This is such a great thread. And at a marvelously appropriate time: just before
we hear Matthew xxiv for the Gospel this Sunday, the 26th and Last Sunday
after Pentecost, and before the beginning of Advent the following Sunday.
I have been hearing Protestants murmur for years about how the date of
Christmas was merely placed in late December to usurp the pagan feast day
of winter solstice or Saturnalia or whatever, and that he was born as many as
4 years B.C. or as late as 4 years A.D., and that there couldn't have been any
larger animals there, or there weren't really any sheep, and on and on. It takes
every ounce of self-control to resist the urge to tear their heads off! Oh, and the 3 kings were just a myth, too. Nobody knows their names! They're not in
A so-called Catholic priest lectured this when my mother was in the
audience during the abominable 1960's, and she came home crying. I was a child,
and such things make an impression. Years later I would sing in the great choir
loft of the famous Cologne Cathedral in Germany, where one can look down from
some 60 feet above at an angle of 30 degrees from the vertical, at the enormous
reliquary behind the sanctuary that houses the first class relics of Melchior,
Caspar and Balthazar...
His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology. You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality. Declaring that we just cannot know exactly when Our Lord was born, aids better in his explanation of this idea. You see, I KNOW when my son was born. I was there. It's real to me. But if I just tell you about his birth, that it could have been a year or two before, it muddies the physical world for you.
His comment that animals weren't present at the Nativity of Our Lord has a mixed message. He is trying to say, and I have not read this book, only the articles, that one arrives at Christianity through mere reason. Animals don't reason of course, so therefore they have no need in Our Lord. That's number one. He also is trying to imply that Our Lord is not King of the here and now, that He is King in the spiritual sense. Animals represent the physical, the material, not the spiritual.
It's all subtly diabolical. A simple person cannot understand the Grand Massa's philosophy. They only hold on to what B16 represents by his authority. They hang on his every word. So those that were already having troubling understanding that Christ really was physically born and a specific time, AS CHOSEN BY GOD, they will continue to wonder "Was Christ really born at all?"
For years I've been hearing Protestants say these same things, and now we
have our own pope saying them.. It comes down to his accommodation of the
error of the enemies of Christ's Church. But he does so under the guise of a
philosophical subtlety. Too bad for him, 100 years ago the Pope Saint warned
us about his ilk.
The statement about animals is quite bizarre, and can't be interpreted charitably.
If the child was put in a manger, and a manger is for animals to eat from, and shepherds came, why would you say there are no animals?
There's another possibility: The manger was abandoned
, a minimalist manger
a manger that alludes
to the deconstructed Church
bastions are torn down, or whose bastions he is still in the process of tearing
, a Church that is no more
than a first class relic of something that once was, and has DIED.
A museum piece!
That's an interesting theory cathmom, that he's making some sort of symbolic statement.
What's undeniable, is that it's subversive of the Catholic religion.
Subversive.. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Who would have known
that Our Lord was warning us that a time would come when our own pope could
become the purveyor of such Pharisaical leaven?!
Indeed -- by saying we don't know WHEN in the year Christ was born, what year, or what he looked like -- you turn Him into something ephemeral, who (God forgive me for even uttering such a phrase) "might not have existed at all!"
I have no doubts that Our Lord forgives you, Matthew.
That's exactly what these destroyers of the Faith would have your mind think.
After all, what historical (real) figure do they cast such doubt about in this way?
See how dangerous it is for the Faith, to start casting doubts like this?
It is the sure way to KILL the faith of a child, to sew such doubts. Such a thing
is a scandal of the highest degree:
"28 And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but
rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew x).
"1 AND he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come:
but woe to him through whom they come. 2 It were better for him, that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he
should scandalize one of these little ones" (Lk. xvii.).
Christ took flesh and blood from a specific mother and became Man at a specific time in history. He is REAL, as is His Godhead, and His future judgment over us is equally REAL.
They can take their phenomenology and shove it where the sun don't shine. I'll take objective reality, thanks.
It is philosophical insanity, is what it is. To tamper with the very foundation of
thought is to put your ability to think in grave danger. To take such a risk in
itself can be a mortal sin. Woe unto them who do so. Our most precious gift
from God is our ability to reason with right thinking, and when we deliberately
subvert that precious gift, there is no end to the error to which we subject
ourselves as a consequence.
His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology. You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality
I like your explanation. Please help me to understand the meaning of 'phenomenology.' I've never gotten my mind around the term. Does it mean perceived reality vs. physical reality? The language of philosophy is not my strong suit.
I'm not much of a philosopher myself, but my husband, who was a student of philosophy, put it into words that I could really understand.
According to phenomenology, one cannot know the world exists in and of itself. One can only know [the] world exists through one's perception. In other words, nothing exists outside of how we perceive it.
God does not exist unless we feel Him or experience Him in some way. Does that make sense?
This is crapola, but this is what B16 believes and is "teaching" through the new church.
Animals can't experience God, therefore He doesn't exist for them.
We can't know a specific date for Our Lord's birth, therefore it is not relevant except in how we perceive Him.
This is an outrage. If more people understood what he was, who his teachers were, what he believes, what he is trying to make the church into, they would run for their very souls! B16 is truly diabolical.
The great Pope Saint Pius X saw this monster coming, this Beast of the
Apocalypse, and he did his best to put a stop to it. He enlisted a saintly man,
his own secretary, the venerable Cardinal Merry del Val, for the task of writing
Pascendi dominici gregis, the landmark encyclical that takes Modernism, slices
and dices it, and hangs it out to dry. Therein, he explains that first the
philosopher proclaims that "God is immanent!" And from that point alone all
else follows like a freight train in transit. When the gate is open, the shipment
of goods is delivered, in spades!
Think of it as an IV drip: you get what the doctor ordered, even if you're
Your husband has done very well, CathMomof7, giving you your "meat in due
season," for you have internalized this doctrine and you can work with it. You
can read the writing on the wall. He is a good student of good philosophy, and
you should count your blessings, because there are a lot of students of bad
philosophy, all around. It is believed and it is popular because it can be a means
to make a lot of money. When their god is material prosperity, the truth is a
victim of collateral damage, and the love of money is the root of all evil.
I would have thought this was from The Onion.
The Onion Sepulveda Unitarian Universalist community came to mind: