Priest (not ACLU) criticizes nativity scene display

[patg]

The fact remains, the Second Vatican Council did not invoke the
Church’s highest teaching authority.

Sorry, the fact remains that a Dogmatic Constitution issued directly by a pope represents a document of the highest formal authority in the church and is used to proclaim dogma. It matters not what the Second Vatican Council was defined as.

 

[Arnobius]

Oh for the love of…

When someone cites a Church document against the teaching of the Church, one can be certain this person is in error, not the Church.

Dei Verbum is a well reasoned document, and quite valid. However, there are many “Spirit of Vatican II” interpretations out there which are in error.

Dei Verbum insists that:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text). {DV 11]

The issue of the Biblical Criticism that DV calls for is not to find out "what the writer really meant. It is to improve the deeper understanding of what the author intended, what words and images meant.

Anyone who would use it to say the Nativity was a myth would be in error of course, All Biblical Criticisms are to be used within the teaching of the Church, not outside of it. DV says (#12):

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

and

1. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior.

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

Any interpretation of Scripture that would disregard this would be in error. If willfully and obstinately? Well, that would be the definition of heresy, would it not?

As an aside, there have been a few comments in this thread about so-and-so having an imprimatur. Perhaps. However the Dutch Catechism and the infamous Christ Among Us once did as well (before they were revoked). It is a sad fact that some authors in the west were not well policed with what they wrote (one envisions a rubber stamp).

One also has to consider the possibility of error on the part of the reader, missing a nuance, and making the text saying something the author does not intend to say.

However, as I said in the beginning, if anyone should use a Church document to make a position contrary to what the Church teaches, i would call that position a misrepresentation of what the Church document has said.

 

[patg]

When someone cites a Church document against the teaching of the Church, one can be certain this person is in error, not the Church.

The church does not teach that any of the events in the birth stories (other than the virgin birth) must be dogmatically believed. There is no doctrine of the magi or the flight into Egypt.

Dei Verbum insists that:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text). {DV 11]

Teaching the truth has nothing to do with literalistically reading the birth stories; they are quite capable of expressing the truth as to who Jesus was without having any basis in literal history.

And the famous phrase “…truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation” clearly states that the truth applies to salvation. The historic character of a census, a manger, the slaughter of innocents, angels talking to shepherds, etc has nothing to do with a person’s salvation.

Anyone who would use it to say the Nativity was a myth would be in error of course,

Anyone who would use it to say the Nativity was mostly a work of fiction myth would be perfectly in harmony with the document, of course. Those who disagree may be unaware of the concepts of Jewish midrash writing and of the classical literary form which is known as the Infancy Narrative.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The church does not teach that any of the events in the birth stories (other than the virgin birth) must be dogmatically believed. There is no doctrine of the magi or the flight into Egypt.

But, the Virgin Birth is the hallmark of the so-called “infancy narrative” form that you keep saying the gospels contain. If that part of the story, the most amazing and miraculous part, and at the same time the part which most clearly matches the infancy narrative form… if that part of the story is historical fact, then the largest part of the basis for claiming that the story is fictional is gone.

Also there is doctrine about the magi and the holy innocents. The holy innocents are regarded as saints, and the visit of the magi is celebrated in the liturgy.

 

[CollegeKid]

Teaching the truth has nothing to do with literalistically reading the birth stories; they are quite capable of expressing the truth as to who Jesus was without having any basis in literal history.

And, on the contrary, *Dei Verbum *states…

“19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, **really did and taught **for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).”

“Really did and taught.” That includes being born.

 

[patg]

And, on the contrary, *Dei Verbum *states…

“19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, **really did and taught **for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).”

“Really did and taught.” That includes being born.

On the contrary, almost nothing in the birth stories have anything to do with our eternal salvation AND, more significantly, these stories do not relate Jesus really doing or** teaching anything**, they merely relate symbolic events surrounding his birth.

And of course we can’t ignore the statement in Dei Verbum that requires us to consider the literary form of the story. In the two birth stories we have textbook examples of both Jewish midrash and the classical Infancy Narrative, both of which are mostly fiction.

That includes being born.

Yes, I agree that he was born.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

The Nativity story is total fact. Jesus was in fact born. To compare it with Frosty the Snowman makes me wonder your RCIA instructions as it says on your profile page that you are a “Roman Catholic in waiting”.

The point is, that yes, Jesus was born, but the standard Nativity scene that we see is the product of conjecture, ie. the Magi becoming the three wisemen/kings. This thread has some interesting information on what the stable of Bethlehem was probably really like: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291187

 

[CollegeKid]

On the contrary, almost nothing in the birth stories have anything to do with our eternal salvation AND, more significantly, these stories do not relate Jesus really doing or** teaching** anything, they merely relate symbolic events surrounding his birth.

Its called the Incarnation, and it has everything to do with our salvation. Do you really just assume the events related to His birth are pointless details? If so, why have them in there at all?

 

[patg]

But, the Virgin Birth is the hallmark of the so-called “infancy narrative” form that you keep saying the gospels contain. If that part of the story, the most amazing and miraculous part, and at the same time the part which most clearly matches the infancy narrative form… if that part of the story is historical fact, then the largest part of the basis for claiming that the story is fictional is gone.

I don’t think that is necessary at all. The virgin birth is a story which must be taken on faith as their is no human way to even investigate it. Making the statement that it is “historical fact” is really making a statement of faith in its occurence as there is no historical evidence for it that any historian would accept (or anybody else for that matter).

Stories of virgin births are a common feature of the classical Infancy Narrative. Are the birth stories of Alexander the Great all historically true because of his reported “virgin birth”?

Also there is doctrine about the magi and the holy innocents. The holy innocents are regarded as saints, and the visit of the magi is celebrated in the liturgy.

Again, these are items of faith.

 

[patg]

Its called the Incarnation, and it has everything to do with our salvation. Do you really just assume the events related to His birth are pointless details? If so, why have them in there at all?

Jesus did not “do” the incarnation - it happened to him. He actively did the miracles, he actively taught to the people. Besides, I’m perfectly willing to throw in the incarnation as “fact” (based purely on faith). The related birth events are the focus of this discussion. The church teaches the incarnation, it does not teach the others as fact.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t think that is necessary at all. The virgin birth is a story which must be taken on faith as their is no human way to even investigate it. Making the statement that it is “historical fact” is really making a statement of faith in its occurence as there is no historical evidence for it that any historian would accept (or anybody else for that matter).

Stories of virgin births are a common feature of the classical Infancy Narrative. Are the birth stories of Alexander the Great all historically true because of his reported “virgin birth”?

You jumped on the distinction between “historical” in the scientific sense and “historical” in the sense that regular people use it. I’m talking about whether the virgin birth really happened. Not about whether a historian would be satisfied that it happened. But, I’ll avoid that word since it causes confusion.

What about my main point that the virgin birth is the hallmark of an infancy narrative, and that in the case of Jesus, the virgin birth wasn’t a literary device, it was something that actually happened in time. So, the main basis for determining if a story is “infancy narrative” does not apply to this case - since Jesus really did have a virgin birth.

 

[CollegeKid]

Jesus did not “do” the incarnation - it happened to him. He actively did the miracles, he actively taught to the people. Besides, I’m perfectly willing to throw in the incarnation as “fact” (based purely on faith). The related birth events are the focus of this discussion. The church teaches the incarnation, it does not teach the others as fact.

Jesus Christ is God. Nothing happens to God without Him commanding it first. Thus, it is valid (if somewhat crude) to say that Jesus Christ “did” the Incarnation.

On the necessity for the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, to will anything before it can happen, I quote the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verses 1-3:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.”

 

[patg]

What about my main point that the virgin birth is the hallmark of an infancy narrative, and that in the case of Jesus, the virgin birth wasn’t a literary device, it was something that actually happened in time.

Yes, it is a very common thing in all Infancy Narratives. We have faith that ours is really true and that the others are false just as we have faith that our God is number one and the others are something else. It obviously does not define truth but it is a common way of emphasizing the significance of the person.

So, the main basis for determining if a story is “infancy narrative” does not apply to this case - since Jesus really did have a virgin birth.

I’ve never heard (or said) that a virgin birth is the determining factor. It is common but so are strange celestial phenomena, appearances, magical omens, odd behaviors, prophecies, etc. It is also remarkable that in spite of all these events - some of which were locally devasting to the community (such as the slaughter of the innocents) - both authors make remarks in their gospels that imply that no one seems to remember any of it. Why do the locals not expect anything significant from Jesus if the events surrounding his birth were so miraculously visible to all?

In addition to this, we have the almost textbook application of the midrash teaching device as Matthew presents Jesus as the embodiment of the history of his people, especially as the new Moses, and Luke’s perception of Jesus as the the God-man who has come to pasture his people. This writing technique is very common in Judaism after the Babylonian exile. Matthew and Luke’s contemporaries would have been familiar with the technique of using an Old testament text to cast light on a contemporary situation and would not expect it to represent literal history.

 

[patg]

Jesus Christ is God. Nothing happens to God without Him commanding it first. Thus, it is valid (if somewhat crude) to say that Jesus Christ “did” the Incarnation.

On the necessity for the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, to will anything before it can happen, I quote the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verses 1-3:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.”

I already said I wasn’t arguing the Incarnation or any other event the church has declared as dogma.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Why do the locals not expect anything significant from Jesus if the events surrounding his birth were so miraculously visible to all?

Well, the average person wouldn’t know whether Joseph was the father or not. And being visited by shepherds isn’t that extraordinary, even if they had a special story for Mary and Joseph about angels. Three wise men visiting I suppose would be more noteworthy, especially since they had an audience with Herod first, but… is it really that memorable that someone in the neighbourhood was visited by a foreign king, then the family moved away?

The star was probably something that you wouldn’t even notice if you weren’t trained in astronomy.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, it is a very common thing in all Infancy Narratives. We have faith that ours is really true and that the others are false just as we have faith that our God is number one and the others are something else. It obviously does not define truth but it is a common way of emphasizing the significance of the person.

Oh, I thought you were saying that Jesus’ infancy narratives were fictional.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t see that he did anything wrong on this. I guarantee you if some display was up for a Muslim holiday, there would be an outrage. We need to keep religious holiday displays out of government buildings.

I disagree. If they are going to allow secular or atheist displays then they should allow religious displays as well.

 

[patg]

Oh, I thought you were saying that Jesus’ infancy narratives were fictional.

I am. Truth is often conveyed through fiction.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I am. Truth is often conveyed through fiction.

Ohhh I get it… so the virgin birth is true, but in a fictional sense! Now I get what you’re saying.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Looking at what patg says here, the word that comes to my mind is not “Catholicism”. Instead, I would say it more fits “Modernism”.

At the very least, pat seems to be offering an “all that is not expressly forbidden is allowed” argument. But anyone who is familiar with how the Church works knows that this is NOT an attitude which the Church endorses.

We should be seeking to follow the guidance of the Church documents, not attempting to work through loopholes in order to thumb our noses at around 2000 years of traditional interpretation.

Sorry, pat, but between your modernist liberal ideas and what has been held by theologians since the beginning of the Church, I will choose what has been held for around 2000 years over what you have posted here.