Catholic Church holds it can restore as much Jewish moral and Jewish civil law as it wishes
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus made the Jewish Law obsolete. The Church however still holds that the Law, as it came from God was right to order the stoning of gay people and adulterers and others to death. The Church claims it can authorise the state to reinstate such laws.
Here
is a chunk from the website of Catholic theologian and internet apologist
expert Robert Sungenis: “
Now, let’s deal with the issue of Old
Testament law. DiNovo is certainly correct in arguing
that the Mosaic Law is obsolete. We are not under it any longer. In fact,
anyone who puts themselves under the Mosaic Law will be condemned (Gal 3:10-12;
5:1-4). The New Testament makes a specific point of the Old Covenant’s
obsolescence in several places (2 Cor 3:6-14; Hebrews
7:18; 8:7-13; 10:9). This would include the laws against homosexuality and the
laws against eating shellfish. But what DiNovo
doesn’t tell you is that, in the New Covenant (which replaced the Old Covenant), the Church re-established the moral code of the Mosaic
Law, including the condemnation of homosexuality. Under the stipulations of the
New Covenant, the Church has the right to re-establish any law from the Old
Testament she desires to have (cf., Mt 16:18-19; Acts 15:1-12). That is why we
see 9 of the 10 commandments re-established in Romans 13:9-10 (minus the law on
Sabbath-keeping). That is why St. Paul can continue to denounce homosexuality
in Romans 1:18-24 and 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tm 1:10, since
he, as a New Testament apostle, has the authority to either keep or dispense
with Old Testament moral and civil provisions. He does so in other ways in, for
example, 1 Cor 9:9 when he uses the Old Testament law
against muzzling the ox as a support for his wages as a minister.
Most Catholic theologians
would agree with the Church having the power to restore any Old Testament law
it likes. But they would say that the
Church cannot change the rule banning homosexuality for even the Church cannot
make immorality moral. To be a Catholic
then means that you have to approve of the Church restoring the Inquisition to
liquidate adulterous people and heretics and gay people if it so decides. Or perhaps it can order the state to do it for
it. That is quite fanatical. Religions that lead to murder start off with
teachings like that. They break down
your belief that killing such people is necessarily wrong. Its only wrong
because the Church doesn’t say its right but not wrong in itself.
We will see that if you
take the Bible seriously and you are ordered to do that you will go a lot
further than that.
WORKS CONSULTED
Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley,
Christ
and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press,
Christ’s
Literal Reign on Earth From David’s Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of
the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early
Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth,
Penguin,
Essentials,
David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder &
Stoughton,
Eunuchs
for the
God’s
Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God,
California, 1992
Hard
Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity
Press,
Jesus
the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch,
Kennedy’s
Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Martin
Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of
Moral
Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ,
Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co,
Not
Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio
Replies Vol 2, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn't, Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington, 2007 - a curious book in that it simply doesn't mention how Christian Scriptures incited believers, eg Calvinists, to attack and destroy other believers who were thought to be heretics and doesn't mention the infallible decrees of the Roman Catholic Church commanding the violent destruction of heretics but wants to give the impression that unlike the Koran, the Christian Scriptures and the Christian religion do not make calls for religious violence
Sabbath
Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth
Publications,
Secrets
of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux
Brothers,
Set
My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill
& Son Ltd,
Storehouse
Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
The
Christian and War, JB Norris, The
Christadelphian,
The
Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro
The
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
The
Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford,
The
Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian,
The
Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ,
Alba House,
The
The
Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press,
The
Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible
The
Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
The
Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
The
World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue
6
Theodore
Parker’s Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer,
Those
Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield,
Vicars
of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books,
War
and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union,
War
and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press,
When
Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor
Books,
Which
Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
THE
WEB
The
Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?
www.ark_of_salvation.orgJewish_law.htm
The
Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by
Is
Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
This
Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out
of town but accepted it. It argues that
Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law
of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of
it. But strangely it argues then that
Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law.
1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah
7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the
law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God
even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to
be treated as three units. What they are
is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot
be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only
temporary and states that clearly. You
can’t change what love is. The law
plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate
in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster
hatred.
Christians,
assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral
and Ceremonial law. The Christians make
the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while
the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and
civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial
law. They simply have to hold that it is
right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of
God.
A
case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a
legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was
is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he
meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the
Law itself. Paul’s word for the Law
backs this dismissal up.
Then
the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all God’s laws must be in accord with God’s
nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be
changed. In other words, God can forbid
you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then
he could change that law. But that does
not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable
is designed to bring about the best. So
if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at
other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws
are permanent. They are permanent but if
other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the
background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground
again. Not one of the laws in the Torah
are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about
paying money to charity instead of the temple.
God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your
house at night with impunity. Now is
that a law that isn’t necessitated by God’s nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept
the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but
which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary
and it is against the nature of a good God. Geisler is wrong.
The
Law claims to be right. In other words,
we are meant to see that it is right even if we don’t believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would
consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law
(Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
At
least Geisler would admit that stoning people to
death is not necessarily incompatible with God.
He would say that if God doesn’t allow it now, he still wants us to have
the mindset that we would do it if he asked.
We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we don’t. The fanaticism is still there.
Is
Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
www.souldevice.org/writings_law_gospel.html
BIBLE
QUOTATIONS FROM:
The
Amplified Bible
13/06/2008