Confused about this passage

[Tomdstone]

:nope: Nah… I call shenanigans on this one. Jesus castigates those who only love those who love them, and calls us to “love our enemies.” By that standard, we explicitly must love our ex-spouses, so the argument falls apart immediately.

Paul called himself a spiritual father; are you saying that Catholics are wrong on this one?

We absolutely take this literally! But… we take it literally in the way that the term was used in antiquity: as a comparative description. “Hate”, here, means “love less”.

How is this allegorical? If someone insults you, you should not demand satisfaction, but rather, forego those ‘rights’ to satisfaction and allow the insult to stand.

Umm… yes.

Given the analysis I’ve presented, “pro-divorce people” don’t present a reasonable argument.

The question that I was answering was not whether or no you are buying their arguments, but what arguments might they give in support of the pro-divorce position.
As far as turning the other cheek is concerned, if Catholics agree that you should not resist an evil person, as Jesus said, why do so many American Catholics on this thread and other Christians also, have guns in their houses to resist a burglary or an intrusion?
Should you resist an evil person? Or
Is it better not resist an evil person?

 

[Gorgias]

Suppose there is no active appeal immediately, but later on after a while.

OK – so, what you’re not asking is about the legitimacy of children. Good.

What you’re asking about, then, has to do with the facts of the case, right? Let’s look at the procedure:

• First, a ‘court of first instance’ hears the case and renders a decision. A person is not free to marry following the decree of the court of first instance (and, in fact, would not be informed that he is free to marry following this decision).
• Next, there’s an automatic appeal by a ‘court of second instance’, who examines the case. (If both the courts of first instance and second instance agree on a positive decision – that is, a decree of nullity – then the ex-spouses are (barring other circumstances) free to marry.
• However, there is the possibility to appeal further. Such an appeal would be based not on the facts of the case, but on procedural irregularities. This appeal would be handled by the Roman Rota.
• In addition, it’s possible that the automatic appeal to a court of second instance might be handled directly by the Roman Rota.

So, what is it, precisely, that you’re asking? Whether a person might attempt marriage after the decree of the court of first instance? (That’s not possible, since the decree does not allow marriage until after the decision of the court of second instance.)

Or, perhaps, you’re asking whether there might be an appeal after the court of second instance renders its judgment? If that’s the case, then the appeal isn’t on the facts of the case, upon which the first two courts have decided, but rather, only on the procedural aspects of the case. If this is the situation, then surely you’re not asking whether further consideration will overturn the decisions of the facts of the case… right?

So… I’m not really sure what question you’re asking, since there doesn’t seem to be a circumstance that would affect the objection you seem to be raising for our consideration…

 

[Gorgias]

As far as turning the other cheek is concerned, if Catholics agree that you should not resist an evil person, as Jesus said, why do so many American Catholics on this thread and other Christians also, have guns in their houses to resist a burglary or an intrusion?
Should you resist an evil person? Or
Is it better not resist an evil person?

I think I’d deny your proposition: it’s not about “resisting an evil person”, per se, but rather, about instances of injustice. The “turn the other cheek” is roundly misinterpreted as a call to non-violence. (This, as it were, in the face of statements about carrying a sword. )

But, we are never told that self-defense is evil. So, your response is a non sequitur.

Rather, we are being told that we aren’t to insist on retribution. Should we resist evil? Certainly. Must we insist on retribution when we’re wronged? Nope.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think I’d deny your proposition: it’s not about “resisting an evil person”, per se, but rather, about instances of injustice. The “turn the other cheek” is roundly misinterpreted as a call to non-violence. (This, as it were, in the face of statements about carrying a sword. )

But, we are never told that self-defense is evil. So, your response is a non sequitur.

Rather, we are being told that we aren’t to insist on retribution. Should we resist evil? Certainly. Must we insist on retribution when we’re wronged? Nope.

So what Jesus said is to be taken metaphorically and not literally?
Here’s what he said:
Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Now are you saying that it is OK for Catholics to own a gun and resist an evil person who attempts to break into his house?
If so, you have unwittingly made my point that some of what Jesus says is not to be taken literally but in context with the rest of Scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

So what Jesus said is to be taken metaphorically and not literally?

No, it’s literal. It’s just a misinterpretation to presume it’s a prohibition against self-defense.

Here’s what he said:
Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Now are you saying that it is OK for Catholics to own a gun and resist an evil person who attempts to break into his house?

I know what you’re quoting.

However, it might be useful to quote the *whole * context:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.”

Jesus is telling people that they shouldn’t always simply demand what is their legal ‘right’ to demand: no ‘eye for an eye’, so when one insults you, don’t demand (legal) retribution; when one threatens to sue, don’t go to court, but give; when one demands service, offer double what they may legally request.

Literal – but not about self-defense.

If so, you have unwittingly made my point that some of what Jesus says is not to be taken literally but in context with the rest of Scripture.

I haven’t; and, ironically, it’s your lack of seeing the immediate context that causes you to think I’ve misinterpreted the passage.

 

[Tomdstone]

Jesus said Call no man Father.
Do you take that literally?

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus said Call no man Father.
Do you take that literally?

From this Catholic Answers page:
"Look again at the passage in which Jesus says we must call no one “father.” In contrast to the attitudes of the Pharisees and others, Jesus is specifying the qualities Christian leaders must exhibit (Mt 23:1-12). The Pharisees.aspired to being called “rabbi” (or “master” or “teacher”), leaders of schools of thought. Among the schools headed by teachers called “rabbi” there were divergences of belief, some of them in actual contradiction. A similar situation prevailed with regard to the term “father” (in Aramaic, abba, a title of honor). The title was given to well-known Jewish religious authorities of the past. As with “rabbi,” so with “father.” The term designated the progenitor of a particular, even contradictory, interpretation of the Jewish faith.

Why did Jesus declare that no Christian leader is to be called “rabbi” or “father”? He was telling us that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the Catholic faith and seek followers for his opinions. "

And, from this one:
"He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers. "

So, there is a literal teaching here; namely, “don’t put yourself in God’s role.” And, Jesus was using a particular mode of expression to make that point.

Are you really going to try to suggest that Jesus’ teachings on divorce are hyperbole? Especially given its context – a sermon in which Jesus is laying out His response to Mosaic Law?

 

[Tomdstone]

From this Catholic Answers page:
"Look again at the passage in which Jesus says we must call no one “father.” In contrast to the attitudes of the Pharisees and others, Jesus is specifying the qualities Christian leaders must exhibit (Mt 23:1-12). The Pharisees.aspired to being called “rabbi” (or “master” or “teacher”), leaders of schools of thought. Among the schools headed by teachers called “rabbi” there were divergences of belief, some of them in actual contradiction. A similar situation prevailed with regard to the term “father” (in Aramaic, abba, a title of honor). The title was given to well-known Jewish religious authorities of the past. As with “rabbi,” so with “father.” The term designated the progenitor of a particular, even contradictory, interpretation of the Jewish faith.

Why did Jesus declare that no Christian leader is to be called “rabbi” or “father”? He was telling us that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the Catholic faith and seek followers for his opinions. "

And, from this one:
"He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers. "

So, there is a literal teaching here; namely, “don’t put yourself in God’s role.” And, Jesus was using a particular mode of expression to make that point.

Are you really going to try to suggest that Jesus’ teachings on divorce are hyperbole? Especially given its context – a sermon in which Jesus is laying out His response to Mosaic Law?

Call no man Father. You tell us “He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point).”
Now if Jesus was using exaggeration to make a point here, then the argument from the pro-divorce people might be that He was giving us the ideal in His teachings on divorce and remarriage, because He was making a point on the sanctity of the family.Just as Roman Catholics do not take the command : Call no man Father literally, but consider it to be an exaggeration, then the pro-divorce people might argue the same about the teachings on divorce and remarriage.

 

[Gorgias]

Call no man Father. You tell us “He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point).”
Now if Jesus was using exaggeration to make a point here, then the argument from the pro-divorce people might be that He was giving us the ideal in His teachings on divorce and remarriage, because He was making a point on the sanctity of the family.Just as Roman Catholics do not take the command : Call no man Father literally, but consider it to be an exaggeration, then the pro-divorce people might argue the same about the teachings on divorce and remarriage.

LOL! Yeah – I guess you really were gonna try to suggest that this teaching was hyperbole!

Here’s the thing, though: “call no man father” is so over the top that it’s clearly hyperbole. Given the unreasonableness of the statement on its face – let alone all the other places in the New Testament where people do call others ‘father’! – it can’t be anything but hyperbole! That leaves your argument on shaky ground: on what basis might someone conclude that the instruction that divorce is prohibited is hyperbole? After all, Jesus provides a rational argument against divorce under the Mosaic law (“Moses permitted it because of your hardness of heart”), and provides Scriptural support for His argument (“but in the beginning it was not so”) by quoting Scripture explicitly. This is rational argumentation, not hyperbole. Now, you propose that someone might actually try to argue for hyperbole, but you don’t provide any rationale for how a person might reasonably and rationally present such an argument.

When it all comes down to it, that’s like saying “well, someone could argue that the moon is made of blue cheese!”… Yeah, they could, but that wouldn’t imply that their argument would be in the least bit reasonable.

 

[Gorgias]

His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper has said that in some cases a marriage annulment is a divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.
americamagazine.org/content/all-things/cardinal-kasper-some-fear-domino-effect-synod-family

Wow. I have to admit, that that was pretty disappointing. I was hoping for some sort of analysis – or, at least, a theological discussion – but instead, all we get is the claim that he doesn’t understand how someone can apply for an annulment after a ten-year marriage? Disappointing… :sad_yes:

 

[Tomdstone]

There are examples of the words of Jesus which are not interpreted at their face value , but more sophisticated analysis is needed, depending on the circumstances and on the passage in question.

 

[Gorgias]

There are examples of the words of Jesus which are not interpreted at their face value , but more sophisticated analysis is needed, depending on the circumstances and on the passage in question.

Yes, there are such examples. However, the mere presence of such examples doesn’t make it reasonable to propose that any arbitrary passage is one of them. I’m not going to argue that Jesus spoke metaphorically at times (“I am the gate”); but, unless I’m mistaken, you were arguing that, since metaphorical statements do exist, then pro-divorce Christians have a leg to stand on if they suggest that Jesus’ statements on divorce are simply metaphorical. That argument doesn’t hold up. (In a way, isn’t that like looking outside at a sunny day and defending the person who says it’s pitch-black outside since, after all, there are times of day when it’s pitch-black outside…?)