You're right about that scene. "It never gets old." I cry every time I watch that launch into battle. My response to the brave & noble horses: Go Beauties!
Given that Jesus specifically says NOT to swear oaths, taking an oath on the Bible itself seems blasphemous.
Matthew 5:33-37
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither 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. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
James 5:12
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment.
I think something has went horribly wrong with the church. With all of the churches and people attending them, we should have heaven on earth by now. Best to go by Jesus's teachings! I don't think He would be too pleased with all the wealth of the Vatican, either.
Things may be bad with many men in the Church, but there is nothing wrong with the Church Herself.
You are wrong to think the end of times will be ushered in by the Church having converted the world. St. Paul warns us that the Second Coming will be preceded by the Great Apostasy.
As for the wealth of the Vatican, I understand the financial picture there is quite bleak now. She has accumulated many treasures, but they were given for the glory of God. The poor we will always have with us, but surely God deserves the best.
Jesus, a Jew of his time, often used hyperbole to emphasize his point. This is one such case. He is calling us to live as if we are not fallen while knowing full well we are. We must be careful of the heresy of fundamentalism. Such a view is not Catholic. Further, the Church cannot err. She alone can interpret scripture and every Catholic must assent to her teachings on faith morality or they risk damning themselves.
Have you been asked to swear that you will tell the truth? I have (it was a matter for family court at the start of taking recorded testimony and I have forgotten what I was asked because it was in essence very mundane things). I did not protest "But I am a Christian and always tell the truth because Jesus said my Yes should be Yes and my No, No", I just said "so help me God" like it was an old-time TV drama when people still mentioned God in their daily life.
If I was a member of the Society of Friends, and had made this sort of thing into an institutional point of honor, then doubtless the hearing officer would have let me "affirm" rather than "swear" (this is Pennsylvania after all.)
Interesting reflections, but the kernel is your question at the end: "when our leaders swear oaths today, do we [they] still believe in their binding power?" Breaking an oath sworn on a Bible would, I expect, entail a burden of guilt greater than any other type of oath, but to which of our leaders would that matter today? Some, perhaps.
I disagree that the US is not a ‘nation’ in the cultural or ethnic sense. Yes it has become ‘multicultural’ but we shouldn’t let that concept erase the history of the country, its foundation clearly English culture. What other cultures originated with deist Freemasons? Besides you mentioned that many cultures arrive to ‘integrate’ into the country. Which implies there is something to integrate into. The answer cannot be ‘multiculturalism’. That just means arriving and not integrating, ie. retaining one’s culture. America does have a core identity with unique traditions that represent both a break from and continuity with its Anglo origins.
What the ideologues say as a cursed lie about Britain, "a nation built by immigrants" is literally true of the United States. I don't mean it as a criticism. but yes, I do see your point, and don't disagree. There does seem to be an American culture into which to integrate, though there is great diversity in regions etc. (Even neighbourhoods, if you are talking about New York or Chicago.) But I don't think anyone can say that being "American" is an ethnicity.
I think one can distinguish between immigrants and settlers. Settlers arrive at a ‘ ‘new’ world and build something. Immigrants arrive at something already built, the new ‘nation’ and integrate. To a greater or lesser degree, as time passes, the nation will retain its original identity. This is always a source of tension, but clearly reaching a boiling point recently. My own view is it’s not helpful to go to either extreme, the ‘not a nation’ view or the monoculture view. Maintaining a balance that respects a core identity is crucial.
Interesting post. My tendency as an American is to regard almost all those who swear oaths as forsworn. It’s a mere formality that has no meaning unless you believe in God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. And even then, in these days of the lies of liberalism and universalism are believed by most “Catholics” and just about everyone else, they are just a formality. That so many think nothing of perjuring themselves and therefore damning themselves unless they truly repent is truly horrible. Honor and integrity used to be valued. Even they cannot be relied on. It’s really disheartening that most of the time you can’t take a man’s word, not to mention his oath, as true. Our public officials and religious leaders prove it every day. As Jesus said say what you mean. Anything else is sin.
I was always taught that making an oath is a serious matter, though I never connected it to the necessity of their needing to be a book involved. I would theorize that a large reason books aren't a central focus of oaths for Muslims and Jews is simply because printed books weren't a common possession, even the holy books. However, other objects could be used. In the book of Ruth, Boaz gives his shoe to a relative that had more right to marry Ruth -- the shoe symbolized the oath, but was a mere formality. Not being a historian of that era, I'm not sure if it needed to be a shoe or if it could've been anything else. Either way, I think a common thread between all oaths is "we are calling God here to be our witness" -- For God is the greatest, truest witness. This makes me think of Matthew 18:20, "Where two or three are gathered there I am too." I'm curious -- since you separated the Torah as an example of an alternative to swear on although it is a large portion of the Bible -- do you believe when swearing on the Bible it's best to swear on the entirety of it, or would it be fine to swear on say a New Testament or a small volume that contained only the gospels? I personally think the book still doesn't matter -- it's the belief that God is there as a witness. For Hinduism they would be calling upon the "god" that they believe is in the universe/ within (I'm not super familiar with how Hinduism works, so perhaps that's too much of a simplification on my part). So the book would merely symbolize which God/ essence one is requesting to be present as a witness and judge -- which does matter if you want to be a Christian nation. But we're arguably past being that anyway in America.
I don't think the book matters. I don't know where oaths sworn with a hand on the Bible became a thing, but I expect it's pretty late. Coronation oaths don't do that, nor the oath sworn by a new pope. It might just be a modern judicial system thing. Knights swore oaths with a hand on a sword, and of course, vows taken by religious don't involve putting your hand on anything. In the middle ages, people would swear an oath over relics of saints. I strongly suspect it's a Protestant thing and post-Gutenberg.
No, I haven't been in that situation. My dad was, and he explained the scripture to the judge and the judge allowed him to affirm. I think there are a lot of things in our culture that we are accustomed to that should be questioned in the light of scripture. Jesus seems pretty clear on it to me.
You're right about that scene. "It never gets old." I cry every time I watch that launch into battle. My response to the brave & noble horses: Go Beauties!
Oh man... it gets me every time. It is Godly and glorious.
Given that Jesus specifically says NOT to swear oaths, taking an oath on the Bible itself seems blasphemous.
Matthew 5:33-37
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither 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. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
James 5:12
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment.
The Church obviously disagrees with this interpretation of those texts; as 2000 years of papal, coronation and other kinds of oaths attest.
I think something has went horribly wrong with the church. With all of the churches and people attending them, we should have heaven on earth by now. Best to go by Jesus's teachings! I don't think He would be too pleased with all the wealth of the Vatican, either.
Things may be bad with many men in the Church, but there is nothing wrong with the Church Herself.
You are wrong to think the end of times will be ushered in by the Church having converted the world. St. Paul warns us that the Second Coming will be preceded by the Great Apostasy.
As for the wealth of the Vatican, I understand the financial picture there is quite bleak now. She has accumulated many treasures, but they were given for the glory of God. The poor we will always have with us, but surely God deserves the best.
Jesus, a Jew of his time, often used hyperbole to emphasize his point. This is one such case. He is calling us to live as if we are not fallen while knowing full well we are. We must be careful of the heresy of fundamentalism. Such a view is not Catholic. Further, the Church cannot err. She alone can interpret scripture and every Catholic must assent to her teachings on faith morality or they risk damning themselves.
Have you been asked to swear that you will tell the truth? I have (it was a matter for family court at the start of taking recorded testimony and I have forgotten what I was asked because it was in essence very mundane things). I did not protest "But I am a Christian and always tell the truth because Jesus said my Yes should be Yes and my No, No", I just said "so help me God" like it was an old-time TV drama when people still mentioned God in their daily life.
If I was a member of the Society of Friends, and had made this sort of thing into an institutional point of honor, then doubtless the hearing officer would have let me "affirm" rather than "swear" (this is Pennsylvania after all.)
Interesting reflections, but the kernel is your question at the end: "when our leaders swear oaths today, do we [they] still believe in their binding power?" Breaking an oath sworn on a Bible would, I expect, entail a burden of guilt greater than any other type of oath, but to which of our leaders would that matter today? Some, perhaps.
I disagree that the US is not a ‘nation’ in the cultural or ethnic sense. Yes it has become ‘multicultural’ but we shouldn’t let that concept erase the history of the country, its foundation clearly English culture. What other cultures originated with deist Freemasons? Besides you mentioned that many cultures arrive to ‘integrate’ into the country. Which implies there is something to integrate into. The answer cannot be ‘multiculturalism’. That just means arriving and not integrating, ie. retaining one’s culture. America does have a core identity with unique traditions that represent both a break from and continuity with its Anglo origins.
What the ideologues say as a cursed lie about Britain, "a nation built by immigrants" is literally true of the United States. I don't mean it as a criticism. but yes, I do see your point, and don't disagree. There does seem to be an American culture into which to integrate, though there is great diversity in regions etc. (Even neighbourhoods, if you are talking about New York or Chicago.) But I don't think anyone can say that being "American" is an ethnicity.
I think one can distinguish between immigrants and settlers. Settlers arrive at a ‘ ‘new’ world and build something. Immigrants arrive at something already built, the new ‘nation’ and integrate. To a greater or lesser degree, as time passes, the nation will retain its original identity. This is always a source of tension, but clearly reaching a boiling point recently. My own view is it’s not helpful to go to either extreme, the ‘not a nation’ view or the monoculture view. Maintaining a balance that respects a core identity is crucial.
Interesting post. My tendency as an American is to regard almost all those who swear oaths as forsworn. It’s a mere formality that has no meaning unless you believe in God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. And even then, in these days of the lies of liberalism and universalism are believed by most “Catholics” and just about everyone else, they are just a formality. That so many think nothing of perjuring themselves and therefore damning themselves unless they truly repent is truly horrible. Honor and integrity used to be valued. Even they cannot be relied on. It’s really disheartening that most of the time you can’t take a man’s word, not to mention his oath, as true. Our public officials and religious leaders prove it every day. As Jesus said say what you mean. Anything else is sin.
Love this.
I was always taught that making an oath is a serious matter, though I never connected it to the necessity of their needing to be a book involved. I would theorize that a large reason books aren't a central focus of oaths for Muslims and Jews is simply because printed books weren't a common possession, even the holy books. However, other objects could be used. In the book of Ruth, Boaz gives his shoe to a relative that had more right to marry Ruth -- the shoe symbolized the oath, but was a mere formality. Not being a historian of that era, I'm not sure if it needed to be a shoe or if it could've been anything else. Either way, I think a common thread between all oaths is "we are calling God here to be our witness" -- For God is the greatest, truest witness. This makes me think of Matthew 18:20, "Where two or three are gathered there I am too." I'm curious -- since you separated the Torah as an example of an alternative to swear on although it is a large portion of the Bible -- do you believe when swearing on the Bible it's best to swear on the entirety of it, or would it be fine to swear on say a New Testament or a small volume that contained only the gospels? I personally think the book still doesn't matter -- it's the belief that God is there as a witness. For Hinduism they would be calling upon the "god" that they believe is in the universe/ within (I'm not super familiar with how Hinduism works, so perhaps that's too much of a simplification on my part). So the book would merely symbolize which God/ essence one is requesting to be present as a witness and judge -- which does matter if you want to be a Christian nation. But we're arguably past being that anyway in America.
I don't think the book matters. I don't know where oaths sworn with a hand on the Bible became a thing, but I expect it's pretty late. Coronation oaths don't do that, nor the oath sworn by a new pope. It might just be a modern judicial system thing. Knights swore oaths with a hand on a sword, and of course, vows taken by religious don't involve putting your hand on anything. In the middle ages, people would swear an oath over relics of saints. I strongly suspect it's a Protestant thing and post-Gutenberg.
No, I haven't been in that situation. My dad was, and he explained the scripture to the judge and the judge allowed him to affirm. I think there are a lot of things in our culture that we are accustomed to that should be questioned in the light of scripture. Jesus seems pretty clear on it to me.