In quoting the Word of God do Catholics want it both ways?

[Subrosa]

Robert Heibel:

(Matthew 5:43) “You have learnt how it was said: You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in Heaven.”

How come then when Matthew is again quoted it has to be watered down like in the following example. A Catholic director, Religious Education “The Catholic tradition teaches that while all killing is morally wrong, killing in a certain context (i.e. self-defense can be justified and as a result is not as serious a sin as pre-meditated murder. Since the killing of any human being regardless of the context is a violation of god’s love, the Catholic view maintains that violence and war are results of man’s fallen nature (original sin) and as such it is morally justified for a man to protect his family and kill a thief who enters the home.”
Now let us read what Luke says about some one who robs you? (Luke 6:30) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you.”

Hi Bob -

Self defense is scriptural. In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us “blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.

But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?

In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked.

Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture – all of Scripture – is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is “a time to kill” (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, “how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,”. “If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” (Exodus 22:2-3)
In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That’s the ultimate expression of self-defense. It doesn’t matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says.

In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist’s acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or “Peace of Rome,” could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul’s observation that the state “does not bear the sword in vain” but is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4).

As long as Christianity remained a minority religion in the Roman Empire, it was not forced to put these insights together into a formal theory of when warfare could be used. But as Christianity grew predominant, more attention had to be devoted to this subject. By the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430) the need for a theory of when warfare was just was keen, and Augustine provided one, crystallizing biblical principles into what is now known as just war doctrine. In the intervening centuries the theory has been refined, but its framework remains as he gave it.

 

[JimO]

Robert Heibel:

Do you really think there is someone that has more knowledge and experience than Jesus? Gosh! Here all this time I thought He was the perfect teacher. Who do you suggest I should listen to?

I’ve read all your posts and am a bit confused. First you say that the Word of God is your sole rule of faith and source of instruction for life. But then, you claim that Jesus speaks directly to you giving instructions that go beyond the literal meaning of Scripture. Instead of taking that as a personal word for yourself only, you claim that others should listen and adhere to what you have heard directly from Jesus. Am I correct in my summary?

If this is so, then you are acting as your own pope, interpreting Scripture yourself (have you studied it in the original languages or are you relying on someone else’s translation?), telling the world how Jesus wants us to understand Scripture, and what beyond Scripture Jesus wants us to do. I also find it ironic that the Scripture you opened the thread up with was the one Catholics believe established the office of the Pope and yet you seem to be giving yourself the same authority you claim the Catholic Church doesn’t have, that being interpreting Scripture, telling the world how it should be understood, and what beyond Scripture Jesus wants us to do. You do not present a credible argument.

 

[Trelow]

Robert Heibel:

Do you really think there is someone that has more knowledge and experience than Jesus? Gosh! Here all this time I thought He was the perfect teacher. Who do you suggest I should listen to?

Well like dealing with any man, listen to His wife. She always does a much better job of impaling his actions.

 

[allhers]

Robert, has anyone ever explained discernment to you?
Is it of God----Is it of me----Is it of the evil one
Now, while I do believe that God can speak directly to our hearts, I also know that Jesus left us a Church and sent the Holy Spirit to His Church and that He also left us those in Authority over us to explain all that He taught them, He said that the Holy Spirit would lead us to all truth. Remember?

Now, I am wondering one thing, IF you believe that Jesus speaks directly to YOU and answers everything that you ask HIM, why are you asking US anything? Why not just go pray and ask HIM?? (but remember that discernment thing, and when you have any questions after that, let us know, ok?)

 

[Pax]

Robert,

In my post #11, I quoted a couple of passages of scripture which you neither addressed nor explained to deny my position or to support your own.

In Subrosa’s post this scripture was cited, **“let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” ** (Luke 22:36).

The quote from Luke 22:36 has another supporting set of verses that also prove that your position is untenable in terms of “self defense.”

Verse 38 says, "And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’ We then see as we continue to read the gospel narrative that Jesus and his disciples went to the Garden of Gethsemane. Eventually, Judas and the others show up to arrest Jesus. During the course of the events one of the disciples (Peter according to John’s account) cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Now get this, Jesus tells them to get swords. They then get a couple of swords. And then one of them uses a sword. The account in Luke reads as follows: “And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.”[Luke 22:49-51]

Apparently, self defense was Okay. Jesus did, however, see that his disciples may have come to harm had the confrontation continued and escalated. He knew his mission and he knew there was know reason to let them come to harm. In Matthew 26:52-54 we find all of this made even more clear because in that account we read this: “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Jesus is actually agreeing with self defense but he sees how it would hinder his mission in this instance and how it would only bring harm to his apostles.

In verse 55 Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, " At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, ‘Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?’ " Notice that Jesus does not say anything against going out against a robber with swords and clubs. Instead, he only questions them about how they came against him, as if he were a robber.

You are not taking all of scripture into consideration and we have the exact words of Jesus himself telling us what he thinks about self defense. Jesus is in no way saying that a person cannot or should not defend themselves against dangerous physical aggression by others. Since God does not change it is clear that you have misconstrued what Jesus is telling you. Either that or Jesus is not the source of your ideas in this matter.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Pax:

Robert,

In my post #11, I quoted a couple of passages of scripture which you neither addressed nor explained to deny my position or to support your own.

In Subrosa’s post this scripture was cited, **“let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” ** (Luke 22:36).

The quote from Luke 22:36 has another supporting set of verses that also prove that your position is untenable in terms of “self defense.”

Verse 38 says, "And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’ We then see as we continue to read the gospel narrative that Jesus and his disciples went to the Garden of Gethsemane. Eventually, Judas and the others show up to arrest Jesus. During the course of the events one of the disciples (Peter according to John’s account) cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Now get this, Jesus tells them to get swords. They then get a couple of swords. And then one of them uses a sword. The account in Luke reads as follows: “And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.”[Luke 22:49-51]

Apparently, self defense was Okay. Jesus did, however, see that his disciples may have come to harm had the confrontation continued and escalated. He knew his mission and he knew there was know reason to let them come to harm. In Matthew 26:52-54 we find all of this made even more clear because in that account we read this: “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Jesus is actually agreeing with self defense but he sees how it would hinder his mission in this instance and how it would only bring harm to his apostles.

In verse 55 Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, " At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, ‘Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?’ " Notice that Jesus does not say anything against going out against a robber with swords and clubs. Instead, he only questions them about how they came against him, as if he were a robber.

You are not taking all of scripture into consideration and we have the exact words of Jesus himself telling us what he thinks about self defense. Jesus is in no way saying that a person cannot or should not defend themselves against dangerous physical aggression by others. Since God does not change it is clear that you have misconstrued what Jesus is telling you. Either that or Jesus is not the source of your ideas in this matter.

Pax, I’ll quote you the Catholic explanation of (Luke 22:36) The purse to buy, the sword to procure by force, the necessities of life. All this is symbolic of a mission in a hostile world. “The Jerusalem Bible”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”
(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said:’ You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”

(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly”

God told us what we now must do and it seem everyone is trying in every which way to say you didn’t mean that did you. Jesus said it why don’t we just do what He said to do?
Bob

 

[mlchance]

Robert Heibel:

You know He personally told me that we were not to hurt (harm) anyone for any reason.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

allhers:

Robert, has anyone ever explained discernment to you?
Is it of God----Is it of me----Is it of the evil one
Now, while I do believe that God can speak directly to our hearts, I also know that Jesus left us a Church and sent the Holy Spirit to His Church and that He also left us those in Authority over us to explain all that He taught them, He said that the Holy Spirit would lead us to all truth. Remember?

Now, I am wondering one thing, IF you believe that Jesus speaks directly to YOU and answers everything that you ask HIM, why are you asking US anything? Why not just go pray and ask HIM?? (but remember that discernment thing, and when you have any questions after that, let us know, ok?)

I am not really asking you anything. I just found a good way to do what Jesus told me to do. Give a word. Thank you!!!

 

[Vonier]

Mr. Heibel,

Those are indeed the words of Christ. They’re beautiful words and they speak right to the heart of the matter, which happens to be my heart and yours too. Why do we fuss and fight with our neighbors? Why do we imagine wrongs where there are none, or take huge offense at small things? Why can’t we forgive and forget? Why do we divide into nations and tribes and camps and religions and kill each other? Why do we oppress each other and steal from each other and justify it because someone is another race or creed? I don’t think Jesus’ subject here is violence. It’s hearts. He speaks here not to what we do, but why we do it.

To not defend the weak is a misinterpretation of Jesus’ words. To say you would stand and watch your wife be raped speaks more to your heart than any violence you might use to defend her. To turn to her in prayer and tell her so and then come here and display those words like some trophy of obedience is, well, creepy. For all your listening to Jesus, I don’t think you come close to understanding Him.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

JimO:

I’ve read all your posts and am a bit confused. First you say that the Word of God is your sole rule of faith and source of instruction for life. But then, you claim that Jesus speaks directly to you giving instructions that go beyond the literal meaning of Scripture. Instead of taking that as a personal word for yourself only, you claim that others should listen and adhere to what you have heard directly from Jesus. Am I correct in my summary?

If this is so, then you are acting as your own pope, interpreting Scripture yourself (have you studied it in the original languages or are you relying on someone else’s translation?), telling the world how Jesus wants us to understand Scripture, and what beyond Scripture Jesus wants us to do. I also find it ironic that the Scripture you opened the thread up with was the one Catholics believe established the office of the Pope and yet you seem to be giving yourself the same authority you claim the Catholic Church doesn’t have, that being interpreting Scripture, telling the world how it should be understood, and what beyond Scripture Jesus wants us to do. You do not present a credible argument.

What I am trying to share with everyone is that yes Jesus (Holy Spirit) can and will speak to all that will open their hearts to Him. I say Jesus speaks to me, and some how that must mean I am sick. Paul heard Jesus was he sick? Others have heard Jesus; I believe Mother Theresa heard Jesus.

 

[Subrosa]

Robert Heibel:

What I am trying to share with everyone is that yes Jesus (Holy Spirit) can and will speak to all that will open their hearts to Him. I say Jesus speaks to me, and some how that must mean I am sick. Paul heard Jesus was he sick? Others have heard Jesus; I believe Mother Theresa heard Jesus.

I agree. Bob is correct. If there is anyone on this forum that has not opened his or her heart to Jesus, please speak up and let us know.

Subrosa

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

(Matthew 16:18-19) “So I now say to you; you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven.”

I believe Catholics take this Scripture and believe that it very literally says that the Catholic church holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:43) “You have learnt how it was said: You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in Heaven.”

How come then when Matthew is again quoted it has to be watered down like in the following example. A Catholic director, Religious Education “The Catholic tradition teaches that while all killing is morally wrong, killing in a certain context (i.e. self-defense can be justified and as a result is not as serious a sin as pre-meditated murder. Since the killing of any human being regardless of the context is a violation of god’s love, the Catholic view maintains that violence and war are results of man’s fallen nature (original sin) and as such it is morally justified for a man to protect his family and kill a thief who enters the home.”
Now let us read what Luke says about some one who robs you? (Luke 6:30) “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your property back from the man who robs you.”

Now lets read what John and Hebrews says about a Christian’s sinful nature.

(1 John 3:5-6) “Now you know that he appeared in order to abolish sin, and that in him there is no sin; anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him or known him.”

(Hebrews 6: 4) “As for those people who were once brought into the light, and tasted the gift from heaven, and received a share of the Holy Spirit, and appreciated the good message of God and the powers of the world to come and yet in spite of this have fallen away it is impossible for that to be renewed a second time. They cannot be repentant if they have willfully crucified the Son of God and openly mocked Him.”

I think you’re on to something - namely, that Catholics - and Calvinists, and Anglicans, and Baptists, and Lutherans, and probably everyone else, find texts in the Bible that each tradition is apt to downplay. Each has a tradition within which the Bible is read and understood, and each writes its theology in the light of its understanding of that tradition, and each, having received that tradition from previous generations of teachers, is unwilling to question that tradition beyond a certain point; so it does its best to accomodate whatever in the Bible or its tradition questions that tradition - only to be criticised by Christians of other traditions for the poverty of its theological understanding; though they have their own problems - but not with the texts which are problematic for the traditions they criticise; their own difficulties, will lie elsewhere in their encounter with the Bible & their tradition.​

The only people who avoid such problems, are those who don’t attempt to use the Bible and their tradition as a guarantee of their own doctrinal and ecclesiological authenticity - IOW, those Christians who do not bother with the sort of systematic theology which is designed to vindicate their own understanding of Christian doctrine.

It is at least possible, that it would be a bad thing if any one body could prove that its use of the Bible & tradition, and its alone, were authentically Christian - it may belong to the life of faith that no such proof, convincing to and accepted by all, will ever be possible. ##

 

[Pax]

Robert Heibel:

Pax, I’ll quote you the Catholic explanation of (Luke 22:36) The purse to buy, the sword to procure by force, the necessities of life. All this is symbolic of a mission in a hostile world. “The Jerusalem Bible”

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”
(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said:’ You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”

(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly”

God told us what we now must do and it seem everyone is trying in every which way to say you didn’t mean that did you. Jesus said it why don’t we just do what He said to do?
Bob

Robert,

Congratulations! You have for once attempted to engage me with scriptural exegesis and for that I commend you. Unfortunately, there is a problem with your argument. First of all, you quoted the footnote type comments of the New Jerusalem Bible to support your point. Moreover, you quoted it as if it were the teaching of the Catholic Church being that it’s a Catholic translation. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Church teaches what you said it does not teach, or the footnote comment is merely a scholar’s interpretive opinion of the symbolic aspects of the verse. In either case that creates problems for your argument. At best your exegesis is incomplete.

Let me give you a short and, albeit, incomplete course on biblical exegesis.

The first thing that the reader is to do is to take the “literal” meaning of of the verses. That means to understand the literal meaning intended by the sacred writer. The next thing is to look for the spiritual meaning(s) including the allegorical, moral, and anagogical. In the verses in question it is quite clear that the literal meaning is primary and I carefully explained that part to you. We know that the literal meaning is primary because of the actions and sequence of actual events. Jesus says to buy some swords. The disciples procure a couple of swords. They take the swords with them as Jesus apparently wanted them to. One of the disciples uses the sword. Jesus only stops the fracas because of three things: 1. He doesn’t want his disciples injured or killed, and 2. Jesus knows his mission and does not want it to be derailed. His hour had come to complete his purpose and self defense in this instance would have hindered that purpose. 3. Jesus mentions that the crowd had come out against him armed as if against a robber. He doesn’t condemn them for how they might try to subdue a robber. He only questions why they would come against him in this fashion. That is the literal part of the passages.

None of what I’m saying denies the spiritual side which you have presented from the New Jerusalem Bible comment and I have no argument with that. You must however take all of it, and it is clear that the literal part is quite meaningful in terms of the issues surrounding self defense. Your other quotes are great and they are important for us as Christians. For the OT Jews it was truly “an eye for an eye” and Jesus condemns that mentality. Jesus statements are meant to turn people from this attitude which lacked any sense of justice or compassion when placed along side his command to love your neighbor as yourself.

None of this negates the right and responsibility of people to stop deadly physical aggression against themselves, their loved ones, or their neighbor. All of the scriptures I quoted indicate that this is so, and you still haven’t addressed the verses I quoted in my post # 11. Perhaps you can analyze them in your next response.

Anyway, I do appreciate your making the effort to use scripture and exegesis. This is genuine progress in how you respond to posts.

 

[mlchance]

Pax:

Let me give you a short and, albeit, incomplete course on biblical exegesis.

But Robert doesn’t need any such course. Jesus just tells him the truth of the matter is. Thank goodness he’s finally here to set us straight after 2000 years of Catholic misinterpretation of Scripture.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

ahimsaman72:

If you want to appeal to Scripture then here you are:

Exodus 18:4 - And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine **help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh: **

Exodus 23:5 - If thou see the *** of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

Deuteronomy 22:4 - Thou shalt not see thy brother’s *** or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: **thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. **

Deuteronomy 32:38 - Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection

1 Chronicles 12:21 - And they helped David against the band of the rovers: for they were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the host.

Luke 5:7 - And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.

Philippians 4:3 - And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Now, if you are supposed to help your neighbor get his ox out of a hole, don’t you think (using reason) that God would want you to protect your wife from being raped and/or children killed?

(Matthew 5:43) “You have learnt how it was said: You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in Heaven.”

(Romans 12:18-21) “Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As scripture says: ‘vengeance is Mine I will pay them back, the Lord promises,’ but there is more: if your enemy is hungry, you should give him food, and if he is thirsty, let him drink. Thus you heap red-hot coals on his head. Resist evil and conquer it with good.”

(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly”

 

[ahimsaman72]

(Matthew 5:43) “You have learnt how it was said: You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in Heaven.”

(Romans 12:18-21) “Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As scripture says: ‘vengeance is Mine I will pay them back, the Lord promises,’ but there is more: if your enemy is hungry, you should give him food, and if he is thirsty, let him drink. Thus you heap red-hot coals on his head. Resist evil and conquer it with good.”

(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly”

Now, if you are supposed to help your neighbor get his ox out of a hole, don’t you think (using reason) that God would want you to protect your wife from being raped and/or children killed?

 

[Pax]

(Matthew 5:43) “You have learnt how it was said: You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in Heaven.”

(Romans 12:18-21) “Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As scripture says: ‘vengeance is Mine I will pay them back, the Lord promises,’ but there is more: if your enemy is hungry, you should give him food, and if he is thirsty, let him drink. Thus you heap red-hot coals on his head. Resist evil and conquer it with good.”

(Luke 6:27-28) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly”

Revenge and such is certainly condemned, but this is not a reference to “self-defense.” Loving your enemies is also important and yet it is not a condemnation of “self defense.” Notice in Luke 6:27-28…it makes reference to those that hate you and curse you, and those that treat you badly. It does not say anything about someone that is attempting to kill you or your loved ones.

As Christians we can be persecuted. Believe me, as a Catholic I have had some hurtful and hateful remarks hurled my way by a few Fundamentalists and others that have made utterly bigoted and ignorant remarks about Catholics. I have also had many non-believers mock me and others for having Christian moral principles guiding our lives. These are examples of what Jesus is talking about. Certainly there are other examples, but they do not reach the level of aggressive and possibly lethal physical force that might endanger the life of a Christian at the hands of a robber or murderer. In these cases we are to defend ourselves.

A really good example of how the verses you supplied could be understood would be as follows: Suppose a family member had been murdered and the perpetrator was brought to justice. Our response should be to put aside our anger and not seek revenge. We should pray for the welfare of the perpetrator’s soul and not pursue the death penalty which in our country is unnecessary. This is loving your enemy and not seeking revenge.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Pax:

Revenge and such is certainly condemned, but this is not a reference to “self-defense.” Loving your enemies is also important and yet it is not a condemnation of “self defense.” Notice in Luke 6:27-28…it makes reference to those that hate you and curse you, and those that treat you badly. It does not say anything about someone that is attempting to kill you or your loved ones.

As Christians we can be persecuted. Believe me, as a Catholic I have had some hurtful and hateful remarks hurled my way by a few Fundamentalists and others that have made utterly bigoted and ignorant remarks about Catholics. I have also had many non-believers mock me and others for having Christian moral principles guiding our lives. These are examples of what Jesus is talking about. Certainly there are other examples, but they do not reach the level of aggressive and possibly lethal physical force that might endanger the life of a Christian at the hands of a robber or murderer. In these cases we are to defend ourselves.

A really good example of how the verses you supplied could be understood would be as follows: Suppose a family member had been murdered and the perpetrator was brought to justice. Our response should be to put aside our anger and not seek revenge. We should pray for the welfare of the perpetrator’s soul and not pursue the death penalty which in our country is unnecessary. This is loving your enemy and not seeking revenge.

I fell so sorry that people have so little faith in God that they can’t just live the Word of God. He is God and has the power to protect us or our love ones if He wants them protected.
Bob

 

[Subrosa]

Robert Heibel:

I fell so sorry that people have so little faith in God that they can’t just live the Word of God. He is God and has the power to protect us or our love ones if He wants them protected.
Bob

But, Bob! You misunderstand! The Church is the living Word of God here on earth. It is the institution in which He interacts with us on earth. Within it’s mystical bounderies it’s members are incorporated into Christ’s Body.
The Church came into being when Christ died on the Cross, but it was formally inaugurated on Pentecost, when He sent the Holy Spirit as He had promised. St. Paul speaks of all Christians as members of Christ, so that with Him, they form one Mystical Body (Cf. 1 Cor 12:12-31; Col 1:18; 2:18-20; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:19; 4:13). St. Paul did not use the word Mystical. It was developed more recently to bring out the fact that this union is unique, there is no parallel to it. It is not the same as the union of a physical body, nor that of a business corporation.

The Church, the Mystical Body, exists on this earth, and is called the Church militant, because its members struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. The Church suffering means the souls in Purgatory. The Church triumphant is the Church in heaven. The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints. When St. Paul uses the word “Saints” in opening an Epistle, he does not mean they are morally perfect. He has in mind Hebrew qadosh, which means set aside for God, or coming under the covenant. Being such means of course they are called to moral perfection. But of course, not all have reached it in this world.

Your brother in Christ,
Subrosa

 

[edward_george]

Mr. Heibel,

Let’s get a few things straight. First off, we know you acknowledge that Jesus is God. We know that you acknowledge that the Bible is God’s inspired word. Do you acknowledge that God never changes, that he has always been and is always and will be forever, and that he never contradicts himself?

If so, then let logic follow as such: Jesus told us that if any man has two cloaks, he is to sell one and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). What good would a sword do for an absolute pacifist? Why would Jesus, in what you claim he is telling you, contradict what he said to his Apostles?

If you don’t acknowledge that God never changes and never contradicts himself, then I suggest that you take a bit of time to discern the truth–as this is a rather theologically dangerous point of view to have.

Also, if you are indeed receiving private revelations from Jesus, I’m happy for you–you are truly blessed. But if those “revelations” are contradicting 2000 years of Tradition, as delivered from the Apostles as was given to them by Christ, then you might have a serious problem on your hands. Jesus said “He who is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30). If the Tradition handed down through the Church that he established is true, and what he is allegedly telling you is contrary to truth, then you might be encountering a force that is indeed against him.

May the Holy Spirit guide you to truth.

-ACEGC

PS-Instead of brushing off people’s replies to you or slinging verses that are somehow remotely related to what we’re talking about, how about you logically and sincerely consider what we say to you? Maybe we’re speaking in love here…