Turn the other cheek

[KathleenElsie]

Kathleen I think this is pretty brilliant on Jesus’s behalf. Is it common knowledge about the Roman soldiers and the slapping?

It makes so much sense, yet reading it and taking it out of context, seems so simple.

If the Apostles were facing armed soldiers, what would be the biggest insult to them if they were slapped? Turn the other cheek. Brilliant. It’s basically saying, if the odds are stacked against you, outsmart them.

I’ve been in a situation where I turned the other cheek, for 8 hours, until I was cornered in a room with no way out. I defended myself when the punches started flying and the other guy was left on the floor.

LOL we home-educate our children and Roman History became a favorite of one of my grandsons. Roman Laws were very exacting on who, how and what you could do and not do. They were not a humane group just a very law controlled group.

 

[momor]

Ok, I’ve now found your two-post source and I cannot believe that you would post an argument from a protestant bible scholar focusing on passive resistance and progressive Christianity. His personal interpretation is nice for him, but it is not magisterial. When Catholics discuss the holy scriptures, we do not rely on the interpretations of modern protestant scholars. We rely on the teaching authority of the Church. Dr. Wink has an agenda, and it is the interpretation of scriptures in light of his modern political views concerning oppression in poor (“third world”) nations. His agenda is not that of the Catholic Church, which is the worship of almighty God, the propagation of the faith as handed down from Christ, the apostles, and the fathers, and the salvation of souls.

For anyone intersted in reading the paper in its entirety, it’s here.

Sir Knight and others appear to have a very literal fundmentalist view of Scripture. Their views are hardly Catholic and it makes one wonder where they are learning them. I have also seen them boast about their priests packing guns, even under their vestments to say Mass!

 

[ddarko]

Gabriel Possenti, who was a Catholic seminarian whose marksmanship and proficiency with handguns single-handedly saved his school and the village of Isola, Italy from a band of 20 terrorists in 1860. Isn’t it amazing that even though he did not follow church tradition (according to you) and the teachings of the early church fathers, Pope Benedict XV still canonized him a saint sixty years later in 1920. A great crowd of cardinals and bishops attended the canonization remembering & honoring the “the Savior of Isola”.

How do you account for that? Instead of submitting to his attackers as St. Iranaeus wrote, he stood up to them and the Church still made him a saint.

Get your Theology straight about Gabriel Possenti. Read the last part.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293394

To quote from the words of the good apologist

On the other hand, a group of Catholic handgun activists have promoted the story of St. Gabriel Possenti, a young Italian seminarian better known as St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows. Whatever the merits of handgun advocacy, it seems a shame that a saint Pope Benedict XV declared a patron for youth has had a minor incident of personal valor politicized to such an extent that his personal sanctity has largely been overlooked.

St. Gabriel Possenti was not made a saint for his use of Guns JUST AS MUCH as St. Thomas More was not made a saint for burning heretics at the stake. St. Gabriel had a devotion to our blessed mother and lived in personal sanctity. St. Thomas More stood up against Divorce and the Truth and gave his life for it (Oh he didn’t stab anyone in resistance btw). Those are the reasons You don’t even seem to know what sainthood means. For you the declaration of a saint appears to mean justification of all his/her acts in this life. That is FALSE.

St. Iranaeus is a Church father. Do you know what that means? His interpretation is TRADITION. That has EQUAL footing with Scripture. St. Gabriel would just be FALSE if he held a view contrary to St. Iranaeus. You can throw away St. Iranaeus’s teaching but then you are a PROTESTANT because you rejected TRADITION. GET IT?

Here is the excerpt once again, from St. Iranaeus that speaks of turning the other cheek (From “Against Heresies”)

1. This also does likewise meet [the case] of those who maintain that He suffered only in appearance. For if He did not truly suffer, no thanks to Him, since there was no suffering at all; and when we shall actually begin to suffer, He will seem as leading us astray, exhorting us to endure buffering, and to turn the other cheek, if He did not Himself before us in reality suffer the same; and as He misled them by seeming to them what He was not, so does He also mislead us, by exhorting us to endure what He did not endure Himself. [In that case] we shall be even above the Master, because we suffer and sustain what our Master never bore or endured. But as our Lord is alone truly Master, so the Son of God is truly good and patient, the Word of God the Father having been made the Son of man. For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man, Matthew 12:29 and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race.

Read it and read the entire writings if you have the time. Stop giving ridiculous arguments and wasting the time of people if you are not going to admit what is blatantly obvious; The interpretation in the OP by Sir Knight on that passage is WRONG.

When people who don’t know Catholic Theology but go around interpreting things like they know it all for their own agendas, give the Catholic Church a bad name.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I’ll look into the quote as well.

But understand this, as my last point. A slap from the opposite hand would hit you in the back of the head if you turned your cheek to me after the first slap. I hope that helps you get what I’m trying to say.

Irrelevant. We are talking about interpretation from Tradition (which is closer to the event of origin) vs. some weird idea that it required the Son of God to tell people HOW to AVOID getting slapped.

I think the latter is a pathetic attempt at theology to further ones own agendas. It is OUTLANDISH and ridiculous.

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

Turning the other cheek” has been portrayed as a passive and even submissive practice or strategy. Consider an alternative.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)
*“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” *

An “eye for an eye” means countering violence with violence; as if this will resolve an issue. It won’t. Why wouldn’t the returned violence be returned again and again in turn? And so on ad infinitum? Yet this is the recipe preached in the Old Testament. How well did this work? It has worked well only for those with a vested interest in ever more violence (psychopaths) but not for the rest of us. So let’s look at a proposed alternative to violence.
Ever wonder why Jesus would specify the right cheek? It must have had significance for him to specifically mention it. Most people are right-handed and unless you are trained in the art of boxing it is usual to strike someone with your right hand. So** to strike someone on their right cheek with your right hand, you need to give them a ‘backhander’. This is the strike of choice for superiors when dealing with people they consider to be inferior to them and insubordinate to boot. So this is the situation Jesus was teaching on; how to deal with evil people in power.** When you turn the other cheek they cannot repeat the backhanded slap, they have to punch you if they want to continue. Problem is that they lose their superior position, their perceived legitimate chastisement, in the eyes of those watching brawling like common street thugs. Which is what they are; thugs in fine clothes.

Turning the other cheek is an act at once defiant and yet non-aggressive. It is in no way submissive. This action refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy or authority of the abusive power. It does not accept the authority of the attack.

This and the text quoted in this and the original post is extremely interesting Kathleen.

Many people try to interpret scripture in the context of modern society and the meaning of many passages are often missed. I find that the exclusively modernist intepretation of scripture to be most prevalent in the Protestant/Evangelical community whilc Catholics on the other hand are more open to an intepretation of scripture which takes into account the cultural, social, political and economic custom’s and practices under which the authors of scripture and their intended audience operated.

I am not saying that this intepretation is correct and have yet to read the article cited in post 22 but an looking forward to it. I did glance at it and didn’t see any footnotes. Ultimately, I would like some historical evidence that backhanded slaps and punches were used in the fashion described. Without looking into the specifics yet, I can see how the intepretation you offer might fit in with Catholic doctrine regarding appropriate use of force or defiance of authority when it oversteps its legitimate boundaries.

-Tim-

 

[smithm29]

What does the Church say about this passage? Not what Sir Knight and the Protestant minister are saying.

There is more, but I can only post so much. The authoritative teaching of the Church on this matter is accessible to any who care to look for it. Suffice it to say that this doctrine of embarrassment and pride is not the appropriate interpretation- it is not in line with the fathers of the Church, it is not in keeping with the spirit of Christ, and it is not ordered for the good of the believer. We don’t have to guess about these things or strain our minds to come up with strange new doctrines. We have the fathers to guide us.

As an aside, the article in post 22 is not Catholic, either.

1. You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; 39. But I say to you, That you resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40. And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 41. And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him twain. 42. Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you turn not away.

GLOSS. The Lord having taught that we are not to offer injury to our neighbor or irreverence to the Lord, now proceeds to show the Christian should demean himself to those that injure him.

AUG. This law, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, was enacted to repress the flames of mutual hate, and to be a check on their undisciplined spirits. For who when he would take revenge, was ever content to return just so much harm as he had received? Do we not see men who have suffered some trifling hurt, straightway plot murder, thirst for blood, and hardly find evil enough that they can do to their enemies for the satisfying of their rage? To this immeasured and cruel fury the Law puts bounds when it enacts a lex talionis; that is, that whatever wrong or hurt any man has done to another, he should suffer just the same in return. This is not to encourage but to check rage; for it does not rekindle what was extinguished, but hinders the flames already kindled from further spread. It enacts a just retaliation, properly due to him who has suffered the wrong. But that mercy forgives any debt, does not make it unjust that payment had been sought. Since then he sins who seeks an unmeasured vengeance, but he does not sin who desires only a just one; he is therefore further from sin who seeks no retribution at all. I might state it yet thus: It was said to them of old time, You shall not take unequal retaliation; But I say to you, You shall not retaliate; this is a completion of the Law, if in these words something is added to the Law which was wanting to it; yea, rather that which the Law sought to do, namely, to put an end to unequal revenge, is more safely secured when there is no revenge at all.

PSEUDO-CHRYS. For without this command, the commands of the Law could not stand. For if according to the Law we begin all of us to render evil for evil, we shall all become evil, since they do hurt abound. But if according to Christ we resist not evil, though they that are evil be not amended, yet they that are good remain good.

JEROME; Thus our Lord by doing away all retaliation, cuts off the beginnings of sin. So the Law corrects faults, the Gospel removes their occasions.

GLOSS. Or it may be said that the Lord said this, adding somewhat to the righteousness of the old Law.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Many of our Lords teachings have both practical and literal meanings. This does not mean the practical meaning is invalid. So as not to derail this thread I won’t go into them.

 

[smithm29]

There are four senses of scripture.

-----The literal/historical:
“The meaning conveyed by the words of scripture.” Sometimes, a duck is a duck. The literal sense of a passage is what is actually being described in the text. This is the first “level of meaning” to look for when reading scripture. According to the catechism, “all other senses depend on the literal,” so when reading, make sure that you develop a good understanding of what each passage means as it is written. This sense leads to the three spiritual senses:

-----Allegorical:
We can find in most of the Bible a reference to Christ. The allegorical sense is the sense in which a passage points us to Him.

-----Moral:
The moral sense acts as an instruction for our life. The catechism says that scripture “ought to lead us to act justly”. The moral sense will help us find those instructions for living justly.

-----Anagogical:
The anagogical sense shows us the way to heaven.

These four senses cannot contradict each other, and no interpretation can contradict the magisterium. I assume you’re trying to state that the literal sense of the scripture in question would be that Jesus really meant for his disciples to goad their oppressors into more open aggression, “take their dignity back”, and embarrass those who persecute them. In order for that reading to be true, it absolutely must not contradict the moral reading, which the fathers of the Church state is the renunciation of violence, the removal of the occasion of sin, the responding to evil with good, and the seeking of no retribution.

It is impossible that these two readings can coexist.

 

[ddarko]

There are four senses of scripture.

-----The literal/historical:
“The meaning conveyed by the words of scripture.” Sometimes, a duck is a duck. The literal sense of a passage is what is actually being described in the text. This is the first “level of meaning” to look for when reading scripture. According to the catechism, “all other senses depend on the literal,” so when reading, make sure that you develop a good understanding of what each passage means as it is written. This sense leads to the three spiritual senses:

-----Allegorical:
We can find in most of the Bible a reference to Christ. The allegorical sense is the sense in which a passage points us to Him.

-----Moral:
The moral sense acts as an instruction for our life. The catechism says that scripture “ought to lead us to act justly”. The moral sense will help us find those instructions for living justly.

-----Anagogical:
The anagogical sense shows us the way to heaven.

These four senses cannot contradict each other, and no interpretation can contradict the magisterium. I assume you’re trying to state that the literal sense of the scripture in question would be that Jesus really meant for his disciples to goad their oppressors into more open aggression, “take their dignity back”, and embarrass those who persecute them. In order for that reading to be true, it absolutely must not contradict the moral reading, which the fathers of the Church state is the renunciation of violence, the removal of the occasion of sin, the responding to evil with good, and the seeking of no retribution.

It is impossible that these two readings can coexist.

Thanks, you said it really well here.

In Scripture, all levels of meaning must agree/compliment each other. Not contradict each other.

God Bless

 

[KathleenElsie]

There are four senses of scripture.

-----The literal/historical:
“The meaning conveyed by the words of scripture.” Sometimes, a duck is a duck. The literal sense of a passage is what is actually being described in the text. This is the first “level of meaning” to look for when reading scripture. According to the catechism, “all other senses depend on the literal,” so when reading, make sure that you develop a good understanding of what each passage means as it is written. This sense leads to the three spiritual senses:

-----Allegorical:
We can find in most of the Bible a reference to Christ. The allegorical sense is the sense in which a passage points us to Him.

-----Moral:
The moral sense acts as an instruction for our life. The catechism says that scripture “ought to lead us to act justly”. The moral sense will help us find those instructions for living justly.

-----Anagogical:
The anagogical sense shows us the way to heaven.

These four senses cannot contradict each other, and no interpretation can contradict the magisterium. I assume you’re trying to state that the literal sense of the scripture in question would be that Jesus really meant for his disciples to goad their oppressors into more open aggression, “take their dignity back”, and embarrass those who persecute them. In order for that reading to be true, it absolutely must not contradict the moral reading, which the fathers of the Church state is the renunciation of violence, the removal of the occasion of sin, the responding to evil with good, and the seeking of no retribution.

It is impossible that these two readings can coexist.

Not what I meant but have fun.

 

[TimothyH]

I said that it was interesting. I said that many people read scripture without an understanding of the political, social, or economic context under which the author and his intended audience operated and therefor miss some of the allegorical meaning behind archaic and seemingly obtuse passages. I did not say I agree with it.

The historical context behind much of what happened in the Bible fascinates me. I would love to learn more about the laws and rules which governed roman soldiers and if doing so makes me a heritic or a Protestant in anyone’s mind, so be it - Jesus will be my judge and not you. At least I’ll be able to say say to Jesus that I knew he was Truth and I was not afraid to follow that him no matter where Truth himself led me.

Of course it will be checked against the 2000 years of magesterial teaching. But I reasearched what a threshing floor and a winnowing fork is. How many on this thread who dismiss the idea in the OP can explan how a winnowing fork was used or the significance of meeting at night on a threshing floor? I learned how unleavened and leavened bread were made in biblical times and why. I researched the political and beaurocratic meaning of the phrase “Keys to the kingdom.” Every time it led me straight to Rome so I’m not scared in the slightest.

If it’s a wild goose chase then so what? I’ll have some fun learning about Roman military history. And if there if there is a basis for the claim and it has bearing on my salvation, well then…

Either way, I aint skeered.

-Tim-

 

[bbarrick8383]

Either way, I aint skeered.

-Tim-

This is pretty much how I look at it too.

I was raised protestant, and the only member of my family to be open minded enough to take a step back and look at other religions, specifically Catholicism.

I tell myself that I’m going to start RCIA with the full intentions of converting if I’m still convinced of the Church’s teaching when it’s done.

My brother and I argue about it all the time, from modern day miracles by saints, to why is the Pope and others dressed so fancy. He thinks people act like the Pope should be worshipped sometimes.

He’s a hard core protestant and doesn’t really want to look into Catholicism, I’m doing my best to push on and try to understand it.

So, I guess what this boils down to, is reading about scripture in a way that just makes sense. I wasn’t born and raised to believe in it any other way. I guess, I’m a realist? I dunno. Love reading about it though.

 

[smithm29]

We should read the holy scriptures with an understanding of the context in which they were written. In fact, according to the catechism, we must fully grasp the literal meaning of the text before we can begin to apprehend the spiritual meanings. However, when an erroneous opinion is refuted in light of the teaching authority of the Church, continuing to defend it (as the original holders of the idea have done throughout this thread) is the very definition of obstinacy. In this case it was not only defended, but promoted, and the promotion was done with non-Catholic sources.

There is a reason that private interpretation of the holy scriptures is not permitted, and I think this thread offers ample evidence for it. Individuals will always seek the justification of their own beliefs in the holy scriptures, no matter how inconsistent it makes the rest of the gospel. Look at the “prosperity gospel” that swept the south a few years ago, or any of the thousand iterations of “name it and claim it”. The fathers, who truly understand the historical concept of the holy scriptures, can help us avoid denigrating Christ by misinterpreting His Bible. Had anyone read John Chrysostom, they would have immediately understood the faults of the prosperity gospel. Had anyone read the rest of the fathers’ writings on this particular passage (let alone the rest of the gospel), this idea that Jesus promoted a prideful tactic meant to embarrass and goad enemies into more open aggression would have seemed entirely opposed to the nature of Christian faith.

And you’re right, Timothy- if you read the holy scriptures while fully submissive to the idea that the Bible was written for the Church, if you understand the literal meaning as expounded by those who lived contemporaneously, if you try to understand the spiritual meanings as written by men who were smarter and more submissive to the will of God than you or I, then you cannot be led astray.

Although I would suggest in closing that you should be scared of falling into heresy. Greater men than you or I have done so. Most great heretics were not fools- they had strong minds, classical educations, and a desire to understand the holy scriptures. They just did so without the Church to guide them.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You’ve done with my post what you did with the words of Jesus- pulled them our of context and used them to support a pre-existing belief. Let’s take your post line by line, as you did mine.

Every one of those “dozens of sites” quotes the same book, usually with slightly different details. That book (the one highlighted on my screenshot) is the only source for this apocryphal story, and it admits to livening up the story for entertainment purposes. Read page 3 of the book if you have it. What Butler’s lives does is the same thing as New Advent- it ignores the story completely. That doesn’t mean it’s untrue, but given the nature of the book, the nature of the Passionist resistance to the movement to have him named “patron of gun owners”, and the dearth of evidence about this story, it indicates that it is likely not true. Add to that the fact that he was two years from his death by tuberculosis and the story is so unlikely that it’s almost laughable. One version that you can find on the internet claims that he wrestled the guns form the holsters of nearby soldiers. How can you do that two years from death by tuberculosis?

Remember- just because it’s on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.

Again here, you miss the point. You interpretation of this scripture (note: yours not the Church’s- you do not have the authority to interpret scripture) implies that we should be goading our enemies, which goes much farther than defending ourselves from them. My statement is meant to show the stark difference in what you are saying versus what the Church proclaims.

No, the matter has not been addressed, it’s been avoided. The scriptural passage in question does not mean what you say it means. There is a huge difference between the self-defense allowed by the catechism and the intentional embarrassment promoted by your personal and illegitimate interpretation of the words of the incarnate God. There is nothing similar between 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:” and your position of embarrassing the oppressor or even tricking him into more open aggression.

Your position seems to be informed by the highly suspect liberation theology. I repeat what I ended my last post with, which you have ignored completely. Jesus’ words are a radical call to nonviolence, peace, and love- not a snide call to provoke more violence, strife, and hatred. It’s not about “reclaiming your place” or “changing the structure of power”. No, that just doesn’t jive well with the rest of his words about cultivating humility, loving your persecutors, and most of all, seeking first the Kingdom of God, rather than respect from men.

We are not called to goad our oppressors into further action, to reclaim our dignity from them, or to embarrass them. Our dignity is inherent due to our nature as creatures made in the image of God- no oppressor can claim that from us, and there is therefore no reason to reclaim it. We are permitted to defend ourselves, but not to do what you say. It is not the role of the Christian to taunt, but to love.

It has nothing to do with “goading” an enemy. It has to do with opening up a door allowing one to defend themselves which is in complete agreement with Catholic Church teaching.

If I slap you and you can not strike back under penalty of death, your ability to defend yourself (which the Church teaches, that we have a duty to do) restricted but if I can get you to strike me in such a fashion that I can strike back, then I have opened the door to be able to defend myself.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Get your Theology straight about Gabriel Possenti. Read the last part.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=293394

To quote from the words of the good apologist

St. Gabriel Possenti was not made a saint for his use of Guns JUST AS MUCH as St. Thomas More was not made a saint for burning heretics at the stake. St. Gabriel had a devotion to our blessed mother and lived in personal sanctity. St. Thomas More stood up against Divorce and the Truth and gave his life for it (Oh he didn’t stab anyone in resistance btw). Those are the reasons You don’t even seem to know what sainthood means. For you the declaration of a saint appears to mean justification of all his/her acts in this life. That is FALSE.

I never said that he was made a saint for using a gun. I said his use of a gun did not disqualify him from becoming a saint. In an attempt to prove your incorrect position, you are trying to disprove something that I never said.

St. Iranaeus is a Church father. Do you know what that means? His interpretation is TRADITION. That has EQUAL footing with Scripture. St. Gabriel would just be FALSE if he held a view contrary to St. Iranaeus. You can throw away St. Iranaeus’s teaching but then you are a PROTESTANT because you rejected TRADITION. GET IT?

Here is the excerpt once again, from St. Iranaeus that speaks of turning the other cheek (From “Against Heresies”)

Read it and read the entire writings if you have the time. Stop giving ridiculous arguments and wasting the time of people if you are not going to admit what is blatantly obvious; The interpretation in the OP by Sir Knight on that passage is WRONG.

When people who don’t know Catholic Theology but go around interpreting things like they know it all for their own agendas, give the Catholic Church a bad name.

God Bless

Jesus said that He was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father. If Jesus taught something other than measure for measure, then He would not be in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father.

If my interpretation of the passage is wrong, then Jesus did not teach measure for measure meaning that Jesus lied about always being in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father.

If you insist that I am wrong, then explain how Jesus could not teach measure for measure and still be in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father?

 

[benidict]

Hi again,

In another thread, I’ve also been repeatedly presented with the following as the interpretation for “Turn the other cheek”.

I believe this exegesis is incorrect and I find it totally absurd. Has this ever been considered as a viable theological interpretation of the passage? The author of this insists that I am insane and this is the correct interpretation.

Am I missing something?

God Bless

Actually from what I have learned. This IS the correct interpretation of this passage. I would agree with the poster you quoted. Peace

 

[benidict]

Where have I called you “insane”? Please post the URL for those comments.

Hi Sir knight. are you the poster in question who gave this interpretation? If so, I am in total agreement with you. Many of Christ word are misinterpreted because the western mind does not understand the Middle Eastern mind. Which is in strong evidence globally as we speak. But…for other reasons. I digress. I am familiar with your interpretation, and this is an accurate portrayal of What Jesus was trying to teach. It squares with the history and customs of that time. Peace.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thanks to both of you.