Vatican creche to place Holy Family in Joseph's carpentry workshop

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rlg94086

Guest
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0707162.htm
The Vatican office in charge of the creche’s construction took its inspiration from Matthew’s Gospel account of the birth of Jesus: “When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son and he named him Jesus.”

The central scene was designed to be Joseph’s dwelling and his carpentry workshop with angels hovering above from a small balcony, according to a Dec. 13 written statement by the office for technical services for Vatican City.
…
Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth while “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea” as Matthew’s account also confirms.

Pier Carlo Cuscianna, director of technical services for Vatican City, told Catholic News Service Dec. 14 he was aware of the “polemic” circulating in the press over the Vatican depicting Jesus’ birth in Joseph’s home.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I am “excited” about the new creche idea…
 
I am very concerned and confused. For years we have been led to believe by “The Church” that Jesus was born in a manger far from St Joseph’s home. Now they are saying there is another version. Mathew 1: 24&25, which is being interpreted as Jesus was born in Joseph’s house. I don’t see this in these two verses but I am not a scholar of the Bible. His Holiness knows a lot more than I but it is beyond me why he would change this now. Can someone explain this to me, I would appreciate it.

Thanks and God bless:confused:
 
Domine_Deus said:
I am very concerned and confused. For years we have been led to believe by “The Church” that Jesus was born in a manger far from St Joseph’s home. Now they are saying there is another version. Mathew 1: 24&25, which is being interpreted as Jesus was born in Joseph’s house. I don’t see this in these two verses but I am not a scholar of the Bible. His Holiness knows a lot more than I but it is beyond me why he would change this now. Can someone explain this to me, I would appreciate it.

Thanks and God bless:confused:
Click to expand...
As the article states, both accounts say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1, Luke 2:5). The manger scene (w/shepherds) is only in Luke, along with the Presentation in the Temple. The wise men (or Maji) are only in Matthew, but they are sent to Bethlehem where they went “into the house…” (Matt 2:11) and then Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt (Matt 2:13-15).

So, the accounts differ, but they are not contrary. We know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth. However, their home was in Nazareth, where they returned after the flight to Egypt (which Luke skips over).

I agree that placing the birth scene in Nazareth confuses things, and I disagree with the Vatican’s choice.
 
I don’t recall where I read it, but someone on-line suggested that this might have to do with the fact that Bethlehem is within the occupied West Bank, where as Nazareth is in Israel proper and is a safer pilgrimage location for Christians. This seems ridiculous, but I’ve heard of stranger things.

I’m hoping however that we find out on Christmas Eve that the press had this one completely wrong. There is no doubt in Scripture or Tradition as to the birthplace of our Saviour. I just cannot figure out why anyone, much less people at the Vatican, would intentionally distort the events surrounding Christ’s birth.
 
brockmac said:
I don’t recall where I read it, but someone on-line suggested that this might have to do with the fact that Bethlehem is within the occupied West Bank, where as Nazareth is in Israel proper and is a safer pilgrimage location for Christians. This seems ridiculous, but I’ve heard of stranger things.

I’m hoping however that we find out on Christmas Eve that the press had this one completely wrong. There is no doubt in Scripture or Tradition as to the birthplace of our Saviour. I just cannot figure out why anyone, much less people at the Vatican, would intentionally distort the events surrounding Christ’s birth.
Click to expand...
From what I am understanding of this story, its not about the Palestinian situation in the Middle East. This is about a Creche in Rome.
 
rlg94086 said:
As the article states, both accounts say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1, Luke 2:5). The manger scene (w/shepherds) is only in Luke, along with the Presentation in the Temple. The wise men (or Maji) are only in Matthew, but they are sent to Bethlehem where they went “into the house…” (Matt 2:11) and then Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt (Matt 2:13-15).

So, the accounts differ, but they are not contrary. We know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth. However, their home was in Nazareth, where they returned after the flight to Egypt (which Luke skips over).

I agree that placing the birth scene in Nazareth confuses things, and I disagree with the Vatican’s choice.
Click to expand...
Why does the Catholic church change things like? What is it’s purpose for doing so. It makes it very difficult for the faithful to fallow. I worry that by doing this the true message gets slowly lost and lost and we start entering our own thoughts and myths. Sorry. But I ponder, orally for centurys the word has been given to us, now we have it in writting and everything is being changed…why?

Thanks God Bless
 
I came online today to start this thread, but found it started already.

Yes, it’s very confusing to me, too. I just heard on Catholic radio today (Steve Ray, maybe?) about the church that is built over the cave that is believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. This just makes everyone start to wonder about all the traditions of the Church.
 
nobody said:
I came online today to start this thread, but found it started already.

Yes, it’s very confusing to me, too. I just heard on Catholic radio today (Steve Ray, maybe?) about the church that is built over the cave that is believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. This just makes everyone start to wonder about all the traditions of the Church.
Click to expand...
What did you hear on the radio about what you just mentioned?
 
nobody said:
I came online today to start this thread, but found it started already.

Yes, it’s very confusing to me, too. I just heard on Catholic radio today (Steve Ray, maybe?) about the church that is built over the cave that is believed to be the birthplace of Jesus. This just makes everyone start to wonder about all the traditions of the Church.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason to believe that a stable could not be in a cave?
 
rlg94086 said:
…I agree that placing the birth scene in Nazareth confuses things, and I disagree with the Vatican’s choice.
Click to expand...
I have never seen a Nativity scene that depicted Jesus’ birth, they always show a scene in which Jesus is already born. This one is no different. There is nothing wrong with a work of art considering Christ’s birth primarily according to St. Matthew rather than St. Luke any more than considering the Last Supper according to St. John rather than the synoptic Gospels (a much greater difference than that presented in the two nativity narratives), or any other scriptural story where various sacred authors present the same events from different perspectives.
 
I heard Mother Angelica say once that caves were like stables back then, and cave was what was said. Nowadays most people would picture something different with that word, so they say “stable”. Doesn’t really matter, it’s his birth that does. Just like no one really knows if Peter died right in a certain spot or this was the exact path someone took, it’s supposed to help strenthen faith, not be an exact science.
When I would read words like"He had no relations with her until she bore a son and he named him Jesus." I knew that meant to many, that they were seperating “before and after”. The church says no. Since the time Jesus came wasn’t “high- tec” for writing and reading, you have to go on faith for most things and know that one day, hopefully, we will all know what happened exactly.
Our faith though shouldn’t be on minute details, but on what Jesus taught and how he lived his life.
 
Leopard said:
I have never seen a Nativity scene that depicted Jesus’ birth, they always show a scene in which Jesus is already born. This one is no different. There is nothing wrong with a work of art considering Christ’s birth primarily according to St. Matthew rather than St. Luke any more than considering the Last Supper according to St. John rather than the synoptic Gospels (a much greater difference than that presented in the two nativity narratives), or any other scriptural story where various sacred authors present the same events from different perspectives.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what the scene portrays. However, by the time they went to Egypt, Herod died, and they returned, I doubt Jesus was still in a manger. He was probably a year old by the time they went to Egypt. [Herod killed all the boys under two; probably allowed a factor of two to be sure he got him.] So Jesus was maybe four or five by the time they got back to Nazareth.
 
What is pretty clear is that the manger Jesus was laid in was not located in a central European middle ages style stable traditionally used in such scenes. Also clear, is that Jesus and the Holy Family stayed in Bethlehem for quite some time after his birth - as is noted above. The Magi certainly did not arrive 12 days after His birth either.

Since the Holy Family stayed for some time in Bethlehem, it certainly seems reasonable to assume Joseph worked and that they had some sort of house or shelter other than a stable during all that time. Whatever is in Rome is, no doubt, erected with a certain amount of artistic license - just as the traditional creches are styled with considerable artistic license, and NOT historical or Biblical accuracy.

In short - take a valium folks.
 
Leopard said:
I have never seen a Nativity scene that depicted Jesus’ birth, they always show a scene in which Jesus is already born. This one is no different. There is nothing wrong with a work of art considering Christ’s birth primarily according to St. Matthew rather than St. Luke any more than considering the Last Supper according to St. John rather than the synoptic Gospels (a much greater difference than that presented in the two nativity narratives), or any other scriptural story where various sacred authors present the same events from different perspectives.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the off-handed correction on the use of “birth.” You are right, I’ve never seen a creche with Mary in the process of giving birth to Jesus. :rolleyes:
 
johnnykins said:
What is pretty clear is that the manger Jesus was laid in was not located in a central European middle ages style stable traditionally used in such scenes. Also clear, is that Jesus and the Holy Family stayed in Bethlehem for quite some time after his birth - as is noted above. The Magi certainly did not arrive 12 days after His birth either.

Since the Holy Family stayed for some time in Bethlehem, it certainly seems reasonable to assume Joseph worked and that they had some sort of house or shelter other than a stable during all that time. Whatever is in Rome is, no doubt, erected with a certain amount of artistic license - just as the traditional creches are styled with considerable artistic license, and NOT historical or Biblical accuracy.

In short - take a valium folks.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not that big of a deal. I don’t necessarily agree with the decision, but it doesn’t greatly concern me.

Your hypothesis regarding the home in Bethlehem would fit. There is no set timeline as to how old Jesus was when the magi visited in Bethlehem, so the time between Jesus’ birth and the flight to Egypt could have been 12 days. 🤷 That is one way both stories mesh together without a hitch. Birth in a manger in Bethlehem (w/shephards, angels, etc.); home in Bethlehem (maybe someone else’s home…maybe a temporary home/shop w/plans to stay longer…); visit by maji; flight to Egypt; back to Nazareth.
 
johnnykins said:
What is pretty clear is that the manger Jesus was laid in was not located in a central European middle ages style stable traditionally used in such scenes. Also clear, is that Jesus and the Holy Family stayed in Bethlehem for quite some time after his birth - as is noted above. The Magi certainly did not arrive 12 days after His birth either.

Since the Holy Family stayed for some time in Bethlehem, it certainly seems reasonable to assume Joseph worked and that they had some sort of house or shelter other than a stable during all that time. Whatever is in Rome is, no doubt, erected with a certain amount of artistic license - just as the traditional creches are styled with considerable artistic license, and NOT historical or Biblical accuracy.

In short - take a valium folks.
Click to expand...
Note that the magi went to *the house where they saw the child with his mother Mary *. . . [Mt 2:11] which supports your statement of their taking other quarters.

Also note that the ritual visit to the Temple [Luke 2:22] occurred 41 days after his birth Leviticus 12:2-4, 6] the visit of the magi occurred after that; cetainly more than 12 days after His birth.
 
The only thing that bothers me is why is the change now? Things can be so confusing to our young children this time of year. With all the commercialism and denial of Christ in public this just makes it even harder to keep tradition strong for our young ones. The long time period that this takes place in is not something that most of our children or even adults for that matter have ever had explained to them. So then how do we do this one week prior to Christmas Day?
 
I wish I could remember where I read this, but I believe it has something to do with the dream of St. Joseph. It had to do with a more overarching view of Christ’s infancy rather than just the first few days of his life.

Also had something to do with recent additude that relegates St. Joseph to a minor supporting role rather than the credit he is do as Jesus’ earthly father.

EDIT:

Found the Link
zenit.org/article-21335?l=english
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top