“The Jews were to obey them. We are not Jews. It is not complicated.”
No, they are the Moral Law, which is an expression of the Divine Law, which is eternal and binding on all men. That’s in your own Catechism. It is not complicated.
Your argument that Christians aren’t bound by the clause concerning graven images and idolatry is nonsense. The Church Fathers discussed it at length, always condemning it. One of the accusations laid against the Christians by the Romans was that they had no images. You can’t demonstrate that it was otherwise in the church until centuries later.
The New Covenant law is an extension of the Old Covenant laws, but nothing of the Moral Law was abolished, the New Testament and your Catechism both testify to this. Jesus’ expounding of the New Law clearly shows that the New Law is a higher standard, in every case, not a lessening of it. Having the law written on our hearts means, in this case, to even want to make an image is a sin, not that we are free to make and bow to images as long as we think we are doing something pleasing to God. God has told us many times that he hates those images, so, unlike the pagans, we cannot appeal to ignorance to excuse us and claim to have an innocent heart. At best, we’d be guilty of a lax attitude towards knowing the Scriptures, and more likely an intentional attempt to rationalize our way around them and mislead others into doing the same.
“Protestant objections to heartfelt prayer are what the pharisees did when they counted how many times the Holy Apostles washed their cup, and just as comical. Christ laughs at you guys (Luke 11:39, several similar).”
Again, you try to conflate the ceremonial laws, which Christ abolished, with the Moral Law, which he did not. You’re comparing apples and oranges. If your contention is correct, and the Moral Law is abolished, and we have only what is in our hearts to guide our actions, then a sociopath who doesn’t feel their is anything wrong with killing people would be guiltless. That’s a sentiment that is comical.
“This is the meaning of the First Commandment. Nothing is said about important distinctions of carved versus painted or ceremonial law versus moral law.”
I guess your entire position relies on the fact that Christ didn’t repeat every part of the Commandments that were still binding in the Sermon on the Mount. Even though, he says that every part is still binding, forever, in the beginning, you require him to list every sentence and expound on them, or you will feel free to disobey? Did you ever stop to consider that Christ’s audience were Jews and not a one of them would have needed to be reminded not to make graven images or what the definition of graven image meant? To his audience, that would have been self-evident, and if ever there was a man who did not waste his breath unnecessarily, it was Jesus. On the other hand, if the restrictions of the commandment had been lessened, that would have been an important thing to communicate, since it was such an important law that the Jews had been punished many times for disobeying.
Still, we know with a certainty that the commandment against idolatry couldn’t have been abolished, even if He did not spell it out for you in that passage, since His apostles clearly denounce it in the epistles, and I’m quite content that they understood Christ’s message better than you or I. I’ll take their word for it over any of your hollow protestations.
Don't put words in my mouth. Besides, it helps to understand the argument before replying to it.
Chruist, -- nor the Catholic Church, -- did not abolish the Moral Law. Monotheism -- belief in one God, -- is a part of Moral Law. Idolatry: belief that an idol is God is a violation of Moral Law and is abhorrent to Catholic Christians.
The clause about graven images is not moral law. As you yourself showed, taken literally -- as you want to take it -- it only applies to carved sculpture. Not flat images and not even (you did not say it, but it follows from what you did say) to cast sculpture. How can a moral law depend on the technique of the image? Now that particular clause has not been repeated and was lifted without even a decree just by the practice of the Church.
God has told us many times that he hates those images
in the context of idol worship. So do all Catholics.
If your contention is correct, and the Moral Law is abolished, and we have only what is in our hearts to guide our actions, then a sociopath...
The Moral law is not abolished. It cannot be abolished any more than gravity can be abolished -- it is Natural Law.
he says that every part is still binding, forever, in the beginning, you require him to list every sentence and expound on them, or you will feel free to disobey?
First, I rely on the Rule of Faith that is the Catholic Church, which toyed with the idea of abolishing veneration of icons and that heretical isea was condemned at the Second Nicean Council. Triumph of Orthodoxy, remember?
I certainly don't require Christ to list anything. He did not mention for example certain sexual sins beside adultery, or contraception, or abortion in that Sermon; nevertheless they are still sins. But He discusses the first Commandment for the entire length of Matthew Chapter 6, and He never mentions anything about images. This is consistent with the fact that He is Himself an image as we discussed earlier. I already showed you scripture where veneration of an image is suggested (see my 147).
if the restrictions of the commandment had been lessened...
The Commandment to love one God and have no other was not lessened. The point about graven images is the kind of pedantry that is not consistent with the entire tone of the Sermon. It is, however, very consistent with Protestant pharisaism.