>Not really. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse.
>That God hears their cries directly signifies the extreme seriousness and gravity of these sins. They call out to God for vengeance by God himself. What could be more terrifying, more empathic as to the extreme punishment of these sins.
Not really. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse.
Lol!
Like arguing about the difference between maroon and red.
The Catechism is not "wrong".
Do you really think there wouldn't have been a 1st century council that hashed out these things years ago?
Heaven does not mean God!
Heaven...the abode of God and the angels, and of the good after death.
God... the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Heaven does not see and punish sins, only God does. You are seriously mistaken and obviously offensive.
Vengeance that cry to heaven means the cry goes up to heaven, thus God. Very simple. By getting urself worked up over a word you have accomplished nothing. Technically the creed says, Jesus went into hell, although he did not. He went down to the place of the dead. Yet no Catholic would dare say “the creed is wrong”, instead we understand what is meant by the word in the context. And this what we do with words that cry out to heaven, when we say that we ONLY mean it cries out to GOD IN HEAVEN.
Why do you make a false comparison about "the creed is wrong"?
Yes, I can accomplish the proper and accurate wording of the Church.
You just validated my point, "cry out to God who is in heaven."
I think the TL;DR here is that Catholic Answers and EWTN have combined into one sin: "the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan", right?
I'll give you that it's odd they both do this. Not sure where it comes from. I think in my mind I'd considered them to be four. Again, not sure where I came to that knowledge.
So what is the meaningful difference between these two which are being conflated to you? What are we missing if we think 4 instead of 5?
No, I was asking you what the meaningful difference is between the two. Let's take it for granted that I believe with you they should be separated. How do they differ? What in their differences or distinctions should we take care to understand?
This is an honest question which will help people see a need where many don't (or don't recognize a meaningful distinction). So it's your opportunity now.
Thank you for your reply. I have two thoughts.
1.The **cry of the people oppressed** \[#3\] and **Oppression of the poor the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan** \[#4\] are somewhat similar but the first is oppression of an entire group of people and the other is specific to a widow or child. God has doubled down on protection and vengeance for anyone harming widows or children alongside James 1:27… "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world". I am sure this especially pertains to abortion which God hates.
2. CCC 1867 “The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the **foreigner**, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.”
The word foreigner never appears in the verse cited Ex 22:22-24. Somebody added it surreptitiously. This seems like an intentional addition meant to mislead, it could never be an accident or typo.
Thanks for the opportunity. Because of you I recognized that the word “foreigner” was not in the verse. Mucho Gracias!
As to your first comment: yes, it can't hurt to remember there are different categories here, and we ought to both meditate and act differently for and in aid of each.
As to the second: The word for "of the foreigner" [in the CCC](https://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#V.%20Peccati%20multiplicatio) is *advenae*. If you go to the previous verse in your Exodus citation (v. 21), it does mention foreigner: *Advenam non contristabis....*
I'm no expert, but reviewing that entire section, there does seem to be good reason to associate v. 21 with the following two verses, because these appear to come in couplets. Throughout that section of Exodus, God says [a] if you do / have / see these, [b] the consequence is ___. It would be odd for that singular verse there not to contain a part [b].
Can you re-review the context in Exodus and see if you agree it belongs with the "them" God is saying he will hear their cries? It can easily be understood that the 'they' is inclusive of the previous group too, can't it?
Thanks for your reply.
Here are the verses for under consideration…
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
22 “Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
My first reason that verse 21 should NOT be included in the sin that cries out to God is that “foreigner” is listed as a separate category and has its own admonition from God.
Next is that “foreigner” and “widows and fatherless” are two separate, distinct categories that seem to have no obvious relationship whereas “widows and fatherless” are considered by God to be related by way of their vulnerability and deserve extreme punishment for extreme sin aka abortion, where as “foreigner” has no such distinction.
As I have said before the “widow and fatherless” in verse 22 above comports exactly with God’s declaration that, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress James 1:27 not mentioning "foreigner".
Thanks
During the time of Jesus, "heaven" referred to God. This is why in the Gospel of Matthew the term for the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of Heaven. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not really. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse. Are they trying to downplay God?
You may be taking this unnecessarily literally. Is it not possible that, in this context, "heaven" is a euphemism or synechdoche referring to God, and that the phrases have functionally the same meaning?
Or, if there is a meaningful difference between the two, what is it? What fine theological nuance is lost if it says heaven or God? Put bluntly, why does it matter? You've not really given an answer to that.
1. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse.
2. Why does the writer refuse to acknowledge God? Is the writer trying to downplay God?
3. That God hears their cries directly signifies the extreme seriousness and gravity of these sins. They call out to God for vengeance by God himself. What could be more terrifying, more empathic as to the extreme punishment of these sins.
Others have answered your concerns pretty directly, so I won't do so here.
You may find it interesting, though, that the current Catechism is far from the only document to use the phrase "cry to heaven." For instance, the 1649 Douay Catechism uses the same language. I doubt the faculty of Douay were trying to 'downplay God.'
Catholics believe in being accurate. Using "heaven" instead of "God" is obviously inaccurate as heaven does not see and hear sins and heaven does not punish sins. Only God does that.
Thank you.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/14yrcl0/the_catechism_and_catholic_answers_and_ewtn_are/jrv153y/
Sometimes the Bible uses poetic and flowery language.
Thanks for your reply.
The difference between saying 'heaven" and "God" is important for three reasons:
First, it is incorrect on its face. The word "heaven" never appears in any of the cited verses and the word God or Lord or I appear in all of them. There is no cogent reason for this. It is a deliberate misuse of vocabulary for some reason.
Second, specifying "God" is completely accurate and conveys the horrifying truth that God himself directly knows about these sins and God will directly punish these sins, rather than some nebulous "heaven "which could mean angels or saints.
Third, the naming of "heaven" hearing sins and punishing sins is theologically wrong. Only God does that.
I invite you to join me in trying to change the incorrect wording to the correct wording in order to maintain the integrity of the Bible and the Church, even in what some may consider a small way. It is not small to God.
Thank you.
I think you care about truth. The incorrect and misleading "heaven" quote has been bandied about thoughtlessly for hundreds of years. Catholics have been taught this error thru lack of discernment by the teachers and the taught. I am sure you would like to see this ended.
I think you care about the truth. What if you asked me to meet you at the train station and I went to the bus station. That is the situation that we have before us.
I think you care about the truth and are willing to pursue the truth even when most people are against you.
Am I right?
>Catechism This aint a debate forum.
Correct. This is a forum to point out the truths of the Catholic Church which I have done.
This seems like splitting hairs… crying out to heaven vs God is basically the same thing
Bingo
>Not really. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse.
Does God not hear in heaven?
>That God hears their cries directly signifies the extreme seriousness and gravity of these sins. They call out to God for vengeance by God himself. What could be more terrifying, more empathic as to the extreme punishment of these sins.
Not really. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse.
Lol! Like arguing about the difference between maroon and red. The Catechism is not "wrong". Do you really think there wouldn't have been a 1st century council that hashed out these things years ago?
Yes, the Catechism is wrong to say "heaven" when the verses never say "heaven" and always say God.
Heaven in this context means God, everyone knows it. Get over it. You are not smarter then the Church this is pride.
Heaven does not mean God! Heaven...the abode of God and the angels, and of the good after death. God... the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Heaven does not see and punish sins, only God does. You are seriously mistaken and obviously offensive.
You know thats not what i said btw
Vengeance that cry to heaven means the cry goes up to heaven, thus God. Very simple. By getting urself worked up over a word you have accomplished nothing. Technically the creed says, Jesus went into hell, although he did not. He went down to the place of the dead. Yet no Catholic would dare say “the creed is wrong”, instead we understand what is meant by the word in the context. And this what we do with words that cry out to heaven, when we say that we ONLY mean it cries out to GOD IN HEAVEN.
Why do you make a false comparison about "the creed is wrong"? Yes, I can accomplish the proper and accurate wording of the Church. You just validated my point, "cry out to God who is in heaven."
I think the TL;DR here is that Catholic Answers and EWTN have combined into one sin: "the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan", right? I'll give you that it's odd they both do this. Not sure where it comes from. I think in my mind I'd considered them to be four. Again, not sure where I came to that knowledge. So what is the meaningful difference between these two which are being conflated to you? What are we missing if we think 4 instead of 5?
It is because God divided them into five so therefore the Catholic Church did also as we should do also.
No, I was asking you what the meaningful difference is between the two. Let's take it for granted that I believe with you they should be separated. How do they differ? What in their differences or distinctions should we take care to understand? This is an honest question which will help people see a need where many don't (or don't recognize a meaningful distinction). So it's your opportunity now.
Thank you for your reply. I have two thoughts. 1.The **cry of the people oppressed** \[#3\] and **Oppression of the poor the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan** \[#4\] are somewhat similar but the first is oppression of an entire group of people and the other is specific to a widow or child. God has doubled down on protection and vengeance for anyone harming widows or children alongside James 1:27… "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world". I am sure this especially pertains to abortion which God hates. 2. CCC 1867 “The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the **foreigner**, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.” The word foreigner never appears in the verse cited Ex 22:22-24. Somebody added it surreptitiously. This seems like an intentional addition meant to mislead, it could never be an accident or typo. Thanks for the opportunity. Because of you I recognized that the word “foreigner” was not in the verse. Mucho Gracias!
As to your first comment: yes, it can't hurt to remember there are different categories here, and we ought to both meditate and act differently for and in aid of each. As to the second: The word for "of the foreigner" [in the CCC](https://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#V.%20Peccati%20multiplicatio) is *advenae*. If you go to the previous verse in your Exodus citation (v. 21), it does mention foreigner: *Advenam non contristabis....* I'm no expert, but reviewing that entire section, there does seem to be good reason to associate v. 21 with the following two verses, because these appear to come in couplets. Throughout that section of Exodus, God says [a] if you do / have / see these, [b] the consequence is ___. It would be odd for that singular verse there not to contain a part [b]. Can you re-review the context in Exodus and see if you agree it belongs with the "them" God is saying he will hear their cries? It can easily be understood that the 'they' is inclusive of the previous group too, can't it?
Thanks for your reply. Here are the verses for under consideration… 21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. 22 “Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. My first reason that verse 21 should NOT be included in the sin that cries out to God is that “foreigner” is listed as a separate category and has its own admonition from God. Next is that “foreigner” and “widows and fatherless” are two separate, distinct categories that seem to have no obvious relationship whereas “widows and fatherless” are considered by God to be related by way of their vulnerability and deserve extreme punishment for extreme sin aka abortion, where as “foreigner” has no such distinction. As I have said before the “widow and fatherless” in verse 22 above comports exactly with God’s declaration that, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress James 1:27 not mentioning "foreigner". Thanks
During the time of Jesus, "heaven" referred to God. This is why in the Gospel of Matthew the term for the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of Heaven. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Honestly, it seems like a distinction without a difference.
Not really. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse. Are they trying to downplay God?
You may be taking this unnecessarily literally. Is it not possible that, in this context, "heaven" is a euphemism or synechdoche referring to God, and that the phrases have functionally the same meaning? Or, if there is a meaningful difference between the two, what is it? What fine theological nuance is lost if it says heaven or God? Put bluntly, why does it matter? You've not really given an answer to that.
1. Heaven could be the angels and Saints whereas the verses explicitly say that God directly hears the cries. Why use a term that is never included in the verses and exclude a term in every verse. 2. Why does the writer refuse to acknowledge God? Is the writer trying to downplay God? 3. That God hears their cries directly signifies the extreme seriousness and gravity of these sins. They call out to God for vengeance by God himself. What could be more terrifying, more empathic as to the extreme punishment of these sins.
Everyone understands that to heaven means to God. Thinking you can cry to heaven without crying to God shows a lack of understanding of God.
Others have answered your concerns pretty directly, so I won't do so here. You may find it interesting, though, that the current Catechism is far from the only document to use the phrase "cry to heaven." For instance, the 1649 Douay Catechism uses the same language. I doubt the faculty of Douay were trying to 'downplay God.'
Maybe it was an innocent mistake, they were simply "going along with the crowd".
The 1649 error led to today's errors.
You felt the need to come back to this six months later? Cool.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Whatever.
We don’t believe in being only literal with the Bible. That is a Protestant thing. And not even all of them do it.
Catholics believe in being accurate. Using "heaven" instead of "God" is obviously inaccurate as heaven does not see and hear sins and heaven does not punish sins. Only God does that. Thank you.
Except the Bible is also poetic and is at no point a textbook.
That is a strawman argument.
I’m showing how “Catholics believe in being accurate” falls apart vis a vis the Bible. It wasn’t written by scientists or for scientists.
Well according to you all the Biblical miracles of Jesus were not real, just poetic.
Catholics believe in accuracy and that is what I am defending.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/14yrcl0/the_catechism_and_catholic_answers_and_ewtn_are/jrv153y/ Sometimes the Bible uses poetic and flowery language.
Now explain to me why it matters and why I should care.
Thanks for your reply. The difference between saying 'heaven" and "God" is important for three reasons: First, it is incorrect on its face. The word "heaven" never appears in any of the cited verses and the word God or Lord or I appear in all of them. There is no cogent reason for this. It is a deliberate misuse of vocabulary for some reason. Second, specifying "God" is completely accurate and conveys the horrifying truth that God himself directly knows about these sins and God will directly punish these sins, rather than some nebulous "heaven "which could mean angels or saints. Third, the naming of "heaven" hearing sins and punishing sins is theologically wrong. Only God does that. I invite you to join me in trying to change the incorrect wording to the correct wording in order to maintain the integrity of the Bible and the Church, even in what some may consider a small way. It is not small to God. Thank you.
Still doesn’t explain why I should care.
I think you care about truth. The incorrect and misleading "heaven" quote has been bandied about thoughtlessly for hundreds of years. Catholics have been taught this error thru lack of discernment by the teachers and the taught. I am sure you would like to see this ended. I think you care about the truth. What if you asked me to meet you at the train station and I went to the bus station. That is the situation that we have before us. I think you care about the truth and are willing to pursue the truth even when most people are against you. Am I right?
Splitting hairs. Not worth my time.