Posted on 12/31/2004 2:26:41 PM PST by Land of the Irish
Two popular weekly magazines, Newsweek and Time, devoted their current issue (Dec. 13) to an extensive cover story on the birth of Jesus. Both magazines probed the questions which scripture scholars, theologians, historians and astronomers have asked for years: Are the Christmas stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the literal truth, or are they stories mostly based on ancient Greek and Roman myths about their national heroes?
It is not surprising that neither magazine gave a definite answer to this old question, and concluded that the debate has not been resolved by scholars. I found much in both articles which are quite acceptable to our Catholic understanding of the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. Some aspects of the articles, however, gave too much credence to opinions which misunderstand the purpose of the gospel narratives. They are not meant to be accurate biographical accounts of the life of Jesus. Rather they are the story of the faith of the first Christians about Jesus. Matthew and Luke were not interested in historical evidence for their account of Jesus' birth, but they were interested in portraying the core facts of this unique event. They reflected the belief of those who were closely associated with Jesus and His disciples and what they wrote is true but not in the sense that every detail is historically verified, although there are important historical details in the story.
The basic truths of the Christmas story is the belief the Church professes every Sunday in the Nicene Creed: "For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." This statement of faith is rooted in the story of Jesus' birth by Matthew and Luke.
The renowned American scripture scholar, Father Raymond Brown (appointed twice by the Pope to the International Biblical Communion), has warned preachers and teachers that it is bad theology and bad pedagogy to proclaim, "there were no magi." This goes beyond what biblical scholarship can prove. While there are reasons for doubting the literal historicity of the Magi in the Christmas story, it is difficult to support with evidence that there were no Magi who visited the Child. Father Brown wisely advises that such negative statements distract from the theological importance of the gospel narratives of the birth of the Savior of the world. Often such unwise and unwarranted statements are said to shock and contribute nothing to the spirituality of the listeners.
In our increasing secular culture and the exaltation of reason over faith, there is value in the public discussion of the historical truth of every detail of the Christmas story. At least it shows that Jesus is of the greatest importance to Christians who believe He is the incarnate Son of God born of the Virgin Mary. I hope it also means that He cannot be ignored by a sophisticated world which seemingly disclaims the world of faith and a miraculous intervention of God into human events.
The song of the angels that night in the small Judean town reveals the deep meaning of this unique birth: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom His favor rests." In their song the angels interpret for us what the birth of this Child means: glory is to God and peace is on earth. The Child is for God's glory and for peace, the peace of all. The angels told the shepherds that the wondrous, tender and love-filled birth was "joy for all the people."
The power of the simple and moving Christmas story is that the Child offers peace and joy to those who with the humble spirit of the shepherds adore Him, and give not the gold of the Magi, but the gift of their lives. The birth of Jesus two thousand years ago is the supreme gift of God's love for us. This manifestation of God's goodness is the reason for the angelic song "Glory to God," and this song should resound in our hearts as we celebrate Christmas and pray that His peace come to our war-torn and violent world, and in every family and community.
May the blessings of the Christmas season be with you and your loved ones and bring you the joy and peace promise to those who adore the Child born, "for us and for our salvation" of a virgin mother.
Ping
Add another bishop to the list of heretics. He must be a friend of McGrath.
Oh my.
"They (the Gospels) are not meant to be accurate biographical accounts of the life of Jesus. Rather they are the story of the faith of the first Christians about Jesus."
Hasn't this guy just been elevated to the new archbishopric? Another modernist benefitting from this pontificate - I wonder if he paid for his position like Kasper did?
Constitution on Sacred Scripture (Dei Verbum) of Vatican II:
"19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4)."
I take it that this is the Council's affirmation of the historicity of the Gospels.
Galveston-Houston got raised to an archbishopric because of demographics, not to reward Fiorenza. He's 74, and his co-adjutor bishop just became his co-adjutor archbishop.
He'll be gone in a matter of months.
Whether his co-adjutor will be an improvement, only time will tell.
Yes. With the recent elevation of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston to an archdiocese, Fiorenza has been named its first archbishop.
Even though he's a heretic, he's in union with Rome and that's all that matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.