Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin. For we must not believe that the apostles committed mortal sin after receiving the Holy Ghost: since by His fulness they were "endued with power from on high" (Lk. 24:49). But the apostles observed the legal ceremonies after the coming of the Holy Ghost: for it is stated (Acts 16:3) that Paul circumcised Timothy: and (Acts 21:26) that Paul, at the advice of James, "took the men, and . . . being purified with them, entered into the temple, giving notice of the accomplishment of the days of purification, until an oblation should be offered for every one of them." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since the Passion of Christ without mortal sin.

Objection 2: Further, one of the legal ceremonies consisted in shunning the fellowship of Gentiles. But the first Pastor of the Church complied with this observance; for it is stated (Gal. 2:12) that, "when" certain men "had come" to Antioch, Peter "withdrew and separated himself" from the Gentiles. Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

Objection 3: Further, the commands of the apostles did not lead men into sin. But it was commanded by apostolic decree that the Gentiles should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (Acts 15:28,29): "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." But nothing save mortal sin hinders us from receiving Christ's fruit. Therefore since Christ's Passion it is a mortal sin to be circumcised, or to observe the other legal ceremonies.

I answer that, All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation."

Reply to Objection 1: On this point there seems to have been a difference of opinion between Jerome and Augustine. For Jerome (Super Galat. ii, 11, seqq.) distinguished two periods of time. One was the time previous to Christ's Passion, during which the legal ceremonies were neither dead, since they were obligatory, and did expiate in their own fashion; nor deadly, because it was not sinful to observe them. But immediately after Christ's Passion they began to be not only dead, so as no longer to be either effectual or binding; but also deadly, so that whoever observed them was guilty of mortal sin. Hence he maintained that after the Passion the apostles never observed the legal ceremonies in real earnest; but only by a kind of pious pretense, lest, to wit, they should scandalize the Jews and hinder their conversion. This pretense, however, is to be understood, not as though they did not in reality perform those actions, but in the sense that they performed them without the mind to observe the ceremonies of the Law: thus a man might cut away his foreskin for health's sake, not with the intention of observing legal circumcision.

But since it seems unbecoming that the apostles, in order to avoid scandal, should have hidden things pertaining to the truth of life and doctrine, and that they should have made use of pretense, in things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful; therefore Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz. from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand, there was no reason why those who were converted from heathendom to Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother; but was unwilling to circumcise Titus, who was of heathen nationality.

The reason why the Holy Ghost did not wish the converted Jews to be debarred at once from observing the legal ceremonies, while converted heathens were forbidden to observe the rites of heathendom, was in order to show that there is a difference between these rites. For heathenish ceremonial was rejected as absolutely unlawful, and as prohibited by God for all time; whereas the legal ceremonial ceased as being fulfilled through Christ's Passion, being instituted by God as a figure of Christ.

Reply to Objection 2: According to Jerome, Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles by pretense, in order to avoid giving scandal to the Jews, of whom he was the Apostle. Hence he did not sin at all in acting thus. On the other hand, Paul in like manner made a pretense of blaming him, in order to avoid scandalizing the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of this solution: because in the canonical Scripture (viz. Gal. 2:11), wherein we must not hold anything to be false, Paul says that Peter "was to be blamed." Consequently it is true that Peter was at fault: and Paul blamed him in very truth and not with pretense. Peter, however, did not sin, by observing the legal ceremonial for the time being; because this was lawful for him who was a converted Jew. But he did sin by excessive minuteness in the observance of the legal rites lest he should scandalize the Jews, the result being that he gave scandal to the Gentiles.

Reply to Objection 3: Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is not to be taken literally, but spiritually: namely, that the prohibition of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they gathered from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says on Ezech. 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not keep these precepts."

But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should have been forbidden more than the others.

We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Mt. 15:11); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod post passionem christi legalia possint sine peccato mortali observari.

Non est enim credendum quod apostoli, post acceptum spiritum sanctum, mortaliter peccaverint, eius enim plenitudine sunt induti virtute ex alto, ut dicitur Lucae ult..

Sed apostoli post adventum spiritus sancti legalia observaverunt, dicitur enim Act. XVI, quod Paulus circumcidit timotheum; et Act. XXI, dicitur quod Paulus, secundum consilium Iacobi, assumptis viris, purificatus cum eis intravit in templum, annuntians expletionem dierum purificationis, donec offerretur pro unoquoque eorum oblatio.

Ergo sine peccato mortali possunt post christi passionem legalia observari.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, vitare consortia gentilium ad caeremonias legis pertinebat. Sed hoc observavit primus pastor ecclesiae, dicitur enim ad Gal. II, quod, cum venissent quidam Antiochiam, subtrahebat et segregabat se Petrus a gentilibus.

Ergo absque peccato post passionem christi legis caeremoniae observari possunt.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, praecepta apostolorum non induxerunt homines ad peccatum. Sed ex decreto apostolorum statutum fuit quod gentiles quaedam de caeremoniis legis observarent, dicitur enim Act. XV, visum est spiritui sancto et nobis nihil ultra imponere oneris vobis quam haec necessaria, ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulacrorum, et sanguine, et suffocato, et fornicatione.

Ergo absque peccato caeremoniae legales possunt post christi passionem observari.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Gal. V, si circumcidimini, christus nihil vobis proderit.

Sed nihil excludit fructum christi nisi peccatum mortale.

Ergo circumcidi, et alias caeremonias observare, post passionem christi est peccatum mortale.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod omnes caeremoniae sunt quaedam protestationes fidei, in qua consistit interior dei cultus.

Sic autem fidem interiorem potest homo protestari factis, sicut et verbis, et in utraque protestatione, si aliquid homo falsum protestatur, peccat mortaliter. Quamvis autem sit eadem fides quam habemus de christo, et quam antiqui patres habuerunt; tamen quia ipsi praecesserunt christum, nos autem sequimur, eadem fides diversis verbis significatur a nobis et ab eis.

Nam ab eis dicebatur, ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium, quae sunt verba futuri temporis, nos autem idem repraesentamus per verba praeteriti temporis, dicentes quod concepit et peperit.

Et similiter caeremoniae veteris legis significabant christum ut nasciturum et passurum, nostra autem sacramenta significant ipsum ut natum et passum. Sicut igitur peccaret mortaliter qui nunc, suam fidem protestando, diceret christum nasciturum, quod antiqui pie et veraciter dicebant; ita etiam peccaret mortaliter, si quis nunc caeremonias observaret, quas antiqui pie et fideliter observabant.

Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, contra faustum, iam non promittitur nasciturus, passurus, resurrecturus, quod illa sacramenta quodammodo personabant, sed annuntiatur quod natus sit, passus sit, resurrexerit; quod haec sacramenta quae a christianis aguntur, iam personant.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circa hoc diversimode sensisse videntur Hieronymus et Augustinus.

Hieronymus enim distinxit duo tempora.

Unum tempus ante passionem christi, in quo legalia nec erant mortua, quasi non habentia vim obligatoriam, aut expiativam pro suo modo; nec etiam mortifera, quia non peccabant ea observantes.

Statim autem post passionem christi incoeperunt esse non solum mortua, idest non habentia virtutem et obligationem; sed etiam mortifera, ita scilicet quod peccabant mortaliter quicumque ea observabant. Unde dicebat quod apostoli nunquam legalia observaverunt post passionem secundum veritatem; sed solum quadam pia simulatione, ne scilicet scandalizarent Iudaeos et eorum conversionem impedirent. Quae quidem simulatio sic intelligenda est, non quidem ita quod illos actus secundum rei veritatem non facerent, sed quia non faciebant tanquam legis caeremonias observantes; sicut si quis pelliculam virilis membri abscinderet propter sanitatem, non causa legalis circumcisionis observandae.

Sed quia indecens videtur quod apostoli ea occultarent propter scandalum quae pertinent ad veritatem vitae et doctrinae, et quod simulatione uterentur in his quae pertinent ad salutem fidelium; ideo convenientius Augustinus distinxit tria tempora.

Unum quidem ante christi passionem, in quo legalia non erant neque mortifera neque mortua. Aliud autem post tempus evangelii divulgati, in quo legalia sunt et mortua et mortifera. Tertium autem est tempus medium, scilicet a passione christi usque ad divulgationem evangelii, in quo legalia fuerunt quidem mortua, quia neque vim aliquam habebant, neque aliquis ea observare tenebatur; non tamen fuerunt mortifera, quia illi qui conversi erant ad christum ex Iudaeis, poterant illa legalia licite observare, dummodo non sic ponerent spem in eis quod ea reputarent sibi necessaria ad salutem, quasi sine legalibus fides christi iustificare non posset. His autem qui convertebantur ex gentilitate ad christum, non inerat causa ut ea observarent.

Et ideo Paulus circumcidit timotheum, qui ex matre Iudaea genitus erat; titum autem, qui ex gentilibus natus erat, circumcidere noluit.

Ideo autem noluit spiritus sanctus ut statim inhiberetur his qui ex Iudaeis convertebantur observatio legalium, sicut inhibebatur his qui ex gentilibus convertebantur gentilitatis ritus, ut quaedam differentia inter hos ritus ostenderetur. Nam gentilitatis ritus repudiabatur tanquam omnino illicitus, et a deo semper prohibitus, ritus autem legis cessabat tanquam impletus per christi passionem, utpote a deo in figuram christi institutus.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Hieronymum, Petrus simulatorie se a gentilibus subtrahebat, ut vitaret Iudaeorum scandalum, quorum erat apostolus.

Unde in hoc nullo modo peccavit, sed Paulus eum similiter simulatorie reprehendit, ut vitaret scandalum gentilium, quorum erat apostolus. Sed Augustinus hoc improbat, quia Paulus in canonica Scriptura, scilicet Gal. II, in qua nefas est credere aliquid esse falsum, dicit quod Petrus reprehensibilis erat.

Unde verum est quod Petrus peccavit, et Paulus vere eum, non simulatorie, reprehendit. Non autem peccavit Petrus in hoc quod ad tempus legalia observabat, quia hoc sibi licebat, tanquam ex Iudaeis converso. Sed peccabat in hoc quod circa legalium observantiam nimiam diligentiam adhibebat ne scandalizaret Iudaeos, ita quod ex hoc sequebatur gentilium scandalum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod illa prohibitio apostolorum non est intelligenda ad litteram, sed secundum spiritualem intellectum, ut scilicet in prohibitione sanguinis, intelligatur prohibitio homicidii; in prohibitione suffocati, intelligatur prohibitio violentiae et rapinae; in prohibitione immolatorum, intelligatur prohibitio idololatriae; fornicatio autem prohibetur tanquam per se malum.

Et hanc opinionem accipiunt ex quibusdam Glossis, quae huiusmodi praecepta mystice exponunt. Sed quia homicidium et rapina etiam apud gentiles reputabantur illicita, non oportuisset super hoc speciale mandatum dari his qui erant ex gentilitate conversi ad christum.

Unde alii dicunt quod ad litteram illa comestibilia fuerunt prohibita, non propter observantiam legalium, sed propter gulam comprimendam.

Unde dicit Hieronymus, super illud Ezech. XLIV, omne morticinum etc., condemnat sacerdotes qui in turdis et ceteris huiusmodi, haec, cupiditate gulae, non custodiunt.

Sed quia sunt quaedam cibaria magis delicata et gulam provocantia, non videtur ratio quare fuerunt haec magis quam alia prohibita. Et ideo dicendum, secundum tertiam opinionem, quod ad litteram ista sunt prohibita, non ad observandum caeremonias legis, sed ad hoc quod posset coalescere unio gentilium et Iudaeorum insimul habitantium. Iudaeis enim, propter antiquam consuetudinem, sanguis et suffocatum erant abominabilia, comestio autem immolatorum simulacris, poterat in Iudaeis aggenerare circa gentiles suspicionem reditus ad idololatriam. Et ideo ista fuerunt prohibita pro tempore illo, in quo de novo oportebat convenire in unum gentiles et Iudaeos. Procedente autem tempore, cessante causa, cessat effectus; manifestata evangelicae doctrinae veritate, in qua dominus docet quod nihil quod per os intrat, coinquinat hominem, ut dicitur Matth. XV; et quod nihil est reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur, ut I ad Tim. IV dicitur.

Fornicatio autem prohibetur specialiter, quia gentiles eam non reputabant esse peccatum.