At what point does inclusion become syncretism?

I would estimate at about 1969, give or take a year here or there.

Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrəˌtɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.

Lol @MJO… holy cows and sacred elephants!

Putting the statue of a saint who has not satisfied your prayers outside in the rain was a common Irish practice I believe, or standing it on its head.
As to syncretism, whence the title Pontifex maximus do you suppose?

As ruler of Rome, Augustus had to lead by example. He re-established traditional social rules and religious rituals, sacrificing animals to Rome's gods. In 12 AD he made himself Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of Rome and head of the Collegium Pontificum, the highest priests in the land.

Originally, the title was tied to the chief priest of Jupiter then the emperors took it for themselves. Now the popes have the title.

Francis,

It's in the lore of the Byzantines.

Unless you are one of those who think Christ was actually born on Dec. 25th

He was.

Stulte - Yes, we can surely "know" that, because we "know" that the Annunciation occurred on March 25!

These dates and such were not of great importance to early Christians. They were more interested in staying alive than recording history. The ancients also had a far different approach to history in terms of what was important and what wasn't. Not that the Latins would make anything up - Donation of Constantine remember? Totally false and a self serving lie.

I am Byzantine Catholic, Francis. But I don't believe everything the Latins come up with. Modern scholarship can and has proven them mistaken or flat out wrong on some of their history.

St. John came along 300-400 years after the fact. They celebrated, and still do, on Dec. 25th on the Julian calendar but there is no proof that Dec. 25th was the actual day he was born. We often wonder what sources Dennis the Little used when he set various dates since those sources no longer exist. There is just no real proof and Dec. 25th doesn't rise to the level of an article of faith. If any proof is found and it is on another date, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. It might reorient Christmas shopping but that about all it would do. Taylor Marshall? Might as well quote the National Enquirer.

Many assumptions are unproven. There is no historical record of a census decreed by Augustus.

We have far more proof of the existence of St. Paul than we have for Christ.

The sojourn in Egypt. No proof it happened.

Other than a reference in Josephus, and many scholars doubt its authenticity, there are no records of the crucifixion, either.

On and on. Many of these things we believe are on shaky ground when we try to definitively prove them.

Now some would maintain that they know because Our Lady of Gitche Gumee told Edna of Pittsburg in an apparition...

It is that way with many events. No proof. I didn't say I categorically reject them, just take them with a grain of salt. Many of these "sources" were persecuted members of an illegal sect pushing their own narratives, not unlike many have done since.

The annals of the celestial empire date 1029 BC and the other dates are difficult to coordinate with any western dating for the birth of Christ. By the time Telesphorus, Theophilus and Hippolytus come along, Christ has been dead for over 100 years. I would like to see sources much closer to the fact and they just don't exist. I don't think Christ was well known outside the small area in which he operated.

We don;t know the date of the Crucifixion or Resurrection , and that doesn't bother us at all.

I think you are correct on this. It really doesn't matter.

Well, the long and short of it is that there are only a few things that truly matter. Jesus came to redeem us, died and rose and did indeed redeem us, and told us to go and convert all the nations and to promote the Eucharist of His Body and Blood. See CREDO.

If you want historical facts to build up your faith, your barking up the wrong religion.

Well, I see what you are saying, stulte... I SHOULD have said historical dates...

there is no proof that Dec. 25th was the actual day he was born

If we're using legal or scientific standards of proof, there's no "proof" for any of it, so let's just close this site up and go to the bar.
I'm personally fond of Fr. Wolfe's argument that the Blessed Virgin most certainly knew the day her Son was born, and passed it on to the Apostles and early Church. As tomjaw notes, we have St John Chrysostom's testimony as to the antiquity of the date. There's no reason to litigate it here.

My first thought when I read the OP was "Now the Green Blade Rises." Scripture does talk of a grain that must die to give life. It's not a bad analogy at all.

Now there are alarming items in the article- ie a Mayan idol that is paraded around. However, a critical reading of the article brings one to the conclusion that there are separate groups described in the article that are falsely being mashed together in one by the author. What I read is "Mayans" who are appropriating aspects of Christianity and Holy Week. It is probable that there are Christians who may allow some Mayan beliefs bleed into their Catholic faith, but a quote makes it clear, "“The Mayan tradition of Maximon has nothing to do with the Catholic Church,” he said. “The Church completely rejects this.” This distinction of which group doing the synchronism is an important one!
The title is misleading at best.

so let's just close this site up and go to the bar.

OK... who can meet me in Allentown or Quakertown? It's better discussed over corn liquor!

Popcorn Jesus is a new one to me. I thought I had heard everything.