Did Jesus really abolish the OT laws?

[Adam_D]

It is often said on forums here that we don’t follow such and such a law from Leviticus, or whathaveyou, precisely because Jesus did away with the OT laws. Now is this precisely true? I agree with the fact that Christians are not bound to certain laws of Torah, but I feel it’s incorrect to say that this is because ot what Jesus taught or did. I propose that it is much more accurate to say that Christ’s ministers, the apostles, relaxed particular disciplines of the law but retained for themselves the authority over the law that has always been part of God’s covenants and always will be.

This is not nit-picking. I think it has real and serious apologetic consequences, especially when sharing the gospel with Jews and even with Protestant Christians who doubt the authority of the Catholic Church to bind a Christian to her laws.

Any comments?

 

[Salmon]

Adam D:

It is often said on forums here that we don’t follow such and such a law from Leviticus, or whathaveyou, precisely because Jesus did away with the OT laws.

Matt 5: 17

‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.c 19Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

When you say “such and such a law” , are you referring to Mosaic law? Dietary law? The ten commandments? Ritual sacrifice of animals?

For example, there is no need for further animal or grain sacrifice, for Christ fulfilled that requirement.

Try to be a bit more specific.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[Adam_D]

I think that my point is made best by considering all laws in their entirety – Mosaic, dietary and sacrificial. We have been loosed from adherence to many of them because Christ’s ministers said that we were. the Pharisees could have relaxed many of their disciplines too before authority passed to Christ’s disciples, but they didn’t. I draw this as an inference from Matt.23:1-4

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”

It sounds as though they could relax disciplines but didn’t. And keeping that in mind as I read Matt 5:7 which you quoted it seems to me that none of the laws were relaxed until the apostles declared as such, which is precisely why there existed in the early Church the controversy surrounding the Judaisers, who believed that all Christians had to be circumcised and follow all the old laws of being good Jews. This would not have been debated if it was understood that Jesus rendered such practices obsolete. Certainly, circumcision was not necessary after Christ’s baptism was instituted but I think it’s reasonable to say it was a binding law of practice until the Church declared otherwise.

You may take me to task on the issue of sacrifice in particular. I do believe that grain and animal sacrifice would cease to be necessary … but I think that the Church had to declare the relaxation of those disciplines as well.

(of course, I understod that the moral laws are not changeable by the Church now, or by the pharisees then … so that is not what I am discussing here).

 

[germys9]

Just my two cents. Jesus did not abolish the law, he fulfilled it just as someone as already pointed out. At the council of Jerusalem the question came up about circumcision, when Peter stood up and said that they no longer had to do that. Paul also, following Peter’s teaching, says that Christians are exempt from the ritual observances of the law - in others words, gentiles did not have to become jewish before becoming Christian. Are the ten commandments still in effect? Yes, by all means. Jesus says it very clear in Matthew and if you think about it, he even made them a little more difficult (his teachings on adultery in particular).

 

[Matt16_18]

Adam D

It is often said on forums here that we don’t follow such and such a law from Leviticus, or whathaveyou, precisely because Jesus did away with the OT laws.

I think that you hear a lot more of that from Evangelical Protestants than from Catholics. The antinomian “Once Saved, Always Saved” Protestants are especially fond of saying that Jesus did away with the laws found in the OT. That false idea is the foundation of their religion. Christians are not exempt from living moral lives, and the idea that there is no sin that a “saved” man could commit that would lead to his damnation is irreconcilable with the doctrines of Christianity.

Two laws from Leviticus and Deuteronomy that Jesus did not abolish:

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might
Deuteronomy 6:5

You shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

 

[Malachi4U]

I do not know the answer but I do have some questions too.

My old Baptist churches used to say everything in the OT was nailed to the cross with Jesus and is therefore no longer required. This is how they often ignore any Catholic argument as I learned first hand. Many even say parts of the NT are obsolete too for this same reason? The Lutheran church I attended said much the same thing.

How could they say the OT covenant is ended with Christ’s death (on the cross) then turn around and say that a 10% tithe is mandatory? The Ten Commandments are still applicable? And the list goes on ad nausea…?

I think I know the Catholic answer for the most part but I will not give it here as I may be wrong. I would like to know the Baptist answer though if anyone can figure one out? I was in the Baptist church and they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer it either for 27 years. Maybe the question never came up? When I did start to ask questions and look for truth in answers I became Catholic.

 

[germys9]

Adam D:

You may take me to task on the issue of sacrifice in particular. I do believe that grain and animal sacrifice would cease to be necessary … but I think that the Church had to declare the relaxation of those disciplines as well.

(of course, I understod that the moral laws are not changeable by the Church now, or by the pharisees then … so that is not what I am discussing here).

I agree with the other things you are saying, especially about circumcision. However, I’m not sure if the other sacrifices would have even been an issue. It seems like the aposltes would have understood that Christ’s sacrifice was the only pure one and that it fullfilled and replaced the animal sacrifices. (which is why they called him the lamb of God) You can already see in Acts, how the new Christian life centered around the Eucharist (or the breaking of the bread, as they called it) which they knew was the only sacrifice that was to be offered to God, just as Jesus taught them.

 

[Adam_D]

I’m not sure if the other sacrifices would have even been an issue. It seems like the aposltes would have understood that Christ’s sacrifice was the only pure one and that it fullfilled and replaced the animal sacrifices. (which is why they called him the lamb of God) You can already see in Acts, how the new Christian life centered around the Eucharist (or the breaking of the bread, as they called it) which they knew was the only sacrifice that was to be offered to God, just as Jesus taught them.

This is probably true germys9.

I think that you hear a lot more of that from Evangelical Protestants than from Catholics

Matt16_18, that is what I’d expect too! But I have in fact heard it said quite a few times here by Catholics and it concerned me: hence this thread.

So, taking a strong stance on the idea that Jesus did not abolish the law, is it accurate to say (and this is what I would want to say, especially were I in dialogue with one of my Jewish friends on the Church) that the Catholic Church still has the law? The Church has, with due authority by God, relaxed many particular disciplines but still has the exact same right to bind new disciplines: hence current Church law?

 

[Matt16_18]

Malichi4U

*I was in the Baptist church and they couldn’t or wouldn’t answer it either for 27 years. *

They can’t answer the question, because a real answer would force them to give up their beloved OSAS doctrine, and OSAS is the central doctrine of the Baptist religion.

A Baptist without OSAS is what? At the best, he would be an old fashioned Holiness movement Protestant.

 

[Vincent]

To paraphrase Jimmy Akin in The Salvation Controversy:

• There are moral precepts mentioned in the Torah that are found in the Natural Law and in the Law of Christ.
• Christians are bound to these moral precepts, not because they’re mentioned in the Torah, but because they are found in the Natural Law and in the Law of Christ.

This addresses the reasons why the dietary, ceremonial and judicial precepts mentioned in the Torah (which are without a moral aspect) are not binding on Christians: because they are not found in the Natural Law, nor in the Law of Christ.

 

[Adam_D]

Vincent:

To paraphrase Jimmy Akin in The Salvation Controversy:

• There are moral precepts mentioned in the Torah that are found in the Natural Law and in the Law of Christ.
• Christians are bound to these moral precepts, not because they’re mentioned in the Torah, but because they are found in the Natural Law and in the Law of Christ.

This addresses the reasons why the dietary, ceremonial and judicial precepts mentioned in the Torah (which are without a moral aspect) are not binding on Christians: because they are not found in the Natural Law, nor in the Law of Christ.

Hi Vincent. This is precisely where I think we get into trouble, because it leads to the thought that certain laws were automatically null and void. What I want to emphasize is that no law (the dietary, ceremonial etc.) was ever automatically null and void. It is because they were not moral precepts that the Church has authority to modify them. But the Church must in fact modify them for them to cease being binding on Christians. Similarly, celibacy is not morally necessary for priests, but it is still a binding law of practice precisely because we do still have the law. If we declare that all of the non-moral laws, by nature of being non-moral laws ceased to be binding, for that reason of their being non-moral, then we are led to the assumption that there is no longer an authority in the Church for believing that non-moral laws may now be binding on Christians. But there certainly are such laws.

I’m not about to say that Jimmy Akin is wrong (nor you, though I find your statement after your paraphrase a little problematic) just that his statements should be nuanced.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Isn’t this also a stumbling block for those who practice Saturday worship?

 

[germys9]

Adam D:

Hi Vincent. This is precisely where I think we get into trouble, because it leads to the thought that certain laws were automatically null and void. What I want to emphasize is that no law (the dietary, ceremonial etc.) was ever automatically null and void. It is because they were not moral precepts that the Church has authority to modify them. But the Church must in fact modify them for them to cease being binding on Christians. Similarly, celibacy is not morally necessary for priests, but it is still a binding law of practice precisely because we do still have the law. If we declare that all of the non-moral laws, by nature of being non-moral laws ceased to be binding, for that reason of their being non-moral, then we are led to the assumption that there is no longer an authority in the Church for believing that non-moral laws may now be binding on Christians. But there certainly are such laws.

I’m not about to say that Jimmy Akin is wrong (nor you, though I find your statement after your paraphrase a little problematic) just that his statements should be nuanced.

Adam, what you are saying makes sense to me too. Obviously, circumcision wasn’t automatically null and void or there wouldn’t have been so much confusion over it. It wasn’t until Peter, as head of Christ’s church, said it was unneccesary that they formally did away with it. Also, Peter’s moment of inconsistency when he ate with the Jews (inconsistency because he had taught against it) keeping the dietary laws, shows that the apostles (being first Jewish) had to decide to do away with some of the ritual observances.

 

[Matt16_18]

Obviously, circumcision wasn’t automatically null and void or there wouldn’t have been so much confusion over it. It wasn’t until Peter, as head of Christ’s church, said it was unneccesary that they formally did away with it.

Good point. If one reads Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there is no easy way to see which laws are disciplinary and subject to change, and which are laws involving morality that are irrevocable. For a Catholic, this is not a problem. We have the teaching authority of Christ’s Church that we can turn to for infallible guidance. But for the Protestants who have all rejected the temporal authority of Christ’s Church, this is a huge problem. Some Protestants think that it is now just fine and dandy to ordain lesbians as priests, and other Protestants are teaching that it is sinful to eat eating shellfish and pork.

Protestantism is the chaos of ever shifting norms of morality - one generation is taught that it is sinful to practice artificial contraception and to seek a divorce, another generation is taught the opposite. Moral confusion reigns supreme in the Protestant world.

 

[Adam_D]

Pre-script: I just re-read my post above (#11) and I must apologize for it. It is so redundant it’s painful (I was rushing myself as I needed to leave for work). Anyhow, I shouldn’t write so terribly in this post as I have no time pressure. Not that I expect my writing to be pretty, but I think it’s at least adequate

Post #15: I am growing rather skeptical of my own argument in this thread. The topic was sort of discussed in the Ask an Apologist forum here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4837&referrerid=114

It directed me to the Catechism, which sort of addresses the idea on this thread (especially paragraphs 1950-1974 and 2053 which Mr. Blackburn quotes). Now, the Catechism doesn’t tell me I’m wrong on this subject, but it fails to provide anything which substantiates my idea. What the Catechism does is to stress how the Old Law points toward the Christ. And it stresses how we come to fully understand the importance of the law when we understand Jesus Christ. It seems that the Catechism says that it is in this way (of allowing deeper understanding of the Old Law) particularly that Jesus fulfills without abolishing the Law. And Mr. Blackburn, drawing from the Catechism (as any good apologist should) stresses this same idea.

“The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment.” (CCC 2053).

Now, that makes perfect sense to me … but it just seems like an incomplete answer for the reasons you guys, Matt16_18 and germys9 helped flesh out. The early Church sure acted like the Old Law was still in effect until officially absolved by the Church, despite that they knew Jesus as intimately as anybody ever has. And it makes sense of the fact that the Church today binds us with prescriptions that are very much like those of the OT which the apostles dissolved. So if the Church does still have the law (and it is the same law, though different in its particulars) why is that not mentioned in the Catechism? Is it mentioned in Church councils? If it’s true it seems like it should be something of a big deal. But it’s precisely because I can’t find any discussion on the matter that I’m starting to doubt this idea … and that’s kind of ticking me off cuz I really like the idea and it seems like it could be so useful, apologetically.

So, can anybody elaborate any more on the matter either to show me that I definitely am out of line to say that the law of the OT is still exercised by the Catholic Church, or to show me where an authority in the Church has validated this perspective? Should I direct the matter to the CA apologists?

 

[Matt16_18]

Adam D

*So, taking a strong stance on the idea that Jesus did not abolish the law, is it accurate to say (and this is what I would want to say, especially were I in dialogue with one of my Jewish friends on the Church) that the Catholic Church still has the law? *

To be accurate about the laws in the OT, I think that you would have to distinguish between the moral laws, and the laws that were placed upon the Jews as corporate penance for their transgressions against God.

The moral laws reflect the moral absolutes, and they cannot ever change. It is a moral absolute that adultery is never permissible, and it is a moral absolute the killing of the innocent is never permissible. Those moral laws that reflect the moral absolutes apply to all men in all eras.

The penitential laws of the OT were temporary laws that were satisfied by Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for sin. For example, the Jews were given the kosher dietary laws as corporate penance for their offences against God. Kosher dietary laws are rules of discipline that had a time and a purpose - they are not moral absolutes that cannot be changed. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, says that these penitential laws were “added because of transgressions”, and that they were only in effect until Christ appeared.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made …
Gal. 3:19

Jesus satisfied all the transgressions of men through the atoning sacrifice of the cross, and thus removed all the OT laws added for transgressions. Jesus’ death on the cross certainly didn’t give men the freedom to commit adultery and to murder the innocent!

• The Church has, with due authority by God, relaxed many particular disciplines but still has the exact same right to bind new disciplines: hence current Church law?*

Absolutely. Men still commit transgressions that bring about the temporal punishment due to sin. The church has the authority to define the conditions that must be met to satisfy the temporal punishment due to sin. For example, the church has the authority from God to specify the penitential works necessary to receive an indulgence. A Catholic can to the works of penance necessary to obtain that indulgence, and then apply that sacrifice to satisfy the temporal punishment due to sin to relieve the suffering of a soul in purgatory.

Of course, not all church laws are about penance. For example, there were disciplinary laws in the OT that had to do with the requirements of the liturgical practices of the Temple. The Temple liturgies were types that found their fulfillment in the antitypes of the NT liturgical practices. The Church has the authority to define liturgical practices so that what is presented to God is offered with the dignity due to God.

 

[dcdurel]

Adam D:

So if the Church does still have the law (and it is the same law, though different in its particulars) why is that not mentioned in the Catechism? Is it mentioned in Church councils? If it’s true it seems like it should be something of a big deal. But it’s precisely because I can’t find any discussion on the matter that I’m starting to doubt this idea … and that’s kind of ticking me off cuz I really like the idea and it seems like it could be so useful, apologetically.

So, can anybody elaborate any more on the matter either to show me that I definitely am out of line to say that the law of the OT is still exercised by the Catholic Church, or to show me where an authority in the Church has validated this perspective? Should I direct the matter to the CA apologists?

The Church changed nothing of the Old Testament Law. Remember how Jesus said:
Mt 5:18 “For truly, I say to you,
till heaven and earth pass away,
not an iota, not a dot, will pass
from the law until all is
accomplished.”

All this confused me for years. Scott Hahn helped clear it up.
What happens is that the Old Testament Law was given by God to Moses for the Isrealites only. Only the Isrealites had to keep the Passover, and the specific feast days, circumcision etc. This Law of Moses, also incorporated the moral laws, as in the ten commandments, which all mankind must keep. But these moral laws were part of the natural law that God wrote in our hearts. For example, when Cain killed Abel, he knew that he sinned, even though God had not given the Law of Moses yet. The Ten Commandments were just the moral law written down.
When Jesus came, He instituted a new Covenant, and a new law of the Gospel, as taught by the Church. When a Jew became a Christian, he passed from being under the Law of Moses, to being under the Gospel as taught by the Church. In other words, he was no longer under the authority of the Law of Moses, he was now under the teachings of the Gospel, as taught by the Church. Just as when a person moves from one state, such as Louisiana, to another state, such as California. After a year or so, he is no longer under the laws of Louisiana, he is now under the laws of California. The laws of the states have not changed, the authority of those laws over the person changed. So, the Law of Moses will never change, as Jesus said. When we become Christians we come under the law of Christ. A Christian is never under the Law of Moses, When Jews become Christians, they pass from being under the authority of the Law of Moses, to being under the Law of Christ. Thus, they no longer have to follow the ceremonial and ritual laws of the Law of Moses. They still follow the moral teachings of the Law of Moses, because those laws are part of the natural law and existed before Moses, and they will always exist and Jesus, of course, incorporated them, and even expanded upon them in His new law. So, the Law of Moses never changed from the time of Jesus, and never will change, and the Chuch never changed them. Jesus instituted a New Law, for Christians, which expanded upon the moral law of the Law of Moses, and which has its own ceremonial and rituals and sacraments.
So these are two different sets of laws, under two different covenents, with the moral teachings in common, and in fact the moral teachings apply to everyone in the world, whether they are Christian or not and God will judge everyone by those teachings.

 

[Emmaus]

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
John 4:21-26 "Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman *said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus *said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

The Council of Trent on Justification
Chapter VII
…
“For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.
For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.
For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[James2:20] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[Gal 5:6; 6:15]
This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.
Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[Matt 19:17]
Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are commanded, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe[Luke 15:22] given them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and may have life eternal.”
…

Canon 18.
“If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace impossible to observe, let him be anathema.
Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

 

[Emmaus]

Part 1 of 2

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
John 4:21-26 "Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman *said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus *said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

The Council of Trent on Justification
Chapter VII
…
“For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.
For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.
For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[James2:20] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[Gal 5:6; 6:15]
This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give.
Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[Matt 19:17]
Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are commanded, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe[Luke 15:22] given them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and may have life eternal.”
…

Canon 18.
“If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace impossible to observe, let him be anathema.
Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.
Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

continued in part 2

 

[Emmaus]

Part 2 of 2

To say that The Torah (Mosaic Law), which contains the ceremonial and moral law, as a whole is done away with is not the same thing as saying that all it’s constituant parts are done away with.

"The point of difference is evident. The other Commandments of the Decalogue (other than the third about the Sabbath) are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

“This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfilment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the Sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh. The observance of the Sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. Having been, as it were, images which foreshadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Jesus Christ. Hence St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, when reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: You observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps I have laboured in vain amongst you. And he writes to the same effect to the Colossians”

The Roman Catechism
also know as
The Catechism of the Council of Trent,
section on the Third Commandment, oberseving the Sabbath.