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

[Catholicguy]

The common man understood the text, look at the board. These are the common man. You think we all have Ph.Ds in Theology?

Some agreed with me. That suggests the Catechism, not Jesus, gives scandal.

*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. *

Apples and hammers.

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…

You are going so far out into left field you’ll soon be able to ask Manny Ramirez for an autograph.

Don’t get me started… And why do I see a bit of Sede Vacantism peeking through?

Prolly, So far you have suggested mental illness, heresy and a pharaisical mind, so, why not sede vacantism?

 

[Pax]

Just a thought for reflection. Consider the words of the apostle, Paul, in 2Ti 2:14: " Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers."

 

[Redeemerslove]

The common man understood the text, look at the board. These are the common man. You think we all have Ph.Ds in Theology?

Some agreed with me. That suggests the Catechism, not Jesus, gives scandal.

Actually one agreed with you. That suggests your comments give scandal.

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.

Apples and hammers.*

Huh? You mean apples and oranges? The principle is the same. Do we take every statement literally, or in the sense that it is given. If you say that jesus meant to say “call no man Father literally,” the rest of the bible is invalidated by the mere fact that it contradicts itself, when Jesus himself calls Abraham the Jews Father.

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…

You are going so far out into left field you’ll soon be able to ask Manny Ramirez for an autograph.*

You are out so far out left, you aren’t even in the ballpark.

Don’t get me started… And why do I see a bit of Sede Vacantism peeking through?

***Prolly, So far you have suggested mental illness, heresy and a pharaisical mind, so, why not sede vacantism?****You didn’t answer the question about Sede Vacantism, I’ll put that down as a dodge.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Pax:

Just a thought for reflection. Consider the words of the apostle, Paul, in 2Ti 2:14: " Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers."

He doesn’t care Pax, there are no literary senses in writing, according to his thinking. Pharisaical indeed. I would say more, Southern Baptist Fundamentalist.

 

[Catholicguy]

You are a very nasty individual who engages in name calling, labelling and thinking the worst about others.

You have suggested perhaps I am mentally ill, heretical, pharasaical and uncaring. It appears you are unable to engage in an exchange of ideas without becoming hostile nasty and vindictive.

Now, having made yet another nasty insinuation - that I am a sedevacantist - to which I refuse to respond (A “have you stopped beating your kid” type of question) you take the time to note I haven’t answered that and, therefore, you will consider that a dodge.

You really do ned to select another screen name. Your behavior dishonors your current one.

In the future, you may respond to anything I say on this forum. I will not be responding to you - unless you first apologise for your UnChristian behavior.

 

[Catholicguy]

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

I have to disagree. I don’t see where those paragraphs say that Jesus wasn’t giving scandal. In fact, each paragraph begins with the positivie statement Jesus did give scandal. Nowhere does it say the Pharisees actions were scandalous.

Could you please point out to me where it says Jesus didn’t give scandal.

 

[Catholicguy]

Secondly, we don’t need to be scrupulous. No text was ever so perfectly that noone could misinterpret it.

---

** Agreed. That is why the Catechism would be better had it been written - “The Jews took scandal” rather than “Jesus gave scandal.” This isn’t a difficult exercise. No confusion there, right?**

** 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.**

All I did was let the text speak for itself. Sadly, it does. No where does it say the Pharisees took scandal. Twice it does say Jesus gave scandal.

Now, let’s hear from St. Thomas in the Summa.
Whether active scandal can be found in the perfect?

Objection 1. It would seem that active scandal can be found in the perfect. For passion is the effect of action. Now some are scandalized passively by the words or deeds of the perfect, according to Mt. 15:12: “Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?” Therefore active scandal can be found in the perfect.

Objection 2. Further, Peter, after receiving the Holy Ghost, was in the state of the perfect. Yet afterwards he scandalized the gentiles: for it is written (Gal. 2:14): “When I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas,” i.e. Peter, “before them all: If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Therefore active scandal can be in the perfect.

Objection 3. Further, active scandal is sometimes a venial sin. But venial sins may be in perfect men. Therefore active scandal may be in perfect men.

On the contrary, Active scandal is more opposed to perfection, than passive scandal. But passive scandal cannot be in the perfect. Much less, therefore, can active scandal be in them.

I answer that, Active scandal, properly so called, occurs when a man says or does a thing which in itself is of a nature to occasion another’s spiritual downfall, and that is only when what he says or does is inordinate. Now it belongs to the perfect to direct all their actions according to the rule of reason, as stated in 1 Cor. 14:40: “Let all things be done decently and according to order”; and they are careful to do this in those matters chiefly wherein not only would they do wrong, but would also be to others an occasion of wrongdoing. And if indeed they fail in this moderation in such words or deeds as come to the knowledge of others, this has its origin in human weakness wherein they fall short of perfection. Yet they do not fall short so far as to stray far from the order of reason, but only a little and in some slight matter: and this is not so grave that anyone can reasonably take therefrom an occasion for committing sin.

Reply to Objection 1. Passive scandal is always due to some active scandal; yet this active scandal is not always in another, but in the very person who is scandalized, because, to wit, he scandalizes himself.

Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of Augustine (Ep. xxviii, xl, lxxxii) and of Paul also, Peter sinned and was to be blamed, in withdrawing from the gentiles in order to avoid the scandal of the Jews, because he did this somewhat imprudently, so that the gentiles who had been converted to the faith were scandalized. Nevertheless Peter’s action was not so grave a sin as to give others sufficient ground for scandal. Hence they were guilty of passive scandal, while there was no active scandal in Peter.

Reply to Objection 3. The venial sins of the perfect consist chiefly in sudden movements, which being hidden cannot give scandal. If, however, they commit any venial sins even in their external words or deeds, these are so slight as to be insufficient in themselves to give scandal.

newadvent.org/summa/304300.htm

Red the whole section and then tell me if you agree the Catechism was correct in this section.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Secondly, we don’t need to be scrupulous. No text was ever so perfectly that noone could misinterpret it.

Agreed. That is why the Catechism would be better had it been written - “The Jews took scandal” rather than “Jesus gave scandal.” This isn’t a difficult exercise. No confusion there, right?

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.

All I did was let the text speak for itself. Sadly, it does. No where does it say the Pharisees took scandal. Twice it does say Jesus gave scandal.

**

Now, let’s hear from St. Thomas in the Summa.

Whether active scandal can be found in the perfect?**

You continue to ignore the context of the text. And the fact that NO Doctor of the Church, NO Father of the Church, NO Pope or Church Council, ever…ever…ever…ever…ever…said that Jesus sinned.

The Catechism itself says that Jesus never sinned:

1693 Christ Jesus always did what was pleasing to the Father,5 and always lived in perfect communion with him.

You are to read the CCC in THIS context.

**

589

** Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God’s own attitude toward them.The illogic of your interpretation of this passage, show itself incredibly clearly, when you pay…attention…to…the…passage.

Mercy offers scandal, offering mercy is a scandalous act? Obviously the ironic nature of this passage suggests otherwise.

No what the term irony means? Why don’t you study the figure of speech irony, and get back to me.

So in THIS context, and understanding that the word scandal can be interpreted in many different ways (objective, subjective, metaphorical, moral) wouldn’t you say that it is a reasonable interpretation that Jesus did not offer a scandal of sin, but instead offered a “scandal” of righteousness.

Re[a]d the whole section and then tell me if you agree the Catechism was correct in this section.

Thomas Aquinas has more authority than a Pope? Youre premise is ridiculous. Thomas Aquinas submitted all this writings to the Pope. Obviously in this context (a word you don’t seem to understand) he didn’t believe his writings to be above the authority of the Pope but below the authority of a Pope.

Keep quoting Doctors of the Church as if they are Popes, and you may not find yourself admitted to heaven at the end of your life…

 

[Redeemerslove]

Catholicguy:

You are a very nasty individual who engages in name calling, labelling and thinking the worst about others.

Nothing wrong with labeling, study the Sociology Theory.

You have suggested perhaps I am mentally ill, heretical, pharasaical and uncaring. It appears you are unable to engage in an exchange of ideas without becoming hostile nasty and vindictive.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Now, having made yet another nasty insinuation - that I am a sedevacantist - to which I refuse to respond (A “have you stopped beating your kid” type of question) you take the time to note I haven’t answered that and, therefore, you will consider that a dodge.

That’s all I can assume…since you didn’t stop answering your question. And you illogic ***again ***presents itself, clearly.

A proper formulation of the question to equal “When did you stop beating your kid?”, would be “When did you stop being a Sede Vacantist?” I didn’t answer that question did I?

You really do ned to select another screen name. Your behavior dishonors your current one.

Define love properly and get back to me:

"You blind fools!"(Matt 23:17)
“You foolish people!” (Luke 11:40)
"He said to them, “How foolish you are…” (Luke 24:25)

Wow Jesus labeled can called people names, oh my! I wonder if Jesus did this in love? Interesting thought… There goes my perfect example.

In the future, you may respond to anything I say on this forum. I will not be responding to you - unless you first apologise for your UnChristian behavior.

Is this a Christian response?:

“You blind fool!” (e.g. Matt 23:17)

Quit defining love by a hippy liberal 60’s mindset, and get with Jesus’s program…

Since you like Thomas Aquinas:

Cursing
St. Thomas treats of it under the name maledictio, and says that imprecation may be made either efficaciously and by way of command, as when made by God, or inefficaciously and as a mere expression of desire. From the fact that we find many instances of curses made by God and his representatives, the Church and the Prophets, it is seen that the act of cursing is not necessarily sinful in itself; like other moral acts it takes its sinful character from the object, the end, and the circumstances.

…To call down moral evil upon a rational creature is always illicit, and the same holds good of physical evil, unless it be desired not as evil, but only in so far as it is good, for example, as a punishment for misdeeds, or a means to amendment, or an obstacle to commission of sin; for in such cases the principal intention, as St. Thomas says, is directed per se towards what is good.