BS: Christianity: Catholicism query

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 01 - 03:25 AM

Susan,

The 1890 Strong's Concordance is an English language concordance of the King James Version of the bible.

See toadfrog's 12/28 post above regarding Catholic usage of the King James Version of the bible. While there are Catholic versions of Strong's available nowadays, to my knowledge, they haven't been used much by Catholics since they don't use the KJV.

Liland,

I think my dulia, hyperdulia, latria shorthand summed up your post pretty accurately. Or would my anonymity cause you to disagree with that?

As to your insinuation that any suggestion of Aramaic origins of the Greek translations of the New Testament would be considered either Catholic or (by association, perhaps?) merely lunatic fringe, I disagree.

While the scholarship is more recent than what you might be familiar with, there are, nonetheless, a number of reputable academics (as opposed to religious academics) who are pursuing this line of study. They publish in reputable journals and with reputable presses, in which they discuss this aspect of the Hebrew/Aramaic biblical and contemporaneous non-biblical written record. Two such journals include Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, and the Journal of the Aramaic Bible. Online there is also the Syriac Orthodox Resources WWW Site, originally housed at Berkeley, and now found at Catholic University.

I realize what I'm saying sounds a bit like we aren't in Kansas anymore to some of you. So be it. Protestants tend to view the Greek texts as The Written Word of God. Catholics tend to view the Hebrew/Aramaic texts (including Apocrypha and and Pseudepigrapha) as the more authentic source.

Nearly all biblical scholars would now agree that Greek Christian texts were later translated into Aramaic Christian texts. The controversy we are bantering about here is to what extent did the Greek writers of those texts simply translate the Aramaic oral and written biblical texts into Greek and write it down, and the church fathers (both Roman and Orthodox) claim the translations as the true word of God (for the Old Testament) and the true sayings of Jesus (for the New Testament).

I'll agree that the jury is still out on this one. But considering how recently some of these texts have been recovered (ie late 19th c. and as late as what, 1945 for the Nag Hammadi?), I'm not ready to concede on the Hebrew/Aramaic origins of the New Testament texts just yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 01 - 03:35 AM

PS--my stubborness about the Hebrew/Aramaic origins of the New Testament stems in part from the fact that the Book of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls, while not a part of either the Hebrew or Christian official canon, is written in Aramaic in an older version which didn't exist before their discovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Alice
Date: 30 Dec 01 - 12:47 PM

Paul, regarding your original request for sources of information, here is http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm The Vatican website, Catechism of the Catholic Church

Scroll down the above linked page and you will find the commandments - ARTICLE 1: THE FIRST COMMANDMENT I. "You Shall Worship the Lord Your God and Him Only Shall You Serve" II. "Him Only Shall You Serve" III. "You Shall Have No Other Gods before Me" IV. "You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Graven Image"

Quote:
"... Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."*47

" The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." *70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.*71

*47 47 Origen, Contra Celsum 2, 40: PG 11, 861.

*70 St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18, 45: PG 32, 149C; Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council II: SC 126; LG 67.

*71 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 81, 3 ad 3.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: toadfrog
Date: 31 Dec 01 - 05:11 PM

Everyone is arguing about their sources, etc. Is there any real, substantive difference of opinion here? Or just folks showing off their erudition? I'm genuinely curious. Is there an actual dispute, and if so, what is disputed?

Hey, Amos, read my posting carefully and see if you think we actually have a real difference of opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST,Phil
Date: 31 Dec 01 - 05:44 PM

I have found the best source of answers to all questions concerning religion to be The Simpsons.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Burke
Date: 31 Dec 01 - 06:49 PM

I'm a Protestant who was raised on heavy doses of "This is why we are not Catholic" with the serious understanding that they may be so far off that they aren't Christian & we're not sure if they will get to heaven. The issues Paul raised initially are a good part of the reasons I was given.

I've modified my thinking a lot over the years & hope to offer some thoughts that might help.

The 'decalogue' is found in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5. I believe the currently official Catholic Translation is The New American Bible. I think all the translation stuff in this thread is fairly irrelevant to the intial question, so I won't address it. I read the 1st & 2nd commandment separation and the 9th & 10th combination the same way you do. Having grown up on 'Luther's Small Catechism', I was surprised when I read the actual texts. Luther apparently still accepted this particular reading even as he opposed many other practices of the the church of his day. Other more radical protestants renumbered them more accurately & in some cases destroyed a lot of religious art. I have a hard time with the seeming veneration of representations & relics, but from the remove of 400-500 years, the wholesale destruction seems extreme & unnecessary.

Several people have posted the official line on why what Catholics do does not break the commandments. I've read a lot of church history & some very entertaining & even inspirational longer versions of some Saints lives. My feeling is that the distinctions being made are doctrinal developments to jusify a popular religious practices that grew up over time (although some were quite early). I'm not sure most Catholics now or in the past really made such intelluctual distinctions.

My grandmother was Catholic & when she talked about the saints in prayer it sure sounded to me like she thought the help was coming directly from the saints. When I hear what the current Pope has to say about Mary it sounds to me like he's worshiping more than venerating. When I hear about getting a saint's medal blessed, I cringe. I don't, however, think any of them are condemned for doing these things.

Personally, one of my favorite religious bookstores is a Catholic one. There is so much there from Catholic writers for 2000 years that is so very spiritually edifying. At the same time I cringe when I see all books about Mary. In both the books I like & the ones I don't I find an expectation of the immanance & experiential aspects of God in daily life that my protestant background paid lip service to but did not seem to have in any practical way. Being protestant & an intelluctual type, I just don't really 'get' "bowing down in front of various statues / alters, kissing the feet of a statue on Good Friday etc." so I'd never do them. I do think the experience of 2000 years shows it does work for many.

If you were raised Catholic, didn't catch the distiction of the to/through or venerating/worshiping, and are bothered by these usages in your own life; then maybe you should avoid the practices & if you feel strongly enough head for a protestant church. Isn't it great that we have so many alternatives?

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST,Mark Clark (via public proxy)
Date: 01 Jan 02 - 04:47 PM

Like Mousethief, I belong to an Orthodox community so my own understanding is from the Orthodox point of view. Still, Roman Catholicism is an offshoot of Orthodoxy <big grin... hey, put down those tomatoes> and still shares many of the ancient traditions.

I think Christianity began as a sect of Judaism and Christian worship originally included the traditional Jewish Temple services with the Christians staying after the conclusion of the Hebrew service to add their own developing liturgical practices. This was before Saul became Paul and became an Apostle. The Orthodox Christian Liturgy, 2000 years later, still begins with chanted prayers and psalms that would sound familiar to Jewish faithful.

Still, accepted Christian theology represents a break with the old traditions. Christ boiled the old Mosaic law down to only two commandments:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

“On these two commandments” He said, “hang all the law and the prophets.”

In Christian theology, Christ gives (new) meaning to all the old symbols and traditions. Christ is the new sacrificial lamb and His resurrection (Pascha) is the new Passover. Arguing over the interpretration of Mosaic law no longer has meaning for Christians. Mosaic law remains as part of the Tradition of the Church but it's been replaced as a central theme.

Yes, Jesus spoke Aramaic—a friend of ours was born in one of the last remaining villages where Aramaic is still spoken—but he very likely spoke Greek as well. I seem to remember reading that Greek was the lingua franca in that part of the world at the time. The Gospels and Epistles were undoubtedly recited in many languages and versions according to local liturgical practice but when finally written down, I believe they were recorded in Greek.

Orthodox theology—and I suppose Roman Catholic as well—holds that Christ is fully man while being fully God. To disallow any representation (Icon) of Christ as a defilement of that which is holy is to deny Christ's humanity. This was the error of the Iconoclasts, a tradition shared by both the Eastern Church and by Rome.

Bottom line... in Orthodox and Roman theology, Icons aren't idols, Saints and martyrs aren't gods and the Bible—part of the Tradition of the Church—was established by the Church for its own use, the Church didn't come about because someone read the Bible.

Hope I didn't get anyone's shorts in a knot. Didn't mean to.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Jane 2001
Date: 01 Jan 02 - 07:56 PM

I don't pretend such erudition as some other members or any religious belief at all, but I think it's interesting to note which of the Ten Commandments is are still law. While seven of the ten still exist, however watered down (in U.K. that is) Numbers 1,2, and 10 have completely gone. We can worship what we like and create idols for all purposes, while covetousness is positively a way of life. Progress?

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 02 - 08:13 PM

Toadfrog:

I guess not, maybe.

Jane2001: Yes. It's a very stilted, not to say oxymornic state of spirituality to refrain from or insist on actions because of some proscription or mandate from external sources, especially dogeared tomes of uncertain origin. If there is spiritual strength or virtue in "worshiping" (whatever that really means) a single identity as representative of All, the only good it will do you is if you do so out of enlightened awareness based on your own perception of truth. Otherewise the universe is an other-determined machine being operated by a whimsical daemon posing as the Great and Terrible -- not a very satisfying world view to my way of thinking.

Covetousness, likewise, must be outgrown because of personal certainty as to what really does consittute "Right Thought", "Right Action" and so on. To suppress it in order not to offend a Divinity or a community of adherents to a Divinity is, I believe, childish and counter-productive. To sublimate it into more enlightened ways of being and doing in the world, out of your own self-determined sense of rightness, is a much truer path, to me.

Well..you asked.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: toadfrog
Date: 01 Jan 02 - 09:07 PM

Amos, I have second thoughts. Maybe we do disagree.

I can't really know what it is you mean by "spirituality," so find it hard to disagree on that point. But since the Ten Commandments are called "commandments," it would appear all of them are "done for authoritarian motives." They are authority. Some people even believe the Commandments are the source of ethics.

If it is "authoritarian" to prohibit the worship of additional gods (and incidentally in terms an earlier time, obedience of foreign priests), then surely it is also "authoritarian" to prohibit the worship of graven images, or to require observance of the Sabbath, or enjoin adultery, or even to prohibit killing and stealing. All of the commandments prohibit or require something, so by definition they are all "authoritarian."

I suggest your quarrel is not with my reading (and Mr.Cohen's) of one particular word. On the contrary, I think you do not like commandements at all. Which I suppose is o.k., so long as you don't break those which also involve violation of secular laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 05:09 AM

There's some really good information in this thread, but there's also a lot of misinformation. Same with most of the Internet, so I think it's wise to view all Internet sources of information as "suspect until proven otherwise." The conservatives dominate the privately-operated sites that deal with Catholicism, so the Internet will paint Catholicism as far more conservative and legalistic than it really is. The Vatican site is accurate, and so are the sites of the various national councils of Catholic Bishops. Mother Angelica is not an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church; but she is a right-winger with a lot of money, so she's able to make herself seem official.

Ther is no longer an Index of Prohibited Books, and Catholics are permitted to make use of the Authorized (King James) version of the Bible. There are many more recent translations that are easier to understand. Catholics have no historical attachment to the King James translation, so they don't use it much. In the U.S. the official Roman Catholic translation is the New American Bible, but the New Revised Standard Version and others such as the Good News Bible are commonly used.

The earliest known texts of the New Testament are in the style of Greek known as koiné, which was spoken throughout the Mediterranean world at the time of Christ.

The "imprimatur" (it may be printed) is required and granted only for certain religious books used in teaching. It is unlikely that you will find an imprimatur on a Website.

The Catholic Church has always taught that worship belongs to God alone, and not to Mary, the saints, or to statues. Nonetheless, I have seen talk of worship of Mary at "Catholic" websites and from people who should know better. It's one of those nuanced things that takes two minutes to understand, and many people don't have the time to bother understanding stuff like that. Mary and the saints are supposed to be sources of inspiration, not objects of worship - but it's evident that many Catholics don't understand that. Mary and the Saints often seem to generate more hysteria and receive more attention than God.

So, yes, some Catholics worship statues - but they're not supposed to. I'm sure there are many other religious groups that have members who just don't get the picture. As a very wise soul once told me, "Ya gotta love 'em," anyhow.

The bulk of this thread appears to portray the Catholic faith and other religion as something chiefly juridical and legalistic. That is a valid perspective, but not the only one or the primary one. I find most Catholics don't worry too much about the legalities any more - they see their faith as a relationship with God and with their fellow human beings, and an obligation to serve both God and humanity.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 10:31 AM

People here have actually been contributing in a pretty informed way, IMO. Things "in the real world" of Catholics are often as you say Joe. But there is also a long tradition of Catholic intellectualism, where people are more interested in the secular academic history of the church than they are the nuances of worship on the ground.

I come from a Catholic intellectual background myself, and can even claim a close relative who is in the clergy, has a doctorate in Aramaic and Aramaic Studies from Catholic University, who also teaches at a well-known Catholic college. I recognize that makes our family somewhat unique among Catholics nowadays, especially in the US where the tradition of raising one son and one daughter for the church isn't as strong a tradition as it once was in Europe.

I agree that a lot of what gets onto the web is very conservative. But then, we need to remember that the church itself has gone to pretty extreme lengths to stamp out the radical left elements within the church itself in recent years. Liberation theologians have been successfully beaten down and beaten back by Rome, making the world safe for suffering and the saving of Catholic souls.

I'm not going to argue with people on the language issue. It is one of the issues related to biblical studies which is still very polticized. The dominant culture (ie English and Spanish language cultures of Europe and the Americas) are heavily invested in the Greek texts of the bible, just as they are heavily invested in Greco-Roman history on the secular side. Which is why we still force our kids to read Homer.

But that doesn't make what is being taught in the schools accurate or even remotely close to the contemporary knowledge academics have gained as a result of the past 50 years of research independent of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim clerical influences. The importance of that research being independent was certainly brought home to roost with the Dead Sea scroll controversies, which also never had much of an effect on generic Catholicism either. But it blew the doors on scholarship wide open, as they say.

Best wishes for a healthy, proseperous, and blessed New Year to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Ringer
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 01:01 PM

Yes, but you are arguing on the language issue, Guest. Joe said, The earliest known texts of the New Testament are in the style of Greek known as koiné, which was spoken throughout the Mediterranean world at the time of Christ, which is a statement of fact, not of opinion. Have you information which might lead us to suppose that Joe's statement is incorrect?

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 03:50 PM

Bald Eagle,

Perhaps I should have said I'm done arguing the language issue? ;-)

There are biblical texts, and then there are the texts of the biblical era. Aramaic was the language Jesus spoke, not Greek. The earliest known texts of the New Testament are in Greek. The earlies known texts of the Old Testament, and some sacred texts which are not considered canonical texts, the Gospel of Thomas from the New Testament, are in Hebrew/Aramaic.

But nobody really seems to want to go there, do they?

I didn't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST,Paul
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 03:58 PM

Many, many thanks everyone.

This thread has been really interesting to me, and apart from a couple of the early messages, totally flameless.

That is good.

I'm going to print it out, look up some references, and read some more.

One thing that I don't think has been covered, however, is where the differences in what constitute the '10 Commandments' originate.

My first post gives a link to 3 different versions, and I'm still unsure as to why that is so.

Explanations much apperciated.

Many thanks,

Paul

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 04:03 PM

But nobody really seems to want to go there, do they?

I DO want to go "there," and in fact I do "go there" often in my own personal spiritual life-- but I don't "go there," much, in this setting, because it can so easily become what is assumed to be an argument.... I much prefer the fascinating process of exploration, discovery, and discernment, and these are easily overwhelmed here despite what I think are usually excellent intentions all around. The internet in general (and the Mudcat in particular) does far too good a job at reinforcing legalism, IMO, and has a ways to go yet on facilitating other approaches.

They do a better job of this at Beliefnet, where there are boards to discuss, argue, and/or explore any and everything there is about spirituality, and where the numbers of informed writers is large enough to get a better spectrum of diversity and expression thereof.

I am not so much interested in who is RIGHT-- God is, and we are fallible-- as I am in becoming a better person, and on keeping others company who are interested in same. Beating up on friends about who is more right, IMO, doesn't help me be a better person, nor (in my experience) anyone else.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST,Paul
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 04:49 PM

WYSIWIG,

I was just trying to have an intelligent converstion with intelligent people.

I still feel the same

Paul

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 05:14 PM

Paul, I have nothing but appreciation for your approaches in this thread... I was responding primarily to the GUEST who had posted just before you, as one who has seen too many threads about spirituality here lose their postive tone. But I would like to encourage you to visit Beliefnet to explore your questions, also. I have a feeling they've been around this block several times.

From Beliefnet:

<>Post respectful questions in Learn About Catholicism and Beliefnet members will offer responses.

Disputes or criticisms of Catholicism from non-Catholics must be directed to Catholicism Challenge & Critique. Please refer to the Beliefnet Community Rules of Conduct before posting.

Members of the Catholic Church who question or dissent from official teaching are welcomed in the Retreat House. Those who accept official Catholic Church teaching as definitive are invited to the Conservative Catholics forum.

These categories have evolved over time with Beliefnet members' input in the Town Meeting threads. Threads in the "wrong" place are simply moved. It all works pretty well.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: Burke
Date: 02 Jan 02 - 06:57 PM

Guest, Paul, I addressed the different versions a little without first looking at your PDF link. The site actually gives 6. I don't know that anyone considers it's 5th & 6th as the definitive decalogue. What you have in the 1st four is some numbering differences & abridged vs full forms. Except for the ranking of 'graven images' I think the differences are more apparent than real.

The Protestant & Hebrew versions given are basically the biblical texts from Exodus in different English translations. The 1 of the Hebrew, is regarded as preamble by the Protestant & omitted there, but inclued as part of 1 of the "First Tablets". The Hebrew combines the Protestant 1 & 2 into 2. From there they are basically the same.

The so called "First Tablets" version on p.2 is the abridged "Protestant" version. I suspect that's what a lot of Protestants were taught for memorization purposes. I think this has been done for the practical reason of teaching children & tring to keep it simple. "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" is what I memorized. All the rest that follows & precedes "Honor thy Father & Mother." was treated as amplification or explanation.

I memorized "Honor thy father and thy mother that is may go well with thee & thou mayest live long on the earth." Some of the other versions just give "Honor thy father and thy mother." It would have been easier to memorize the shorter, I'm not sure it changes the meaning a lot; except that I also learned it was the only commandment with a promise in it. The Catholic version is both abridged & numbered differently. Having also grown up with the Catholic numbering, I was always told the 'graven image' was really part of the commentary on or amplification of 'no other gods'. It could be omitted the same as the 6 days labor, etc. for the sabbath commandment. From a purely practical point of view to get to 10 the covet commandmend is split. The Deuteronomy version put the wife before the house & that's the way I remember memorizing it.

I've long suspected the Catholic version overlooked the graven image to get around the fact that images figure so largly in worship, but I'm not sure you'd find it documented. If the "Hebrew" numbering reflects traditional Jewish subdivision, it's possible the Catholic version adopted that & then abridged it. OTOH, lumping wives in with houses & cattle as objects to covet is pretty offensive, I rather like that they are treated separately.

I seem to recall that at one time the 7 deadly sins & the 7 virtues were more important as rules for living than the 10 commandments. Anyone know more?

Subject: RE: BS: Christianity: Catholicism query
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jan 02 - 12:56 AM

,