Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

[JimR-OCDS]

"13*Then saith Pilate vnto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witnesse against thee?

14*And he answered him to neuer a word: insomuch that the Gouernour marueiled greatly."

He offered no defense. Are you saying he did?

That’s in Matthew.

John’s Gospel states that Jesus did answer Pilate.

So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.” So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king.* For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”s John 18: 33-38.

Matthew’s account that you reference is probably the authors way of referencing

Isaiah 53:7,

Though harshly treated, he submitted
and did not open his mouth;
Like a lamb led to slaughter
or a sheep silent before shearers,
he did not open his mouth.

Also note that Matthew does not give the account of Pilate sending Jesus to Herod to be judged. It may be that Matthew references Pilate’s second questioning after being sent back to Pilate by Herod.

Jim

 

[shelby_sun]

To the OP, I think in some case they are. Raised with the Jesuits, I was never expected to learn every single thing that was ever said in the Bible and that was going to 12 years of Catholic school. We were taught the major teachings of the Church and help to build are relationship with God through the Church. There are some that seem to focus on the Church rather than how to act like Christ.

The Jesuit are about building an individual relationship with God and going out and helping others not changing others and certainly not judging every little thing. We are all sinners everyday, and the next day and the next day.

I for one think forcing someone to annal a long time marriage with children insulting and not Christ like. To act like it never existed, that the love, faith, and happiness they once share is just to be forgotten. Then if you don’t get an annulment, you are to live out your life with out a companion? I just don’t think God works that way.

 

[Jozefo]

That’s in Matthew.

John’s Gospel states that Jesus did answer
[So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?” Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.” So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king.* For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”s John 18: 33-38.

Jim
Where is his defense? He disputes nothing, does he? His innocence becomes known to Pilate, but in the end, Christ stood silent, and Pilate marveled. Or was Matthew lying?

Matthew’s account that you reference is probably the authors way of referencing*

That’s what you say.

 

[JRKH]

To the OP, I think in some case they are. Raised with the Jesuits, I was never expected to learn every single thing that was ever said in the Bible and that was going to 12 years of Catholic school.

(Snip)

As I read your comment here about learning the bible…a “reverse” question came to mind for the OP…

So - Are Protestants taught to be more loyal to the bible than to God and Jesus Christ?

Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

I don’t mean this in a mean way - I just think that sometimes we can learn by such turn-around questions.

Sort of paraphrasing the OP back to him/her…

I notice how fervently defensive protestants can be whenever a slight disagreement crops up about some protestant doctrine, expression of doubt about bible teaching, so it makes me question whether protestants have the wrong focus, sometimes, it even comes down to loyalty to a particular church group or denomination. Shouldn’t they be reasoning from the source of morality as taught by scripture and Jesus Christ, rather than from the position of loyalty to reformer and church. …

Like I say - it’s just a thought to consider…how would you reply to such a question…

Peace
James

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Where is his defense? He disputes nothing, does he? His innocence becomes known to Pilate, but in the end, Christ stood silent, and Pilate marveled. Or was Matthew lying?

That’s what you say.

No I’m not saying Matthew is lying, those are your ideas.

However, what I posted is what it says in the foot notes on Matthew in my NAB.

I didn’t say Christ argued with Pilate, but he didn’t remain silent according to John’s Gospel.

However, Christ did defend himself after being stuck by the temple guard as I stated earlier.

Jesus answered him, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I have always taught in a synagogue or in the temple area* where all the Jews gather, and in secret I have said nothing. Why ask me? Ask those who heard me what I said to them. They know what I said.”

When he had said this, one of the temple guards standing there struck Jesus and said, “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, **“If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” **John 18:20-23.

Matthew use to be my favorite Gospel, and I still have an affection for it, being it’s the first one I read when I accepted Jesus Christ into my life.

However, since reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, he leans toward John’s accuracy on the passion account over the others, as he shows other scholars do.

John witnessed more of the events than Matthew did when Jesus was arrested.

Jim

 

[Jozefo]

So - What was he doing when He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers?
What was He doing when he responded to the accusation that He cast out demons with the help of Beelzebub?
Many other examples could be offered…

Now I will agree that the above examples and many more like them could be classified as resisting - they could also be called correction, discussion, debate…but I would not classify them as fighting.

Peace
James

Isn’t that question better left for another discussion? I think the subject matter is way off topic. And besides, discussing my characterization of ‘fighting’ rather than the question of what Jesus would do is in no way edifying.

I first commented with my opinion that many catholics are more loyal to the church, and that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I feel like my comment is being justified, and again, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing. It’s natural.

 

[Jozefo]

No I’m not saying Matthew is lying, those are your ideas.

However, what I posted is what it says in the foot notes on Matthew in my NAB.

I didn’t say Christ argued with Pilate, but he didn’t remain silent according to John’s Gospel.

However, Christ did defend himself after being stuck by the temple guard as I stated earlier.

Matthew use to be my favorite Gospel, and I still have an affection for it, being it’s the first one I read when I accepted Jesus Christ into my life.

However, since reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, he leans toward John’s accuracy on the passion account over the others, as he shows other scholars do.

John witnessed more of the events than Matthew did when Jesus was arrested.

Jim

Well, as I said, in the end, Christ stood mute. I suppose i should have clarifed better what I meant by saying he stood mute. Matthew says he stood mute, and then immediately events move to the crucifixion. Personally, I try to find harmony between Matthew and John, and conclude that Christ did make responses, but never disputed with Pilate, and finally stood silent. Do you agree that that’s the best record we have? I think to say otherwise is to admit a contradiction in the Gospels.

Also, it appears you think that asking a question to an assailant equates to a defense. Do I have that right?

And while Pope Benedict’s opinion about John is no doubt invaluable, does it address this specific circumstance? Or was he talking about John’s Gospel in general?

 

[JRKH]

Isn’t that question better left for another discussion? I think the subject matter is way off topic. And besides, discussing my characterization of ‘fighting’ rather than the question of what Jesus would do is in no way edifying.

Sure - we can drop this line of discussion…After all, I don’t want to have a fight about it…
These discussions can become quite freewheeling and that is not necessarily bad.

But OK - you asked what Jesus would do…
I replied that all we need to do is look at the Gospels to see…
You replied with the one place where it says he stood silent…
I replied with two places (among many) where he did not.

So - I ask you - “What did Jesus do” in these cases? How would you classify what he did? Was He defending? Was He fighting?
I’m truly curious.

I first commented with my opinion that many catholics are more loyal to the church, and that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I feel like my comment is being justified, and again, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing. It’s natural.

You may be right that many Catholics are more loyal to the Church - that I don’t know…but the thread topic is is we are “taught” this…The Church has no such teaching…
I can’t speak for the actions of particular Catholics.

Peace
James

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jozefo;

Also, it appears you think that asking a question to an assailant equates to a defense. Do I have that right?

It’s a nonviolent defense, but a defense nonetheless.

And while Pope Benedict’s opinion about John is no doubt invaluable, does it address this specific circumstance? Or was he talking about John’s Gospel in general?

He talks about the contradictions between the Gospels with regard to timelines.

Matthew’s Gospel leads you to believe that Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Passover, but John’s Gospel says Jesus had already been arrested and taken to Pilate’s palace, but the Jews would not enter because they did not want to be defiled before the Passover meal.

Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium.* It was morning. And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover. John 18:28

Matthew’s Gospel was speaking to Jews mostly, to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah that they were waiting for.

John’s Gospel leans more on who Jesus is, his divinity and his mission.

Jim

 

[Jozefo]

Jozefo;

It’s a nonviolent defense, but a defense nonetheless.

He talks about the contradictions between the Gospels with regard to timelines.

Matthew’s Gospel leads you to believe that Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on Passover, but John’s Gospel says Jesus had already been arrested and taken to Pilate’s palace, but the Jews would not enter because they did not want to be defiled before the Passover meal.

Matthew’s Gospel was speaking to Jews mostly, to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah that they were waiting for.

John’s Gospel leans more on who Jesus is, his divinity and his mission.

Jim

Ok, thanks. This is a good discussion, so let me clarify my thoughts a little more. Regarding Christ’s non defense, my frame of reference is his legal defense. To me, his question to his assailant had nothing at all to do with his appearances before Pilate and Herod, but if you believe that was part of his defense, I wouldn’t presume to argue with what you believe.

As far as reconciling the other events within the differing accounts of the Gospels, those are indeed worthy of study. I’m no expert, but all I know how to do is to seek harmony among the Gospels. If I’m wrong, so be it, my conscience is clear. I have done my best to understand what is presented for all of us, and I don’t see Christ offering up a defense of any kind.

In fact, in a way I see him orchestrating the events as they unfold, within the parameters of his father’s will. He could have argued and fought, prolonging the ordeal beyond the Passover. Conversely, he could have confessed immediately, and begged for a quick execution.

Instead, he used the tactic of confession and avoidance, continually asking questions and making non responsive responses, carrying forward his accusers’ charges, as if to give them validation. My favorite part of the account is when Pilate asked, "are you king of the Jews? " Christ’s answer is precious: did someone tell you that Einstein? (paraphrasing of course haha)

All in all, simply the best example of how to handle a court proceeding on record anywhere

 

[Jozefo]

But OK - you asked what Jesus would do…
I replied that all we need to do is look at the Gospels to see…
You replied with the one place where it says he stood silent…
I replied with two places (among many) where he did not.

So - I ask you - “What did Jesus do” in these cases? How would you classify what he did? Was He defending? Was He fighting?
I’m truly curious.

Peace
James

I think he spent most of his time teaching. Even when he appeared violent, when overturning the tables of the money changers, his goal was to teach. Even in John 6, when during his dispute with some Jews (Pharisees), he never really argues. He simply stays on point, and leaves the others to argue and fight.

 

[JRKH]

I think he spent most of his time teaching. Even when he appeared violent, when overturning the tables of the money changers, his goal was to teach. Even in John 6, when during his dispute with some Jews (Pharisees), he never really argues. He simply stays on point, and leaves the others to argue and fight.

Thanks for the reply…and I agree to this extent. You and I have been tossing different words back and forth describing what Jesus did and, to an extent, what we do. These various words can all describe defense - through teaching, or debating, or discussion or even “disputing”…And I suppose that some would consider at least some of these things to be “fighting”…though I do not.

Anyway - thanks for the discussion.

Peace
James

 

[shelby_sun]

As I read your comment here about learning the bible…a “reverse” question came to mind for the OP…

So - Are Protestants taught to be more loyal to the bible than to God and Jesus Christ?

Are Catholics taught to be more loyal to the church than to God and Jesus Christ?

I don’t mean this in a mean way - I just think that sometimes we can learn by such turn-around questions.

Sort of paraphrasing the OP back to him/her…

I notice how fervently defensive protestants can be whenever a slight disagreement crops up about some protestant doctrine, expression of doubt about bible teaching, so it makes me question whether protestants have the wrong focus, sometimes, it even comes down to loyalty to a particular church group or denomination. Shouldn’t they be reasoning from the source of morality as taught by scripture and Jesus Christ, rather than from the position of loyalty to reformer and church. …

Like I say - it’s just a thought to consider…how would you reply to such a question…

Peace
James

I absolutely agree with you and those are good questions. My husband was raised Southern Baptist so I have heard those things you mentioned. Unfortunately, it is not just the protestants doing it. I hear Catholics on this forum who do the same exact thing and I often say to myself they sound more protestant than Catholics.

I was shocked to learn what protestants thought about Catholics as I was growing up. The Jesuit never talked in a negative way or questioned any other religion. They would simply teach us what they believe and how we believed differently, but they always stressed that we believe in the same God.

When some people speak about the protestants it does sound like they are being more loyal to the Church over God. I find people that use the Bible to try to prove their are “better” or more Christ like than other to be very disturbing.