Ten Commandments: Catholic vs. Protestant Versions

The Philippines won the Guiness record for having the largest Ten Commandments tablet. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering that our country likes claiming to be one of the ‘most Catholic’ in the world. But will the Philippine Catholic hierarchy be happy and proud of this record? Probably not.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That’s because the gigantic Ten Commandments erected in Baguio happens to be the Protestant version, and if we look closely we will find that there is a significant difference from the Catholic version:


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

President of Teaching the Word Ministries Dr. Paul M. Elliott wrote:

The Roman Catholic revision is obvious: The Vatican eliminates the second commandment against idolatry, and subdivides the tenth commandment against covetousness in order to keep the number of commandments at ten.

Rome claims that it follows a version established in the late fourth century by Augustine, which in turn was allegedly based on a then-current Jewish synagogue version. But this is one of the many cases where Roman Catholicism (like Judaism) places the traditions of men in authority over the Word of God. The commandment against idolatry is clear, strong, and specific.

The Vatican must maintain the fiction of the revisionist Ten Commandments in order to perpetuate its extensive idolatry. Rome commands its faithful to bow before statues and crucifixes…

Vatican teaching alleges a distinction between what it calls dulia (venerating saints and bowing before statues and human remains) and latria (worship directed toward God). But it is a distinction without a difference. Idolatry by any name is an abomination to God.

I guess this only makes religion all the more suspicious of being a human construct. How could two major churches both claiming to represent the same God disagree on something as fundamental as the Ten Commandments?

And if it’s true that it was the Roman Catholic Church which caused the difference by eliminating the graven image clause, why make up for it by simply subdividing covetousness into thy neighbor’s wife and thy neighbor’s house? This could have been a golden opportunity to add a much needed commandment like “Thou shall not commit rape.” But perhaps such revision would be too obvious and put even more doubt on the supposed divine origin of the Commandments.

As for the Philippines’ record of having the world’s largest Protestant Ten Commandments, it would be interesting to see the Vatican put up an even bigger tablet with the Catholic version just to save face. This defensiveness and pettiness would stir up lively discussions and get people to examine their beliefs more closely instead of blindly following whatever their religious leaders say. Some of them might even be compelled to question doctrines deemed sacred in an attempt to seek the truth. That way they will be one step closer to becoming freethinkers. That way we will be one step closer to becoming a more enlightened nation.

_____________________

Image from Yahoo!

47 comments

  1. The no.1 and no 2 Commandments of the protestant is similar, and joined as one commandment by the original Church of Jesus. Women is not a property; so it is a separate commandment other that stealing property/goods.

  2. As usual, protestant idealogues have again misinterpreted Catholic teachings by an incomplete reading of the Ten Commandments. If they had cared to examine complete text they would have found that the prohibition against the fashioning of graven images is included in the first commandment. They error actually lies in their ignorance or inadequate application of the rules of exegesis or proper Biblical study.

  3. As followers of Christ, no denomination should be attributed to the very Word of God. It is the Word of God, nothing more, nothing less. If one thinks his denomination no matter how big it is will add anything to the sovereignty and glory of God, we all are missing a lot here. The main purpose of the Ten Commandments of God is to teach or instruct people how to have a living relationship with the Lord and with people. Not to exalt any denomination’s validity with the Word. Sadly, this is the case. Only God should be given the glory. Otherwise, God in His way, will humble those who exalts themselves and will exalt those who humbles themselves. Shalom!

    • Heto ang alam ko. Tama, magkaiba ang way of thinking ng Catholic at Protestant, at magkakaiba rin ang way of thinking ng iba’t ibang Protestant denomination. Sa konteksto ng isyu ng paggawa ng imahe, para sa Catholic Church, ipinagbabawal ng Diyos ang paggawa at pagsamba ng mga imahe sa panahon bago ang pagsilang ni Hesus dahil sa panahon na ito kilala nila ang Diyos bilang purong espiritwal at kung gano’n hindi marerepresenta ng materyal na imahe; pero pagtapos ng pamumuhay ni Hesus sa lupa, wala nang masamang irepresenta ang Diyos ng imahe bilang pag-alala na nagkatawang-tao ang Diyos, basta’t ang sasambahin lang ay ang nirerepresenta ni imahe hindi ang imahe mismo. Kagaya lang nito ng paglalagay natin ng picture ng mahal natin sa wallet.

      Ganito rin mag-isip ang ilang Protestante na naniniwala na si Hesus ay Diyos, may ilan na hindi. Para sa mga hindi, kahit na ang nirerepresenta ng imahe lang ang sinasamba, maaaring nagdudulot pa rin ito ng confusion sa pagsamba (e.g. pagturing na ang imahe ang nagdala ng swerte sa isang tao, hindi ang Diyos na nirerepresenta nito). Pumapagitan din ito sa relasyon ng indibidwal sa Diyos (e.g. pag-asa sa swerte ng mga imahe sa halip na sa Diyos).

      Sa mga hindi naniniwalang si Kristo ay Diyos (e.g. INC, Saksi ni Jehova, Mormons), ang alam ko lahat sila strikto sa rule na ‘yon.

  4. The Philippine Catholic Hierarchy will have no problem at all with those 10 commandments which belong originally to the Orthodox Church , neither will have any problem the Philippine Luterans who use the same list of ten commandments of the Catholic Church.

    THE CHURCH HAS REMOVED NO COMMANDMENT FROM THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.

    The Catholic Bible is accuratelly translated from the original Hebrew version.

    The Bible, in the original text, has no punctuation and numbering of the verses. Therefore, the division of the Commandments is conventional and depends from which of the 3 traditions it referes to:

    1.The eastern christian tradition based on the book of Exodus, which consideres the prohibitions of desiring the woman and the property of others as one comandment, and so the prohibitions of having more than one God and of worshiping idols are considered two commandments.

    This tradition was adopted by the Orthodox Church, and later by most of the protestants.

    2.The agostinian western christian tradition based on the book of Deutoronomy, which consideres the prohibitions of desiring the woman and the property of others as two comandments, and so the prophibitions of having more than one God and of worshiping idols are considered one commandment.

    This tradition was adopted by the Catholic Church, and later by the lutheran protestants

    3.In the jewish list of the 10 commandments the first is “I am the L-rd, your G-d…” and the second is the Prohibition of Improper Worship which combine the prohibition to worship other gods and that of making idols like the first commandment of the catholic list.

    The conspiracy theory of the Catholic Church to have altered the 10 commandments to be able to use the images is a lie for 2 reasons.

    The first reason is that the Lutheran church, which does not allow the use of images, uses the same 10 commandments of the Catholic Church.

    The second reason is that the Orthodox Church is among the churches that consider the prohibition of the idolatry of the images as the third commandment, and it has never had any problem in using images because the veneration of saints and the use of images as a means of religious teaching isn’t idolatry.

    So the questions are:

    Why the Catholic Church is accused of having “cleared” the commandment of not worshiping idols , while the Orthodox Church, which specifically mentions this prohibition, uses images exactly like the Catholic Church?

    Why did the Protestant Lutheran church adopt the division of the 10 Commandments of the Catholic Church, despite not using the images?

    Should the jews be accused of having removed the second commandment and split the first like the catholics who are accused of having removed the same commandment and split the 10th?

    The contradictions in this conspiracy theory are evident. It is pure fiction, like the Da Vinci Code.

    In this regard, it is useful to bear in mind that the same synagogues in the first centuries after Christ had not infrequently images. Very interesting is the site of Dura Europos , of the 3rd century AD , in Syria, where were found both a synagogue, which was totally covered with frescoes representing scenes from the Old Testament, and an ancient house-church, which was also painted.

    There is no biblical evidence that it is forbidden to use images as a mean of religius teaching or to honor people with statues. If yow make a statue of George Washington to honor him and remind his example you don’t worship him as a God. If I ask you to pray God for me I am not worshipping you as God , ans so it is if I ask a saint to do the same.

    WHEN AN ACCURATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, LIES ARE EASILY EXPOSED 

  5. A little honest research would have shown that the two versions of the Decalogue are found in the bible. Here is a simple explanation that, maybe, the writer of this article can understand instead of trying to controvert an issue that has no controversy in the first place:

    "The Bible gives two versions of the Ten Commandments, in essential content identical, one in Exodus and another in Deuteronomy. The enumeration of the commandants (which is number one, which is two etc.) are traditional and neither contained in the texts nor obvious. The Catholic Church has traditionally used the Deuteronomy account and followed the division of the text given in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures made by second century BC Jews in Egypt and used by the early Church as its Old Testament. The Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church also use this account. The other Reformation churches use the Exodus listing, and adopted the Jewish enumeration of the Hebrew text."

    • Both versions (Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 5:8) specifically command against making for oneself an idol or graven image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. But we don't see that in the version of the Ten Commandments being taught by the Catholic Church. I got all of my formal education (kindergarten to graduate school) from a Catholic school. We had religion classes and first Friday masses but I don't recall hearing about the commandment against making graven images.

      • Then either your instructors were remiss or you were asleep because if you ever looked it up it is in the bible. As a Catholic , have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic church? Like you I grew up and was educated in Catholic schools as well but in my case I did encounter it. It's not like I took it to heart if any I took it for granted. Only later on did I re-examine my position and decide to look it up and discover what I just stated above. The point is every Catholic knows what idolatry is, right, it's just many Catholics don't know where it actually comes from. Graven Image only means idols which represents natural creatures or objects.

        • [Graven Image only means idols which represents natural creatures or objects.]

          Can you please cite the source of your definition of graven image? Also, are people considered "natural creatures"?

          • //Then why are we making graven images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints?//

            Let me take that line of questioning further – why is the Vatican actively promoting its various graven images of humans – saints, Jesus, and Mary – among its cathedrals and museums as holy sites and tourist attractions?

          • The prohibition is on WORSHIPPING graven images and not so much merely making them after all Moses was asked to adorn the Ark of the Covenant with winged angels and to fashion a serpent out of a staff to cure the people. Far from worshipping Mary and the saints, their images are mere reminders of the communion we have with them as Catholics.

          • But Deuteronomy 5:8 clearly prohibits against MAKING graven images and not necessarily worshiping them.

            And the succeeding verse, Deuteronomy 5:9, prohibits against BOWING DOWN "or" worshiping these graven images. Take note that the logical operator "or" was used, not "and". Catholics may not be worshiping the Crucifix or other graven images (only dulia and not latria), but they certainly are bowing down to them.

          • You would have a point if Catholics actually believed that the images themselves are the ones we venerate. When I bow or kneel i know that I am bowing or kneeling to God who is there spiritually and not physically in the image.

          • Again, Deuteronomy 5:9 states it clearly: "You shall not bow down to them." The verse (or any of the succeeding verses) never said anything like "you shall not bow to them unless you recognize that they are mere representations of God and it is God alone whom you worship."

          • Correct, the prohibition was worshipping in the Jewish context that was signified as bowing. Also as exemplified by the golden calf incident, they fashioned a golden cow and worshipped it as a god. So there are really two in one prohibition here, creating an idol/image (god) and worshipping it. Catholics create images not as idols or as gods but as facsimiles, much like we have pictures of loved ones at home, which as you may know we also don't worship. See worship in the Christian sense goes beyond mere head bowing or kneeling, it also includes intent and disposition. We can argue technical interpretations till we are blue in the face but what i have stated is the reasonable Catholic position.

          • [So there are really two in one prohibition here, creating an idol/image (god) and worshipping it.]

            Yet again, Deuteronomy 5:9 uses the logical operator "or," not "and": "You shall not bow down to them OR worship them." Had the verse stated, "You shall not bow down to them AND worship them," then you would be correct, but it didn't.

            [We can argue technical interpretations till we are blue in the face but what i have stated is the reasonable Catholic position.]

            Which is exactly the point of this article. How do we know which position accurately represents God's position, assuming He exists?

          • On the contrary the operator OR makes bowing and worshipping interchangeable which means that in the Jewish context bowing is the same as worshipping. However, Christian understanding does not only take into account the bible but also the traditional understanding of what this verse means which is not so much the action itself but the meaning of that action. In jewish context the action and intention may mean the same thing. Take for example the commandment on the sabbath. God does not specify Sunday or Saturday. For the Jews, its Saturday as they see the start of the lunar week to be Sunday. For Christians it is Sunday because it is the day of Christ's resurrection. These nuances are interpreted in the light of the both the Church's magisterium and Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

          • …following your train of thought, one could be kneeling and praying in front of Satan's graven image…but it's alright as long as he knows he's praying to God?

          • We venerate the image of Christ because we are reminded that historically an image of the true incarnate God-man has been passed down. We do not venerate any image of God the father because we know he is a pure spirit. We venerate images of the saints because they remind us of real people who have died but are still spiritually alive and in communion with us in heaven. Satan has no corporeal representation so you cannot make an mage of him that is representative of him, well you could, but that would be a lie. Now how can the father of lies even begin to represent God even by intention? It's like looking at the picture of your dog and thinking that it reminds you of your dad… that is an absurd analogy. Perhaps you should read up on Catholic teaching on the veneration of images so that you can at least make more appropriate analogies because you come off as merely twisting what I say.

          • well, in my defense you are twisting the words in the Bible to fit your own preferences…so i think that makes us even.
            And no, your reason for Roman Catholics venerating the image of Christ is flawed, people worship images of saints, Christ and other holy stuff is because they think it amplifies the power of their prayers….that somehow praying in front of a graven image has more effect than praying in front of nothing. It is also a given that church people think that these graven images are holy…and that you cannot deny. Therefore, people pray in front of these graven images because they think that these images are holy and the chances that their prayers would be fulfilled are higher.
            So in a way, Catholics VENERATE/WORSHIP these graven images as holy tools in order to reach God which breaks the rule in Deuteronomy.
            In the end, your rationalization about Catholics venerating graven images fails because they really think it is holy…they do not see it like some family picture. Nice try, thanks fer playing.

          • The bible was never meant to b interpreted by any one without guidance, that is the heresy of sola scriptura. The bible does not claim to be the sole interpreter of matters pertaining to faith and morals. The Church as created by our Lord is the rightful interpreter of scripture. In fact within the first hundred years of Christianity, there was no written bible. Everything was taught by word of mouth. The practice of the veneration of the saints has been around since the first century A.D. There is empirical evidence for that! At any rate that is for another discussion. As to your statement "…because they think it amplifies the power of their prayers…" that is your uninformed opinion and in no way represents Catholic teaching, so believe what you will. I must throw back the the statement to you by saying nice try in misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Next time you try to joust with an informed Catholic, be informed of what we actually teach that way, you don't get your foot in your mouth. i don't play when it comes to matters about my faith.

          • actually…you do play, because you wouldn't be rationalizing your faith with me, faith is irrational to begin with.
            You said that the Bible does not claim to be the sole interpreter of matters pertaining to morals but you, according to the comments you posted here, act like it does. You say that your Lord is the rightful interpreter of scripture and yet you are here debating about the interpretations in the scripture. And you try your best giving all the evidence possible proving the validity of the Bible and then saying the Bible was taught by word of mouth, which even you should know cannot be trusted.
            You sir, are going places.

            Edit: Again…nice try tnx fer playing

          • You are so arrogantly quick to draw that you misread what I wrote. I said that the Church is the rightful interpreter of scripture. You are trying to argue against a position that is not even the Church's or my position. Perhaps you are still juvenile in mind that is why you are looking for a mere playmate. Sorry but you'll have to find some other child to play with.

          • Sorry, but that's the truth…you can read your comments again if you like. I can give you a topic right now…let's say homosexuality…and you'll pull out arguments from the Bible and reinforce it with documents from past popes and saints with some old, questionable scientific journals funded by the Catholic church. If you say that the Church is the interpreter of scripture, you just made the argument that the Church manipulates the scriptures for their own preferences stronger and you don't want that do you?
            And playmate…really? I just caught you on your own contradictions and you still feel self-righteous?
            Other than that, GAME OVER man, I won. (My apologies, i just find it amusing that you are still playing with this "child"). This is just us cleaning our sleeves.

          • "The Church as created by our Lord is the rightful interpreter of scripture".

            Yes indeed, proof is the several ecumenical councils that have been held to clarify several RCC teachings and do other exciting stuff…

            Like disband the Knights Templar, excommunicate Martin Luther, and cherry pick from the huge selection of books that conform to the view of what the Bible ought to hold according to whoever was convening the council at the time.

            Deeper matters of theology and logic aside, the fact that such editing and constant revisioning of the supposedly infallible word of god has been performed through the ages raises questions in itself. Not to mention that, when a particularly embarrassing or contradictory item in this holy text appears, a clarification needs to be issued! Who is to say which book was "inspired by god" and "not'?

            And the fact that the bible was the written form of oral tradition, well, we all know how fluid oral tradition is, and the nuances of the languages used influence the content. It's like a thousand-year version of a "Pass The Message" game, in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English and the vernaculars!

            (If anybody's interested, the text of the book dboncan mentions, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is available online. I still have the paperback copy of an old edition somewhere here. Together with a bible, version unknown. I like reading them. Seriously, I really do. Especially Revelations, acid-trippy.)

          • You apparently have very little knowledge of biblical hermeneutics. So before you start arguing a position I suggest you do some research as to how scriptural exegesis is arrived at. Otherwise it's just another non-sequitur argument.

          • //The bible was never meant to b interpreted by any one without guidance, that is the heresy of sola scriptura. The bible does not claim to be the sole interpreter of matters pertaining to faith and morals. The Church as created by our Lord is the rightful interpreter of scripture. //

            Do you have a third-party, non-biased organization that can say with any finality that the RCC's interpretations of the Bible is superior to that of other Christian denominations such as Protestants, LDS, or Mormons?

            Seems to me that you're just resorting to a long drawn-out attempt at the Courtier's Reply.
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

          • //i don't play when it comes to matters about my faith. //

            Nope, you don't play. You obsess over it, regardless of what reality tells about what the RCC is really about.

            That's sad and pathetic.

  6. Personally, I think comparing the commandments of the RCC and the Protestant Church is like comparing the beverage selection of Wendy's and McDonalds.

    When they both offer Coke products.

    • True. Coincidentally, there are minor variations of fastfood Coke products in each store (sometimes its mild, sometimes too strong, sometimes it tastes like crap)

  7. Well, you know that, the RCC faithful, instead of being angry, is proud because of this "success." Well, they don't know the difference eh, just like what KapanaligSaWala said. That's how ignorant the RCC faithful are. But I believe there is no true version between the two versions. I believe in no god so how can a god have commands if he doesn't exist? It's just like saying that how can the tooth fairy get the tooth under your pillow if the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

  8. Worshiping an imaginary friend is one thing, but worshiping an imaginary friend WITH a split personality is another!

    God must have been confused when he appeared to Moses to procure two versions of what should be the same thing.

  9. Oh you know those funny Catholics… so very into their "graven images"

    Remember the Poletismo fiasco where religious fanatics were crying out for blood, cursing, vandalizing, threatening all sort of bodily harm on the artist because they so treasure their beloved "graven images"

      • Tama. Isa ‘tong isyu na nag-umpisa pa noong 4th century BC. Gayunman, wala pa rin akong nakikitang problema sa pag-“tatanggal” ng Catholic Church ng “do not make graven images and bow down to them.” Sa paliwanag ni St. Thomas Aquinas, may tatlong sense ‘yan: una, ang pag-iimbento ng diyus-diyosan na gagawan ng imahe para sambahin ito (gaya ng paggawa at pagsamba ng mga Israelita sa golden calf); pangalawa, ang paggawa ng representasyon ng Diyos ngunit ang representasyon ang sinasamba; at, pangatlo, ang paggawa ng representasyon ng Diyos bilang pagpapaalaala ngunit ang Diyos pa rin ang direktang sinasamba. Sa interpretasyon niya, ang naunang sense ang ibig ipakahulugan ng commandment na ‘yan dahil ito ang pinakamalapit sa konteksto (e.g. golden calf), ngunit implicitly kasama na rito ang ikalawang at ikatlong sense dahil noong panahon bago ang pagsilang ni Hesus, kilala nila ang Diyos bilang espiritwal at kung gano’n hindi mairerepresenta ng kahit anong imahe.

        Nag-iba ang takbo ng panahon pagtapos bumaba ni Hesus sa lupa at manirahan kasama ng mga tao. Sa perspective ng Catholic Church na naniniwala sa Trinity (e.i. na si Hesus ay Diyos), nangangahulugan ito na wala nang masama sa pagrerepresenta sa Diyos ng imahe bilang pagpapaalaala na ang Diyos ay bumaba sa lupa para iligtas ang mga tao sa kasalanan. Pero ang una at ikalawang sense ng commandment na ‘yon ay applicable pa rin dahil ang Diyos lamang ang dapat na sambahin at hindi mga imahe o mga diyus-diyusan.

        By the way, hindi lahat ng Protestant ay kinokondena ang paggawa ng imahe ng Diyos at ni Hesus.

        • paano kaya ni ito ma-eexplane?… “ISA 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, Nor my praise to graven images.” Paano kaya magiging safe ang paggamit ng mga imahe kahit representation lang? or pweding mas-safe kung wala ng imahe na mismo?

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here