Why I don’t get the Catholic church
When a bishop has to make an announcement granting you the right to eat meat on a certain day, I think you have drifted a little too far into legalism.
For whatever reason Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays during Lent to “observe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.” However, Irish Catholics always eat corned beef on St. Patrick’s Day. To avoid causing millions of Catholics to choose between a holiday tradition and sinning, several bishops around the country granted a waiver, which is standard when the Irish holiday falls on a Friday.
Here’s my question, which may have a little too much common sense: why have a rule against eating meat on any day? How is Jesus honored any more with you not eating meat or how is He remembered any less when you eat a corned beef sandwhich.
Tell me who the following does not sound like New Testament era pharistical law:
Milwaukee parishioners can take their dispensation elsewhere: In other words, they can eat corned beef if they travel. But people shouldn’t come in from other areas — where they haven’t received dispensation — just to eat meat, said Kathleen Hohl, spokeswoman for the Milwaukee Archdiocese.
Here’s my other question: If the “commandment” or rule or whatever it is, can be bent for a holiday tradition, why is it neccessary? Why is the rule important if it is not needed all the time?
danielg:
March 17th, 2006 at 1:50 AM
I think the hypocrisy and rediculousness of this will be lost on most people, though I hope it can become a chance for people to discover the difference between living faith and sentimental traditionalism. I'm going to enjoy some of the corned beef myself tonight, no matter what my local Bishop may think. ;)
Sam:
March 17th, 2006 at 5:08 AM
Aaron,
I totally agree. Not eating certain foods definitely doesn't pay any homage to Jesus Christ. Similarly, banning gay marriage doesn't pay any homage to Jesus Christ.
I can only hope that your revelation will lead Christians toward understanding that Jesus Christ and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another.
danielg:
March 18th, 2006 at 6:11 AM
Interesting analogy, but bad theology. Jesus honored the mosaic and moral law in all points – in fact, grace has no meaning without the law. Jesus would say to the homosexual "neither do I condemn you, now go and sin no more." But to the religious people who condoned sin, he says "it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck, and to then be dropped into the sea than it would be for them to face the judgement that is coming." That probably includes pro-gay theologians as much as pro-racist or any other kind of preacher that condones sin.
Sam:
March 18th, 2006 at 6:13 AM
You condone sin by ignoring those same moral laws don't you? By saying, "Oh well, those don't count anymore," while asking us to, at the same time, believe that everything else that is in the Bible that appeals to you still does count.
FCL:
March 18th, 2006 at 6:53 AM
danielg:
March 19th, 2006 at 6:21 AM
FCL, which parts of the law do you consider "less weighty" that I emphasize?
There is no condemnation of same-sex relationships in that command as there is no condemnation from a reasonable reading of Scripture.
There is no condemnation of beastiality there either. Does that make it on your list of less weighty items? As I pointed out previously, you misuse this scripture in order to justify sin – not minor applications of the law like how much of your spices you are supposed to tithe, but sexual immorality, which is not considered by scripture as less weighty – but if you want to build your entire theology on a couple of verses so that you can exclude everything else that scripture teaches (which is what you are doing) so that you can pick and choose what YOU think is important, that's your prerogative. Just don't call it biblical. Call it what it is – bleeding heart liberal in the name of true love, which does not exclude truth, but applies it with kindness and firmness.
FCL:
March 19th, 2006 at 8:58 PM
If logic were a circle then Seeker would be its master. Seeker pre-supposes that which he then purports to have Scripture “prove”. First of all no one, not even Seeker thinks that we are bound by the Levitical laws. If he did he would advocate the enforcement of LEV 20:13 which purportedly calls for the killing of homosexuals. So if Scripture is not to be made some sterile index of laws then what does it say about law and correct behavior? Seeker has accused me of building a theology on a “couple of verses”. This is of course bunk. I offer more than a couple of verses below that relate to the law and how we are to behave. Exodus 20:1-17 Deuteronomy 10:12-13 Isaiah 1:16-17 Micah 6:8 Matthew 5-7 Matthew 23:23-28 Matthew 25:31-46 Mark 2:23-3:8 Mark 7:17-23 Mark 10:17-22 Mark 12:15-8
Mark 12:28-34 John 13:34- 35 Romans 3:19-20 I Corinthians 6:12-13 Galatians 5:13-6:2
I Thessalonians 4:1-12 1Timothy 4:1-5 Hebrews 4:12 James 1:27 I John 3:4 I John 5:17
There is not space to comment on these individually so I will summarize. The Bible does not list everything that can be considered sinful. The New Testament assumes you know what is good and evil. The N.T. offers general principles not lists of rules. The upshot of this is that the Bible calls individuals to choose good behavior and reject sin. As importantly the Bible directs us toward our own sin not the sins of others. I REPEAT SEEKER, OUR OWN SINS NOT THE SINS OF OTHERS!!!
Sin cannot be determined by an examination of O.T. law. Jesus does not throw away the concept of law but he completes it with an ethic of love that rejects a list of rules and instead embraces a new code of conduct. What summarizes this code of conduct? Loving God completely and loving your neighbor completely. The failure to do either constitutes sin. Where specifically do we find this code of conduct? We find it clearly in the Sermon on the Mount, the heart of how Jesus taught us to live. The truly horrifying thing for most Christians is to be told that Jesus is serious about our actually and literally living out the ethic in the Sermon on the Mount. It is ironic that so many who take Scripture “literally” fail to completely embrace this teaching.
None of this has anything to do with same sex people, in committed loving relationships who are united in Christ. It has nothing to do with tortured exegesis of O.T. “law” that does not say what you think it says in the first place, is not what Christ taught us in the second place and only serves to divide us in the third place. It is wholly illegitimate to take into the study of Scripture a pre-conceived set of ideas and warp Scripture to your vapid ideology.
What all this does mean is that Christ calls us to fully love our neighbor, even our enemies; to fully embrace our world; to be fully engaged in tending to the suffering of God’s children; to live as fully human beings. In this way we fully embrace the Cross and the faith that it creates in us; we fully embrace the Resurrection and the victory that it gives us. A victory that creates a new humanity that is reconciled to God and living as God intended for humanity to live.
Does all this make me a “bleeding heart liberal”? If so then I welcome the moniker. After all Christ bled for me, the least I can do is bleed a little for my fellow man, even you Seeker.
Sam:
March 19th, 2006 at 1:15 PM
Seeker,
For the millionth time, beastiality and homosexuality are NOT THE SAME THING. For somebody who had a problem being picked on in school for being the little guy, you certainly seem to have no problem visiting precisely the same sort of abuse on gays.
danielg:
March 19th, 2006 at 3:33 PM
I never said they were the same thing – they're just both sexual sins, biblically speaking. And I was pointing out the error in FCL's logic. He is making an argument from lack of information – just because the bible doesn't mention it in one specific passage doesn't mean that it condones homoesexuality.
Aaron:
March 20th, 2006 at 3:58 AM
Well this had absolutely nothing to do with my question or my post.