Of shrimp and gays

[Mithrandylan]

I have a question.

In the old testament right around the place where homosexuality is listed as an abomination, so is eating shrimp and I think other things like lobster- don't have the text in front of me, wanted to write this out while I felt I could articulate it.

Now, obviously we don't believe that eating shrimp is damning anymore.  It has been explained to me that it was part of the mosaic dietary law which was lifted in the new testament.  I know that at least in romans there is talk of the evils of homsexual practice.

Could someone highlight the text to me or help me understand how it is that dietary plans were lifted and not homosexuality?  also, where?  I feel I may have some more questions on the matter but for now thats it.

A side note, how do you succesfully carry a discourse out with someone who uses this instance as an example of how "Christians just use the bible to fit whatever they want to believe?"  you don't have to answer that one, but it has irked me for some time.

thank you. 

The Old Testament was only a prefigurement for the New.   JESUS is GOD.  So when prophets who are men try to describe what GOD made known to them through an Angel - isnt the same as the SON Of GOD Explaining in detail to his disciples through word of Mouth and then Enlightening them with Both the HOLY GHOST and the SACRAMENTS - things the people of the Old Testment didnt have access to.    Certainly today both can be Sinful.   Say its Lent and you have already eaten your two snacks and your main meal and you decide to partake of a plateful of Shrimp.  That is a mortal sin.    And as to the other - when hasnt it been a Mortal sin.

Pax

How would it be a mortal sin?  On days of fast and abstinence I see how it could be sinful, and all times of the year we are succeptible to the sin of gluttony- I just don't t see how the scenario you laid out would be mortally sinful.

[Malleus Haereticorum]

I have a question.

In the old testament right around the place where homosexuality is listed as an abomination, so is eating shrimp and I think other things like lobster- don't have the text in front of me, wanted to write this out while I felt I could articulate it.

Now, obviously we don't believe that eating shrimp is damning anymore.  It has been explained to me that it was part of the mosaic dietary law which was lifted in the new testament.  I know that at least in romans there is talk of the evils of homsexual practice.

Could someone highlight the text to me or help me understand how it is that dietary plans were lifted and not homosexuality?  also, where?  I feel I may have some more questions on the matter but for now thats it.

A side note, how do you succesfully carry a discourse out with someone who uses this instance as an example of how "Christians just use the bible to fit whatever they want to believe?"  you don't have to answer that one, but it has irked me for some time.

thank you. 

The Old Testament was only a prefigurement for the New.   JESUS is GOD.  So when prophets who are men try to describe what GOD made known to them through an Angel - isnt the same as the SON Of GOD Explaining in detail to his disciples through word of Mouth and then Enlightening them with Both the HOLY GHOST and the SACRAMENTS - things the people of the Old Testment didnt have access to.    Certainly today both can be Sinful.   Say its Lent and you have already eaten your two snacks and your main meal and you decide to partake of a plateful of Shrimp.  That is a mortal sin.    And as to the other - when hasnt it been a Mortal sin.

Pax

How would it be a mortal sin?  On days of fast and abstinence I see how it could be sinful, and all times of the year we are succeptible to the sin of gluttony- I just don't t see how the scenario you laid out would be mortally sinful.

Canon Law of 1917 :

Canon 1250. The law of abstinence prohibits meat and soups made of meat but not of eggs, milks, and other condiments, even if taken from animals.

Canon 1251. 1. The law of fast prescribes that there be only one meal a day; but it does not forbid that a little bit [of food] be taken in the morning and the evening, observing, nevertheless, the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and the quality of the food.

2. It is not forbidden to mix meat and fish in the same meal; or to exchange the evening meal with lunch.

Canon 1252. 1. The law of abstinence only must be observed every Friday.

2. The law of abstinence together with fast must be observed every Ash Wed, every Friday and Saturday of Lent, each of the Ember Days, and the vigils of the Pentecost, the Assumption of the God-bearer into heaven, All Saints, and the Nativity of the Lord.

3. The law of fast only is to be observed on all the other days of Lent.

4. On Sundays or feasts of precept, the law of abstinence or of abstinence and fast or a fast only ceases, except during Lent, nor is the vigil anticipated; likewise it ceases on Holy Saturday afternoon.

Canon 1254. 1. The law of abstinence binds all those who have completed seven years of age.

2. All those are bound by the law of fast from the completion of the twenty-first year of age until the beginning of the sixtieth.

[Mithrandylan]

Still, that doesn't constitute mortal sin.  Besides, seafood isn't flesh meat.  That why we (are able to) eat it on fridays during lent

[Malleus Haereticorum]

Still, that doesn't constitute mortal sin.  Besides, seafood isn't flesh meat.  That why we (are able to) eat it on fridays during lent

That isnt what I said is it.   I said it would be a mortal sin - IF AFTER EATING A MAIN MEAL AND TWO SNACKS ON A FAST DAY YOU ATE A PLATE OF SHRIMP IN ADDITION AND THUS BROKE THE FAST

What I didnt say was anything about Abstinence from Meat on Friday.

I just love it when I make a statement and then people want to argue with things THEY CLAIM was said instead of READING.

It remains a Mortal sin to eat more food on a fast day than is allowed.

Canon 1251. 1. The law of fast prescribes that there be only one meal a day; but it does not forbid that a little bit [of food] be taken in the morning and the evening, observing, nevertheless, the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and the quality of the food.

[INPEFESS]

I have a question.

In the old testament right around the place where homosexuality is listed as an abomination, so is eating shrimp and I think other things like lobster- don't have the text in front of me, wanted to write this out while I felt I could articulate it.

Now, obviously we don't believe that eating shrimp is damning anymore.  It has been explained to me that it was part of the mosaic dietary law which was lifted in the new testament.  I know that at least in romans there is talk of the evils of homsexual practice.

Could someone highlight the text to me or help me understand how it is that dietary plans were lifted and not homosexuality?  also, where?  I feel I may have some more questions on the matter but for now thats it.

A side note, how do you succesfully carry a discourse out with someone who uses this instance as an example of how "Christians just use the bible to fit whatever they want to believe?"  you don't have to answer that one, but it has irked me for some time.

thank you. 

The dietary law in question concerns Divine Law; the prohibition of disordered sexual activity concerns Natural Law.

EDITED to add: This particular Divine Law of the Old Testament was fulfilled via the Sacrifice of the Cross along with many others; Natural Law, however, is the human participation in the Eternal Law, which does not change.

Nvm, you answered my question!

Very good. I'm sorry my first response was incomplete. I realized after I had posted that it would probably only elicit more questions. But that is good. It is good to know our Faith. It truly is beautiful!

Oh, i agree.  I actually just finished my rosaray about 20 minutes ago and was praying to be able to learn and understandmore but more importantly (i have a very poor memory) to retain the things I learn about the faith. 

I guess I have another question- when you say "fulfill" what exactly do you mean?  Certainly it doesn't mean that the old testament is null and void- if that were the case we wouldn't have it as part of the bible, would we?  When Christ fulfilled the law on calvary I know he freed all the old testament figures to go to heaven, but what laws are then forfeit and which do we still follow?  Obviously we are not to murder or steal, but those things are of course listed in the new testament as the new law.  i'm sure there must be something in the old testament we're still not supposed to do thats not listed in the new testament.  or maybe not?

Mithrandylan,

I apologize for not being able to respond right now. I am very busy and will respond when I get a change. However, it probably won't be until next week (the earliest).

Pax tecum,
INP

[Ray M Facere]

The Jewish dietary laws along with the other disciplinary aspects of the Old Covenant, etc. were abrogated and shown to be through divine revelation. If you read Acts Chapter 10 you'll see part of this revelation (http://drbo.org/chapter/51010.htm). Some highlights

Beginning with verse 10 Peter has divine revelation that it is acceptable to kill and eat all animals. He's shocked that he no longer has to keep kosher because he says he's always done it before. Shortly thereafter, he gets up and preaches a sermon in which he says that both the Gentiles and Jews are acceptable to Christ. The Holy Ghost comes during the course of this sermon on those listening and the Jews that were there were shocked to see that the Holy Ghost came also to the Gentiles. Peter then seeing that the Holy Ghost was with these Gentiles, commands that they be baptized.

The take-away from this whole episode illustrates that the disciplinary aspects of Judaism (including dietary laws and even circumcision) were no longer necessary under the New Covenant. Of course this was confirmed by the Council of Jerusalem very early in the Church's history.

[Melkite]

How does the Church differentiate what is moral law and what is divine law?  What if it were somehow unnatural for us to eat shrimp, or any meat for that matter?  After all, in the beginning, humans were vegetarians.

[Melkite]

Still, that doesn't constitute mortal sin.  Besides, seafood isn't flesh meat.  That why we (are able to) eat it on fridays during lent

That isnt what I said is it.   I said it would be a mortal sin - IF AFTER EATING A MAIN MEAL AND TWO SNACKS ON A FAST DAY YOU ATE A PLATE OF SHRIMP IN ADDITION AND THUS BROKE THE FAST

What I didnt say was anything about Abstinence from Meat on Friday.

I just love it when I make a statement and then people want to argue with things THEY CLAIM was said instead of READING.

It remains a Mortal sin to eat more food on a fast day than is allowed.

Canon 1251. 1. The law of fast prescribes that there be only one meal a day; but it does not forbid that a little bit [of food] be taken in the morning and the evening, observing, nevertheless, the approved custom of places concerning the quantity and the quality of the food.

Malleus, you really have a knack for missing the point, don't you?  What he was saying is, NOTHING YOU QUOTED REFERS TO IT AS MORTAL SIN.  ALL YOU DID WAS QUOTE CANON LAW ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MEALS ONE CAN HAVE ON A FAST DAY BUT YOU DID NOT SHOW WHERE THE CHURCH TEACHES BREAKING THAT LAW CONSTITUTES A MORTAL SIN.  Consequently, at least in the Eastern churches, the fast is for us, not for God, and as such, there is no sin in not keeping the fast, mortal or venial, any more than there is in not going to class.  You miss out if you skip class, your teacher doesn't.  Fasting is a discipline, not a moral law.

[Ray M Facere]

How does the Church differentiate what is moral law and what is divine law?  What if it were somehow unnatural for us to eat shrimp, or any meat for that matter?

I think you are really asking how we can tell the difference between natural law and divine law. If it were unnatural for us to eat shrimp then shrimp would be poisonous to humans. Natural law can be proved by reason alone, without the benefit of revelation.

[Melkite]

How does the Church differentiate what is moral law and what is divine law?  What if it were somehow unnatural for us to eat shrimp, or any meat for that matter?

I think you are really asking how we can tell the difference between natural law and divine law. If it were unnatural for us to eat shrimp then shrimp would be poisonous to humans. Natural law can be proved by reason alone, without the benefit of revelation.

Well fornication is contrary to the natural law but that isn't discernable by reason alone.  And by some rationale, sodomy isn't unnatural for particular persons because they see it as an expression of love, so there must be something else that can be used as a guidepost for determining what is natural and what is divine, since reason is fallible.