Catholics are legalists by default?

[Zaccheus]

Here’s the thing, though. If education is necessary for the reception of certain formative sacraments, then it makes no sense that Baptism isn’t withheld as well, until education can take place. There’s a double standard.

Some does not mean all.
Education is necessary for the reception of some formative sacraments.
Education is not required for baptism for an infant.

 

[DBRANDT]

What specific questions are you referring to? A number posted…Thanks.

 

[DBRANDT]

I think it’s very sad that Catholics are perceived as such legalists that it translates in the mind of some to hearing and obeying unquestioningly. I think this post sort of says it all. Whether I agree or not, there is certainly room for improvement.

 

[PetraG]

Whatever that means. The people that say that seem to mean that there are no duties and obligations to being a Catholic, just “do as thou wilt” because God doesn’t care. Just be nice (as defined by modern society) seems to be the beginning and end of the commandments in their eyes.

Someone has us confused with Wicca.

IOW, lots of people who want to keep His commandments, because they love Him. Can they sometimes be suffering from scrupulosity? Sure. Is trying to know the will of God and do it scrupulosity? No.

What person really thinks that humankind doesn’t need laws? They’re not realistic. The law is how we communicate shared expectations in a concise way.

Legalism is when the message that is being communicated is known, but the letter of how it was written is preferred. That is not the same as simply having laws. Having laws and a legal system is not legalism, per se.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Viewing this through the lens of mandatory Friday Fastings, is like viewing it through bifocals.

Some Catholics do these things out of duty; some due it out of a desire to be part of the Body of Christ which is in communion in prayer and fasting. Some do it for both reasons.

 

[DBRANDT]

Wow. That’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard. I’m going to remember that.

 

[ATraveller]

Catholic teaching is that salvation can’t be earned by our works either. A person cooperating with the given grace of God may receive a reward for works.

I’m aware of that. A number of Protestant denominations also teach this.
I just wanted to point out how misused and misunderstood the term legalism has become among Evangelicals.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Catholic teaching is that salvation can’t be earned by our works either. A person cooperating with the given grace of God may receive a reward for works.

I’m aware of that. A number of Protestant denominations also teach this.
I just wanted to point out how misused and misunderstood the term legalism has become among Evangelicals.

OK, I suppose there is use of a nonstandard definition of legalism which is properly given in the Oxford Dictionary:

1.1 Theology Adherence to moral law rather than to personal religious faith.

 

[ATraveller]

OK, I suppose there is use of a nonstandard definition of legalism which is properly given in the Oxford Dictionary:

1.1 Theology Adherence to moral law rather than to personal religious faith.

Yup. The Oxford Dictionary is too simplistic.
And rejecting the idea Christians should adhere to moral law is antinomianism, which is a heresy in Lutheranism, Methodism and some Reformed traditions.
This is how legalism should be understood.

“Legalism exists when people attempt to secure righteousness in God’s sight by good works. Legalists believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law”

What Is Legalism? Definition and Examples

Legalism believes that their good works and obedience to God affects their salvation. Legalism focuses on God’s laws more than relationship with God. It keeps external laws without a truly submitted heart. And legalism adds human rules to divine laws and treats them as divine.

www.christianity.com

 

[Bon_Croix]

Related to this concept would be the following:

Give without the expectation of receiving. We should give out of our goodness; not b/c we want to acquire something in exchange (known or unknown).

 

[PetraG]

Yup. The Oxford Dictionary is too simplistic.
And rejecting the idea Christians should adhere to moral law is antinomianism, which is a heresy in Lutheranism, Methodism and some Reformed traditions.
This is how legalism should be understood.

Yes. Legalism in the spiritual realm involves quid pro quo thinking that–let’s be blunt–is preposterous on its face.

What on earth–earn eternal life? People really do talk like that. In what kind of “economy” would God, who is the omnipotent King and Creator of the Universe, need to reward a creature for following rules in a “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” kind of way? That is beyond ridiculous. We have nothing to give except to accept mercy. The gift of free will is a trememdous gift, but it is also all we have. We have nothing to offer to God except to accept what God has to offer us. By the nature of love and life, neither can be had outside of God. We have the choice of accepting and realizing the gain that can only be had by free acceptance of life, love, mercy and all that is involved in a free relationship with God or the choice of choosing to avoid acceptance and the requirements implied by accepting. That’s reality. That’s all there is.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Give up freely is the Law of Jesus. Not, give up with expectation of obtaining something of equal value.

So, if we follow the Church’s law on fasting, with the right intention, we are giving up freely, and not giving up just so we don’t have to go to jail or be fined (penal law).

 

[Pug]

If we go with some of what your article says, my answer would be that most of the Catholics in real life that I know reasonably well are not suffering from legalism. (since it references RC Sproul, Luther, sola fide, etc., the article thinks they are suffering from legalism). The Catholics I know well enough to know what they think are not all that interested in laws as an end. They care about prayer and being close to God. The things they do are spring from love or a desire to be conformed to Christ. None of them are interested in heaping extra burdens on other people.

The true legalism that I have witnessed is those who say that it isn’t possible for someone who on the balance has wasted the vast majority of their life on themselves or sin or whatever to later on repent and be saved. They insist you must spend most of your life doing it right for salvation to be possible. But they weren’t Catholic.

 

[Bon_Croix]

I once saw a non catholic preacher on T.V. try to explain salvation using a balance sheet. Each sin created a liability; each good work created an asset.

 

[TK421]

I wrote it backwards lol

 

[Pug]

Yes, exactly. This is what they sound like they mean, that at some point in life there is too little time remaining to put enough pluses/works on the sheet to balance a life of sin.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Oh thank goodness!

 

[fhansen]

I get this from my non-Catholic friends. My only reply is that I find it difficult to believe Catholics are the only acceptable brand of Christians who battle this issue in their spiritual life. It’s just fashionable to blame Catholics. It’s called diversion. Catholics certainly have no monopoly on legalism.

If you participate in non-Catholic Christian forums you’ll find this question and conundrum debated constantly. Don’t we have to do something? Does faith alone free us from needing to be obedient in any way, to the law, or to love, to whatever command we may consider? Are we still obligated to be righteous under the New Covenant? What role does the will of man play. Can we resist grace? Etc, etc.

 

[DBRANDT]

God gave me reason. I use it.

 

[fhansen]

Yes. Legalism in the spiritual realm involves quid pro quo thinking that–let’s be blunt–is preposterous on its face.

What on earth– earn eternal life? People really do talk like that. In what kind of “economy” would God, who is the omnipotent King and Creator of the Universe, need to reward a creature for following rules in a “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” kind of way? That is beyond ridiculous. We have nothing to give except to accept mercy. The gift of free will is a trememdous gift, but it is also all we have. We have nothing to offer to God except to accept what God has to offer us. By the nature of love and life, neither can be had outside of God. We have the choice of accepting and realizing the gain that can only be had by free acceptance of life, love, mercy and all that is involved in a free relationship with God or the choice of choosing to avoid acceptance and the requirements implied by accepting. That’s reality. That’s all there is.

For that matter God doesn’t need us at all-our very existence depends on Him-but by the same free will that he wishes us to sue to accept His grace we can also resist it. Ultimately he wants us to choose, with His help, to love as He does-to the extent that He makes that possible.