Catholicism and Legalism

[JLSacred]

This article from Catholic Answers is pertinent:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501bt.asp

Is Friday Penance Required?

By Jimmy Akin
As a result, there appears to be **no legal obligation in the United States to practice penance on Friday**, but Friday remains a day on which the bishops have **urged** all to do penance and, in particular, **recommended** the continued practice of abstinence.
This change to the Friday observance has come from the USSCB (as allowed under canon law) and not from the Vatican so is only the US norm. What is the Universal Norm? Has it changed or is Friday Abstention still a requirement in other countries? Where can we find the norms for our particular countries? Everything in the English-speaking world has seemed to default to the US norm so I’m wondering if there have been any pronouncement by Bishops Councils from other countries on this subject.

I didn’t know this. I thought we were still obligated.

I still think it’s a good idea. I do believe it’s more difficult to observe these things in our hectic modern lives. Friday, since the advent of the traditional 5 day work week, has become a more celebratory day of the week. I’d like to see the traditional day be changed to Wednesday. Wednesday is already a depressing day for workers…

Another factor is the fact that so many people in modern life are on different work schedules. Restaurant workers, Police, Firefighters, hospital workers, retail workers, they all work on weekends. It’s really changed the fabric of our lives. And people are so over scheduled. It used to be that life was simpler. These days people are so busy they forget what day it is half the time.

 

[Truthstalker]

TS-

Paul also wrote:

Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:26-27)

And by his example we see:

1. 
   *]Acts 13:2
   While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
   *]Acts 14:23
   Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
   Paul and Barnabas were commissioned with prayer AND fasting; they did the same when appointing others.
   
   In our society, we’re cool with prayer…just not so keen on fasting…but Paul clearly fasted and disciplined himself to be freed from desires of the flesh.
   
   Hope this helps. :tiphat:

1. 
   It’s not the idea of fasting that bothers me, not at all. It’s the obligation and the requirement that is problematic. I freely go to church weekly of my own free will. But if someone were to tell me that if I don’t go, I’m dead in my sins, and makes it a law, then I naturally rebel against the law, even if I freely conformed myself to that law beforehand. I would be likely to start skipping church just to make the point that I am not under the law.
   
   When I’ve participated in church fasts, it’s been stressed from the pastors that the fasting is optional, and a good thing, but the church didn’t want to put anyone under the law and require the fast. An unwilling fast does no good. Catholics being bound to do things is something alien to Protestants.

 

[Brendan]

In my romance with Catholicism, I have come to this as a stumbling block: the demand, seemingly contrary to passages such as Colossians 2:16-23, that bodily discipline is of some value. What good is fasting, Paul seems to ask. Of abstaining from meat? Or of submitting to regulations, as stipulated in the passage, that seem to directly refer to what the Church requires of its members? Christ sets us free, and the Lenten regulations, among other things, smack of legalism and bondage. Are you again under the Law? Regulations? What is Galatians about? We are set free: sons, heirs of the kingdom, no longer slaves, yet it would seem that we are to submit again to regulations that the apostle warned us about.

But Christ Himself said that we are to fast

Matt 6:16-18

16 “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18

Is it your premise that Christ was mistaken in this matter, and not only should we not act glum during a fast, but that we shouldn’t fast in the first place.

In addition, one of the first things that Christ Himself did to prepare for His ministry was to fast for 40 days. Is Christ not worthy of imitation in this matter?

So ask yourself, WHY did Christ fast, why did He give us instructions on HOW to fast?

Christ also told us WHY we should fast ( Matt 6:18b)

…your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly

So your answer is pretty simple, God rewards those who fast.

As since Christ did give these instructions, WHEN do you plan on fasting?

 

[Brendan]

. But if someone were to tell me that if I don’t go, I’m dead in my sins, and makes it a law, then I naturally rebel against the law,

Is it the person who is making the Law or rather reiterating what God has established, which includes obedience to his shepards.

Do you dislike the message just because of the messenger?

 

[dcdurel]

It’s not the idea of fasting that bothers me, not at all. It’s the obligation and the requirement that is problematic. I freely go to church weekly of my own free will. But if someone were to tell me that if I don’t go, I’m dead in my sins, and makes it a law, then I naturally rebel against the law, even if I freely conformed myself to that law beforehand. I would be likely to start skipping church just to make the point that I am not under the law.

I think you have picked up Protestant ideas.
No Christians are under the law of Moses, which was what St. Paul was speaking of when he said “you are not under the law”. Thus Christians don’t have to be circumcised and don’t have to follow Jewish feast days, But all Christians are under the law of Christ, thus must obey His commandments as taught by His Church. Since His commandments are good, to disobey is to do evil.

Remember, to a Jew, “the law” referred to the Law of Moses.
St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 9:20
“To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”

St. Paul, who was against legalism wrote:
Romans 8:13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Romans 8:17
and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

1. 
   *]Matthew 16:24
   Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
   *]Mark 8:34
   And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
   *]Luke 9:23
   And He was saying to them all, " If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.
   Jesus makes it clear that if we want to follow Him, then we are under His law and He makes it an obligation to deny ourselves, or which fasting is a part.
   
   The Protestant religion is man-made and does not claim to be infallible. Thus, you never know when any of its teachings are true.

 

[DallasCatholic]

For a really, really long time I’ve been very confident in the truth of Catholicism. Lately, though, I’m struggling with thoughts that some aspects of Catholicism are overly legalistic. For example, I just recently found out that Catholics are supposed to do some sort of sacrificial act, equal to that of forgoing meat on Fridays during Lent, on every Friday during the year. Not doing so is a mortal sin. It just strikes me as another hoop to jump through. I’m feeling discouraged.

Help?

I suggest that you have a listen to Father Stephen Sanchez. Fr. Stephen is the Carmelite Superior in Dallas and just finished preaching a Parish Mission. The topic is Lent and his first talk explains the purpose of our Lenten abstinances. You can listen to the podcast on Bob Cannon’s website:
bobcannonproductions.com/

Click the link on the top right that says “Parish Mission”

The talks are about 45 minutes, but the first one is probably the most applicable to your question. If you have the time listen to them all.

 

[Truthstalker]

there are 10 commandments and 6 laws of the Church, which of these is giving you a problem?

What 10 commandments and 6 laws? Probably they will all give me problems.

 

[Truthstalker]

I think you have picked up Protestant ideas.

What Protestant ideas, what is the Catholic corrective, and why is it corrective?

 

[Zooey]

It’s not the idea of fasting that bothers me, not at all. It’s the obligation and the requirement that is problematic. I freely go to church weekly of my own free will. But if someone were to tell me that if I don’t go, I’m dead in my sins, and makes it a law, then I naturally rebel against the law, even if I freely conformed myself to that law beforehand. I would be likely to start skipping church just to make the point that I am not under the law.

When I’ve participated in church fasts, it’s been stressed from the pastors that the fasting is optional, and a good thing, but the church didn’t want to put anyone under the law and require the fast. An unwilling fast does no good. Catholics being bound to do things is something alien to Protestants.

Were we http://bestsmileys.com/lol/10.gif ] separated at birth??? When I was a very little girl, I am told, it was sometimes (say, in the middle of canning a full year’s worth of sweet corn) much easier just to tell me to do the exact opposite of what was wanted…
It guaranteed that I would–cheerfully, yet-- do what my grandmother really wanted…

I think you have picked up Protestant ideas.
.

Since Truthstalker is a Protestant…(Presbyterian, I believe?) it would be:shrug: rather strange if he had not, as you say, “picked up ideas”… No???

 

[MariaG]

It’s not the idea of fasting that bothers me, not at all. It’s the obligation and the requirement that is problematic. I freely go to church weekly of my own free will. But if someone were to tell me that if I don’t go, I’m dead in my sins, and makes it a law, then I naturally rebel against the law, even if I freely conformed myself to that law beforehand. I would be likely to start skipping church just to make the point that I am not under the law.

When I’ve participated in church fasts, it’s been stressed from the pastors that the fasting is optional, and a good thing, but the church didn’t want to put anyone under the law and require the fast. An unwilling fast does no good. Catholics being bound to do things is something alien to Protestants.

Is it the person who is making the Law or rather reiterating what God has established, which includes obedience to his shepards.

Do you dislike the message just because of the messenger?

TruthStalker,

I have to say I see this more like Brendan. You do not seem to be rebelling against the rule, rather that the Church has the authority to make such a rule.

This ultimately, (which I think has been a concern for a while?), whether or not the Church has the authority to make the rules rather than the rules themselves. So for me, ultimately it would come down to, do I believe that Matthew 16:18 -20, is where Christ is giving the Church the authority to make and change the rules?

I think it is.

We see in scripture where Christ does not denigrate the *authority, *or even the many rules of the pharisees. He takes issue with the fact that they try to avoid the real meaning behind the rules. He even tells the apostles to do what they tell you to, but not what they do (Looking for the exact verse, darn, I can’t find it, but it IS there:blush: ). So here we have Jesus supported those who were in authority over the Jews and all those rules!

So the question is are we as Christians still bound to follow the Jewish laws? No, this is clear from scripture. But did Christ set up a new authority over us? I think scripture responds with a resounding yes.

Also consider that Jesus tells us He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. God saw that man needed written rules to follow because we don’t always listen to the law written on our hearts. I do not believe man has changed, and we Know that God hasn’t.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Catholic4aReasn:

For example, I just recently found out that Catholics are supposed to do some sort of sacrificial act, equal to that of forgoing meat on Fridays during Lent, on every Friday during the year.

Here is an insight:

Problems have solutions. Questions have answers. So rather than leaping to condemn a Catholic practice as legalistic, your next step should have been and should always be to find out the reasoning behind that practice.

The sacrifice is not there for its own sake.

It is a recommendation to help Catholics unite their lives with the sacrifice of Jesus. And aide-memoire, if you will. Something to help us keep focussed on the Crucifixion and how it is meant to transform our lives.

 

[Truthstalker]

TruthStalker,

I have to say I see this more like Brendan. You do not seem to be rebelling against the rule, rather that the Church has the authority to make such a rule.

This ultimately, (which I think has been a concern for a while?), whether or not the Church has the authority to make the rules rather than the rules themselves. So for me, ultimately it would come down to, do I believe that Matthew 16:18 -20, is where Christ is giving the Church the authority to make and change the rules?

I think it is.

We see in scripture where Christ does not denigrate the *authority, *or even the many rules of the pharisees. He takes issue with the fact that they try to avoid the real meaning behind the rules. He even tells the apostles to do what they tell you to, but not what they do (Looking for the exact verse, darn, I can’t find it, but it IS there:blush: ). So here we have Jesus supported those who were in authority over the Jews and all those rules!

So the question is are we as Christians still bound to follow the Jewish laws? No, this is clear from scripture. But did Christ set up a new authority over us? I think scripture responds with a resounding yes.

Also consider that Jesus tells us He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. God saw that man needed written rules to follow because we don’t always listen to the law written on our hearts. I do not believe man has changed, and we Know that God hasn’t.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

God Bless,
Maria

The inbred, deep down to the core of my being sort of reaction to ANYTHING I don’t like in a church is to say something like, “God’s not calling me to that,” “I don’t witness to that,” or at the worst, vote with my feet: “God is calling me on to somewhere new.” Many Protestant churches not only tolerate this but encourage it, as it is held by everyone. We are free in Christ and the only master and lord we have is Christ - not the church. The Church has no right, we say, to tell us to do ANYTHING. That is why we are Protestants.

The question is not whether the Church has the right to make rules. The question is not whether the Church has the right to make rules that I disagree with. The question, I think, is whether the Church has the right to make legalistic rules. If it does, then game over. If not, then we have to start arguing about whether such and such rule is legalistic. Since the latter alternative would simply open up a pointless and unending debate, my suspicions are that the former alternative is correct.

Just thinking out loud.

God saw that man needed written rules to follow because we don’t always listen to the law written on our hearts

This is a can of worms. Please elucidate.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Truthstalker:wave:

The inbred, deep down to the core of my being sort of reaction to ANYTHING I don’t like in a church is to say something like, “God’s not calling me to that,” “I don’t witness to that,” or at the worst, vote with my feet: “God is calling me on to somewhere new.” Many Protestant churches not only tolerate this but encourage it, as it is held by everyone. We are free in Christ and the only master and lord we have is Christ - not the church. The Church has no right, we say, to tell us to do ANYTHING. That is why we are Protestants.

While I certainly understand this view and in fact at one time would have said I was in agreement with it, the question is it actually true? I truly do not think that scripture supports the view that the church does not have the authority to tell us what to do.

Otherwise, what do you make of the scripture that tells us when there is a disagreement, take it to the Church. It does not go on to say where we go if we disagree with the decision of the Church.

The question is not whether the Church has the right to make rules. The question is not whether the Church has the right to make rules that I disagree with. The question, I think, is whether the Church has the right to make legalistic rules. If it does, then game over. If not, then we have to start arguing about whether such and such rule is legalistic. Since the latter alternative would simply open up a pointless and unending debate, my suspicions are that the former alternative is correct.

Just thinking out loud.

I disagree. IF the Church does not have the right to make rules in the first place, it does not bind me in anyway. But if in fact, the Church was given the authority, that was taken from the pharisees to make and change the rules, then we ARE bound to follow those rules, whether we disagree with them or not.

:bible1: Hebrews 13:17Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.

While there certainly can be a case made for disobeying rules that your conscience dictates, as long as it is a properly formed conscience, I do not think this is what the thrust of the problem is for you? It seems not as if your conscience tells you not to do that because it is unjust, but you don’t like being told what to do.

As for whether or not the Church has the right to make legalistic rules, we can see in Scripture that the Pharisees in fact were supported by Christ in those legalistic rules. Christ told them to follow the rules, but not as the pharisees practiced them, but as they were intended to. For example, picking grain on the Sabbath to feed themselves. The pharisees thought that was breaking the commandment to keep the Sabbath Holy, but clearly Christ disagreed. The Sabbath was meant for a day of rest, yes, but not in the way the pharisees practiced it.

God saw that man needed written rules to follow because we don’t always listen to the law written on our hearts.

This is a can of worms. Please elucidate

This may have been more accurate to say that Man asked for the rules (Moses) and God responded with the ten commandments.

We know the rules are written on the heart of everyman according to scripture, yet God still responded and gave us the written commands.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Nita]

The issue seems to be being required to do something we did not establish or desire to do; in other words, obedience. As though mandating something makes it “legalistic” in a negative sense.

Hebrews 5:8 *Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; *

Jesus was willing to suffer death because of the importance of obedience. And we do not consider that “legalistic”.

Besides following Our Lord’s example and “learning obedience”, fasting helps strengthen our will to have control over our physical passions - a strengthening that may be much needed when we are assaulted with sinful temptations.

It is when I try to fast that I discover just how weak-willed I am. I should probably do it five days a week till my spiritual muscles can handle it better!

Nita

 

[LilyM]

Jesus absolutely mandated fasting and other self-sacrifice … he told the disciples “WHEN you fast (don’t put on a gloomy face)” rather than IF you fast …

There’s no please or thankyou or ‘go your own way’ about it, if I want to be holy I will, along with Paul, ‘pummel my body to bring it into subjection’. By fasting and other small acts of self-denial.

And as much as you may resent being told what to do by the Church, how many outside the Church even follow even the very few demands by way of fasting and abstinence she does place on us, which are no more than Our Lord himself would have us do?

I used to watch a certain amount of Dr Phil (sad but true ) and he had a mantra about ‘behave your way to success’. There’s a grain of truth in that. Very often you DO have to just jump in and do what you know is right even if you feel resentful rather than ruminating and cogitating yourself out of it.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve woken up of a morning not feeling at all like going to Mass or to work, or exercising or cleaning the kitchen or what-have-you and resenting that I had to do such things.

But if I just get up and throw myself into it I’m most always glad and happy I did by the end of it. Whereas if I loaf around and don’t do it I feel miserable and still have the task to do, in the end, anyways.

 

[Pax]

Unfortunately, our society inculcates or at least encourages the idea that the individual is the pinnacle of everything. This is ingrained in our societal structures, culture, politics, and economics. It has even made itself pervasive in our religious culture. In this regard, our capitalistic economy and democratic republic are friendlier to Protestantism than to Catholicism.

Religious matters are not subject to democratic ideas. If they were then all that God teaches and requires of us would become subject to our cultural and political whim as opposed to the will of God. Unfortunately, our self centered attachments are fed by our political and cultural norms. This in turn strongly affects are religious views and positions. Nothing could be more dangerous to our spirituality than our own ideas and desires.

We are all rebellious and self centered due to the fall of Adam and Eve. We do not wish to be told what to do or to be bound by rules which we can choose to view as legalistic, useless, or simply unreasonable. When it comes to religious views we must completely submit ourselves to God. As Christians we must completely submit ourselves to Jesus Christ.

C.S. Lewis had a great way of expressing this submission. He said something similar to the following: “We submit to Christ when we finally raise the white flag of total surrender in the rebel fortress of our hearts.” The Church is the body of Christ on earth. If we listen to the Church we listen to Jesus. If we reject the Church we reject Jesus. We must constantly ask ourselves if we have truly raised the white flag of total surrender in the rebel fortress of our hearts. We can test ourselves by looking to see where the white flag of surrender sits on the flag pole of our desires. If it is at the top we must fight to keep it there. If it is not we must work to place it there.

Our surrender is grace dependent. Let us love and serve the Lord without reservation.

 

[jimmy]

Catholic4areason, I have been troubled with this same thing for a while now. I think it is legalistic to say it is a mortal sin to not fast on fridays. It contradicts scripture too(I forget the exact passage but Paul deals with it very clearly, fasting is to be voluntary). Fasting should be encouraged but it should ultimately be voluntary. Neither of these is the case any more. Fasting is not encouraged and it is not voluntary. You can see that it is not encouraged by the fact that until 1953 the communion fast was from midnight. It then became 3 hours. Since the early 70’s it is 1 hour before you recieve communion. In other words, the communion fast has been abolished. It is not voluntary either. If you are going to force fasting you might as well force conversions. It is pharisaical to call it a mortal sin. Do I have a problem with fasting on Friday? No, in fact I think the fast should be every day of lent plus every friday of the year.

 

[Pug]

The question, I think, is whether the Church has the right to make legalistic rules. If it does, then game over. If not, then we have to start arguing about whether such and such rule is legalistic.

What is a “legalistic rule”? What do you mean by the phrase? For myself, I tend to use the word “legalistic” when talking about how a person follows a rule or how a person interprets the rule, not the rule itself. Also, I am familiar with the Protestant context of legalism as a system of using works to get to heaven, but this doesn’t seem to be what you are talking about either.

 

[Truthstalker]

The captain of a ship in the navy may be incompetent, crazy, dishonest, obsessed, for all we know, with the possibility that wombats will take over the ship, lazy, idiotic, narrow-minded, dull, apathetic, or worse. He may make rules requiring the ship be searched for wombats at sea, though the ship is a thousand miles from land; he may issue orders to everyone on the ship to report the non-discovery or discovery of wombats on the hour, every hour, in writing, in triplicate, in blue ink, to the officer of the watch; he may, in short, act like a petty tyrant, throw his weight around obsessively, and enact whatever legalistic and insane rules he wants.

If the enlisted men decide that some order is too much, is ridiculous, is stupid, or otherwise need not be followed, there is a procedure that is followed that makes clear that the disobedience or disregard of even obsessively stupid or insane orders is still disobedience.

The captain is still the captain. He does not answer to his crew. He answers to his superiors.

Something, rummaging through Scripture, about ruling with a rod of iron, and some odd stress on obedience that is strange to western ears.

 

[Pax]

Is this how you view the church and the rules for fast and abstinence?