I need help with this one...Eating Pork?

[Salena]

There was a question in “Ask An Apologist” about pork. Someone asked why Catholics can eat pork. This is Jim Blackburn’s response:

The Old Law was fulfilled by Jesus. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains, “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).

For example, rediscovery of the dietary law (including eating pork), is explained: “Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: ‘Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him . . .’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . . ." (CCC 582)

---

Jim Blackburn

My brother tries to interpret the bible for himself and thinks he knows it better than anyone. I sent him a copy of this and below is his response:

About the “pork” thing. I think Mr.Blackburn missed the point of the scripture he was reading…had nothing to do with eating meat, the subject was defiling one’s heart or soul…Read from the beginning Matt.15 and Mark 7, the subject was “traditions” i.e. “washing of hands before eating”,which was very unsanitary at that time, and how they were letting them defile the heart and mind, not the body, Jesus even has to break it down for the desciples, they didn’t understand it either…The scripture I like to use to backup my point of view is ACTS 10, which is also the same scripture allot of people use to justify eating pork…First off, stick to the subject, that Gentiles have the same hope for salvation as a Jew, he is not even remotely talking about pork…I think Jesus had been dead for about 3 yrs at this time, and am confident that Peter had a good grasp on what Jesus had taught… Notice what Peter says in vs.14…Did somebody forget to tell Peter that Jesus did away with that law…In vs. 28 he tells Cornelius exactly what the vision meant,had nothing to do with meat…

Is it me or does this not make sense? He keeps telling members of my family that pork is “devil food” and some of them (catholic) believes what he says. I need help! How do I respond?

Thanks!
Gina

 

[Charles]

Sometimes you just can’t win!

I thought the “Ask and apologist” answer was right on target. You may just mention Acts 15:19 if it has not already been mentioned. The council of Jerusalem did not feel it necessary to continue to the prohibition against the eating of pork.

 

[Super_Mom]

Hi findnmway;

This might help. It’s taked from a book that is a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. It’s very orthodox. Basically the Jews that converted still held onto the old way, the law of Moses. It was very engrained in them for many generations. These Christians do not properly understand that the Gospel is the new way, they think the Mosaic rites and precepts are still necessary for salvation. You will see this come up again in Acts 15 1-35. This time it will be about circumcision.

The thing to remember in Act. 10 is that food regulation and contact with Gentiles were very closely connected. An observant Jew couldn’t sit down at the table with pagans. Once the distinction between clean and unclean food was done away with, (Acts 10; 15-16) then there could be no obstacle to talking with pagans. Remember what was decided in Acts 15;28-29. No mention was made of avoiding pork, just meat offered as sacrifice. Hmmm

This decision in Acts 15 is called the Council of Jerusalem and ended the conflict with the Mosaic Law. The decision of abstaining from what was sacrificed to idols, from blood and from meat of animals killed by strangulation comes from Mosaic Law but not by virtue of that Law but by the authority of the Church which decided to apply them for the time being. The rest of the Mosaic Law was not retained, just portions of it.

Anyway I hope this helps. The problem is when we now in this century decide we will say what these passages mean and ignore 2,000 years of commentaries about them. The Catholic Church didn’t start just now yet some act like it and don’t see the development through the ages of what certain passages meant.

Hope this helps