J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Thank you but I am not seeking MY answer. I am seeking the understanding of the Catholic as it pertains to this passage.
{{Thus you have fallen into the sin of presumption}}
- Status
{{Thus you have fallen into the sin of presumption}}
F
fhansen
Guest
I’m not sure you understand the Catholic position on scripture-or on herself. For Catholics, the Church is the authority. Scripture and Tradition serve only to support or clarify the position she’s received by revelation from God- but the revelation-or deposit of faith- is held within her heart. The bible contains many words and people go round and round as to their meaning and even start new churches over differences of opinion about them. And St Peter even tells us that many things in Pauls’ letters are hard to understand. But presumably the CC would believe the same even if the NT had never been written. For that reason, we look to the Church to reveal the nature and will of God. If an OT story reveals a god that seems to contradict Catholic teaching on Him, or if Jesus might seem to be telling us to love our enemies and hate our families, we look to His servant the Church to tell us whether or not to hate our families or what that might mean but in any case it doesn’t change the faith because its her duty to hold, preserve, and proclaim it-and she’s never yet taught her flock to hate anything but sin and evil.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Interesting. You are saying that the Church’s authority does not come from Jesus, but rather from Jesus’ Father. Thus if Jesus said something that the Church doesn’t see as holy, then Jesus must have been wrong.
The very first Catholic priest I spoke to many years ago, told me that the Church is returning to its roots at a time when Jesus was not really the prime figure, but rather Mary. And it wasn’t until the year 1000 AD that the [greedy] men got together and decided that the prime figure really should be male and thus placed Jesus upon the pedestal.
I didn’t believe him for a second, but I could easily see the ambiance of feminism throughout this Church. He revealed that it was the Church itself that was to be worshiped without overtly saying it. You seem to be acknowledging that same kind of thought.
I lost serious respect for the entire Catholic faith on that day, some 20-30 years ago and sought my friend elsewhere.
I have returned now in this online fashion just to get a different perspective and perhaps a clearer view of the Church.
F
fhansen
Guest
It has nothing to do with the authority of Jesus-Jesus is God so His authority is indisputable. But He’s not here directly interpreting the Word for us except as the Holy Spirit leads and, as Catholics, we believe that this is done first and foremost through the Church He established for that purpose.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
What that understanding yields is, “The Scriptures say what we tell you they say regardless of how obviously they seem to say anything different. WE are the source, not Scriptures.”
That thought, I believe is what instigated the Lutheran separation.
If it were always very conspicuous that no priest in the Church had ever erred or sinned in any way, such a thought, especially after all of this time, could be far more easily accepted.
But the concept of the few elite being the ONLY source and not verifiable or accountable, is a very serious issue. And not at all Holy.
C
cuqui
Guest
First, what bible are you using…is it even a Catholic bible? Because mine (New American Bible) says:" Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me".
Some bibles change wording which can be quite misleading.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
NAB => Luke 14:26 “If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
Douay-Rheims => Luke 14:26 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
This is actually a Catholic publication which disqualifies it as debate material for this issue, but even it substantiates the word “hate”.
Hmm…
F
fhansen
Guest
We are the ones who God, by His grace, empower to believe in supernatural truths as proposed by the Church. The Churchs’ role is to possess and propose those truths. And Luther was obviously wrong in thinking he or we or whoever can interpret scripture with adequate accuracy; he and the rest have proved this by their very disagreements over its meaning. Of course priests sin. If not, the Churchs doctrine on original sin would be fallacious. We don’t believe that any of our leaders are impeccable, only that God ensures the Church will not err in her official teachings on faith and morals. There’s not an elite few who are in charge of the truth. The Church, with centuries-old teachings handed down from the beginning, holds that role.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
So when coming to the Church, by what means am I to see that when Jesus said, “hate”, he really meant what the Church says he meant instead?
Granted, once in the Church, you are to not question at all. But what of us who would consider being a member?
Who is our authority to verify the authority of the Church before losing our right to seriously question?
Granted, once in the Church, you are to not question at all. But what of us who would consider being a member?
Who is our authority to verify the authority of the Church before losing our right to seriously question?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
A parallel verse is in Matthew 10:37 – Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Here is a commentary by the Church Father Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
You may want to research on the Catholic idea of detachment.
Here is a commentary by the Church Father Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
You may want to research on the Catholic idea of detachment.
F
fhansen
Guest
Who is your authority to verify the authority of scripture? And we never turn off our brains-or shouldn’t, anyway. It’s really the same. We trust that God leads us into truth. Little by little we hear His voice-first in scripture for myself. Later, to my own surprise, I began hearing that same voice-and hearing it more clearly, in the CC. I continue to question and be led deeper into the truths of Christianity. I’ve simply found myself continuously agreeing more and more with the CCs’ take on things.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
You wonder why Catholics don’t answer your questions. Maybe it’s because you’re being arrogent: You’ve already answered your own questions, whereby no other answer anyone else gives is satisfactory to you. You don’t seek the truth, all you seek is an excuse for your answers.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
But you cannot just read the bible by itself and infer your own interpretation. There is a tradition of interpretation that belongs to the Catholic church. You are assuming from the outset that such words are to be understood as literal. But when read within the proper context, it is obvious that Jesus did not mean that one should hate their parents, but rather that they should love no one above God, because you can only love perfectly through God, since God is the root of all being and love. In other words, if you place the love of your family or friends above God, the you are not a disciple of God. The word hate and jealousy are used of God in the bible, but you must understand them within the proper context. If you truly love God, you would love nobody above him. To place people above God, is to make them idols and is idol worshiping and this is worthy of being hated. The bible was written and expressed in human language that was probably different to how we understand it now. You could ask why they don’t change the interpretation.
If what you were saying is true, then Christians would have been hating their families from the outset.
T
thunderballs75
Guest
lol If you think that Jesus spoke English and used the exact words in this quote, you are badly mistaken.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
precisely.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Your point is?
G
geometer
Guest
Early on in the thread, James was unsure of the exact definition of the word. It is used many times in the new testament, and apparently means to detest…
K
KindredSoul
Guest
To the OP, I would say that even though you are correct that we cannot alter the Bible and this quote from Jesus, it is an equal and opposite hazard to read the Bible and Jesus’ statement as though it were in a vacuum and as though He never spoke words that were to be understood in context of the culture in which He was living.
Jesus lived in a culture where the absolute norm and expectation was that a person would be irrevocably attached to the family, tending to the family fields or business, putting the physical well-being of the family far above any other goal in life other than obeying the Torah–and since that appeared to reinforce this family attitude, the two were seen as inseparably bound. Family was so sacred in the mind of the Jewish culture that to detach from it for any reason, even if it was for the noble reason of being able to spread one’s love, time, and resources among all people equally, would have been seen as a terrible offense, at least emotionally and in principle, against the family.
When an itinerant preacher, Jesus, came along preaching that a true disciple must be willing to leave family and attachments thereto behind, when He preached that one’s duty to the poor and the spiritually dead was just as important as one’s duty to blood relatives, that would have sounded abhorrent to the traditional mindset. Surely, they would have thought, there is no obligation to people even nearly as powerful as that to one’s family! To demote one’s family from a nigh exclusive status in one’s material and emotional concern would have truly seemed to require an incredible lack of love due to the family; to the Jewish mind, to lack that much attachment to your family would have to be hatred, and in fact Jesus’ admonition that people ought to practice that detachment was not something they would have taken lightly…and Jesus would seem to be speaking to the Jews frankly in their own “language” and “perception” so to speak. Since they would have considered detachment from your family to be hatred, Jesus is telling them that’s exactly what they must do. No words need to be put into or taken out of Jesus’ mouth in order for that to be the meaning, nor would He have had to put qualifiers on it for people of the time to know what He meant. Using any softer language, in fact, would have failed to get the full point across, since anyone in such a culture wouldn’t have interpreted anything less than “hatred” as a command to sever your attachments to family.
The background on how Ancient Israel viewed family obligations and would have viewed Jesus’ commands is something I learned in College; I do not remember what book we were using in that class, but I imagine that this attitude toward family life among Ancient Israel is pretty common knowledge in the academic world, and it certainly fits with every conception I–and likely you or anyone else reading this thread–have ever heard as to what Ancient Israelite culture was like (unbelievably strong focus on the family, etc.). Again, one need not imagine that Jesus meant to say anything other than what He did say in order to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, if this explanation is as sound as it seems to me, Jesus would have chosen those exact words quite deliberately to drive His point home.
I find this to be sound and satisfactory, and in no way does it seem to me to alter or play with Jesus’ words; I see no problem with this explanation, and I see nothing about it that subverts the authority of Jesus’ words nor that calls into question whether or not He said those words as recorded in scripture. In short, it answers for me all the challenges you assert, and I’m happy with that. If it doesn’t for you, or if you feel it doesn’t address the issue, it will probably be safe to say we disagree about that…but may you find an answer that you find equally satisfactory.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
Jesus lived in a culture where the absolute norm and expectation was that a person would be irrevocably attached to the family, tending to the family fields or business, putting the physical well-being of the family far above any other goal in life other than obeying the Torah–and since that appeared to reinforce this family attitude, the two were seen as inseparably bound. Family was so sacred in the mind of the Jewish culture that to detach from it for any reason, even if it was for the noble reason of being able to spread one’s love, time, and resources among all people equally, would have been seen as a terrible offense, at least emotionally and in principle, against the family.
When an itinerant preacher, Jesus, came along preaching that a true disciple must be willing to leave family and attachments thereto behind, when He preached that one’s duty to the poor and the spiritually dead was just as important as one’s duty to blood relatives, that would have sounded abhorrent to the traditional mindset. Surely, they would have thought, there is no obligation to people even nearly as powerful as that to one’s family! To demote one’s family from a nigh exclusive status in one’s material and emotional concern would have truly seemed to require an incredible lack of love due to the family; to the Jewish mind, to lack that much attachment to your family would have to be hatred, and in fact Jesus’ admonition that people ought to practice that detachment was not something they would have taken lightly…and Jesus would seem to be speaking to the Jews frankly in their own “language” and “perception” so to speak. Since they would have considered detachment from your family to be hatred, Jesus is telling them that’s exactly what they must do. No words need to be put into or taken out of Jesus’ mouth in order for that to be the meaning, nor would He have had to put qualifiers on it for people of the time to know what He meant. Using any softer language, in fact, would have failed to get the full point across, since anyone in such a culture wouldn’t have interpreted anything less than “hatred” as a command to sever your attachments to family.
The background on how Ancient Israel viewed family obligations and would have viewed Jesus’ commands is something I learned in College; I do not remember what book we were using in that class, but I imagine that this attitude toward family life among Ancient Israel is pretty common knowledge in the academic world, and it certainly fits with every conception I–and likely you or anyone else reading this thread–have ever heard as to what Ancient Israelite culture was like (unbelievably strong focus on the family, etc.). Again, one need not imagine that Jesus meant to say anything other than what He did say in order to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, if this explanation is as sound as it seems to me, Jesus would have chosen those exact words quite deliberately to drive His point home.
I find this to be sound and satisfactory, and in no way does it seem to me to alter or play with Jesus’ words; I see no problem with this explanation, and I see nothing about it that subverts the authority of Jesus’ words nor that calls into question whether or not He said those words as recorded in scripture. In short, it answers for me all the challenges you assert, and I’m happy with that. If it doesn’t for you, or if you feel it doesn’t address the issue, it will probably be safe to say we disagree about that…but may you find an answer that you find equally satisfactory.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Thank you KindredSoul for that very well considered, thoughtful, and wise response. :clapping:
If I may paraphrase just a bit;
To rise from a state of emotional turmoil, stress, disease, disrepute, and bondage, one must be so irrevocably devoted that any temptation to go back to old ways or hesitation in accepting new ways is not merely a decision of the mind but of the deepest of the heart (a blood sacrifice) unto death. Such was the need and no less could be accepted.
Thus, he really did mean if any of THOSE people felt that they did not seriously hate their families, then they would not make the journey and need not bother to try.
Much like breaking an addiction, one must at times come to loathe everything about their lives and give into death before they can be free to accept the simple water of life.
But now as to how much this is really the case in the Church is still on the table.
Dogma becomes much like that family. :bigyikes:
uch:
Thank you each and all for allowing me to offer such a challenge, (foul balls forgiven
)
{{now for the ice cream}}
If I may paraphrase just a bit;
To rise from a state of emotional turmoil, stress, disease, disrepute, and bondage, one must be so irrevocably devoted that any temptation to go back to old ways or hesitation in accepting new ways is not merely a decision of the mind but of the deepest of the heart (a blood sacrifice) unto death. Such was the need and no less could be accepted.
Thus, he really did mean if any of THOSE people felt that they did not seriously hate their families, then they would not make the journey and need not bother to try.
Much like breaking an addiction, one must at times come to loathe everything about their lives and give into death before they can be free to accept the simple water of life.
But now as to how much this is really the case in the Church is still on the table.
Dogma becomes much like that family. :bigyikes:
uch:Thank you each and all for allowing me to offer such a challenge, (foul balls forgiven
){{now for the ice cream}}
- Status