Question #8: Are The 10 Commandments Still Bearing?
Posted in Bible, Questions, Religion on | 1 minute | 44 Comments →
I intend to use replies to this post as a springboard for an upcoming discussion on dispensationalism, e.g., whether or not the Mosaic law still applies today (or to what extent). Since orthopraxy requires orthodoxy, I see this as an important question for all believers. Please note: I am not asking if anybody believes obedience to the Ten Commandments and/or the Law is necessary to effect salvation. Rather, I’m asking, despite the fact that Christ established a new covenant, do you believe the Ten Commandments still apply today? Why or why not? Do you believe the Mosaic Law still applies today? Why or why not? Do you believe that only certain Commandments or certain parts of the Law apply today? If so, why those parts, and not others? If you are inclined to run to Vatican for support, that’s fine, feel free, I just ask that you also include Scripture to support official Church statements (i.e., that you show how Scripture supports the official Church statements).
Bob Prokop
says...I see “The 10 Commandments” and “The Law” as being entirely separate things.
The 10 commandments are universally applicable statements about right behavior regardless of one’s beliefs, although the first three (going by the Catholic numbering system) are open to differing interpretation.
The Mosaic Law, on the other hand, deals with things like animal sacrifices and a whole raft of other matters which have no bearing on Christianity.
I fail to see the Big Issue here. This is Sunday School stuff.
cl
says...Thanks Bob, for getting involved. Sorry if my post let you down, but, not everyone went to Sunday School, and I hear differing answers even amongst those who did. More importantly, there is division in the body of Christ on this issue—and that, to me, is the “Big Issue.”
So do I. That’s why I separated them.
So is that a “yes,” all 10 Commandments are still bearing today?
Also, your remark about “numbering” brings up an important point I hadn’t considered: the Catholic Church has actually changed some of the original commandments! I fully understand if you don’t want to get in that discussion, but, I have to ask: why do you accept the modified version?
And would that be a “no,” none of the Mosaic Law is bearing today? Or, would that be a “some of the Mosaic Law is still bearing today?”
Bob Prokop
says...No, the Catholic Church hasn’t changed a single word of the 10 Commandments. It’s just that there are different ways to divide them up. Catholics and Orthodox divide them into the first three concerning man’s right relationship with God, and the last seven dealing with affairs between people.
Protestants Split the first commandment into two, and combine the last two into one. But in both cases, the wording is identical.
And by the way, the “modified” way is the Protestant version. ALL Christians divided them in the Catholic/Orthodox fashion until the 15th Century, when Reformation theologians re-split them. But in both cases, no one changed any of them in the slightest.
(And my Jewish friends inform me that the way they divide them into what they call the “Ten Words” (rather than “commandments”) is again different.)
I prefer the Catholic/Orthodox division on purely aesthetic grounds. The numbers 3 and 7 are very biblical, whereas 4 and 6 are not. I know, dumb reason, but it is more elegant that way, and just “seems” more right.
Bob Prokop
says...And you’re right about my overall “yes” and “no” answers.
cl
says...Bob,
Thanks for continuing, these matters are very important to me. Before we continue, may I ask you to supply a version of the Commandments you accept? It would be futile for me to go any further until I have, word for word, the version you accept. Please copy and paste it here, don’t worry about format issues, if it comes out ugly I can tidy it up.
Thanks.
Bob Prokop
says...Using the RSV translation, from Deuteronomy.
Commandment No. 1:
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Commandment No. 2:
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Commandment No. 3:
Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your manservant, or your maidservant, or your ox, or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
Commandment No. 4:
Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you; that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
Commandment No. 5:
You shall not kill.
Commandment No. 6:
Neither shall you commit adultery.
Commandment No. 7:
Neither shall you steal.
Commandment No. 8:
Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
Commandment No. 9:
Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife.
Commandment No. 10:
And you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
(As I wrote above, Protestants will divide the first commandment into two, and combine the last two into one. But in both cases, the overall wording is identical.)
Bob Prokop
says...I should add that most people, both Catholics and Protestants, for convenience use an abbreviated version of the commandments. Like this for Catholics:
1: I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
2: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3: Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
4: Honor your father and your mother.
5: You shall not kill.
6: You shall not commit adultery.
7: You shall not steal.
8: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9: You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.
And this for Protestants:
1: I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
2: You shall make no graven image.
3: You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4: Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5: Honor your father and your mother.
6: You shall not kill.
7: You shall not commit adultery.
8: You shall not steal.
9: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10: You shall not covet.
I believe that this is where you got your mistaken idea that one or the other version had somehow been “modified”.
(Not sure why this site is causing my number 10’s to be indented one space – I certainly didn’t type it that way.)
cl
says...Hi Bob.
No, it wasn’t from the differences in divisions, and the idea isn’t mistaken. Though I wholly accept the version you’ve posted here, there are some “Catholic” websites who change “Sabbath” to “Lord’s Day.” But, it seems you and I agree on the version you’ve posted here, so, on to the next…
So, a few questions arise for me:
1) How do you feel about all the graven images in the Vatican and many churches of many other denominations?
2) Do you rest and abstain from all work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday? If not, how do you reconcile that with your previous statement about the 10 Commandments still being bearing?
3) How do you feel about the changing of “Sabbath” to “Lord’s Day” in the site I just referenced?
4) How do you feel about the official Catholic decrees commanding believers to work on the Sabbath?
Bob Prokop
says...1) How do you feel about all the graven images in the Vatican and many churches of many other denominations?
They’re not “graven images” – they’re statues. A graven image is something a person worships. No Catholic worships a statue of Jesus, Mary, or a saint. For that matter, no Catholic worships Mary or the saints (despite mistaken Protestants who occasionally make the charge). When a Catholic (like myself) invokes a saint, we say “Pray for us”, just as I would ask a fellow parishioner to pray for me. Can you see the important distinction? The prayer is still ultimately to Jesus.
2) Do you rest and abstain from all work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday? If not, how do you reconcile that with your previous statement about the 10 Commandments still being bearing?
This matter was settled by Our Lord Himself multiple times, when He said that an absolute prohibition against any and all work on the Sabbath was ridiculous. I think I’m safe in following His lead.
3) How do you feel about the changing of “Sabbath” to “Lord’s Day” in the site I just referenced?
The Sabbath is still the Sabbath. The day of Our Lord’s Resurrection was recognized as the appropriate day from the First Century, and there is unanimous consensus on this amongst the Early Church Fathers. I bow to their wisdom. (In any case, I see it as nothing to lose sleep over.)
4) How do you feel about the official Catholic decrees commanding believers to work on the Sabbath?
Can’t say. I’ve never heard of such.
Kwon Mega
says...I remember reading this about the subject a while back and wonder your thoughts…
Atheists claim that “the Old Testament still applies”
Kwon Mega
says...Another good article on the subject.
The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament
I still believe that the 10 commandments are still to be used in respect to leading an ethical life.
Kwon Mega
says...From the above article:
” there have always been those who insist that the Mosaic Law, at least the Ten Commandments, are still in force for the Christian. In regard to the relation of Christian ethics to the Mosaic Law, Luck writes:
There are Christian teachers of repute who consider the Mosaic law to be the present-day rule of life for the Christian.1 A view not infrequently found among earnest, orthodox believers is that although we are not saved by the law, once we have been justified by faith, then the Mosaic law becomes our rule of life. Those holding such a view generally make a sharp division of the Mosaic law into two parts, which they distinguish as the moral and the ceremonial. The ceremonial portion they consider as having found its fulfillment in Christ at His first advent, and thus as having now passed away. But the moral portion of the Mosaic law, say they, is still in force as the believer’s rule of life. The treatment given to Christian ethics by some highly respected authors is indeed but little more than an exposition of the Decalogue.”
This train of thought kept me from attending church for so long… I was a new believer, and after reading the Bible, I concluded the New Testament teaches we are delivered from the Mosaic law. After attending several various protestant churches, I couldn’t shake the thought that if the churches are teaching this, what else are they teaching incorrectly? Being so new to the faith, I didn’t want to pick up any “bad habits” or wrong notions.
cl
says...Bob,
To me, bowing down to statues, referring to them as “blessed” and kissing them constitutes worship. How do you define “worship?” When biblical characters bowed down even to angels, weren’t they rebuked? Are you familiar with those Scriptures?
So then, is that a “no,” you don’t follow the original commandment WRT Sabbath? Do you work during Sabbath? Yes or no? Do you travel more than a Sabbath day’s walk? Yes or no? Also, where does Jesus say what you attribute to Him. I am aware He said “doing good” was permitted on Sabbath (Mark 3:4), but that doesn’t mean we can work “a little,” or “a lot,” or anywhere in between—does it?
Wow, really? You bow to men’s words before clear teaching of Scripture, and the clear practices of Jesus Himself and the disciples? I find that astounding. No offense, but I want to know why.
Really? If anything, I figured you’d have a response, but it actually shocks me learn that you’ve never heard of any. In Nicea II your church actually went so far as to deny communion, prayer and church membership to those who kept Sabbath:
This means, quite literally, that Jesus and the disciples would have been denied communion, prayer and membership into the Catholic church. Here’s another one:
Why should I believe the words of men over the words and actions of the Lord?
The Sabbath is Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. The “Lord’s Day” is Sunday. Right?
cl
says...Kwon Mega,
Neither of the links worked, not sure what’s up. Feel free to post them as raw text, I can tidy them up. I would definitely like to read them.
Kwon Mega
says...The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament
Atheists claim that “the Old Testament still applies”
Me != programmer.. Forgot the “=” after href.. oops!
cl
says...Well, you must be somewhat knowledgeable of code. After all, you know a conventional “inequal” operand! :)
Fixed ’em both, will reply soon. In the meantime, can I ask whether or not you observe the original Sabbath? If you don’t want to answer or feel uncomfortable that’s totally fine, feel free to respond via email or not at all. I won’t press the issue so long as people draw clear boundaries.
Plus, the “Atheists claim” one had a weird URL. It had an extra set of quotes that even through me off.
Bob Prokop
says...Are you a Seventh Day Adventist? you sure sound like one.
I’ll repeat. No Catholic worships any image, statue, or any other representation. They certainly do venerate them, but that’s a good thing. (Merriam-Webster definition of veneration: “respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person”. What’s wrong with that?)
“ I am aware He said “doing good” was permitted on Sabbath (Mark 3:4), but that doesn’t mean we can work “a little,” or “a lot,” or anywhere in between—does it?”
Yes, it does. It means exactly that.
“Wow, really? You bow to men’s words before clear teaching of Scripture, and the clear practices of Jesus Himself and the disciples? I find that astounding. No offense, but I want to know why.”
I am not a believer in the heretical doctrine of sola scriptura. In fact, the doctrine itself is unscriptural (see 2 Peter 1:20-21) and therefore utterly incoherent. Jesus repeatedly promised that He would send the Holy Spirit upon the Church, that the Holy Spirit would lead His followers to all truth, and that He would never abandon His Church. All of this at the very least implies a significant role to the continuing teaching authority of the Church.
Finally, the pronouncements you quoted (which I’ve never seen before – I bow to your scholarship) seem to be dealing with “Judaizers”, people who were demanding that Christians follow the Mosaic Law. Saint Paul also condemned such, so the writers of these documents are in good company.
But I still fail to understand why all this is a Big Deal to you. Why are you concerned about something that was settled 1950 years ago?
Bob Prokop
says...Just read over my last posting and realized I neglected to define “worship”. Never really thought about defining the term before… just seemed so obvious (like, what is the definition of “chair”? Uh, something you sit on!)
But I can see how one might be required here, so let me take a stab at making clear what I mean by the term:
Worship is a human being’s response to the presence of God. It includes acknowledgment, praise, thanks, petition, and contemplation. But especially to the point in the present context – acknowledgement (of God being God). By definition, one cannot worship anything which is not God.
cl
says...Bob,
No. I affirm no official denomination. I’m simply a member of the body of Christ, grafted in through the House of Ephraim. I also happen to believe there is much apostasy, across denominations, yours included. Would you agree or disagree? Would you say that there is no apostasy in the official Catholic doctrines? Only some?
What’s wrong is that by that definition, countless Catholics worship graven images: kissing, bowing down, revering… it’s all there. See Colossians 2:18. See Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9. Twice, the angel John bowed to told him directly, “Do not do that.” If an angel himself told John not to bow down to him, why on Earth should anybody bow down to a statue of Jupiter just because the Catholics renamed it Peter? Why should anyone bow down to any statue, whatsoever? Why would God make an exception for statues if bowing to angels is condemned?
Another thing wrong is that the Commandment makes no such distinction: it clearly says we are not to make “ANY” graven image, but you take that as, “It’s okay to make a graven image (or statue) so long as we don’t worship it,” and I want to know why you think that.
Then why is there not a single recorded verse of Jesus or the apostles working on the Sabbath? If what you say is true, why wouldn’t Jesus have told the Pharisees that the Commandments—or at least the Sabbath one—were outdated? Why would Jesus specifically tell post-Resurrection believers to “pray that their flight doesn’t take place on a Sabbath,” unless of course that doing so would cause one to sin?
I’ve stated before that I don’t reject tradition categorically. I don’t think the Catholics “got it all wrong.” However, does the sending of the Great Counselor mean that whatever the Church says is all true? C’mon! You just said you bow to “their wisdom,” meaning, the wisdom of men. That’s where we differ: when Catholic “authority” plainly denies Scripture and the Lord’s Word, I side with the Lord. You side with men, and I really can’t understand why. Over at Vic’s you told somebody that Christ commanded us to obey with “all of your mind,” but I have to ask: is unquestioning acceptance of the traditions of men “obeying with all one’s mind?” How far will you go? At what point would you part ways with the Catholic church? On the basis of “church authority” which you “bow to,” would you have burned those “Judaizers” who preferred to honor the original Sabbath? Think about that. If yes, why? If not, why not?
I would agree to anyone that said Paul condemned obedience to law as a means of attaining salvation, but that is different than condemning the honoring of the original Sabbath, which Paul himself honored. Do a NT search for “as was his custom” and see how many times we find Jesus and the disciples in pure devotion to YHWH on Saturday, even refusing to go more than a Sabbath’s day walk. Can you site one Scripture where believers were instructed to work on the Sabbath, or change it to Sunday? If not, can you explain why your church felt they had the authority to do so?
Because “the Catholic clergy said it, I believe it” doesn’t settle anything for me. Quite frankly it strikes me as the same type of blind obedience Jesus condemned the Pharisees for (exalting the traditions of men over God’s Word). Further, if in fact we are supposed to be keeping the original Commandments—as you unequivocally said—then anyone who refuses to honor the Sabbath walks in direct obedience to YHWH, Who sent Christ!
It’s dearly important to me, and that it’s apparently not that important to you… that really takes me aback.
cl
says...Bob,
Thanks for supplying the missing definition. Unfortunately, you see to be turning a blind eye to the very commandment in question, not to mention clear OT teaching. All throughout the OT we are told that YHWH was enraged when the Israelites “worshipped” the Golden Calf, right? YWHW was equally enraged about Baal “worship,” right? More to the point, doesn’t the Commandment in question say we are “not to bow down to them?” Yes or no?
If yes, then, don’t countless Catholics (and other believers) bow down to them, in direct violation of the Commandment?
Lastly, when does “ANY” ever mean “SOME” anywhere else in Scripture?
cl
says...Here are literally dozens of images of Catholics (and presumably other believers) violating the Commandment.
Kwon Mega
says...The joys of intro to programming classes ;)
I do not and have not. I feel called to do so, but I only have excuses as to why I do not. I feel like the drunk who warns of the dangers of alcohol.. I need to put into practice what I believe to be right.
Bob Prokop
says...“Then why is there not a single recorded verse of Jesus or the apostles working on the Sabbath?”
But there is – when the disciples picked the grains of wheat on the Sabbath. Also, several healings were done on that day. And on one occasion, Jesus quite explicitly told a healed paralytic to “take up your mat” and walk, in clear violation of the current interpretation of the Sabbath law.
Catholics are not bowing down to any statues – ever. If they bow, they are bowing to Jesus, of whom the statue is itself an act of worship. How is a statue any different than a piece of music? Or beautiful church architecture? Or bells in a steeple? They are all physical things. Are you against music in church?
“You just said you bow to “their wisdom,” meaning, the wisdom of men.”
Guilty as charged. I “bow to the wisdom” of many men besides the Church Fathers. It’s a figure of speech, and not to be taken uber-seriously. I am a finite individual, with only so much time to learn way too many things. I frequently find it expedient to trust the word of people who I am confident have more knowledge on a subject than I do all the time. I trust Shelby Foote when he tells me something about the Civil War. I trust Charles Wood when he tells me something about lunar morphology. And I trust Saint Ignatius of Antioch when he tells me what the Early Church believed.
“when Catholic “authority” plainly denies Scripture and the Lord’s Word”
This is news to me. I honestly can’t think of a single instance of this happening.
“Over at Vic’s you told somebody that Christ commanded us to obey with “all of your mind,” but I have to ask: is unquestioning acceptance of the traditions of men “obeying with all one’s mind?””
I will take issue with your use of the word “unquestioning”. Don’t you think that there are cases where one can arrive at the conclusion that a “tradition of Man” is valid after honest examination?
I guess the bottom line here is that I take Christ at His word when he promised that His Church would be a purveyor of the Truth, and that He would remain with His Church always. I also believe that it is beyond all reasonable doubt to any objective examiner of the historical evidence that the contemporary Catholic Church is none other than that very Church which was established personally by Christ, entrusted to His apostles, and maintained by unbroken apostolic succession down through the centuries to this day. This does not mean that the institution is perfect (it’s made up of fallible and sinful human beings), but that it is indeed the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.
That said, I “question” what various authority figures in the Church say all the time (in full confidence that the Truth will always win out in the end).
Kwon Mega
says...Can you please provide some substance here? I would love to eliminate any doubts I have about the Catholic church being the Church established by Christ.
Bob Prokop
says...Substance? Disputing this fact is like saying the USA is not the same country that was founded in 1776. I don’t need to provide sources – it’s plain from the unbroken historical record.
There is an unquestionable continuity between Saints Peter and Paul to Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of smyrna to (skipping several generations) the Council of Nicea to (again skipping ahead) Saints Jerome and Augustine, Pope Gregory I, Saints Francis and Dominic, and evenually (via the Council of Trent) to today.
If nothing else, the mere fact that every single Protestant church can point to its (human) founder, such as Luther, Calvin, King Henry VIII, Wesley, John Smyth, etc., whatever you might think of these individuals, they’re not Christ ! There are only two churches that can legitimately claim to go back to Pentecost, 33 A.D. – the Catholic and the Orthodox (and at the highest levels, authorities in both churches acknowledge that they are actually the same church).
My best advice to you would be to read the works of the Early Church Fathers. They are available on line, and Amazon offers several anthologies of their writings.
Kwon Mega
says...The heart of the matter. So then, would you say “I also believe that it is beyond all reasonable doubt to any objective examiner of the historical evidence that the Orthodox Chruch is none other than that very Church which was established personally by Christ”?
Bob Prokop
says...Yes.
Bob Prokop
says...My last answer may have seemed a bit flippant, but I did it to make a point. There was an undeniable unity between the two branches of Christendom for the first thousand years. The unfortunate split between the two halves was solely due to political and not religious reasons. In the most real sense possible, it was a family quarrel. In the West, the Roman empire collapsed in the 5th Century, and the Church became independent of (and in some cases superior to) any existing political authority. By the time of the emperor Charlemagne (circa 800 A.D.), the Western Roman Empire had been resurrected under the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire. Meanwhile in the East, the Roman Empire never fell – it instead mutated over time into the Byzantine Empire.
By the 11th Century, there were now two apparently equally legitimate heirs to the mantle of Emperor – one each in the East and the West. (I happen to have studied this development rather extensively. It’s one of the reasons I learned Medieval Latin.) The exceedingly tragic and totally unnecessary split of the One Church into its western Catholic and and eastern Orthodox halves was entirely due to this titanic secular power struggle over supremacy in Europe and the Mediterranean.
The only significant difference between East and West, as far as the Church was concerned, was that due to the centuries-long power vacuum in the West, the western (Roman Catholic) Church became fiercely independent of any political power, while the eastern (Orthodox) part of Christendom, never got out from under the firm hand of the Roman/then Byzantine Emperor. But BOTH branches maintained an unbroken apostolic succession and proclaimed the True Gospel, as handed down from Jesus Himself.
How utterly different was the Protestant Reformation. In that case, schism and heresy were the driving forces behind the severing of the Body of Christ, and the bloody religious wars that devastated Western Europe the sorry consequence.
Today we thankfully see the beginnings of a healing of those disastrous rifts. The Anglican Church is “crossing the Tiber”, one parish at a time. The Lutheran Church in Germany is actively negotiating with Rome on the terms of reunion. Whilst Protestant churches across Europe are collapsing, the Catholic Church is steadily gaining adherents. The rise of Catholicism in Africa and East Asia is nothing short of explosive. If current trends continue, China will be a plurality-Catholic country by mid-century. Out of 24 million Christians in India today, 20 million of them are Catholic, and that already overwhelming percentage is growing. Catholicism is already the largest denomination inn the USA, and that trend is continuing.
cl
says...Bob,
That is not a verse approving “a little” or “a lot” of work on the Sabbath. In that verse, Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for their fence laws. Jesus routinely condemned the Pharisees, for, wait for it… clinging to the TRADITIONS of men and honoring them over the Word of YHWH! Again, Jesus said “it is right to do good on the Sabbath.” Apparently you translate that as, “it’s okay to work or do whatever one wants on the Sabbath,” but I don’t think you’re on Scriptural grounds at all, and I note that you left quite a few supporting questions unanswered. Surely you’re not going to tell me it’s unlawful to eat on the Sabbath?
You are plainly in denial. I just gave you photographic proof of dozens of Catholics bowing to statues! C’mon man! How can you deny that?
First off, neither music nor “beautiful buildings” are clearly condemned in the Commandments. Making graven images and bowing down to statues, on the other hand, is clearly forbidden. You can’t deny this and still claim to be “worshipping with all of your mind,” Bob. You just can’t.
Of course not. Again, there’s no Commandment against music in church. There *IS* a clear Commandment against bowing down to statues, and that is *EXACTLY* what the Catholics in my link are doing! What do you gain by denying what your eyes plainly see? Why not just say, “yeah, you’re right… some Catholics do bow down to statues?”
I just provided several. YHWH blessed the Sabbath, made it holy, and commanded us to rest on that day. Your church came along, changed the Sabbath to Sunday, commanded believers to WORK on that day, then condemned anyone who wouldn’t obey. How is that NOT a clear instance of the Catholic church exalting their tradition over the Commandment from YHWH?
Yes, that’s why I invited you here, but so far, I don’t see much honest examination. You straight-up deny that Catholics bow to statues despite the smoking gun. Is that honest examination? If they’re not bowing down to statues in those pictures, what are they doing?
Okay, that’s a start. In what ways is it not perfect?
I don’t deny that Catholicism can trace itself back to Pentecost. That doesn’t mean they’ve remained faithful to the teachings of our Lord, does it? OTOH, I do deny that the Catholic church proclaims the True Gospel. There are so many points on which it does not proclaim the true gospel of Scripture. It changed the Sabbath to Sunday and persecuted those who thought differently. They burned people at the stake. Is that the true gospel? Where in Scripture does it say to pray to saints? Where in Scripture does it say to pray to Mary? Where in Scripture does it say a single thing about Hail Mary’s or the rosary? Every bit of that is the tradition of men. Is the “true gospel” whatever the Catholics decree? Like I asked, at what point do you draw the line? At what point would you assent to Scripture over their tradition?
It’s as if you’re totally excusing the CATHOLIC Inquisition there. Wasn’t that bloody? Do you feel it’s justified because of “church tradition?” I’m not being flippant, I honestly want to know what you think about that. Would Jesus approve the torture devices? The burnings at the stake?
cl
says...Here some more interesting little tidbits about Catholic “tradition.” I would like for anybody to make a reasoned argument from Scripture showing that Jesus Christ would support these:
cl
says...And here is a site that at least gives some decent arguments in defense of the “Sabbath no longer applies” reasoning. Not all the arguments are decent, but at least one can get a good cross-section of Scriptural arguments and not have to contend with reasoning ala “the Catholic church says it, I believe it, that settles it.” I encourage all to check it out.
cl
says...Bob,
Sorry to come across as “coming at you” if in fact you’ve perceived that at all. Thinking deeper, I figured it would be better for me to educate myself on the things you believe rather than pester you about them. I’ll let you know how that goes. Although, I still can’t for the life of me understand this business about Catholics not bowing down to statues, when they clearly are. For example, Didache doesn’t approve that practice. What Tradition does?
Also, I want to make clear that I have no objection to people celebrating the Lord’s Day. I never have. My only objection is the harsh decrees against those who rest on Sabbath. It seems to me the best way would be to rest on the Sabbath and honor the Lord’s Day. But, we can talk more about that later.
Thanks for your patience and continued interest.
Bob Prokop
says...CL,
(Back after surviving Hurricane Sandy, which passed right overhead last night!)
You have obviously been getting your information about Catholicism from from pretty skewed sources. It would be like me getting all my info about President Obama from the birthers – my picture of him wouldn’t be exactly “fair and balanced”. Might I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ? There’s no spin there, no attempt to persuade, no arguments made – it’s just the straight facts about what the Church teaches (and quite readable).
As for the Sabbath, I honestly think I am in Safe Hands by going along with 2000 years of Church tradition. (“Tradition” is not always a bad word.) This is a case where one should listen to Saint Peter, who warns us against “personal interpretation” of scripture.
As to statues, well… if you don’t care for them, don’t pay any attention to them. On this matter, you come dangerously close to implying that I’m not engaging in “honest examination” if I don’t agree with your position. Believe me, I have given this careful thought, and was under the impression I expressed myself clearly above, but I’m not always the best writer. I’ll have to admit, I never looked at the pictures you linked to. I’ve seen first hand countless people worshiping God by means of statues, etc. But that’s precisely what they’re doing – worshiping GOD, not anything else.
I myself have a crucifix on the wall above my bookshelves, with the inscription “Who reads in this alcove henceforth, let him read ad lumina Christi “, a line from the novel A Canticle for Liebowitz (a book I give my very highest recommendation to). But that crucifix is no “graven image” – it’s a material means of assisting me in focusing my mind as I prepare to read. We are unique creations, a union of a physical body and a non-material soul. But both aspects of our selves are God’s handiwork, body and soul. Especially since the Incarnation. Remember that we are not only made in the image of God, but that He has assumed our image in Christ. The Incarnation has endowed the material with divine dignity. Of course the Mosaic Law prohibited the making of images – God had not yet taken on human form. But subsequent to That Event, it was not only permissible, it was laudatory, to see God and to worship Him by material as well as purely spiritual means.
(But this is a very deep topic, and probably impossible to do justice to in a blog posting.)
Believe me, I am no “Rah Rah” Catholic (like a certain person over on Vic’s blog), but I am no dissident either. I have yet to find the smallest deviation of Church teaching from the scriptures. The cases you mentioned are your own take on affairs, and often seem based on a wooden reading of scripture or on an insistence on your own interpretation thereof (and I, too, am sorry if that sounds like “coming at you”).
Read the Catechism .
Bob Prokop
says...CL,
Don’t get me wrong. I applaud your questioning. Saint Paul himself said, “Prove all things, and hold fast to what is good.” But just a few lines later he also says, “I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren.” Now why would he say that unless he believed in the Teaching Authority of the Church?
And that’s where people who insist on a personal interpretation of selected passages from scripture all too often go wrong. The Bible is packed full of internal tension. One can always find a verse in one place saying one thing, and elsewhere another basically telling you, “Whoa, just wait a minute there!”
That’s why I have a knee-jerk reaction against so-called “proof verses” – they can turn out to be like those blind men in the fable feeling out an elephant and one walking away saying “an elephant is like a tree” while another says “an elephant is like a wall” etc., because each has felt a different part of the animal.
Syllabus
says...It depends entirely on what you mean by “bearing”. If by that you mean “Do they still function as the same thing that they did before the Incarnation?” then my answer is no, they are not bearing. The original function of the Hebraic law, under which category the 10 Commandments arguably fall, was as the outward sign of the covenant that God established with Israel. But I think that you can’t say Christ did away with the Law as sign of the covenant, full stop. Rather, He fulfilled the covenant with Israel – and thus the Law – and opened it to the whole world. So, while I don’t think that the 10 Commandments function today in the same way as they did pre-Christ, I think that the simple choice “Are they binding or are they not?” is far too simplistic.
Syllabus
says...…
That’s only because it became one of its own. And a particularly corrupt one, as it happened.
Bob Prokop
says...Syllabus,
I may be mistaken, but when CL writes “I’m simply a member of the body of Christ, grafted in through the House of Ephraim.“, I take it that he is a Jewish convert to Christianity. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, CL.) As such, he seems to be undergoing the same totally understandable soul-searching that the First Century converts did. The role of the Mosaic Law, as you well know, was a huge issue in Paul’s letters and in Acts. The Early Church was still in a process of discovery as to what “bearing” it had, post-Resurrection.
I think that many people who have grown up in the Christian Faith fail to realize what a Big Deal the Incarnation is – it changes absolutely everything. John Loftus is perversely right in one respect – if you look upon the Faith from an “outsider” perspective, only then do you truly appreciate the wondrous thing it is, and realize that nothing is the same.
So sometimes the infuriatingly basic questions asked by potential or recent converts are actually a chance to have our own jaded eyes open to the absolutely amazing, beautiful, and marvelous (in the old sense of the word) thing we so undeservedly possess.
cl
says...Bob,
I appreciate the advice. I’ll check out the Catechism.
Actually no, I’m not Jewish.
I think that’s a low blow, Bob. In order for that analogy to hold, I would need to quote only from vehemently anti-Catholic Protestant sources. Yet, in this thread I’ve quoted Nicea II, St. Augustine, St. Catherine of Siena, The Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, CatholicBible101, The American Textbook of Popery and Canon XXIX. I purposely avoided quoting ANY Protestant sources. How are those skewed sources?
It had nothing to do with not agreeing with my position. It had everything to do with your claim at #23 that “Catholics are not bowing down to any statues – ever.” I provided pictures of Catholics bowing to statues. Now you admit you never even looked at the photo. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s an honest examination, and I certainly don’t think that qualifies as worshipping with all of one’s mind. If you want to retract your statement that “Catholics are not bowing down to any statues – ever,” and admit that you misspoke, that would strike me as honest. And make no mistake: I do think that you are an honest man. I just don’t think you gave this particular issue an honest examination.
The source of my confusion was when you said the Ten Commandments still apply. You don’t actually believe that. For example, you don’t believe the Sabbath Commandment applies anymore, and you have a personal interpretation of the second Commandment which goes something like this: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, unless it is of a saint, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them unless it is of a saint…” I see no reason to accept those additions.
But there’s not a single Bible verse that says this. Nothing in Didache either. Is it in the writings of the Church Fathers? I anticipate this is where you’ll cling to tradition, or accuse me of adhering to Sola Scriptura (which I do not), and that’s what’s most confusing to me: if something isn’t in Scripture, you revert to justification via tradition: “Well my Church has been doing it for 2000 years.” That strikes me as perilously dangerous. That’s why I asked earlier, at what point would you reject tradition in favor of Scripture?
What do you accept as “Church teaching?” Only the cited Catechism? Or do you accept other documents? Could you compile of brief list of documents that you would accept as “Church teaching?” In the meantime, I’ll be reading Catechism.
Bob Prokop
says...CL,
What did you mean by “grafted in through the House of Ephraim ” ?
Sorry if hit with a “low blow”. You gotta admit, though, that piling on with the Inquisition, etc., certainly did give the impression of cherry-picking for anti-Catholic dirt. Heck, I know more legitimate negative stuff about the Church than the most virulent Catholic-hater who thinks it’s the Whore of Babylon. You can’t faze me with pulling out embarrassing or cringeworthy actions on the part of individuals who are part of a 1.6 billion strong organization. There’s bound to be a boatload of people who are stupid, nasty, or criminal amongst such a large number.
I wasn’t avoiding anything by not looking at your link – you may not have seen or remember where I wrote over on Vic’s site that I never click on links within others’ postings. So I wasn’t being “dishonest” or anything like that – it’s just my idiosyncrasy.
And once again – no, I most definitely and emphatically do not have a “personal interpretation” of the 10 Commandments. I do not consider myself to be competent enough to have one. And I absolutely do not see “tradition” as being negative by default. There is good and bad tradition, and it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, I am perfectly comfortable with allowing “settled” issues to remain settled, ’cause generally I find that minds far more competent than mine have already weighed in, and that there really is nothing new to say.
“But there’s not a single Bible verse that says this. Nothing in Didache either. Is it in the writings of the Church Fathers?”
Actually, oceans of ink were spilled over this matter during the iconoclast controversy in the 8th and 9th Centuries. You can quite literally fill libraries with what was written about the pros and cons of imagery during this time. Good arguments were made on both sides, but in my opinion the “Argument from the Incarnation” in favor of imagery won the day.
cl
says...Bob,
Thanks for the tips re, Argument from the Incarnation. I’ll look into it.
Something like, “a non-Jew who’s been grafted into the body of Christ.” Sorry for the confusion.
Of course, but I’m not talking about a few bad apples. Wasn’t the Inquisition sanctioned by the Catholic Church? If so, how is that NOT a clear deviation from Scriptural principle?
cl
says...Regarding the veneration of icons, an Orthodox interpretation. Of note:
For one, it seems to me that painted icons are a bit different than graven images. For two, I have a hard time believing that a renamed statue of Jupiter would meet this Orthodox criteria. The same would apply for all those mass-produced virgin Mary statues as well.
Bob Prokop
says...I greatly admire the Orthodox attitude towards how the artist should approach a work of sacred art. It’s a shame we in the materialist west do not share that same attitude.
But I’m getting curious. What is your real problem here? I can’t believe you’re that upset about there being statues in a Catholic Church. I suspect that isn’t the real issue at all. There’s got to be something deeper here that I’m completely missing.
cl
says...I’m not upset. I’m concerned, and I want to know the truth. I don’t want to believe things “just because” some Catholics said them. Error is rampant. Can’t you feel it? I’m concerned for well-meaning Catholics who may be swallowing the wares of antichrist unaware. I’m concerned for myself, that I don’t let my natural anti-authority tendencies obscure the truth. Believe me, Bob, I am doing everything I can to give your positions and Catholicism a fair reading. That should have been evident by my refusal to quote from vehemently anti-Catholic sources. And if nothing else, you are one of the ones who helped me see through the facade of the “Catholic vs. Protestant” crap. The only difference is that I reject them both.
At the same time, something strikes me as sublimely evil about Catholicism. When I see the look in the eyes of various popes, the crowns, all the adornments… I feel “evil” to my very core. It’s as plain as day to me: the Inquisitions, the Indulgences, the assent to evolutionism, I could go on and on and on. However, since I know “feelings” aren’t always trustworthy, I am wrestling with these issues, deeply. He who seeks finds, right? Well, these days, seeking is the top of my priority chain. I can’t help but wonder the extent to which all those years of “debate” with atheists has distracted me. I simply don’t have time for it anymore, save for minor excursions as the Spirit leads. And I firmly believe that conviction is not intended solely for me.
This is way deeper than shallow, “Catholics go to Hell, Protestants go to Heaven” rhetoric. Like I said, I affirm no official denomination, but if I had to, it would be Orthodox. I may just end up there.
Bob Prokop
says...Thanks, CL. I find it fascinating that the same stimuli can affect various people so strikingly differently. You sense “evil” where I rejoice in the visible manifestation of the Body of Christ. By no means do I confuse one with the other. It’s just that deep down I believe that visible, physical, material things are, as God said in Genesis, “Very Good”, and are useful and profitable as means for us to perceive God’s presence in our lives.
For me it all comes down to the Incarnation. I feel there are three Great Truths to Christianity, and that all else is window dressing: the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption (which includes the historicity of the Resurrection). If a person assents to these three doctrines, then in my books, he is (intellectually, at least) a Christian, no matter what else he believes.
Allow me to quote from my own book, Eyes to See , (some of these words you will have already seen in previous posts of mine):
I hope you can see that anyone who believes that would not associate himself with anything “sublimely evil”.
And by the way, there’s nothing wrong with being Orthodox!