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.
T

Tarpeian_Rock

Guest
I acknowledge that the secular media sensationalizes and distorts pretty much everything coming out of the Vatican, the Holy Father’s latest book being only the newest example (specifically, the ginned-up controversy regarding his statement on the actual date of Christ’s birth).

That said, it is also true that the Holy Father has stated in his book that there were no animals around the manger. On its face this would seem to fly in the face of centuries of Christian imagery, beginning with St. Francis at least. Further, it is unclear how he arrived at this statement with the apparent degree of surety contained in his writing. Even further, centuries of Nativity-related preaching have made much of Jesus’ birth amid the natural surroundings of the stable and the symbolism in all that. Finally, the matter of “animals” or “no animals” seems to have perishingly little, if anything, to do with the faith, salvation history, doctrine, dogma, the reality of Christ’s coming among us, or anything remotely related to two millennia of Church teachings.

So: what was the point of this statement? And at this time of the year? And the bottom line: What is now required of us regarding our household or church Nativity displays? To continue to include animals, the traditional plaster sheep or plastic cows, would seem to contradict the teaching of the Pope, and thus be wrong. So are we to strip these out of our home and church displays? Is it sinful not to? Surely to go against the teaching of the Holy Father would seem to have some kind of sanction attached. And what are we to make of the likelihood, if it happens, that the Vatican nativity display in St. Peter’s Square will have the usual animals anyway?

One can make a reasonable case that correcting the understanding of the true date of Christ’s birth is significant in terms of correctly placing him in the historical time-line and known events in the Roman empire. But doing away with animals in the Bethlehem stable?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I acknowledge that the secular media sensationalizes and distorts pretty much everything coming out of the Vatican, the Holy Father’s latest book being only the newest example (specifically, the ginned-up controversy regarding his statement on the actual date of Christ’s birth).

That said, it is also true that the Holy Father has stated in his book that there were no animals around the manger. On its face this would seem to fly in the face of centuries of Christian imagery, beginning with St. Francis at least. Further, it is unclear how he arrived at this statement with the apparent degree of surety contained in his writing. Even further, centuries of Nativity-related preaching have made much of Jesus’ birth amid the natural surroundings of the stable and the symbolism in all that. Finally, the matter of “animals” or “no animals” seems to have perishingly little, if anything, to do with the faith, salvation history, doctrine, dogma, the reality of Christ’s coming among us, or anything remotely related to two millennia of Church teachings.

So: what was the point of this statement? And at this time of the year? And the bottom line: What is now required of us regarding our household or church Nativity displays? To continue to include animals, the traditional plaster sheep or plastic cows, would seem to contradict the teaching of the Pope, and thus be wrong. So are we to strip these out of our home and church displays? Is it sinful not to? Surely to go against the teaching of the Holy Father would seem to have some kind of sanction attached. And what are we to make of the likelihood, if it happens, that the Vatican nativity display in St. Peter’s Square will have the usual animals anyway?

One can make a reasonable case that correcting the understanding of the true date of Christ’s birth is significant in terms of correctly placing him in the historical time-line and known events in the Roman empire. But doing away with animals in the Bethlehem stable?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Interesting. If I understand it correctly, the stable wasn’t overflowing with animals to start with, but I don’t know why the Holy Family wouldn’t have brought the donkey in, you know to keep it from being stolen or lost or anything like that. I also thought that the shepherds might have brought a lamb or two. So maybe there weren’t any creatures when Joseph and Mary got there, but later, who knows?
 
Have you read the statement in context within the book? I have not, so it’s difficult to comment on what he was saying.
 
I’ve only read the first volume of this book, not the second part or this part, but let me point out that it is in no way a Magisterial document. We can feel free to disagree with the Pope’s conclusions wherever we want in the case of a book like this, though his natural “authority” as a scholar should be taken into account of course.

Really the best approach, since we can have such difficulty separating the man from his office, may be to imagine that Joseph Ratzinger had not been elected Pope but instead had retired back to Bavaria and had subsequently published this book, and interpret the book as we would have in that case.
 
celtic_catholic said:
Interesting. If I understand it correctly, the stable wasn’t overflowing with animals to start with, but I don’t know why the Holy Family wouldn’t have brought the donkey in, you know to keep it from being stolen or lost or anything like that. I also thought that the shepherds might have brought a lamb or two. So maybe there weren’t any creatures when Joseph and Mary got there, but later, who knows?
Click to expand...
I doubt that any quadrupeds would have been in there during the birth, or with a neonate lying in the straw!

The “stable” we imagine was actually a rock cave (it is now the crypt in Bethlehem’s Nativity Basilica). It was the nearest available shelter that was adequate for human life. I imagine that during emergencies such as then, the animals were led out and the enclosure cleaned out, and fresh straw put in.

The animals, however, were probably just outside, as shown in many crèches.

Scripture of course doesn’t say.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
I doubt that any quadrupeds would have been in there during the birth, or with a neonate lying in the straw!

The “stable” we imagine was actually a rock cave (it is now the crypt in Bethlehem’s Nativity Basilica). It was the nearest available shelter that was adequate for human life. I imagine that during emergencies such as then, the animals were led out and the enclosure cleaned out, and fresh straw put in.

The animals, however, were probably just outside, as shown in many crèches.

Scripture of course doesn’t say.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Why not? The nights can be pretty cold in that particular region, I always thought that the animal(s) would have provided added warmth. Not that any of us know for sure, but I see no reason why there weren’t at least one or two creatures hangin’ around in an enclosure. I don’t think many of us actually think that the stable was a neat little wooden structure. 🤷
 
Bible does say if there were any animals at the stable. Where the idea came from for animals present I am not sure. Most important thing to know is that Jesus was born

edition.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html
Vatican correspondent for the Religion News Service Alessandro Speciale says that the pope was not so much aiming to debunk popular representations. He is just trying to show that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is a real historical figure, who walked on earth and talked to people like anyone else.
Click to expand...
The pope does not suggest that animals usually depicted in art and sculpture should be thrown out of the Nativity scene, Speciale said.
Click to expand...
“The pope is a traditional man and he doesn’t want people at all to change their traditions,” Speciale said.
Click to expand...
The 176-page volume, that includes a brief foreword, four chapters and an epilogue, traces Jesus’ life up to the age of 12. According to the Gospels, at this age he was presented by his parents in the Temple in Jerusalem, the Vatican said.
Click to expand...
 
_Abyssinia said:
Bible does say if there were any animals at the stable. Where the idea came from for animals present I am not sure. Most important thing to know is that Jesus was born

edition.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html
Click to expand...
Maybe because He was laid in a manger. The key word ‘‘manger’’ seems to indicate the presence of animals. Whether or not it was still being used as a feed box at the time isn’t clear, but it does sort of indicate that some livestock were in the vicinity at the nativity.
 
celtic_catholic said:
Why not? The nights can be pretty cold in that particular region, I always thought that the animal(s) would have provided added warmth. Not that any of us know for sure, but I see no reason why there weren’t at least one or two creatures hangin’ around in an enclosure. I don’t think many of us actually think that the stable was a neat little wooden structure. 🤷
Click to expand...
Somehow I doubt that S. J. would have been able to tend to the BVM and El Niño, and at the same time control the animals. The last thing you need in that kind of a situation is half-ton critters milling around with a baby on the ground.

And although modern sanitation was unknown, I imagine that contemporary Judaism would have seen the wrongness of animal uh, poop, in proximity to a baby.

ICXC NIKA
 
I live on a cattle ranch and have cleaned out horse stables. I love the image of the very clean animals surrounding the Christ Child: but in reality, I will assume that the stable had been cleaned out by the inn keeper before having people move in. Manure really isn’t something you want to deal with when having a baby. Even in a lowly stable, I am sure Joseph saw to it that it was a clean as possible. I am sure that there were animals in the vacinity but not in the building itself.

That knowledge does not in anyway take away the beauty of Christmas decorations and traditions.
 
Yes, while some have been hinting at this, I’ll just say it bluntly: the Bible says nothing about animals being present. And, now the Pope says that there weren’t animals present. Perfectly in line with Scripture. I’ll go with the Pope on this one 😃
 
Does anyone have any quotes of what the pope actually said in his new book? I don’t have it yet. :o
 
I am not sure why any of this matters, but I do believe that there must have been some animals in the area around the cave (stable) of Bethlehem. As a shepherd myself, I can’t imagine every sheep being deserted to come and see the newborn Babe- my understanding of the methods of sheep management in that day and area is that they were enclosed in folds at night. I find it readily believable that it was lambing season at the time, and I have to carry the weak and rejected lambs around with me when my ewes give birth. They would certainly at least have taken those with them. Or possibly not every shepherd went- and some remained to watch over the flock.

I assume that the donkey was kept there too.

I think that for some people, the idea of sleeping in a barn filled with livestock is repugnant. Maybe others, like me, find it beautiful- a wonderful example of humility. In fact, I would most certainly rather be amongst docile cattle and sheep, with their warm sweet breath, then in a dark cave, “sterile” and alone. To me that would be for sure like absolute poverty coming into the world. And maybe in that, it makes more sense. I don’t know. To me it doesn’t matter one way or another.

You should try sleeping in a barn sometime. I do it pretty frequently when the ewes are due. There is absolutely nothing wrong in doing so- and I love it! So quiet and peaceful.

Also, most animals at that time were NOT half-ton. Cattle were mostly far smaller than they are today, and the donkey probably weighed maybe 500 lbs. Not very big. The sheep were probably roughly around 100 lbs each- mature. Newborn lambs range from 4-15 lbs.

Having livestock at home, I can assure you that there are few things safer than docile sheep or donkeys. They are not monstrous beasts. I’d trust a lamb far more than a dog or cat, and lots of people have those in their homes.

Like another poster said, the most important thing- He was born!

And no, I can’t imagine it to be sinful to keep the lambs amongst the Holy Family in the nativity scene under the tree or in the yard.
 
GEddie said:
Somehow I doubt that S. J. would have been able to tend to the BVM and El Niño, and at the same time control the animals. The last thing you need in that kind of a situation is half-ton critters milling around with a baby on the ground.

And although modern sanitation was unknown, I imagine that contemporary Judaism would have seen the wrongness of animal uh, poop, in proximity to a baby.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Although if it was an structure made for housing animals I would think that there would be some enclosure made to prevent the critters from escaping. I don’t think they were just wandering around knocking things over and getting in the Holy Families way.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
I acknowledge that the secular media sensationalizes and distorts pretty much everything coming out of the Vatican, the Holy Father’s latest book being only the newest example (specifically, the ginned-up controversy regarding his statement on the actual date of Christ’s birth).

That said, it is also true that the Holy Father has stated in his book that there were no animals around the manger. On its face this would seem to fly in the face of centuries of Christian imagery, beginning with St. Francis at least. Further, it is unclear how he arrived at this statement with the apparent degree of surety contained in his writing. Even further, centuries of Nativity-related preaching have made much of Jesus’ birth amid the natural surroundings of the stable and the symbolism in all that. Finally, the matter of “animals” or “no animals” seems to have perishingly little, if anything, to do with the faith, salvation history, doctrine, dogma, the reality of Christ’s coming among us, or anything remotely related to two millennia of Church teachings.

So: what was the point of this statement? And at this time of the year? And the bottom line: What is now required of us regarding our household or church Nativity displays? To continue to include animals, the traditional plaster sheep or plastic cows, would seem to contradict the teaching of the Pope, and thus be wrong. So are we to strip these out of our home and church displays? Is it sinful not to? Surely to go against the teaching of the Holy Father would seem to have some kind of sanction attached. And what are we to make of the likelihood, if it happens, that the Vatican nativity display in St. Peter’s Square will have the usual animals anyway?

One can make a reasonable case that correcting the understanding of the true date of Christ’s birth is significant in terms of correctly placing him in the historical time-line and known events in the Roman empire. But doing away with animals in the Bethlehem stable?
Click to expand...
The “nativity scene” has airways been inaccurate, so don’t worry about it.

The typical nativity scene is a hybrid combination of Luke and matthew’s infancy narrative, which are quite different.

Here we have the Holy Family in a stable with critters yes, but we also see Magi AND shepards, the star of Bethlehem AND angels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top