Skip to main content

Advent Series - December 24 - Last One

+
JMJ


December 24


Yesterday we talked about how the Greeks took over Judea, and how the Machabees fought the Greek Seleucids.

Judah Machabeus and his brothers belonged to the Hasmonean family. The Hasmoneans continued to rule Judea and for some time, Judea was independent. The territory of Judea expanded northward to include 2 non-Jewish regions; Sumeria and Idumaea.

During this time, the Jews were mainly concerned with keeping their independence, and the purity of the Jewish religion. 

The Pharisees and the Saducees came into existence, as well as the Sanhedrin.
The Sanhedrin was a council of 71 Jewish leaders who made important decisions.

Meanwhile, the Roman Empire had grown very powerful. So far, Judea was on friendly terms with Rome, but things were about to change.

The leader of Judea died and his 2 sons fought over who would become the next ruler. An Idumean named Antipater saw his chance to gain power. Antipater made a deal with the Romans to take over Judea.

In 62 B.C. the Roman Army entered Jerusalem. In 47 B.C. Judea officially became a Roman province, and Antipater (who himself was not a Jew) was put in charge as Rome’s procurator.

This was prophesied by Jacob (Israel) when he said, 


“The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.” (Genesis 49:10)

By this time Rome had expanded to include most of the known world. Julius Caesar was the Roman ruler, but he would be assasinated in 44 B.C. (“Et tu, Brute!”)
Julius Caesar’s grand nephew and heir; Octavian took over leadership with Mark Antony.

In 37 B.C. Antipater’s son, Herod succeeded his father as procurator.
Although he worked for Rome, Herod made everyone call him “King Herod the Great”.

Meanwhile, Mark Antony (and Cleopatra) began fighting Octavian over who would rule Rome. Octavian won and took the name Caesar Augustus in 27 B.C. Caesar Augustus ruled from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14.

St. Jerome said that this was the first time that the world was truly united and there was no war. The Romans built roads connecting every country, and everyone spoke Latin. Conditions were just right for the spreading of the Gospel.

“And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled…and Joseph also went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem…to be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.” (Luke 2)

Our Lord was from the line of King David. Like King David, He was born in Bethlehem and would later rule (from the cross) in Jerusalem.

“And it came to pass that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Our Lord was placed in a “manger” (a place for feeding), in the town of Bethlehem, which means “House of Bread”. This prefigures the Holy Eucharist. Jesus is the Bread of Life; Who comes to us in Holy Communion.

“And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them…And the angel said to them: Fear not; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy…For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2)

Rulers may fight for power and kingdoms rise and fall, but God does not change.

May the Infant Jesus; the Eternal Word made flesh; bless you on His birthday!




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...