Catechism, objectively, teaches Jesus is a tempter, no?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholicguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholicguy

Guest
[2284](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2284.htm’)😉 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. .

[2285](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2285.htm’)😉 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized…** Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others…**
**

[588](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/588.htm’)😉 Jesus scandalized the Pharisees …

[589](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/589.htm’)😉 Jesus gave scandal above all …

The Catechism teaches to give scandal makes one a tempter.

The Catechism teaches Jesus gave scandal.

Therefore, the Catechism,. objectively, teaches Jesus is a tempter - a grave sinner according to 2285 - given His Person and Office.

Can we learn who wrote this section of the Catechism? Can we learn if it was originally written this way - and if so, why?

Can we learn if this is just another poor and indefensible translation.

As it currently published, the Catechism is an abomination on this matter and it needs to be corrected. Today.

I have been railing about this since the Catechsim was first issued and I have raised this matter with laity and clergy alike. Whenever I do, the usual response is to first deny the reality and then to dismiss it as "well, it realy wasn’t intended to mean thaa…blah, blah, blah.

As it now stands, Our Lord and Saviour is the only person, Divine Person at that, who is identified in the Catechism as one who gave scandal while, simultaneously, teaching that giving scandal makes one a tempter.

This is an abomination and it must be changed. Today.**
 
peace be with you!

i just read and re-read these paragraphs a couple of times. i think it may just be a problem of how it is worded…not the meaning because it seems obvious to me at least that in paragraphs 2284/2285 uses a different definition of the word scandal than in 588. when it says that Jesus “scandalized the Pharisees by eating with tax collectors and sinners” or “above all when he identified his merciful conduct with God’s own attitude toward them” it certainly does not mean He caused them to do evil or that He was evil for doing so. it simply means that the Pharisees were shocked and could not believe what He was doing because it was forbidden by their many laws. but that was not how God saw it. Jesus did these things out of His infinite love for them but the Pharisees were blind. so of course it was a scandal to them. but see that there are two different uses of the word scandal being used and there is no confusion.
 
Thanks for the attempt. I have heard something similar many times. Most folks can’t believe their eyes when they read it as it is written and reach the ineluctable conclusion. So, I understand the attempt to explain away the clear words and to deny the inescapable conclusion.
 
2284 & 2285 give a technical definition in theology for the word.

The others use the non-technical common parlance meaning.

This is intuitive to the casual observer.

Stop looking for scandal.
 
Quasimodo gives good advice.

I’m reminded of when I was coaching a young boys baseball team. Another team could not raise sufficient funds from a single sponsor and consequently, the boys had uniforms that were identical except for the sponsors names on the back.

Three boys had uniforms that read “Qualified Erection” on their backs, the name of a local construction company.

Catholicguy:
Most folks can’t believe their eyes when they read it as it is written and reach the ineluctable conclusion.
Click to expand...
How sad that some people are so inclined.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
]2284 & 2285 give a technical definition in theology for the word.

The others use the non-technical common parlance meaning.

This is intuitive to the casual observer.

I’m afraid you are wrong. In fact, just the opposite is true. It takes an explanation to set the commoner correct when he reads this. Thus, the Douai Rheims notes about “scandal” in correcting what would be the conclusion reached by the common reader of the Gospels.

Stop looking for scandal

I wasn’t “looking” for scandal. It reached out from the text and assaulted me.

*I do understand the attempt to glibly dismiss the ugly reality of the matter and it does give evidence you were not far from wrong when you chose “New Born Babe” as your moniker. *

.
 
quasimodo said:
2284 & 2285 give a technical definition in theology for the word.

The others use the non-technical common parlance meaning.

This is intuitive to the casual observer.

Stop looking for scandal.
Click to expand...

I tend to come down on this side, as well.

I agree that it could be more clearly written, but to read it as CG reads it (and I mean no offense) is a bit on the hypertechnical side.
 
Here is the text in Latin:

2284 Scandalum habitudo est vel agendi modus qui alium ducunt ad malum faciendum. Qui scandalizat, proximi sui fit tentator. Virtuti et rectitudini damnum affert; fratrem suum in mortem potest trahere spiritualem. Scandalum culpam constituit gravem si actione vel omissione alium deliberate ad culpam gravem trahit.

2285 Scandalum particularem induit gravitatem ratione auctoritatis eorum qui illud causant vel debilitatis eorum qui illud patiuntur. Id Domino nostro hanc suggessit maledictionem: « Qui autem scandalizaverit unum de pusillis istis, …] expedit ei, ut suspendatur mola asinaria in collo eius et demergatur in profundum maris » (*Mt *18,6). 194 Grave est scandalum, cum ab illis efficitur qui, natura vel munere, tenentur ad alios docendos et educandos. Iesus de eo scribas obiurgat et Phariseos: eos cum lupis agnos specie simulantibus comparat. 195

588 Iesus scandalum fuit Pharisaeis comedens cum publicanis et peccatoribus 396 tam familiariter sicut cum illis ipsis. 397 Contra eos inter illos « qui in se confidebant tamquam iusti et aspernabantur ceteros » (*Lc *18,9), 398 Iesus affirmavit: « Non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores in paenitentiam » (*Lc *5,32). Longius vero processit, coram Pharisaeis proclamans, cum peccatum sit universale, 399 illos qui salute non egere praesumunt, se ipsos obcaecare. 400

589 Iesus scandalum praecipue fuit quia Ipse Suum modum misericorditer agendi in peccatores cum modo agendi identificavit Ipsius Dei respectu eorum. 401 Ipse processit usque ad insinuandum Se, mensam participando peccatorum, 402 eos ad convivium admittere messianicum. 403 Sed praesertim peccata dimittens, Iesus auctoritates religiosas Israel ante dilemma collocavit. Nonne recte in sua dicerent consternatione: « Quis potest dimittere peccata nisi solus Deus? » (*Mc *2,7)? Iesus, peccata dimittens, aut blasphemat quia est homo qui se Deo facit aequalem, 404 aut verum dicit et Eius Persona Nomen reddit praesens et revelat Dei. 405

In all references, the word scandalum is used. I can see what you are getting at when the English translation says:

“Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God’s own attitude toward them…”

But the Enlish *appears *to my untrained eye to be a faithful translation of the Latin.
 
Catholicguy said:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. .

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized…** Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others…**

588 Jesus scandalized the Pharisees …

589 Jesus gave scandal above all …

The Catechism teaches to give scandal makes one a tempter.

The Catechism teaches Jesus gave scandal.

Therefore, the Catechism,. objectively, teaches Jesus is a tempter - a grave sinner according to 2285 - given His Person and Office.One whole in your theory - and there are really several, but I will focus on one… The definitions of the word scandal are many.

**
scandal
Click to expand...
**
\Scan"dal, v. t. 1. To treat opprobriously; to defame; to asperse; to traduce; to slander. [R.]

I do fawn on men and hug them hard And after scandal them. --Shak.
  1. To scandalize; to offend. [Obs.] --Bp. Story.
Syn: To defame; traduce; reproach; slander; calumniate; asperse; vilify; disgrace.If the Catechism meant that Jesus defamed, reproached, vilified or disgraced the Pharisees on account of their rejection of Him - then there is nothing wrong with that.

Just as with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition has to be read in the sense it is intended. We don’t have to guess, we can read the scriptures and sacred tradition, and see what Jesus did. Never did he counsel another to sin. Never did he Scandalize others through immoral conduct, so the sense in which the word scandal is used in the CCC, is in the defaming, villifying, etc. sense - rather then the lead others into sin sense.

Secondly, we don’t need to be scrupulous. No text was ever so perfectly that noone could misinterpret it. And we have an example of that before us. Often the misinterpretation finds it’s source in the methods on the one doing the interpreting, rather than what was stated in the text.

Sorry, this post will NOT turn the bold off. The last section was not intended to be bolded.
Click to expand...
 
The Barrister:
I tend to come down on this side, as well.

I agree that it could be more clearly written, but to read it as CG reads it (and I mean no offense) is a bit on the hypertechnical side.
Click to expand...
I agree. So we have a kind of Sensus Fidelium…
 
While I have not yet had the time to look up the exact references, I believe the fundamental difference is in one who causes scandal and one who regards something as scandalous. Jesus did not actively cause scandal but his actions and teachings were considered scandalous by the scribes and pharises. The idea that God could not only die (in the human sense), but be put to death on a Cross was something they considered not only scandalous but blasphemous. It is in this way that Jesus “causes” scandal. This is entirely different than when we cause scandal through our own sin; which can tempt and lead others into further sin.
 
40.png
dominicsavio:
i just read and re-read these paragraphs a couple of times. i think it may just be a problem of how it is worded…not the meaning because it seems obvious to me at least that in paragraphs 2284/2285 uses a different definition of the word scandal than in 588. when it says that Jesus “scandalized the Pharisees by eating with tax collectors and sinners” or “above all when he identified his merciful conduct with God’s own attitude toward them” it certainly does not mean He caused them to do evil or that He was evil for doing so. it simply means that the Pharisees were shocked and could not believe what He was doing because it was forbidden by their many laws. but that was not how God saw it. Jesus did these things out of His infinite love for them but the Pharisees were blind. so of course it was a scandal to them. but see that there are two different uses of the word scandal being used and there is no confusion.
Click to expand...
Good post. When you replace the word scandal with the definitions later in the catechism you don’t have parity in meaning. It seems clear to me that we are looking at the same word being used with different meanings.

That said, I can certainly appreciate the irony of using the word scandal to refer to the shock some experienced at the teaching of Jesus, and then definining scandal in a totally different way. I’d certainly understand if the publishers/authors selected a different synomym for the word scandal in paragraph 588.
 
40.png
theMutant:
While I have not yet had the time to look up the exact references, I believe the fundamental difference is in one who causes scandal and one who regards something as scandalous. Jesus did not actively cause scandal but his actions and teachings were considered scandalous by the scribes and pharises. The idea that God could not only die (in the human sense), but be put to death on a Cross was something they considered not only scandalous but blasphemous. It is in this way that Jesus “causes” scandal. This is entirely different than when we cause scandal through our own sin; which can tempt and lead others into further sin.
Click to expand...
 
  • believe the fundamental difference is in one who causes scandal and one who regards something as scandalous. Jesus did not actively cause scandal but his actions and teachings were considered scandalous by the scribes and pharises*
***Isn’t it odd that you have to disagree with what is written in the Catechism? You have to deny the actual text and subsitiute your correct understanding. ***

*** You say “Jesus did not “actively” cause scandal” (You qualify it using “actively”). Of course, the Catechism did NOT use the qualifer.***

That IS a problem, no?
 
I tend to come down on this side, as well.

I agree that it could be more clearly written, but to read it as CG reads it (and I mean no offense) is a bit on the hypertechnical side.

“hypertechnical?” Look, I go simply by the text as written. The Catechism says to give scandal makes one a tempter. It says Jesus gave scandal…ergo?

Hypertechnical? Hardly.

What IS hypertechinical is for good Catholics having to be forced into supplying that which the Catechism lacks - an explanation.

BTW, how is it fair to have Jesus singled out as the sole individual to be identifed as one who gave scandal?
 
40.png
Catholicguy:
I tend to come down on this side, as well.

I agree that it could be more clearly written, but to read it as CG reads it (and I mean no offense) is a bit on the hypertechnical side.

“Hypertechnical?” Look, I go simply by the text as written. The Catechism says to give scandal makes one a tempter. It says Jesus gave scandal…ergo?

Hypertechnical? Hardly.
Click to expand...
I would say scrupulosity is more like it. Tradition is not to be read like you read scripture, word for word, jot and tittle. There are many sense to any text - you have to read the text in the sense that it was intended. Tradition conveys a meaning,
What IS hypertechinical is for good Catholics having to be forced into supplying that which the Catechism lacks - an explanation.
Click to expand...
Good Catholics rely on a bit of common sense, and let the Holy Spirit lead. We don’t get legalistic with a text that is not intended to be a legal document.
BTW, how is it fair to have Jesus singled out as the sole individual to be identifed as one who gave scandal?
Click to expand...
Well, since every person in this thread disagrees with your interpretation: I think it safe to say that only one person so far has a problem with this particular passage.
 
*"If the Catechism meant that Jesus defamed, reproached, vilified or disgraced the Pharisees on account of their rejection of Him - then there is nothing wrong with that. *

Just as with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition has to be read in the sense it is intended. We don’t have to guess, we can read the scriptures and sacred tradition, and see what Jesus did. Never did he counsel another to sin. Never did he Scandalize others through immoral conduct, so the sense in which the word scandal is used in the CCC, is in the defaming, villifying, etc. sense - rather then the lead others into sin sense."
You are helping to make my point. We shouldn’t have to explain to the Catechism what it intended to say. The Catechism is supposed to explain to us what the Faith means.

It failed dreadfully on Jesus and scandal.

Take a look at Matt 15:12 "Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?

Douai Rheims notes; "It must be observed, that Christ was not the direct cause of scandal to the Jews, for such scandal would not be allowable; he only caused it indirectly, because it was his doctrine, at which, through their own perversity, they took scandal.
(I could cite many such examples in my Douai)
**They TOOK SCANDAL. Why didn’t the catechism teach that rather than teaching “Jesus gave scandal?”
Clearly, the Catechism fails to explain this crucial distinction. It simply, and repeatedly, says Jesus gave scandal. No explanation as to what that phrase means follows.
***Now, we can pretend it exists there;even thoug it doesn’t… We can pretend what is there really isn’t and we can pretend all sorts of things. Or, we can face up to the reality. ***
This section needs rewriting
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
I

Well, since every person in this thread disagrees with your interpretation: I think it safe to say that only one person so far has a problem with this particular passage.
Click to expand...
Actually, my post does not disagree with Catholicguys interpretation. I gave the Latin translation earlier up the thread. My point (and maybe I was not clear enough) was that the Latin appears (I don’t know Latin) to say Jesus gave scandal, so the problem phrase does not appear to be a bad translation to English, rather it appears the same in the original Latin.

And I do think Catholicguy has a point.
 
Matt 18:6

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
7Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

588…“Jesus scandalized the Pharisees…”

589 “Jesus gave scandal…”

Well? Does the Catechism explicate scandal sufficiently or not?

Maybe it is just me but I object when the Catechism expresses compasssion for his deadly opponents - "Were they not entitled to demand in consternation, “Who can forgive sins but God alone” - while, simultaneously, without explication, charging Jesus with giving scandal.

Compassion for those who rejected Him combined with no explication for saying Jesus gave scandal is inexcusable - at least it is to this Cradle Cath.

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1278. Can the fifth commandment be broken by giving scandal or bad example and by inducing others to sin?
A. The fifth commandment can be broken by giving scandal or bad example and inducing others to sin, because such acts may destroy the life of the soul by leading it into mortal sin.

Q. 1279. What is scandal?

A. Scandal is any sinful word, deed or omission that disposes others to sin, or lessens their respect for God and holy religion.

In the wonderful movie, “Tender Mercies,” the great Robert Duvall, (actuallly singing the song “It Hurts to Face Reality” himself) moans,

"Sometimes, somethings are hard to face,

With me it’s reality, knowing someone will take my place.

I’ll go on loving you through eternity,

But oh it hurts so much to face reality…"

The reality is this section of the Catechism needs rewriting. It can’t be explained away with words that are not there and it does no good to deny the words that really are there.
 
Fun.
Compare Romans 14:13 (“Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.”) to 1 Corinthians 1:23 (“but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”).

See also 2 Corinthians 6:3 (“We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited.”)

Similar to what you are alleging with the Catechism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top