'Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner': Not Scriptural, Not Catholic Doctrine
Photo ~ McBeat Down 'Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner': Not Scriptural, Not Catholic Doctrine Contrary to much popular belief, the catchphrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" is not of biblical …More
Photo ~ McBeat Down
'Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner': Not Scriptural, Not Catholic Doctrine
Contrary to much popular belief, the catchphrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" is not of biblical origin, and caution should be given to its connotations. The tendency it too often leads to today is to view the sinner as a victim of his sin, rather than the author of the sin he commits.
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a paraphrase taken from a letter written by St. Augustine giving instruction to a religious order of nuns on certain means of discipline to be observed in the correction of unlawful practices by their members.
A careful reading of St. Augustine's letter makes it clear that the paraphrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" was not meant as a panacea to serve in the place of either condemnation or punishment of a wrongdoer. Its purpose, rather, was to inform that righteous condemnation and punishment, in the proper Christian sense, was not from malice but for the greater …More
'Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner': Not Scriptural, Not Catholic Doctrine
Contrary to much popular belief, the catchphrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" is not of biblical origin, and caution should be given to its connotations. The tendency it too often leads to today is to view the sinner as a victim of his sin, rather than the author of the sin he commits.
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a paraphrase taken from a letter written by St. Augustine giving instruction to a religious order of nuns on certain means of discipline to be observed in the correction of unlawful practices by their members.
A careful reading of St. Augustine's letter makes it clear that the paraphrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" was not meant as a panacea to serve in the place of either condemnation or punishment of a wrongdoer. Its purpose, rather, was to inform that righteous condemnation and punishment, in the proper Christian sense, was not from malice but for the greater …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
One way to see this is to read St. Paul's words about a particular sinner and how he would treat him:
5 παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου.
or in the Vulgate:
tradere huiusmodi Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit in die Domini Iesu
or from the Rheims NT:
To deliver such a one to Satan for …More
One way to see this is to read St. Paul's words about a particular sinner and how he would treat him:
5 παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου.
or in the Vulgate:
tradere huiusmodi Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit in die Domini Iesu
or from the Rheims NT:
To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 5:5]
Whatever else the contemporary misunderstanding of the aphorism indicates, the saying itself certainly isn't out of harmony with St. Paul.
The same could be said for Our Lady of Fatima's insistence that not only prayers but SACRIFICES be made for the conversion of sinners. The only time she smiled during the apparitions was when she told the children: "God is pleased with your sacrifices."
Here's a great way of seeing it as the Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon teaches:
www.therealpresence.org/…/Abortion_Euthan…
5 παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου.
or in the Vulgate:
tradere huiusmodi Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit in die Domini Iesu
or from the Rheims NT:
To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Corinthians 5:5]
Whatever else the contemporary misunderstanding of the aphorism indicates, the saying itself certainly isn't out of harmony with St. Paul.
The same could be said for Our Lady of Fatima's insistence that not only prayers but SACRIFICES be made for the conversion of sinners. The only time she smiled during the apparitions was when she told the children: "God is pleased with your sacrifices."
Here's a great way of seeing it as the Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon teaches:
www.therealpresence.org/…/Abortion_Euthan…
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I find it a bit arrogant to try to interpret in a deceiving way, what a Doctor of the Church has said in the past,
How is it " a deceiving way"?
Is the essay "deceiving" because you don't agree with the points made?
You disagree because this article doesn't affirm your post VC-II handholding notions of "hate the sin, love the sinner."
I suggest you read the complete article more carefully noting …More
I find it a bit arrogant to try to interpret in a deceiving way, what a Doctor of the Church has said in the past,
How is it " a deceiving way"?
Is the essay "deceiving" because you don't agree with the points made?
You disagree because this article doesn't affirm your post VC-II handholding notions of "hate the sin, love the sinner."
I suggest you read the complete article more carefully noting especially where this quote originates and how it has been misrepresented by "modernist spin-doctors."
(we do not need more hatred)
Hatred is in no way part of the article and you would realize that if you had paid attention to what you were reading.
For you to suggest that hatred has anything to do with what was written proves how your own preconceived notions influence your thinking. So much so that you fail to comprehend the points made in this well written and important essay.
Complete Article
How is it " a deceiving way"?
Is the essay "deceiving" because you don't agree with the points made?
You disagree because this article doesn't affirm your post VC-II handholding notions of "hate the sin, love the sinner."
I suggest you read the complete article more carefully noting especially where this quote originates and how it has been misrepresented by "modernist spin-doctors."
(we do not need more hatred)
Hatred is in no way part of the article and you would realize that if you had paid attention to what you were reading.
For you to suggest that hatred has anything to do with what was written proves how your own preconceived notions influence your thinking. So much so that you fail to comprehend the points made in this well written and important essay.
Complete Article
So when did we stop being sinners? or when did a saint stop being a sinner in this life?
The Lord says if we claim to love God but hate our brethren we are liars, so how are each one of us living out our faith?
We are not to interpret the Bible, nor the teachings of the Church; I find it a bit arrogant to try to interpret in a deceiving way, what a Doctor of the Church has said in the past, we can …More
So when did we stop being sinners? or when did a saint stop being a sinner in this life?
The Lord says if we claim to love God but hate our brethren we are liars, so how are each one of us living out our faith?
We are not to interpret the Bible, nor the teachings of the Church; I find it a bit arrogant to try to interpret in a deceiving way, what a Doctor of the Church has said in the past, we can understand things and approach them differently, and I do understand what that phrase says based on the teachings of the Church and the Gospel.
Now, I can sense some sort of rejection from this article although it may attempt to clarify a paraphrase, which I think in no way gives any light or helps in any way a Catholic, there is so much tension between following the teachings of our Lord Jesus and his Church, and dealing with worldwide issues, and personal spiritual warfare (if it is taking place in a person).
I think most of us are adults to understand the difference in that phrase or paraphrase, we do not need more hatred, I thank God I've helped people who have vices to come out of them through what the Church and the Gospel teaches us.
We are not called to give our opinion on "why we will not help other people, and justify our rejection, and anger towards them", in Mat 6 the Lord reminds us to get rid of the splinter we have in our eye before we even try to help someone else, It hink that we are not justifying sin, nor the sinner; but we are to correct them with love, and walk the miles needed to show them we are not another hypocritical pharisee who always puts the finger on specific lines f the law without looking at our personal arrogance (pride). God Bless.
The Lord says if we claim to love God but hate our brethren we are liars, so how are each one of us living out our faith?
We are not to interpret the Bible, nor the teachings of the Church; I find it a bit arrogant to try to interpret in a deceiving way, what a Doctor of the Church has said in the past, we can understand things and approach them differently, and I do understand what that phrase says based on the teachings of the Church and the Gospel.
Now, I can sense some sort of rejection from this article although it may attempt to clarify a paraphrase, which I think in no way gives any light or helps in any way a Catholic, there is so much tension between following the teachings of our Lord Jesus and his Church, and dealing with worldwide issues, and personal spiritual warfare (if it is taking place in a person).
I think most of us are adults to understand the difference in that phrase or paraphrase, we do not need more hatred, I thank God I've helped people who have vices to come out of them through what the Church and the Gospel teaches us.
We are not called to give our opinion on "why we will not help other people, and justify our rejection, and anger towards them", in Mat 6 the Lord reminds us to get rid of the splinter we have in our eye before we even try to help someone else, It hink that we are not justifying sin, nor the sinner; but we are to correct them with love, and walk the miles needed to show them we are not another hypocritical pharisee who always puts the finger on specific lines f the law without looking at our personal arrogance (pride). God Bless.
Gloria.TV – News Briefs
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Comments:
In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association revoked its prior judgment of homosexuality as a mental illness. This was after a protest against the association four years earlier in today’s cauldron of repulsiveness, San Francisco.
Of course, the APA’s decision would set the stage for most of the gay agenda’s winnings in decades to come: no new evidence, no facts, just a bunch of gays …More
Comments:
In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association revoked its prior judgment of homosexuality as a mental illness. This was after a protest against the association four years earlier in today’s cauldron of repulsiveness, San Francisco.
Of course, the APA’s decision would set the stage for most of the gay agenda’s winnings in decades to come: no new evidence, no facts, just a bunch of gays getting their panties in a bunch and annoying people into submission. Then there’s AIDS, which in the 80's used to be called GRID (gay related immune deficiency), gay cancer, and gay plague.
Fast forward to present day were we not only treat homosexuality as acceptable, but required in order to have any kind of respect from the public spectrum. Even worse, the church has placed an overbearing premium on “love the sinner” while practically ignoring the preceding “hate the sin.” Hey brethren, can we agree that homosexuality is a sin please? Thank ya.
On the other hand, there is another kind of behavioral egregiousness which is slowly rising and will surely follow in the footsteps of the gay movement: pedophilia. But don’t jump to conclusions, hippie, because when I say pedophilia will advance I do not mean that a year from now 30-year olds will legally have relations with toddlers. No sir, sin does not permeate a nation so fast; it’s a slow death that evil prefers to inflict over its victims.
----------------------------------------------------
The year is 1969:
While America is being pushed to accept adult and mutual teen homosexuality a form of mental illness as one form of normal, no one anywhere is pushing anyone to accept rape of children -— or any sex with children homosexuality -- or any sex with the same gender -— as normal. No one.
====
Remember, it started out as "stay out of our bedrooms" and has morphed into something even more evil. We let our guard down and now look where we are.
--------------------------------------------
What is fact is that homosexuals make up only about 2-5% of the population, but through various studies account for anywhere between 20-40% of pedofilia or crimes against children. So, while it is true that most crimes against children are committed by heterosexuals, that would be logical because heterosexuals make up about 92-95% of the population.
What is missed is that if all things were "even" you would expect homosexuals to only commit about 2-5% of the crimes. What the facts show is that homosexuals are more prone to commit crimes against children then a heterosexual. That aspect should not be over looked or glossed over.
To me, it makes sense, that when a person throws away what God has said to be the correct, then that person becomes the god of their life and ANYTHING that pleases that person goes.
In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association revoked its prior judgment of homosexuality as a mental illness. This was after a protest against the association four years earlier in today’s cauldron of repulsiveness, San Francisco.
Of course, the APA’s decision would set the stage for most of the gay agenda’s winnings in decades to come: no new evidence, no facts, just a bunch of gays getting their panties in a bunch and annoying people into submission. Then there’s AIDS, which in the 80's used to be called GRID (gay related immune deficiency), gay cancer, and gay plague.
Fast forward to present day were we not only treat homosexuality as acceptable, but required in order to have any kind of respect from the public spectrum. Even worse, the church has placed an overbearing premium on “love the sinner” while practically ignoring the preceding “hate the sin.” Hey brethren, can we agree that homosexuality is a sin please? Thank ya.
On the other hand, there is another kind of behavioral egregiousness which is slowly rising and will surely follow in the footsteps of the gay movement: pedophilia. But don’t jump to conclusions, hippie, because when I say pedophilia will advance I do not mean that a year from now 30-year olds will legally have relations with toddlers. No sir, sin does not permeate a nation so fast; it’s a slow death that evil prefers to inflict over its victims.
----------------------------------------------------
The year is 1969:
While America is being pushed to accept adult and mutual teen homosexuality a form of mental illness as one form of normal, no one anywhere is pushing anyone to accept rape of children -— or any sex with children homosexuality -- or any sex with the same gender -— as normal. No one.
====
Remember, it started out as "stay out of our bedrooms" and has morphed into something even more evil. We let our guard down and now look where we are.
--------------------------------------------
What is fact is that homosexuals make up only about 2-5% of the population, but through various studies account for anywhere between 20-40% of pedofilia or crimes against children. So, while it is true that most crimes against children are committed by heterosexuals, that would be logical because heterosexuals make up about 92-95% of the population.
What is missed is that if all things were "even" you would expect homosexuals to only commit about 2-5% of the crimes. What the facts show is that homosexuals are more prone to commit crimes against children then a heterosexual. That aspect should not be over looked or glossed over.
To me, it makes sense, that when a person throws away what God has said to be the correct, then that person becomes the god of their life and ANYTHING that pleases that person goes.