But why pork? I don’t understand that.The Jewish people do not eat pork. Our Lord never mentioned that we Catholics can eat pork. Where do I look this up or would you please tell me what the position is? I love pork and always eat it, but my husband is Jewish.
As to why not pork, there’s a few opinions on that. One is that pigs wallow in the mud and will eat almost anything, a symbol for living in sin. Another is that pork was unreliable as a meat because of the diseases swine carry–that’s the purely practical side of it. There are others, but I can’t recall what they are off the top of my head.But why pork? I don’t understand that.
Also, atheists always say Christians are hypocrites since they don’t follow all the OT laws anymore. Like not to wear certain clothes made with forbidden things, etc, etc, etc. Paul said the law was fulfilled when Christ died on the cross so we don’t need to follow them anymore. It’s in the book of Acts. We do need to follow the law and he listed them but not all hundred or more in the OT.
Jesus was not talking about dietary laws, but about the moral law that we all must obey.How is Matthew 5:17 - 19 so casually dismissed?:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Does Jesus not trump Paul?
Fulfill is the key word. Jesus didn’t “destroy” the law, for the law came from God, and is therefore good. The problem is that man can not be made right by the law in God’s eyes as we ALL will fall short, sin, and suffer death.How is Matthew 5:17 - 19 so casually dismissed?:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Does Jesus not trump Paul?
I’m not sure you are expressing the Christian view of the law correctly. It is not as if the law was instituted in order to summon the Messiah or something. The law had multiple purposes which are overlapping. Paul himself says in Galatians that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Gal. 5:14). As you too said, the law isn’t an end in itself as a list of ordinances (e.g. refraining from shellfish, not shaving your beard) but what it pointed to, unless you do in fact keep all the commandments of the Torah and observe all the sacrifices and ceremonies, in which case I would be very impressed, so please correct me. For that reason, I don’t think your Judaism vs. Christianity dichotomy is accurate.It seems that Christianity interprets the Law in the Hebrew Bible as pointing toward the future Messiah, or Son of G-d, as the source of salvation for humanity. Judaism, on the other hand, does not regard the Messiah as the equivalent of G-d and, just as significant, does not focus on the Law as a means to an end, that is, the coming of the Messiah. Rather, it focuses on following the Law per se as an end in that the Law teaches us how to love G-d and our neighbor. This, I think, is the crux of the distinction between Christianity and Judaism, apart from their specific doctrinal differences.
You may have misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t mean that the Law was instituted in order to summon the Messiah according to Christian teaching, but rather that the Law pointed toward the coming of the Messiah, Who would eventually fulfill the Law. BTW, the statement you cited regarding Paul (and Jesus) was said by Hillel the Elder a generation before. Further, I stated that the Law is an end in itself according to Judaism since Jewish teaching is that the purpose of the Law is to instill in the Jewish people an understanding of morality toward G-d, humanity, the animal kingdom, and the earth. But knowledge of the Law is only a first step; one must then practice the Law in one’s everyday behavior. “Studying is not the ultimate, but the doing.” And no, I do not follow the Law the way I should. Not even Torah Jews can follow the Law completely. But perfection is not required in Judaism; what is required is seeking forgiveness when one fails and making an active attempt to do better the next time.I’m not sure you are expressing the Christian view of the law correctly. It is not as if the law was instituted in order to summon the Messiah or something. The law had multiple purposes which are overlapping. Paul himself says in Galatians that “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Gal. 5:14). As you too said, the law isn’t an end in itself as a list of ordinances (e.g. refraining from shellfish, not shaving your beard) but what it pointed to, unless you do in fact keep all the commandments of the Torah and observe all the sacrifices and ceremonies, in which case I would be very impressed, so please correct me. For that reason, I don’t think your Judaism vs. Christianity dichotomy is accurate.
I do not know much about Rabbinic Judaism so I would be interested to see what they taught about the Messiah and the law through the course of history.
But St Thomas finishes by saying that you can get circumcised for other reasons than fulfilling the old law. Thus many Catholics are circumcised today as cosmetic surgery, not because it is required for salvation. St Thomas indicates clearly that it is OK to do things associated with the old law as long as they are not religious ceremonies intended for one’s salvation.It is the opinion of St. Thomas (which should not be dismissed lightly), that observing the ceremonial laws is a mortal sin.
newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article4
[/indent]
Jesus was not talking about dietary laws, but about the moral law that we all must obey.
From Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary:
Moral precepts, but not codified (as it were) law. No one has the right to do wrong, which is what God wants us to live, and not merely observe as legalists. We know from the law what constitutes wrong, but how much better is it to want to do right? One is a negative reinforcement, while the other is a positive actualization.Ver. 17. Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ’s coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. (Witham) — To fulfil.
I didn’t think you were saying that the Law was to summon the Messiah, but calling the law a “means to an end” with regards to pointing to Jesus made it sound like the law was the means by which the Messiah was to come, which sounds like summoning or something. This is compounded by you distinguishing the law as a “means to an end” with Judaism which holds that the law is “an end per se.” It is evident that you did not mean this as if the commandments of the law were the end in themselves but because of the way of living that they pointed to. Therefore, if Christianity holds the law as a “means to an end (the Messiah)” in contrast, it cannot be because the law merely prefigured him, but because the law was somehow an agent in his coming. Now, I never thought that this is what you were trying to say, but Your choiche of words was confusing, so I am telling you why I said what I did and so you don’t think I was trying to put words in your mouth. I should have been clearer in my last post.You may have misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t mean that the Law was instituted in order to summon the Messiah according to Christian teaching, but rather that the Law pointed toward the coming of the Messiah, Who would eventually fulfill the Law. BTW, the statement you cited regarding Paul (and Jesus) was said by Hillel the Elder a generation before. Further, I stated that the Law is an end in itself according to Judaism since Jewish teaching is that the purpose of the Law is to instill in the Jewish people an understanding of morality toward G-d, humanity, the animal kingdom, and the earth. But knowledge of the Law is only a first step; one must then practice the Law in one’s everyday behavior. “Studying is not the ultimate, but the doing.” And no, I do not follow the Law the way I should. Not even Torah Jews can follow the Law completely. But perfection is not required in Judaism; what is required is seeking forgiveness when one fails and making an active attempt to do better the next time.
I think St. Thomas would agree that being circumcised for medical reasons is morally permissable, but I also think you are misstating his poisition on the ceremonial law. You are referring to Reply to Objection 1 in your post. First, keep in mind that Thomas is giving two differing opinions, that of Jerome and that of Augustine.But St Thomas finishes by saying that you can get circumcised for other reasons than fulfilling the old law. Thus many Catholics are circumcised today as cosmetic surgery, not because it is required for salvation. St Thomas indicates clearly that it is OK to do things associated with the old law as long as they are not religious ceremonies intended for one’s salvation.
I am reminded that Jesus was a Jew and his family kept the old laws. Here is a way we can understand and come close to Christ to feel what it was like to be Jew in that time, like meditating on the rosary, especially the presentation, etc. Abiding by the old laws, as a Catholic for the reason of understanding the life of Christ and being closer to one’s Jewish family seems to me to be OK according to St Thomas and the apostles.
You can have some pork ribs sometimes though, do work on the Sabbath sometimes, eat some oysters, because you know that it does not jeopardize your salvation. You were living by the old laws for other valid reasons.
Perhaps it is. I hope that it is not though. It is certainly not intended to be. I guess I don’t know. But I do know that Christ did not replace the old complex laws with new complex ones. Christ gave us very simple laws. Love God. Love one another.It is my own opinion that if what you propose is not mortally sinful, it would still be an insult to Christ for the same reason Thomas gives.