Is the function of Christ really to rescue sinners?

[JamesCaruso]

While Christ might have borne insults to Himself, how did He react to the insults to His Father perpetrated by the moneychangers in the temple?

If someone says something nasty about me, I would shrug it off or offer it up. But if someone were to insult someone I love–one’s mother is the usual example–then I might rightfully take action.

St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theoligica Second Part of Part Two Q 188 Reply 1:
Reply to Objection 1. Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. **Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. **…

Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it: [Anger is a] desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive.

Good point. I will try not to use this to justify when I just want to spout anger at someone anyway (some people just rub me the wrong way) and this rationale gives me a perfect excuse to do so.

 

[504Katrin]

While Christ might have borne insults to Himself, how did He react to the insults to His Father perpetrated by the moneychangers in the temple?

If someone says something nasty about me, I would shrug it off or offer it up. But if someone were to insult someone I love–one’s mother is the usual example–then I might rightfully take action.

St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theoligica Second Part of Part Two Q 188 Reply 1:
Reply to Objection 1. Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. **Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. **…

Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it: [Anger is a] desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive.

Thank you and I partly agree with you here in your statement that evil needs to be fought. But wow I totally disagree on the notion that anger isn’t wrong, not to speak of praiseworthy. Vengence? Oh vey! I thought that vengeance was something that the Catholic church, too, taught to be wrong. Vengeance is none of our business at all, it’s G-ds’ business only. And how could anyone but G-d know whether vengeance was deserved or not? This vengeance thingy I admit is a totally abstract thought to me that I cannot even follow I’m afraid. Thanks G-d this I was spared of at least.

Back to anger being praiseworthy, what would your action look like if someone insulted family or friends? The only way to answer insult is by leading with example, with good actions and a clear voice that is gentle rather than angry. I’m not saying I could do all this, I’m the same way I take insult towards myself easy but get angry when I feel that someone insults my folks, but it’s my goal to change, and this is why I was interested in your words in the first place.

 

[SteveVH]

Oh vey! I thought that vengeance was something that the Catholic church, too, taught to be wrong. Vengeance is none of our business at all, it’s G-ds’ business only. And how could anyone but G-d know whether vengeance was deserved or not? This vengeance thingy I admit is a totally abstract thought to me that I cannot even follow I’m afraid. Thanks G-d this I was spared of at least.

“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” I just want to be about the Lord’s business.

 

[St_Francis]

Good point. I will try not to use this to justify when I just want to spout anger at someone anyway (some people just rub me the wrong way) and this rationale gives me a perfect excuse to do so.

I hesitate to suggest that you are kidding, for fear that I will be again accused of incivility… so if you are kidding if you are not, my lengthy next post should contain a response to your point.

 

[St_Francis]

Argh, I had this half-written, and it disappeared

Thank you and I partly agree with you here in your statement that evil needs to be fought. But wow I totally disagree on the notion that anger isn’t wrong, not to speak of praiseworthy. Vengence? Oh vey! I thought that vengeance was something that the Catholic church, too, taught to be wrong. Vengeance is none of our business at all, it’s G-ds’ business only. And how could anyone but G-d know whether vengeance was deserved or not? This vengeance thingy I admit is a totally abstract thought to me that I cannot even follow I’m afraid. Thanks G-d this I was spared of at least.

I do not think that you have been spared from this at all!

The Jews have something in their studies which is called, iirc, pilpul, where very fine distinctions are made between very similar things in order to reconcile apparent differences. This type of thinking is not limited to Judaism. Some people think it is a trick, but it is no maore a trick than to distinguish between identical twins and accept them as two separate individuals. Remember that we humans are often limited, esp in language, and most esp when we are dealing with different languages.

So let us consider the concept of “vengeance.” In the same way that altho God calls Himself Lord but allows ruling among humans, so God both retains the right to vengeance and allows us to participate in it. The confusion comes because we see vengeance as covering the personal application of consequences for an action directed towards oneself in some way, but the general definition is much more general: “n. Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.” This could easily apply to what occurs in US courts every day, no?

In the same way, we see St Thomas address this point: Reply to Objection 1. He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.
My point above.

Reply to Objection 2. The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: **but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. **For Chrysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked."
Can you see that at times we are *called *to commit an act against the bad act of another? Can you see that we are not to ignore the pain inflicted on a neighbor because, after all, vengeance is the Lord’s, or because each must bear wrongs patiently?

And can you see that letting slide an insult against God would be very wrong on many levels?

We Catholics are also called by the Church to admonish sinners–it is one of the spiritual acts of mercy. This is one level one which it would be wrong to ignore someone’s insulting God.

Reply to Objection 3. The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the Gospel, **ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, **but only those who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.
IOW, we are not called to be bullied; we are esp not called to allow others to be bullied.

Back to anger being praiseworthy, what would your action look like if someone insulted family or friends? The only way to answer insult is by leading with example, with good actions and a clear voice that is gentle rather than angry. I’m not saying I could do all this, I’m the same way I take insult towards myself easy but get angry when I feel that someone insults my folks, but it’s my goal to change, and this is why I was interested in your words in the first place.

This whole entire discussion came about because I called the words of Bishop Sprong claptrap.

If I bought a car which turned out to be a lemon, and a mechanic called it a piece of junk, would I be insulted? Would I say that the mechanic had been uncivil? *On what grounds would I call this man uncivil? *Think about it… on what grounds does the OP call me uncivil?

 

[504Katrin]

Argh, I had this half-written, and it disappeared

I do not think that you have been spared from this at all!

The Jews have something in their studies which is called, iirc, pilpul, where very fine distinctions are made between very similar things in order to reconcile apparent differences. This type of thinking is not limited to Judaism. Some people think it is a trick, but it is no maore a trick than to distinguish between identical twins and accept them as two separate individuals. Remember that we humans are often limited, esp in language, and most esp when we are dealing with different languages.

So let us consider the concept of “vengeance.” In the same way that altho God calls Himself Lord but allows ruling among humans, so God both retains the right to vengeance and allows us to participate in it. The confusion comes because we see vengeance as covering the personal application of consequences for an action directed towards oneself in some way, but the general definition is much more general: “n. Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.” This could easily apply to what occurs in US courts every day, no?

…sorry had to shorten (due to post length)

Can you see that at times we are *called *to commit an act against the bad act of another? Can you see that we are not to ignore the pain inflicted on a neighbor because, after all, vengeance is the Lord’s, or because each must bear wrongs patiently?

And can you see that letting slide an insult against God would be very wrong on many levels?

We Catholics are also called by the Church to admonish sinners–it is one of the spiritual acts of mercy. This is one level one which it would be wrong to ignore someone’s insulting God.

Reply to Objection 3. The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the Gospel, **ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, **but only those who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.
IOW, we are not called to be bullied; we are esp not called to allow others to be bullied.

This whole entire discussion came about because I called the words of Bishop Sprong claptrap.

If I bought a car which turned out to be a lemon, and a mechanic called it a piece of junk, would I be insulted? Would I say that the mechanic had been uncivil? *On what grounds would I call this man uncivil? *Think about it… on what grounds does the OP call me uncivil?

No, no, and NO. This is fun. But I have little time so have to hurry up also.
First of all, since you wrote it a second time I appreciate it all the more.
Now if you could let it be to tell me what I’ve been spared of and what I haven’t been spared of I’d be grateful. I don’t hold grudges. Unfortunately I get angry often, but I don’t seek revenge. Now on to our discussion.

G-d allows us to participate in His right to seek vengeance you say. You know what, He allows us to participate in anything - this is why we have free will. When we “participate” (this word being used in this context is so utterly wrong that it almost brings me chills) in His vengeance and take action and retaliate we chose to do the wrong thing. There’re situations when you ought to fight, and there’re situations when you should seek peace, and what makes vangeance just wrong in my opinion is that vengeance always happens at a later time - when the battle is already over. And this is what makes it so wrong. You cannot say “he did this and that to me or my folks last week or last month or whenever, so now that I can retaliate I will do it” This is so wrong. Who are we to seek revenge? Who are we to get angry at people? What happens to me happens for a reason. Why do things happen? Because G-d wants them to happen. If I get angry at people I get angry at His will also. The goal for me is to surrender myself completely to G-d. I will know that I made it when I don’t get angry anymore.

As to your questions, how comes you think I have anything against actions that fight evil, be it “bullying” or other things? I was raised that way it’s stuck to my bones and the result is that I can never keep my mouth shut. I asked you what your actions would look like and told you how we are to respond in my opinion.

Insult against G-d is relative. My Rabbi might pray for me when he sees me getting angry which is an insult against G-d may He forgive me. I will tell you that much. I’m far from perfect, and I know I will never be perfect, but - yes it’s audacious maybe but I STILL want to become holy - and since I’m far from that I won’t tell anyone how to live their relationship with G-d. Encouragement and the attempt to bring folks closer to G-d is something that is always in front of my eyes, but what happens with someone and G-d is their business and not mine.

Forget about the Bishops soandso claptrap thingy. This discussion has been fun, I learned from you, and I disagree with you, and so in the end we will have to agree to disagree

*“If I repaid the one who did evil to me, and I stripped my adversary into emptiness, may the enemy pursue my soul and overtake me and trample my life to the ground, and cause my soul to rest in the dust forever.” * David

 

[St_Francis]

Katrin,
I am sorry, apparently I did not emphsize enough that I am not talking about that type of revengeful vengeance…

More later

 

[St_Francis]

No, no, and NO. This is fun. But I have little time so have to hurry up also.
First of all, since you wrote it a second time I appreciate it all the more.
Now if you could let it be to tell me what I’ve been spared of and what I haven’t been spared of I’d be grateful. I don’t hold grudges. Unfortunately I get angry often, but I don’t seek revenge. Now on to our discussion.

That was just a light response to your comment that you had been spared from what i took to be all considerations of what I was considering vengeance to be

G-d allows us to participate in His right to seek vengeance you say. You know what, He allows us to participate in anything - this is why we have free will. When we “participate” (this word being used in this context is so utterly wrong that it almost brings me chills) in His vengeance and take action and retaliate we chose to do the wrong thing. There’re situations when you ought to fight, and there’re situations when you should seek peace, and what makes vangeance just wrong in my opinion is that vengeance always happens at a later time - when the battle is already over

And this is what makes definitions so very important. I totally agree with you that I cannot beat up my neighbor this week because in the past he had beat me up (altho at the time I have the total right to defend myself).

But this is not the definition of vengeance I am using. We each have varying devrees of authority, and if my neighbor beat me up, once the whole thing is over, I press charges with the proper authorites. They then do something: lock him up, fine him, force him to pay my doctor bills and lost pay… Right? and yet this happens after the attack is all over. And (theoretically) the amount of “vengeance” is proportionate to the crime committed.

. And this is what makes it so wrong. You cannot say “he did this and that to me or my folks last week or last month or whenever, so now that I can retaliate I will do it” This is so wrong. Who are we to seek revenge? Who are we to get angry at people? What happens to me happens for a reason. Why do things happen? Because G-d wants them to happen. If I get angry at people I get angry at His will also. The goal for me is to surrender myself completely to G-d. I will know that I made it when I don’t get angry anymore.

I agree with what you are describing here, but hope you understand that I was describing something different.

As to your questions, how comes you think I have anything against actions that fight evil, be it “bullying” or other things? I was raised that way it’s stuck to my bones and the result is that I can never keep my mouth shut. I asked you what your actions would look like and told you how we are to respond in my opinion.

What I posted was from St Thomas; it was not directed at you. I included it because it showed an additional side of what the Church is thinking.

Insult against G-d is relative. My Rabbi might pray for me when he sees me getting angry which is an insult against G-d may He forgive me. I will tell you that much. I’m far from perfect, and I know I will never be perfect, but - yes it’s audacious maybe but I STILL want to become holy - and since I’m far from that I won’t tell anyone how to live their relationship with G-d. Encouragement and the attempt to bring folks closer to G-d is something that is always in front of my eyes, but what happens with someone and G-d is their business and not mine.

What you describe here is very different from the Catholic idea that we are also supposed to help each other get to Heaven.

Forget about the Bishops soandso claptrap thingy. This discussion has been fun, I learned from you, and I disagree with you, and so in the end we will have to agree to disagree

You asked very good questions and I too learned from our discussion.

*“If I repaid the one who did evil to me, and I stripped my adversary into emptiness, may the enemy pursue my soul and overtake me and trample my life to the ground, and cause my soul to rest in the dust forever.” * David

As I tried and apparently failed to show, the Catholic idea is not so much to be concerned with offenses against ourselves, but that at times it is important to act against offenses agaInst others.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I hesitate to suggest that you are kidding, for fear that I will be again accused of incivility… so if you are kidding if you are not, my lengthy next post should contain a response to your point.

I’m not sure if I was kidding or not. Knowing my human nature, I might grasp at any straw to justify my misbehavior.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not sure if I was kidding or not. Knowing my human nature, I might grasp at any straw to justify my misbehavior.

:lol: I know what you mean!

 

[JamesCaruso]

Argh, I had this half-written, and it disappeared

I do not think that you have been spared from this at all!

The Jews have something in their studies which is called, iirc, pilpul, where very fine distinctions are made between very similar things in order to reconcile apparent differences. This type of thinking is not limited to Judaism. Some people think it is a trick, but it is no maore a trick than to distinguish between identical twins and accept them as two separate individuals. Remember that we humans are often limited, esp in language, and most esp when we are dealing with different languages.

So let us consider the concept of “vengeance.” In the same way that altho God calls Himself Lord but allows ruling among humans, so God both retains the right to vengeance and allows us to participate in it. The confusion comes because we see vengeance as covering the personal application of consequences for an action directed towards oneself in some way, but the general definition is much more general: “n. Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.” This could easily apply to what occurs in US courts every day, no?

In the same way, we see St Thomas address this point: Reply to Objection 1. He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.
My point above.

Reply to Objection 2. The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: **but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. **For Chrysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked."
Can you see that at times we are *called *to commit an act against the bad act of another? Can you see that we are not to ignore the pain inflicted on a neighbor because, after all, vengeance is the Lord’s, or because each must bear wrongs patiently?

And can you see that letting slide an insult against God would be very wrong on many levels?

We Catholics are also called by the Church to admonish sinners–it is one of the spiritual acts of mercy. This is one level one which it would be wrong to ignore someone’s insulting God.

Reply to Objection 3. The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the Gospel, **ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, **but only those who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.
IOW, we are not called to be bullied; we are esp not called to allow others to be bullied.

This whole entire discussion came about because I called the words of Bishop Sprong claptrap.

If I bought a car which turned out to be a lemon, and a mechanic called it a piece of junk, would I be insulted? Would I say that the mechanic had been uncivil? *On what grounds would I call this man uncivil? *Think about it… on what grounds does the OP call me uncivil?

Sometimes others take the criticism we level at a particular statement as a criticism leveled at them. After all, we are often part and parcel with what we believe. If I believed in the tooth fairy, I mean really believed, and you told me, “Nonsense!” it might be taken as a personal affront to me or at least to one of my cherished beliefs, even though it is in reality nonsense.
Maybe the person misjudged your motive, or maybe he did not. Sometimes even we hide from out own motives. Sometimes, especially in terse, written text, the wrong feeling is conveyed. Words have mixed connotations and different parts of the country understand the same words differently. For the person who feels he has been insulted it is best they try to put a good construction on the “offending” words. But our sensitive egos are not prone to this reticence in taking offense; we jump right in with both feet. I recommend but do not always follow the practice of saying “I did not mean to offend you, If I did offend you in any way, I am sorry.” That is not admitting to anything other than the possibility of inadvertent and not meant offensive remarks, not a statement of guilt. Why sorry? Because I regret offending anyone even if it was unintentional or really only the offended person’s oversensitivity and misperception.

 

[St_Francis]

Sometimes others take the criticism we level at a particular statement as a criticism leveled at them. After all, we are often part and parcel with what we believe. If I believed in the tooth fairy, I mean really believed, and you told me, “Nonsense!” it might be taken as a personal affront to me or at least to one of my cherished beliefs, even though it is in reality nonsense.
Maybe the person misjudged your motive, or maybe he did not. Sometimes even we hide from out own motives. Sometimes, especially in terse, written text, the wrong feeling is conveyed. Words have mixed connotations and different parts of the country understand the same words differently. For the person who feels he has been insulted it is best they try to put a good construction on the “offending” words. But our sensitive egos are not prone to this reticence in taking offense; we jump right in with both feet. I recommend but do not always follow the practice of saying “I did not mean to offend you, If I did offend you in any way, I am sorry.” That is not admitting to anything other than the possibility of inadvertent and not meant offensive remarks, not a statement of guilt. Why sorry? Because I regret offending anyone even if it was unintentional or really only the offended person’s oversensitivity and misperception.

Sometimes discretion is indeed the better part of valor, but sometimes it is ceding ground which ought not to be ceded. If I had thought there was a chance that backing up would have helped move the conversation forward, I would have done so; however, I see the OP’s lack of engagement with the responses which to me showed a lack of sincerity. She did not want to hear negative responses and deflected them. Her only positive responses were to posters who agreed with her; the rest were attempts to steer the conversation in a direction away from the much-needed criticism of Spong’s statement. The OP put background info on Spong’s ideas off-limits, changed the topic, etc. She did not evince any interest in learning anything…

I appreciate your coments on the thread, which I found insightful, informative, and engaging