The Daniel Clause of Midnight Christmas Mass that Confounds the Liberal Vatican.

The Daniel Clause of Midnight Christmas Mass that Confounds the Liberal Vatican.

When Christmas Eve comes,

The midnight Mass commences with the great discourse of the state and time of history when Christ enters the world.

Incidentally, within these great declarations is a reference to the 65th week of Daniel.

It refers to a prophecy of the prophet Daniel in chapter 9 in which Saint Gabriel lays out how many weeks of Jewish years will transpire from when the word goes forth to rebuild the Temple unto the anointed Messiah. The total number of weeks for the entire transpiring of the transition from old to new is 70 weeks of years. So 70 weeks of years is 70 * 7 or 490 years.

It so happens that the word went forth to rebuild the Temple under Artaxerxius in 444 bc Roman years. The anointed one manifests himself publicly effectively in Roman years ad 30.

The appearance of the Messiah is not at the very end of the 70 weeks but rather at the beginning of the 70th week or derivatively the end of the 69th week.

This is because the Christ's public ministry begins when he is age 30, and ends exactly 1/2 week of years later, or three and one half years after his anointed appearance when he is 33 years old. The remaining 3 and 1/2 years are sent forth to the future when the Romans destroy the temple in the 70 AD under Titus.

Well let us consider that again, Messiah appears one week from the very end of the set.

The total length of the set is 70 weeks of Jewish years, or 70 * 7 or 490 Jewish years. And Messiah appears 7 years earlier, or one week before, or 490 -7 = 483 years.

The problem here is course that in roman years, 483 - 444 = 39 ad, but christ came in ad 30.

The solution is that a jewish year is 360 days, not 365.25, which is roughly how many Roman days there are in a year on average.

Therefore to get the true time according to roman years, we need to compute how many days there are in 483 Jewish years and divide by the number of days in a Roman year, which again is 365.25 roughly.

The conversion is there for this

(360 / 365.25) * 483 = 476 roman years.

 Now the situation is much better.

476 years - 444 years is 32 years.

Very close to Jesus. But even better, there is no year zero for the expansion, so we can take another year off and get ad 31. And considering that scholars do not completely agree on the appearance of the Christ , this is pretty darn good.

So now returning to the statement in the great midnight Mass Christmas canticle about the historical time and situations in which the birth of the Messiah occurs, the following clause is made

“in the 65th week of Daniel”

One will now say well that doesn't look right because Messiah appears at the end of the 69th week.

Okay, but the 69th week appearance is the public manifestation of the Christ of his ministry.

The 65th week is when he is born, since, again this clause is part of the Christmas declaration, which involves his first coming in the very earliest phase as a babe, the ultimate celebration of Advent, although at the same time in anticipation of the second coming.

And in fact now we can work this out to see that it really is when Jesus was born.

How?

Well again we know that at the very end of the 69th week, jesus is 30. So then, to get the week of years within which he is born, we must count back 30 years, breaking them up into segments of seven, to make weeks, and then possibly having a small remainder of years left.

Okay well that is not hard. 30 / 7 = 4 weeks of years remainder 2 years (30 = 28 + 2 = 7 * 4 + 2)

Well here we go. If we go four weeks back from the end of the 69th week, that is just 69 - 4 = the end of the 65th week.

And if we subtract two days, we get a time, lo and behold, which is within the 65th week since it is 2 days before the end of it.

Awesome, tradition knows what it's talking about when it assembled this wonderful tentacle within the midnight mass of Christmas.

For the record, the modern Catholic Church still hasn't removed the clause. And why would they?

Because the modern Vatican doesn't believe in FOREtelling, only, FORTHtelling. It is indeed true that the vast majority of the prophets of the old never foretell the future really in any great sense, other than to talk about the big thing like assyria or Babylon.

This is to say that in the vast majority of cases, the prophets are not quote on quote for telling the future, but rather just telling the Jewish people clean up your act or you will get a spanking.

Daniel however is quite unique from all the others when we go by the sacred tradition of the church, even back to Augustine. In fact, the majority of the Book of Daniel is in fact for telling the future. Even more so in Epic ways, such as the rise and fall of empires, the ultimate Triumph of the Catholic church over paganism, details about the empires that will rise between Babylon and Rome, details of the transition from medo Persia to Greece and even under the terrible Maccabees struggle that concludes the Jewish history of of the scriptures of the Old testament.

It is the first time that st Gabriel appears in Scripture which many persons may not realize since St Gabriel is also the angel that inaugurates the first coming of the Christ through the Annunciation to the virgin.

What does this have to do with the modern Vatican?

Well if we go back to Saint augustine, the tradition of the church sees within Daniel all these prophecies because they are perfectly fulfilled when taken in common sense.

At that time there was a pagan named porphry, who did not believe in prophecy and so tried to rip up Daniel and come up with meanings and that were not prophetic. Well Augustine basically tore him all apart and vindicated the prophetic interpretation.

These wonderful realities stayed within the Catholic tradition until modern times, when rationalists and modernists came along, who simply don't believe in prophecy because they do not believe in miracles.

Consequently, these non-believers, as it were argue that Daniel was just written after most of the stuff that it claims to prophesy.

This is in other words, called or dubbed late dated interpretation.

 The reality of course, is that there is not any new evidence to support it, it is just their lack of faith that is a blatant bias. And their so-called new evidence that it is late dated, really isn't because they just resurrect the BS that porphry did centuries ago.

 But the modern vatican, of course has become largely liberal when it comes to apocalyptic literature, and therefore it treats The Book of Daniel as well as the Apocalypse as merely Coded comfort as it were, intended by a sacred author to have an agenda simply to give hope to persecuted peoples of God and difficult circumstances.

All of the symbolism is not prophecy in any sense but just coded stuff that only the people would understand.

As a consequence, the vast majority of bishops and priests in this nation , even maybe Orthodox ones, and probably even in the west, have no idea what this clause means much less how it really is a point of controversy, since if the liberals had control of the canticle of Christmas midnight Mass, they probably want to remove it because it doesn't fit their agenda.

If one needs proof, just compare the foot notes of The New American Bible on Daniel with the footnotes of Douay Reims. The differences are striking.

I hope that someday the Vatican will stop kissing the butt of the liberals and the rationalists, and begin once again to see the plain common Sense prophecy of Daniel.

And also as well, stop being more or less liberal about the apocalypse and confining it mostly to the first century, instead of seeing it as prophetic, not as with Daniel literal Empires that are physical and physical time period s, but rather spiritual ages of the church and the world with theological meanings doctrinal meanings Sacramental meanings.