Christmas

[Traveler]

I have prejudice in that I do not like the term Christmas, but I am conflicted because this is the celebration of the Messiah (Christ) and his birth.  There is precious little in scripture for such an important and critical event.  The stories we tell of this divine birth are somewhat ambiguous – perhaps even part fantasy.  I have sought for greater understanding and especially a spiritual assurance in my personal pursuit of light and truth.  I am posting for this thread some of my thought and impressions.

I am concerned that following the loss of the “Apostles” to the divine kingdom organization put into place by the Christ that there were demonic intrusions to paganize the disciples of Christ.   I believe that even the time celebrated for the divine birth is not correct – I believe Jesus was born in the springtime of the Hebrew new year and spring equinox.  That there is connection to the birth and the celebration of the Passover.   I think there is important significance for the date April 6th and when that is the day of Easter celebration.

There are some ancient documents that were rejected at the first council of Nice – among these documents was an account of Mary the mother of Jesus.  It was claimed that before Mary was born that an angel appeared to her mother (similar to the birth of John and Jesus) proclaiming the importance of Mary.  In addition there were (signs) in the heavens and stars.  Mary’s mother felt unworthy to raise the child so shortly after the birth of Mary she was taken to the temple in Jerusalem and given to priests there.  It was decided that the child would be given to an elderly priest and his wife that were without children (Zacharias and Elisabeth).  This would explain why Mary was so close to and trustful of Elisabeth.

As Mary grew as a temple virgin, she was said to have a pleasant personality and was a beautiful child.  When she reached the age of 13 she was creating a lot of attention among single visitors – none of whom Zacharias deemed worthy.  There was an older man (Joseph) with older children that has lost his wife that Zacharias thought should marry Mary.  Joseph wanted nothing to do with it because of his age and concern if he married such a youth he would be ridiculed.   Zacharias talked him into the marriage.  This age difference would explain why Joseph is no longer referenced after Jesus reached the age of 12.  This could also explain how it was that Jesus had siblings as spoken of in scripture – but that they were not half siblings through Mary and since Joseph was not his biological father – there were no true blood siblings of the Christ – only siblings of tradition.

From other research – it appears to me that Bethlehem was not much of a city when Jesus was born.  There was possibly only one inn and not much room.  There is no scripture indicating Joseph talking to any inn keeper about a room or a place at a stable.  There are places for travelers (kahn pardon my spelling) and their animals.  It was custom for the sleeping places for people and animals kept separate.   I do not believe that Jesus was homeless but rather was born at would be comparable to a motel.   Bethlehem was also a place where new priests were schooled.  I also speculate that the shepherds that were the only individuals in Israel to have angelic witness were priests taking care of sacred “temple” sheep.

In ancient Israel their mathematics did not have a zero.  When a child was born, it was considered to by one or in their first year.  But in many cultures (including ancient Israel) everybody become a year older at the first day of a new year.  This means that if a baby was born one day before the new year that when the baby was two days old it would be considered two years old or in the second year.  This would explain why Herod had all children two and under killed.  It would also mean that Joseph and Mary did not hang around Bethlehem for two years without work or support.  It could have been only 1 to three months?

One other thing – a few years ago I visited Turkey and the ancient city of Ephesus.   Just outside the city was a small place that many believe was the final living quarters of Mary.  According to tradition Mary did not die but disappeared.  I speculate that she was translated and never tasted death.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:10 PM, Traveler said:

There is precious little in scripture for such an important and critical event.  The stories we tell of this divine birth are somewhat ambiguous – perhaps even part fantasy. 

...

There are some ancient documents that were rejected at the first council of Nice – among these documents was an account of Mary the mother of Jesus.

...

According to tradition Mary did not die but disappeared.  I speculate that she was translated and never tasted death.

I can't help but notice that you're rejecting scriptures that we call canonical, calling it "fantasy."  Then you choose to cite (and preach) apocryphal works as if they are canonical.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

I thought to post in this thread concerning what many think are inconsistencies, contradictions or rejections of one idea in order to consider the possibilities of another.   I will admit that this is a prejudice of mine towards many that argue religious notions --- that there often seems to be to be an attitude among those arguing religious point that to disagree (or I would say to offer other views) creates inconsistencies and contradictions that are tantamount to the rejections of the notions that they hold from their religious foundation.

I would compare Einstein and his explanations in science to the explanations of prophets in religion.  I realize that in so saying many would think that I hold science (empirical evidence) above religion (that which is spiritual).  That would be a misunderstanding of my point of view.  Einstein suggested a solution to empirical inconsistencies and contradictions.   He called his suggestion a reference frame.  That all truths are better understood by understanding the reference frame from which evidence is obtained.

I would suggest that Moroni chapter 10 of the Book of Mormon testifies of this from a spiritual frame of reference.  Moroni calls these spiritual frames of reference spiritual gifts.  Moroni goes on to suggest that all individuals that exist in mortality are given unique spiritual gifts and that this is for the purpose that one spiritual gift (reference frame) not be excluded for another but that such are given so all may be uplifted – that those seeking divine light will find divine light in ever individual.

I will now turn to what @Carborendum calls canonical scripture to demonstrate how one spiritual reference frame can seem contradictory or inconsistent to the other when in reality truth can be spiritually obtained from both.  Lets begin with Matthew chapter 2 verses 13 and 14:

Quote

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

Now let us consider the spiritual reference frame of Luke chapter 2.  In this reference frame there is a lot concerning Jewish traditions including circumcising and making offerings in the temple of Jerusalem.  Luke also make reference to individuals at the temple that received revelations concerning the baby Jesus.  Let us now look at verses 38 and 39:

Quote

38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

 

When they left did they go to Egypt or to Nazareth?  Is believing one rejecting the other?

 

In the Book of Mormon there is a reference to a portion of the religious community that will refuse to even consider anything concerning the Book of Mormon – 2Nephi 20:3:

Quote

3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

Perhaps we can substitute for Bible the reference of canonical scripture.  The concept of scripture canon is a pagan notion.  Latter-day revelation has given us what we call standard works but with the caveat expressed in the 9th Article of Faith:

Quote

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I do not intend to give anyone the idea that I know any more than anyone else concerning Christmas and the birth of Christ.  I do intend to offer as many points of reference as possible and allow those reading to decipher for themselves.  I would suggest that those interested read the ancient accounts for themselves.  I would suggest that it is good to be informed concerning the counsels of men that determined our scripture canon.  The reference of Mary’s birth and her connection to Elizabeth and to Joseph and the siblings of Jesus I offer as a spiritual reference frame for each individual to decide for themselves.   Those of ancient time that had such record text in their libraries (prior to the selections of canon) believed such texts to have originated with Saint Matthew – the same that wrote the Gospel of Mathew.  Were they correct in their belief?  Were those that created the canon scripture correct to leave this text out?

I believe the attitude of the Pharisees concerning scripture mislead many concerning Christ.  I have found understanding of the Christ by searching all that profess the Christ.  True there are elements of which I am skeptical.  But I have learned that it is best to listen to things from the ancient past that for whatever reason have been preserved and made known today.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 27, 2023 by Traveler

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

He called his suggestion a reference frame.  That all truths are better understood by understanding the reference frame from which evidence is obtained.

Hmm.  Sounds like a sphere.

Quote

D&C 93:30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

When they left did they go to Egypt or to Nazareth?  Is believing one rejecting the other?

Some interesting factoids:

1. Per Leviticus 12, they would have gone to Jerusalem after 41 days (8 + 33).  So, if we assume they stayed in Bethlehem for those 41 days and then went to Jerusalem as required, the events of Luke 2 happened around that time, including going to Nazareth.

2. It may or may not be meaningful that they went to Jerusalem every year at Passover.  (Note that Bethlehem is very close to Jerusalem (about 2 hours away by foot), and lots of people go to "Jerusalem" at Passover - and perhaps spill out into surrounding towns.)

3. In Matthew 2, Herod kills all children 2 years of age and younger.  You've explained the math here, but it's still a wide range of time - meaning, the visit from the wise men doesn't have to have happened in those 41 days.  Indeed, depending on where "in the east" is (some speculate Babylon), it likely took them more than 41 days just to make their journey.

Verse 1 can be referring to initiating events more than precise times - after all, the star appeared at the birth of Christ, not before, so the wise men couldn't be there "when Jesus was born in Bethlehem" - it would have to be considerably after.  At the very least, they've found a "house" (Matthew 2:11) - not in the manger any more...

4. Herod's experts tell the wise men that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, and Herod sent them there, saying (emphasis mine): "Go and search diligently for the young child..."  OK, sure, maybe that meant infant, or maybe not.

5. Now let us look at exactly what verses 9 and 10 say, without assuming what they say:

Quote

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

• They left the king
• And oh, hey, look, the star!  Let's follow it.
• The star stopped when it "came and stood over where the young child was" - again young child.  (Moving star - did you know about the Chinese record of the comet (or meteor, or something, I forget now) from this time?)
• They rejoiced when they saw the star

Maybe, just maybe, instead of going to Bethlehem (2 hours of following the star?), they followed the star for a week until it came to Nazareth - or when night fell, they saw the star and it wasn't over Bethlehem, so they picked up and headed north...

6. They were warned not to return to Jerusalem (hard to do if they're in Bethlehem, but easy if they're in Nazareth).

7. Now, before you say, but why send Joseph to Egypt if they're in Nazareth and Herod is going to kill all the children in Bethlehem?  Surely Herod wasn't a complete idiot.  Joseph was there for a census.  It's likely that census would have noted he was there with wife and newborn son.

v13: "Herod will seek the young child to destroy him" - maybe Herod searched the census records.  That v16 doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.   I mean, dude had to know about the census, right?

Anywho, point is that the events can easily fit together without contradiction - the accounts are sufficiently vague that almost anything could be true.

[Traveler]

On 12/27/2023 at 1:29 PM, zil2 said:

Hmm.  Sounds like a sphere.

 

Some interesting factoids:

1. Per Leviticus 12, they would have gone to Jerusalem after 41 days (8 + 33).  So, if we assume they stayed in Bethlehem for those 41 days and then went to Jerusalem as required, the events of Luke 2 happened around that time, including going to Nazareth.

2. It may or may not be meaningful that they went to Jerusalem every year at Passover.  (Note that Bethlehem is very close to Jerusalem (about 2 hours away by foot), and lots of people go to "Jerusalem" at Passover - and perhaps spill out into surrounding towns.)

3. In Matthew 2, Herod kills all children 2 years of age and younger.  You've explained the math here, but it's still a wide range of time - meaning, the visit from the wise men doesn't have to have happened in those 41 days.  Indeed, depending on where "in the east" is (some speculate Babylon), it likely took them more than 41 days just to make their journey.

Verse 1 can be referring to initiating events more than precise times - after all, the star appeared at the birth of Christ, not before, so the wise men couldn't be there "when Jesus was born in Bethlehem" - it would have to be considerably after.  At the very least, they've found a "house" (Matthew 2:11) - not in the manger any more...

4. Herod's experts tell the wise men that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, and Herod sent them there, saying (emphasis mine): "Go and search diligently for the young child..."  OK, sure, maybe that meant infant, or maybe not.

5. Now let us look at exactly what verses 9 and 10 say, without assuming what they say:

• They left the king
• And oh, hey, look, the star!  Let's follow it.
• The star stopped when it "came and stood over where the young child was" - again young child.  (Moving star - did you know about the Chinese record of the comet (or meteor, or something, I forget now) from this time?)
• They rejoiced when they saw the star

Maybe, just maybe, instead of going to Bethlehem (2 hours of following the star?), they followed the star for a week until it came to Nazareth - or when night fell, they saw the star and it wasn't over Bethlehem, so they picked up and headed north...

6. They were warned not to return to Jerusalem (hard to do if they're in Bethlehem, but easy if they're in Nazareth).

7. Now, before you say, but why send Joseph to Egypt if they're in Nazareth and Herod is going to kill all the children in Bethlehem?  Surely Herod wasn't a complete idiot.  Joseph was there for a census.  It's likely that census would have noted he was there with wife and newborn son.

v13: "Herod will seek the young child to destroy him" - maybe Herod searched the census records.  That v16 doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen that way.   I mean, dude had to know about the census, right?

Anywho, point is that the events can easily fit together without contradiction - the accounts are sufficiently vague that almost anything could be true.

Thanks

 

Your pickup concerning sphere is absolute genus.  The more I consider this notion the more impressed I am.  A sphere adds to the dimension concept over that of a platform.  This bring me back to revelations given by Joseph that was so far a head of its time.  Even theories coming forward because of the James Webb telescope are trying to solve creation of the universe through thinking beyond the normal dimensions.   Your post has me going back through scripture and various quantum theories and rethinking a great deal --- Thanks.

Concerning the 41 days in Jerusalem there are a number of elements in history that play into this story.  You may want to do some research into a possible historical character known as Prester John.  If you can get Islamic references from the time of Salah Al Din.  Also, there is an interesting document kept by what is called the Nestorian Christians.  I surmise that Prester John was more a title than a name of an individual.  The document I mention is a letter claimed to be written by the hand of Jesus.  Short part of a long story – the letter is carbon dated to the time of Jesus and the parchment is from the area of Israel.  The back story is that a ruler priest in Persia was converted that Jesus was the Mesiah and sent an envoy to draw his picture and get Jesus to leave Jerusalem (Israel) and come live under his protection.   The picture was lost in time, but the letter (according to claim) was preserved.   The Nestorian Christians supposably knew about the star from ancient text that were destroyed with a library about the same time as the library of Alexendria.   I first learned about the Nestorian Christians when some fled Iran when the Shaw of Iran fell, and the current regime took over.  Having met an individual (Nestorian Christian) that had fled Iran and learned their version of Christianity (especially the G-dhead) caused a paradigm shift in my thinking.  I speculate that the Kings bringing gifts had connections to the Melchizedek (priestly king), had connections to revelations not in our Bible and knew the importance of the Messiah as a member of the G-dhead separate from the Father and Holy Spirit.  And – they could have made the journey within the 41 days.

On another note – I have speculated that the Star that appeared was a supernova about 600 light years away – that energy radiation from the supernova would have caused the ozone to turn fluorescent resulting in a night of light without shadows in the Americas.   

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Your post has me going back through scripture and various quantum theories and rethinking a great deal --- Thanks.

Very happy to have given you something to think about!

52 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Concerning the 41 days in Jerusalem

Correction - it would have been 41 days in Bethlehem, and then going to Jerusalem.  (Though I guess they could have left the manger and traveled 2 hours to Jerusalem and hung out there until the days of her purification were complete.  Heaven knows - and I'm content leaving it to them for now. )

[Traveler]

40 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Very happy to have given you something to think about!

Correction - it would have been 41 days in Bethlehem, and then going to Jerusalem.  (Though I guess they could have left the manger and traveled 2 hours to Jerusalem and hung out there until the days of her purification were complete.  Heaven knows - and I'm content leaving it to them for now. )

I had the responsibility of delivering our second to the youngest – at the hospital because the doctor did not make it in time (some story).  I doubt that anyone would remain in the same place (spot) very long where the delivery took place.  Also, this delivery was not so much of a feather in my cap as an incredible accomplishment and achievement for my wife.

I have often wondered what help Joseph had – I doubt he was on his own.  I believe it possible that angles were assisting.  And yet the greatest sacrifice went to Mary to deliver the Christ.  Sometimes I think the contributions of women are not as appreciated as they should be.  Especially in the current gender climate.  It is doubtful the Mary was anxious to travel much over the 41 days.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I doubt that anyone would remain in the same place (spot) very long where the delivery took place. 

Not in the manger, but they may have stayed in Bethlehem.

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is doubtful the Mary was anxious to travel much over the 41 days.

Nope.  Not even the two hours to Jerusalem.  That's why I figured they likely found somewhere in Bethlehem.  Once the census was over, it shouldn't have been that hard...

[Carborendum]

On 12/27/2023 at 11:57 AM, Traveler said:

I will now turn to what @Carborendum calls canonical scripture to demonstrate how one spiritual reference frame can seem contradictory or inconsistent to the other when in reality truth can be spiritually obtained from both.  Lets begin with Matthew chapter 2 verses 13 and 14:

Now let us consider the spiritual reference frame of Luke chapter 2.  In this reference frame there is a lot concerning Jewish traditions including circumcising and making offerings in the temple of Jerusalem.  Luke also make reference to individuals at the temple that received revelations concerning the baby Jesus.  Let us now look at verses 38 and 39:

When they left did they go to Egypt or to Nazareth?  Is believing one rejecting the other?

No contradiction here.  There are a couple of popular interpretations here.

OPTION 1:  The events of Luke 2 occurred earlier than the events of Matthew 2.  This is largely based on the fact that Herod asked when the star appeared and that he had all the children under 2 years killed.  (Note: the usage of "young child" is really a red herring.  The Greek word "paidion" can be used for both infant or older pre-pubescent child.)

Herod must have heard that the star first appeared at the time of the birth.  But the (likely Chaldean) wise men would have travelled hundreds of miles from their home country to Jerusalem.  A minimum of about three months would have passed.  But possibly over a year given certain conditions.

Such an interval could easily have given Joseph enough time to make the trip between Bethlehem and Nazareth a number of times.

OPTION 2:  Matthew was writing to the Jews, using Jewish literary techniques and Jewish understanding of prophecies.  So, he wrote those parts that would be most appealing to Jews who were looking for the Messiah.  He didn't need to describe ALL the details.  He only wrote what was required for the message he was trying to get across to the Jews.

People may take sides and choose one or the other.  But the fact is that they can both be true.  Consider the following narrative:

• As a successful carpenter, Joseph needed to be near the source quite often.  So, his primary residence was in Nazareth.
• As a successful carpenter, Joseph needed to build clients and business in Jerusalem.  So, he visited Bethlehem quite often.
  • Notice Luke 2:4 states that he went to Bethlehem "Because he was of the house and lineage of David."
  • This lineage had nothing to do with the census as some point to.
  • But because that is where Joseph made his money (sold his goods) that is where he would have been taxed.
  • He didn't necessarily do much within Jerusalem proper.  But a suburb of Jerusalem which was common to his family line was a probable choice for him to meet with people to sell his products and services to.
• The events of Luke 2 happened just as described.
• The family went back to Nazareth as indicated in Luke.
• A few trips back and forth for the family equaled one very long trip for the wise men.
• The wise men happened to find them during one of the family visits to Bethlehem.
• At that LATER time, Joseph was prepared to go back to Nazareth as he had before.  But this particular night, he went to Egypt because of the danger to the child.

Fantasy? Contradiction?

Most of the time we see a supposed contradiction, it is because we have incomplete information.  The way that the Gospels seem to fill in the blanks is that the same story is told from different perspectives (reference frames) and for different purposes.  When we consider that these are not contradictory, but rather different pieces of the puzzle, we realize that the real image is discovered as we see with BOTH eyes to observe the richness of a 3D world.

But if you want to call it "Fantasy" over a supposed contradiction, I guess that is your right to declare that even though Joseph Smith never saw any such contradiction as he went through is translation. 

And it is your right to insist that the Gospel of Mary is bona fide, revelatory scripture even though even though we've been cautioned about apocryphal scripture.

And you have the right to declare it was from the perspective of the Mother of Jesus, even though most people can't agree which Mary wrote it.

[Carborendum]

Since I brought up the fact that Joseph was a carpenter, I know someone is going to raise a point of order.

The Greek word (Tekton) means "craftsman."  This could be a stone mason, a carpenter, or a number of other professions.  This has caused many to believe that Joseph was actually a stone mason.  Possible.  But by no means obvious.  And it would have been historically less likely.

If you go to Greece today and say that Carborendum is a tekton, people would normally default to think "stone mason."  Absent any adjectives, modifiers, or context, that is the default meaning of such "craftsmen."  If you did the same thing in 1 AD, the default meaning of tekton would be "carpenter."

We find an analog in the English word "artist."  If we say Carborendum is an artist, without modifiers or context, people would default to "painter" or possibly "sculptor."  But there are many other types of artists.  In the record industry, contracts are drafted to call the singer or musician "the artist."  Hence "The Artist formerly known as Prince."  And it would not be wrong to call a photographer an artist or any other number of professions.

So, could he have been a stone mason?  Yes, it is possible.  But given the state of the Greek language of 1 AD, and that there was no context or modifier to specify, the word most likely would have referred to a carpenter.

And this, BTW, is why I give less credence to Apocryphal scriptures which refer to Joseph as a stone mason (viz. The Gospel of Mary).

Edited December 31, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

.........

People may take sides and choose one or the other.  But the fact is that they can both be true.  Consider the following narrative:

• As a successful carpenter, Joseph needed to be near the source quite often.  So, his primary residence was in Nazareth.
• ..............

My friend Hugh Nibley once said that “Facts are truths altered by opinion.”

 

A few years ago, my wife and I visited Israel and chose as our guide the LDS Rona tours.  There are many reasons for our choices.  The most important being that the Rona’s (Father/son) are the only LDS guides in Israel with Israeli citizenship and fully licensed Israeli guides – that includes a master’s degree in local history.

One of our points of interest and visit was Nazareth.    I mentioned to our guide (Steven) that I was surprised to note that there are no trees in the area.  Our guide pointed out that Nazareth is not only not close to any trees, but the terrane is difficult (extremally rocky and not conducive to agriculture).   The history of Nazareth is tightly coupled with a rock quarry and other mining – in fact the city was founded to work the adjacent quarry that had been in operation for over 4,000 years (still operating) and there is no indication throughout its history, of an economy in Nazareth associated with wood.  Today the city’s economy relies on tourism (Christian pilgrimages) and the quarry and other mining.  Nazareth is not a source of wood production.  What current tourists wood products sold there comes from raw sources elsewhere and fabricated in other places.

 

On another note – the ancient texts discovered near the Dead Sea (Dead Sea Scrolls) has had a significant impact on our understanding of ancient texts associated with both the Old and New Testament Biblical texts.  Not just on what particular ancient texts are accurate but which family of texts are the most accurate.  The textual criticism associated with the DSS has significantly altered our understanding of ancient scriptural text.

Some of the texts I find most interesting are the Isaiah scroll, the Son of G-d scroll, the coper Temple Scroll, the Damascus Scroll or Rules of the Community and the assortment of scrolls concerning the Messiah.  In an effort to diminish the importance of this find there has been a profound effort to associate the scrolls with the ancient Essenes.  The one point that proves otherwise is that through graphology it has been proven that several of the scribes that were living at the Dead Sea Scrolls settlement when it was destroy by the Romans were also at present at the siege of Masada.   No scholar pretends that Masada was in any way associated with the Essenes.

A study of the Dead Sea Scrolls will convince any honest historian that the text settled on as Biblical canon through human ecumenical counsels is both insufficient and overly dogmatic.   Thus, the need for a restoration to include modern scripture such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Perl of Great Price.  What I find personally interesting that in a Christmas message from the Pope of Rome as well as the Cardinal (arch bishop of New York) referenced more apocryphal than canon scripture.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

What I find personally interesting that in a Christmas message from the Pope of Rome as well as the Cardinal (arch bishop of New York) referenced more apocryphal than canon scripture.

Little bit more complicated than that.  To oversimplify, Francis is considered a liberal by Catholic standards and he’s incredibly petty. He makes me look forgiving and kind. Dolan is the “leader of the opposition” (again, oversimplification) and a noted conservative on hot topics. Francis is basically purging out conservatives before he dies* and Dolan is up next for madam de guillotine.
 

*Francis is 86, and has said before he doesn’t have much time left.  

[LDSGator]

I just asked my Catholic friend about this. His response. 
 

Chaput is another bishop of a big East Coast city who got himself in hot water with Francis. 
 

It’s all in how you look at it. Dolan is a right winger compared to Francis but a moderate compared to the SSPX crowd.  

Edited January 1 by LDSGator