Our Father's house a marketplace?

[ReaderT]

ReaderT:

There may be an easy solution to this problem - the verse does not say “marketplace”.

The verse in all three gospels says “a den of robbers ” - λῃστῶν .

It is the same Greek word as the two thieves ( λῃσταί ) crucified next to Christ.

The issue that Christ had was the thieving.

The fourth Gospel - John’s - cited in the OP - (Jn 2:13-25) has this:

Jn 2:16 “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”

Wait a second - I don’t know why I didn’t think of this before - @fide, shouldn’t we take all of the Gospel accounts together? I mean John heard “marketplace”, but then Matthew/Mark/Luke further specified a thieving marketplace. We should take that detail into account when weighing the situation (because if it wasn’t important, the Bible wouldn’t mention it). What do you think?

 

[fide]

We should definitely not see the two accounts as in conflict, or as one contradicting the other. All of Scripture is the Word of God, and is true - correctly understood. The challenge is to understand correctly! You can find several attempts to reconcile these differences. You can search it out, on-line - check the footnotes in the NAB on-line here, to find some attempts. The Truth of it? Pray, and keep listening.

My present understanding is below, from my post #33 above.

It is interesting to me, that the different word that John heard, and recorded - is “ marketplace ” - instead of the phrase heard and recorded in the other three Gospels - “ a robber’s den ” (or “ den of thieves ” in some translations). I conclude from this difference that John - led by the Holy Spirit - really wanted to say that the world of business - commerce - marketing, when operating in a holy place , is thievery ! Something holy is being stolen away from people struggling in darkness! People are given a message of unholy compromise - and the result is lukewarmness, tepidity, which the Lord would vomit out of His mouth. When such mixtures are presented in the name of religion, it is grave - wrong, deeply wrong.

 

[fide]

The priest receives a salary and other benefits. He is paid.

Same goes for the people (depending on the size of the parish) who are necessary to do the administrative work or who play the organ or who mow the grass or who put a new roof on the building.

To receive a salary - to work for, to provided services in exchange for, money and other material benefits, satisfies the meaning of “a hired man.”

But listen to this:

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.c
12
A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.d
13
This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.
14
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.

Watch and listen for the presence or absence of careerism (which Pope Francis has strongly condemned!) among some clergy - Protestant and Catholic. Some work for the pay, the personal material and social benefits (read Mt, all of chapter 23) - advancing their careers - and some work selflessly, humbly, for God and His people.

Mt 23:11 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;
Mt 23:12 whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

 

[fide]

I think that is a fair trade.

Even if it IS a “fair” trade, the Lord calls us to more than mere justice in the living Body of Christ.

 

[brown_bear]

Where I come from, if I just go to facebook I find a lot of “Catholics” who spend their days blaspheming: they attack the sacred doctrine, dogmatic and moral, they offend the Church, they blaspheme the Holy Virgin and God himself.

In the face of suffering in the world their verdict is clear: God is bad or indifferent, while they are good, you can bet on it. If a non-believer loses a loved one and angrily cries out: “God: how could you do this to me?”, they blaspheme a million times worse than him with the excuse of being close to him.

And yet, they present themselves as Catholics, the true Catholics.
I hope things are a little better with you.

PS “The last straw” here becomes «la goccia che fa traboccare il vaso» literally «the drop that overflows the pot», but the meaning is identical.

 

[TMC]

Even if it IS a “fair” trade, the Lord calls us to more than mere justice in the living Body of Christ.

Why do you assume I don’t? CAF is not high on my list of worthy causes, obviously, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a list.

 

[fide]

This medium is very difficult. Why do you assume that I assume you don’t? I don’t know, first of all, what you refer to, what you are talking about - what assumption has disturbed you? And secondly, whatever it was, I did not mean it personally of you! I do not know you - how could I assume or presume anything about you?

It seems you took something I said as a personal insult - please let go of it - I meant nothing against you; I was only adding to your comment with an additional comment of mine. That is why I say, “This medium is very difficult.”

 

[fide]

Where I come from, if I just go to facebook I find a lot of “Catholics” who spend their days blaspheming: they attack the sacred doctrine, dogmatic and moral, they offend the Church, they blaspheme the Holy Virgin and God himself.

In the face of suffering in the world their verdict is clear: God is bad or indifferent, while they are good, you can bet on it. If a non-believer loses a loved one and angrily cries out: “God: how could you do this to me?”, they blaspheme a million times worse than him with the excuse of being close to him.

And yet, they present themselves as Catholics, the true Catholics.
I hope things are a little better with you.

PS “The last straw” here becomes «la goccia che fa traboccare il vaso» literally «the drop that overflows the pot», but the meaning is identical.

These are very difficult, trying times. Especially in the U.S. in this “election cycle”, we have many high-profile, influential government officials or wanting-to-be-governmental officials who label themselves “Catholic”, yet are her most vicious enemies. And their bishops are mostly silent enablers of these enemies of the Church and the blasphemy of their lives and their politics.

The Lord warned of the trials of the last days, yet He encourages us with His promises - and He went before us, showing us that the enemy cannot conquer God! God will finish His original intent, and purpose! And all who are His, will finally find peace, and justice, and a happiness that we cannot imagine now, in this “valley of tears.” We must always hold fast to faith, and to hope, and to Holy Charity infused with grace at Baptism. Those gifts are our lifeline, no matter how severe the storm may be, or may become.

 

[ReaderT]

The challenge is to understand correctly! You can find several attempts to reconcile these differences. You can search it out, on-line - check the footnotes in the NAB on-line here, to find some attempts. The Truth of it? Pray, and keep listening.

My present understanding is below, from my post #33 above.

It is interesting to me, that the different word that John heard, and recorded - is “ marketplace ” - instead of the phrase heard and recorded in the other three Gospels - “ a robber’s den ” (or “ den of thieves ” in some translations). I conclude from this difference that John - led by the Holy Spirit - really wanted to say that the world of business - commerce - marketing, when operating in a holy place , is thievery ! Something holy is being stolen away from people struggling in darkness! People are given a message of unholy compromise - and the result is lukewarmness, tepidity, which the Lord would vomit out of His mouth. When such mixtures are presented in the name of religion, it is grave - wrong, deeply wrong.

I understand the interpretation, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that’s how the church interprets this verse. I also checked the NAB footnotes you provided (thank you for the link).

 

[fide]

The Church has dogmatically interpreted very, very few verses in Scripture. In practice, in general, several different interpretations of a Scripture passage are reasonable and possible, and are consistent with Catholic teachings. It is when an interpretation of Scripture contradicts some particular dogmatic teaching of the Church, that the issue becomes critical and the Church needs to say, “No, that interpretation of Scripture is not possible because it contradicts the Catholic Faith.”

I do not believe that the (partial) understanding of those passages that I suggest are in any way contradictory to the Faith. If they are, I would gladly retract it and defer to the judgment of the Church. Others may prefer a different understanding which also does not contradict the Catholic Faith. Such an understanding is also acceptable and Catholic. The Church believes that our understanding of Scripture will, in time, become more and more precise and faithful to the intention of the Author, the Holy Spirit.

 

[ReaderT]

The Church has dogmatically interpreted very, very few verses in Scripture. In practice, in general, several different interpretations of a Scripture passage are reasonable and possible, and are consistent with Catholic teachings. It is when an interpretation of Scripture contradicts some particular dogmatic teaching of the Church, that the issue becomes critical and the Church needs to say, “No, that interpretation of Scripture is not possible because it contradicts the Catholic Faith.”

I do not believe that the (partial) understanding of those passages that I suggest are in any way contradictory to the Faith. If they are, I would gladly retract it and defer to the judgment of the Church. Others may prefer a different understanding which also does not contradict the Catholic Faith. Such an understanding is also acceptable and Catholic. The Church believes that our understanding of Scripture will, in time, become more and more precise and faithful to the intention of the Author, the Holy Spirit.

You’re right that the Catholic Church hasn’t dogmatically interpreted many verses. At the same time every Catholic and Orthodox priest and Bishop I’ve ever met has allowed the sale of items (candles) in Church - even the very holy monasteries like St. Tikhon’s. In order to believe your interpretation, I’ll have to believe that every one of them is wrong for having candles for sale. No disrespect intended but I’m going to go with them until I can see why your interpretation is more likely.

 

[GEddie]

A priest whom I personally trust has said the issue was not that money was being exchanged, or animals sold. These were necessary functions.

Rather, it was that these transactions were occurring within the Temple courtyard, an area reserved for prayer by outsiders. This was sacred space, and was not to be used for commercial activity.

It would be equivalent to selling maps or souvenirs at the foot of the Vatican’s main altar.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m happy you posted that explanation. I thought something similar, since people needed to buy the animals for their sacrifices. For all we know Joseph bought his turtledoves there when he took Jesus in for the presentation. But I never got around to asking a priest or looking it up.

Perhaps it also showed that the Jewish people were excluding the outsiders from their prayers - like only those who were okay to come into the Temple were allowed to pray, which Jesus would not have supported.

 

[JanR]

That’s unfortunate. Perhaps you should ask if there is a way to just go in and pray without paying the donation.

A donation is supposed to be optional. If it isn’t, it’s not a donation. It’s a fee. I can’t see any church charging a fee to go inside to pray. Are they THAT hard up for voluntary donations?

As for this forum, it has to defray expenses somehow. Apparently, not enough people were becoming patrons to cover its costs, so they had to come up with the exclusion of ads as an incentive to help out. One doesn’t have to become a patron, if one is willing to put up with the ads.

This isn’t a church, BTW.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In Europe, cathedrals typically do expect a donation / fee whatever to get in. Many tourists visit these and the wear and tear from people coming in and walking around etc is considerable, plus they need money for upkeep. You can attend Mass without paying and often you can pray without paying but they will send you to a small designated area for these activities.

I agree CAF is not a church.

 

[Dorothy]

I was about to correct the remark about “buying Masses” when I was happy to read your response.

It is good to give a stipend to a priest whenever possible. That can help him to buy shoes when he needs them, or a good book he wants to read.

In my parish they do make it clear that one can still ask for a Mass to be said and not have to give the stipend.

 

[GEddie]

The Padre said exactly that. The outer court was for prayer by outsiders, but by having counters, animals, feed, etc., there, the outsiders were in effect blocked off.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ReaderT]

It is disrespectful to claim the Church commits such sin.

I apologize for my misunderstanding. Point withdrawn.

 

[fide]

No disrespect intended but I’m going to go with them until I can see why your interpretation is more likely.

No disrespect perceived. It is important to follow one’s well-formed conscience.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s fine, I didn’t flag you, I’m just explaining why people tend to get a little excited on here when someone says “Buy a Mass” or “Pay for a Mass”.