S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Didn’t Peter carry a sword in the garden of Gethsemene? Jesus didn’t say anything about it until Peter used it.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
More like knives for the paschal lamb. Then what was said, ‘those who take the sword, perish by the sword.’
Christ had a general Gospel, love one another as He loves us. It’s evident in all His teachings; feed the hungry, give shelter to the poor, care for the sick, turn the other cheek, he who would save his life will lose his life, he who loses his life for His namesake will save his life, love your enemy, if they ask you to walk a mile go two miles, forgive as you want to be forgiven, blessed be the peacemakers, and it goes on and on, but nowhere does He teach to build an army, especially an army of armed citizens.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The Church also teaches that one has a duty to protect one’s life and the lives of those around us and that the guilt of the death of a violent offender falls on the violent offender.
“Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one’s own life at the expense of the assailant’s; one may, out of charity, forego one’s right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one’s own life to the utmost on account of one’s duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.” - From New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
S
St_Francis
Guest
What is the distinction? On the one hand, we have people goibg to Their place of worship and protecting themselves as they are permitted to do, on the other, we have them hiring people outside their religion, presumably, to do the “dirty work” of protecting for them. sounds like hypocrisy to me, like those who are protected by bodyguards saying people should not have guns.
And of course the poor will not be able to hire armed guards…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
There’s defending and then there’s overextending that interpretation, for ‘political’ reasons, or personal interest. Self defense is when one is attacked, and not necessarily when one desires going out to find an attacker. We have lawful authorities for the public at large. None, or the minority, of us can be with all our family members 24/7, 365 days a year.
As you can see from 2265, it addresses ‘someone responsible for another’s life.’ This is further defined by ‘those holding legitimate authority’ and ‘the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.’ These are law enforcement officers, or military, as the case maybe.
W
wondrousgnat
Guest
Some here believe it would be good to carry guns to mass. Would like to know how Jesus feels about it.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Peter and the others carried swords around with them. Jesus didn’t complain until they were used in an offensive way.
“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus.” John 18:10 (Douay-Rheims)
When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:49-50
I see no mention of Jesus rebuking them for having swords in the first place. Jesus knew that the apostles were “packing”. Where in the bible does it mention that Jesus chastised them for carrying weapons? Were they not in Palestine, which was under heavy patrol by Roman legionnaires? Jesus rebukes Peter for trying to deny Jesus the purpose for which He came to earth in the first place, not for the idea of defending Him. Scripture does not read, “Peter, why on Earth do you have a sword on you! Don’t you know I am a complete pacifist. And the very notion of you USING a sword in my presence is an offense to my very being.”
No, Jesus rebuked Peter thusly, “Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” John 18:11 Jesus rebukes Peter, not for defending Him, but rather for interfering with Jesus’ mission.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Were these swords like the Gladius that the Romans used, or more like ‘butcher knives’ used for the paschal lamb?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It is a distortion, in my honest opinion, to say that Christ knew the Apostles were ‘packing’. Christ did not teach, or preach, that armed guards were ever needed when He preached.
The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide
The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide
L
livingwordunity
Guest
It would be a great if someone ever found the actual swords that were carried by the apostles. They should be somewhere to this day unless they were deliberately destroyed.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
That is the great question - isn’t it?
Most people can identify a broken pipe as “the problem” - fixing it…
A good start might be to hold people in power accountable? They are the most “visible” of society.
Our Government and Main Stream Media seem to think this “accountability” only applies in one direction. The higher up I go - the less accountable, I am…
Every reader here knows the above statement is true.
Back room deals - Government Departments investigating themselves - Executive Orders protecting the party-in-power elite - Passing bills before reading them - etc. AND MSM protecting party favorites.
Some Catholics help elect / reelect a person AND his administration who thinks, there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion as a convenience… That no one should have protection of individual conscious… THAT IS SUPPORTING MORAL BANKRUPTCY!
I guarantee, if we turn off THAT valve - the plumbing won’t be fixed…BUT the water flow will lessen greatly.
M
mystagogia
Guest
How is this explained?
Luke 22:35-38:
- He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without purse or haversack or sandals, were you short of anything?’
- ‘No, nothing,’ they said. He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and the same with a haversack; if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one,
- because I tell you these words of scripture are destined to be fulfilled in me: He was counted as one of the rebellious. Yes, what it says about me is even now reaching its fulfilment.’
- They said, ‘Lord, here are two swords.’ He said to them, ‘That is enough!’
K
kimmielittle
Guest
You seem to have a deliberate way of phrasing things
I see nothing morally wrong with a LEGAL LICENSEE CC parishioner attending Mass.
I see the distinction that you are trying to make - That distinction would be pay. A legal Licensee CC goes through the same State and Federal requirements that a Security Guard or Bodyguard does.
B
Brendan
Guest
And CCC 265 is expanded upon further in Evangelicum Vitae to include those entrusted with families
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Good???
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I have posted it several times, and it would be easier if people read through the threads, but I don’t mind posting it again. Please share your thoughts on it.
The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide.
Would you like what some of the early Church fathers said on the passage you provided?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Jesus told them the two they had was enough. He didn’t tell them they needed armor, spears, shields, etc. as the Romans, or Jewish, authorities had. Several Bible commentaries refer to the ‘swords’ as tools similar to knives, as would have been used in sacrifices, or the paschal lamb.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I have not left out one’s responsibility to their family.
Through Americanized Catholicism, it goes a step further, giving right to carry any type weapon, into any type building, with no changes, even those reasonable controls suggested by our Bishops.
I don’t care how good you are with a gun, your view of gun rights puts them in the hands of many people who aren’t so good with them, and adds to the danger presented to the public. When the firefighters were attacked, a police Lt. was killed. There are officers killed in the line of duty often. It kind of works against the ‘if someone had been armed, it would have been different’ argument.
A lot of your reasoning has convinced me we need a ban of certain weapons, and magazines, in the hands of the common public.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Some would have us believe that Jesus / Bible writers didn’t know the difference between a knife and a sword.
Matthew 10:34 : "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword."
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Those some being offered are early Church fathers, and well accepted Catholic commentators. Remember, the Church interprets scriptures. Also remember what happens when individuals privately interpret them.
- Status