Need help understanding Col 2:16-23 from a Catholic perspective

[sambos671]

As I was reviewing this passaged from the bible; it seems to be a criticism on how Catholicism is currently practiced. Now I am certain at the time it referred to gnostics but the principles can seem to cross from the gnostics to current practice of tradition. Can someone help me reason this out? here is the passage:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

By my understanding of this passage Jewish limitations on drink and holidays were valid because they foreshadowed Jesus’ 1st advent. However, since Jesus Chist has come fulness is in him alone and these things are no longer of import. Which would make me question two of the six precepts of the Catholic Church primarily

To go to Mass and refrain from servile work on Sundays and holy days…To observe the days of fasting and abstinence

Please be patient with me and help me to work through this. Relatively, I’m a new revert. But I’m open to honest instruction. Let me continue with the passage.

18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

It seems then as now there are all these “angelic apparitions” though then I’m certain is was more a phenominon with the gnostics however, with all our angelic visions such as at Fatima and others it does seem that our faith maybe over wrought with this type of thing. people bowing and kneeling penitently whether they are humble or not but seemingly to give a sense of piety which may be false. We have many angelic prayers and litanies to the angels. So I of course wonder.

19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

which I can enjoin; that we make the sign of the cross before every prayer, we must genuflect before entering our pew and after leaving it, all of the host must be consumed even crumbs, I must respond in a certain way in prayers, I must follow a certian format to obtain a plenary indulgence while performing the stations of the cross or the rosary, I must announce the time from my last confession, I must handle the holy objects in a certain manner… ad infinitum. wouldn’t it seem this passages is saying of this behavior and actions with in our church that

Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

I would appreciate a well thought out answer. Thank you.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m sure someone will give a more complete explanation later on, but at the moment the best I can do is refer you to the Douay Rheims and give a brief comment. The wording is somewhat different, of course, but mainly I think the foot notes are helpful as they give some context:

drbo.org/chapter/58002.htm

It seems that Paul was referring to the Jewish clean/unclean meats thing, and Jewish tradition in general, and saying that Christians shouldn’t hold to those or try to create their own equivalents out of a sense of false piety. I also doubt he is referring to legitimate Church feasts and the like (especially since Christ himself set one up with the whole “do this in remembrance of me” thing during the last supper), but to random people trying to add on more that is not necessary to what people are required to do because of false piety or superstition.

 

[Carlan]

It seems that Paul was referring to the Jewish clean/unclean meats thing, and Jewish tradition in general, and saying that Christians shouldn’t hold to those or try to create their own equivalents out of a sense of false piety. I also doubt he is referring to legitimate Church feasts and the like

I think you are right Iron D. The New Covenant and Christ is the message of the Gospel and we are set free from the old way. The worship practice of Christ’s Apostolic Church gives Glory to God in the Trinity alone. And it is pleasing to the Father! Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Again Sam, this is not the way the Apostolic Church worships , with the false humility and such. It is wonderful that you are back home again. God’s blessing as you continue your walk with Him, Peace, Carlan

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As I was reviewing this passaged from the bible; it seems to be a criticism on how Catholicism is currently practiced. Now I am certain at the time it referred to gnostics but the principles can seem to cross from the gnostics to current practice of tradition. Can someone help me reason this out? here is the passage:

I think the passage is strictly referring to Jews and Jewish Law.

By my understanding of this passage Jewish limitations on drink and holidays were valid because they foreshadowed Jesus’ 1st advent. However, since Jesus Chist has come fulness is in him alone and these things are no longer of import.

Jesus himself followed those rules for 33 years before his fullness replaced them.
But, since they were replaced – then we are obligated to follow the replacement.

Which would make me question two of the six precepts of the Catholic Church primarily Please be patient with me and help me to work through this. Relatively, I’m a new revert. But I’m open to honest instruction. Let me continue with the passage.

It seems then as now there are all these “angelic apparitions” though then I’m certain is was more a phenominon with the gnostics however, with all our angelic visions such as at Fatima and others it does seem that our faith maybe over wrought with this type of thing. people bowing and kneeling penitently whether they are humble or not but seemingly to give a sense of piety which may be false. We have many angelic prayers and litanies to the angels. So I of course wonder.

The angelic apparitions at Fatima are not binding laws upon us. It isn’t a sin to not follow directions from Fatima that belong to Fatima alone. The burning bush, the pillar and cloud, the vision of God on the mountain – are what is meant by the apparitions of angels in the past before St. Paul wrote those words. However, would you disobey the 10 commandments which are also delivered by angels in the thought of St. Paul’s day?

I caution you about St. Paul’s writings – he writes concretely, and if taken too literally – you will find his teaching hypocritical. (He was a Pharisee blinded to help him control his tongue, after all). Consider, St. Paul became quite angry at St. Peter for following Jewish custom and preferring to eat with Jews alone when they came – rather then mix in Gentiles – something Peter surely did to keep peace with Jews – YET – St. Paul himself commits the same kind of act when he circumcises a man for the sake of impressing the Jews in a certain way. A far more permanent change than saying “I am eating elsewhere tonight.”

Do these thoughts help you with your question at all?

 

[sambos671]

First, thanks for all those helping work through these passages.

I think the passage is strictly referring to Jews and Jewish Law. Jesus himself followed those rules for 33 years before his fullness replaced them.
But, since they were replaced – then we are obligated to follow the replacement.

I understand the Jewish referrence though I wonder what drink was prohibitive to the Jews other than blood or was blood in mind comparing it to the Eucharist? Second the natural question is why do away with one law and bring in another? Why would Jesus complain about Halakah or Jewish law regarding proceedure to establish another one just as binding?

The angelic apparitions at Fatima are not binding laws upon us. It isn’t a sin to not follow directions from Fatima that belong to Fatima alone. The burning bush, the pillar and cloud, the vision of God on the mountain – are what is meant by the apparitions of angels in the past before St. Paul wrote those words. However, would you disobey the 10 commandments which are also delivered by angels in the thought of St. Paul’s day?

The first part I understand. But often these angelic visions are what many Catholics uses as an evangelical tool. Thats why I had consern with the passage. I thought the 10 commandments where handed down by God himself writing on the stone.

I

caution you about St. Paul’s writings – he writes concretely, and if taken too literally – you will find his teaching hypocritical. (He was a Pharisee blinded to help him control his tongue, after all). Consider, St. Paul became quite angry at St. Peter for following Jewish custom and preferring to eat with Jews alone when they came – rather then mix in Gentiles – something Peter surely did to keep peace with Jews – YET – St. Paul himself commits the same kind of act when he circumcises a man for the sake of impressing the Jews in a certain way. A far more permanent change than saying “I am eating elsewhere tonight.”

certainly you make a good point.

Do these thoughts help you with your question at all?

Yes somewhat.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First, thanks for all those helping work through these passages.

I understand the Jewish referrence though I wonder what drink was prohibitive to the Jews other than blood or was blood in mind comparing it to the Eucharist? Second the natural question is why do away with one law and bring in another? Why would Jesus complain about Halakah or Jewish law regarding proceedure to establish another one just as binding?

Many of the pagan societies either drank blood, or ate meat with the blood in it, or even boiled meat of a kid goat in its mother’s milk, and so forth as part of their religion. See Acts 15:13-20, & acts 21:25 Surely, though, vs. 20 does not apply to the Eucharistic drink which is substantially blood in meaning. So, when a prohibition against blood is mentioned, it often is not as absolute as the sentence would make it appear. St. Paul, whom you are quoting, also was aware of the meaning of the decision in Acts 15, see: Romans 14:13-21. So that even though one ought not to judge another for eating or drinking, there is a duty to look out for the conscience of your brother. (Which makes St. Peter’s eating with the Jews apart from Gentiles even more of a sensitivity issue.)
See also: 1Cori 8:4-11, 10:16 , 11:25

The passage you are looking at in Colos 2:16 is also a qualified excuse. Notice that he says “therefore”. That means, consistent with his other remarks, that he sees some types of eating and drinking as still worthy of being judged. The danger lies in ignorance of exactly what he is talking about in Vs. 15.

Regarding Jesus, a separate issue, the law given to Moses after the commandments was from the very start intended to be replaced. It was a temporary, provisional law.
Find an example of Jesus complaining about the law, and post a clarifying detail about what you mean in that way. If you do, I will be able to add a more useful answer to you.

The first part I understand. But often these angelic visions are what many Catholics uses as an evangelical tool. Thats why I had consern with the passage. I thought the 10 commandments where handed down by God himself writing on the stone.

And you are right – but how did he do it? God the Father has no body, that is why the Israelites were forbidden to make an image of him. What then, was the pillar and the cloud – which is called “God”'s appearance in the desert? And how did the Father (?) “write” the commandments on stone using a solitary (one) finger? The Father was never a man to have a body – he created the body.

St. Paul is inserting the word “angel” to represent that which could be seen and act at a place in space and time. It is How God made the bush burn, or the finger write the command, or even his voice appear above the ark. (Hebrew 1:7,2:1-3). In the original stories we are NOT told it is an angel – But St. Paul tells us they were. He is answering the question of “How” it was done – but not “who” is most responsible. (See Galatians 3:19, 4:14, 1Timo3:16)

But not all angels are Good, and there are messengers that are mere men too – that can have the name “angel”. Does this bother you?

I
certainly you make a good point.

Yes somewhat.

Well, lets discuss it a bit more and see how things improve/worsen.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[thistle]

As I was reviewing this passaged from the bible; it seems to be a criticism on how Catholicism is currently practiced. Now I am certain at the time it referred to gnostics but the principles can seem to cross from the gnostics to current practice of tradition. Can someone help me reason this out? here is the passage:

By my understanding of this passage Jewish limitations on drink and holidays were valid because they foreshadowed Jesus’ 1st advent. However, since Jesus Chist has come fulness is in him alone and these things are no longer of import. Which would make me question two of the six precepts of the Catholic Church primarily Please be patient with me and help me to work through this. Relatively, I’m a new revert. But I’m open to honest instruction. Let me continue with the passage.

It seems then as now there are all these “angelic apparitions” though then I’m certain is was more a phenominon with the gnostics however, with all our angelic visions such as at Fatima and others it does seem that our faith maybe over wrought with this type of thing. people bowing and kneeling penitently whether they are humble or not but seemingly to give a sense of piety which may be false. We have many angelic prayers and litanies to the angels. So I of course wonder.

which I can enjoin; that we make the sign of the cross before every prayer, we must genuflect before entering our pew and after leaving it, all of the host must be consumed even crumbs, I must respond in a certain way in prayers, I must follow a certian format to obtain a plenary indulgence while performing the stations of the cross or the rosary, I must announce the time from my last confession, I must handle the holy objects in a certain manner… ad infinitum. wouldn’t it seem this passages is saying of this behavior and actions with in our church that
I would appreciate a well thought out answer. Thank you.

See D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

haydock1859.tripod.com/id213.html

 

[theden]

Hello,

I’m fairly new to this but I wanted to add my 2 cents.

The key to Colossians 2 isn’t found in verses 16-23. It’s found in verses 6-7.

“So, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in him, Rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.”

So, we must walk in Christ and do everything that’s taught by him. Be it obeying the new Sabbath by going to mass or honoring Mary, etc. Regarding genuflecting or doing the sign of the Cross, it’s a sign of reverence to Christ and does not detract from Him or conflict with Colossians 2 as it’ furthers our “walk in Him.”

Verse 8 continues that we not be seduced by empty, seductive philosophies that are rooted in human tradition. These would be things that take away from Christ (e.g. New Age philosophies, etc.) This is not referring to genuflecting or doing the sign of the Cross. Again, that’s showing a reverence for Christ.

In regards to Fatima, Marian apparitions aren’t declared “valid” by the Church until after they stop. Once they have stopped, they are examined for the adherence to Scripture, etc. The Fatima apparitions point us to Christ and thus were declared valid.

Regarding others kneeling or bowing “piously.” Only God knows if they are truly humble or pious. We should NOT focus on them and should only concern ourselves with our own posture. Are we being humble? Are we pious? Are we showing false humility? That’s what’s important. Let God worry about the other person’s piety.

Does this make sense?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Thedan,
Welcome to the Forums! What you are saying makes some sense to me – although I’d recommend you look up Sunday in the CCC to compare it to Sabbath. St. Paul’s writings have many subtleties that take quite a bit of studying to fully understand.

Pax Christi.
–Andrew.

 

[theden]

Hi Thedan,
Welcome to the Forums! What you are saying makes some sense to me – although I’d recommend you look up Sunday in the CCC to compare it to Sabbath. St. Paul’s writings have many subtleties that take quite a bit of studying to fully understand.

Pax Christi.
–Andrew.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the kind welcome. Yes, I understand the subtleties of Paul’s point in referencing by the Sabbath and I’m pretty well versed in the Catechism. I know Protestants who argue that our Sunday obligation is a direct conflict with Colossians 2.

I explain to them that they’re missing the point of Colossians 2 and that we are still obligated to go to Church on Sunday in reverence to Christ per Colossians 2.

Dennis

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sambos671,

I’m still willing to go into more detail if you would like.
Are the answers convincing to you / satisfying enough ?

Peace.
–Andrew.

 

[RichP]

It seems then as now there are all these “angelic apparitions” though then I’m certain is was more a phenominon with the gnostics however, with all our angelic visions such as at Fatima and others it does seem that our faith maybe over wrought with this type of thing. people bowing and kneeling penitently whether they are humble or not but seemingly to give a sense of piety which may be false. We have many angelic prayers and litanies to the angels. So I of course wonder.

Many non-Catholics think that Catholics worship angels, saints, Mary, the apostles, the Pope, etc. Catholics only worship God! Catholics do not worship angels! This doesn’t mean that angelic visions are wrong. People bowing and praying during an angelic vision are only following the example of the angels in how they worship God.

The prayers and litanies to angels are not angel worship. They are petitions asking them to intercede with God on our behalf. I hope this helps!

Peace,

 

[Sneakypete]

…caution you about St. Paul’s writings – he writes concretely, and if taken too literally – you will find his teaching hypocritical. (He was a Pharisee blinded to help him control his tongue, after all). Consider, St. Paul became quite angry at St. Peter for following Jewish custom and preferring to eat with Jews alone when they came – rather then mix in Gentiles – something Peter surely did to keep peace with Jews – YET – St. Paul himself commits the same kind of act when he circumcises a man for the sake of impressing the Jews in a certain way. A far more permanent change than saying "I am eating elsewhere tonight

It may be of interest to you to see what St Peter advised believers about the writings of St Paul.

2 Peter 2: 14-18

*Therefore, beloved, since you await these things, be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace.
15
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16
speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17
Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18
But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.) *

I am not trying to cast any doubts or discredit what St Paul teaches. It is important that we consider carefully what he says in light of what one interprets. I have found that many of our Evalgelical brothers and sisters use the writings of St Paul to discredit what the Church teaches and impose a totally different and opposing set of doctrine. Examples would be the rapture and baptism is symbolic not salvic and of course the symbolism of the Eucharist. We need to consider the words of St. Peter.

Hope that adds to the discussion

Mike

 

[kentuckyliz]

In Paul’s time, angels were called sons of God, so it was causing confusion about THE son of God. Hopefully that interpretive key helps you understand what Paul is saying.

 

[sambos671]

Sambos671,

I’m still willing to go into more detail if you would like.
Are the answers convincing to you / satisfying enough ?

Peace.
–Andrew.

Actually, I would like more discourse on this matter.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Actually, I would like more discourse on this matter.

OK. Let me add one passage for you to look over, first, as what I have given you so far is examples of God saying he makes his angels “fire” and “wind”, etc. But there is a far stronger example given to us by St. Stephen, the martyr – the very one St. Paul consented to his stoning, before being corrected by God.

Look at his testimony:
Acts 6:15 … saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel…
Acts 7:30 And when fourty years had passed, there appeared to [Moses] him, in the desert of mount Sinai, an angel in flame of fire in a bush.
Acts 7:31 And Moses seeing it wondered at the sight. And as he drew near to view it, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying,
…
Acts 7:35 … Him [Moses] God sent to be prince and redeemer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the burning bush.
…
Acts 7:38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness,** with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai** and with our fathers. Who received the words of life to give unto us.
…
Acts 7:42 And God turned and gave** them up to serve the host of heaven**, as it is written in the books of the prophets: Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years, in the desert, O house of Israel?
…
Acts 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and **have not kept it. **

Now, what details do you wish to discourse about?

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[sambos671]

Now, what details do you wish to discourse about?

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

Let me break it down how I understand it thus far.

Col 2:16-17

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Paul is therefore admonishing new Christians to not let the “Jews”; or “Judiazers” looked down upon them because of or worry them with specifically Judaic laws as governed in Torah with regard to eating, drinking, and festivals because these all “foreshadow” what Jesus Christ has done for us. As per our discussion “drink” is not a referrence to Eucharist but specifically blood or the mixture of blood in drink. Therefore Pork prohibitions, and blood prohibitions aren’t really in effect. Neither are the specific “traditional” jewish Holidays used to trump Christian celebration (such as the 8th day). Because in effect these things were proclimations of Jesus’ first advent since this advent has occured and is fulfilled the holidays of proclimation are of no effect. This doesn’t prohibit making of new holidays but the days such as passover have been replaced by the Pascha. Ok I think I got that. Now the following passages

18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

Now your argument is that since God uses angels to facilitate his interaction with men and perform his will where they are required Angels in and of themselves aren’t bad things which are venerated. However, Paul uses the term “worship the messangers”. Which I think to be better understood what he was thinking is to take a look at second temple period writings and literature. Since the previous verse context had to do with Jewish law I suppose a judaic “worship” of angles is at issue here. Well we don’t see in the intertestimental period a “worship of angels” like the failed kings Ahab and Manasseh. So the context of Paul must be different then a catholic understanding of providing Latria to Angels. What we do find in the inter testimental period is the Maccabeans calling upon the unnamed angel during Hezikiahs time. This seems to match the Dulos view with regard to Angelic personages. We see the assistance of Raphael in Tobit, the Names and purposes of the Angels in 1 Enoch and the Talmud prohibts a conjuration of Angles. So I can only assume in Pauls time he’s referring to a dulos “worship” of Angels where by a person has seen a “messanger” of God and gives defference to the vision implied by that where by Paul later says in the chapter

Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen

So, I’m still in question of this matter. Also to bring it full circle to the first point what of Paul who latter says

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

seeming to indicate since Christ return why the restraint, fasting, treating objects as holy ext…?

 

[beafedor]

Hello, one way I would like to answer is naively copy/paste the footnotes in my Bible about these verses:
Col 2:16-23 Footnotes:
[16] Festival or new moon or sabbath: yearly, monthly, and weekly observances determined by religious powers associated with a calendar set by the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, and stars (cf Col 2:8).

[18] Ascetic practices encouraged by the false teachers included subjection of self humbly to their rules, worship of angels, and cultivation of visions, though exact details are unclear.

Col 2:8 with Footnote:
“See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world 3 and not according to Christ.”
[8] Elemental powers of the world: see the note on Gal 4:3.

Gal 4:3 with Footnote:
“In the same way we also, when we were not of age, were enslaved to the elemental powers of the world.”
[3] The elemental powers of the world: while the term can refer to the “elements” like earth, air, fire, and water or to elementary forms of religion, the sense here is more likely that of celestial beings that were thought in pagan circles to control the world; cf Gal 4:8; Col 2:8, 20.

Gal 4:8 with Footnote:
“At a time when you did not know God, you became slaves to things that by nature are not gods”
[8-11] On the basis of the arguments advanced from Gal 3:1 through Gal 4:7, Paul now launches his appeal to the Galatians with the question, how can you turn back to the slavery of the law (Gal 4:9)? The question is posed with reference to bondage to the elemental powers (see the note on Gal 4:3) because the Galatians had originally been converted to Christianity from paganism, not Judaism (Gal 4:8). The use of the direct question is like Gal 3, 3-5.

[8] Things that by nature are not gods: or “gods that by nature do not exist.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians4.htm#foot5

 

[ryanoneil]

Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ. (Col 2:16-17)

He is not saying we go from something old to nothing new. The shadow that was supposed to be observed is replaced by the reality. These ritual practices of the Old Covenant were mere “shadows” of the greater “reality” to come with Christ and the sacraments of the New Covenant.