How do you differentiate Halakhah and Canon law

This I find a bit troubeling or confusing. When reading sacred scriptures It seems Jesus moves away from the law towards attitude. Which relaxes some legal restrictions and increases others like:

“‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’”

-Matthew 22:36-40

Seems to release some restrictions of following Mitzvot 613 of Torah to following a summary law which favors an attitude rather than strict legal adherance to the law. So if you follow the generallity of these two “laws” all of Torah is encompassed even though Mitzvot 613 isn’t strictly considered. Then you have passages like these:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” -Matthew 5:38-40

Where the attitude of following law actually requires more involvement and individual sacrifice then is specified in the Law. Now consider Paul’s discourse in Romans and Galatians. Paul indicates that a purpose of the law is to indicate we are sinners.

“For by the law is the knowledge of sin” - Romans 3:20

But Christian life is to be one lead by faith as we note in Galatians

The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith - Gal 3:11

Emphasizing this very point Paul even makes a point to say

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Gal 3:1-2

Now seeing how these verses can work in contrasting the law to our faith. And knowing a bit of the Jewish background of Jesus day where. When the Jews returned from Captivity in Babylon Ezra established Ha Kennesit who in attempting to 1) Uphold Torah and 2) Create Jewish life around Torah such that their behavior and attitudes were distinguished from their neighbors living in the land 3) by these two earlier principles to create a “Hedge of Protection around Torah”. The Jews created a strong atmosphere of 1) Adhereing to the law no matter what the consequences - 2 Macc 7 and 2) an attitude of us and them.
Now over the years it seems Catholics do a similar thing of establishing Canon Law. Though Canon Law is differentiated from Divine Law it seems that certain Divine requirements may not be assessed if Canon Law is offended.
So how do we distinguish between what the Jews did with their Halakhah and what we do with Canon Law and are we falling into the same behavior because of canon law?

Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”

Canon law sounds rather like ‘Oral Torah’ without the debates?

Here Hillel is pretty much making a general one fits all type of thing similar to Jesus’ “upon these two lie all of the law” However, this mishnaic teaching isn’t quite Mitzvot 613 for instance reads like the catachism

To know that G-d exists (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) (CCA1).

and the Catachism

The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122

But then I’m questioning the similarities between something Mitzvot 18

To put tzitzit on the corners of clothing

and canon 224

In addition to those obligations and rights which are common to all the Christian faithful and those which are established in other canons, the lay Christian faithful are bound by the obligations and possess the rights which are enumerated in the canons of this title.

And in its similarity.

The two great Commandments synthesis and incorporate the 10 Commandments.

The first three Commandments address our actions toward God, the last seven address our actions toward our neighbor.

I can’t find the Scripture verse, but Jesus chastises the pharisees because they have built such a steep wall of protection against sin that no one can reach Heaven.

When Jesus tells men that they commit adultery when they look upon a woman with lust, He is requiring that people make a self examination of where mortal and venial sins begin.

That sinful acts begin in the mind and heart before they become physical action.

I’m not familiar with Canon Law (most lay people are not) but like any organization, the Church’s religious run on a preset list of rules and regulations in order to address uniformity within the body. Probably, it’s interactively developed to address the particular era or problem .

Most successful organizations run a military type structure incorporating everything from what employees wear to what they must produce for wages.

Am I understanding that the difference you are citing has to do with more liberty in the Catholic Church?

I understand the need for organization. So did Ezra who most likely formed Ha Kennesit or the Greek word for it Sanhedrin. And look at how it developed into all the Mitzvot of Jesus’ day. How is Canon law different. It provides the rules by which the Sacraments are given in some respects making it harder to obtain that grace? What do you think?

More liberty, no.

The Commandments of 3,000 plus years ago, and the same rules we live by today.

In fact, Jesus required that we convert ourselves even more deeply to understanding where the beginning of our sins originate.

To love God with all of our heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

We have more liberty, than what the Jews had, for intimate contact with Jesus through the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

And we are able to freely have our sins forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Jews were only given that opportunity once a year on Yom Kippur.

So how do you differentiate between Jewish law and Catholic canon?

The Sacrament of Marriage, yes, but the Church is fulfilling what Jesus himself said - that a man who divorces his wife and remarries is committing adultery.

Do you have a specific Canon that you’d like to talk about?

I did a computer search to see what Canon law states on particular subjects.

It took me here:

I have to be honest, I’ve never read any Canon Law before, nor have I ever had a priest require that I/we read it.

Canon Law is apparently contained in one book - is that correct?

From what I’m reading on the website, the book appears to be a who,what, when, where, how (and sometimes why) book about procedures.

I own a business, and we have an employee handbook that people need to read and sign.

It doesn’t cover a single thing about how each job is to be performed. But in the service industry, it’s all about the satisfied customer after our job is completed.

From what I’ve read of that Canon Law, it’s a micro managers approach to training.

Which, when you train someone, you train attention to detail. Why? Because in a month they’re going to forget 30% of what you taught. It’s that bad. If you’re not there to reinforce and train, train and retrain, you don’t get the results you need.

Yes Canon Law and it is in one book and has a larger annotated commentary. However, the question is how do you differentiate Halakhah and Canon law. How does Jesus’ and Paul’s teach support, go against, compiling the rules in question. How can we say to the Jews for instance Law isn’t viable or salvific. Yet we procedurize (law) the sacraments which provides salvific grace. In which case are we supperior when we do this and how is it reasoned via logic, philosophy, and scriptures?

Consider this. In the NT we see criticism of how the Law affected religious life. Both Jesus and the Apostle Paul are outspoken on this matter. How then is our Canon law better? Are we doing the same thing as the sanhedrin? Aren’t we at the same game and if not explain why not.

The only Mitzvot that I can think of that Jesus preached against were the picking of grain on the Sabbath, and not honouring one’s parents (by declaring some of one’s possessions “for the Lord”, while still retaining use of them). This shows me that Jesus was against an abuse of the law. I don’t see that with Catholic canon law today. The laws that govern our sacraments only describe actual reality, for example, who is free to marry. The forms of our sacraments are also prescribed, but that is only because there are specific forms which are necessary for efficacy.

I’m not seeing here, anything out of the ordinary. In very simple terms, it’s a teaching instrument, guidebook, a dictionary of terms, a technical manual for Bishops and priests and the laity on the Sacraments. Which has been added to or subtracted from through the neccessity of our 2,000 year history and the age in which we live.

I’m an RCIA sponsor, and to me, from reading this website page, it’s multiple paragraphs of practicum for delivery of the Sacraments.

Canon 840-845: Defines what the Sacraments are to the Church body, who may change their use, how validity is determined and by whom, the succession of order (Baptism first, then Eucharist, then Confirmation), individual preparation, Eastern Church participation, non Catholics, nonrepeating nature of the ceremony.

Ceremony and application of sacramentals are important aspects both for candidates receiving the Sacraments and for the Church in remembrance of Christs’ works here on Earth.

Jesus didn’t need to, but He took spit and dirt to form a paste to heal a blind man. He allowed John to cover His head with water and baptize Him - similar to how Samuel annointed Gods’ kings with oil.

The reason that these sacramentals and the Sacraments have survived in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years is that the teaching body of the Church has remained uniform in their understanding of those procedures and the entire deposit of the faith.

Canon Law is an Apostolic ordering of the Church body in rite, ceremony and liturgy.

I just completed a Compendium of the Catholic Church course (condensed Cathechism) and we discussed the Creed, the Liturgy, the Sacraments, the moral law, the Ten Commandents and Christian prayer.

Now that I’ve read a bit of Canon Law, I can see how the three intertwine.

I understand much more deeply, what is meant when Catholics talk about the “deposit of our faith”.

It seems I’m not being clear or I’m not understanding something. Let me approach it this way. Paul discourse in Galatians says this with regard to law as they had it and can be compared to Catholic law.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced** so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law,…For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith…Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you**. How is this cutting rebuke to the Galatians for returning to “law” not applicable to the Church? What makes the law of the Church different from what Paul is speaking of here? Haven’t we as a church done what the Jews did? Look at Romans

[quote]if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?

If not how then is it different?

The Church is standardizing practice, in each Church and across the millenia. By doing this, they safeguard both Apolostotic and magisterium instruction.

In my business, we acknowledge a service glitch or failure, by solving the problem and then storing that process into memory. To develop ways to “dodge the bullet” in the future.

Take for example Catholic Baptism. Preferably using running water while reciting the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

There’s more to the Rite now, exorcism language for the family and the Church to be in communion with the raising of the baby, a recommitment for all involved for what we believe as a body. A Creed for Baptism.

However, that’s no longer true in protestant denominations. Their understanding of Baptism has been changed, some in critical disregard for what is found in Sacred Scripture. Running water and 18 words. Yet, there are baptisms conducted by denominations that the Catholic Church will not validate.

They no longer have a deposit of faith to draw from, it’s fluid and can constantly change depending on the will of the people within the parish.

P.S. St. Paul told his congregations how they would dress for Mass. How they would present themselves, what he would and would not allow within the moral code of the Church. What could be eaten - when it should not be eaten - and why.

It would be interesting, to compare and contrast the presentation and dwelling of the Holy Spirit in both the Old Testament and in the New.

To my mind, the Holy Spirit, (for the Jews) was resting in the Holy of Holies.

The Holy Spirit, at the time of Pentecost, and during the lives of the Apostles, was set free to bless and grace the Apostles, the new Churches, the deacons, the priests, the bishops and the people.

Sacraments confer the grace of the Holy Spirit upon us so that we can become holy like Christ.

I can understand why the Apostles and their disciples and all the bishops throughout time, felt the need to protect and safeguard those sacramental actions.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit