Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And when Jesus Christ advised that one should self-mutilate by removing an eye, was He making the determination that two eyes is one too many? Or is it possible that there is a (somewhat vast) disparity between the language used by a 1st century Hebrew-speaking man and the understanding of a 21st century English-speaking audience?
Is a good point to read scripture in context.
Part of that context is that Christ did say something about Judas. And so some truth is expressed. Is that truth expressed in the form of analogy (parable), lament, exhortation?

The passage expresses truth and so we should think about what that truth is, with the Church.

The Church does not canonize the damned, so we cannot say definitively “where” Judas is at.
But Christ did say something about the peril he was in. And so there is a literal sense (which should not be confused with literalist)
 
And when Jesus Christ advised that one should self-mutilate by removing an eye, was He making the determination that two eyes is one too many? Or is it possible that there is a (somewhat vast) disparity between the language used by a 1st century Hebrew-speaking man and the understanding of a 21st century English-speaking audience?
This is in reference to scandal, which is given or received bad example. St. John Chrysostom said members is symbolic of family members.

Matthew 18

Temptations and Trespasses
(Mark 9:42-50; Luke 17:1-4)

7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

8 And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. 9 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Haydock Commentary

Ver. 8. And if thy hand, or thy foot, &c. These comparisons are to make us sensible, that we must quit and renounce what is most dear to us, sooner than remain in the occasions of offending God. (Witham)

— These words more properly mean our relatives and friends, who are united to us as closely as the different members of the body. This he had touched upon before, yet he again repeats it, for nothing is so pernicious, nothing so dangerous, as the company and conversation of the dissolute. Connections of friendship and affinity, are sometimes more powerful in inclining us to good or evil, than open compulsion. On this account Christ, with great earnestness, commands us to cut with those most near and dear to us, when they are to us the immediate occasions of scandal. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lx.)

**Ver. 7. **It must needs be, not absolutely, but the weakness and wickedness of the world considered that scandals should happen. (Witham)

— Considering the wickedness and corruption of the world, such things always will happen; but the judgments of God, though slow, will be terrible in the extreme. Lento quidem gradu Divina procedit Vindicta, sed tarditatem gravitate compensat. (Val. Max.)

— We must not suppose for a moment that Christ subjects human actions to the control of rigid fatality. It is not the prescience or prediction of Christ, which causes these evils to take place; they do not happen, because Christ foretold them; but, Christ foretold them, because they would infallibly happen. The Almighty permits scandals, because the good are benefited by them, making them more diligent and more watchful: witness the great virtue of Job, of Joseph, and many others perfected in temptation. If the less virtuous receive any detriment from scandals, they owe it to their own sloth and laziness. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lx.)

— Jesus Christ pronounces a double wo to the man who bringeth scandal, and to the world which is punished by it. But why, asks St. Chrysostom does he bewail the miseries of the world, when it depended upon him to stretch forth his hand and remove them? He imitates the conduct of a good physician, who, after prescribing various remedies, feels himself obliged to declare to his patient, that by neglecting the prescriptions, he is increasing his distemper. Jesus Christ had left the throne of his glory, taken upon him the form of a servant, and suffered the greatest extremities, but seeing man so perverse as to reap no advantage from all he had done and suffered for him, he weeps over his miserable state. Nor is this without its particular fruit; for it frequently happens, that whom good counsel cannot move, prayers and tears, and the relation of the dismal consequences attendant on sin, bring to repentance. This also manifests his tenderness and boundless charity, since he weeps over the people, who of all others most contradicted him. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lx.)

See also Mark 10:
28 And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. 29 Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. 31 But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first.
 
It was Jesus Christ that said it.
Do you interpret Scripture literally as a fundamentalist or do you accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic church and its traditions.
For example, in the movies, on the internet, in popular magazines, we see images of sexy women all the time. Should we then pluck out our eyes to avoid these visual temptations which could lead to impure thoughts?
 
Do you interpret Scripture literally as a fundamentalist or do you accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic church and its traditions.
For example, in the movies, on the internet, in popular magazines, we see images of sexy women all the time. Should we then pluck out our eyes to avoid these visual temptations which could lead to impure thoughts?
Something that shocked me beyond belief is the Catholic teaching about self-defense, that is, killing someone who wants to harrm you and/or your wife and children is perfectly okay. Okay to the point where you could receive the eucharist worthily one second after you’ve pulled the trigger. provided, of course that you are otherwise free of mortal sin and have a brass pyx handy. And yet it’s hard to argue against Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29-31. The Bible is officially useless. Reading it slowly or otherwise is a waste of time. Tom, do NOT hurt yourself! If you say to your girlfriend that she’s the apple of your eyes, she knows that’s a metaphor. Stay safe. God love you.
 
Do you interpret Scripture literally as a fundamentalist or do you accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic church and its traditions.
For example, in the movies, on the internet, in popular magazines, we see images of sexy women all the time. Should we then pluck out our eyes to avoid these visual temptations which could lead to impure thoughts?
Read my response here, it means to eliminate scandal such as what comes from family members.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14185687&postcount=224
 
… that is, killing someone who wants to harrm you and/or your wife and children is perfectly okay. Okay to the point where you could receive the eucharist worthily one second after you’ve pulled the trigger…
There is no teaching expressed so crudely as that.

But the church does teach that I may use the force necessary to repel the aggressor. May I shoot a pervert who likes to run past us in the street and slap my wife on the backside? No. May I shoot a terrorist whom I believe is about to murder my family? Yes. Would you feel unable to take that action on moral grounds?

The Bible is a difficult read. Catholics rely on the Magisterium to help us grasp its lessons.
 
There is no teaching expressed so crudely as that.

But the church does teach that I may use the force necessary to repel the aggressor. May I shoot a pervert who likes to run past us in the street and slap my wife on the backside? No. May I shoot a terrorist whom I believe is about to murder my family? Yes. Would you feel unable to take that action on moral grounds?

The Bible is a difficult read. Catholics rely on the Magisterium to help us grasp its lessons.
I was aware of that. Maybe I should have added ‘‘serious harm’’. Yet the two passages I quote come strongly against that teaching, though. Now, tell me, if someone really slaps me, do i turn the other cheek or do I stand up for myself? Why does Jesus specifically say NOT to defend oneself? Same with someone stealing someone from me. Am I to say, '‘Hey, not so fast, come back I’ve got a few more to give you! How many miles do I have to carry the belongings of a soldier from another nation occupying Canada if he asks me to carry them for 2 miles? Why not write a new OT where Jesus’ original words are changed to reflect what majority votes and Tradition agree they mean?
 
What about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? What does Tradition say Paul meant by that? Was he advocating for women to be more involved in Church, to be more vocal maybe? How is that not revisionism? If I feel God telling me to remain silent when in prayer, should I understand that he wants me to say what is on my heart? Is the promised light yoke anything but light? Was Adam aware of the existence of God? Did God clearly instruct him not to do such and such, or did he leave it up to Adam to figure it out, all the while hoping Adam would fall into the trap and set GEPS (God’s eternal plan of salvation) in motion? Did Adam’s children marry their own brothers and sisters since there were no other human beings around? Isn’t God starting creation with incest kind of cringe-worthy? Incest and ‘‘And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good’’ go together? Does ‘‘good’’ have another meaning that no human being is aware of?
 
What about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? What does Tradition say Paul meant that? Was he advocating for women to be more involved in church, to be more vocal maybe?
He said
34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, *as also the law saith.

Haydock Commentary
Ver. 34. Let women be silent, and not speak at all in public Church-meetings: and if they would ask any thing, let them ask it at home. (Witham)

That is not what our current Catholic norms are.
 
I was aware of that. Maybe I should have added ‘‘serious harm’’. Yet the two passages I quote come strongly against that teaching, though. Now, tell me, if someone really slaps me, do i turn the other cheek or do I stand up for myself? Why does Jesus specifically say NOT to defend oneself? Same with someone stealing someone from me. Am I to say, '‘Hey, not so fast, come back I’ve got a few more to give you! How many miles do I have to carry the belongings of a soldier from another nation occupying Canada if he asks me to carry them for 2 miles? Why not write a new OT where Jesus’ original words are changed to reflect what majority votes and Tradition agree they mean?
Why not exhort all individuals to read Scripture, formulate their own interpretations, and live accordingly? Did Jesus establish a Church and appoint leaders with authority, or not?
 
He said
34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, *as also the law saith.

Haydock Commentary
Ver. 34. Let women be silent, and not speak at all in public Church-meetings: and if they would ask any thing, let them ask it at home. (Witham)

That is not what our current Catholic norms are.
And why is that? And who determines what the norms are? So it’d be best to leave out that passage in future NT printings?
 
Why not exhort all individuals to read Scripture, formulate their own interpretations, and live accordingly? Did Jesus establish a Church and appoint leaders with authority, or not?
My own interpretation is that violence is a no-no, even when someone tries to hurt me. That I should let people walk all over me, give them a second shirt should they steal one from me, that I should do double what any one of my enemies requests of me etc. That I should pray for them. That I should be grateful and joyful even as my life is falling apart etc. I also expect women to not speak in churches. I also should be Christ’s slave and not expect anything in return for my sacrifices, sufferings and efforts. That marriage is a worst-case scenario, a last resort if sexual abstinence is too much for me to bear. 10 kids is a minimum as I’m asked to multiply and be fruitful. That my being conceived qualifies me de facto for eternal hell, that Christ is very gracious to have gone to the cross to give me an opportunity to escape my Father’s eternal destiny for me. And that the word ‘‘brother’’ always means ‘‘brother’ in the NT except when there is mention of Jesus’ brother. Then ‘‘brother’’ doesn’t mean ‘‘brother’’, it means ‘’ relative’’ or ‘‘cousin’’. Then, you ask, why didn’t they say ‘‘cousin’’ or ‘‘relative’’ or ‘‘close friend’’? To that I reply ‘‘ich weiß nicht’’.
 
It is not a divine law but a church law. Those change.
Could that law be reinstated in the future? Did God really inspire Paul to write that passage or does it solely express Paul’s views? Do you think that particular Church law is infused with wisdom or do you think it was wrong from the start? Do you think the ‘,thorrn in the flesh’’ could have had something to do with Paul’s apparently poor opinion of women? Is it possible that he could have scorned the object of his relentless sexual desires?
 
My own interpretation is that violence is a no-no, even when someone tries to hurt me. That I should let people walk all over me, give them a second shirt should they steal one from me, that I should do double what any one of my enemies requests of me etc. That I should pray for them. That I should be grateful and joyful even as my life is falling apart etc. I also expect women to not speak in churches. I also should be Christ’s slave and not expect anything in return for my sacrifices, sufferings and efforts. That marriage is a worst-case scenario, a last resort if sexual abstinence is too much for me to bear. 10 kids is a minimum as I’m asked to multiply and be fruitful. That my being conceived qualifies me de facto for eternal hell, that Christ is very gracious to have gone to the cross to give me an opportunity to escape my Father’s eternal destiny for me. And that the word ‘‘brother’’ always means ‘‘brother’ in the NT except when there is mention of Jesus’ brother. Then ‘‘brother’’ doesn’t mean ‘‘brother’’, it means ‘’ relative’’ or ‘‘cousin’’. Then, you ask, why didn’t they say ‘‘cousin’’ or ‘‘relative’’ or ‘‘close friend’’? To that I reply ‘‘ich weiß nicht’’.
You provide a good demonstration of why we benefit from a church with teaching authority!
 
This is in reference to scandal, which is given or received bad example. St. John Chrysostom said members is symbolic of family members.
St. John Chrysostom? Why would you take his word over the Lord’s?
 
You provide a good demonstration of why we benefit from a church with teaching authority!
If the the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why weren’t women allowed to speak back then, and now that women are rightly outraged by what can only be called Paul’s misogyny, they can? Can you remind me why Jesus’ ‘‘brother’’ wasn’t Jesus’ brother ? Can you tell me who authoratively declared that Jesus’s ‘brother’’ was not Jesus’ brother. On what grounds did they determine that ‘‘brother’’ means ‘‘brother’’ in thousands of instances except when referring to Jesus’ brother? Fast forward to now, when pope Francis states that Islam is a religion of peace, is his opinion binding to the faithful? If it’s binding, what are the consequences of dissenting from the ‘‘truth’’?

Has '‘turn the other cheek’, cryptic meaning been supernaturally revealed or does it simply mean that one should stand his ground when attacked verbally or otherwise? If Jesus didn’t have in mind ‘‘turn the other cheek’’, why did he command to turn the other cheek? What about the exhortation to not resist any one who steals from you, but to actually give a second shirt? One reading the NT gets the unshakable conviction that Jesus wants spineless sheep who are like children, i.e. they trust whole-heartedly.

The mere fact that we benefit from something does not make that thing legitimate, trustworthy or true. I didn’t realize though that the whole ‘‘Oh he said that but really what he meant was this and that’’ hadn’t started with Francis but with the Master himself.

In closing, perhaps it’s just a case of unmet needs mistaken for a ‘‘thirst’’, and always intuitively going to the same old well to quench that thirst, never learning from one time to the next, perhaps not wanting to come to terms with an unpleasant reality: ain’t no water coming from that well.
 
If the the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why weren’t women allowed to speak back then, and now that women are rightly outraged by what can only be called Paul’s misogyny, they can? Can you remind me why Jesus’ ‘‘brother’’ wasn’t Jesus’ brother ? Can you tell me who authoratively declared that Jesus’s ‘brother’’ was not Jesus’ brother. On what grounds did they determine that ‘‘brother’’ means ‘‘brother’’ in thousands of instances except when referring to Jesus’ brother? Fast forward to now, when pope Francis states that Islam is a religion of peace, is his opinion binding to the faithful? If it’s binding, what are the consequences of dissenting from the ‘‘truth’’?

Has '‘turn the other cheek’, cryptic meaning been supernaturally revealed or does it simply mean that one should stand his ground when attacked verbally or otherwise? If Jesus didn’t have in mind ‘‘turn the other cheek’’, why did he command to turn the other cheek? What about the exhortation to not resist any one who steals from you, but to actually give a second shirt? One reading the NT gets the unshakable conviction that Jesus wants spineless sheep who are like children, i.e. they trust whole-heartedly.

The mere fact that we benefit from something does not make that thing legitimate, trustworthy or true. I didn’t realize though that the whole ‘‘Oh he said that but really what he meant was this and that’’ hadn’t started with Francis but with the Master himself.

In closing, perhaps it’s just a case of unmet needs mistaken for a ‘‘thirst’’, and always intuitively going to the same old well to quench that thirst, never learning from one time to the next, perhaps not wanting to come to terms with an unpleasant reality: ain’t no water coming from that well.
You add to the case!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top