Why do we only follow some of the old testament laws?

[TimothyH]

With this kind of question, I will tear my robes in frustration!

It was a time when human beings first became living souls and were still impressed by “burnt offerings” and that is how God communicated with them and made us men. We should try to reverence the Lord as much as they did then in some modern way!

With a screen name like that, I just had to see what your post was all about.

Billy was a personal friend of mine. We go way back.

-Tim-

 

[Dhugz]

We follow the ten commandments, but why are many of the other laws not followed?

Those Laws are for the Jews, are you a jew? I read from the Bible that St. Paul said that Laws for the Jews are for the Jews and not for the gentiles. I dont remember the verse.

 

[Viviphilia]

The original question was “Why do we only follow some of the old testament laws?”

It seems like a lot of responses here address the question of why we don’t follow most Old Testament laws, but doesn’t address why some of the laws are still followed. For example, clothing of mixed fibers is OK to wear, but clothing of the wrong gender is still forbidden. It appears that some taboos persist despite those laws being for an ancient group of people. And in addition, it appears there is selective enforcement. For example, I don’t see many Catholic complaints about women wearing pants, but if a man were to wear a dress… oh, and don’t worry about Papal robes, that’s not a dress… right?

 

[cjmclark]

The original question was “Why do we only follow some of the old testament laws?”

It seems like a lot of responses here address the question of why we don’t follow most Old Testament laws, but doesn’t address why some of the laws are still followed. For example, clothing of mixed fibers is OK to wear, but clothing of the wrong gender is still forbidden. It appears that some taboos persist despite those laws being for an ancient group of people. And in addition, it appears there is selective enforcement. For example, I don’t see many Catholic complaints about women wearing pants, but if a man were to wear a dress… oh, and don’t worry about Papal robes, that’s not a dress… right?

Show me where in the Code of Canon Law or the Catechism there is enforced any “dress code” other than one of modesty to minimize the near occasion of sin. Catholics have many laws and rules, but the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not among them. Observance of them by Catholics is a either a matter of conscious choice (as in they choose to follow laws they know they are not required to follow, perhaps as a matter of penance of some sort) or a misunderstanding of our Tradition (as in they believe they are required to follows laws that they in fact are not).

And really? The Pope in a dress bit? Come on.

 

[Viviphilia]

Show me where in the Code of Canon Law or the Catechism there is enforced any “dress code” other than one of modesty to minimize the near occasion of sin. Catholics have many laws and rules, but the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not among them. Observance of them by Catholics is a either a matter of conscious choice (as in they choose to follow laws they know they are not required to follow, perhaps as a matter of penance of some sort) or a misunderstanding of our Tradition (as in they believe they are required to follows laws that they in fact are not).

That’s an interesting perspective. I’m on this forum to learn more about this topic, so I appreciate your response. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I am under the impression that the hatred which is commonly expressed towards transsexual individuals is based on Sacred Tradition. I admit I do not know much about the concept of Sacred Tradition. Is that like the “unwritten rules” of Catholicism?

 

[cjmclark]

That’s an interesting perspective. I’m on this forum to learn more about this topic, so I appreciate your response. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I am under the impression that the hatred which is commonly expressed towards transsexual individuals is based on Sacred Tradition. I admit I do not know much about the concept of Sacred Tradition. Is that like the “unwritten rules” of Catholicism?

Hatred of any kind is baseless. We are called to love everyone in spite of their sins, as we all sin to varying degrees throughout our lives. It is important to separate the concept of hating a person for their sins from that of recognizing a person’s sins and trying to help them correct or avoid them out of a genuine concern for their soul. The first is simple hatred and has no place in Catholicism; the latter is what you will often find referred to here as “fraternal correction” and is a duty of every Catholic out of love for our fellow human beings and respect for the dignity of their persons.

Does it always happen this way? Of course not. Catholics, just like all other humans, are weak and sinful, and it doesn’t take too many steps to cross the line from fraternal correction out of love to hateful condemnation out of pride. They may learn hate at home, they may learn it in school, they may even learn it from a religious authority, who will bear ultimate responsibility for the pain caused by his erroneous teaching. The point is that hate for people is not the mission or the message of the Church as a whole, though it may be proclaimed by misguided individuals within that body. They may claim to use Church teachings as a basis for their beliefs, but that is a twisting of said teachings and is unsupported by Scripture and Tradition.

As far as what Sacred Tradition is, well, it’s everything that governs a Catholic’s faith that doesn’t directly appear in Scripture. Things like the Catechism and Canon Law, that are based in Scripture, in the teachings and practices of the early Church fathers and in Church councils and Papal encyclicals, are good examples of this. Liturgical practices (how the Mass is conducted) also fall under Tradition, as do the aforementioned ecumenical councils (Trent, Vatican I and II, et c.) and Papal encyclicals (Humanae vitae, et c.). So it’s not necessarily unwritten…you can find pretty much everything on the Vatican’s website these days.

Catholic teachings on sexuality in particular are based both in Scripture and in Tradition. This section of the Catechism discusses the basics, but for a more in-depth discussion, Bl. Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is a good (if somewhat complicated) read. The basic notion is that God ordered the male and female sexes to be complementary and that sex is intended to be a unitive- and procreative-ordered act that takes place only within marriage being between a man and a woman. All individuals (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, et c.) who do not meet those criteria are called to chastity, and are also to be treated with compassion for the cross they have been given to bear. So no, I would not say that “the hatred which is commonly expressed towards transsexual individuals is based on Sacred Tradition.”

 

[ccmnxc]

It seems like a lot of responses here address the question of why we don’t follow most Old Testament laws, but doesn’t address why some of the laws are still followed. For example, clothing of mixed fibers is OK to wear, but clothing of the wrong gender is still forbidden.

There are several types of laws in the OT. Some are liturgical which are covered in Leviticus. Some are dietary. Some set the Jews apart from other people of the time. There were also moral laws. Since we believe morality can never be relative, it follows that what was morally wrong back then would be morally wrong now. The first three types were relative to the time and culture.

 

[fred_conty]

It has been explained by others but here is my thought.

There is the Old Testiment, with old testiment laws in the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, for the old chosen people. Laws such as those in purification rites, the washings, and those of clean and unclean food, and all sorts of other O.T. laws.

In the old, there are moral codes, and then there are the sacrificial/ritual codes

There is the New Testiment, with new testiment codes in the New Testiment books, for the new chosen people. Laws such as St. Paul mentioned in his letters.

When Jesus died, that was the end of all of those old sacrificial/ritual codes in the old law. And when Jesus said that all would be fulfilled and not a letter would be forgotten, it wasn’t forgotten and was fulfilled in his death which started the New Law. It was then fulfilled and finished.

The old covenant was circumcision bringing a person into the body of the chosen Jewish people under the old law and establishing an agreement to observe the Old Covenant with God.

The new covenant was baptism bringing a person into the body of the chosen Christian people under the new law and establishing an agreement to observe the new covenant with God.

Paul says, that the old law is unnessary, circumcision, and the new law,baptism, now makes a person part of the new chosen people.

If this were not true, then we would be bound to all the old laws, such as washing our bodies after doing certain things, eating certain foods and avoiding others, sacrificing doves or oxen according to our financial being, and so on. Clearly, in the New Covenant with God, these things are unnecessary and were abrogated with the comming of the New Law which Jesus Christ established with his death.

Mk 7;20 “Thus he delcared all foods clean.”

If we read the new testiment, all 10 commandments are in the new in some form or another. They may not be enumerated or in order, but all of them are there.
Tho the moral code is maintained, the sacrificial and ritual codes of the old are not.
And in addition, there are those mandates in the sermon on the mount contained in the New.

Just a few thoughts.