First of all, when a Catholic says the Old Covenant is replaced by the New, nobody is advocating for getting rid of the Decalogue (the 10 Commandments). No Traditional Catholic, anyway…
There is a difference between the Decalogue and the Mosaic Law. The Decalogue was indeed part of the Mosaic Law, but the Mosaic Law included many other things such as food laws (clean vs unclean), feast days, rituals (circumcision, presentation/purification, etc.), sacrifices of burnt offering (animals), rules of engagement, rules for the Temple and for priests, etc.
“And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.” (Matthew 27:51)
The following is the correct understanding of that passage:
“Both [temple] veils seem to have been rent at Christ's death: and by their being broken down, was signified first, that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by the law of Christ; and also that heaven should be open to all.” (Haydock)
This is where the parts of the Mosaic Law which were fulfilled were removed.
Circumcision / Purification is no longer necessary; it has been replaced by Baptism.
Burnt offerings are no longer necessary; Christ offered himself for us (Hebrews 10:10-14) as the clean oblation and necessary sacrifice…Lamb of God.
All foods have been made clean and all is to be received with thanksgiving. (1 Timothy 4:4)
However, the Decalogue, being rooted in the immutable truth, the unchangeable moral good, could never be revoked or changed.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, First Part of the Second Part, Question 98, Article 5“The reason of this is because the Old Law, as stated above (Article 4), was given to the Jewish people, that it might receive a prerogative of holiness, in reverence for Christ Who was to be born of that people.”Our Lord said to the Pharisees, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)
In the same way, we can expound His words to say “the law/commandment to keep holy the Sabbath was given for the benefit of man; man was not created for the benefit of the law.” (the relationship being rooted in the charity expressed between God [the Creator] and man [the creation]...God gave us the sabbath to rest, and we give back the sabbath to God to praise and glorify His name)
If, therefore, we understand that the purpose of the Old Law was to sanctify/justify (insofar as possible) the Jewish people to prepare them for the coming of Christ, we can understand Christ’s words when he said, “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)
In order to get a more perfect understanding of this, let us turn again to Haydock:
“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. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. (Challoner) --- Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change being made in the letter of the law; more particularly, if the proposed change exacted a more perfect morality. (St. John Chrysostom)”The Old Law has been fulfilled by the New. This is why we call the two parts of the Bible the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.” And “in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.” (Hebrews 8:13)
Now, let’s turn back again to St. Thomas Aquinas, with whom I am sure no faithful Catholic would dare dispute…
First Part of the Second Part, Question 103, Article 4 “Whether since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?”
“All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity.”
It is a mortal sin to perform acts of Jewish ceremony. And it is also a mortal sin to profess that these acts are still lawful. And it is a heresy to believe the Old Covenant is still valid...for by saying this, one implicitly denies that the Messiah, the Christ, ever came and fulfilled it.
No comments:
Post a Comment