Ask A Catholic III

[Jehoshua]

On the ten commandments.

The numbering scheme used by the Catholic Church and also by Lutherans is the same one used by St Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430). The Eastern Churches use a slightly different version again developed by the greek fathers. The reason the differenes are possible however is because the ten commandments in the bible are not cleanly divided into ten actual commandments numbered out explicitly, it requires some interpretation of where the divisions lie, and thus jews, Catholics/lutherans, Eastern Christianity and those nasty protestants all have slightly different versions.

However as to the assertion of Timtofly that the Catholic Church changed it, on the contrary in regards to the protestant version it is protestantism (note lutheranism, the original protestantism has the same set as Catholics) that changed the commandments traditionally used in western christendom to fit their theology.

-

On how is one saved.

By the merciful grace of God. Grace is obtained through living in fidelity to the commandments of Christ and participating in the gifts of grace that are the sacraments, most particularly the Holy Eucharist. Ultimately no one is worthy of their own merit of the beatific vision, and it is the mercy of God in his grace that saves you.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Protestants "changed it" by going back to the way that Hellenistic Jews typically numbered the commandments going back long before Augustine's innovation. Early Christians used this as most were Hellenistic Jews, and the Orthodox continued to do so.


The other common Jewish numbering system, which is used in the Talmud, considers the "preface" to be the first "commandment" and what Catholics consider to be the first commandment to be the second. (It is worth noting that the Hebrew term is properly translated "The Ten Statements" rather than "The Ten Commandments.")


Samaritans of course include an entirely different 10th commandments, to keep Mount Gerizim holy and worship only there.


Considering that wife comes after house in the Exodus version, there is not much justification for Augustine seperating "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" into the 9th and "neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's" into the 10th.

 

[Jehoshua]

You are indeed correct in saying that the protestants adopted the hellenistic version (philonic division) used by Eastern Orthodoxy and by earlier hellenistic jews (from aroudn the 1st century is recorded with the writings of Philo and Josephus). Either way it is indeed a change from the version that was traditional in western latin christendom for thousands of years before protestantism.

As to the contemporary (talmudic) numbering system amongst jews. That is universal amongst judaism today except I believe (not sure) amongst the karaim who reject the talmud.

As to the separation of coveting ones wife, from coveting property. One would think that ones wife, being a human being is subject to be treated differently than say an oxen or his house. Not to mention the Catholic Church as Civ-King has mentioned uses the deuteronomic text over the one from exodus, with deuteronomy having wife preceeding property.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The Catholic Tenth Commandment still applies to some human subjects though. Why should a wife be the subject of a seperate commandment when manservants and maidservants (which may have included concubines) are lumped in with real estate and cattle?

 

[Jehoshua]

presumably because a servant is employed labour and thus their labour is equivalent to tangible possession in terms of property.

 

[mayor]

and those nasty protestants

I'm assuming this is a joke in which case
if not: HEY! I take offence to that

 

[Jehoshua]

I'm assuming this is a joke in which case
if not: HEY! I take offence to that

 

[timtofly]

I'm assuming this is a joke in which case
if not: HEY! I take offence to that

Jehoshua carries an axe. If offence is all you have, then be thankful for your life.

 

[NickyJ]

Jehoshua carries a sword. If offence is all you have, then be thankful for your life.

Actually, I heard he prefers the axe over the sword.

 

[Takhisis]

The Catholic Tenth Commandment still applies to some human subjects though. Why should a wife be the subject of a seperate commandment when manservants and maidservants (which may have included concubines) are lumped in with real estate and cattle?

presumably because a servant is employed labour and thus their labour is equivalent to tangible possession in terms of property.

Because servants at the time were part of a person's property, to an extent. Slavery wasn't banned then.

Actually, I heard he prefers the axe over the sword.

Axes are far more useful in peacetime.

 

[timtofly]

Because servants at the time were part of a person's property, to an extent. Slavery wasn't banned then.

Axes are far more useful in peacetime.

It wasn't even slavery as we know it. It was indentured servitude, or fuedalism (small scale) at it's best.

 

[Takhisis]

Of course, there was a difference between servants and slaves, but servants weren't free men as they are today.

 

[timtofly]

Of course, there was a difference between servants and slaves, but servants weren't free men as they are today.

Are you sure about that? They were not property either. There is a difference between freedom then and freedom now. I would say that men were free-er back then than they are now. A slave back then did not pay taxes. They worked and slept and enjoyed life under the protection of their master. Think about it.

Slaves today are forced by one thing or another to be taken from their comfort zone and placed in foreign surroundings. I think that most people today are slaves to their vices. There are very few people today in a civilized settings that do not have to "just" work to enjoy life. People today have to worry about their existence plus work to pay for their protection.

 

[Jehoshua]

A slave was considered property Timtofly, it sounds to me very naive your post just there regarding the life of an average slave. Sure people have stresses in their everyday lives now, but I would rather live with that compared to being forced as a slave to monotonously stand in front of a sundial and announce the time every hour under threat of punishment if I moved elsewhere.

@Takhisis: I was sort of getting on the same thing as you, in the case of a slave, or indentured servant you own their labour as your property.

Actually, I heard he prefers the axe over the sword.

a non-literal axe to smite the heretics on this thread with, it is

 

[timtofly]

A slave was considered property Timtofly, it sounds to me very naive your post just there regarding the life of an average slave. Sure people have stresses in their everyday lives now, but I would rather live with that compared to being forced as a slave to monotonously stand in front of a sundial and announce the time every hour under threat of punishment if I moved elsewhere.

@Takhisis: I was sort of getting on the same thing as you, in the case of a slave, or indentured servant you own their labour as your property.



a non-literal axe to smite the heretics on this thread with, it is

Would you care to clear up the difference between a "biblical" slave and a "classical" slave? Using the law, as was referred to, does seem quite different to me, as say, opposed to the Greeks who did not abide by the "biblical" context.

 

[Takhisis]

Basically there wasn't just two layers:

free men
slaves​

You had several subsets of not-quite-free people in there.

 

[civ_king]

Okay, I'm going to be debating gay marriage with the school GSA, I need entirely rational arguments against it. Also I need arguments against stuff like the And Tango Makes penguins in case they throw red herrings like that at me. Please none of those it's against nature arguments because that gets nowhere.

 

[timtofly]

Okay, I'm going to be debating gay marriage with the school GSA, I need entirely rational arguments against it. Also I need arguments against stuff like the And Tango Makes penguins in case they throw red herrings like that at me. Please none of those it's against nature arguments because that gets nowhere.

What is wrong with nature needing two compatible "units" of the species to produce offspring? What is natural about technology? Without technology, there would be no way other than "nature" to produce offspring.

How many "natural" species have employed technology to go against nature?

It seems to me that technology is their only excuse. Free sex compliments that, and yes two people can Raise children. Even one person can raise children. Unmarried people can have children. Unmarried people can have a long lasting successful relationship. While two same sex partners do not give the full benefit of children who experience a sepearate male and female relationship, there is every excuse in the book today to rationalize same sex couples and destroy any other form. It is obvious that it takes 4 people to do the raising today two men and two women.

 

[Jehoshua]

hmm, whenever I debate the topic I always argue to the principles of natural law. However since you do not want to argue to such principles you will have to presumably go for the following categories:

a) benefits of genuine marriage
b) why homosexual marriage is detrimental to society

however fundamentally by ignoring the moral issue of the argument (ignoring natural law) you are kowtowing to a utilitarian, relativistic point of view on the issue instead of acting on the basis that it is fundamentally and objectively wrong, which of course it is.

 

[Linkman226]

What is natural law? Who dictates it?