C
coolcatholicguy
Guest
Why did they take out the part about worshipping idols and make up for that by splitting another commandment into 2?
- Status
F
Finding_Faith
Guest
They didn’t.after the Protestant Reformation the protestants numbered there ten commandments different from catholics and took out the apocrypha books.but yet protestants say catholics added books and changed the ten commandments but protestants took out books and changed the ten commandments.and it better to say they just numbered them different then changed.
D
DianaCC
Guest
Because wives are not property.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Nothing was taken out nor added. Just a different numbering scheme, used for whatever reason (note that scripture did not come with verse numbers.) Idol worship is most definitely considered to be bad and against the first commandment. The full first commandment, using the numbering scheme I’m familiar with is:
So it’s all still there. Arguing about numbering is kind of silly, and to be honest I’ve only ran into it from people who were raised thinking Catholics worshiped everything from Mary to the Pope to their favorite cat. There are real meaningful differences between what Catholics believe and what protestants tend to believe. But this numbering issue isn’t one of em.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the Catholic Church never made any changes. The first commandment encompasses all those verses following, up to what the Church traditional has numbered as the 2nd (taking the Lord’s name in vain).
recall there were no verse numbers until very late in the history of bible transcription.
some of the Reformers chose to re-number the verses and the decalogue, separating the first commandment into two, and combining the two commandments on coveting, which the Catholic Church has traditionally separated into two (thereby giving wives a greater dignity than cattle, oxen and other chattel).
so the Catholic Church changed nothing, the Reformers made the change.
read the entire verse. It is essential that the proscription on graven images remain within in the context of the commandment against idolatry, because it loses its force and meaning when separated, as most Protestant lists do today.
D
DianaCC
Guest
Moses, who must have been Catholic, is the one who switched the phrases around: compare Exodus 20 with Deuteronomy 5.
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
Moses was a Jew.
N
NHInsider
Guest
There are, if I recall correctly, 22 “imperative” verbs in the Exodus version of the Commandments. How those get divided up to the traditional 10 (one for each finger) has, post-Reformation, become a huge stick with which to beat up the other side. As Diana pointed out, however, there were two versions in OT Judaism which co-existed peacefully for a millennium-or-so - because they are not, in fact, in conflict.
Two arguments in favor of the “Catholic” version, one historical, one literary.
1)Historical: OT Judaism has several instances of God instructing His People to carve images: the bronze serpent in Numbers, the bronze oxen and the golden cherubim in the Temple. So it would appear that the commandment is not “don’t make images” - rather, making and worshiping images is a “for example” part of the blanket condemnation of idolatry.
2)Literary: The structure of the Decalogue in the “Catholic” form is 3 commandments regarding the relationship of the people to their God, one “bridge” commandment in which the relationship of people with their parents is cast in the light of the relationship with the Lord, and 6 commandments regarding human relationships presented in a very common form of parallels: Killing/Adultery/Stealing : Defaming/Lusting/Coveting. This structure, which like the 10-fingers construct, makes it much easier to remember these essential instructions, is lost in the “Protestant” 4/1/5 version.
Two arguments in favor of the “Catholic” version, one historical, one literary.
1)Historical: OT Judaism has several instances of God instructing His People to carve images: the bronze serpent in Numbers, the bronze oxen and the golden cherubim in the Temple. So it would appear that the commandment is not “don’t make images” - rather, making and worshiping images is a “for example” part of the blanket condemnation of idolatry.
2)Literary: The structure of the Decalogue in the “Catholic” form is 3 commandments regarding the relationship of the people to their God, one “bridge” commandment in which the relationship of people with their parents is cast in the light of the relationship with the Lord, and 6 commandments regarding human relationships presented in a very common form of parallels: Killing/Adultery/Stealing : Defaming/Lusting/Coveting. This structure, which like the 10-fingers construct, makes it much easier to remember these essential instructions, is lost in the “Protestant” 4/1/5 version.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
First of all, the First Commandment as stated in every Catholic book and classroom is:
I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods [or other gods] before Me.
So that definitely forbids idolatry. The question is whether there is a *separate *commandment that goes “you shall not make any graven image” and that is apart from the 1st commandment. Seeing as the Jews went on to make, at God’s behest, a number of graven images (Ex 25:18-19, Num 21:8-9, 1Kgs 6:23-29, 1Kgs 7:25-45, etc.) it would be ridiculous to say that there is a separate “no graven images” commandment because then God would be a sinner.
Moreover the Fundamentalists who claim there is a separate commandment forbidding the making of and honoring the images of “dead people” are total and complete hypocrites. Why? Because all of them walk around with wallets full of images of dead people whom they honor.
These images look like this:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=9680
So, if they really believed what they accused the Church of then they should give all of their “graven images” to me for disposition.
Seriously though… they clearly honor Washington and Jefferson and Franklin like every American does. And those honorees are dead. So how is carrying a $100 bill any different from carrying a holy card of the Blessed Virgin* (as George Washington himself did!)… Who is more honorable, the Mother of God or someone who denied the divinity of Jesus like Ben Franklin?
I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods [or other gods] before Me.
So that definitely forbids idolatry. The question is whether there is a *separate *commandment that goes “you shall not make any graven image” and that is apart from the 1st commandment. Seeing as the Jews went on to make, at God’s behest, a number of graven images (Ex 25:18-19, Num 21:8-9, 1Kgs 6:23-29, 1Kgs 7:25-45, etc.) it would be ridiculous to say that there is a separate “no graven images” commandment because then God would be a sinner.
Moreover the Fundamentalists who claim there is a separate commandment forbidding the making of and honoring the images of “dead people” are total and complete hypocrites. Why? Because all of them walk around with wallets full of images of dead people whom they honor.
These images look like this:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=9680
So, if they really believed what they accused the Church of then they should give all of their “graven images” to me for disposition.
Seriously though… they clearly honor Washington and Jefferson and Franklin like every American does. And those honorees are dead. So how is carrying a $100 bill any different from carrying a holy card of the Blessed Virgin* (as George Washington himself did!)… Who is more honorable, the Mother of God or someone who denied the divinity of Jesus like Ben Franklin?
- Bonus points if you answered, “of course it’s different–Mary isn’t dead!”
P
patrick457
Guest
Nuh-uh. I know the Reformation caused a lot of chaos, but let’s give the Reformers a break here. To sum:
The ‘Protestant’ (sic) division of the Commandments, more properly called the Philonic Division, actually has quite an ancient pedigree: in fact, it is found in the writings of Philo and Josephus (De Decalogo 12.51; Antiquities 3.89-92), who both employ this reckoning long before Protestantism even existed. We cannot say it was done for iconoclastic purposes or that each and everyone of those who use the division are ‘iconoclastic’, since we would have to accuse the Eastern Orthodox - which for the record uses this division! - as well as Origen (who adopted it in his Homilies on Exodus, Homily 8 On the Beginning of the Decalogue), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (The Decalogue of Moses) and St. Jerome (Commentary on Ephesians 6) of being iconoclastic.
As you can notice, I’m very passionate AGAINST the misconception among some Catholics - and which is expressed by a few folks in this thread - that the Philonic Division has its origins from Protestantism (after all, Lutherans even today use the same reckoning as Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox uses the Philonic reckoning as well, so even labelling it as the Protestant reckoning is a gross over-simplification of things). I feel that it’s time we dig a six-foot grave for it and carve it a tombstone.
P
patrick457
Guest
Here is how the Ten Words would look like if we separate them by the imperatives:
I am YHWH, your God, who brought you out of Mitzraim, from a house of slaves:
There will not be for you other gods upon my face.
You will not make for yourself an idol (pesel), and any likeness (temunah) which is in the heavens above, and which is on the earth beneath, and which is in the waters under the earth.
You will not bow yourself down to them,
And you will not serve them: for I, YHWH your God, am a zealous God, registering the iniquity of fathers on sons, upon the third, and upon the fourth of those hating me, and showing loving-kindness to thousands, of those loving me and keeping my commandments.
You will not take up the name of YHWH your God for a falseness, for YHWH will not acquit him who takes up His name for a falseness.
Remember the day of the Sabbath to set him apart [as holy].
Six days you will serve, and you will do all your work, and the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God.
You will not do any work, you and your son and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant, and your beast, and your stranger who is in your gates, for six days had YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and rested in the seventh day; therefore YHWH blessed the day of the Sabbath, and set him apart [as holy].
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days will be made long on the ground which YHWH your God is giving to you.
You will not murder.
You will not commit adultery.
You will not steal.
You will not answer against your neighbor a lying witness.
You will not crave the house of your neighbor:
You will not crave the woman of your neighbor, and his manservant, and his maidservant, and his ox, and his donkey, and all which is your neighbor’s.
P
patrick457
Guest
Actually, Moses was an Israelite, more specifically a Levite (i.e. a member of the tribe of Levi) due to his parentage.
Strictly speaking, the word Jew originally referred to a member of the tribe of Judah or the people of the kingdom of Judah. It was only later, with the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, that the term came to be applied to say, the surviving Israelites in general and their descendants as well as converts to native Israelite religion (and much later, the inhabitants of Yehud Medinata/the Kingdom of Iudaea/the Tetrarchy of Iudaea/Iudaea Province). So in a sense, using the term ‘Jew’ for Moses is somewhat anachronistic.
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
You’re right.Actually, Moses was an Israelite, more specifically a Levite (i.e. a member of the tribe of Levi) due to his parentage.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
No bad intentions, but you’re a Catholic, correct? So you’re a part of the Catholic Church, referring to it as they, not we, and you are using a Protestant argument. But maybe they are influencing you too much or something.
Just seemed kind of fishy to me, that’s all.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Boom! Excellent point. (GASP!!) Does this mean Protestants consider them property? No, but it does mean that protestants bent over backwards to number the commandments differently to distance themselves from those darned papists!
P
patrick457
Guest
Not every Protestant, mind you. Lutherans use the Augustinian way of dividing the Commandments that Catholics use AFAIK, but I think they’re unique in this.
Also, the argument that folks who use the Philonic division consider their wives as property would somehow fail if you consider the Eastern Orthodox, whom I believe value matrimony as much as we do - considering it to be one of the Sacred Mysteries (unlike in the Catholic world, the precise number of the Sacraments/Mysteries are not so clearly defined in the East: the term mysterion is not limited to the seven we all know).
P
PJM
Guest
***My dear friend in Christ,
First a bit of a history lesson for you
The Bible is a CATHOLIC BOOK
Because there were Zip, Zerro, No other Christian churches EXCEPT for todays Catholic Church when the OT was collected [by catholics], the ENTIRE NT was AUTHORED BY catholics, the Bibles canon [list of books to be included in the bible] was done by catholics… So the Bible came THROUGH the Catholic Church.* This the Bible is a Catholic Book and Catholics areTHEE “Bible Church”
The chapters, verses and numbering did not take place until the Middle ages.**
Factually, it is the protestant community; not theCatholic Church that made CHANGES.
That point asside: your question is nearly moot.
Both lists teach the same Commandments; only the emphasis was changed by protestants. WHY? So they would “have someting to point to about Catholic practices”…OR SO THEY THOUGHT
Most common Protestant listing:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet
**Latin Catholic listing: **
Thou shalt not have other gods besides Me
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day
Honor thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods
Protestant aware that the CC had statues, stained glass windows, rosarys ect. saw an opportunity to EMPHASIZE this obvious fact while at the same time IGNORING these Bible passages: And what God Himself Commanded.
YAHWEh when directing Moses on building the Ark of the Covenant DEMANDED that a set of “cheribum” [ANGELS] be placed above the Moses Chair. **1Chr.28: 18 **“for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD.” THAT friends is an IDOL? Ordered by God?
Then again with Moses:** Num.21: 8 **"And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”
WHATS THIS GOD ORDERING MOSES TO MAKE YET ANOTHER IDOL?
OF COURSE NOT! What the commanment forbids is WORSHIP OF FALSE GODS. The reference to “IDOLS” referes NOT to “idols” BUT FALSE GODS. So what the CC does is no different than what God COMMANDED from Moses. HOLY images that remind us to pray, do good works, suffer wuth Christ; BUT NOT and NEVER WAS as competing Gods. And PLEASE do ask me about Mary
***Protestants in order to include this command, chose the Jewish tradition of considering **WIFES as PERSONAL PRPERTY ***under the command not to “covet”
Catholics Include the passage about “graven images” CORRECTLY UNDESTANDING God’s actual intent; **under the First Commandment **and seperates 'Wifes" recogonizing there personhood and equality with "“man” and COMMAND Not to Covent anothers Wife. **
God Bless you,
Pat
E
ETEXAS
Guest
LOL…sorry…that was funny…
I
Ignatius
Guest
It didn’t, The Protestants combined two into one 1600 years after The Catholic Church. Who gave those men 16 centuries after Christ the authority to change what had always been from the time of The Apostles up to that time?
- Status