O, come all ye faithful to ... ah ... um ... Nazareth?
We are now expected to believe—at least until they change it again—that Jesus Christ was born in Nazareth, and not in Bethlehem as Matthew and Luke relate!
Should anyone be unaware of the problem with Modernist existentialism in the Conciliar Church, the latest idiocy should serve as a clear and simple illustration. In fact it is a little bit over the Modernist top. The Modernists are of the delusion that religious truth exists, but that it is nothing more than the pious sentiment of believers, and that with enough “dialogue” between “acting persons” truth can change. Gone are the days when the Catholic Church spoke authoritatively for Jesus Christ—today, in Her Modernist iteration, She is but a voice amongst many, at best a leader in the discussions about what “believers” are going to believe until the next round of talks.
The Mass, each of the Sacraments, the Bible, the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the primary end of marriage, the evil of approving and participating in false religion and false worship—all of these things have changed at the whim of the Conciliar Church. Most of these changes came as the result of “dialogue” with non-Catholics—only a few were unilateral—like the falsification of Christ's words at the Last Supper, or Pope Benedict's attempt to falsely equate hope with faith in his latest encyclical, Spe salvi.. At least for this year, we are to believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth, in Saint Joseph's carpentry shop—an apparently unilateral change of the Vatican's “religious sentiment.” The claim is that Saint Matthew's Gospel confirms this “sentiment,” apparently at variance with Saint Luke:
As anyone with access to a Bible can quickly verify, the claim is ridiculous. The quote is loose enough as to be called a fraud—Saint Matthew clearly indicated that time transpired between the event at Nazareth and the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke do report our Lord's Nativity with different perspectives—for example, Matthew reports the problem with King Herod while Luke does not, and conversely, Luke reports the presentation of the infant Jesus in the Temple while Mark does not. Failure to mention a peripheral fact does not disqualify either author—Saint Mark and Saint John don't mention our Lord's infancy at all, but no one suggests that He didn't have one! Both Luke and Matthew are perfectly clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Ah! perhaps Joseph operated a chain of carpenter shops, with locations in Nazareth and Bethlehem? If we knew where else, perhaps we could predict the site at which we will be expected to believe the Nativity took place next year.
And perhaps the three kings are part of Joseph's carpentry operation as well, appearing wherever the “the pious sentiment of believers” has Jesus being born in any given year. Perhaps if enough of us concentrate real hard, next year Jesus will be born in Mecca, and a statue of His twin sister will be there as well.
In a nutshell, the problem with the Conciliar Church is the paranoid delusion that all truth is subjective and subject to Its whims, rather than it being objective and immutable in the mind of God.
This article can be viewed full screen at