Puzzled by the Pope's Statement re: No Animals in the Stable at Bethlehem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarpeian_Rock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kithrus said:
This right here would an example of why I’m happy no one knows Jesus’s favorite color because then that’s all evey Christian faith bearer would wear on Sunday.

The pope in his wisdom told us that he doesn’t expect that the inn keeper gave Mary and joesph an occupied stable. It Could have been but the bible says nothing of animals present.

We don’t know. That’s all he said.
Click to expand...
LOL! I am quite sure Jesus’ favorite color was BLUE! Thats why all my church clothes are blue and also my shoes. My eyes are already blue or I would have to get some of those colored contact lenses. 😃
 
The real quote from the official English version:
“No presentation of the crib is complete without the ox and the ass”
Click to expand...
(p. 69).

The media reporting has been using a rather bad translation of the original German, which is something like “Nobody wants to give up the ox and *** in the nativity scene” which would imply that they should NOT be there. WIth the real translation, we see that Papa has said the OPPOSITE.
Keep the animals 🙂
 
Mary was heavily pregnant and therefore would not have been able to walk to Bethlehem, so therefore she would have to ride on a donkey. Therefore the donkey brought her to the place where she would give birth, and so the donkey at least would have been present. The same donkey would carry the mother and child into Egypt .

“And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.” Matthew 2:6
 
We must try to remember that Pope Benedict writes for intelligent, educated adults and not for the media. This is awful hard for some people to grasp.
 
Here is the entire scriptural narrative surrounding the conditions of our Lord’s birth:

Luke 2:7
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
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.

Now, other than these circumstances of being turned away from the inn (among other things) being a type for his later rejection by the chosen people, there is virtually nothing to go on. No mention of animals, or a stable, or of anything, really. Artists, being sentimental and romantic types, have filled in, from their imaginations, the rest of the story. Yet, these are essentially graphic private revelations - not inconsistent with Scripture and Tradition, but also neither defining it. As well, we do not know the other circumstances, such as: were there midwives to assist at the birth? Were any of Joseph’s family present? Since the shepherds came in haste, did they leave the sheep to go in search of their salvation? Mystery abounds.
 
The Pope also pointed out that there IS scriptural evidence of animals at the nativity… namely an ox and a donkey, which are mentioned in Isaiah 1:3.

Read it first, before assuming.
READ IT!!! And where I quoted it above!
 
waanju said:
The Pope also pointed out that there IS scriptural evidence of animals at the nativity… namely an ox and a donkey, which are mentioned in Isaiah 1:3.

Read it first, before assuming.
READ IT!!! And where I quoted it above!
Click to expand...
Mea Culpa. You are soooo right. I jumped into this discussion just like everyone else. Thank for your comment.
 
HelenRose said:
Mea Culpa. You are soooo right. I jumped into this discussion just like everyone else. Thank for your comment.
Click to expand...
Re-reading what I said, my response seemed a little excitable. 🙂 oops
It’s just that the whole issue came from not reading in the first place.
By the way, I really liked your comment!
 
Does it really matter whether or not there were animals at the Nativity? Our image of the First Christmas has been shaped by countless works of art and Christmas cards. If we could go back in time and see the actual scene, I think we would be shocked.

According to the book Jesus and His Times by Daniel-Rops (copyright 1954):
“The manger must have been like one of those which can still be seen today; hollows scooped out of the earth to hold the grain for the cattle. That complete humility which was to be the mark of him who was meek and humble of heart is already manifest from the beginning. The ox and the {donkey}, which we traditionally place on either side of the creche, came down to us from the Apocryphal Gospel of the Nativity, by a writer who perhaps remembered certain passages of Scripture. ‘Ox recognizes its owner, {donkey} knows the way to its master’s crib.’ (Isaias i, 3).”

(I had to change the word to “donkey”, but you know which animal it is.)
 
Kithrus said:
This right here would an example of why I’m happy no one knows Jesus’s favorite color because then that’s all evey Christian faith bearer would wear on Sunday.

The pope in his wisdom told us that he doesn’t expect that the inn keeper gave Mary and joesph an occupied stable. It Could have been but the bible says nothing of animals present.

We don’t know. That’s all he said.
Click to expand...
Good point to bring up.
 
“The manger, as we have seen, indicates animals, who come to it for their food. In the Gospel there is no reference to animals at this point. But prayerful reflection, reading Old and New Testaments in the light of one another, filled the lacuna at a very early stage by pointing to Is 1:3’The ox knows it owner, and the (donkey) its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand.’ …No representation of the crib is complete without the ox and the (donkey).” From the “The Infancy Narratives. Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI.

This doesn’t sound like Our Holy Father has declared that there were no animals.

Catholic . com doesn’t allow us to use the word A-s-s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top