Stable or Cave?

[GaryTaylor]

Catholic Catechism

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

Some of the traditions are cultural. Like the Rosary among others.

 

[John_Lazarus]

…umm, why is there string in my popcorn?

It’s not a string…it’s a thread.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Ha ha ho ho…very punny… It’s ok, One must not always bee too particular in this life.

 

[fred_conty]

Does the Church teach that the Church of the Nativity is where Jesus was born?

About 390 AD, St. Jerome made a Latin translation of the Bible. And tradition has it that he went back to Bethlehem, to the original home where Jesus was born, to do this.

Also on EWTN, Marcus Grodi had a guest on who made historical movies of the holy places. He said that the holy places of Jesus were strongly kept in the minds and tradition of the people in the area until a certain emperor built shrines to the gods on top of these places. And in doing this, the emperor actually marked the places where the holy places had been. So that later, by uncovering these very places, they found the original churches and shrines of the holy places. Most of these places are accurate but there are a few which remain in doubt. But the nativity is not one of these.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Constantine’s mother, Helena, found the sight which was there and then built the Church. Emperor Hadrian destroyed the area but the place of the nativity was always in some fashion preserved. Pretty much connects the nativity history to the first century.

 

[patrick457]

About 390 AD, St. Jerome made a Latin translation of the Bible. And tradition has it that he went back to Bethlehem, to the original home where Jesus was born, to do this.

The reason Jerome was in Bethlehem was essentially because Rome was no longer a safe place for him to be in: his patron Pope Damasus had died, and he was very unpopular among the Christians (especially the priests) in Rome, because he was very harsh in his condemnations of what he saw as decadent corruption on the part of the secular clergy, while being surrounded by a circle of women followers, from well-born families. (In other words, Jerome was attacked as a hypocrite.)

One of Jerome’s closest followers was Paula, a wealthy widow who hailed from one of the richest senatorial families in Rome. Under Jerome’s influence she and her daughters (Eustochium and Blaesilla) gave up their wealthy lifestyle, but the rigors of asceticism took a toll on Blaesilla’s body that she died soon. That was the last straw for the Roman Christians: they blamed Jerome for killing Blaesilla. (It did not help that Jerome tried to dissuade Paula from grieving over her daughter.) So it was in that context that Jerome, along with some friends of his, left Rome for good to settle in the Holy Land. Paula and Eustochium soon joined him there.

And the translations from the OT he made while he was in Bethlehem was unlike the revision of the NT and the Psalms that Pope Damasus ordered him to do years back, in that it was not done under official pressure. It was just a private project (just one of the projects he was doing at that time, in fact - the man was a workaholic), which he did because his friends kept asking him to translate books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. And he was doing this while writing other books and being involved in the (very messy) Origenist controversy instigated by another saint - Epiphanius of Salamis!

Also on EWTN, Marcus Grodi had a guest on who made historical movies of the holy places. He said that the holy places of Jesus were strongly kept in the minds and tradition of the people in the area until a certain emperor built shrines to the gods on top of these places. And in doing this, the emperor actually marked the places where the holy places had been. So that later, by uncovering these very places, they found the original churches and shrines of the holy places. Most of these places are accurate but there are a few which remain in doubt. But the nativity is not one of these.

That was true in the case of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: a Roman temple was built in Golgotha and over one of the tombs in the area (which could very well be the tomb Jesus was buried in). But the difference between the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Nativity is that the Holy Sepulchre has a relatively stronger case going for it: not only do we have a solid early Christian testimony for it, archaeology also shows that there is nothing which precludes the area possibly being the biblical Golgotha and the actual place where Jesus’ tomb was.

But in the case of the Nativity Church, there’s the issue of the vagueness in the actual tradition: the earlier traditions (as recorded in the Protoevangelium of James and in Justin Martyr) state or imply that the cave where Jesus was born was in the outskirts of Bethlehem. But the current location - which was identified since the time of Origen - is well within the borders of ancient Bethlehem. Not to mention that there’s also the issue of whether the history gave rise to the tradition (i.e. Jesus was born in a cave, and Christians later connected that to Isaiah 33:16), or whether the scriptural interpretation gave rise to the tradition (Christians read Isaiah 33:16 and thought that Jesus must have been born in a cave - the actual historical ‘fact’ notwithstanding.)

 

[GEddie]

That the Nativity Basilica is now “within” Bethlehem doesn’t mean much. Scripture states that J’lem and B’hem were some distance walk apart; today they are side by side.

ICXC NIKA

 

[fred_conty]

The reason Jerome was in Bethlehem was essentially because Rome was no longer a safe place for him to be in: his patron Pope Damasus had died, and he was very unpopular among the Christians (especially the priests) in Rome, because he was very harsh in his condemnations of what he saw as decadent corruption on the part of the secular clergy, while being surrounded by a circle of women followers, from well-born families. (In other words, Jerome was attacked as a hypocrite.)

One of Jerome’s closest followers was Paula, a wealthy widow who hailed from one of the richest senatorial families in Rome. Under Jerome’s influence she and her daughters (Eustochium and Blaesilla) gave up their wealthy lifestyle, but the rigors of asceticism took a toll on Blaesilla’s body that she died soon. That was the last straw for the Roman Christians: they blamed Jerome for killing Blaesilla. (It did not help that Jerome tried to dissuade Paula from grieving over her daughter.) So it was in that context that Jerome, along with some friends of his, left Rome for good to settle in the Holy Land. Paula and Eustochium soon joined him there.

And the translations from the OT he made while he was in Bethlehem was unlike the revision of the NT and the Psalms that Pope Damasus ordered him to do years back, in that it was not done under official pressure. It was just a private project (just one of the projects he was doing at that time, in fact - the man was a workaholic), which he did because his friends kept asking him to translate books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. And he was doing this while writing other books and being involved in the (very messy) Origenist controversy instigated by another saint - Epiphanius of Salamis!

Things are really messier than we can sometimes imagine. Reality really beats fiction.
Very interesting.

 

[Faith1960]

The big-T Sacred Tradition, yes. But the identification of sacred places are more in the realm of small-t tradition. That’s why you could have two or more different places that could claim to be, say, the real Mt. Sinai or the room where Jesus held His Last Supper or where the Assumption of Mary took place. The exact location is not important - it is the events which those locations (the actual spots or no) evoke which are more important.

I may not really believe the Church of the Nativity could be the actual spot, but it won’t prevent me from going there and commemorating the birth of the Son of God. Same with the other locations.

I don’t think I know what the difference is between tradition and Tradition…

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t think I know what the difference is between tradition and Tradition…

Big T tradition is something that remains throughout our history and supports truth of the faith, generally advanced by a great Saint or Pope. Like the Luminous mystery. Great addition to the rosary in that it adds the public ministry of Christ.
Tradition also hold that St. Helena discovered the True Cross. But some people will argue about it.
Small t tradition is something like the bells at the consecration. This tradition came about due to the need to alert people in huge cathedrals to the Consecration at side altars. Today, we only have one Mass going at a time…so no practical need for bells, although they are beloved of most people. They do still alert us to the reality of the Consecration, but we need them less because (hopefully) we are all aware of what is going on, even without them.

I am a bell proponent btw, so people, please don’t’ jump on me.

 

[Faith1960]

Big T tradition is something that remains throughout our history and supports truth of the faith, generally advanced by a great Saint or Pope. Like the Luminous mystery. Great addition to the rosary in that it adds the public ministry of Christ.
Tradition also hold that St. Helena discovered the True Cross. But some people will argue about it.
Small t tradition is something like the bells at the consecration. This tradition came about due to the need to alert people in huge cathedrals to the Consecration at side altars. Today, we only have one Mass going at a time…so no practical need for bells, although they are beloved of most people. They do still alert us to the reality of the Consecration, but we need them less because (hopefully) we are all aware of what is going on, even without them.

I am a bell proponent btw, so people, please don’t’ jump on me.

So are we required to believe that the True Cross is the cross of Christ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So are we required to believe that the True Cross is the cross of Christ?

It would be news to me. It would mean they would have immediately saved the Cross? Whats the chance the wooden torture devices of the Romans were not used over and over. They certainly didn’t build one per man to delight themselves? Still, He had a pretty strong following though a little unsure of themselves on the most part who may have preserved it. They might have retrieved the Cross by divine intervention also. I hear they have the nails too.

 

[pianistclare]

So are we required to believe that the True Cross is the cross of Christ?

No, maybe it was a lousy example.
But the monasteries in Europe that claim to have a piece certainly believe it.
St. Helena’s story is a fascinating one.

The bottom line is, there are many things that we hold to that are not points of salvation.
But they do enhance our prayer lives, by reflecting on them. Anything that points us to the Divine, is good for us.
So much of what we have cannot be proved by science or scholarship. Like where exactly is the spot Jesus was born in, It doesn’t matter. He was born, He saved us through that Cross and Resurrection. People wanted to go looking for it. St. Helena is said to have found it. But whether or not you or I ever see it? Not a salvation point.
Peace!

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I don’t think I know what the difference is between tradition and Tradition…

Worthy of another thread (perhaps a mod can split?). This is really important to our faith.

Here is an overview, but in a nutshell, Tradition is teaching that has been handed down through the Church from Jesus and the Apostles. Eventually Traditions have been put into writing (like the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc). They are key truths to the faith. The other kind of traditions are more like customs-- lighting candles, forms of prayer, etc. Also, belief in certain holy places as the actual places where events happened are traditions-- they are not essential truths of the faith. So, when we talk about the Church of the Nativity being built over a cave where Jesus was allegedly born, it is not a Tradition, but a tradition (custom) that has been handed down since ancient times. Those traditions give us a certain sense of piety but they are not essentials to the faith-- same with the True Cross, the Rosary and other traditions… Hope that helps

I think Patrick Madrid has a book “Why is that in Tradition” that you might want to read…

 

[ProVobis]

It’s about the way different cultures translate and discern the meaning of the original Koine Greek. They reasoned that since it was place that animals were, that it was a stable. But the Church of the Nativity enshrines a large rock area…likely a cave. In which the animals took shelter. Gospel writers meant what they meant, you can study Koine Greek to get a better “sense” of the language. It’s in later times that people ascribe structures that they themselves are familiar with to such scenes.

Perhaps the meaning might have been made clearer had Jerome known 2014 English.

 

[patrick457]

Big T tradition is something that remains throughout our history and supports truth of the faith, generally advanced by a great Saint or Pope. Like the Luminous mystery. Great addition to the rosary in that it adds the public ministry of Christ.
Tradition also hold that St. Helena discovered the True Cross. But some people will argue about it.
Small t tradition is something like the bells at the consecration. This tradition came about due to the need to alert people in huge cathedrals to the Consecration at side altars. Today, we only have one Mass going at a time…so no practical need for bells, although they are beloved of most people. They do still alert us to the reality of the Consecration, but we need them less because (hopefully) we are all aware of what is going on, even without them.

I am a bell proponent btw, so people, please don’t’ jump on me.

Actually, I don’t think the examples you gave are actually part of big-T Tradition. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that Tradition is more about stuff like: the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus, beliefs about Mary (her being immaculately conceived, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God, her assumption), what books belong to the Bible and what books do not, male-only priesthood, the role of the sacraments in salvation.

The story of St. Helena finding the True Cross, while a widespread pious belief, is not a matter of dogma, nor is the Rosary and exactly how it is said part of the ‘big T’. I think they are also in the realm of ‘small t’ traditions.

 

[fred_conty]

I don’t think I know what the difference is between tradition and Tradition…

Teachings that are necessary, and teachings which are not necessary.

Necessary: Trinity, Nativity, Sacraments, Saints, Bible, and so on.

Unnecessary: Holy water recepticles, medals, devotions, pictures, bells, kneelers, shrines, and so on.

 

[ProVobis]

Necessary: Trinity, Nativity, Sacraments, Saints, Bible, and so on.

Everything expressed in the Creed as well.

Unnecessary: Holy water recepticles, medals, devotions, pictures, bells, kneelers, shrines, and so on.

Also, per Trent, Apostolic disciplines: vestments, candles, incense, low-tones at Mass inter alia.

 

[pianistclare]

Actually, I don’t think the examples you gave are actually part of big-T Tradition. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that Tradition is more about stuff like: the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus, beliefs about Mary (her being immaculately conceived, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God, her assumption), what books belong to the Bible and what books do not, male-only priesthood, the role of the sacraments in salvation.

The story of St. Helena finding the True Cross, while a widespread pious belief, is not a matter of dogma, nor is the Rosary and exactly how it is said part of the ‘big T’. I think they are also in the realm of ‘small t’ traditions.

you are right. But the bells are a small t tradition.

 

[Faith1960]

Worthy of another thread (perhaps a mod can split?). This is really important to our faith.

Here is an overview, but in a nutshell, Tradition is teaching that has been handed down through the Church from Jesus and the Apostles. Eventually Traditions have been put into writing (like the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, etc). They are key truths to the faith. The other kind of traditions are more like customs-- lighting candles, forms of prayer, etc. Also, belief in certain holy places as the actual places where events happened are traditions-- they are not essential truths of the faith. So, when we talk about thev Church of the Nativity being built over a cave where Jesus was allegedly born, it is not a Tradition, but a tradition (custom) that has been handed down since ancient times. Those traditions give us a certain sense of piety but they are not essentials to the faith-- same with the True Cross, the Rosary and other traditions… Hope that helps

I think Patrick Madrid has a book “Why is that in Tradition” that you might want to read…

Thanks! You’ve been helpful.