| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Turning the other cheek; is it obligatory, no ifs, no buts? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 (1,432 Views) | |
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:44 Post #31 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Ha ha! Of course, Rose! The Fifth Commandment
Edited by Clare, Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:46.
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:21 Post #32 |
|
Trouble is, Clare, determining what - if anything - makes a war just. Travel to somewhere like Bezier in France and discover what the papal army got up to... massacring everyone in the town, Catholics included - supposedly by order of a pope. I doubt anyone other than the blind or stupid would suggest that what papal armies got up to could be anything other than evil. |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:24 Post #33 |
|
So why do you think Jesus didn't encourage his fellow citizens to rebel against their Roman oppressors? Why do you think that the Christian leaders during the first three centuries instructed their followers not to rise against the persecution they were suffering? How come our Church during that period had growth rates we can only envy nowadays? |
![]() |
|
| pete | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:36 Post #34 |
|
It wasn’t the Romans that betrayed him; It wasn’t the Romans that shouted Crucify him, Crucify him; it was the majority of Jews themselves, they were his greatest enemy. His dislike of the Scribes and Pharisees was obvious and Jesus didn’t turn his cheek when whipping the buyers and sellers in the temple and over turning their tables. This was an act of rage carried out by the Prince of Peace Himself. So if Jesus used violence against His enemies, I’m sure he never intended His Church not to show some sort of resistance against evil. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:43 Post #35 |
|
It sounds like you don't know very much about how a whip is used, Pete. Maybe you can answer my question that Saundthorp ignored - how many of the money changers were physically hurt or even actually struck by Jesus? |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:50 Post #36 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Generally it is the anti-church types who drag up Papal misdeeds of the past, in the hope on scoring points against Catholics and our Church. Whatever individual Popes have done, has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 23:07 Post #37 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Jesus disapproved of the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees. That does not mean he disliked them, he loved all prople, and because of his love for them he pointed out the error of their ways. He was justifiably angry, his father's house, a holy place, was being desecrated. The Gospels do not say his rage was uncontrollable. Matthew, Chapter 21 12* And Jesus entered the temple of God * and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13* He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you make it a den of robbers." [/quote]
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 23:08 Post #38 |
|
I think there is a distinction here between the personal misdeeds of Popes and those things which they formally undertook in the name of Christ and his Church. The Albigensian Crusade, to which Anne-Marie refers, was undoubtedly an example of the latter and not the former. I think she is right that we need to examine what our predecessor Church did in order to understand it today. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 23:19 Post #39 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Whatever Popes did as individuals or in the name of the Church does not help me grasp when and in what circumstances a Christian should follow the instruction "turn the other cheek", or the circumstances in which we need not. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 23:23 Post #40 |
|
They did what they did because the Church/they taught what it taught. Some of us do find it helpful to see and discuss how the Church has interpreted and acted on these moral issues in the past. It is at least arguable (and is my opinion) that all the crusades, European and Eastern, are material to any consideration of the doctrine of just war, which is in turn a significant aspect of the question of when, if ever, violence is compatible with Jesus's teachings. If nothing else, they illustrate the difficulties we can get into when we start adding to the Gospels to fill a perceived gap. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:11 Post #41 |
|
Thank you, OSB. you understood exactly my point. It often fascinates me that those who talk most, often have least comprehension of what is being discussed! |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:17 Post #42 |
|
Where this becomes confusing, Clare, is that you accept what the Church teaches when it suits you... and when it doesn't (such as supporting SSPX, which the Church condemned for years)... you simply ignore the Church... decreeing that the Church is wrong... because you know better! It really does make it very hard to accept your arguments as enjoying any reason or consistency.... |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:28 Post #43 |
|
How could you possibly say that, Rose??? It is what individual popes have said and done - be it encyclicals, excommunications, wars, whatever - that determines what we, as Catholics, have to accept or be in error. It is EXACTLY what individual popes do (and have done) that informs us of what is Catholicism... and which we accept and submit to... or reject, oppose and denounce. Even worse for your argument, Rose... if what popes get up to has no bearing on "what is wrong in the eyes of God", then bang goes papal infallibility, the right of popes to teach, and just about everything else that makes Catholicism Catholicism! What popes get up to in the name of the Church, has EVERYTHING to do with it. For the record, Rose, I AM a (Catholic) Christian. Edited by Anne-Marie, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:29.
|
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:39 Post #44 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Ah, we're onto what He didn't do again! |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 08:50 Post #45 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Incidentally, turning the other cheek doesn't just cover physical violence. It covers being wronged in general. So, Mairtin, if you believe it is an obligatory commandment, admitting of no exceptions, then that means, if I misrepresent something you have said, you are obliged not to argue back, ever! But, obviously, it does not oblige, and there are exceptions. Although, there have been saints who were calumniated and who did not attempt to set the record straight, preferring to turn the other cheek. St Gerard Majella springs to mind. It may be the more perfect thing to do, but it is not obligatory. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:54 PM Jul 11