D
davidv
Guest
This is a nonsense question. It built on a false understanding.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
I suggest that in this blanket statement is a rather poor understanding of history.
Governments in the past have used capital punishment for what we could consider relatively minor infractions…defiance would = treason and definitely result in death…
For more “eternal” punishment and torture there were things like galley slaves and penal colonies.
However - what troubles me most about this post is that it is a mere restatement of the OP…taking none of the responses into account…
Please read the responses carefully and prayerfully. We are truly trying to help.
Peace
James
I
IwishIknew
Guest
Basically why did the Church (leaders) choose this level of severity for an act of defiance to the 5 precepts? Certainly there were other motives available to them to choose from that would be far less severe and far more encouraging.
So far, none of the answers above seem to adequately address the thinking behind the level of severity chosen.
What sane parent would ever choose this type of severe punishment (eternity in hell, let alone drawing and quartering as has been done for acts of Treason, or life in jail) for a defiant act such as breaking a fast from meat - for their own child? …Especially in contrast of all the other horrific evils people do to themselves and each other in this world.
What were the Church Fathers thinking for their children (whom they love) when choosing this depth of penalty/severity - eternity in Hell - for defiance to 5 precepts?
So far, none of the answers above seem to adequately address the thinking behind the level of severity chosen.
What sane parent would ever choose this type of severe punishment (eternity in hell, let alone drawing and quartering as has been done for acts of Treason, or life in jail) for a defiant act such as breaking a fast from meat - for their own child? …Especially in contrast of all the other horrific evils people do to themselves and each other in this world.
What were the Church Fathers thinking for their children (whom they love) when choosing this depth of penalty/severity - eternity in Hell - for defiance to 5 precepts?
I
IwishIknew
Guest
Apologies: I missed the cut off to edit my last reply. Here the following should help present the question properly for the audience.
Matthew 18:18 "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth **shall be **bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *PRESS, IGNATIUS (2009-08-12).
Basically why did the Church Fathers choose to ** bind us** with this level of severity for an act of defiance to the 5 precepts? Certainly there were other motivational options available to them to choose from that would be far less severe and far more encouraging.
So far, none of the answers above seem to adequately address the thinking behind the level of severity chosen.
What sane parent would ever choose this type of severe punishment (eternity in hell, let alone drawing and quartering as has been done for acts of Treason, or life in jail) for a defiant act such as breaking a fast from meat - for their own child? …Especially in contrast of all the other horrific evils people do to themselves and each other in this world.
What were the Church Fathers thinking for their children (whom they love) when choosing this depth of penalty/severity - eternity in Hell - for defiance to 5 precepts?
Matthew 18:18 "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth **shall be **bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *PRESS, IGNATIUS (2009-08-12).
Basically why did the Church Fathers choose to ** bind us** with this level of severity for an act of defiance to the 5 precepts? Certainly there were other motivational options available to them to choose from that would be far less severe and far more encouraging.
So far, none of the answers above seem to adequately address the thinking behind the level of severity chosen.
What sane parent would ever choose this type of severe punishment (eternity in hell, let alone drawing and quartering as has been done for acts of Treason, or life in jail) for a defiant act such as breaking a fast from meat - for their own child? …Especially in contrast of all the other horrific evils people do to themselves and each other in this world.
What were the Church Fathers thinking for their children (whom they love) when choosing this depth of penalty/severity - eternity in Hell - for defiance to 5 precepts?
V
vames
Guest
Because the thinking of the Church has always been like this: if ONE thing from a given category is permitted, then ALL the other things will end up by being permitted too - or if SOME exceptions to a rule are allowed, then the rule itself will end up by being rendered invalid. This applies not only to fasting or Sunday masses. Various examples: literal/symbolic understanding of the Bible, accepting/rejecting a Marian dogma, anything that has to do with sexual morality. You can have two kinds of thinking: one is more “holistic” and sees various acts as parts of a whole or moments of a continuum (my example of the Orthodox stance towards fasting); the other is more “legalistic” and sees various acts as having individual value and have to be judged separately. Each kind of thinking has disadvantages if it totally excludes the other: the first can lead to relativism, the second can lead to a mechanical understanding of life.
S
SonSearcher
Guest
I am quite motivated to follow them. I think motivation can be relative, it can be different for a lot of people. But that doesn’t mean we should just make a bunch of different precepts for all these different people. We should follow the broad guidelines.
And once I have children I will teach them our faith. I will not teach them that it is a “bummer” and the Church is just too harsh on the matter of fasting and eating meat, and the penalties are too severe and we should be worried about it. I will tell them that this is serious, it is grave to disobey, it is grave to turn away from the one true holy catholic and apostolic Church. In this my children will find wisdom, follow Church, follow God.
Plus my children will always have confession.
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m sorry that the answers thus far have not helped you.
My guess is that the reason is because you are still stuck in a very black and white “legalistic” sort of worldview on this matter.
You have already mentioned in your OP that you understand that there are exceptions in these matters, yet you do not seem to take these into account in your thinking. If you would do so, you will come to a much more comprehensive understanding on the matters.
As just one example, I am unable to attend Church on Sundays due to my wife’s health issues and available care. I have discussed this with my pastor and have received an exemption. For this reason, though I (technically) violate a precept, I do not defy it and this is the key difference. For this reason, I do not despair. In fact, I praise God for His great mercy and attend mass regularly on Fridays (or another day during the week) when care is available for my lady.
As to why the Church teaches that the ultimate consequence is hell - the answer lies in the term that you - yourself used…Defiance…Consider carefully what that word “defiance” means and entails.
Defiance = open disobedience: open, bold, or hostile refusal to obey or conform
Synonyms = insubordinate, contumacious, refractory, recalcitrant, rebellious, insolent; daring.
Antonyms = obedient.
None of the things that we see in these definitions…definitions to the word you yourself chose as the basis for the discussion here…Indicates a willingness to accept God, to be obedient to him and to make Him Lord - or to Love Him with all one heart. In fact these definitions indicate just the opposite. They indicate a response taken with knowledge and intent - no accidents - but willful rejection.
When one defies…The consequence is severe. When one defies God, the consequence is being cut off from God and that cutting off is what is termed “hell”.
So - please ponder these things in the larger picture. God is merciful and does not wish to see anyone in hell. Yet what shall he do with those who defy Him?
Peace
James
My guess is that the reason is because you are still stuck in a very black and white “legalistic” sort of worldview on this matter.
You have already mentioned in your OP that you understand that there are exceptions in these matters, yet you do not seem to take these into account in your thinking. If you would do so, you will come to a much more comprehensive understanding on the matters.
As just one example, I am unable to attend Church on Sundays due to my wife’s health issues and available care. I have discussed this with my pastor and have received an exemption. For this reason, though I (technically) violate a precept, I do not defy it and this is the key difference. For this reason, I do not despair. In fact, I praise God for His great mercy and attend mass regularly on Fridays (or another day during the week) when care is available for my lady.
As to why the Church teaches that the ultimate consequence is hell - the answer lies in the term that you - yourself used…Defiance…Consider carefully what that word “defiance” means and entails.
Defiance = open disobedience: open, bold, or hostile refusal to obey or conform
Synonyms = insubordinate, contumacious, refractory, recalcitrant, rebellious, insolent; daring.
Antonyms = obedient.
None of the things that we see in these definitions…definitions to the word you yourself chose as the basis for the discussion here…Indicates a willingness to accept God, to be obedient to him and to make Him Lord - or to Love Him with all one heart. In fact these definitions indicate just the opposite. They indicate a response taken with knowledge and intent - no accidents - but willful rejection.
When one defies…The consequence is severe. When one defies God, the consequence is being cut off from God and that cutting off is what is termed “hell”.
So - please ponder these things in the larger picture. God is merciful and does not wish to see anyone in hell. Yet what shall he do with those who defy Him?
Peace
James
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s a punishment of our own making, IwishIknew. Hell is nothing more (and nothing less!) than God’s love shining upon those who find it odious.
G
Gavroche
Guest
To those making an appeal to the defiance aspect of breaking one of the precepts as the reason for the Church applying the grave penalty to it… is not *every *sin an act of defiance? And yet, not all sins are mortal, there are intrinsic evils which can be venial sins (all lying is wrong, but lying can either be venial or mortal). If I were to lie to my parents, telling them I took the dog for a walk when I didn’t, this is wrong even if the effects of the lie are not as serious as if I committed perjury and got an innocent man condemned. Even with that venial lie to my parents, that lie is an act of defiance against God since it is a sin. So is there not a distinction between greater or lesser acts of defiance when it comes to these Church rules as there is between acts of defiance as exhibited in venial or mortal sin? And in regards to the fasting and abstinence obligations, the Church could certainly lower the penalty of non compliance to that of a venial sin could it not? The Church had the power to make these regulations binding, so would it not stand to reason they could loose them as well? Correct me if I am wrong but haven’t these current fasting regulations as we practice them today have only existed since 1966?
To those who deliberately don’t fast or abstain at the appointed times, are their core motivations really to explicitly show contempt for the law? Or are they are perhaps motivated more by indifference or desire? If someone of a weaker will is in the midst of real suffering as a result of fasting, and decides to eat more than what they are supposed to, is this really a sin of defiance now? Or is it just someone being too weak to comply with the regulations?
I want people to understand where I’m coming from here, I follow all of the lenten rules to the T, and like I said in my previous post, my primary concern here is for the non-Catholics (and even lapsed Catholics). Outsiders who do not understand Catholic theology, especially when it comes to the sacraments have this misconception that the Church is extremely legalistic. And anti-Catholics often point to disciplines of the Church as areas where they target for criticism, and I fear the lenten obligations are one area where such people could try to exploit and try to steer potential converts away from the Church by accusing the Church of acting like the Pharisees. In conversations with protestants one of the main talking points against the Church is this very issue concerning canon law issues or Church disciplines.
To those who deliberately don’t fast or abstain at the appointed times, are their core motivations really to explicitly show contempt for the law? Or are they are perhaps motivated more by indifference or desire? If someone of a weaker will is in the midst of real suffering as a result of fasting, and decides to eat more than what they are supposed to, is this really a sin of defiance now? Or is it just someone being too weak to comply with the regulations?
I want people to understand where I’m coming from here, I follow all of the lenten rules to the T, and like I said in my previous post, my primary concern here is for the non-Catholics (and even lapsed Catholics). Outsiders who do not understand Catholic theology, especially when it comes to the sacraments have this misconception that the Church is extremely legalistic. And anti-Catholics often point to disciplines of the Church as areas where they target for criticism, and I fear the lenten obligations are one area where such people could try to exploit and try to steer potential converts away from the Church by accusing the Church of acting like the Pharisees. In conversations with protestants one of the main talking points against the Church is this very issue concerning canon law issues or Church disciplines.
J
JRKH
Guest
Gavroche,
You make some excellent points in your post and they would be well worth exploring. Such exploration would undoubtedly help the OP to greater understanding.
However - it needs to be remembered that the OP is the one who has specified “defiance” as the motivator for failing to keep the disciplines of the Church. So there should be no surprise when this is the focus of some of the replies.
For now I’d like to simply address one of your points…You ask…
So is there not a distinction between greater or lesser acts of defiance when it comes to these Church rules as there is between acts of defiance as exhibited in venial or mortal sin?
The problem with defiance is that it is not accidental. It is willful. That needs to be recognized as the overriding issue. Defiance increases the seriousness of a given sin, no matter the gravity of the object.
Just as a parent will deal more harshly with a defiant child than with a forgetful one, the consequent damage to one’s relationship with the Lord is greater where defiance is exhibited than where weakness is exhibited.
Some of the conditions that you mention in your post point to weakness and spiritual immaturity rather than defiance. They are legitimate conditions and need to be accounted for in our thinking, but they are quite different than the premise given us by the OP.
Peace
James
You make some excellent points in your post and they would be well worth exploring. Such exploration would undoubtedly help the OP to greater understanding.
However - it needs to be remembered that the OP is the one who has specified “defiance” as the motivator for failing to keep the disciplines of the Church. So there should be no surprise when this is the focus of some of the replies.
For now I’d like to simply address one of your points…You ask…
So is there not a distinction between greater or lesser acts of defiance when it comes to these Church rules as there is between acts of defiance as exhibited in venial or mortal sin?
The problem with defiance is that it is not accidental. It is willful. That needs to be recognized as the overriding issue. Defiance increases the seriousness of a given sin, no matter the gravity of the object.
Just as a parent will deal more harshly with a defiant child than with a forgetful one, the consequent damage to one’s relationship with the Lord is greater where defiance is exhibited than where weakness is exhibited.
Some of the conditions that you mention in your post point to weakness and spiritual immaturity rather than defiance. They are legitimate conditions and need to be accounted for in our thinking, but they are quite different than the premise given us by the OP.
Peace
James
A
Apologista
Guest
I think instead of being so focused on the negative and getting all frustrated with it, it would be a better use of one’s time to just put the question aside for the time being, or else to talk to a wise priest about it. Because in focusing on the negative, at least a couple of things might happen.
One, you will cause yourself fear and anxiety and scrupulosity if you are looking at the difficulty level of it, and forgetting that God gives us graces to be able to do what he asks of us. “His yoke is easy and his burden is light.” I know sometimes it’s hard to see just how, you have to trust and believe and BE POSITIVE. Have HOPE.
Secondly, you will be feeding a spirit of rebellion inside yourself that’s not what true Christian/Catholic maturity is all about. Have you heard the story about the wise Native American grandfather who was so serene and his grandson remarked that life must be easy for him . . . and the grandfather said no, it has been like two wolves are fighting within me - one is good and one is bad. And the grandson asked “Which wolf will win?” And the grandfather said “The one I feed.”
So if you are “feeding” the grumpy, whiney, “this is sooooo unfair!” wolf, that is the one that will grow strong and win. Please note I’m not trying to insult you by saying this nor am I trying to minimize your concern. I’m trying to say that you’re coming at it from the wrong angle.
Another analogy - the tapestry analogy. If you look at a weaving on the wrong side, it’s all these tangled threads and rather ugly. Turn it over and view it as it was meant to be viewed and it fits together, makes sense, and is a thing of beauty.
Hope this helps in some way. Try to find positive Catholic resources. God bless you.
One, you will cause yourself fear and anxiety and scrupulosity if you are looking at the difficulty level of it, and forgetting that God gives us graces to be able to do what he asks of us. “His yoke is easy and his burden is light.” I know sometimes it’s hard to see just how, you have to trust and believe and BE POSITIVE. Have HOPE.
Secondly, you will be feeding a spirit of rebellion inside yourself that’s not what true Christian/Catholic maturity is all about. Have you heard the story about the wise Native American grandfather who was so serene and his grandson remarked that life must be easy for him . . . and the grandfather said no, it has been like two wolves are fighting within me - one is good and one is bad. And the grandson asked “Which wolf will win?” And the grandfather said “The one I feed.”
So if you are “feeding” the grumpy, whiney, “this is sooooo unfair!” wolf, that is the one that will grow strong and win. Please note I’m not trying to insult you by saying this nor am I trying to minimize your concern. I’m trying to say that you’re coming at it from the wrong angle.
Another analogy - the tapestry analogy. If you look at a weaving on the wrong side, it’s all these tangled threads and rather ugly. Turn it over and view it as it was meant to be viewed and it fits together, makes sense, and is a thing of beauty.
Hope this helps in some way. Try to find positive Catholic resources. God bless you.
P
Philphd1
Guest
To address your question, here is my theory (having some background in European and Church history as well as Leadership)…
Let’s face it - the middle ages were brutal. There were many leaders of the Church that condoned horrible punishments - sometimes terrible torture and death to heretics who we know call our brothers and sisters in Christ. It was also during this time that various earlier versions of the Precepts appeared and were linked to the penalty of mortal sin. Not a stretch for many to understand and get. And while we can’t quite place the finger on who was involved and what their motive was, the linking of obligations to mortal sin was not uncommon nor looked upon as horrific. Leaders used brutal means as a motivation tool.
However the church evolved and matured greatly since then and now regularly speaks against capital punishment, torture and other brutality.
My guess is that if these Precepts were created today to encourage active participation, they would be more akin to obligations that all organizations have (but don’t link to mortal sin).
My hope is that the Church will re-address this linkage one day soon. Agreed, there are far more caustic sins in the world today.
My sincerest prayer is that NO ONE who has striven to live a good Christian and Just Life in fell into mortal sin and was called to death and damnation one Friday of Lent because he ate meat in full knowledge of this linkage. PLEASE GOD may this never have happened and Mercy, Mercy, Mercy.
Hope this helps address your question specifically to your satisfaction.
Let’s face it - the middle ages were brutal. There were many leaders of the Church that condoned horrible punishments - sometimes terrible torture and death to heretics who we know call our brothers and sisters in Christ. It was also during this time that various earlier versions of the Precepts appeared and were linked to the penalty of mortal sin. Not a stretch for many to understand and get. And while we can’t quite place the finger on who was involved and what their motive was, the linking of obligations to mortal sin was not uncommon nor looked upon as horrific. Leaders used brutal means as a motivation tool.
However the church evolved and matured greatly since then and now regularly speaks against capital punishment, torture and other brutality.
My guess is that if these Precepts were created today to encourage active participation, they would be more akin to obligations that all organizations have (but don’t link to mortal sin).
My hope is that the Church will re-address this linkage one day soon. Agreed, there are far more caustic sins in the world today.
My sincerest prayer is that NO ONE who has striven to live a good Christian and Just Life in fell into mortal sin and was called to death and damnation one Friday of Lent because he ate meat in full knowledge of this linkage. PLEASE GOD may this never have happened and Mercy, Mercy, Mercy.
Hope this helps address your question specifically to your satisfaction.
I
IwishIknew
Guest
Yes, for a converting Catholic like me, this was the type of answer I was looking for. Very helpful. Thank you!
D
Doxiemom
Guest
Just curious…
As for eating meat on Friday and going to hell over it
Really now? Isn’t a bit of hypocrisy to follow these lenten rules and then eat shrimp and lobster instead?
Ya know it happens.
As for eating meat on Friday and going to hell over it
Really now? Isn’t a bit of hypocrisy to follow these lenten rules and then eat shrimp and lobster instead?
Ya know it happens.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, it’s not hypocrisy to people who find shrimp and lobster icky, right?
A
aemcpa
Guest
Hypocrisy… you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Closer to the actual definition is veiling an attack on the teaching of the Catholic Church as a “question”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Hmm … You keep citing Church precepts as a stumbling block for Protestants
This may be true, but it is no more a reason to abandon the precepts any more than it is to abandon those of our core dogmas and doctrines which equally pose stumbling blocks for Protestants.
Should we no longer have a Pope? Or no longer require belief in him as an infallibly authoritative teacher on matters of faith and morals?
Should we abandon our beliefs about the Eucharist because Protestants find them too difficult to accept?
Or our beliefs on the intercession of saints? Get rid of all statues and images?
Perhaps abandon our beliefs on the sacrament of reconciliation?
Heck, why stop at the things Protestants find difficult? Why not abandon our belief in the divinity of Christ so that our faith is more attractive to Hindus and Muslims? Or even better, why not make belief in God optional - our atheist friends would love that!
Whenever there is a definite belief or practice there will be people who will find that belief or practice difficult. Jesus came across more than a few of them when He started preaching the Eucharist in John 6.
The answer is not to dismiss the belief or practice, but for us to learn why, in a positive sense, we do such things as abstain from meat (Jesus gave up His flesh for us on Good Friday, so to honour that sacrifice we sacrifice too and give up eating flesh for His sake on Fridays in Lent).
J
JRKH
Guest
Doxiemom…Kidding aside, you bring up a good illustrative point. It is one that Jesus addressed too. The idea of keeping the letter of the law but not keeping the heart of the law.
And you are right - it does happen…
I know that for myself, keeping the lenten abstinence is no problem - in fact I try to abstain all year. While I don’t eat “shrimp and lobster” very often (if at all) I do like most fish just fine so it isn’t a hardship…and yet it still does call to mind the why of the discipline - and I think that is part of the reason for it. It causes us to call to mind our Lord and His sacrifice for us.
And who knows - - - the person eating lobster may still have made that same recollection and given praise to God for His love and for His blessings.
Peace
James
- Status