Unlike those uptight Prots, with all their hang-ups and insecurities, Catholicism is a truly liberating gospel:
Pope John Paul II projected a warm, grandfatherly image to the adoring public who flocked en masse to hear his homilies or watched on TV from home as he traversed the globe. So there was no small shock when a recent book revealed that the pope, who died in 2005, whipped himself with a belt and sometimes lay prostrate all night on the floor.
The pope apparently did not want aides to investigate his sleeping habits, going so far as to make his bed appear used by tossing around the sheets. Yet Monsignor Slawomir Oder, who is presenting John Paul II's case for canonization, detailed the behavior in an Italian-language book, Why He's a Saint: The Real John Paul II According to the Postulator of His Beatification Cause. Oder explains that the pope believed these acts of penance would affirm God's primacy and help him seek perfection. While self-inflicted physical suffering is unusual among Catholics, other notables have pursued holiness in this manner. Mother Teresa wore a cilice, a strap secured around the thigh that inflicts pain with inward-pointing spike.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=86610
Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it." And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made...And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.
(1 Kgs 18:25-26,28).
Now, Steve, surely you're exaggerating. There is actually a big difference between whipping yourself and wearing a strap secured around the thigh that inflicts pain with an inward-pointing spike, and "cuting themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them."
ReplyDeleteYou've just reached too far this time.
Thanks, John. To atone for my out-of-line post on self-flagellation, I'll flagellate myself.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bugay said:
ReplyDeleteNow, Steve, surely you're exaggerating. There is actually a big difference between whipping yourself and wearing a strap secured around the thigh that inflicts pain with an inward-pointing spike, and "cuting themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them."
You hit the nail on the head, John! Catholicism is full of these fine and intricate distinctions. In fact, believe it or not, I've even heard it said there's a huge difference between such things as vows and resolutions!
Ezra 9:3-5 (RSV): When I heard this, I rent my garments and my mantle, and pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat appalled. [4] Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of the returned exiles, gathered round me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice. [5] And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God,
ReplyDeleteJeremiah 41:5 eighty men arrived from Shechem and Shiloh and Sama'ria, with their beards shaved and their clothes torn, and their bodies gashed, bringing cereal offerings and incense to present at the temple of the LORD.
1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
[cf. NIV, Beck: "beat"; NEB: "bruise"; Williams: "beating and bruising"; Barclay: "batter"; NASB: "buffet"; NRSV: "punish"; NKJV: "discipline"; Wuest: "I beat my body black and blue and make it my abject slave"; Amplified: "I buffet my body -- handle it roughly, discipline it by hardships -- and subdue it"; Goodspeed: "I beat and bruise my body and make it my slave"; Moffatt: "I maul and master my body"]
The Apostle Paul and Ezra were clearly major deranged masochists, just like Venerable John Paul II.
How scandalous (!) that a pope would actually follow biblical models, while Protestants mock same . . . Truth is always stranger than fiction.
For much more biblical data along these lines, see:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/02/biblical-evidence-for-penitential.html
1. First of all, there's a difference between self-affliction in order to make oneself more holy and performing grief rituals:
ReplyDeleteEzra 9:3-5: From John Walton: "Ezra’s initial response to the charges of intermarriage are traditional grief rituals: tearing clothing and pulling hair. These practices were common throughout the ancient Near East and are found depicted in Egyptian tomb paintings and in literature (Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat)."
Jeremiah 41:5: From John Walton: "The practice of putting dirt, dust or ashes on one’s head was a typical sign of mourning throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament period. It is a practice also known from Mesopotamia and Canaan. Many mourning rites function as a means for the living to identify with the dead. It is easy to see how dust on the head and torn clothes would be symbolic representations of burial and decay. Sackcloth is made of goat or camel hair and was coarse and uncomfortable. In many cases the sackcloth was only a loin covering. Persian mourning as recorded by Herodotus included tearing clothes, weeping and wailing."
2. Next, there's a difference between self-affliction and self-discipline:
1 Corinthians 9:27: From Bruce Winter: "Paul now begins to deal with the issue of the dangers of the sexual misconduct that was such a feature of feasts in the temple. He does this by citing first the example of his own self-discipline and then contrasting that with what happens to God’s people when they set their hearts on evil things. His aim is to prevent the Corinthians from doing the same (10:6). Paul draws imagery from the athletic events of the famous Isthmian games held near Corinth. He encourages them to become runners eagerly stretching forward towards the finishing line. He reminds them of the strict dietary and training discipline athletes underwent in order to gain a crown, which in his day, was made of celery. In contrast the Christian race is one that holds out an imperishable reward. Paul compares his own ministry to that of a runner who knows where he is running. He is also like a boxer, but not a shadow one (orators who demonstrated their oratorical prowess before crowds, and not in actual debates were derided as shadow boxers). The opponent was his own body and its appetites. That is what Paul subdues, unlike the orators who boasted that their income entitled them to indulge their senses with riotous living at feasts, and were criticized for teaching virtue but living in exactly the opposite way. Paul is deeply conscious of the need to subdue his appetites, lest having fulfilled his preaching ministry, he yield to sexual and other temptations. These were a constant problem then and are also a danger among evangelists and Christian leaders in today’s church. Here Paul has been pointing out the danger of stumbling by not laying aside sinful conduct (cf. Heb. 12:1)."
"the pope, who died in 2005, whipped himself with a belt and sometimes lay prostrate all night on the floor."
ReplyDelete2 Samuel 12:16-17 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. [17] And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them.
"Sackcloth was worn as a sign of mourning for the dead . . . , or of mourning for personal or national disaster . . . or of penitence for sins (1 Ki. 21:27; Ne. 9:1; Jon. 3:5; Mt. 11:21), or of special prayer for deliverance . . . . . . Prophets sometimes wore it as a symbol of the repentance which they preached (Is. 20:2; Rev. 11:3)."
ReplyDelete(The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, "Sackcloth," p. 1112)
"In the Semitic world sackcloth is from early days the garb of mourning and penitence. . . . It signifies self-abasement (along with ashes and sometimes self-disfigurement) either before God (2 Kgs. 19:1) or others (1 Kgs. 20:31 ff.). It is also worn at night (1 Kgs. 21:27). Personal crises (Ps. 30:11) and times of national emergency (Esth. 4:1-2) or imminent eschatological destruction (Joel 1:13) are occasions for its penitential use. It has become a rite in Neh. 9:1 etc. . . . Fasting often accompanies it (Ps. 35:13). . . .
"sakkos is a sign of conversion and penitence in the saying in Mt. 11:21 and Lk. 10:13, whether in the sense of the garment or the penitential mat. Jesus perhaps has Jon. 3:4 ff. in mind; but clearly conversion itself, not the external sign, is what matters."
(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich and translated and abridged in one volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995, pp. 995-996, "sakkos [sackcloth]")
And what was God's response to David's prayer and prostration and fasting? The child died.
ReplyDeleteAnd what was God the Father's response to Jesus' prayer and prostration and sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane? He was crucified.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, it is shown that Jesus shouldn't have prayed in such a manner.
And what was God's response to Jeremiah's prayer and prostration and endless preaching to the apostate Jews? The destruction of Jerusalem.
Therefore, it is proven that Jeremiah shouldn't have done what he did.
Is this a new school of exegesis? How compelling . . .
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete"And what was God the Father's response to Jesus' prayer and prostration and sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane?"
i) Jesus didn't "sweat blood" as a result of self-mutilation.
ii) For that matter, Jesus didn't actually sweat blood. It's a simile. Even Catholic commentators admit that. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 2:1444-45; L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 352.
iii) The posture of prayer is not the issue. You continue to play your bait-and-switch game.
iv) Copy/pasting more stuff on "sackcloth" is irrelevant since I already addressed that appeal. You have no counterargument. Repetition is not a refutation.
You engage in a campaign of misdirection.
You engage in a campaign of misdirection.
ReplyDeleteBut of course. How could I do otherwise, being "evil" and of "evil character" as you say? Why do you bother responding to me at all? If I am so utterly ignorant and stupid, don't you think that your anti-Catholic masses are smart enough to figure that out without your help (and your illogical, silly arguments are little help in that cause as it is)? Or are they so stupid that they even surpass my profound ignorance?
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete"Why do you bother responding to me at all?"
A better question is why you continue to debate an "anti-Catholic" like me. More of your on-again, off-again resolution. Your oft-repeated resolution not to...except when you do...except when you don't...except when you do...except when you don't...
That's Dave Armstrong for you–"A double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (Jas 1:8).
Dave Armstrong said...
ReplyDelete"If I am so utterly ignorant and stupid, don't you think that your anti-Catholic masses are smart enough to figure that out without your help (and your illogical, silly arguments are little help in that cause as it is)? Or are they so stupid that they even surpass my profound ignorance?"
And don't you think that your Catholic masses are smart enough to figure out the truth without Uncle Davey's help (and your illogical, silly arguments are little help in that cause as it is)? Or are they so stupid that they even surpass your profound ignorance?
"And what was God's response to David's prayer and prostration and fasting? The child died."
ReplyDeleteIs this an argument against self-mortification, or against prayer? Or against both?
Come now, let's reason together?
ReplyDeleteDave:
"the pope, who died in 2005, whipped himself with a belt and sometimes lay prostrate all night on the floor."
2 Samuel 12:16-17 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. [17] And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them......
....."Sackcloth was worn as a sign of mourning for the dead . . . ,
Hmmmmmm? Let's see, let's find some of those words from that book those anti-catholics use to frame my position?
Ok, they caught me, ah, no, the pope being a fallible human being when he's suppose to always represent the infallible papacy! What did they catch him doing? Ok, hunny, where's that book those Prots. use to discredit us? Quickly find a passage that looks like, sounds like and feels like what they caught the pope doing? Oh, "2 Samuel 12:16-17"; thanks hunny, you baking a cake for someone?
Ok, let's see if these stupid people in here, who are so anti-catholic, their blood boils everytime I expose them for what they do and for who they are, "anti-catholics", can match this one:::> 2 Samuel 12:16-17!
So there, you stupid people, you anti-catholics, you Prots, you!!! grrrrr, see, you do the same thing!
Me:
Ah, Steve, Steve, isn't that what David did while his son was gravely ill? Wasn't this his child from an adulterous affair with another man's wife? And after the child died, didn't he get up and Praise the Lord? How does that have any remote similiarty to a pope flagellating himself?
You know, maybe Dave's right when he writes after: "........."Sackcloth was worn as a sign of mourning for the dead . . . ,". Maybe the reason the pope was doing that is because he came to his senses and realized the church he leads gravely ill and about to die, and in fact, she is dead and he got caught mourning her because of that?
Now, just how do you tell a couple billion people their religion is dying or dead, anyway?
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"And what was God's response to David's prayer and prostration and fasting? The child died."
Is this an argument against self-mortification, or against prayer? Or against both?
********************************
Your question illustrates the ambiguities of Armstrong's appeal.
Steve, that is not a useful or informative answer.
ReplyDeleteDave's implied argument is clear: his namesake, a "man after God's own heart", resorted to prayer and self-mortification. Therefore, we should do likewise.
If you refute it by saying "but the boy died", it is not clear what part you are refuting.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDeleteSteve, that is not a useful or informative answer. Dave's implied argument is clear: his namesake, a 'man after God's own heart', resorted to prayer and self-mortification. Therefore, we should do likewise."
King David, a "man after God's own heart," resorted to adultery and murder. Therefore, we should do likewise.
To reiterate: If you refute [Dave's argument] by saying "but the boy died", it is not clear what part you are refuting.
ReplyDelete(Also, "murder and adultery" are a poor choice: David was explicitly condemned by God for them, so cannot be taken as a good example in those issues. Try "lots of concubines" or "slaughter of women and children".)
(Word verification: "obundae" - obun dae door! I wanna get oudda here!)
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"(Also, 'murder and adultery' are a poor choice: David was explicitly condemned by God for them, so cannot be taken as a good example in those issues."
Now you're moving the goal post. I modeled my parallel argument directly on what you yourself identified as Armstrong's "implied argument."
"Now you're moving the goal post. I modeled my parallel argument directly on what you yourself identified as Armstrong's "implied argument.""
ReplyDeleteYes, I got that. Your parallel argument did not totally hold water so I suggested how to make it watertight. Dude, I was fixing your argument for you.
Also in the absence of clarification I'm concluding that "And what was God's response to David's prayer and prostration and fasting? The child died" was a dumb comment that didn't prove anything and you're now happy to forget, which is entirely fine, as we all utter unworthy or futile things on occasion.
(Verification: "mistied". My windscreen's been mistied up, better flick on the wipers!)
By the way, I was a seminarian with the Missionaries of Charity Fathers (Mother Teresa's Order of priests), and we likewise had a cilice and cat of nine tails. These were nothing more than mere annoyances to help us recall our sinful nature and humanity (among other things). Your ignorance is not only astounding, but down-right embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteJust for clarification-the corrects spelling is Prod.
ReplyDeleteAnd the correct spelling of correct is correct.
ReplyDeleteJAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"Yes, I got that. Your parallel argument did not totally hold water so I suggested how to make it watertight. Dude, I was fixing your argument for you."
My argument required no repairs since my argument was a parallel argument to your argument (summarizing Armstrong's "implied argument"). So if any argument needed fixing, that would be Armstrong's, not mine.
"Also in the absence of clarification I'm concluding that 'And what was God's response to David's prayer and prostration and fasting? The child died' was a dumb comment that didn't prove anything and you're now happy to forget, which is entirely fine, as we all utter unworthy or futile things on occasion."
I'm holding you to the terms of your own argument. Apparently your unused to that.
Alex writes:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I was a seminarian with the Missionaries of Charity Fathers (Mother Teresa's Order of priests), and we likewise had a cilice and cat of nine tails. These were nothing more than mere annoyances to help us recall our sinful nature and humanity (among other things). Your ignorance is not only astounding, but down-right embarrassing.
Where's the evidence? You might very well be right, but I don't see why anyone should just take your word for it.