Why Catholics Can Eat Pork.....Help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salena

Guest
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
 
Excellent quetion… I have ofter wondered that, myself. I asked a pastor that and he also referred me to Acts 10. At the time I was satisfied with the answer until one day I sat down and read the Book of Acts. Then the Chapter was put into context for me, and found out that it had nothing to do with dietary law. It was completely and totally about the equal salvation of the Gentiles.

So I guess it’s safe to say, I am also curious about the same thing. Still waiting for scriptural reference to this…
 
Why does your brother think eating pork is evil? Does he believe we must adhere to the Law of Moses – or of Christ? Does he not understand that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New??? :confused:
 
Right on sheen. If we must do everything of the mosaic law then all men must be circumcised etc. Paul not only talks about gentiles also being saved but that they don’t have to follow every single thing in the mosaic law. We still use the 10 commandments etc. but our priests don’t have to come from aaron’s line etc. hope this helps.👍 Peace and Gb
 
Jim was corrrect, your brother is not.

Jesus specifically talked about food.:Cathechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
» SECTION TWO: THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
» CHAPTER TWO: I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
» ARTICLE 4: “JESUS CHRIST SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DIED AND WAS BURIED”
» Paragraph 1. Jesus and Israel
» I. JESUS AND THE LAW

582 Going even further, 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. . .” 346 In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it. 347 This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbour, 348 which his own healings did.
Notes:

346 Mk 7:18-21; cf. Gal 3:24.

347 Cf. Jn 5:36; 10:25, 37-38; 12:37.

348 Cf. Num 28 9; Mt 12:5; Mk 2:25-27; Lk 13:15-16; 14:3-4; Jn 7:22-24.
 
The dietary laws were not for Gentiles, but for Jews. The only dietary laws that applies to Gentiles is the abstaining from blood, and to refrain from eating the limbs of a live animal.

The dietary laws that apply to Gentiles are a part of the Noachide laws. Most of the Old Testamnent laws never applied to Gentiles. Gentiles only had to keep 7 laws to sojourn in Israel.

If you need more info, visit www.7for70.com

God Bless,

~achaean
 
From the Council of Florence:
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.
 
JoaoMachado,
Their (my brother and sister----both no longer Catholic) argument has to do with with verse 28 of Acts. 10.
“…But God has shown me that I must not consider any person ritually unclean or defiled.” Does this not refer to the vision he just had? From what I read it’s not about food, it’s about people.
I don’t care if they don’t eat pork, but I do want to understand how the Catholic Church interprets this verse.

All of you were helpful and I very much appreciate it!!!
Thanks,
Gina
 
The vision refers both to eating one of the more tasty things God has given us (mmm, sausage :dancing: ), but also that Gentiles are to be preached to as well. Scripture can mean more than one thing.
 
Mark 7:18-19 (RSV)
18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

The inspired evangelist Mark, disciple of Peter, logically infers this from the words of Christ. How much more do we need?
 
Gina, IMO your brother is not objectively reading the text of either of these passages, but especially Mark 7. Some of this response will be copied from a post I had made previously on another thread, so if you have already read it, I apologize. First, I am not arguing that the conversation does not begin in the context of washing hands… what those who don’t eat pork seem to fail to see is that Christ uses this as a springboard for another teaching. First, notice that the Jews in the first three verses only considered the hands “unclean” not the people. No where in the first three verses does anyone say that eating without washing makes the person unclean… it is only against a custom and therefore looked down upon to feed yourself with “hands that were unclean”, the customs also included washing the cups, pitchers etc… No where did the Jews claim that this made the person unclean in these verses.

Next… we find Jesus scolding them for holding to the traditions of men (the whole hand washing tradition) and not holding to commands from God. He then uses this and launches this even further and discusses the cleanliness of the whole person, rather than just the hands as the Jews were doing. Jesus is taking this further then the Jews did. Jesus brought up the idea of the person being clean, as opposed to just the hands. You see, the Jews were worried about the hands, Christ chastised them and worried about the whole being. Often those who advocate not eating pork, like SDA’s, are stuck on the first three verses and ignore the rest of the chapter based on the first three verses. I encourage you to continue reading!

Now, the apostles also had a hard time with what Christ was saying. Like those who still hold ot he jewish dietary laws today, they did not want to take what he was saying at face value. Christ had to go so far as to call the disciples “dull” for not realizing that what goes into a man (food goes into a man right?) can not make him unclean. If you notice, once Jesus condemns them for worrying about the traditions of their elders in washing hands, he does not even talk about that again, he moves to the subject of the whole person! Mark then adds the practical implication of Christ’s teaching for us, so there would be no question, when he says “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.”. There is not question about the context, because Mark clears that right up!! Mark determines that context and meaning of Christ’s teachings and tells us plainly it was about food being clean, not just about traditions and washing hands. To deny that is to deny the clear Word of God.

cont
 
God declared to Noah that ALL living beasts were given to man for food in the book of Genesis. SDA’s and other “clean food” advocates often claim that God’s law, ie dietary laws, cannot change. If God’s law cannot change, why did He tell Noah to eat anything, then tell Moses he could only eat clean meats. One of two things… either the Bible recorded it wrong, or their belief that the dietary laws can’t change is wrong.

As a Catholic it is our desire to accept all the Bible, and therefore understand that it is ok, for your brother and others to choose not to eat certain things. We believe this because Romans 14: 1-4, says “1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not,** and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him” ** again in verse 20 he says: "Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. "

Then take him to 1 Timothy, and explain that while you understand he is a Christian, and loves God, that so do you!! And that you understand what Paul had to say about people who taught that you had to abstain from certain foods. That is in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 "1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
"
Again, explain that you do not think he has any ill purpose, however, you feel that he has been misled on the effects of Christ’s death and the freedom it has given us to live our lives as Christians, not according to the Jewish customs.

Finally, I would then take him back to Mark 7:19, which we talked about above. Now that he has seen it in other places in scripture, it is easier to point out that Christ himself, according to the Apostle Mark, taught that ALL FOODS were clean, this is a common theme throughout the NT. If one wipes away their pre-conceived notions about meats and dietary laws, this one verse taken by its plain reading is a clear teaching! “19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) "

brandon
 
Brother Brandon, good to see you again:), another excellent post, by the way!

Findnmway, huh, I go with what brandon said 👍.

The one thing about apologetics, is that everyone has different issues to work out, Mary for instance is no problem for some, everything for others. The whole pork thing (dietary laws) is an interesting one. IMO, not one law given to Israel, was given “just because”, if you get confronted, ask this question “What does the Dietary Laws mean?” You stick it to them and hold them to give you an answer. Then you tell them that we know that it was OK to eak pork before, as Brandon noted, so what was the reason for these dietary restrictions?
Then have them read the Epistle Of Barnabas.

TheTruth is out there! (The Pork Files)😃

Joao
 
Is the part in the brackets to be found in the originals?
Some Jews said that it must be an addendum by later Christians…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top