coptic church, the vestments worn the rest of the time are mostly white, with some gold highlighting being common, and red copes worn by bishops, and a crimson mitre by the Pope of Alexandria, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarch, and extremely rare gold copes worn by priests (as for other Ethiopian Orthodox liturgical colors, I am still trying to figure them out). In the Syriac Orthodox church when dark vestments (black for priests, with black or dark blue stoles for deacons, subdeacons and readers, like in the Coptic Orthodox church) are not required, a wide variety of colors are used in most parishes; only the cathedral of the Eastern US Archdiocese bothers to ensure its clergy even wear matching colors. This, combined with the extreme beauty of the Syriac Orthodox vestments, results in their liturgies being splendid and vibrant in color. However, on Easter Sunday, almost everyone wears white.

In order to make sure I am recalling these details correctly, I would invite my friends @prodromos and @dzheremi to fact-check. Regarding the red vestments on Pascha, I would note I have never seen them in a ROCOR parish, but only in parishes in Russia, however, there is a guide to the celebration of the liturgy which suggests them, which I shall get the name of (it is available on Everand, which is the ebooks part of scribd that they recently, to my extreme annoyance, separated from the PDF sharing portion, although at least they didn’t raise the price).

 

[The Liturgist]

Cthulhu in a Santa hat is awesome.

I find this, and what @Tropical Wilds mentioned, to all be very offensive. Of course free speech allows it, and I support free speech, although I would note there are several countries including, surprisingly, Canada where it might be possible to take legal action against such offensive imagery. But that being said I daresay if people were more respectful in what they said, the war of offensive images between different groups in society would subside.

I would also note from a Christian perspective, circulating offensive images whether related to Christianity or other religions seems contrary to the golden rule, since virtually everyone will be offended by some images which are potentially legal in the US. Thus I also object to the term “pearl-grasping audience” for I think we will all clutch our metaphorical pearls at the right offensive visual stimuli, even if it is legal.

 

[Margaret3110]

I find this, and what @Tropical Wilds mentioned, to all be very offensive. Of course free speech allows it, and I support free speech, although I would note there are several countries including, surprisingly, Canada where it might be possible to take legal action against such offensive imagery. But that being said I daresay if people were more respectful in what they said, the war of offensive images between different groups in society would subside.

I would also note from a Christian perspective, circulating offensive images whether related to Christianity or other religions seems contrary to the golden rule, since virtually everyone will be offended by some images which are potentially legal in the US. Thus I also object to the term “pearl-grasping audience” for I think we will all clutch our metaphorical pearls at the right offensive visual stimuli, even if it is legal.

Why? Santa Claus is a secular figure. I mean, I know he originated in a real person - St. Nicholas who was a bishop. But he would have dressed as a bishop, not like modern day Santa Claus, no?

 

[The Liturgist]

What part of the constitution is violated?

Obviously the first amendment. Particularly since the restriction singled out Christmas. If one implemented such a regulation they would have to apply it equally to any form of decoration. And indeed there are some workplaces which are not seasonally decorated, usually control facilities for safety-critical operations and other environments where decorations might be unsafe either as distractions or in other respects. In my experience, however, the CA DMV employees and many other government employees decorate their offices for the different seasons, in a suitably inclusive manner.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why? Santa Claus is a secular figure. I mean, I know he originated in a real person - St. Nicholas who was a bishop. But he would have dressed as a bishop, not like modern day Santa Claus, no?

The problem is that St. Nicholas was a real person, as was St. Basil, the other historical figure who is represented by Santa Claus (to a lesser extent, and in some countries), and images of Santa from around the world follow a continuum from those which more closely resemble St. Basil the Great or St. Nicholas of Myra, particularly in Eastern Christian lands, to the more secularized images we have in the West. This continuum and the reality of the persons depicted, even if the clothing style has become distorted and unrealistic, combines to make such images offensive. What is more, the appearance of Santa Claus in terms of his facial hair makes him a generic stand in for almost any Eastern Christian bishop. And St. Basil and St. Nicholas are among the two most venerated bishops of the Eastern church; indeed St. NIcholas of Myra is probably the most venerated bishop (aside from the Apostles), and one of the most venerated saints in the Eastern churches (along with St. Anthony the Great, the Holy Apostles, and especially our glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, who gave birth to God (in the person of the only-begotten Son and Logos) in His Incarnation). Thus any images which reflect adversely on these saints, even if they are based on popular depictions rather than recognized iconography or the actual surviving relics of St. Nicholas (which are in Bari, and miraculously stream myrhh, which they also did when the Eastern Orthodox had them, before the Venetians expropriated them from us without permission); the relics of St. Basil, and also the other two members of the illustrious group known as the Three Holy Hierarchs, St. Gregory the Theologian, of Nazianzus (who was also St. Basil’s best friend and fellow Cappadocian), and the legendary Antiochene preacher and Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, are in the Cathedral of St. George in the Phanar district of the city which should be referred to as Constantinople, having been returned by the Roman Catholics in recent decades, which in retrospect given the increased persecution of Christians under Erdogan was probably a mistake; the cathedral has not even been fully repaired from the last time Muslims tried to burn it down a few decades back, due to lack of government permission.

Also I would note the red attire of Santa Claus might well be influenced by Renaissance, Mannerist and Baroque depictions of many fourth century saints, for instance, St. Jerome, by Catholic artists, who naturally depicted them as Cardinals, since these were the most high ranking clergy next to the Pope at the time.

 

[Margaret3110]

The problem is that St. Nicholas was a real person, as was St. Basil, the other historical figure who is represented by Santa Claus (to a lesser extent, and in some countries), and images of Santa from around the world follow a continuum from those which more closely resemble St. Basil the Great or St. Nicholas of Myra, particularly in Eastern Christian lands, to the more secularized images we have in the West. This continuum and the reality of the persons depicted, even if the clothing style has become distorted and unrealistic, combines to make such images offensive. What is more, the appearance of Santa Claus in terms of his facial hair makes him a generic stand in for almost any Eastern Christian bishop. And St. Basil and St. Nicholas are among the two most venerated bishops of the Eastern church; indeed St. NIcholas of Myra is probably the most venerated bishop (aside from the Apostles), and one of the most venerated saints in the Eastern churches (along with St. Anthony the Great, the Holy Apostles, and especially our glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, who gave birth to God (in the person of the only-begotten Son and Logos) in His Incarnation). Thus any images which reflect adversely on these saints, even if they are based on popular depictions rather than recognized iconography or the actual surviving relics of St. Nicholas (which are in Bari, and miraculously stream myrhh, which they also did when the Eastern Orthodox had them, before the Venetians expropriated them from us without permission); the relics of St. Basil, and also the other two members of the illustrious group known as the Three Holy Hierarchs, St. Gregory the Theologian, of Nazianzus (who was also St. Basil’s best friend and fellow Cappadocian), and the legendary Antiochene preacher and Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, are in the Cathedral of St. George in the Phanar district of the city which should be referred to as Constantinople, having been returned by the Roman Catholics in recent decades, which in retrospect given the increased persecution of Christians under Erdogan was probably a mistake; the cathedral has not even been fully repaired from the last time Muslims tried to burn it down a few decades back, due to lack of government permission.

Also I would note the red attire of Santa Claus might well be influenced by Renaissance, Mannerist and Baroque depictions of many fourth century saints, for instance, St. Jerome, by Catholic artists, who naturally depicted them as Cardinals, since these were the most high ranking clergy next to the Pope at the time.

I'm assuming Cthulhu didn't have a beard in this depiction, although I suppose I could be wrong. In the West we frequently put Santa hats on various things and it's not seen as offensive, but I can understand that sensibilities may be different in predominantly Orthodox countries. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I find this, and what @Tropical Wilds mentioned, to all be very offensive. Of course free speech allows it, and I support free speech, although I would note there are several countries including, surprisingly, Canada where it might be possible to take legal action against such offensive imagery. But that being said I daresay if people were more respectful in what they said, the war of offensive images between different groups in society would subside.

I would also note from a Christian perspective, circulating offensive images whether related to Christianity or other religions seems contrary to the golden rule, since virtually everyone will be offended by some images which are potentially legal in the US. Thus I also object to the term “pearl-grasping audience” for I think we will all clutch our metaphorical pearls at the right offensive visual stimuli, even if it is legal.

Huh?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I'm assuming Cthulhu didn't have a beard in this depiction, although I suppose I could be wrong.

He had just the hat. No beard. You wouldn’t be able to see his tentacles if he had a beard.

The Christmas ouija board necklace had no Santa anything on it.

 

[Margaret3110]

You wouldn’t be able to see his tentacles if he had a beard.

I almost said that in my comment, lol. 'Twould be a shame to cover up those tentacles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Never have I ever once had any non-Christian attempt to impede in any way my celebration of Christmas, either public or private. I suspect that the War on Christmas is a mostly imaginary event, like the Satanic Panic of the 80's.

Yeah, pretty much. It's a hoax t stir up people dumb enough to fall for it.