J
JimO
Guest
Hey CatholicGuy, you’ve made your point, so lighten up! The people on this thread didn’t write the Catechism. So, maybe it was a mistake. No need to scream at people (all caps, bold 72 point font).
- Status
T
The_Barrister
Guest
CG: Textual screaming (using all caps or large fonts) doesn’t prove you’re right. It is annoying, and a bit arrogant.
If the Catholic Faith was obtainable from a single book, we wouldn’t need catechism classes, catechetical instruction generally, RCIA, and a number of other classes.
Heck, why not do away with the priests, bishops and cardinals? Well, we could keep a few around to bless stuff. We certainly wouldn’t want them teaching the faith if we can get it from a book, now would we?
I think most folks have been gentle in their criticism of your approach to this issue, CG. Don’t become so attached to your opinion - and it is an opinion, one that is not accepted by anyone else here - that you are unwilling to consider other explanations.
If the Catholic Faith was obtainable from a single book, we wouldn’t need catechism classes, catechetical instruction generally, RCIA, and a number of other classes.
Heck, why not do away with the priests, bishops and cardinals? Well, we could keep a few around to bless stuff. We certainly wouldn’t want them teaching the faith if we can get it from a book, now would we?
I think most folks have been gentle in their criticism of your approach to this issue, CG. Don’t become so attached to your opinion - and it is an opinion, one that is not accepted by anyone else here - that you are unwilling to consider other explanations.
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
I think he has no point whatsoever. It is clear by the total reading of what has been said about Jesus, including a dogma that says he was sinless - that Jesus never sinned - hence he never scandalized in the sense that he led others into sin. Only a scrupulous (obssessive-compulsive) conscience would think otherwise, IMO.
Oh so we have two people who agree, compared to a dozen or so to the contrary.
If you can’t pick up the sense in which this text was written, then that’s your issue.Possibly this passage could have been written more clearly, but I would caution against a Pharisaic mind. You don’t take one passage in the CCC, and ignore all the other teachings about Jesus - especially dogma. You take the CCC in the context of all the other writings about Jesus by the Magisterium, and in** this context** read the CCC. I have to say the methods of those who have a problem with the passage, sound very Protestant (e.g. specious).
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
The Barrister:
We live according to a living Magisterium, not according to dead wood.
Exactly Barrister. If you have a problem with this passage Catholicguy, write your Bishop and ask for a clarification.
We live according to a living Magisterium, not according to dead wood.
J
Jason_Hurd
Guest
I agree that the original poster should contact his bishop in order to address this issue. This message board is not the place for people to come and make outrageous, legalistic claims and then shout down all dissent as if the responders were naive morons who don’t even know how to read their native tongue correctly. I look forward to the day when we can get back to some intelligent, well-mannered, thoughtful discourse on these threads, but some members just don’t seem to know how to converse courteously and respectfully. It’s not just a problem on this thread, I’ve seen it on others too, and it’s extremely off-putting. There is nothing more important than the issues we’re discussing on this site, and to constantly have to contend with ill-mannered provocateurs whose only purpose here seems to be to attempt to rouse anger and enmity is wearing and, in the long run, counter-productive. Peace be with us all.
C
Catholicguy
Guest
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
You miscounted. I have a problem with it as does another.
As to my being “legalistic” in engaging in a straightforward literal reading of the text, balderdash. Words have meanings which is why this section must be rewritten.
Before me I have “A Catholic Comentary on Holy Scripture” by Dom Orchard et al. There are many references to scandal, none of which state “Jesus gave scandal.” This orthodox reference guide repeatedly makes the point it was the perversity of the Jews which caused them to take scandal.
***Catena Aurea - St. Jerome: As this word ‘scandalum’ (offence or stumblingblock) is of such frequent use in ecclesiastical writings, we will shortly explain it. We might render it in Latin, ‘offendiculum,’ or ‘ruina,’ or ‘impactio;’ and so when we read, **Whosoever shall scandalize, we understand, whoso by word or deed has given an occasion of falling to any. ***
It isn’t the number of those who object that decides whether or not something ought to have been wordeed or explained better.
Doctrine is not arrived at via Democracy.
So far, I have St. Jerome, Baltimore Catechism, Dom Orchard on my side - and I am barely beginning…
**
You miscounted. I have a problem with it as does another.
As to my being “legalistic” in engaging in a straightforward literal reading of the text, balderdash. Words have meanings which is why this section must be rewritten.
Before me I have “A Catholic Comentary on Holy Scripture” by Dom Orchard et al. There are many references to scandal, none of which state “Jesus gave scandal.” This orthodox reference guide repeatedly makes the point it was the perversity of the Jews which caused them to take scandal.
***Catena Aurea - St. Jerome: As this word ‘scandalum’ (offence or stumblingblock) is of such frequent use in ecclesiastical writings, we will shortly explain it. We might render it in Latin, ‘offendiculum,’ or ‘ruina,’ or ‘impactio;’ and so when we read, **Whosoever shall scandalize, we understand, whoso by word or deed has given an occasion of falling to any. ***
It isn’t the number of those who object that decides whether or not something ought to have been wordeed or explained better.
Doctrine is not arrived at via Democracy.
So far, I have St. Jerome, Baltimore Catechism, Dom Orchard on my side - and I am barely beginning…
**
C
Catholicguy
Guest
Only a scrupulous (obssessive-compulsive) conscience would think otherwise, … a Pharisaic mind. … sound very Protestant
So, were I not burderdened by mental illness, a pharaisical mind and heresy, might you think I had a point?
So, were I not burderdened by mental illness, a pharaisical mind and heresy, might you think I had a point?
C
Catholicguy
Guest
I agree that the original poster should contact his bishop in order to address this issue.
When I first reads this I ws living in a Diocese which had a Bishop who believes Jesus was ignorant, in error and sexually tempted. I wasn’t about to take this up with him.
I thought maybe others would be intersted in seeing how a fellow Catholic saw what appeards to be a big mistake.
This message board is not the place for people to come and make outrageous, legalistic claims and then shout down all dissent as if the responders were naive morons who don’t even know how to read their native tongue correctly. I look forward to the day when we can get back to some intelligent, well-mannered, thoughtful discourse on these threads, but some members just don’t seem to know how to converse courteously and respectfully.
“A” for irony.
It’s not just a problem on this thread, I’ve seen it on others too, and it’s extremely off-putting. There is nothing more important than the issues we’re discussing on this site, and to constantly have to contend with ill-mannered provocateurs whose only purpose here seems to be to attempt to rouse anger and enmity is wearing and, in the long run, counter-productive. Peace be with us all.
*As I know my motives better than you (pace), let me say I was trying to shout and point to a big problem with the Catechism. *
Now, If you think it no big deal, fine. But, why the personal attacks?
When I first reads this I ws living in a Diocese which had a Bishop who believes Jesus was ignorant, in error and sexually tempted. I wasn’t about to take this up with him.
I thought maybe others would be intersted in seeing how a fellow Catholic saw what appeards to be a big mistake.
This message board is not the place for people to come and make outrageous, legalistic claims and then shout down all dissent as if the responders were naive morons who don’t even know how to read their native tongue correctly. I look forward to the day when we can get back to some intelligent, well-mannered, thoughtful discourse on these threads, but some members just don’t seem to know how to converse courteously and respectfully.
“A” for irony.
It’s not just a problem on this thread, I’ve seen it on others too, and it’s extremely off-putting. There is nothing more important than the issues we’re discussing on this site, and to constantly have to contend with ill-mannered provocateurs whose only purpose here seems to be to attempt to rouse anger and enmity is wearing and, in the long run, counter-productive. Peace be with us all.
*As I know my motives better than you (pace), let me say I was trying to shout and point to a big problem with the Catechism. *
Now, If you think it no big deal, fine. But, why the personal attacks?
C
Catholicguy
Guest
[It is in this way that Jesus “causes” scandal
We agree this section should have been redrafted so as to preclude an obvious difficulty.
Notice, there hasn’t been any other Catechism, that I know of, that says “Jesus gave scandal.” The meaning is always clearly explained. It wasn’t here, why?
Who wrote this section?
We agree this section should have been redrafted so as to preclude an obvious difficulty.
Notice, there hasn’t been any other Catechism, that I know of, that says “Jesus gave scandal.” The meaning is always clearly explained. It wasn’t here, why?
Who wrote this section?
C
Catholicguy
Guest
.
Heck, why not do away with the priests, bishops and cardinals? Well, we could keep a few around to bless stuff. We certainly wouldn’t want them teaching the faith if we can get it from a book, now would we?
I think you see my point and I think you see the problem. The Catecchism is meant to Teach. It did so, poorly at best, in the mater of teaching Jesus gave scandal. That, to me, is unacceptable.
THe p;erversity of the Jews caused them to TAKE scandal. Totally different matter to the common man who reads the Catechism
**That has never, to my knowledge, happened in any oficial Catholic Magisterial Text. **
Now, you can dismiss it as no big deal. Not me.
Heck, why not do away with the priests, bishops and cardinals? Well, we could keep a few around to bless stuff. We certainly wouldn’t want them teaching the faith if we can get it from a book, now would we?
I think you see my point and I think you see the problem. The Catecchism is meant to Teach. It did so, poorly at best, in the mater of teaching Jesus gave scandal. That, to me, is unacceptable.
THe p;erversity of the Jews caused them to TAKE scandal. Totally different matter to the common man who reads the Catechism
**That has never, to my knowledge, happened in any oficial Catholic Magisterial Text. **
Now, you can dismiss it as no big deal. Not me.
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Catholicguy said:
He was sexually tempted, I’m sure. The Devil tempted Jesus, as the text says. He just didn’t give in to the temptation, he didn’t succumb.
This is the exact kind of thinking and lack of understanding, is what I am talking about.
It’s not a problem, IMO. Most people got it, according to the testimony of this board. But you didn’t seem to get it…why is that?
Why the screaming and yelling? These were not personal attacks, they were evaluation’s based on your behavior. Screaming and shouting is not allowed by me, period. I will not put up with it.
And I ask another question, why did you not get the meaning of this text (and your compatriot), and everyone else got it? Why is that?
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Catholicguy said:
The common man understood the text, look at the board. These are the common man. You think we all have Ph.Ds in Theology?
So did Jesus mean call no man Father, when he said this statement(Matt. 23:9)? By your estimations, Jesus did mean that, and the Catholic Church has been in disobedience to this passage from it’s inception.
In fact, the Apostles themselves violated this prohibition in their inspired letters (Acts 7:2)(Romans 9:10). In fact, Jesus himself violated this prohibition when he told the Jews that Abraham was their father(John 8:56).
See where I’m going with this? This is why I said a pharisaic mindset and method, went into evaluating this passage…
Don’t get me started… And why do I see a bit of Sede Vacantism peeking through?
We know this, already.
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Catholicguy said:
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Catholicguy said:
I didn’t say you were in heresy. I said it sounded very Protestant. That was a perceptual statement, not a declarative statement.
W
Wampa
Guest
I’m going to side with the majority here (since we are now arguing almost a vote count here). Sure, I see CG’s point. At first glance, the side-by-side statements don’t seem to agree with each other. Once you ponder their meaning and consider the multiple defintions of the word, it seems pretty obvious to me that they are using each different definitions.
Could it be a bit clearer? Sure, that would be nice. This wording could be cleared up in a later version.
Is this going to bring the Church crumbling down? Is the Catechism teaching that Jesus was a “tempter - a grave sinner”. Of course not! That is pretty obvious to me. And I’m just a newbie (went through RCIA Sept - Apr and was accepted into the Church at Easter).
On the subject of scrupulosity, our RCIA instructor taught us about this and warned us not to fall into it. And I will admit, that popped into my head as I read your comments, CG. Note: I am not accusing you of this condition! I am a newbie and just figuring everything out. I don’t know your mind and heart. But from what you’ve said and how you’ve presented it, that’s the impression that I’ve gotten on your passion for this subject. Nothing personal, just my opinion on the presentation of your argument.
BTW, I love these message boards (a little too much, based on the time stamp on many of my posts!). I’ve learned soooo much.
Could it be a bit clearer? Sure, that would be nice. This wording could be cleared up in a later version.
Is this going to bring the Church crumbling down? Is the Catechism teaching that Jesus was a “tempter - a grave sinner”. Of course not! That is pretty obvious to me. And I’m just a newbie (went through RCIA Sept - Apr and was accepted into the Church at Easter).
On the subject of scrupulosity, our RCIA instructor taught us about this and warned us not to fall into it. And I will admit, that popped into my head as I read your comments, CG. Note: I am not accusing you of this condition! I am a newbie and just figuring everything out. I don’t know your mind and heart. But from what you’ve said and how you’ve presented it, that’s the impression that I’ve gotten on your passion for this subject. Nothing personal, just my opinion on the presentation of your argument.
BTW, I love these message boards (a little too much, based on the time stamp on many of my posts!). I’ve learned soooo much.
R
Redeemerslove
Guest
Welcome home, Wampa.BTW, I love these message boards (a little too much, based on the time stamp on many of my posts!). I’ve learned soooo much.
R
raballard
Guest
I’m late in offering my statements on this thread and this is my first post in any forum of any kind.
I have read the paragraphs referenced and did not at any time have the impression that Jesus was a tempter. The instruction I felt was given was that Jesus’s actions were not scandalous. The actions of the Pharaisies were. The explanations of the following sentences in both ccc 588 and 589 are clear. If I were to interpret this any other way, then Jesus lived a scandalous life.
Specifically, using a contemporary example, it is the actions of our elected catholic politicians to support abortion for example that leads others to sin by following their example that is scandalous, not the actions of catholic politicians to ammend the constitution to define marriage as the union between one woman and one man and is defined by our culture as scandalous and a denial of individual rights.
My typing skills are marginal and I’m not able to find a spell checker on this thing, so if any can offer some hints to the novice it will be greatly appreciated.
I have read the paragraphs referenced and did not at any time have the impression that Jesus was a tempter. The instruction I felt was given was that Jesus’s actions were not scandalous. The actions of the Pharaisies were. The explanations of the following sentences in both ccc 588 and 589 are clear. If I were to interpret this any other way, then Jesus lived a scandalous life.
Specifically, using a contemporary example, it is the actions of our elected catholic politicians to support abortion for example that leads others to sin by following their example that is scandalous, not the actions of catholic politicians to ammend the constitution to define marriage as the union between one woman and one man and is defined by our culture as scandalous and a denial of individual rights.
My typing skills are marginal and I’m not able to find a spell checker on this thing, so if any can offer some hints to the novice it will be greatly appreciated.
W
Wampa
Guest
If you want to spell-check, you’ll have to type up your posts in a text editor (like Word) and copy and paste them into the site. I saw Karl say in another thread that the site doesn’t have spellcheck now, but that they hope to add one at some point.
C
Catholicguy
Guest
*QUOTE=Stylite]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.]
Same goes for Matt 17:26 Jesus says, “That we may not scandalaize them, go to the sea…”
Clearly, the New Testament teaches Jesus went out of His way to avoid giving scandal. Yet, the Catechcism says He gave scandal.
Now, one could argue (and some do) that “technically, scandal can mean thus and such if considered in this fashion…”
Look, there would be no confusion if the Catechism simply taught “Because of their perversity, the Jews took scandal…” No confusion there.
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.]
Same goes for Matt 17:26 Jesus says, “That we may not scandalaize them, go to the sea…”
Clearly, the New Testament teaches Jesus went out of His way to avoid giving scandal. Yet, the Catechcism says He gave scandal.
Now, one could argue (and some do) that “technically, scandal can mean thus and such if considered in this fashion…”
Look, there would be no confusion if the Catechism simply taught “Because of their perversity, the Jews took scandal…” No confusion there.
C
Catholicguy
Guest
He was sexually tempted, I’m sure. The Devil tempted Jesus, as the text says. He just didn’t give in to the temptation, he didn’t succumb.
No, Jesus was not sexually tempted. That concupisence in man results from the Fall and a wounded human nature - which Jesus did not have. THat is one of Fr. Richard McBrien’s heresies though.
This is the exact kind of thinking and lack of understanding, is what I am talking about.
THankfully, I lack your "understanding."
It’s not a problem, IMO. Most people got it, according to the testimony of this board. But you didn’t seem to get it…why is that?
Grace from the Holy Ghost.
Why the screaming and yelling? These were not personal attacks, they were evaluation’s based on your behavior. Screaming and shouting is not allowed by me, period. I will not put up with it.
Flannery O’Connor once wrote she wrote in the way she did because to get folks attention she need to yell and write vividly. I am used to being attacked when I bring up this issue, so I use bold and large text to remind folks of the actual words of the Catechism.
And I ask another question, why did you not get the meaning of this text (and your compatriot), and everyone else got it? Why is that?
I* credit that to being blessed a handsome Irish-Algonquin capable of independent thought.***
No, Jesus was not sexually tempted. That concupisence in man results from the Fall and a wounded human nature - which Jesus did not have. THat is one of Fr. Richard McBrien’s heresies though.
This is the exact kind of thinking and lack of understanding, is what I am talking about.
THankfully, I lack your "understanding."
It’s not a problem, IMO. Most people got it, according to the testimony of this board. But you didn’t seem to get it…why is that?
Grace from the Holy Ghost.
Why the screaming and yelling? These were not personal attacks, they were evaluation’s based on your behavior. Screaming and shouting is not allowed by me, period. I will not put up with it.
Flannery O’Connor once wrote she wrote in the way she did because to get folks attention she need to yell and write vividly. I am used to being attacked when I bring up this issue, so I use bold and large text to remind folks of the actual words of the Catechism.
And I ask another question, why did you not get the meaning of this text (and your compatriot), and everyone else got it? Why is that?
I* credit that to being blessed a handsome Irish-Algonquin capable of independent thought.***
- Status