Interesting discussion with a Latin priest...

[Light of the East]

At our Knights of Columbus council meeting on Tuesday, our chaplain gave us a Lenten presentation. During this presentation, he referred to a Scripture passage in which he stated that Jesus said we are to "do penance."

After the meeting, I asked him the following:

ME: "Father, do I rightly understand that performing of penance is a way of making restitution or payment for our sins?"

He agrees. I wanted to be sure I understood the concept correctly.

ME: "Well, the verse you quote uses the Greek word "metanoia," which means a change of mind or a change of heart. I don't see any suggestion of payment for our sins in there, but rather a change of mind. Could you perhaps help me synthesize these two views?"

He agreed that the word means to change one's mind or direction, but didn't seem able to provide an immediate answer for me. I will be interested in how he responds to that, but this is another case where it appears that the Latin translators have played a little fast and loose with the Greek in order to support their dogmatic statements.

I'm wondering how much more scriptural juggling I might find if I really get down to looking at the Douay-Rheems vs the Greek?

PS. I'm also wondering if I might have put a bit of a target on my back.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm wondering how much more scriptural juggling I might find if I really get down to looking at the Douay-Rheems vs the Greek?

oh I am sure it is there. even in old Latin there were issues with translations, even when the West was a part of the Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A key point of concern of Martin Luther's was this very passage of Scripture. He spoke of it meaning "be penitent" rather than "do penance."

There is a difference....

 

[FireDragon76]

A key point of concern of Martin Luther's was this very passage of Scripture. He spoke of it meaning "be penitent" rather than "do penance."

There is a difference....

It's a case of late ancient Latin theology and practice being smuggled into the biblical text.

I think Erasmus was actually the first to figure this out, dealing with the Byzantine texts. He didn't agree with Luther completely, but on this issue he did agree. One reason he put less importance on certain forms of religion at the time, because he understood religion involved an inner transformation rather than satisfaction of legal demands.

 

[Light of the East]

One reason he put less importance on certain forms of religion at the time, because he understood religion involved an inner transformation rather than satisfaction of legal demands.

More and more I am seeing the Latin religion as simply a continual buying of certain "assurances" that you won't go to hell, such as a promise that if you wear the Brown Scapular, you surely will not suffer the fires of hell. I find myself wondering how many have been enrolled in the Fraternity of the Brown Scapular and wear it faithfully while at the same time are fairly unchanged in their inner dispositions and the way they treat others?

Wear this, wear that, buy this, buy that, do this, do that.....and you will surely escape the flames of hell. Meanwhile, the "inner man" remains unchanged. You have pretty much nailed the difference between East and West.

 

[FireDragon76]

Wear this, wear that, buy this, buy that, do this, do that.....and you will surely escape the flames of hell. Meanwhile, the "inner man" remains unchanged. You have pretty much nailed the difference between East and West.

Years ago I spent some time talking to a Byzantine Catholic anchorite. It was surprising how Lutheran he sounded at times, especially the fact he dismissed a lot of Latin Christianity as magical thinking and priestcraft.

I think a great deal of this attitude to religion shaped Luther's reaction. The sense of being overwhelmed by legal obligations left him in a state of existential terror. Modern day Roman Catholics have largely moved away from this, but you can still find it among conservative and traditionalist Roman Catholics. The current Pope Francis takes a more phenomenological approach to practical theology, but he is working within a religious culture where legal obligation and correct performance is the woof and waff of religion.

 

[Unlearner]

I don't know what passage, specifically, this priest was referring to but taking a passage somewhat randomly - Acts 17:30 - the word "repent" in English Bibles is μετανοεῖν. This becomes 'poenitentiam agant' (act/do penance) in the Vulgate and in the Douay-Rheims is translated "do penance." Again, I don't know what passage he was using, but this is probably more or less the case wherever he was looking in the NT.

 

[Light of the East]

I don't know what passage, specifically, this priest was referring to but taking a passage somewhat randomly - Acts 17:30 - the word "repent" in English Bibles is μετανοεῖν. This becomes 'poenitentiam agant' (act/do penance) in the Vulgate and in the Douay-Rheims is translated "do penance." Again, I don't know what passage he was using, but this is probably more or less the case wherever he was looking in the NT.

As I understand it, Pope Francis has very strong connections to Byzantine Liturgy and understanding. Perhaps he is trying to re-route the Roman Church back to the place from where they ran off the rails. Look at the things he has pushed, including the acknowledgement of the possibility or married priest in the Roman Church. Boy, every time this gets mentioned, I watch Traddie heads explode in flames.

My latest post was in response to a Traddie post in which St. Bridget apparently had a vision in which she was told that any pope who allows for married priests will go straight to hell. One wonders if the dear Saint did not realize that the unmarried priesthood in the Roman Church only started in the 12th century or so.

Ah, well!!!

 

[ArmyMatt]

As I understand it, Pope Francis has very strong connections to Byzantine Liturgy and understanding. Perhaps he is trying to re-route the Roman Church back to the place from where they ran off the rails. Look at the things he has pushed, including the acknowledgement of the possibility or married priest in the Roman Church. Boy, every time this gets mentioned, I watch Traddie heads explode in flames.

My latest post was in response to a Traddie post in which St. Bridget apparently had a vision in which she was told that any pope who allows for married priests will go straight to hell. One wonders if the dear Saint did not realize that the unmarried priesthood in the Roman Church only started in the 12th century or so.

Ah, well!!!

yeah, in some respects, but in others he is going further away from the Apostles. unfortunately, he is not recanting heretical Roman dogma