Cardinals swearing oaths?

**AlanFromWichita** · #1 Apr 19, '05, 1:02 am

Until last night, I have not watched any of the coverage of the goings on in Rome.

When I saw what they were doing, I both loved the music and had to shake my head a bit. I'm sure there is a logical explanation, but on the surface it seems like the Church has traditions that defy Christ's teachings.

The Cardinals were systematically swearing an oath on the Bible.

How does this reconcile with the following teachings of Christ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 5:33-37

"Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.' But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one.

Alan

tuopaolo · #2 Apr 19, '05, 2:12 am

It's clear to me that what Jesus means is that one is not to swear oaths as a matter of course in one's daily life, i.e. one is not to take the swearing of oaths lightly. This doesn't exclude swearing oaths for a serious matter.

Think of it this way. If a dietician is on TV and tells the audience, "Don't eat icecream; eat watermelon" she would not be meaning to exclude eating icecream on occasion or on a special occasion like one's birthday or on a holiday. Human language in action is not math and cannot be interpreted in a strict mathematical way. Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court was asked about being a "strict constructionist" IIRC and he responded that he didn't think the constitution ought to be interpreted strictly or loosely but rather reasonably. Likewise what a dietician says on TV or what Jesus says needs to be understood reasonably -- i.e. one needs to apprehend what they meant instead of giving it a strange meaning.

If Jesus were writing a theology text book he probably would have phrased it more technically and precisely. But he was preaching and when preaching if you try to make it so precise as to account for every eventuality and exceptioni then your preaching will lose its force. It's like when St Paul preached that all have sinned -- if every time St Paul preached that he said, "All have sinned -- that is except for the Blessed Mother and infants below the age of reason --" his preaching would have been as verbose as this post

and it wouldn't have served his purpose, which was not to be 100% precise and exhaustive but rather to bring people to holiness in truth and love.

**AlanFromWichita** · #3 Apr 19, '05, 3:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

It's clear to me that what Jesus means is that one is not to swear oaths as a matter of course in one's daily life, i.e. one is not to take the swearing of oaths lightly. This doesn't exclude swearing oaths for a serious matter.

Dear tuopaolo,

You may be entirely right here, but how is it so clear to you?

Jesus sounds pretty clear about "do not swear at all." And "anything more comes from the evil one."

Why would His teachings apply to the unwashed masses (or "Joe six-pack" as Bill Clinton called them) but not to the leaders of the Church? And what possibly could differentiate the concept He is putting forth?

It almost seems like apologetics means coming up with deep, complicated excuses for things that don't add up on the surface.

Again, I'm not claiming the cardinals are doing anything wrong, and I don't have a problem with it because it is such a cool ceremony especially in their outfits and everything.

Maybe the Church was better off when they prohibited people from reading the Bible. That way we wouldn't have to deal with things like why does Jesus say one thing but we do another because we know that he didn't really mean it to apply in our particular case.

Alan

tuopaolo · #4 Apr 19, '05, 4:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

Dear tuopaolo,

You may be entirely right here, but how is it so clear to you?

It just is. I've never interpreted it in the strange way that you have.

Quote:

Jesus sounds pretty clear about "do not swear at all." And "anything more comes from the evil one."

You are taking his words out of context because the "all" there is not talking about: "do not swear, no exceptions" but rather about not swearing by anything at all, whether by God or by heaven or by earth or by the hair on your head.

Quote:

Why would His teachings apply to the unwashed masses (or "Joe six-pack" as Bill Clinton called them) but not to the leaders of the Church? And what possibly could differentiate the concept He is putting forth?

What on earth are you talking about? His teachings apply to everyone as I explained in my post above. His teaching is that one should not swear as a matter of course in one's daily life, i.e. that oaths should not be sworn lightly -- this teaching applies to everyone. "Joe six pack" (a derogatory description if you ask me btw) can take an oath when the matter is serious also such as if he is called to testify before a court.

Quote:

It almost seems like apologetics means coming up with deep, complicated excuses for things that don't add up on the surface.

There's nothing "deep" or "complicated" about it. As far as I remember I've always had this understanding and I didn't need to forage for any kind of "excuse." Rather, it was the way it appeared to me prima facie.

Quote:

Maybe the Church was better off when they prohibited people from reading the Bible.

The Church didn't "prohibit people from reading the Bible."

Nevertheless, certainly the Church would have been better off prohibiting you from reading the Bible without guidance from her teaching authority since you obviously are ill-equiped to understand it and are prone to interpreting it in a very strange fashion that leads to you posting threads like this that criticize or challenge the Church.

Quote:

That way we wouldn't have to deal with things like why does Jesus say one thing but we do another because we know that he didn't really mean it to apply in our particular case.

Jesus does not say one thing and "we do another." Rather it is that Jesus says one thing and you are trying to say that He said something other than what He said.

Respectfully,

**AlanFromWichita** · #5 Apr 19, '05, 5:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

It just is. I've never interpreted it in the strange way that you have.

It is fascinating that you find my interpretation strange.

Seriously, I am not being combative here, but honestly becoming confused over your assertion.

I will review it again. Jesus said, in verse 34-35, " But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King."

My interpretation of it is this: "But I say to you, do not swear at all, whether this way or that way or the other." I'll grant you, He didn't specifically say do not swear on the Bible, but I took his list of methods of swearing to be non-inclusive.

Quote:

You are taking his words out of context because the "all" there is not talking about: "do not swear, no exceptions" but rather about not swearing by anything at all, whether by God or by heaven or by earth or by the hair on your head.

I'd agree with you, if you were only correct. The NAB text says "do not swear at all." Could be a problem in the NAB translation, but I am just reading what Jesus said, with no interpretation whatsoever.

If he had said, "do not kill an innocent person, either by hatchet, axe, or saw," then I guess it's OK to use poison.

Quote:

What on earth are you talking about? His teachings apply to everyone as I explained in my post above. His teaching is that one should not swear as a matter of course in one's daily life, i.e. that oaths should not be sworn lightly -- this teaching applies to everyone. "Joe six pack" (a derogatory description if you ask me btw) can take an oath when the matter is serious also such as if he is called to testify before a court.

Yes, I used the "Joe six-pack" comment as a derogatory term against Bill Clinton, who isn't even a part of this discussion. It was unfair and unchristian for me to bring him into it.

BTW, I've always had the same problem with swearing in court. When I have done so, I just did it because I'm a wuss around people with guns.

Quote:

There's nothing "deep" or "complicated" about it. As far as I remember I've always had this understanding and I didn't need to forage for any kind of "excuse." Rather, it was the way it appeared to me prima facie.

Cool.

Quote:

The Church didn't "prohibit people from reading the Bible."

Nevertheless, certainly the Church would have been better off prohibiting you from reading the Bible without guidance from her teaching authority since you obviously are ill-equiped to understand it and are prone to interpreting it in a very strange fashion that leads to you posting threads like this that criticize or challenge the Church.

Teach me, please, if you have the patience. I long to understand how my interpretation of "do not swear at all" as if it read "do not swear at all" is strange to you. I know that the foolishness of God is above the wisdom of men, so I figure I'll consider all views.

Quote:

Jesus does not say one thing and "we do another." Rather it is that Jesus says one thing and you are trying to say that He said something other than what He said.

He said, "do not swear at all" in direct response to the making of oaths which are to be fulfilled and made good to God.

Then I see dudes swearing an oath.

I'm just calling them as I see them.

Alan

**Tantum ergo** · #6 Apr 19, '05, 5:35 am

Alan, you seem to have a "Quakerish" reading of the particular Scripture passage. The Society of Friends interprets that passage and thus a Friend may not swear an oath but may only "affirm" to something.

However, throughout history (yes, Catholic history too) in the context of convenants and contracts one has sworn oaths as needed.

Perhaps if you think of it this way--Jesus was addressing a particular crowd, and He had had plenty to say to them regarding other ways in which they fell short. For instance, these "holy Pharisees" were noted at the time for such practices as these:
1. Assigning money to "the temple" instead of supporting their parents or dependents, and excusing the practice by saying "well, it's for G-D, so it's OK".
2. Interpreting the law extremely strictly for "others" but taking full advantage of loopholes for themselves.
3. DOING most practices correctly but with wrong intentions or for the admiration of fellow Jews, not for God.

To this group, Jesus is trying to tell them to K-I-S-S (Keep it simple, silly). He is trying to direct them to who is REALLY important. I don't think that Jesus would have had trouble with swearing by GOD, but he certainly would have had trouble with the current practice of swearing by the Greek or Roman pantheon of Gods, by the moon, sun and stars, by "my sainted mother's grave" etc.

And of course, James goes into further detail. I don't know if you'll have any trouble with this PDF document which I'll link for you, but this is from the Catholic Military site (Fr. Echert, if you've ever used the EWTN Q &A forum, is one of the chaplains) and it discusses oath taking and the Catholic tradition and perspective in detail. Perhaps it will help.

http://www.catholicmil.org/resources/james10_02.pdf

itsjustdave1988 · #7 Apr 19, '05, 5:44 am

Alan,

If you read Revelation, an angel from heaven swears an oath to God, no? If this were a sin, that would have been rather an odd thing for a heavenly angel to do.

Rev 10:5-7:

Quote:

Then the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and the land raised his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever

Also, in Deut 6:13:

Quote:

The Lord your God you shall fear; him you shall serve, and by his name alone you shall swear.

The passage you cite from the NT must be congruent with what the Holy Spirit has inspired in other parts off Scripture.

tuopaolo · #8 Apr 19, '05, 5:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

It is fascinating that you find my interpretation strange.

Seriously, I am not being combative here, but honestly becoming confused over your assertion.

"Strange" was the best adjective I could think of while still being polite and sensitive.

Quote:

If he had said, "do not kill an innocent person, either by hatchet, axe, or saw," then I guess it's OK to use poison.

You TOTALLY misunderstood what I wrote.

I was saying that by "at all" Jesus meant "by WHATEVER MEANS" -- whether one swears by God, by the heavens, the earth, the hair on your head, the grave of your grandmother, the pyramids of egypt, the gospels, or whatever else that you can think of -- my list of things was NOT meant to be exhaustive but simply illustrative.

What Jesus did NOT mean by "at all" is "WHATEVER the CIRCUMSTANCES." Do you see the difference?

Jesus was saying to not swear by whatever means -- no exceptions as to the means -- as a matter of course in one's daily life, i.e. to not take swearing lighty -- whatever the means by which one swears. This does not mean that it is never permitted to swear when due to serious circumstances one undertakes swearing without taking it lightly.

Given that you totally misunderstood what I meant it should be no surprise to you that you have also misunderstood what Jesus meant.

**AlanFromWichita** · #9 Apr 19, '05, 6:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo

Alan, you seem to have a "Quakerish" reading of the particular Scripture passage. The Society of Friends interprets that passage and thus a Friend may not swear an oath but may only "affirm" to something.

Yes, I figure swearing and affirming are the same thing. Either I'm planning to lie or I'm not. That's why when I have been sworn in as a juror I just go ahead and "swear," figuring God knows I don't mean any disrespect but compliance with worldly authorities.

Quote:

Perhaps if you think of it this way--Jesus was addressing a particular crowd, and He had had plenty to say to them regarding other ways in which they fell short. For instance, these "holy Pharisees" were noted at the time for such practices as these:
1. Assigning money to "the temple" instead of supporting their parents or dependents, and excusing the practice by saying "well, it's for G-D, so it's OK".
2. Interpreting the law extremely strictly for "others" but taking full advantage of loopholes for themselves.
3. DOING most practices correctly but with wrong intentions or for the admiration of fellow Jews, not for God.

Those are good points, and I am certainly not questioning any intent here on the part of the Cardinals. Since I left the Church upon leaving home for college and since it was protestants who enticed me back to it, maybe I do tend to relate to the "sola scriptura" method or whatever it is called. It would be hard for me to blame a protestant for interpreting "do not swear at all" to mean "do not swear at all," since they don't have the teaching authority of the Church to correct them.

To this group, Jesus is trying to tell them to K-I-S-S (Keep it simple, silly). He is trying to direct them to who is REALLY important. I don't think that Jesus would have had trouble with swearing by GOD, but he certainly would have had trouble with the current practice of swearing by the Greek or Roman pantheon of Gods, by the moon, sun and stars, by "my sainted mother's grave" etc.

And of course, James goes into further detail. I don't know if you'll have any trouble with this PDF document which I'll link for you, but this is from the Catholic Military site (Fr. Echert, if you've ever used the EWTN Q &A forum, is one of the chaplains) and it discusses oath taking and the Catholic tradition and perspective in detail. Perhaps it will help.

http://www.catholicmil.org/resources/james10_02.pdf[/quote]

Thank you. The link worked fine, and it looks like good and relevant information. I'll read it in more detail later.

Alan

**AlanFromWichita** · #10 Apr 19, '05, 6:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsjustdave1988

If you read Revelation, an angel from heaven swears an oath to God, no? If this were a sin, that would have been rather an odd thing for a heavenly angel to do.

Yeah, shame on that angel.

Alan

**AlanFromWichita** · #11 Apr 19, '05, 6:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

Given that you totally misunderstood what I meant it should be no surprise to you that you have also misunderstood what Jesus meant.

Yeah, with today's technology you'd think we could communicate better.

I'll reflect on all this and return later. Right now I have to go meet a contractor about whether they can rebuild my burned-down house.

Alan

tuopaolo · #12 Apr 19, '05, 6:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

I'll reflect on all this and return later. Right now I have to go meet a contractor about whether they can rebuild my burned-down house.

Alan

Sorry to hear about that Alan. I hope and pray things work out for you. God bless.

**AlanFromWichita** · #13 Apr 19, '05, 7:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

Sorry to hear about that Alan. I hope and pray things work out for you. God bless.

Thank you. Strangely, so much of this junk that has been so meaningful all my life, after being gone, is suddenly not important anymore. While it's all a big hassle, I have this feeling of somehow being freed.

With relatives, coworkers and friends having medical problems, marital problems, and the like, I just can't get too emotionally distraught over losing a bunch of junk from my upstairs room.

Now I really feel pity for the rich kid who could not sell his possessions to follow Jesus. The other day it occurred to me that Jesus was not focusing on stewardship as much as detachment from worldly possessions.

Just think; if that kid got home and saw his possessions on fire, then maybe he would have experienced the freedom that I have.

My new theory is that if we are given our daily bread, anything we need can be replaced. Some stuff cannot be replaced; therefore if it's gone and I'm still here I guess I really don't need it now.

Alan

jimmytoes · #14 Apr 19, '05, 7:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita

Now I really feel pity for the rich kid who could not sell his possessions to follow Jesus. The other day it occurred to me that Jesus was not focusing on stewardship as much as detachment from worldly possessions.

Alan,
Good way to look at things. The passage(s) you refer to here bring us back to the topic of interpretation in an interesting way: You have to understand that it wasn't just the words we hear in English today, but that there was a "way" of saying things to emphisize. e.g.
Jesus said to that young man "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mk 10:18) Yet he wasn't saying that he himself wasn't good.
He used this form of emphasis a number of other times such as "Call no one on earth your Father" and "Who is my mother..."
Hope this helps,
Jim