Problem with ascetics

[Ubenedictus]

I have problem understanding ascetic practices, especially in the light of col 2:23, this passage seem to oppose these practices. Any comment, explaination or suggestion are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[bmullins]

Most ascetics don’t do it because they have to, they do it because they choose to. They dedicate that part of their lives to God as a form of fasting. It’s not about ‘having’ to do this thing for God, but choosing to want to do it for God out of love. However, I think the verse doesn’t apply to that. I think the verse is talking about Jewish practices of eating meat, etc.

The Haydock commentary says:

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink. That is, for not abstaining from meats, called unclean, for drinking out of a cup without a cover, (see Num. xix.) or for not keeping the Jewish festivals. For these were but shadows, types and figures of future things to be fulfilled in the new law of Christ: but the body is of Christ, (v. 17.) i.e. was the body, the truth, the substance signified by these shadows and types. Wi. — He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals, new moons, and sabbaths; as being no longer obligatory. Ch. — Modern dogmatizers wilfully or ignorantly misapply this text of the apostle, to disprove the fasts and festivals observed in the Catholic Church; but it is evident, as S. Austin observes, that the apostle is here condemning the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats, and the feasts of the new moon, to which false brethren wanted to subject the Colossians. S. Aug. ep. 59. ad Paulin. in solut. quæs. 7.

The Ignatius Study Bible says:

2:16 food…drink…festival…new moon…sabbath: Jewish ceremonial practices that are often grouped together in the Bible (Is. 1:13-14; Hos 2:11; Judg 8:6; 1 Mac 10:34). The first two concern kosher dietary restrictions, and the last three refer to liturgical feast days celebrated yearly (festivals), monthly (new moons), and weekly (Sabbaths). These ritual practices of the Old Covenant were mere “shadows” of the greater “substance” to come with Christ and the sacraments of the New Covenant (Col 2:17).

[bibledrb] Colossians 2:16-17[/bibledrb]

The letter was reminding them that they were not to feel condemned by their Jewish brothers for doing things in the new Christian way.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have problem understanding ascetic practices, especially in the light of col 2:23, this passage seem to oppose these practices. Any comment, explaination or suggestion are welcome. Thanks in advance.

I think the passage you cite also answers your objection, that we are not to judge the practices of others which they undertake in good faith as long as they do not contradict the teaching of the Church. And that any such practice must be undertaken in conformity with Christ, in this case, in his suffering, not for personal reasons of pride etc.

 

[TuAutem]

That passage says not to judge dietary practices, I find ironic that you use it to condemn them!

The context, though,as bmullins said, is in reference to what evolved into the Jewish kosher diet based on the Old Testament. The episode in Acts where Peter is commanded to eat unclean animals is part of the same teaching: Christians are no longer required to follow Jewish dietary laws, even though the latter come from God.

Fasting is an entirely different matter, and Paul himself fasted often (2 Cor 11:27), as of course did Christ.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Most ascetics don’t do it because they have to, they do it because they choose to. They dedicate that part of their lives to God as a form of fasting. It’s not about ‘having’ to do this thing for God, but choosing to want to do it for God out of love. However, I think the verse doesn’t apply to that. I think the verse is talking about Jewish practices of eating meat, etc.

The Haydock commentary says:

The Ignatius Study Bible says:

[bibledrb] Colossians 2:16-17[/bibledrb]

The letter was reminding them that they were not to feel condemned by their Jewish brothers for doing things in the new Christian way.

Thanks bmullins for the answer, if i’m right u seem to be interpreting v23 in the light of v16 and it’s beautiful, the problem is v23 didnt talk about the festivals and food (etc) instead it is talking about those ‘with the appearance of wisdom’ who promote ‘rigour of devotion’, ‘self abashment’ and ‘serverity to the body’ it say these practice ‘have no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh’. These words seem to describe the practice of many saints and it say they are of no value (one of the reasons the saints use ascetism was to ‘master’ the flesh). I’m a bit confused.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I think the passage you cite also answers your objection, that we are not to judge the practices of others which they undertake in good faith as long as they do not contradict the teaching of the Church. And that any such practice must be undertaken in conformity with Christ, in this case, in his suffering, not for personal reasons of pride etc.

The reason i pick v23 is bcos the verse judge such practice and say they are of no value. Thanks for the responds

 

[Ubenedictus]

That passage says not to judge dietary practices, I find ironic that you use it to condemn them!

The context, though,as bmullins said, is in reference to what evolved into the Jewish kosher diet based on the Old Testament. The episode in Acts where Peter is commanded to eat unclean animals is part of the same teaching: Christians are no longer required to follow Jewish dietary laws, even though the latter come from God.

Fasting is an entirely different matter, and Paul himself fasted often (2 Cor 11:27), as of course did Christ.

Thanks TuAutem for the responds. I do not condemn the dietary practice, the passage condemn as of no value practices such as ‘rigour of devotion and self abashment and serverity to the body’. I dont know maybe my bible alone uses those words.
Ubenedictus

 

[puzzleannie]

The reason i pick v23 is bcos the verse judge such practice and say they are of no value. Thanks for the responds

no the verse does not say that. The verse says they have no value in and of themselves, their value comes in using them as a means of conformity with Christ, and we are not to judge those who either adopt rigorous practices, nor those who don’t. Read the entire passage in its context. It is also saying works of the law (specifically the Jewish dietary and related laws) have no value if adopted merely as slavish practices enforced on the gentiles.

 

[TuAutem]

I apologise, I was looking more at v16 which was quoted above, not the v23 that you asked about, in my previous answer!

I agree entirely with puzzleannie’s answer, though. Ascetic practices have no value in and of themselves. Yet Paul practiced them, John the Baptist practiced them, heck, probably all the saints practiced them, not for their own sake, but for the sake of removing all distractions in their lives that interfere with cultivating closeness with God, and for avoiding sin. v22 explicitly says “the precepts and doctrines** of men**”, which by implication (and by v20), is in contrast to the precepts and doctrines of God.

I paste below the end of 1 Cor 6, in which I believe Paul is teaching the same thing, from the other angle: notice how constantly he emphasises, even as he gives ‘precepts’ himself, that the focus of everything he is saying is on God. I believe this Col 2 passage is stating the converse: without the focus on God, all such acts are meaningless.

"All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meat for the belly, and the belly for the meats; but God shall destroy both it and them: but the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Now God hath both raised up the Lord, and will raise us up also by his power. Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body."

 

[drforjc]

Apparently Paul had no qualms about bodily mortifications, as he states in 1 Cor 9:27

27] but I** pommel** my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

 

[puzzleannie]

neither I nor any classic spiritual writer (which I am not) said asceticsm does not have spiritual value, we said it has no value in and of itself. If it is not linked with and rooted in compassion and sharing of Christ’s suffering as Paul amply testifies in several places and ways, it is useless, vain and even dangerous.

 

[Ubenedictus]

no the verse does not say that. The verse says they have no value in and of themselves, their value comes in using them as a means of conformity with Christ, and we are not to judge those who either adopt rigorous practices, nor those who don’t. Read the entire passage in its context. It is also saying works of the law (specifically the Jewish dietary and related laws) have no value if adopted merely as slavish practices enforced on the gentiles.

Thanks u have been very helpful i think i my problem is partly solved.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Thanks TuAutem, drforjc u all were very helpful, i think my real problem is with the ‘theology of suffering’. I find it hard to understand HOW our suffering is beneficial. Thanks again.
Ubenedictus