L
Article 3. Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?Originally Posted by LongingSoul
I was responding to the claim that prior to 1995 the Church maintained that the death penalty was justified strictly by the terms of the first Covenant and not limited under the New Covenant…
newadvent.org/summa/2104.htm
**The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only “dead,” but also deadly to those who observe them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.
The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above (Article 2). For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently, when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in Galatians 3:24. Since, however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose of being figures, but for the performance of certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the intention of observing them, as though one were bound by the Law, is prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ has not yet come.**
On the contrary, I think that you misunderstand the role of a catechism. A catechism interprets Church Doctrine for the times. They are not a ‘bible’ in nature. To say that the new catechism is wrong because it doesn’t say what previous catechisms have said is like saying the instructions for my new TV are wrong because they don’t match with the instructions for my first TV from 1962.Does this mean you repudiate the teaching in every catechism since the Catechism of St. Thomas, including the Catechism of Trent? I think you make more of Augustine’s opinion than appropriate if you put it in opposition to those of Aquinas and pretty much everyone else up until JPII.
We weren’t discussing judicial precepts; the topic was God’s covenants and your citation does not address that point. The Catechism, however, does address not just covenants in general but the covenant with Noah which is the one in question.58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.Article 3. Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?
“The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ”
If a catechism contained prudential judgments you would be correct but in fact they express church doctrines which do not change with the times.On the contrary, I think that you misunderstand the role of a catechism. A catechism interprets Church Doctrine for the times.
Unlike TV sets, morality does not change so how can doctrines change from one time to another? Beyond that, the new catechism comments on what was said before it but there is no evidence to support the assertion. It is as if your new TV instructions commented on what your 1962 instructions contained … only your 1962 instructions didn’t match up with what was supposedly in them.To say that the new catechism is wrong because it doesn’t say what previous catechisms have said is like saying the instructions for my new TV are wrong because they don’t match with the instructions for my first TV from 1962.