How did the Catholic canon that Christians could not 'share a meal with a Jew' differ in spirit from the Pharisees traditions concerning Gentiles?

score:9

Accepted answer

Concerning the council of Elvira, which

was attended by nineteen bishops from all parts of the Peninsula

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05395b.htm

and could hardly be considered incumbent on the entirety of the Christendom in a place where

The Jews were so numerous and so powerful in Spain during the first centuries of the Christian era that they might at one time have hoped to be able to Judaize the whole country According to the monuments which however are of doubtful authority they established themselves in Spain in the time of King Solomon It is more likely that they crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only about a hundred years before Christ. There they soon increased in number and importance and could energetically carry on their work of proselytizing. This is the reason that the Synod of Elvira had to forbid to the priests and the laity all intimate intercourse with Jews (can 50) and especially marriage (Can 16) for there is no doubt that at this period many Christians of high rank in Spain became Jews as Jost shows in his work. Which is something in German that I couldn't find

History of the Councils

the reasoning behind restricting communion for Christians who broke bread with Jews was to keep them apart so they wouldn't draw together and bring in to action Canon 16. Intermarriage, has been traditionally prohibited by the Catholic Church and always requires some sort of dispensation.

If, at the time, eating together could serve no purpose other than to weaken the faith of the Christian it has no bearing in relation to Rabbinic Tradition. To denounce it would be like a Pope denouncing the Inquisition for being a bad policy for the protection of Christendom in Spain against the Moors. When Pope John Paul II did apologize I think it it was for the particular acts of evil committed in the name of the Church, not the policy promulgated by the Bishops.

There's nothing in there about not eating with sinners and nothing in there that says Jews are sinners with whom one should not eat. It says, do not eat with Jews. I'm not gonna defend it, I'm not going to abide by it, but I'm not going to say that it may not have been a good idea at the time. Although Spain, according to secular history, has always been a succession of bad ideas, if not cruel and inhumane ones.

Beyond all this, the banning of a simple meal, never could have taken place. Church laws are mostly self-accusatory unless they bring scandal. So, a large meal, with Disobedient Christians and Jews, would bring scandal, but a small meal, wherein a Christian family shared a bit of cheese with a Jewish one or vice versa, would not bring scandal. Likewise a Christian probably would not be allowed to partake in big meals on Jewish feast days. But, for the most part, a Catholic still isn't allowed to fully partake in big meals on Jewish feast days. Because of scruples from both religions.

It's not a sin to believe what you believe to the absolute exclusion of all else, especially when what you believe is what you have come to know is the truth. Where there is truth in other sects, the Catholic can participate, but when a practice ardently excludes Jesus implicitly like in Judaism or explicitly like in Islam one must guard ones self against what can only be describe as Jesus-less worship. You just cannot be Christian and drop in to Jesus-free mode because it suits your tastebuds.

Upvote:7

I fundamentally object to all of the sources cited. They all seem to fail to appreciate several important points in Tradition:

  • A Council is something which is binding over the entire Church and its rulings on theology can never be ignored unless the Council specifically says otherwise (such as in the case of certain documents of Vatican II).
  • A synod is a local gathering of bishops which is temporarily binding over a specific region or set of regions. Any theological conclusion may be set aside, even by one of the bishops who originally agreed to the conclusions. There have been quite a few synods which have promulgated doctrines which have been quite dubious.
  • Normative rulings of the Church are not subject to infallibility unless they deal with the matter of the sacraments (for example, the decree that you must use water for baptism cannot be rescinded).
  • The council of Elvira was really a small Synod that dealt solely with norms. As such, its rulings cannot currently be considered any more significant than the ramblings of defrocked and excommunicated bishop Milingo.
  • A note should be made on the Lateran IV (mentioned in one of your sources and cited as condemning Judaism). There are a number of rulings related to the state of Jews and Saracens in Christian society (you can find the full text here). Specifically:
    1. There is mention of Jews practicing usury (something which could incur excommunication to the Christian). The Council condemns this.
    2. There is mention of intermarriage with non-believers (and extramarital relations), both of these should have been condemned anyway (no unequally yoked condemns intermarriage, most of the Bible condemns extra-marital relations).
    3. The only two issues which can even be questionable are "Jews who convert may not become Jews again," (a normative law), and "Jews are not to hold public office" (another normative rule). While we might not like these types of rules today, they do make a certain degree of sense.

To the final question, I simply say that the answer is simple. Catholic Tradition, while intricate, very often is not binding. Only binding traditions can be held to the standard of infallibility and those can be found (almost exclusively) in the Councils and the (two) infallible statements of the Holy See.

More post

Search Posts

Related post