HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

The Catholic Church holds it can restore as much Jewish moral and Jewish biblical law as it wishes
 
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus made the Jewish Law obsolete. But it denies that this means that he changed morality for that cannot be done. The law is not abolished but fulfilled in Jesus. The Church is careful to say that Jesus did not reverse the law or declare it wrong. So if the law is immoral then it reflects on Jesus's morals.

Jesus Christ took responsibility for giving Moses a law that demanded that gay men be stoned to death along with statue worshippers and mediums and others. He went as far as to start the Sermon on the Mount by saying he had no intention of ever contradicting the law. The law was dropped by Christianity after his death for it could not afford to antagonise the liberal societies of Greece and Rome.  Or perhaps it is more accurate to say Christianity just ignored the law after his death?  It can't just ignore it and it cannot complain if gangs start to take it seriously and go around bloodletting.

It is wrong to think Jesus ever meant to contradict the law. He could have done accidently for the law contradicts itself so why would he be guaranteed to be consistent? There is nothing in the New Testament that says the law is ever wrong. Even when Jesus made all foods clean it could be meant to mean that he magically took away whatever it was that made them dirty or unclean. It would not amount to saying, "Food is clean no matter what the law says." Jesus told the adulteress that she deserved stoning - he just got those who were to stone her to see that they should leave her alone for they were no better themselves. The story only says she was saved then. The would be stoners were not going to kill her according to the law but were going to stone her without authority. But what about after that? If she had been in danger of being stoned and the law was applied correctly Jesus would have told them to stone her.
 
The Church accepts the teaching of the Prophet Jeremiah that God told him that the Covenant with God and his people would be replaced by a new one. The Catholics think they have the new covenant. Jeremiah made it clear that the covenant was NOT new in its provisions but in its effectiveness (Jeremiah 31:33-34). In other words, it was a repeat of the Jewish covenant but it would be obeyed. Strangely the Church teaches all that and does not admit that the nasty laws of the Covenant must then be still in force.
 
Paul in Galatians 3:23 says the people chosen by God were locked in chains of the law of God until faith was revealed. This states that there was no faith as in relationship with God - he does mention a few exceptions such as David and Abraham - until the Christian faith was founded. It seems to contradict his doctrine that salvation by faith alone was demanded and implied by the law.
 
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: ď
 
Now, letís 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 Covenantís 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 doesnít 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 doesnít say its right but not wrong in itself.

The Bible and the Church order you to take the Bible extremely seriously for it is the word of God. If you really obey you will go a lot further than settling for saying that the Church can restore or reject as many of the rules of the Law as it pleases.
 
The claim made by the Churches that the law is a civil law for the people of God and thus is not binding on us is nonsense. Not a single word of the Jewish law speaks of it as being a civil law. It often does not go into the detail that civil law would require. The warning that the law is binding or you will be punished not by the state but by God means it is religious law not civil law. Civil law forces but obedience to divine law is a matter of free will. See Deuteronomy 30. "The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it". It says the word of God is in the heart of the people meaning they see it makes sense and it is meaningful for them and the word is about the commandments given in the Law.
 
And perhaps this religious law is not for us? Not a single word of the Old Testament says it is temporary. It is for us too. Jesus said he had not come to abolish it.

Jesus supposedly abolished the stoning law when he told people who were going to stone a woman to death for adultery that the first stone should be cast by the person without sin. But this case had nothing to do with the law. It was a lynch mob who wanted to stone her not the proper authorities. And he did say the sinless person had a right to stone her. The episode confirms the validity of the stoning law.

Jesus told the Jews off for not stoning people to death if they cursed their parents, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mat. 15:3-4. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mark 7:8-11

Peter was given the power to bind and loose and that is technical rabbinical language. Jesus gave that power according to Matthew 16. It refers to the right of Jewish ministers and leaders to interpret and apply the Law of Moses. It is about binding people to the law and aquiting them if they innocently break it. The text reaffirms the Law of Moses and its authority.

We conclude that the Church does not deny in principle that a person should be stoned to death. It might not allow it but it is not forbidden for being wrong in itself. The Church cannot say it is wrong in itself. We conclude that the Church's stance on the law is quite liberal and the Church disobeys the law by failing to adopt it and endorse it in full. But the Church is clear that the Christian makes a core and major error if she or he thinks the law is wrong in anything or that Jesus fixed it.

WORKS CONSULTED

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Christís Literal Reign on Earth From Davidís Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin, London, 1988
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, Penguin Books, London, 1991
Godís Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1992
Hard Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
Jesus the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, 1993
Kennedyís Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1964
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1999
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Not Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio Replies Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
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, Kentucky
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Storehouse Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1954
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943
The Christian and War, JB Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985
The Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro Tennessee 1946
The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford, Surrey, 1994
The Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1987
The Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
The Kingdom of God on Earth, Stanley Owen, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press, London, 1993
The Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1957
The Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible Mission, Birmingham
The Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1972
The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Brooklyn, New York, 1968
The World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue 6
Theodore Parkerís Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, London, 1876
Those Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield, Hutchinson, London, 1968
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1995
War and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union, London, 1988
War and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press, Ontario, 1962
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992
Which Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1976

 
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 Arnold Fruchtenbaum
 www.ariel.org/ff00006c.html

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 canít 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. Paulís word for the Law backs this dismissal up.

Then the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all Godís laws must be in accord with Godís 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 isnít necessitated by Godís 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 donít 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 doesnít 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 donít. 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